Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the contributions of individual hon members to this debate during the course of the afternoon. In the meantime I should like to react to a few matters which, in my opinion, are fundamental to the legislation under discussion—a few matters I should like to put in clearer perspective.

It is said, among other things, that with this particular piece of legislation, the Government has forsaken its policy of reform. Ostensibly the Government is once again instituting a policy of White supremacy. According to these statements, the Government’s reform initiatives are in shreds.

Naturally nothing can be further from the truth. The Government has not yielded an inch of ground with regard to its intention to bring about reform. It is a great pity that certain people are wilfully trying to present this negative picture. In my opinion it is causing us damage on the local front, and is doing more damage to our country’s position abroad.

Unfortunately the criticism of this legislation has overshadowed the positive objectives of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. The Government feels strongly that these two pieces of legislation should both be kept in mind and that opening up free settlement areas will indeed contribute to the process of reform.

The fact of the matter is that with regard to reform, there are two important keystones which must be kept in mind. The first is that lawlessness cannot prevail under any circumstances in a process of reform. This has reference not only to the criminal side of things, not only to general disorder and unrest, but also to social insecurity.

That is why the Government deems it necessary to maintain the utmost degree of security in this respect. A disturbance of social security can lead not only to upsetting existing patterns, but even to confrontation and polarisation among communities. I should like to say that in the area I represent we have already seen examples and possible examples of such confrontation and polarisation.

That is why, in the second place, the Government is very mindful of the fact that the main issue is the human element—the citizens of the country themselves. The Government has to take them with it. There is simply no way in which one can shut the human element out of this situation in one’s mind. One of man’s basic needs is that of security and certainty. We cannot take people’s feeling of security and safety away from them during a period of reform. That would lead to chaos. They would rebel; not because they do not want reform, but because their safety as well as the security of landownership is being endangered. The simple truth is that people feel safe in their homes, which naturally in our country are group-orientated. Their whole political, economic and social life revolves, in the first place, around what they experience in their existing home situation. The majority support reform, but not at the expense of security. That is only human.

In this legislation we specifically want to create and ensure a feeling of security. If we did that, the citizens would feel much more at ease and would be prepared to co-operate in respect of reform. I want to emphasise that the willingness and desire to co-operate and reform is a fundamental prerequisite for the success of reform, also on the part of the Whites.

There is the school example of a liberal who becomes ultra-conservative as soon as he feels threatened by people of colour. There is more truth in that than merely the superficial mocking of liberal thinking, which is often contained in the example. I remember a reference to this by a publication such as the Sunday Times which said the surest way of making a verkrampte of a PFP member was to put a Putco bus stop in front of his house. That is the kind of ironic example to which I am referring.

Fear of the unknown is a universal human characteristic. That is why it is important for Whites and other population groups to know where they stand. We are telling them that in this legislation. We are telling them simply that there will be free settlement areas, but that at the same time an own community life will be ensured.

Another matter that I want to broach is that laws give expression to the needs of a community at a specific juncture. A law is not an end in itself; it describes an underlying principle and is, in practice, the expression of a specific need. The legislation before us at the moment is an expression of a present-day need, and it must be seen in relation to the Free Settlement Areas Bill, as was pointed out by the hon the State President as early as 5 October last year.

The community does not exist for the sake of the legislation. The legislation exists for the sake of the community. Why are people now talking as if this is some superior kind of legislation? After all, it is not inflexible. It has been consolidated from two earlier pieces of legislation, and in other respects there have also been numerous amendments.

In this connection I should also like to refer to what the hon the State President said about this on 13 August 1986 during the NP’s Federal Congress. I mention this specifically with reference to the comments made by the hon member for Ermelo, in which he asked where we had received our underlying justification for this package of legislation. On that occasion, which in fact led to the manifesto of the NP with a view to the general election in May last year, the hon the State President said, with reference to an own community life:

I should like to say that I think that both this and what was contained in the manifesto last year provide the basis for my statement that in this respect we are, in fact, drawing up and rationalising the legislation according to the needs of the moment.

It is true that no law, especially not legislation of a social nature, can satisfy everyone. There will always be exceptions. That is why a number of exceptions have been built into the Group Areas Act since the beginning, the permit system being the most important example.

As the hon member Dr Geldenhuys explained, it is a basic premise, even in the case of scientific phenomena, that there are exceptions to every rule. Man’s creative powers would serve no purpose if they adhered only to fixed rules. Incidentally, one finds an extreme example of this in fanatical dogmas which can be enforced only by killing those who deviate from them. An interesting example, in contrast to this, is our system of law of evidence which has more exceptions than rules. The rule and its exceptions supplement one another. If there were no exceptions, it would be impossible to enforce the rule. To make the rule of an own community life effective, it is conceded that it cannot be implemented if there are no alternatives.

I also want to refer specifically to the provisions of section 41 of the principal Act, as it will read after being amended, as proposed in the amending Bill. In my opinion this has effected improvements in two respects, specifically as formulated in clause 7.

In the first place it will keep us out of a dispute with the courts. Under no circumstances does the Government visibly want to walk into such a conflict. Hon members know what has happened in the past to legislation in respect of which the courts were compelled to impose certain compulsory penalties. In such circumstances the judges themselves protest or find alternatives, to the great embarrassment of the Government. We are still proud of having one of the best independent legal systems in the world. Why must we tarnish that image, while we have more effective alternatives and have built these into the Bill?

In addition we must remember that our courts have so-called inherent jurisdiction. The rule that applies is ubi jus ibi remedium. No law has been made in this country which has directly or unceremoniously deprived the courts of that right. One must also keep in mind that the courts throughout the whole world are clumsy and cumbersome because of the way in which they function. There are rules of procedure that have to be adhered to, evidence that has to be presented very formally, and so on. In addition, our courts are not eager to tackle disputes which cannot be resolved strictly according to the dictates of civil or criminal law. Hon members will remember that publications control was placed in the hands of the Publications Control Board partly because of the insistence of the courts.

This brings me to the administrative procedure that we want to introduce in section 41 of the principal Act. We concede that it is extremely drastic, but as in the case of all other sanctions, one trusts that the possibility of enforcement will serve as a deterrent. On the other hand I must state unequivocally that the Government will implement this when necessary, but—this is just as important—the Minister has a discretion. He can therefore take more effective action, like other Government institutions with discretionary authority, because the courts will not interfere with his discretion. It is well-known in law that the courts will not put their discretion in the place of that of the Government institution involved.

On the other hand, the proposed new section not only allows greater access to the Minister, but also allows one to deal with each case according to merit. It is true, for example, that what we have to contend with here is basically a problem of urbanisation. In many respects contraventions of the Act are related to a lack of housing or land for housing. The Government has committed itself, time and again, to obtaining land, developing townships and. so on. I am not going to repeat all that here, but in enforcing the Act …

What point is there in having legislation that you do not apply?

… the Minister can now take all these factors into consideration in their totality when taking his decision. In this connection I should like to point out something to the hon member for Ermelo. In his speech he made a fuss about the fact that during the course of the proceedings we once again introduced an amendment in respect of the original clauses 12 and 13. I should like to point out to the hon member—he will remember this—that we indicated at the meeting of the joint committee, as early as the beginning of August, that we wanted to propose amendments. This was done by the hon members for Sundays River and Port Elizabeth North. They had already indicated to the joint committee that we wanted to introduce amendments to these clauses as well as other clauses which had reference to section 49.

The hon member insinuated, in his speech on Friday, that these amendments, made by way of the new Bill before the House, had been made on the strength of insistence from outside or representations that had been made by the Press and so on. [Interjections.] I am pointing this out to the hon member; can he not hear? I am specifically pointing out to the hon member that these amendments were proposed by us in the joint committee long before there were public representations in the Press and elsewhere. [Interjections.] These proposals were submitted to the joint committee at the beginning of August. We did this—I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put a question later—and he knows that evidence was given before the joint committee, inter alia by the Association of Law Societies, which pointed out certain problems with reference to the procedures embodied in clauses 12 and 13.

As a lawyer the hon member should have listened to the relevant evidence given before the joint committee. We specifically paid attention to that—that is why I have emphasised this point now—realising that with the original formulation the Government was running the risk of finding itself in a dispute with the courts which would not be to anyone’s advantage and would ultimately have led to an inability to enforce the legislation in any case.

In addition we have created a procedure here, as contained in clause 7 of the Bill, which is in fact enforceable, which makes it practical, but at the same time ultimately leaves one a discretion to take into account circumstances which are fundamental and humane and which have reference, inter alia, to housing and other alternative possibilities, so that the hon the Minister can negotiate them. This places the Minister in a situation in which he can evaluate the situation and in which we shall not be placing the courts in an impossible situation with regard to a compulsory eviction order, as the hon member argued.

I should like to say that the hon member and this side of the House obviously differ in respect of their views on that aspect, and later this afternoon I shall come back to that with reference to the opinion he expressed about compulsory eviction.

They are not using bulldozers and block and tackle any more!

I now come to the hon member for Ermelo and his party. I do not necessarily want to refer to this in the same context as others have referred to it, but in all earnestness I want to refer to the statements made by the hon member for Overvaal. The hon member for Sasolburg, as well as other members of the House, referred to this.

Perhaps, in lighter vein, I should also quote this interesting section, in which the journalist in question asked the hon member for Overvaal the following:

The hon member for Overvaal’s reply was: “You have got a good point.”

Perhaps we should just tell the hon member and his party, after the weekend’s statements, that it appears that the Official Opposition, if I heard them correctly with regard to the statements they made during the past weekend, accept the fact that there will be a White South Africa. In other words, that is not really what is at issue; what is at issue is the size. It must not merely be a small section, but a relatively large section, according to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said about this over the weekend. Then there are these statements made by the hon member for Overvaal, who said, in reply to the question by the journalist involved, that this was rather a silly idea.

The point that is at issue now is that the hon member for Overvaal conceded that it was impossible to have all the people of colour living in a place such as Hillbrow, for example, evicted.

I should like to ask the hon members of that party—they still have turns to speak this afternoon—to give us an indication of whether they agree with this point made by the hon member for Overvaal. If they do not agree with it, they must tell us how they want to evict people in the case of Hillbrow, for example.

I think it is necessary to get a clear standpoint and an answer from that party about this specific aspect. They have an opportunity to reply this afternoon. At this stage that will suffice.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak immediately after the hon the Deputy Minister, because as it is I would very much like to react, in the course of my speech this afternoon, to certain things the hon the Deputy Minister has just said. I want to begin by saying that the explanatory memorandum to this Bill states that the Government has accepted the principle of free settlement areas, and that on the other hand it has become necessary to amend the Group Areas Act in order to make the sanctions more effective. These are the words in the memorandum presented to us by the NP Government. These are typical NP tactics, and I think the speech that the hon the Deputy Minister has just made should also be regarded in that light.

During the past six years the NP Government has displayed a very characteristic style with regard to constitutional reform. Those tactics involve the concealment, in a torrent of promises, of the negative effects of the scrapping of laws which previously protected Whites, in order to prevent those negative effects or results by making use of alternative measures.

Earlier, for example, the hon the Minister of National Education promised faithfully that the Whites need not be concerned about the scrapping of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, because according to him mixed couples would not be allowed to reside in White group areas.

In a series of letters in a West Rand regional newspaper, not so long ago, the hon the Minister of Finance himself tried to convince the readers that the existing Group Areas Act provided protection against encroachment by such mixed couples.

When influx control was abolished the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following in a Press release on 23 April 1986:

Even before the implementation of the present tricameral Parliament the hon the Minister of National Education pacified the White electorate with the assurance that the inclusion of Coloureds and Indians in Parliament did not mean that Blacks would also be brought into Parliament. He said that any allegation to the contrary was malicious.

But he has still not given up hope!

Today we know that all those assurances have been shattered on the Government’s so-called course of reform. Blacks are now going to be brought into Parliament by the NP. Squatting has run riot since the abolition of influx control and—this is very important to this debate—the Government has totally disregarded all its assurances with regard to the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

The strong emergence of the CP as the new alternative government since 6 May 1987, and the CP’s initiative to introduce a private member’s Group Areas Amendment Bill caught the NP on the wrong foot, because they thought that they would only be fighting another election in 1992. This suddenly caused the NP to start moving.

Talk about Hillbrow!

I shall come to that. [Interjections.] The general municipal elections are at hand, and there will probably be another general Parliamentary election next year. This morning we heard talk of a possible announcement on Friday that it might even take place this year. [Interjections.]

The NP dare not create mixed residential areas by means of the Free Settlement Areas Bill without pacifying the irate White electorate with a so-called tightening up of the penalties and measures in the Group Areas Amendment Bill.

The best proof of the NP’s approach of concealment is probably the recently orchestrated correspondence of the NP’s head of propaganda, the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, and a well-known local NP figure, in the Roodepoort Rekord, a regional newspaper distributed in my constituency.

There they do exactly what I have just pointed out. Rapport of 29 August 1988 states:

I have to disillusion the hon members of the NP who think that this Bill gives credibility to the NP’s promises. Instances of the NP already having indicated in practice that it does not want to maintain White group areas, speak more clearly than this Bill and all the attendant NP promises.

I want to mention just a few examples. Firstly, more or less since July 1985 a former White man and his Coloured wife have been living in Currie Street, Roodepoort West, in my constituency; that is in a White group area. The neighbouring residents lodged a complaint with the police and also submitted a sizeable petition protesting against the residence of this mixed couple in that area. In December 1986 the case was heard in the local magistrate’s court. The man pleaded guilty to contravening the Group Areas Act and was found guilty. He was then fined the “enormous” amount of R70.

Who was the magistrate?

Obviously the fine was paid immediately because the man was a shopkeeper who earned a substantial salary. The hon member who is talking so loudly about the magistrate should do himself a favour and listen. According to the record the prosecutor did not present the residents’ petition to the court, but informed the court that neighbours of the accused were satisfied that the accused should stay there, and consequently an eviction order was not requested. The magistrate therefore did not grant an eviction order.

To this day the Government has done nothing to rectify this matter, despite being fully aware of it. Even the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself disclosed certain facts in reply to a question I put in this regard. This mixed couple is still living in the same area. In terms of the Group Areas Act an application for a permit to stay there was submitted on their behalf last year. Their applications were refused on a previous occasion. The present application has been dragging on since last year.

Last week I approached one of the Transvaal members of the executive committee to make enquiries and established that the Executive Committee of the Transvaal was going to withhold their decision on this application until all the current Bills on group areas had been dealt with in order to see what was going to happen in Parliament. [Interjections.]

I am going to inform the electorate of Roodepoort that I have once again brought this matter to the attention of the Government today and that we must see whether the mixed couple will still be living in that White group area on 26 October. In terms of the new section 41, as embodied in clause 7, and the new section 46, as embodied in clause 10(c), the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now empowered to take action in such a case himself. Let us see what happens.

Secondly I want to mention, as a further example, Sedgefield in the George constituency, which is a short distance from the private residence of the hon the State President and which, so I hear, is now for sale or has already been sold. In that area a developer applied for a group areas permit in order to sell houses to Coloureds in amongst houses for Whites on a time-share basis in a White group area. The Sedgefield Town Council decided against this by a majority of five councillors to one and informed the Administrator of the Cape accordingly. In spite of this, the Administrator of the Cape issued a permit to the developer on 26 January 1987 in respect of 42 erven:

That is correct.

According to a newspaper report, when the White taxpayers expressed their opposition to this during a protest meeting, the hon member for George—he is making interjections now—said that he supported the allocation of the permit.

According to the report he also said the following:

So much for the hon member for George. [Interjections.]

In reply to a written objection made by one of the White taxpayers of Sedgefield, the hon the State President wrote a letter explaining why the permit had been granted, and I quote from it:

That is true!

I quote further:

That is what the hon the State President says. [Interjections.] The hon the State President is therefore in favour of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians staying in a White residential area, right through the year, as long as it is a different group every week or so. [Interjections.]

That is Merlin politics!

With respect, I must tell the hon the State President that in my …

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

Mr Chairman, I should like to mention a few very important aspects.

He does not have the guts to answer! [Interjections.]

Give him some of your time!

If the hon members could give me some of their time I would gladly reply to the hon the Minister.

With respect, I must tell the hon the State President that I have never in my life heard such a variation on the theme of integration. A petition signed by taxpayers and estate agents against this permit is with the hon the State President at present, and again I request that we see what happens if this Bill is passed by this House.

I want to mention a third example. In Pretoria an Indian academic, Dr Pillay and his family moved into a house in a White group area and also applied for a group areas permit. This issue recently received wide publicity in the daily news papers. What decision is the NP Government going to make? Is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning going to make use of his powers in terms of this Bill to have these Indians removed from the White area, or is he going to have a permit issued to the Pillays in Pretoria?

Fourthly: What has become of the promises Mr Pen Kotzé, the then Minister, made with regard to the Indians in Mayfair before the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives threatened him with possible non-participation in this tricameral Parliament? Is the Government going to use any mechanism in this Bill to take steps? What about Hillbrow and Woodstock?

The hon the Deputy Minister quoted the hon member for Overvaal with great satisfaction. However, the counter-question to the hon the Deputy Minister is quite simple: If he argues that the hon member is wrong, is he going to declare Hillbrow a grey area, a free settlement area, yes or no? [Interjections.] I think that we already have an indication, Sir. According to yesterday’s Rapport the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said—hon members must listen carefully now—

What does Koos say?

Consequently we have to conclude that they will follow later. Surely that is what the hon the Deputy Minister was implying. We want to know whether the hon the Minister or his Deputy Minister is going to tell us in this debate whether they are going to make use of this Bill to remove people of colour, or some of them, from Hillbrow and Woodstock, or is this debate totally unnecessary? Along with the thousands of aggrieved Whites in these areas, we are waiting to see what the Government is going to do.

I could give more examples, for instance in Sea Point, Maraisburg and many other places, but I think the hon member for Sasolburg revealed the NP’s real motives on Friday when he said that the Group Areas Act could not be implemented. I think that is a fair summary of the NP’s real attitude towards the Group Areas Act.

I also want to refer briefly to the omission of the provisions regarding the proclamation, by local authorities, of so-called free-trading areas in White areas. Such powers for local authorities were stipulated in clause 4(1 )(b) of the previous text. Now that the Government has yielded to the pressures of the past week, the provisions have also been omitted in the present text. This was probably done out of fear of a CP victory in the municipal elections in October, because if the provisions were retained the NP would probably no longer be able to do what it did in Roodepoort recently. I shall tell hon members what happened there.

After the NP-controlled Roodepoort City Council applied for the proclamation of a free-trading area in Roodepoort, I was only informed of a small section near the city hall, and I objected to such a proposed area, as did the residents of the relevant area, by way of a spokesman. Nevertheless, in February this year an enormous area, in addition to the free-trading area which I have already mentioned, as well as another area in Roodepoort, were proclaimed Indian areas. When I made enquiries at the department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, it was confirmed by letter that I, as the legally elected MP for Roodepoort, had not been consulted with regard to the larger additional area and the new Indian area, even though the area as a whole fell within the Roodepoort constituency. [Interjections.] The hon member for Maraisburg was consulted instead. In this way the legally elected MP was completely bypassed as far as this matter was concerned and the Government—I say this in all sincerity—availed itself of an alternative structure, namely a neighbouring NP member of Parliament.

On those grounds I claim that in this respect the NP Government did exactly what the Black radicals are doing in the Black townships, something which it then brands as revolutionary. If a CP city council were faced with something of this kind, it would probably forestall it from the beginning and prevent the kind of behaviour which I have referred to. This is being made as difficult as possible by means of the omission of the relevant provision in that the Government itself is retaining that power.

I briefly want to touch on another aspect, namely that the words “to empower the Minister to order eviction where property is illegally occupied” appears twice in the long title, in the fourth line and further on, as well as in the sixth line and further on. I think this duplication in the long title of the Bill is a clear indication of the NP Government’s desire to emphasise this aspect. Surely one of these references could be deleted for the sake of the accuracy of the legislation.

Finally I should like to refer to a very important implication in this legislation, namely the proposed new sections 49(F) and 49(I) inserted by way of clause 14 of the Bill. In essence the State or a local authority is liable for the payment of compensation to a landowner when affected property—that is property intended for Black townships or other purposes—is purchased. The compensation concerned is determined according to the date on which the affected property is proclaimed for this new purpose. Consequently it is calculated at a stage at which the proclamation has been issued.

Now we have the situation that in non-official free settlement areas which are grey areas already, the value of properties has decreased over the years as a result of the settlement of Blacks and people of colour in White areas. When the compensation based on the date of proclamation is determined, it follows that the compensation will have been calculated on the decreased value of the land due to the infiltration of people of colour in the area, and this is totally unfair to the landowner concerned.

Therefore we want to suggest that this provision be deleted, because it by no means places the landowner in the position he would rightfully have occupied had infiltration by people of colour not taken place.

Mr Chairman, earlier today I told the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the path of the reformer reminded me a great deal of a statue. All the sparrows and pigeons deposit their droppings on its head. Is it not a pity that, despite the fact that one wants to reform, one always has the problem that no one, either to the left or the right, is satisfied with one’s efforts at reform? [Interjections.]

I want to reply to the hon member for Roodepoort, who said that the object of the Bill was to make sanctions against the contravention of the Group Areas Act more effective. The hon member made scornful reference to it, but have hon members ever heard that hon member or hon members of his party, quite a number of whom are legal men, tell the voters about the problems which arose in relation to the Govender case? Never! [Interjections.] It is quite simply being used to prove that the NP is not serious about the maintenance of group rights. [Interjections.] My charge against those hon members is that they are not telling the voters the whole truth. These amendments are necessary precisely because of the judgments in the Govender case.

The hon member says that we are attempting to hide our measures behind a torrent of alternative legislation. No, it is not a torrent of other legislation. Reform demands the amendment of existing legislation.

The hon member also says that we shall lose our credibility and that we are introducing this legislation in order to win in the municipal elections. No, we are introducing this legislation because we think it is just. We are introducing this legislation because we think it is a step forward on the road to reform. We are introducing this legislation because it is not modelled on racial prejudice but, in fact, on the principle of justice. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Claremont must please leave me alone now. Please. What is this “tweetie-bird” on television that runs so fast? What is he called?

The “roadrunner”!

The “roadrunner”. The hon member must kindly keep quiet now. I have known him for many years. He will never change, because he is in this country for only one purpose, and that is to change this country so irrevocably that he can go back to Holland. That is all he is here for. [Interjections.] The hon member for Roodepoort quoted a whole series of examples in regard to which there were ostensibly some deviations in respect of the Group Areas Act.

Do you admit that?

Will the hon member for Loskop, I mean Losberg, who was so quick to come forward with a brief interjection, answer a question?

It is not my turn to speak now.

Just say it between ourselves. Just between friends! Does the hon member’s party stand by Dr D F Malan’s decision that diplomats, regardless of their colour, may own houses in any group area in which they wish to live?

Are we still talking about diplomats?

Surely I have made that very clear. Would the hon member not care to answer the question for me? Either they stand by it or they do not stand by it!

Order!

No, Mr Chairman, I am asking the questions now, and he must sit and reply to them. [Interjections.] Just answer my question now. That hon member has laid himself wide open. He must tell me whether his party stands by that decision taken by Dr Malan. [Interjections.]

Yes, of course we stand by it.

Sir, that is very interesting. The principle, therefore, which the hon members of the Official Opposition adhere to, is that … [Interjections.] No, just wait until I have finished my argument. The principle they adhere to is that there should be own group areas for the individual groups in this country. Hon members are taking us on this side of the House to task because we are making exceptions to this. However, the hon member is prepared to concede that his party is prepared to make exceptions to that point of departure. [Interjections.] The hon member has just conceded as much. Is that not true? [Interjections.] Surely he said that they stood by Dr-Malan’s decision that people other than Whites may live in a White group area. [Interjections.]

In that case the argument no longer relates to whether it is a diplomat or not. What is at issue is what one deems to be fair in a particular situation, and those hon members deem …

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

No, I do not wish to answer questions now. The hon member can scarcely answer my question; how can he still ask me questions? [Interjections.]

Let us move on to the next point. I do not wish to associate the hon members for Losberg or Ermelo with this, because they have never been Nationalists. However, the other hon members, like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, are in a different situation. Surely when we awarded permits and incorporated the awarding of permits into the Act, that was also a deviation from the principle in question, which that hon member sets such great store by. [Interjections.] The hon member for Ermelo tells me that that is not so.

It is not true.

I know it is not true in respect of that hon member. He was never a Nationalist. He was “Witman-jou-eie-land”, or something of that nature, but that hon member has never been a Nationalist. Surely he will concede that. [Interjections.] Therefore, we cannot adopt an absolute standpoint in regard to this legislation. Not even the hon members of the CP are prepared to adopt an absolute standpoint on it.

The hon the Minister of Justice wanted to ask the hon member for Roodepoort a question, and the hon member for Roodepoort was not prepared to reply to that question. I should like to ask the question on behalf of the hon the Minister, who is not here at the moment. Those hon members were aware of the fact that the 90-day provision with regard to the residence of non-Whites in White areas has formed part of our legislation for many years. To tell the truth, certain hon members who are in the CP today, were members of the NP when this legislation applied. In point of fact, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made certain exceptions and granted permits in order to evade this 90-day provision, and today they are the great proponents of this particular Act. [Interjections.]

There is one thing I cannot understand about the actions of the CP. I cannot understand why they are in favour of the Group Areas Act. It bowls me over completely, because for them to advocate the retention of the Group Areas Act represents a motion of no-confidence in their own policy. After all, they say that all Coloured group areas, as they exist at present, must become part of a Coloured state. All Indians living in Indian group areas must become part of an Indian state. According to the hon member for Lichtenburg, all Blacks must be removed from the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, the Official Opposition is one of the parties in this country that is not in favour of group areas.

What makes you say that?

According to their policy, they do not need them. The hon member wants to know what makes me say that. I have just explained it, but if he did not understand it, I am available this evening to explain it once again. That party will have only one small problem to contend with, namely what to do with the few thousand Chinese in this country. Where are they going to establish a Chinese homeland for the small number of Chinese in this country? [Interjections.] We are looking forward eagerly to their solution to that problem.

The leader of the CP said, at the CP congress in the Transvaal, which has just ended, that if they came to power they would negotiate with the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks regarding the borders of South Africa. What a wonderful about-face in their policy! Can you imagine, Sir, racially mixed negotiations in which the CP participates? [Interjections.] That was too much for the hon member for Lichtenburg, however. He later qualified this by saying that they would not sit together round a negotiating table. [Interjections.] Those hon members must not resent my asking how one negotiates on one’s own. [Interjections.] Those hon members do not, therefore, wish to negotiate with other people, but with themselves! One can therefore see that there is already division within the CP ranks, and we are watching this with great interest. On the one hand there is the enlightened standpoint of their leader, who favours mixed negotiations, and on the other hand there is the man from the Western Transvaal who says they must negotiate only with themselves. I know who is going to win, because when one looks at them, one can see who is laughing up their sleeves. [Interjections.]

I should now like to come to the absent hon members of the PFP. The time has come for them to be unmasked once and for all. The time has come for the honesty of the voters who sent them here, to be tested. I am only a back-bencher, and I do not know whether the Government will listen to me, but I want to ask the Government to consider declaring, during the coming municipal elections, that those wards which send PFP members to the town councils are in favour of having open residential areas. We must tell them openly that it will be a test of who desires open areas. I am not a prophet—as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning always says, I am not blessed with the gift of prophecy—but I should nevertheless like to hazard a prediction.

You certainly have a very good memory. [Interjections.]

I think it would be the end of PFP representation in the town councils.

Time has caught up with me, but I should just like to ask one more question. If we give people a choice about where they want to live, is that racism? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Parow. Today he once again dealt very effectively with the Official Opposition, and I should like to congratulate him on that.

It is actually deplorable that each political group uses the legislation that is before us out of context for its own political ends, as the hon the Deputy Minister stated this afternoon. The hon the Minister, in his introductory speech on the Free Settlement Areas Bill, emphasised—the hon the Deputy Minister repeated it a moment ago—that this legislation should not be seen in isolation, as it is a package of related Bills. It is a pity that the one group, which includes the PFP, the Independents and the NDM, emphasises only the Group Areas Act, presenting it as though this were the first time that a Bill of this nature was being placed on the Statute Book. The CP, on the other hand, places the emphasis on open areas, as was again done by the hon member for Roodepoort this afternoon, on the few exceptions—the hon member for Parow dealt effectively with him as far as that point was concerned—which are being made possible by the Free Settlement Areas Bill. They maintain that all areas will now become open areas.

As far as these pieces of legislation are concerned, I can understand that the CP is rather unhappy and that they would prefer not to have this legislation placed on the Statute Book, as their entire election strategy for the municipal elections is based on the Group Areas Act. It is the same strategy they applied in the by-elections in Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein, when they spread rumours about Hillbrow and when they scared people with stories about what had happened in Hillbrow and what would eventually happen to them. They achieved a great deal of success with those scare-mongering stories. [Interjections.]

After we had seen the first CP posters for the municipal elections, it became very clear that it was their intention to use the same group-area strategy with which they achieved their shortterm success. They have, for example, also put up a poster in Sunnyside which suggests that Sunnyside is becoming a slum due to NP policy. This is an insult to the residents of Sunnyside because it is clear that those hon members do not know Sunnyside at all. No part of Sunnyside is a slum or is becoming a slum. The people of Sunnyside are proud of living in Sunnyside. What I find objectionable—I do not know whether some hon members have seen that poster—is the use of the crucifix, which is regarded as a holy symbol by many, for cheap political propaganda. It is objectionable, and I think it is scandalous. Those hon members show no feeling for the residents of those areas, because many letters objecting to the use of this symbol were published. This unscrupulousness is, however, typical of the CP when it comes to the exploitation or the application of any symbol or anything else—even a symbol regarded as a holy symbol by some people—as long as they can win a few cheap short-term political votes. [Interjections.] That is objectionable. I think it is scandalous. [Interjections.]

Hold that meeting! Make this same speech to the people of Sunnyside and see for yourself what they have to say about it! [Interjections.]

No, the hon member must not get so nervous now. I will tell him what the voters of Sunnyside will do with that absolute disdain of the CP. They will show the CP at the polls what they think of such abuses and of that poster. [Interjections.]

Where is Oom Jan van Zyl? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this Bill before the House, which is to be read in conjunction with the legislation on free settlement areas, takes into account the realities of South Africa. After all, one cannot say that of a single one of the other opposition parties in this House. This legislation, on the one hand, takes into account that there are people who prefer to live in their own areas, who prefer to live with their own people and groups in their own residential areas and who prefer to send their children to schools for their own group. That is provided for. Those are the facts, even if the CP uses this for their own propaganda.

The other side of the matter—provision is also being made for this by the legislation on free settlement areas—is that it must also be accepted that there are people who do not necessarily want to live among these existing groups. It has to be accepted that provision has to be made for a new group that is developing, so that people who prefer to do so may go and live in those areas.

What can be considered a greater reality? Can reality be more accurately reflected than by admitting that there are people who prefer to live separately and to grant them that right and make it possible for them to live separately, while by the same token it is made possible for the other groups to live where they please?

In this regard I should like to associate myself with the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who said earlier this afternoon that he did not understand—I must say that I also fail to do so—the arguments of those who maintain that the Government is throwing reform out the back door. That is simply not true, because this amendment does not entail new legislation on the Statute Book. After all, it is true that there were people and organisations that deliberately contravened the Group Areas Act, as it has existed to date. Naturally, no responsible government can allow the deliberate contravention of a single Act. Therefore, what is happening now is that the present amendments are being effected in order to avoid the deliberate contravention of the Act. This legislation is therefore not aimed at ordinary law-abiding people, but at those who deliberately contravene it. That is all there is to it. It is not new legislation, as so many are now claiming.

The fact that this legislation gave rise to the events of the past few days in regard to the tricameral Parliament is now one-sidedly being singled out by some people as meaning the end of this system. However, what is not being borne in mind is that hundreds of Acts were passed by this very tricameral Parliament in exactly the same way, Acts in regard to which general consensus was reached. The proposal of the hon the Leader of the House that we now have to deal with this legislation in a different manner does not mean that the NP is one-sidedly saying that we no longer want this system to work. Exactly the opposite is true.

It was true that those who participated in this present tricameral Parliament did, in fact, participate on this group basis. The NP is still striving towards peace for all the people in this country, in spite of the remark made by the hon member for Potgietersrus the other day that the NP was obsessed with peace. We shall keep on seeking peace in Angola so that his children need not die there either. Whether he or the CP is not interested in peace makes no difference. We shall continue to strive for peace in South Africa with all the groups, because, …

I suppose you mean you will keep on capitulating!

… in the words of Benjamin Franklin, there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace. As far as we are concerned we shall do everything in our power to seek peace with all the people in South Africa. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed here by the hon member for Sunnyside in support of the Bill before the House.

A Bill before this House has seldom received as much attention in the Press and among the general public as this one. On the conservative side it is argued that the Bill does not go far enough, but on the opposite side the measures are regarded as being draconian.

Some of the criticism against the Bill specifically has reference to the principal Act’s right of existence as such. The position, however, is that the Act is on the Statute Book and that the principle of a separate community life for separate communities was given substance in practice and is generally accepted. Even the South African Institute of Race Relations has confirmed that their studies have shown that the Coloured communities also prefer separate group areas as long as the Group Areas Act is on the Statute Book. It appears that the Coloured communities, and especially their local government leaders, are not keen to have their areas opened up while the Group Areas Act is still in existence. They said they would only throw open their areas if there were complete freedom of residence. I understand their reason to be that they are afraid of being swamped by Blacks. Naturally this is a selfish view, because if all the areas were to be thrown open, as has been requested by the community leaders in the Coloured areas, the present White areas would only be able to accommodate limited numbers of Coloured families in any case. The remaining families in the Coloured area would then have to contend with the realities of Black infiltration. The leaders would already be accommodated in the White areas. This would lead to a situation in the Coloured areas in which the Coloured leaders would not want to expose themselves, but would be prepared to expose their supporters.

One of the most important amendments to the Bill is that the Ministers in the respective Ministers’ Councils will now be responsible for the administration of the Act in the existing group areas. It will be the responsibility of the Ministers of each Ministers’ Council to implement and control the provisions of the Act in each area under their administration. In this way the concept of own affairs will come into its own with regard to residential rights.

Objections were also lodged with the joint committee against the proposed amendment which provides for the first time for Black areas. The objection raised was that, in contrast with the rapid administrative procedure which has been followed so far in order to make land available, especially for low-cost housing for Blacks for which there is an enormous need, the longer procedure, as contained in the legislation, will have to be followed.

I think it is a good thing for all the groups to be treated in the same way, but I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that the committee system which the Group Areas Board will now have, be implemented to deal with the investigation and identification of Black areas at least as quickly as has been the case up to now. This Bill must not in any way delay the process of providing land for Black low-cost housing.

With regard to contraventions of the Act itself— this aspect was raised here this afternoon by the hon the Deputy Minister—the position up to now has been as follows. Anyone who illegally occupied property could be charged and, if found guilty, could be punished.

In addition the legislation granted the authority to issue an eviction order against such a person. There are also provisions in section 41 in the principal Act which provide that the Minister may sell illegally occupied property by public auction, or in certain circumstances by public tender. The object of the initial Bill before the joint committee was that the magistrate should not have a discretion in respect of his eviction powers, and when a person was found guilty, such an eviction order should be issued automatically.

As the hon the Deputy Minister indicated, the NP component gave notice, during the sitting of the joint committee, that if consensus could be reached on the desirability of the Bill, proposals would be introduced to address this aspect and to remove that obligation on the part of the magistrate. It is common knowledge that consensus could not be reached, even on the desirability of the Bill, and consequently these proposals were never tabled.

The reason for this approach, which is contained in the present Bill before the House, is that the eviction of offenders can be dealt with administratively. One can now negotiate with the offender, according to his own needs and circumstances, about alternative housing and the period in which the property has to be vacated. This is something that cannot be done by courts and indeed should, in fact, not be done by our courts. Against this background, the whole approach with regard to offenders is more humane, and the dreadful measures of dealing with this, envisaged by our critics, will not materialise.

It is also important, as the hon the Deputy Minister said, that the whole controversial aspect of vacating premises will no longer be dealt with by the courts, which are much respected internationally. By following this approach, the Act can now be implemented effectively without in any way forfeiting the principle of fairness and justness. A greater variety of circumstances can now be taken into account in evaluating cases when the Minister has to issue an eviction order.

Those who say that the Government will initiate inhuman large-scale eviction programmes in those areas in which wholesale infiltration has taken place, are wilful and merely want to present the Government as consisting of people without any feeling. I do not think the Government deserves that criticism, nor do I believe it is to South Africa’s credit. A distorted image is being sent into the world, where it contributes to greater antagonism against South Africa. One would have expected the criticism, especially from the left-wing opposition in the House, to be such that they would persuade the electorate to vote for them so that they could take over the Government. What happens in practice tells a different story, however. Not only is the PFP not participating in these democratic parliamentary processes that have been created, but their criticism is for foreign consumption where it fuels anti-South African sentiment. Instead of preparing themselves to be an alternative government for South Africa, they want to prepare South Africa to succumb to the total onslaught.

Perhaps it is a good thing for the House to know that any improvements the Bill has undergone since the first draft have not been the result of contributions made by any other party in this Parliament.

Section 41 of the principal Act, which deals with the disposal of land which is held illegally and which can be sold by the Minister, has also been amended since the first Bill. The proposed procedure, in terms of which a magistrate could carry out an investigation and issue the eviction order, has been done away with, and the investigation now forms part of section 41. What it amounts to is that the Minister’s action—viz the eviction and expropriation powers—is preceded by an administrative investigation in terms of section 41. Perhaps the importance of this improvement is not generally realised.

Before the Minister sells a property or issues an eviction order, except in a case in which a person is found guilty by the court of illegal occupation, the local magistrate will investigate that person’s right to occupy the premises and supply the Minister with a report.

This is a quasi-judicial process. As a result a procedure now exists according to which illegal occupation is being decriminalised. What is more, in line with legal tradition, the person involved can be assisted by an advocate or lawyer during questioning. Only after such a report has been issued can the Minister issue an eviction order and, if necessary, sell the property in question. The existing principle Act did not have these built-in safety mechanisms with regard to these aspects.

One of the problems experienced in making land available for low-cost housing for Blacks was that as soon as land was identified for possible development, speculators immediately rushed to get hold of the land and prices sky-rocketed. This is a pity, because one reaches a stage at which the price of the land is out of all proportion to the construction costs. If this pattern were to continue, one would soon reach a stage at which it would be almost impossible to provide housing for Black communities.

In order to check this process of artificial price increases, a provision has been built into clause 14 for land prices to be fixed. This clause is exceptionally positive and deserves praise. One would have expected the critics of this Bill at least to have acknowledged that this was a constructive precautionary measure.

The Bill before the House also refers, in one respect, to the Free Settlement Areas Bill, which has already been debated here. If the existing group area is declared a free settlement area, this declaration may have an effect on the value of properties in such a free settlement area. On the one hand the value of the land and property prices may increase overnight. Personally I expect that at least initially there will be such an increase.

If a person who owns property in an area which has been declared a free settlement area does not, want to remain in the area, he can now expropriate his property at a profit. This group of people would be small in number, because the overall majority would have indicated that they were in favour of having the area declared a free settlement area.

The Bill also provides for the eventuality of prices dropping should an area be declared a free settlement area, however. The values of the property are determined on the date on which the area is declared a free settlement area. If the owner expropriates his property within two years, and its market value is less than the value on the date on which the area was declared, he will be compensated by the difference between the basic market value and the market value at the time of the sale of the property.

There is a possibility that such a system may be abused, in that people may sell their properties at extremely low prices. Even in that respect the Bill provides that the market value on the date on which an area is declared a free settlement area be taken as a basis, and then compared with the real market value on the date on which the property is sold; the seller would be compensated only by that amount. In this connection the provisions of the Expropriation Act, which have manifested themselves in practice, are also utilised to determine these values.

It is a pity that these numerous positive aspects of the Bill were not acknowledged by those opposing it. They were overwhelmed by the name of the legislation and the negative connotation they attach to it. In the circumstances I regard it as a pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member for Port Elizabeth North that it is impossible to implement an inhuman Act in a humane, reasonable and just manner. It is not possible to do so.

†It is unbelievable that the Government is actually introducing legislation in 1988 which will further entrench racially defined group areas and which will lead to harsher penalties for contraventions. This legislation proves categorically that the Government, instead of reforming and moving away from racism and racial discrimination, has opted for the entrenchment of racism. All that this legislation talks about is the colour of a man’s skin.

By forcing this legislation through Parliament the Government is demonstrating that it is not only ignorant of but also totally insensitive to the depth of the hatred with which people who are not White view the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] They either do not know or do not care.

Of all apartheid legislation “the Group”, as it is called, has caused more hardship for people of colour than any other legislation that the NP has invented since 1948. This Act has wrecked whole communities; it has separated congregations from their churches; it has separated pupils from their schools; it has removed whole communities from suburbs where they were within walking distance of their places of employment and dumped them far on the outskirts of the cities, miles from their work. That is what the Government has done and what it is still doing.

By forcing this legislation through Parliament in spite of the fact that the other two Houses in Parliament are refusing to participate in this legislation, the Government is showing vividly that it can pass any legislation that it wants to pass, even if no person of colour remains in Parliament. The Government is saying that this Parliament has not changed from the pre-1983 one-chamber Parliament. There has been no change, because the Government does not need the other Houses. The Government can go on as though they are not here and as though it is still pre-1983. [Interjections.]

The Government is proving that the Coloured and Indian Houses are nothing but nice decorations to create an impression that the NP has moved away from White “baasskap”. The fact that the Government, a White minority, can pass any legislation that they want by using the NP majority in this House and in the President’s Council, exposes the 1983 tricameral Constitution as nothing but a fraud.

By introducing this Group Areas Amendment Bill before us, the Government has told people of colour that they cannot, by participating in the constitutional structures of this Government, get rid of or change the Group Areas Act or the fundamental apartheid structures within which they are compelled to participate.

Of course they can!

They cannot. They have no power to do so. The Government is saying to people of colour that they should participate, but that such participation will take place according to the rules unilaterally drawn up by the Government of the day. That is the clear message.

Black people do not really want a vote within the present apartheid Constitution. They also and especially want a say in determining within which constitutional structures they can exercise their vote. An apartheid Constitution based on separate group areas is unacceptable to them. They— even those who joined Parliament to come and change the Group Areas Act—have left, because they cannot do that.

Because of this, the democratic movement and its leadership throughout South Africa at this stage are telling all voters not to participate in the apartheid regime’s racist local government elections in October. They are telling them: “Do not vote and do not stand for Black town council and Coloured and Indian management committee elections. Boycott these elections. By participatin g in these elections you will not be working for the liberation of our people. Instead, you will become the apartheid regime’s partner in apartheid oppression.”

That is the message being sent throughout this country by those people not represented here in Parliament.

Do you support that?

Because the Government has not only banned and restricted most leaders and organisations of the oppressed, but has now also made it illegal for the people to campaign peacefully against such participation in the October elections—it is now illegal to say outside this House that people should boycott the elections— I take this opportunity—after having made the necessary consultations outside this House—to convey this call made by the democratic movement to the oppressed people of this country.

That is the call subscribed to by the people throughout this country. They do not want to participate peacefully in the October elections.

This Government is not even allowing them to discuss the option of not voting. They are saying: You will vote. They are saying to a person who does not want to vote that that person is committin g a crime.

Do you support them?

Why should that be a crime? I do support them. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, the fact that this group areas legislation is being pushed through, legislation aimed at the stricter implementation of the Act in White areas, proves beyond all doubt that those leaders, Brown or Black, who decided to participate in the system with a view to changing the system in the process, do not have the power to do so. How can people who are respected in their communities, and also people such as Rev Hendrickse, be expected to participate in the Constitution and to function within the apartheid framework without actually having the power to change it? An honourable man cannot be expected to do that; such a man from one of those communities will not do that; he will simply walk out of this Parliament. That is why the people out there will not participate in the management committees or the Black town councils; specifically because they know they cannot change the system. Taking part will mean having to implement apartheid, as embodied in the legislation.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the hon member for Claremont who has just spoken, 43 years after the trauma of the Second World War this is a typical embodiment of the post-World War II guilt complex which beset the whole of Europe. This complex arose during the Second World War from the notion that the colonial era that had gone before it had given rise to the Herrenvolk heresy, which the whole Second World War was about.

The mistake the hon member for Claremont makes is that he simply transfers that European guilt complex to South Africa. He does not take into account that we have no colonial past except for being on the receiving end of colonial rule. This Government, the people it represents, the White people of South Africa, were never colonial rulers. We never had any need to take the guilt of Europe on our shoulders. We disagree with the notion that we are to blame for all the inequalities that still exist in our country today. We have never subscribed to the view that we are the only people entitled to privilege in this country and that all others have to occupy more humble stations. We certainly also do not accept the argument that the hon member has advanced on previous occasions that the White people of this country have come into the possession of the land which they own, illegally or immorally at the expense of other people. On the contrary, Sir, our forefathers acquired land from Black people by negotiation or barter. In fact, if we had not specifically reserved land for the Black peoples of our country on more than one occasion, from the early years of this century, and among other things, through the Group Areas Act, I challenge the hon member for Claremont to deny that Black people would have had far less land than they are entitled to today. [Interjections.] Some of the best parts of this country which in 1910 were the best parts of South Africa, are today the exclusive right and the exclusive territory of Black peoples. That land was given by Acts of this Parliament by White people. I need only refer to previous Acts of the second decade of this century, to the 1936 legislation etc.

The hon member pleads for the abolition of the Group Areas Act. Indeed, Sir, he has the gall to say that the Whites should sacrifice that land which they have, but he only pleads for the abolition of White rights. He does not plead for the abolition of Black property rights. We have never heard the hon member for Claremont criticise the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba which wanted to open all of Natal, except the land which belongs to KwaZulu.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, that he says now, but he says sotto voce that that is not right.

[Inaudible.]

Publicly, however, that hon member and people who think like he does have never once said …

I have just said so.

… that the opening up of White group areas should also mean the opening up of Black land.

But I am saying it now!

It is too late now! [Interjections.]

The hon member also said here that those members of the other two Houses who had come to Parliament now did not even have to right to ask for the abolition of the Group Areas Act.

They cannot succeed!

Of course they have the right to do so—who is denying them that right?—but he seems to blame this Government for the fact that the members of those two Houses cannot unilaterally repeal the Group Areas Act. Now I want to ask the hon member: Is it not true that the Group Areas Act, and these laws he referred to, were already on the Statute Book when those two Houses were established? By what right does he now want to arrogate to those two Houses the right to repeal that Act unilaterally?

You had better go and ask them!

Order! The hon member for Claremont must contain himself; he has had a turn to speak. The hon member for Umlazi may proceed.

Sir, the important thing is that we are not dealing with the principle of the Group Areas Act; we are dealing with amendments to an existing principle. It is no use trying to debate legislation that has been on our Statute Book for more than 30 years. That is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the fact that that legislation contained loopholes that made it possible for people to circumvent the provisions of this Act, and any self-respecting government that is confronted with a situation in which loopholes exist in an Act, making it possible for people to contravene that Act, must plug those loopholes, because failure to do so means allowing that Act to become a dead letter. That is what the hon member for Claremont and other hon members in this House and in the other Houses are advocating. That would lead to selective observance of the law, and that is something that no self-respecting government can tolerate. In the same way that the Government could not tolerate certain people deciding for themselves not to abide by legislation on national service, it cannot tolerate civilians deciding for themselves what legislation they are prepared to abide by and what not. We cannot tolerate selective observance of the law in a civilized, well-ordered State, and that is what this whole issue is all about.

During the election campaign in May last year, I made house calls in my own constituency, which is by and large a workers’ constituency, and all the other hon members in this House will agree with me when I say that the majority of the White voters in this country want the Group Areas Act to remain on the Statute Book.

Except the NP members!

In fact—I am saying this to the hon member for Losberg too—last year the party of the hon member for Mooi River found itself with no place to go, but they did not go to the CP. The overwhelming majority came to this party. Why? The single most important reason was the fact that they believed this party would keep the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book, that this party would protect own community life by means of the Group Areas Act.

During the past weeks spokesmen from various organisations seriously requested the Government to reconsider this legislation. I can understand this, because the simple fact is that the more affluent Whites in our country can afford to ask us to slow down as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned.

The simple truth is that there are people in our country who live in areas where the danger of occupation by other population groups and the destruction of their own community life is not such a grave one. They can afford to move away to more affluent areas.

The fact remains that when I talk about my constituency, Umlazi, I am not talking about elite suburbs such as Houghton, Waterkloof Ridge, Bishopscourt and Cowie’s Hill. To those people the guarantee of exclusivity lies in the value of their properties. However, let us ask those newspaper editors who criticise this legislation, and the Oppenheimers and the Ruperts, whether they would be prepared to move into open free settlement areas. Let us hear what they have to say to that. We would not object if they wanted to open up their own residential areas. The hon the State President said, at the Cape Congress in East London, that it was understandable that there was a growing need for trainee business managers, for example, to move into open areas. However, that is not where the real danger lies. The danger lies in the worker constituencies—in those areas where young men and women cannot afford to move away from the areas in which they can afford housing; in those areas where the aged bought their properties years ago, areas that were sought after at the time, people who fear being overwhelmed today because their areas have deteriorated over the years. The danger lies in those constituencies where less affluent people are living, people who cannot choose where they want to live. They simply have to live where they can afford to live. This is the kind of constituency I represent, and I say, as I have said before, that for those people, for the average and belowaverage income groups in our country, the Group Areas Act is their guarantee of security in their communities.

We often hear the question: So why not opt for freedom of association? I want to submit that the trilogy of Bills before us presents a real opportunity to the population of South Africa to promote freedom of association. If those who criticise us— I have already mentioned some names—wish to make a positive contribution to greater understanding in South Africa, they now have the opportunity to take the lead with the establishment of free settlement areas, open areas. They can help to develop those areas, for then we shall have a situation in South Africa in which certain areas will be de novo free settlement areas, right from the start, in which certain areas will be reserved for certain population groups. For the first time we have a principle of communities being able to decide for themselves whether they want to remain closed, community-bound communities or become free settlement or open areas.

This means that those people who believe in freedom of association no longer need to look to the Government to change the legislation in such a way as to eliminate own, community-bound residential areas. They need only address the residents of a particular area and convince them that they should opt for free settlement areas. People no longer need to ask the Government to change the nature of our residential patterns. In future they will be able to do so themselves.

The Government has lost its will to govern.

No, Sir, that was not what I said. However, the fact remains that for the first time our residential legislation contains the principle that communities can decide for themselves what they want in future. This has never been the case, and in that respect we have made real progress in the area of reform, also as far as our residential patterns are concerned.

Finally, let me make just one remark about the accusation that is so often made insufficient land and housing being available for people of colour and about that being the reason or the excuse for their having to move into White residential areas.

We serve on joint provincial committees. We know that whenever the suggestion is made that people of colour should create their own local authorities, it meets with opposition. This applies only to the Coloured and and Indian populations. The Black population has already embraced the principle of local government.

However, when one looks at who negotiated for land and housing for the Whites in the past, one sees that it was the local authorities. I want to appeal to the Coloured and Indian communities in our country to embrace the principle of own local authorities if they want to work towards adequate land and housing, because that is the real instrument to be used for negotiating adequate living space for their own communities. If they were to do so, it would no longer be necessary for them to look to the Government to rectify all the social ills in this country. Then they themselves would be able to make a contribution.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Umlazi, and I agree with the sentiments he expressed.

I find it very strange indeed that the CP’s representatives in the joint committee thought fit to abstain from voting when the principle of the desirability of the legislation under discussion came into question, especially when one listens to their objections about the NP and, according to them, the reluctance to implement this legislation. The Bill before the committee still contained a provision that eviction orders would be compulsory. I therefore find it very difficult to understand why they did not want to support that legislation.

Let me tell the CP right at the outset that one of the cornerstones of NP policy is the recognition of different population groups with their own culture, religion, background and needs. In addition to this acceptance, the NP also guarantees the preservation of own residential areas for the respective population groups. That has always been the NP’s policy and still is. The NP believes that the greater majority of the various population groups prefer to live separately. The leaders of the respective groups have admitted on more than one occasion that they prefer to live separately, but their chief objection is that they do not want this separation embodied in legislation.

As the Official Opposition, the CP is not alone in its endeavour to preserve an own White identity. It is extremely presumptuous and even arrogant of them to want to arrogate that right to themselves. The CP poster which says “Own residential areas—vote CP” could just as well have been “Own residential areas—vote NP”. [Interjections.] That is still NP policy.

The CP is trying to mislead the voters by professing that the NP stands for something other than own residential areas. The NP is a realistic party which keeps in step with the times, however. Since a need for living together across the dividing lines of colour has been identified, the Government is prepared to provide for that in the so-called free settlement areas. The formation of such areas definitely does not affect the continued existence of own residential areas for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, however.

If members of other population groups want to have all their residential areas declared free settlement areas, they have every right to do so, but the White population group will still have control over and decide on its own residential areas.

It is amusing when the CP launches attacks against the Government concerning people of colour in White areas, but many of their own members, often leading office-bearers of the party, rent properties in White areas to people of colour. [Interjections.] Is it perhaps a case of “beauty is potent, but money is omnipotent”? It would also be interesting to compile a survey of the number of CP supporters who accommodate workers in their backyards, or is this another manifestation of the CP syndrome that their workers do not bother anyone and therefore should be left in peace? It is always other people’s workers who create problems and must be removed.

The influx of people of colour into areas such as Hillbrow and Woodstock is not always politically inspired; on the contrary, I maintain that in most cases the influx has a social basis. People of colour experience a lack of sufficient and suitable housing in their own areas. Housing is available in White areas. Whites are prepared to rent to them for economic reasons, and an influx of people of colour takes place. Unfortunately money is playing an increasing role, and owners of buildings that are standing vacant will jump at the chance of renting to any tenant so as to restrict their losses. In many cases it is clear when one looks at the rentals they are charged, that people of colour are being exploited.

What is the Official Opposition’s solution to all these problems? They advocate a policy of partition and believe that by absolute separation and the displacement of coloured people, they will create a White Utopia. This policy is blind to the realities of South Africa. Coloured people form an integral part of our economy, and neither the CP, the AWB or anyone else will be able to escape these facts.

Even a prominent member of the CP such as the hon member for Overvaal shows some insight in moments of clarity every now and again. He admitted that even under CP policy it would probably not be possible to separate the people in a place such a Hillbrow. Why, then, does the CP create expectations among White voters when they know that these expectations cannot be met?

The PFP and other left-wing factions believe the solution for the country’s problems lies in the complete opening up of all areas. This dream also falls flat when we test it against the reality of the situation.

It is estimated that approximately 37 000 White housing units are available for occupation by coloured people. At a conservative estimate, however, at least 400 000 units are necessary for people of colour. I wonder who is going to stay and who is going to fight.

What does the NP say? We say we are prepared— that is our policy—to guarantee own residential areas, but we also know that more land will have to be made available for housing for people of colour. The Whites cannot retain what is their own if they are not prepared to give others an opportunity to obtain something of their own.

The CP’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. They say they do not hate Coloured people. Yet they do not want people of colour in so-called White areas, except for purposes of labour. The CP will have to choose: Either own residential areas and order in such residential areas, also with regard to people of colour, or encroachment and disorder in White areas and disorder and illegal squatting on unoccupied land.

The CP must not reproach the Government when economic forces cause people of colour to flock to our cities where there are more and better employment opportunities than in the areas they come from. Let us rather tackle the problem positively and give our respective communities an opportunity to regulate their affairs in areas of their own. If we remain realistic and grant people of colour this opportunity in their own areas, we have the right to claim the same for ourselves and even to enforce this by way of legislation.

The NP is a realistic party and therefore does not begrudge others what we grant ourselves, but we are also prepared to introduce legislation to protect this right we are claiming for ourselves. The new measures, should they be passed, will be implemented with great circumspection and compassion. We are concerned with people’s whole existence, and with what is important to them, and we shall not treat this with reckless abandon. No witch-hunting is necessary or is envisaged. The NP merely desires order, and therefore will take action should people wilfully contravene the law and encroach upon the rights of others. It is a pleasure to support the legislation under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I regard it as a great privilege to take part in this debate today on behalf of this side of the House.

We are dealing with the Group Areas Amendment Bill. This subject has come a long way in this country of ours. The fact that we, as a Government, are viewing this law in a realistic way shows that we are sincere in our objectives. This Government has the courage of its conviction to take a stand for the interests of its voters and all the people of this beautiful country. Is it something to be ashamed of when one fights for one’s own people, the ethnic group that one belongs to? No, the hon members of the Official Opposition and all the other irrelevant members in this House can kick up a fuss and allow their emotions to run away with them, but this Government will carry on with its work. We shall continue the work of this Parliament in an orderly manner.

We did not come to the Cape for a vacation and we did not come to the Cape to waste money. We came because we had to work on important legislation and take a firm stand. All the people of our country are involved, and not just a select few on behalf of whom we have to take decisions here. Boycott actions and stay-aways have proved to be ineffective. I just find it a pity that those hon members who walked out here, and whose benches have been empty for two days now, are allowed to claim their daily allowance while we, who sit and work here, have to do their work as well. I think it is high time we gave attention to this matter, because it is a waste of money!

Today stability is determined by the house one lives in and by one’s way of life. That is why this Government has committed itself to orderly urbanisation and to preventing slum conditions from developing. Such conditions arise when a disorderly influx into our cities is allowed to take place. The hon member for Claremont, who is not present at the moment, let out a lot of hot air and made a big song and dance without substantiating what he said. I wonder whether he realises that there are people in his constituency who subscribe to the idea of separate residential areas. I doubt that, because I think he has lost all contact with reality and does not even know what his own voters want.

It has repeatedly been stated that South Africa finds itself in a unique position in that various ethnic groups live together in one geographic area in which they work together and are in daily contact with one another. Each of these groups has its own culture, language and traditions. Ethnicity is something which a person is born with and which relates to aspects that are important to people. It is true that groups exist everywhere in the world. Why do we find such a strong Jewish community in a suburb such as Cyrildene in Johannesburg and a strong Portugese community is Bezuidenhout Valley? Why is Orange Grove called “the Little Italy” of Johannesburg? Surely it is true that people who belong to a certain group want to live together. There they have their own interests, their children go to school there and they can give expression to their own traditions there. Why must our voters, the Whites, always be the ones to make concessions. We, too, want our own residential areas. We, as the governing party, have often spelt out our principles on that issue here in this House. How many times must we repeat that before those slow-thinking hon members of the Official Opposition will understand and accept it? I am just asking a question. [Interjections.]

If we scrap the Group Areas Act as a whole, it will not affect those fat-cats of the PFP who simply walked out here. It will not really affect the people in the private sector either. However, as the hon member for Umlazi rightly pointed out, the people who would really suffer if we summarily scrapped the Group Areas Act, would be the workers, the lean and hungry cats.

The land set aside by the Government for continued Black urbanisation is not intended for formal housing only. No, it is also intended for informal housing in respect of which the backlog is so vast, as the hon member for North Rand mentioned. The houses we built last year— 50 000 in total—do not even provide for the current need, let alone the vast backlog of 500 000 houses due to urbanisation and the enormous population growth.

I think we should at least learn from the past; we should remember what happened in the days when the influx of people and the creation of slum conditions were still allowed. Do we remember Cato Manor? Do we remember Windermere and Sophiatown? Do we remember how the Black people of Cato Manor, because they were living together with the Indians in appalling conditions, rose up against the Indians? Friction and conflict were rife. Do we remember how many of our Black and White policemen died in that unrest? However, the Government intervened and moved 90 000 Blacks to KwaMashu and Umlazi. Of the Indians there, 30 000 were moved to Chatsworth, which today is a stable residential area for the Indian community. As far Sophiatown is concerned, that festering sore has also been removed. Thousands of houses were built in Soweto and these people were housed there. One of the prominent Indian leaders told me the other day: “I do not want to live among other people. Why should I? I want to live among my own people, where my children go to their own schools, where I go to my own mosque.” He asked: “Why is there such an emotional outburst about scrapping the group areas?” All the newspapers, local and overseas, are crucifying us, because they say the South African Government is going to act in an inhumane manner. With the implementation of this Group Areas Amendment Bill, poor crying children and sick women are going to be put out on the streets with all their belongings. However, we heard what the hon the Deputy Minister told us about the amendments that are going to be effected in order to render this Act more humane and practical.

We are not colonialists. We have our own independent Republic. For more than 300 years the Whites have been making a contribution towards bringing this country to where it is today, despite the CP over there. Racial separation has been practised in this country over all these years. It came about in order to protect the Whites against absorption by the Blacks, who are in the majority. The Afrikaners streamed to the cities during the depression. The same phenomenon is apparent today. Those Afrikaners came in search of jobs, accommodation and residential areas. If the Government had not set out provide separate residential areas at the time, we would not have been the nation we are today. We do not want to lose our identity. We do not wish to force our culture onto other groups either. The Government wants to give all the people in this country the opportunity to develop freely, among their own people, without conflict or friction. The impression that is being created about the NP oppressing and dominating everybody in this country, is simply not true.

†Mr Chairman, let us be realistic. The new Free Settlement Areas Bill will give people the opportunity to live in a mixed area if they so prefer. It is my plea today that we must really get this free settlement off the ground, and soon too. If the other two Houses that are not participating here today feel so strongly about this, why do they not set an example and open up their own areas? Their Ministers’ Councils can give them the OK. Why must it always be us who form the dogsbody that must always carry the blame?

We must realise that emotions will not bring us a future in this country. Economics will bring us a future. We need economic growth, and the sooner we realise that the better. We should get rid of all these irrelevant conversations and stories told us by the Official Opposition. The sooner we accomplish that the better for all of us in this beautiful country of ours. I think it was Douglas MacArthur who said: “There is no security on this earth; only opportunity.” Let us grasp those opportunities we have.

*As the hon the State President said recently in Natal, he loves his own spiritual values and does not want to beg for a place in South Africa for his own people. We are entitled to our own place in this beautiful country of ours. It is my privilege to support the amending Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Edenvale. Since coming to this House she has distinguished herself in each of her speeches as an erudite person; as someone who dedicates herself, heart and soul, to everything she puts her mind to. [Interjections.]

When the hon member for Roodepoort made his speech here earlier he said that the NP was undermining the security of the Whites to an increasing extent, proportionate to the increasing number of laws which are being repealed. On behalf of the voters of Innesdal, where I live, I should like to tell him that, unlike the hon member for Soutpansberg who took to his heels in Pretoria and is now sitting in Soutpansberg, and unlike every hon member in that party, I, as a humble individual, represent one single constituency for the NP. I have been representing that constituency for the past 18 years. If everything goes well and the good Lord keeps me sound in mind and body so that I can stand in that constituency again, I shall once again stand as an NP candidate and we shall win that constituency once again.

You will not. You will drop out.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort need not be worried. [Interjections.] I can tell him that the people of my constituency are ordinary people. As many as 95% of them are Afrikaans-speaking. Those ordinary people have reached a stage in their personal development and experience in which this racist CP slogan, namely that every Act which is repealed constitutes a loss for the Whites, no longer frightens them. It simply won’t wash with them any more. [Interjections.]

Where I come from those people know and understand that ultimately the most important identity for each person is that which is alive within him. What is not alive within a person cannot be revealed in his way of life. What is not alive within a person cannot be revealed in what he says. What is not alive within a person cannot be described as his identity. The people in my part of the world know what identity means.

The name of our party is the National Party. What is nationalism? It is a feeling of love for what is one’s own. That is what it is all about. In fact, there is not a single member on this side of the House—Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking—who does not experience nationalism intensely as a feeling we have for what is our own. [Interjections.] We regard our country, our language, our church or whatever with a feeling of love. None of that racist talk, and none of the emotional politics of the CP can make the essence of our party anything other than what its name says, namely the National Party. [Interjections.]

The party of those hon members, on the other hand, is called the Conservative Party. I find it interesting—I think one day someone should write a book about the connection between conservatism and liberalism—these two “isms” both being sects of nationalism. However, I do not want to go into this in too much detail. Everyone wants to be more than he is in reality.

We now come to the CP’s conduct with regard to the discussion of this measure. In pure and simple terms conservatism is the preservation of what is one’s own—conserving it. The problem with the hon members of the CP—in this discussion as well—is, of course, that they can no longer see the difference between conservatism and racism. They have allowed conservatism to become completely confused and mixed up with the concept of racism. I hardly believe their conservatism is directed towards the preservation of what we regard as important and as belonging to us. Their conservatism, which has become racism, is going to plunge everyone in this country—not only us, but everyone in this country—into an unavoidable conflict situation.

We merely need to listen to their arguments in this debate. Both the hon the leader of the CP and the hon member for Lichtenburg issued one permit after another while they had control over the administration of many of these matters. They issued permits to students to go and study at certain universities. They issued permits to people of colour to go and live in White residential areas. They issued one permit after another. Is that false? [Interjections.] Is that false or was it their conviction at that stage? [Interjections.]

Have they changed? I want to say this to the hon members of the CP here. This legislation which we have before us makes provision for permits and for a series of exceptions to the Group Areas Act, for people from various groups, and a series of categories to enable them to live in other residential areas.

I now say the following to the hon members of the CP, and they can come and join me in saying it in my constituency. I shall tell my voters that when it comes to an application for a permit under the Group Areas Act for any person to hire in a particular area, outside the provisions of the Group Areas Act, my norm and test—which I as a member of Parliament shall recommend—will be the kind of individual and the kind of circumstances we are dealing with. I shall most definitely not apply the final, all-embracing and absolute test of the colour of that man’s skin.

We are unleashing something in this country which we will definitely not be able to stop. I am very concerned about this. Let me tell the hon member for Brakpan that I am not concerned about the CP. I am not in the least concerned about the CP. The hon member for Soutpansberg is making gestures intimating that we are afraid. He ran off to Soutpansberg, and now everyone sitting over there is talking as if they managed to get here with tremendous majorities.

Where is the power of one’s White skin now?

I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that we on this side of the House do not believe that power in South Africa must lie in having a white skin. We on this side of the House believe that power must lie in a system which allows everyone and all groups to experience justice and fair play.

I want to tell the hon members of the CP that we are not frightened of their CP politics. Nor are we frightened of emotions. That is why we shall go to the people with this measure in spite of their hooting and hollering, because we know that on the basis of this measure we shall also be doing justice to people’s human dignity.

That is why I personally am very glad that it has been laid down in this legislation that the courts should not implement the final order. I should like to say that in my opinion this is a good amendment introduced by the Government. In my humble opinion, it would be a mistake if a court order could be issued—an eviction order— and that that order should simply be implemented, regardless of the circumstances which might prevail.

In a sense, this legislation has plunged South Africa into a constitutional crisis, as has been written. May we all say that we regret that. Ultimately a democracy has to pull this country through. No other system will be able to pull us through.

There are a few terribly dangerous options in this country. One of the most dangerous possible options in this country would be for those people on the opposite side of the House to take over the country. Another terribly dangerous option would be for us in this country to have to contend with a radical Black ANC takeover. That is an option which we simply can no longer accept, an option we cannot tolerate.

There are other options in this country which are being discussed by people, by people in my constituency. Frankly, as a democrat and a man who is interested in government, I do not like that option at all. This country cannot have a oneparty government; this country cannot have any form of military government, military administration or any form of dictatorship. That would bring about the demise of this country.

I tell that to the people in my constituency who talk in that way. Those people are intensely concerned, because when they listen to the way in which the CP is running amuck with the emotions of people, those people ask me whether ultimately we have any other option. I say we want democracy and human dignity to prosper in this country, and we want justice to triumph, and that is why we have come with this measure, which does not offend other people’s dignity.

I can understand that these new constitutional measures have aroused such tremendous emotions. If we who are sitting here today clinically and soberly consider the overall history of the Group Areas Act which is here before us today, I say, regardless of the very tangible advantage which the Group Areas Act held in respect of all people in South Africa, there is no way in which a Coloured or an Indian person can really be enthusiastic about the words “group areas”. I can understand that.

If I were a Coloured person, I would have felt just as much emotional aggression about the Group Areas Act per se. That is why I can understand this constitutional crisis. It is not, however, the last and final aspect about which we in South Africa are going to have a constitutional crisis. The more fundamental the change and the more fundamental the issues we tackle, the more emotions are going to be aroused in respect of constitutional matters. We are talking about land, and few things in South Africa are as emotionally charged and prone to conflict as the land issue— who lives where and what one’s rights are.

One wants to make one last observation in respect of this crisis. South Africa has endless potential for conflict. There is not an hon member in this House who can say, in his wildest dreams, that the end of the potential for conflict is in sight. That is why, in the first place, we can understand the emotions and the emotional conflict which this group areas measure unleashes among people. Secondly we can merely say that the NP advocates a course of fair play and justice and the recognition of human dignity. With this measure we are merely engaged in dealing with the realities according to people’s present emotions. We, as the NP, will do so in the interests of racial harmony, because we would not like to have conflict in our country as a result of circumstances which we might have been able to control.

The hon members of the CP spoke in the debate as if they were of primary importance. They are not. I tell them that without mincing words. White politics in South Africa is concerned with ensuring stability and security and with weathering the storm, not with becoming a primary factor in South Africa to an increasing extent. Of course this is tremendously important—as our party says—but the CP, which thinks that that is everything, is living in a dangerous dream world. All people in this country have rights. They have rights because they are citizens. Those rights which they have as citizens, must also find expression in respect of residential opportunities. For that reason we have introduced the Free Settlement Areas Bill together with these proposed amendments to the legislation—so that there can be more and more opportunities and space for people. I do not want to waste too much time on the CP. I merely want to tell them that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, race is not an absolutistic concept. That is why exceptions have been made since the Group Areas Act was implemented in 1950. Exceptions are made in respect of professional people. Allow me to ask the hon member for Pietersburg a question. If a doctor or a dentist or an attorney who is Black were exempted in terms of the Group Areas Act in order to practise in Pietersburg, would this have the hon member’s approval or not? Would it have the hon member’s approval? [Interjections.]

Just make your speech!

No, I shall tell hon members that that hon member knows, just as surely as he is sitting there, that he cannot say no. There are a plethora of things concerning the Group Areas Act to which they cannot say no. That is why they should not become so hysterical about it.

I should like to conclude with one final point. In terms of this legislation we have made provision for free settlement areas. This legislation before us, including all the elements in this legislation to prohibit people from occupying land as well as all other provisions in this legislation, would disappear like mist in the morning sun if we in South Africa did not use our common sense and did not manifest fair play and justice in respect of the distribution of land in every town and every city in South Africa and in every region of South Africa.

One does have one concern about this legislation, and I should like to mention it to the hon the Minister. In terms of these provisions the administration of group areas is being entrusted to a White Ministers’ Council. I see nothing wrong in our looking to our own interests. However, in considering the history of land distribution in South Africa, I do have one concern. It is no use our arguing about it now; there is not enough time to discuss it. Hon members can look at the findings of all the commissions—I have a list of 10 here—who have considered the issue of land in the past. There can be no argument about it: Concerning land in general there has been an historically unjust and unfair distribution, which provokes tremendous opposition among people.

There are those who say that one should not apologise for the past. By way of repetition I merely want to tell the CP that it does not bother me at all. There are things that have happened in this country, and that happen in every country, which other people experience as being wrong and about which I cannot do anything. It does not bother me in the least, however, to say it is a pity that these things have happened and that I think they were wrong. Likewise there are things people could tell me they regret. As a matter of interest, as far as this point is concerned, I recently asked a few well-known theologians what they had to say concerning the issue of remorse. I do not have the time to discuss that now, but it would have been interesting to have heard the theological realities concerning this measure from people who are not politicians. I say this to the CP, who are forever saying that we have a guilty conscience when we have to correct what is wrong. I want to appeal that it be spelt out very clearly that the authority, as far as the general distribution of land in our various urban areas is concerned, rests with the Central Government in accordance with our regional guide development plans. I think it is important to have this said.

It is terribly important for us to consider the redistribution of land. By redistribution I do not mean that the Whites’ land must be given to other people. Nor do I mean that the Coloureds’ land must be taken and given to the Blacks. I merely mean that in general, as Government and as people in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what course land distribution has taken in South Africa, and that is why—I have tried to say this in all modesty on innumerable occasions—I want to make an appeal today. I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to reconsider this matter. It seems to me that there is some merit in our giving consideration to the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry which, over a period of two to three years, will have to consider all elements concerning land tenure, landownership and land rights throughout South Africa. Why does one ask for a judicial commission? At the moment the entire land issue is squarely in the hands of the Government, and that is not right. There is the Official Opposition; they make a fuss about these things, as if we who are sitting here are responsible for all the problems. I want to tell hon members of the CP that they are provoking an emotional reaction on the issue of land distribution. We say frankly, in the interests of our children and in the interests of all the people of South Africa, as well as in the interests of stability, that it is necessary for us to take an intense and serious look at the redistribution of land.

If we appointed a judicial commission, we would immediately be removing this matter from the political arena. Then an independent person, a judicial institution, would have all the facts submitted to him objectively from all people and from all parties. The CP can submit their evidence on their partition policy to the judicial commission. We are taking the sting out of the fact that the Government—I mean this Government—will eventually stand accused in regard to matters which have taken a certain historical course.

I think that there are merits in our removing this matter from the political arena and that in a few years we shall think together, consider together and reflect together about what the respective population groups require, where people must live, how we can maintain order, how we can have people’s rights established without violating the rights of others, how we in South Africa can correct a specific unfairness which history has imposed upon us, this century.

We are sitting in this House, after all. The other day I said that hon members of the CP could take a look at Constantia. There we have the historical monument, the wild-almond hedge which Jan van Riebeeck planted in those early years here in the Cape, specifically to bring about physical segregation.

I want to tell the CP just one other thing, Sir, now that we are discussing this legislation. They present partition as a solution to the problems we are dealing with in respect of this measure. I must say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a gem of a speech the other evening. I just find it interesting that he did not mention partition before the last election.

Did you see how many people came to listen?

But he said something else as well. He said he preferred a smaller South Africa, but a White South Africa. I challenge them. There was a small article—unfortunately I cannot deal with it in detail—which appeared in the magazine Militaria of 16 March 1986. This article was written by the Military Information Bureau. I want hon members of the CP to come and look at this. I want to say one thing to them. Throughout the history of the first Hottentot Wars, beyond the Border Wars up to the participation in the last World War, practically every war and conflict situation between the people of South Africa was concerned with land.

I now tell them that a smaller but White South Africa is tantamount to telling the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa: You, who are the citizens of South Africa, are going to be wronged once again somewhere in this smaller White South Africa. In other words, it is like telling those people that we are prepared to start the entire history of conflict from scratch again. There is no way in which we can bring about partition in South Africa, as they want to, without experiencing conflict. There is no way! If I were Coloured or Black, and every Nationalist voter in my constituency were to say that, and if those people came to power with their policy on these matters, I say I would have no choice whatsoever. My rights would be violated. They would be taken away from me. The Whites say I do not belong here. They say there should be a smaller but White South Africa. I say that that is a recipe for conflict. It is a way of telling someone that he has no leg to stand on. It is a way of telling someone that one is no longer listening to him. It is a way of telling someone he does not belong here. It is a way of telling someone that because his skin is white, he has all the power.

That is why we are telling the CP that their alternative to measures which the Government is going to implement with much compassion, circumspection and respect for human dignity, in order to ensure order and to try to prevent conflict, is an alternative of unbelievable conflict. I experience it where I come from. There is a wave of racism, such as we have not experienced for years, sweeping through this country of ours. [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP sitting there must place it on their account—I shall give them examples—that they are inciting, even people who are relatively unsympathetic in the political debate, against the NP with crude, wild, odious and dangerous emotive racism merely to get votes. Who loses? We on this side of the House want to tell them that we do not want the NP to be the ultimate winners; we want South Africa to win. We want our children and justice to be the winners. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether I can ask the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education, whether he agrees with the hon member for Innesdal.

He made a good speech.

No, I am asking whether he agrees with the speech.

I said he made a good speech.

The hon the Minister says he made a good speech. I wonder whether the hon the Minister of Defence agrees with the hon the Minister of National Education.

It was an excellent speech.

I am glad to hear that. [Interjections.] Do the hon the Deputy Ministers of National Health and of Agriculture and Water Supply agree with that? [Interjections.] Was it a very good speech he made?

Order!

[Inaudible.]

No. It is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard uttered in such a short time in this place. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that I would not have reacted to him at all, because if one closed one’s eyes and did not look at him, and one thought back to the past one hundred speeches he has made, one would hear the same speech, the same theme, the same tone of voice, the same tune at the same tempo.

The same truth too!

It was like a radio broadcast of one of those old matches—one only hears the team’s name here and there. In his speeches one only hears CP and nothing more.

Say something about the contents for once.

I merely want to tell him that I would not have referred to his speech if it were not for the fact that he had told a gross untruth in that speech. It is only because someone has said that if one tells a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth, that I consider it necessary to react to him. [Interjections.] He said that I had taken to my heels in Pretoria and hightailed it to Soutpansberg. I want to tell him that that is a blatant lie, and he knows it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member knows as well as I do that he ought not to say that. He must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. That hon member is fibbing if he says that I hightailed it out of Pretoria. Surely he knows how I came to be in Soutpansberg. Mr Fanie Botha challenged me, and in doing so antagonised the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the State President. He had to get them out there in a hurry to protect him.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say an hon member is fibbing?

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say it. He must also withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but everyone knows what the situation is. I lost the first round, but I reduced the NP majority from 3 000 votes to 618. In the next round I took the constituency with a majority of 500 votes. Then the hon the State President said they had to win Soutpansberg back. The NP probably poured more than R100 000 into Soutpansberg. They had a permanent agent stationed there, but we nevertheless retained the constituency. [Interjections.]

If we hold an election on 26 October, or whenever, we shall retain Soutpansberg with a fourfold majority. [Interjections.] That is, if they still have an agent to station there, because I have heard that he is having difficulties. [Interjections.]

There is something I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal. He makes such a great fuss railing at the CP. We are no different to what he was before he went to America. [Interjections.] Let me just say that the best interest the Americans ever earned on a free air ticket, was the amount they invested in him when he went to America. [Interjections.] The hon member says there is a stream of racism flowing through South Africa at the moment. That is strange, Sir, because do you know when that racism began to surface again? It began to surface again when the NP started tampering with the security of the White peoples, when the NP began to tamper with the security of the White people who kept the NP in the position it occupied. It was when the NP began to create expectations in the minds of the other peoples, expectations they apparently had no intention of honouring, and when they began to tamper with the security of the Whites, which the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also spoke about, that racism began to surface again. I want to say that the resentment that surfaced, began to surface when the hon the State President and his Government started moving away from traditional NP policy.

I want to tell the hon member for Edenvale that I offer her a CP membership card with my compliments. She is free to come and join the CP. The hon member made a speech in the joint meeting last week, as did the hon the Minister there next to her, which is more in line with CP thinking than with that of the NP. Comparing the speeches made by the hon members for Edenvale and Umlazi, I think there is some substance in the speculation that there is going to be a general election on 26 October. The NP is starting to make right-wing utterances. [Interjections.] Why is this suddenly happening?

I want to thank the hon the Minister of National Education for having returned to the Chamber. I actually wanted to hold a discussion with him about beards, in particular Lincoln’s beard. I also wanted to tell him the story about how Lincoln got his beard, but I do not have time for that. In the process the hon the Minister told me that he was bald, like the late Dr Malan. I think that his bald head reminds one more of that of the hon the State President. Let us, however, rather leave the matter at that. [Interjections.] In the short time I have to discuss matters with him, I want to tell him that I see that he addressed the NP youth congress.

Order! We have already paid a visit to Abraham Lincoln, and even digressed to a discussion of America’s air tickets. The time has perhaps come for a more specific discussion of the Bill.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, on every aspect on which I replied to the hon the Minister, I replied in the tone in which this debate has been conducted, and each of my replies related to his statements.

I see that the hon the Minister of National Education addressed the NP youth congress. The hon the Minister told them—I take it he derived no pleasure from doing so and did so on a confessional note—that things were going badly for the NP.

I did not use the word “badly”!

That is what his party’s newspapers say. [Interjections.]

Things are going swimmingly for the NP! [Interjections.]

They are not going swimmingly!

They are definitely not going swimmingly.

Do you not accept the hon the Minister’s word for that?

All he said, in fact, was that things would be getting worse. I do not know whether the hon the Minister used those words.

Not bad or worse or anything of that kind!

What did you say then?

I was not speaking about you people! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said things were going worse for the NP. He probably said something of that kind, from which they could deduce what he meant.

I said that the NP found itself in stormy waters, that our country had problems and that things did not go too well for us in the byelections. [Interjections.]

That was the hon the Minister’s confession. When are things going to stop going badly for us? Was he not able to give the young people of his party that bit of information?

From 26 October things will be improving! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in speaking to you, I am speaking about B 115-88 (GA), not B 112-88 (GA). When engaging in a debate with the NP these days, one must be careful about what Bills one is speaking about, because within the space of less than six weeks we have had two Bills with the same title before the House, and as the Order Paper indicates, we are discussing Bill No 115 of 1988. It was Bill 112, however, which was debated in the joint committee. I want to tell those hon members that there the CP made its standpoint very clear. The CP told them we supported the Government in regard to certain provisions of that Act, for example compulsory eviction. On certain other aspects the CP reserved its judgment, but the fact of the matter is that hon members have come along here and said—tried to imply—that in the discussion of B 112-88 (GA) they had, in fact, reserved certain amendments for themselves. They come along here, however, with a picture which I do not think is a completely accurate one, because Mr Jan Steyn’s Urban Foundation, Assocom and all those bodies had already made representations to them there, and despite that, at that stage the NP said it would persevere with B 112-88 (GA), which had teeth.

But that is not true, is it!

Then two weeks ago the pressure started mounting here. Then big business began to talk, Afrikaner big business and English big business, because John Vorster once told us in the caucus that he shuddered at the thought of those two elements combining against the NP. Then Boss Harry and Boss Anton spoke with one voice, Sir …

Then Boss Allan also came along!

… but then Boss Allan also joined in, Sir, and also Oom Piet from Die Burger. [Interjections.] They told him he was not speaking in the country’s interests, and he folded. Then the NP folded. They then watered things down—they drew that Bill’s teeth.

You ought to know you are lying!

Now the hon member for Sundays River must tell me why they amended this Bill. I want to tell him that there are three possible reasons. One is possibly pressure, but he denied that it was because of the pressure. If that was not the reason, it was secondly because the Government shied away from implementing compulsory eviction after people had been found guilty. If it was not that, there is a third possibility—since it is the NP, this is a possibility—and that is that when it came along with Bill No 112, the NP intended all along to replace it, before finally introducing it, with B 115-88 (GA).

There is a fourth reason too!

Well, the hon member for Umlazi can tell us the fourth reason at some later stage.

When one is in the position in which the Government finds itself, one ought to know that one is dealing with people who are so resourceful when it comes to evading or making use of the law that one must be prepared to make use of certain powers and even to implement them when they are defeating the ends of justice or using the law to pull the wool over one’s eyes. That is what the NP was prepared to do when it came along with B 112-88 (GA). It professed to have been prepared to do so, but somewhere along the line something happened which caused the NP to shrink back from the fact that in South Africa the NP itself should be prepared to implement a law, without having to leave it to normal legal processes. That is what the NP is scared to do at this time.

I now come to the hon member for Parow. He is unfortunately not here, but to justify watering down and ultimately destroying the Group Areas Act, he advanced the argument about the right of diplomats to live in any suburb, particularly in Pretoria. This has revealed the NP, in all its nakedness, as being completely opportunistic, as a party which no longer knows anything about principles. You know, Mr Chairman, you yourself are a Pretoria NP, and I think you were involved in some of those debates and know that when the question of diplomatic relations with Africa came to the fore in the days of Mr Vorster, Pres Banda, Pres Houphouet-Boigny and those people, Mr Vorster said—we agreed with that— that one did not have first-class and second-class diplomats. All diplomats are the same and are treated equally. There was another aspect, however, and that was that in terms of international law a diplimat was not formally the subject of such laws of the country in which he was a guest and in which he was accredited. He had diplomatic immunity. It did not matter, in any event, because as far as this problem was concerned, it was accepted by the NP that diplomats could live wherever they chose to live. We were nevertheless also told, and for quite some time this was easily, conveniently and resourcefully done— that was in the days of Dr Hilgard Muller, Mr John Vorster and those people—that provision would be made for this. Firstly Waterkloof Heights would become a diplomatic residential area, and that went ahead very nicely until the present hon Minister of Foreign Affairs came along and threw in the towel. Secondly, sensitive but diplomatic arrangements were made—in particular with our own, immediate Black neighbouring states which, after their independence, established diplomatic relations with us, about having them exercise their own choice about where their diplomats would live. [Interjections.] All of that is probably news to the hon member for Parow which he cannot understand or is incapable of understanding.

Did you agree with that policy?

Not only did I agree with it; I said—in regard to Waterkloof Heights—that this was a clever solution for a very difficult problem. [Interjections.] Today the hon member for Parow was the poor clown of the House, but what is more, he also appears to be a poor shot, because he cannot even knock down the skittles he himself has set up. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Sunnyside. It is quite clear that he was greatly unnerved by the CP’s election campaign in Sunnyside. I immediately want to correct one of his misrepresentations here, and that is that it was not church crosses which adorned that poster, but gravestones—gravestones for the fine residential areas which had become slums under the NP. The warning to the voters of Sunnyside is that if they do not vote for a CP councillor their fate will be the same as that of Hillbrow. [Interjections.] At one stage Hillbrow was an equally beautiful White residential area of which one could be as proud as Sunnyside. I do not know of one of Sunnyside’s residents who is not concerned about the warning that Sunnyside could become a slum, because where the young people live in Sunnyside, on Sunday mornings every newspaper vendor is assisted by six Blacks, six who live off him, and in the evenings they sit together in groups of six to eight on each street corner. That is what Sunnyside looks like under that hon member for Sunnyside and that NP Government. [Interjections.] Under his very eyes Sunnyside is becoming a Black dormitory town because he does nothing about that.

It is clear you know nothing whatsoever about Sunnyside! [Interjections.]

I do not know where that hon member lives, but I pay a visit to Sunnyside each time I visit Pretoria. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member waxed very philosophical about there being people who prefer to live in their own residential areas, but there are others who do not want to do so.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired. There are, however, two points I must first deal with. The first is that the hon member for Soutpansberg referred to the hon member for Parow as a clown. The hon member must please withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, a clown …

Order! I have just referred to the list of words. That word is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, but may I replace it with the word “joker”?

Order! The hon member may do so if he wishes.

The second point I have to deal with is that the hon member for Sundays River—if I heard him correctly—said that the hon member for Soutpansberg had told a lie and that he knew it. Did the hon member say that?

I said the hon member ought to know that he was lying. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Order! I should kindly like to point out to hon members that it is unacceptable for them—I am not referring, in particular, to the hon member for Sundays River, because there are quite a few hon members who are guilty of this—to make a habit of saying that someone is lying or that something is a lie, and then quite happily withdrawing it afterwards. That cannot be allowed. It is a gross insult and must be treated as such.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening to speeches by the hon member for Soutpansberg for many years. One of the main characteristics of his speeches is that they always contain an element of personal acrimony. His speech today was no exception. He referred to the hon member for Innesdal and said that his speech was “the biggest load of rubbish ever uttered in such a short time”. There was the remark he had to withdraw, and there was the reference to the hon the Leader of the House. That note of acrimony is always present.

There is another element that is quite characteristic of the CP and of the kind of propaganda they make, and that is their use of rumour. And rumour can be very dangerous. I just want to warn the hon member for Soutpansberg that there is another rumour that is going round in political circles, and sooner or later he should tell the House whether it is the truth. It is rumoured that he is growing a beard! [Interjections.] When one dispenses medicine, one should also be able to take it oneself!

Cowboys do not cry!

The hon member, who has been a member of this House for such a long time, does not seem to know the procedures of this House and of joint committees, for example. He referred to the amendments to the original Bill. It is a fact that the members of the NP, and specifically the hon member for Sundays River, gave notice that they were going to move amendments at a certain stage, and that they explained the amendments. Naturally, they were not explained in detail at that stage, because we were not discussing the particulars of the Bill. However, notice was given very clearly, and all the committee members who were present should have taken cognisance of this, if they were awake. [Interjections.]

We discussed the general principle of the legislation. When the desirability of the Bill was debated, the joint committee could not reach consensus on it, so the discussion came to an end.

It is a fact, therefore, that the committee was never in a position to consider the legislation in detail, clause by clause, and to discuss the amendments of which prior notice had been given. However, the hon member for Soutpansberg tried to find all kinds of sinister motives behind the fact that changes had been made and that a different Bill had been produced. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to the hon member for Roodepoort and to a few aspects of his contribution. This hon member referred to the fact that the Roodepoort town council, which was controlled by the NP, had asked for an open trading area. Does the hon member have a problem with that? Does he have a problem with the open trading area?

Of course!

That is precisely the kind of double standard and the type of morality that one is faced with in that party. Which party controls the Pietersburg town council?

The CP, and you know it! [Interjections.]

The CP controls that town council, and that Pietersburg town council has unanimously decided that there should be a free trading area. [Interjections.] A great fuss was made by the CP, and specifically by the CP in Pietersburg, about the question whether the Pietersburg theatre should be open or not. In the end, the decision was that the theatre would be open. Who presided over the official opening of that theatre? Councillor De Klerk, the CP mayor of Pietersburg. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member was not prepared to reply to a question of mine the other day, and in the light of that, I do not have time to reply to his question either.

The point is that we cannot go on applying those double standards.

What is the other thing that they do? That hon member for Roodepoort is one of the CP members who are forever complaining about the so-called non-implementation of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Then, when the Government introduces measures to facilitate the implementation of the Group Areas Act, they say we are only doing it now because of the municipal elections. [Interjections.] What kind of double standards are we dealing with? Really, it is not possible to take them seriously if this is the basis on which they want to argue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Benoni has referred to the conduct of the CP as an act of hypocrisy. Is that in order? [Interjections.]

Order! I understood him to refer to the party. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should prefer to come now to another very important aspect of the legislation which is before us. It is often argued—with considerable justification, I believe—that if people were allowed to settle where they pleased, the general pattern would still be for people to live together on a group basis for the most part. There are many examples of this in the world, and these examples are often quoted by proponents of this view. I want to concede at once that there is a great deal of truth in this argument. It is also true that over a period of many years, and especially since the introduction of the Group Areas Act, a basic and general pattern of group settlement has developed in South Africa. It is argued, therefore, that this general pattern would not change overnight and that there would be no large-scale integration of residential areas if the Group Areas Act were to be repealed. I suppose there is an element of truth in that argument as well.

In the light of this, surely one is entitled to ask whether it is really necessary at this stage in South Africa to continue enforcing and regulating residential segregation by law. I submit that in two spheres at least, there are very sound reasons why legislation of this nature is still necessary.

The first and I believe the most important reason is found in the constitutional sphere. At present, the constitutional structure in South Africa rests on a foundation of own and general affairs. This presupposes the existence, to a large extent, of a separate community life for each group. Separate residential areas form a very important component of this. In other words, if we were to do away with the Group Areas Act and the principle of separate residential areas, the present constitutional structure would be placed in an untenable position and would be made impossible. One cannot separate these matters from one another, therefore. I want to tell our colleagues and friends in the Labour Party in particular that one cannot simply repeal the Group Areas Act without knowing exactly where one is taking South Africa constitutionally, because these things are very closely related. At present, consensus on the form that a future constitutional dispensation in South Africa should take is not yet in sight. [Interjections.] If we were to repeal the Group Areas Act at this stage, therefore …

At this stage?

I am by no means pleading for its repeal; I am simply arguing the principle of the matter. [Interjections.] If the Act were to be repealed in its entirety, one would be ruling out a particular constitutional option for the future. The NP is not prepared to rule out any options at this critical stage of constitutional development in South Africa. At the same time, the retention of the Act is not closing any doors. It still allows us to have constitutional discussions without painting ourselves into a constitutional corner.

I want to repeat, therefore, what has been said on several occasions, and that is that this Bill cannot be seen in isolation, but should be regarded as part of a package. One Bill has already been debated in this House, and the other one, which deals with the representation of people in free settlement areas, is still to be considered. In fact, the latter Bill illustrates the fact that amendments to this Act have constitutional implications as well, which the NP is prepared to face up to. When we come to that Bill, we can discuss the matter further.

I think it is also important that we should tell our friends in the other Houses that if we are going to negotiate with one another about these matters and about future constitutional models, there is no sense in adopting an all-or-nothing attitude and saying that if one Act is not abolished, one is not prepared to go on talking about the others. That is not a basis for negotiation.

I want to emphasise once again that this legislation does not close any doors, but that the abolition of group areas would indeed close certain doors which we are by no means prepared to close at this stage.

There is another very important reason why this legislation cannot be scrapped, and this is of a socio-economic nature. It is true that people have a natural inclination to associate with their own kind and to live together in groups. However, it is also a historic fact that there is a considerable shortage—a very large shortage—of housing among other population groups at the moment, while there is an oversupply of housing among the Whites. If the legislation were simply abolished, therefore, one would not have a natural pattern of settlement, but excessive pressure on existing White residential areas. This could lead to conflict and friction, which this country cannot afford. It is essential for us to do things in an orderly, systematic and planned manner.

The American example is often quoted to show how people group together with others of their own kind. However, it is also a fact that during the sixties, there was tremendous trauma and even violence and unrest in America as a result of the pressure that built up there and the friction that arose. My first experience of America was when I landed in Detroit by mistake. We were on our way to Washington, and the airport there had been closed as a result of snow. This was my first impression of that country. What happened to that city? After the race riots of the late sixties, the city centre, or downtown Detroit, as the Americans call it, died to such an extent that the large companies had to build a big centre there, the Renaissance centre, in an attempt to bring new life to the city centre. I often tell Americans I meet that South Africa cannot afford that kind of mistake …

As in Hillbrow!

We cannot afford that kind of mistake, for then South Africa would die. We do not have the scope that America has for allowing experiments such as those. That is why we have to be so much more careful under the circumstances that prevail in this country. It would be unwise to introduce dramatic changes overnight. It would not work. At the same time I want to add, however, and in this respect I agree with what the hon member for Innesdal said about identifying land and making it available to people, that unless all of us—including our colleagues of the Official Opposition—make a concerted effort in our respective constituencies and unless we help to identify sufficient land for occupation by all the people of this country, no statutory measure will reduce or remove the pressure on White residential areas. In the long run, there is only one way of dealing with these matters, and that is by timeous, meaningful, pro-active planning. That is the only thing that can work.

I want to make one final remark about the question that has already been referred to in this House by hon members of the CP and by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, namely the question of a smaller South Africa. At the CP’s congress, too, Dr Verwoerd’s words about a smaller South Africa were quoted once again. At the same time, they refused to explain this concept. They say that they do not wish to explain it at this stage; they want to come into power first, then they will tell people what they mean. However, there is someone who is prepared to spell it out. Prof Carel Boshoff puts it as follows:

He goes on to give a definition of this so-called smaller state:

He wants to turn the rest of South Africa into one great open grey area, therefore, with a small, separate White state. At least he has the courage of his convictions and is willing to spell it out. [Interjections.] The CP, however, uses this same quotation of Dr Verwoerd, but at the same time they say that they must first come into power, then they will say what they are going to do.

I do not think that is acceptable. It is not acceptable to the Whites of South Africa, and it is not the proper way to deal with the future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

The NP is prepared to face up to the realities of South Africa. The NP is prepared to carry out meaningful planning, to act pro-actively, also in the interests of the Whites in South Africa, and not to leave them in the lurch by default, as the CP would do. I take great pleasure, therefore, in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs very strongly argued the necessity for the measure under consideration. He also dealt very effectively with the hon member for Soutpansberg. I understand that the hon member for Soutpansberg was the last speaker on this measure on the opposite side of the House. This means that we have heard six or seven CP speakers. We have argued this matter for two full days now, and still we do not know whether they are going to support the measure or not.

Oh, no! [Interjections.]

Nor have they told us why they would either support it or not support it. [Interjections]

You should merely have listened!

The CP is extremely embarrassed about taking this House into its confidence about its standpoint in regard to this important measure. [Interjections.] I must say that I can understand why they are embarrassed about this. This measure has unmasked their “cry-wolf” attempts aimed against the NP, which is supposedly undermining the community life of groups. That is why they are now so embarrassed about this. [Interjections.] Yes, that is why they are so embarrassed in this debate.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also tried to make political capital by comparing the Bill under discussion, with its changes, with the original Bill. He referred to the question of eviction. What is the situation? According to the motion under discussion the Minister has taken upon himself the discretion of granting an eviction order. What can be more courageous than that?

Oh, he would never really do it! [Interjections.]

In that way the Government is taking the responsibility upon itself and cannot hide behind the courts or anything of that kind. The politics the hon member is making of this means absolutely nothing at all.

As has already been argued here earlier this afternoon, it is a world-wide phenomenon, a reality which is generally accepted, that communities and groups live together in their own areas to promote their own cultures, their own lifestyles and their own traditions there. That such a need does in fact exist, and that it is beneficial for and conducive to proper order in a community, no fair and reasonable person can deny. In regard to this matter the hon member for Edenvale advanced a very strong argument.

This natural movement is also socially sanctioned. One need only refer to what is happening in the USA. Not a week goes by without people being intimidated or the houses of people who move into the residential areas of other groups being burnt down.

The essential question underlying our argument here today is whether groups living together in their own areas should be regulated by statute, as is the case in South Africa. That is the fundamental question we are faced with.

We know that from the earliest times this has been regulated in South Africa by by-laws or by statute. We also know that our different population groups in this country have completely different traditions and customs involving the ownership of land. Free tenure is a concept completely foreign to Africa. That concept, which we derive via Western countries from Roman Dutch law, is completely foreign to Africa. In Africa land is regarded as freely owned by everyone and is owned and cultivated under the control of the head of the family, the headman or the chief in accordance with recognised customs. This is still the custom in our homelands. In 99% of the cases of land being occupied in our homelands, it is occupied on this basis. In other words, this land is not even available to Black people on a tenure basis, let alone on the basis of tenure for people other than Black people. This land is therefore solely reserved for occupation by Black people in terms of their traditions and customs.

One must respect this. These are traditions and customs which have developed over many years, and they should not be changed overnight. I should like to refer—and with great approval too—to a document published by The Inkatha Institute for South Africa. It is dated September 1981 and formed part of the Buthelezi Commission report. I should like to refer to page 1 on which the following appears:

And further:

This is a reasonable approach and I should like to support it. It takes into account the facts, the historical events leading up to this and also the interests of the population. The reality in our overall situation, however, is that in the homelands land is reserved solely for occupation by Black people and that tenure is not even available to their own people.

I now strongly want to argue that it would be completely unfair to the other groups if only their areas were opened up to all races, while the homelands continue to be reserved for Black people. The homelands cover a very large area, and also as a result of the absence of free tenure in the homelands, the pressure on the other groups would be that much greater and more unfair. It would simply mean that the other groups would be at the mercy of this pressure, and the NP is not prepared to allow that. The alternative, one could argue, is that all areas, including homelands, should be opened up to all races and private tenure. I want to suggest that that is not acceptable either, because the homeland governments themselves do not want it and because it would run contrary to the wishes of the majority of the populations of those homelands and their traditions, but also because the recommendations of the Buthelezi commission and of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba are opposed to this. The experience of other countries has also taught us—I again want to refer to the USA—that when this happens, it simply means that in the long run the Black group, as a group, has less land under its control than it previously had.

†This brings me to the criticism expressed by left-wing groups and the Press against this Bill. All these groups supported, with great enthusiasm, the recommendations and the findings of the Buthelezi Commission and the NatalKwaZulu Indaba. Both these institutions strongly recommended, if not directly then by necessary implication, that Black tribal land should be retained for exclusive Black occupation according to the customs and developing traditions of the Black people. The Government agrees with this view, but why is it that what is good for one group—that is the retention of land for the Black people—is not good for another group? Why is that suddenly “morally reprehensible”, especially when the retention of one area and the complete opening of the rest will clearly lead to great friction? I submit that this does not make sense and smacks of double standards.

Another aspect is the accusation that the passing of this Bill and the others will lead to the eviction of thousands of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many aspects in this Bill, and also in the others, that enable the Government to deal realistically with our problems without evictions on a large scale. These aspects will actually, in some cases, avoid such evictions. The Government has also given the undertaking that the provisions of this Bill will be enforced in a humane way. This undertaking will be met.

The hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have rejected this Bill and the other Bills in the strongest possible terms. I have no doubt that these Bills will also be in the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians. One need not have been in politics for a long time—I think the hon member for Claremont has been in politics only a few years …

Fourteen years.

… to know that there are many instances of Coloureds who complain about the presence of Black people or Indian people in their areas, and vice versa. That happens virtually weekly. I believe that the actions of this Government will soon be vindicated when the leaders of the other Houses make use of these measures to look after the interests of their own people. If they hesitate to do that, or if they refuse to do that, their electorate will soon force them to do just that.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to follow on the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister will reply to his speech.

†At the centre of the so-called trilogy of Bills lies this Bill which is now under debate. It assumes the limelight because it proposes to amend the Group Areas Act itself. The latter Act has been controversial and noone will deny that. However, the principal Act has been on our Statute Book for some 22 years now in its present form and during that time it has been amended on a number of occasions. Those amendments have been brought about by changing circumstances. Changing circumstances have, once again, necessitated the amendments now before us.

The Government has too often been accused of adopting an uncompromising attitude in regard to the Group Areas Act. That is simply not true for the following reasons. On many occasions we have accepted amendments to the Act. We have stated previously that it is not a sacred cow. We have established a constitutional committee of the President’s Council to investigate the question of the group areas in detail and to report its findings.

We have carefully examined that report and have accepted numerous recommendations flowing from it. We have now accepted the establishment of multiracial residential areas under certain circumstances as official policy. With this Bill we have accepted that Black South Africans do not need a separate set of legislation for their residential areas but that they should be brought under the same legislation as Whites, Coloureds, and Indians.

Surely this demonstrates the Government’s willingness to compromise and to negotiate. So what has really brought about this so-called crisis? It has been brought about, I submit, by a simple demand by the leader of the Labour Party that the Group Areas Act be scrapped here and now, a demand that has been taken up by the Englishlanguage Press and followed up by the House of Delegates and the PFP.

There is no talk on the part of the Rev Allan Hendrickse of the substantial amendment or the phasing out of the Act over a period of time. No, the Act must be scrapped now or we will boycott proceedings of Parliament; we will disrupt the tricameral system; we will not negotiate; we will not compromise; we will take a hard line; if necessary, we will consider withdrawal from Parliament.

Threats of this nature, with respect, are almost tantamount to political blackmail. Let me say, Sir, to the hon the leader of the Labour Party with respect, that that attitude is in direct conflict with his own statement in the recent joint debate on Angola that there must be give and take.

Certainly the hon the leader’s attitude at the moment is “Take it or leave it”. It reveals a substantial departure from his previous willingness to participate, to talk, to reason, to argue quietly but firmly, to put his case. So many of his members have wished in the past and still wish to continue with the process of negotiation.

We have achieved much by consensus since 1983. We have removed hurtful, discriminatory legislation, and the three Houses of Parliament have done that together. We cannot now afford to stop the process of reform. We must continue to talk, to argue, to negotiate, until we reach consensus. It is not an easy task or a simple matter.

The hon Rev Hendrickse and his party, the members of the House of Delegates and the members of the PFP must realise that the Group Areas Act for many practical reasons cannot just be scrapped overnight, as pointed out by the hon member for Springs this afternoon. The demand that Government should do this is totally unreasonable and even irresponsible. The Group Areas Act merely placed on the Statute Book what had in fact been residential practice in South Africa for decades, if not for centuries.

This Government has been threatened by many agencies, externally and internally in the past. We are determined to reform but we are equally determined not to capitulate either to the threat of violence from the ANC or to the threats from whatever quarter of constitutional pressure.

We have a duty and an obligation to govern this country into further reform. We will not fail the voters who have put us where we are today. They must know that they can have confidence in a government that can remain dedicated to its principles and policies.

Now we have the three Bills before us and their main object is not to bring about a harsher dispensation; on the contrary, their main aim is to bring about create a better dispensation to change in an orderly manner.

I believe sincerely—in fact, I know—that there are many colleagues in the Labour Party, the National Peoples Party and Solidarity who can have no objection per se to the principle of a multiracial free settlement area or to the Bill which will bring in a common voters’ roll for the people living in such areas. They supported the free trade union legislation and free trade areas. Even the NDM gave grudging support to the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

Consensus politics does not consist of taking an uncompromising stand and then walking out of the debating chamber. Consensus politics means not less debate but more debate; not silence in the council chambers but robust discussion therein.

The boycott tactics of the Labour Party and the PFP and the ambivalence of the House of Delegates in regard to this legislation is entirely negative. It is achieving and will achieve nothing. My message to these parties—I trust that the media will convey that message—is to come back to the debating chamber, to enter the debate, to take up and accept what they consider to be the positive aspects of the legislation and to continue to press those arguments and principles for which they stand and upon which they disagree with us.

The NP has proved in the Angolan initiative that it can be a tough negotiator, but it has also proved that it can give in the interest of peace. The NP stands ready to continue with peaceful change in South Africa. It remains totally uncompromising on one issue and one issue only. That issue is the entrenchment of the protection of minority group rights in any future constitution of South Africa so as to ensure that when power is shared, it will be shared and not abrogated, and that it will be shared by all the people of South Africa equally and fairly.

This Bill devolves more power to local authorities in allowing them to proclaim free trade areas; it places Black residential areas on the same footing as that of the other groups; it makes all industrial land accessible to all population groups; it increases the effectiveness of the present legislation and eliminates speculation in land by unscrupulous land speculators. Widely criticised, it nevertheless has many advantageous provisions and I accordingly have much pleasure in supporting the Bill on behalf of the NP.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on what was said by the hon member for King William’s Town and congratulate him on a very fine contribution. It has more or less become the trend for me to be the second-last speaker on this side of the House, but at least this means that the hon the Minister is here and has to listen to me.

Allow me to address a word of thanks to the hon the Deputy Minister who, in my opinion, had difficult legislation to deal with and did so extremely well. It was really a pleasure to serve on the joint committee under his chairmanship.

I see the hon member for Ermelo is not here, but the hon member for Randfontein is here. I should like to react to the way in which the hon member for Ermelo replied to the hon member for Sundays River about the so-called CP pamphlet which reportedly stated that developers could decide whether or not an area was open to all races.

In the short time I have been in this House with the hon member for Ermelo, and have been aware that he is a member of the bar—he is not simply an ordinary advocate but a senior advocate—it has seemed to me that the hon member for Ermelo casts off his silks when it suits him. I am not going to debate this issue with him any further, but in looking at the hon member for Randfontein, who is a young man—he is a bit younger than I am, so hon members can imagine how young he is—who gained a BA, LL B, and then an LL D with distinction, and is a jurist par excellence, I cannot accept that he will cast off his silks when it suits him. I am asking him whether he agrees with the explanation of the hon member for Ermelo regarding the question which the hon member for Sundays River and I asked. If he were to agree, I would consider this final proof that he casts off his silks when it suits him, for the sake of political opportunism. This is a question he can reply to when it suits him.

The hon member asked me a question in Friday’s debate. I have obtained the relevant issue of Hansard. He asked me whether I could give the assurance that the Group Areas Act would not be abolished in future. I want to tell the hon member—I am linking up with the hon member for Sundays River—that as long as this Act is needed as an instrument for peace and to prevent racial friction, it will be maintained. This Act does not involve a principle and will be adapted to be of service to the community life of all citizens in South Africa.

Those who submit that these amendments at present before the House would never develop into a political storm, are simply not being honest. Over the years the Act has been undermined by economic forces, but this does not mean that it is not, or will not, be a serious political issue in future. No matter how thorny an issue the Act may be now, the decision on how the problem should be solved had to be taken as a matter of urgency; the time had come to do so, and those who do not like it, must simply adapt to it and move forward for the sake of South Africa.

On 21 November 1986 it was stated, in the editorial comment of Finansies en Tegniek, that this Act was an Act without any substance. In my contribution on the Free Settlement Areas Bill I said that no government could be expected summarily to scrap this Act. It has to be dealt with in order to make it possible for this Act be implemented again. Ignoring certain laws lessens respect for other laws. This Government puts law and order high on its list of priorities. For that reason, because this Act was in bad shape, we dealt with it.

We are now dealing with an unavoidable political decision, but it is ironic that the economic forces want to decide differently. This had to be a political decision, and we made the decision because we are a strong Government. This caused a crisis, but we controlled the crisis for the sake of South Africa. No government confronted with this problem, which has been sensitive one over the years, which has been the subject of many investigations and which has stopped many politicians dead in their tracks, would have succeeded in dealing with this Act without the issue being contentious. Whether we abolish the Act or make it more draconian, it remains contentious, and no government could have handled it in any other way. Politics remains the game of the possible. If one ignores reality, one becomes a political party like the PFP. Opening areas up completely is impossible; all that remains is gradual reform, a pattern which has now been established in South Africa. I take pleasure in supportin g this.

In conclusion I want to say one thing regarding the fact that action against offenders is now in the hands of the Minister and does not vest in the courts. The Group Areas Act envisages social regulation, or put another way, “social engineering”. For this reason it is necessary for the person who is to decide on eviction to have the administrative resources to effect a removal rather than an eviction. The courts do not have these administrative resources and can only issue an inflexible eviction order without the consequences coming into the picture.

The objective of the Bill is to regulate and to resettle the offender either in his own area or in a free settlement area. The Minister is therefore in a better position to achieve the object of this Bill. This also makes an important contribution towards decriminalising this Act. I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members on this side of the House for their contributions to the debate on this Bill.

Then, too, I should like to convey a special word of thanks to the members on this side of the House who served on the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development, which discussed this Bill and the other two related Bills in August. It is true that the joint committee was not able to achieve consensus as regards the principle of the desirability of this Bill and the other two Bills. As a result we were, in fact, unable to have a full discussion of the three Bills in the joint committee, which was a pity, not because I think one would necessarily have been able to iron out all the problems and the differences among the various parties there, but because I think it would at least have afforded the other parties an opportunity to make a contribution to the Bill.

What happened then was that the members on this side of the House took upon themselves the task of joining us in giving further consideration to the process, and ultimately placing the best possible legislation before Parliament. I should like to thank the hon members on this side of the House for the way in which they did so, for the way in which they actively co-operated, because I think that in that respect we achieved a good product, in the form of the Bill at present before this House, and I should like to thank hon members.

This Bill, of course, relates to one of the most sensitive and contentious matters in South Africa today. Hon members have referred to that, and I have no doubt that this is indeed the case. It is sensitive from the point of view of the Whites. It is sensitive from the point of view of other groups in this country. It is sensitive from the point of view of the Coloured people in particular. There is no doubt that of all the matters in the political spectrum, this is probably the one about which Coloured people, in particular, are most sensitive. This means that we would probably not have been able to reach consensus easily on a subject such as this one, and I think we said this to one another from the outset, even when, on 5 October last year, the hon the State President reacted, on behalf of the Government, to the report of the President’s Council, spelling out that the Government accepted the principle of open residential areas. Together with the creation of effective implementation of group area measures, even from that moment it was clear that we could possibly expect a conflict to arise in Parliament as far as the discussion of these measures was concerned.

I think that both the hon member for Springs and the hon member for King William’s Town referred to the fact that due to the position in which the Labour Party, in particular, found itself with regard to this legislation, one could barely expect consensus in this regard. I can recall that as long ago as April this year I was present at a discussion in which the Labour Party intimated that it was not prepared to settle for anything less than the repeal of the Group Areas Act.

From that point on, therefore, the position was clear. Therefore I should like to make the point, with regard to arguments to the effect that perhaps insufficient efforts were made to achieve consensus on this matter, that the situation was, in fact, bedevilled owing to the stance adopted in advance. I wish to emphasise that this pronouncement was made specifically with reference to the Free Settlement Areas Bill. Therefore I do not wish to argue the merits of the matter at this juncture. I do not wish to enter into a dispute in this House with the majority party in a different House. That is not the point I wish to make.

The point I wish to make is that in any event it was probably impossible from the outset to reach consensus on a thorny issue such as this one. Accordingly the Government had to adopt a standpoint as to what was possible in the interests of the country at this juncture—what, at this juncture, would meet the needs of the country?— and in that context one could probably imagine the two parameters involved. On the one hand there is the repeal of the Bill, which is unacceptable to the Government, which is in any event impossible and which would not be acceptable to the majority of White communities either. Another possibility would be a totally rigid implementation of the Act, with no flexibility or any exceptions, more or less what the Official Opposition wants—in other words, an unconsidered implementation of the Act which would inevitably lead to further conflict and confrontation.

It is more or less between those two parameters that one must consider the choices to be made in ultimately administering this whole matter of residential patterns and regulation in the most meaningful way until the best possible solution is achieved. It is against that background that we have this Bill on the Table, and I consider that the Bill, in the context of the other two Bills, does in fact offer an attractive package enabling us to administer the entire process of regulation of residential areas at this juncture in accordance with South Africa’s needs.

On Friday I listened carefully to the hon member for Randfontein, and I know that he intimated that the Official Opposition rejected the Bill. I should like to tell him that I learned something from no less a person than his father, and I say that with a feeling of compassion. Ten years ago when the hon member’s father, the late Dr Connie Mulder, was the Transvaal leader of the NP, I can recall an occasion on which he made a speech and I personally spoke to him. He impressed me with the argument that we in South Africa must adapt in order to keep abreast of the needs of the times. It was he who came up with the idea of making Soweto the most beautiful city in Africa. I found that an inspiring idea. At that time, for a leader of the NP to go so far as to say that, was in fact exceptional. It was exceptional in the sense that it meant that the NP recognised the permanence of the Black man within White RSA territory. It was exceptional for 1978 and, to tell the truth, it seems as if the CP has not yet accepted that standpoint. Years after they split from the NP in 1982, they reproached us for recognising the permanence of the Black man in the RSA. Therefore I say that the hon member’s father adopted an exceptionally dynamic stand point as long ago as 1978. I say that with great respect.

Just quote him in context. Remember everything he said—about powersharing as well.

Certainly. I am prepared to argue with the hon member about that, but the point I am trying to make now is that the hon member’s father set an example of adjustments that one has to make at a given point to provide for the needs of one’s country. In 1948 we were unable to foresee the needs of 1958, and in 1958 we were unable to foresee the needs of 1968. In the same way we could not foresee, in 1978, what 1988 would hold, but we have a responsibility. Those who manage the country’s affairs, who comprise the Government of the day, have a responsibility to govern at a specific period in accordance with the needs of the country. This is the point which I should like to bring home to the hon member and which I should like him to reflect on, because it is sound wisdom that I learned from no less a person than his own father.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Ermelo and his references to alleged quotations from statements made previously by the hon the State President. The hon member came here and said—I think it may have been in a previous debate, but he said more or less the same thing here—that the hon State President had said that as long as he was the leader of the country there should be no interference with the principle of the Group Areas Act. I just wish to point out to the hon member that those words are not correct. On 13 August 1986, at the Federal Congress of the NP in Durban—I referred to this occasion earlier—the hon the State President uttered the following words:

He then went on to say—I am repeating this, because I used it a short time ago:

[Interjections.] I think that now we are, in fact, applying this principle in a sensible way. Therefore the hon member quoted the hon the State President out of context, and I think it is important that that be placed on record.

The hon member went on to say that the Government supposedly did not have a mandate to do what it was doing here. Now I should like to quote to the hon member what appeared in the election manifesto of the party before last year’s general election—

Now the hon member is laughing, but no doubt he was not a CP member or a Nationalist in 1981. That is why he can laugh. At that time, in 1981, his leader, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, signed an election manifesto worded the same way, namely to apply this as far as possible. At the time the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was the leader of the NP in the Transvaal and, as such, signed the NP election manifesto in the 1981 elections.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether those words “waar enigsins prakties moontlik” also imply the free settlement areas for which the Government is now making provision?

The hon member knows, as well as I do, that one of the examples used in that very election campaign before 1981, probably by him, too, since at the time he too was a Nationalist, was the example of lower Woodstock. Lower Woodstock has never been anything but an open area. That was the very example used in the argument that this would be done as far as possible. Surely it is clear that lower Woodstock is one of the areas that will probably be considered if this legislation is passed.

The hon member for Roodepoort asked what would become of Hillbrow. Let me tell him here and now that I have made a public statement about the situation in Hillbrow. It was repeated yesterday in an interview with a newspaper. May I just add that the power to make a decision in that regard does not, of course, rest with this Ministry. In the final instance this will be a matter to which the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly will have to give consent. Therefore I cannot announce a decision on that at this stage.

However, I can say something about the course that ought to be adopted. In the first place Hillbrow must be upgraded. It is quite clear that over the past number of years there has been urban decay there. It is most important that that process be reversed, that the place be upgraded and that living conditions be restored to what they were. Then a decision can be taken as to the juridical future of Hillbrow. I want to add that that couse will have to be adopted as soon as possible, because this could afford certainty to everyone living there. This is, of course, a responsible position to adopt.

The hon member spoke after I had put the question, and the hon member for Soutpansberg spoke, and not one of them told this House what their standpoint on Hillbrow was. I specifically asked them, with reference to the standpoint of the hon member for Overvaal, whether they would agree with the hon member for Overvaal that it was not possible to move 100 000 people out of Hillbrow. They failed to reply. Neither the hon member for Roodepoort nor the hon member for Soutpansberg reacted to that. [Interjections.]

I can draw only one conclusion from that, and I wish to place it on record. I draw only one conclusion, and that is that they agree with the hon member for Overvaal.

Are there 100 000 people of colour in Hillbrow?

The hon member should put that question to the hon member for Overvaal. Let us assume that it is 20 000. Does he agree with the hon member for Overvaal or not?

I do not agree.

Then the hon member does not agree. [Interjections.] Therefore we have here a very clear difference of opinion with the hon member for Overvaal. If he does not agree with the hon member for Overvaal, how does he want to have those 20 000 people, if there are so many, resettled? The hon member must reply to that.

But you say they cannot be resettled; so you have already decided …

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort can give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to speak now. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

It is quite clear that these hon members have had a serious problem every time reference has been made to the interview with the hon member for Overvaal. This has been very striking. Since last Thursday I have sat here, and every time reference has been made to the article, the hon members have been as silent as the grave, and have then suddenly started doing other work on their desks or have started speaking to one another. They have been as silent as the grave and, to tell the truth, some of them have blushed in the process. However, it was clear to me that there was an uneasiness in their ranks. Why? Because the hon member for Overvaal was telling the truth. [Interjections.] In other words, the hon member for Roodepoort is now saying that the hon member for Overvaal was not telling the truth.

I did not say that.

In other words, he is saying the hon member for Overvaal is not telling the truth. That is what the hon member for Roodepoort is now saying. It is a great pity the hon member for Overvaal is not present today. It is a great pity he is not in the country at the moment. [Interjections.] However, there is another matter about which the hon members showed some uneasiness. This is not the subject before the House, but I should like to have it placed on record. Every time reference is made to the subject of a White state—however large or small it may be—and the admissions made over the weekend by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition at a meeting in Pretoria in regard to this matter, those hon members have not said a word. They have been very quiet, they have not said anything and have been very uneasy. It is quite clear that that party, now that they have to begin to give an account of what partition means on a constitutional basis, are floundering and are themselves encountering difficulties. I merely make that statement and leave it at that. [Interjections.]

I should like to make one last reference to the hon member for Ermelo. I should like to refer to the permit system. On Friday the hon member made a very interesting statement, namely that offenders had to be evicted without further ado. He said that he could not understand why the Government was unable to adopt a stronger standpoint in this regard because, after all, every offender was entitled to apply for a permit. [Interjections.] He could do so before the time. However, the point is surely that if a person applies for a permit, he is also entitled to get it if he complies with the requirements which are laid down. Therefore the hon member is advocating a permit system, but not merely a permit system because if one considers the consequences of what he says, it means that all inhabitants of Hillbrow who are supposedly trespassing there at present could apply for permits and should get them. That is the consequence of what he is saying. [Interjections.] Of course that is true. After all, no other inference could be drawn from what the hon member put forward. I therefore infer that the hon member is trying to get away from the situation, in a way, by justifying permits. I should like to tell him that that is an important admission that he has made, and it is something to bear in mind.

†The hon member for Mooi River said that this Bill could demolish the support of the moderates for reform in the country. Earlier this afternoon I argued—I believe the hon member was present at the time—that I thought that because security in the social sphere could be enhanced as a result of this Bill, we could actually see in this a responsible attitude towards and in favour of reform by White South Africans generally. I think that is an argument that the hon member should at least consider. If the hon member still differs with us, I should like to refer him to the fact—if I remember correctly—that the old NRP, when it still existed, in fact supported the idea of free association and dissociation. If that is true, then of course that right has to be protected in both directions, whether that of free association or dissociation. I could argue, for that matter, that with this Bill we are trying to do that. We are also protecting the right to dissociate, if people so wish. This Bill is also there to provide for that purpose.

However, I should like to say that I think the hon member is taking too dim a view of this, and that this Bill could actually enhance reform, as I argued earlier.

*As far as the hon member for Roodepoort is concerned, I have already referred to the subject of Hillbrow which he touched on. I should like to say something about his reference to the section on free settlement areas. There was a clause in the original Bill that does not appear in this new form of the Bill. If the hon member reads the clause that appeared in the original Bill and compares it with the clause that now appears in the Bill, he will find that all we envisaged, by way of the original clause, was to ensure that when an application for a free settlement area was submitted and went through the whole process, and the Group Areas Board investigated it and it was ultimately approved by the State President, such approval had to be referred to the various bodies whose task it was to implement it.

The Department of Development Planning and the provinces, among others, are concerned with the implementation. There were objections to the effect that the process of implementation, after approval by the State President, would take too long and that we should try to curtail it. An effort was then made to curtail it by having the local authority implement it. However it was pointed out to us that the local authority was faced with the dilemma that it was not the sole functionary in this regard. Accordingly the clause, as it then read, would not have been very meaningful. However, the point is that in the original principal Act as well, as in the amended section that we have deleted, the State President was the person who ultimately had to grant approval, and the position is unchanged in the current Bill.

The hon member also touched on another matter which is not really at issue now, but to which I should like to reply. The hon member made a great fuss of presenting a case in this House about suppposedly not having been consulted as the member of Parliament for his constituency. Let me say here and now that the approach is to consult the local member of Parliament with regard to a matter such as this.

Why was it not done?

Three areas were at issue, namely H1, H2 and H3. The department was given the impression that two of those areas fell within the constituency of Maraisburg and the third, H3, in the Roodepoort constituency. It is possible that a mistake was made, but then it was at least a bona fide mistake. The fact is that what I am now explaining to the hon member was set out in a letter sent to him. I have a copy of the letter of two and a half pages written to him on 29 June. I quote:

Precisely, no excuse!

But I am giving the hon member the reason now. Why could the hon member not simply have picked up his telephone and settled the matter with the department. Why does he have to raise a matter of this nature in Parliament? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg has an obsession about NP members who speak to foreigners, travel abroad and so on. He spoke about it last Thursday and again this afternoon. One should really sweep before one’s own door before beginning to make allegations. According to information I have received, the hon member’s colleague, the hon member for Overvaal, is in the USA at present at the invitation of the USA government. Is that true or not?

[Inaudible.]

Surely the hon member for Soutpansberg is the foreign affairs spokesman for his party. Does he not, as a result, also have regular contact with foreigners?

Yes, a great deal. I also go overseas regularly, but I do not go off the rails as a result. [Interjections.]

Order! I urge some hon members to restrain themselves if they want to participate in the division. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he knows in what group area the hon member for Overvaal is staying at present in the USA? [Interjections.]

We can always ask for an investigation into that. [Interjections.]

The other day the hon member for Soutpansberg referred to what had happened in Abidjan when he visited there. When the hon member belonged to an organisation like Springbok Stormloop, did he not also have regular contact with the outside world? After all, his visits to Abidjan and other places were surely in that context as well.

I was in Abidjan to attend a conference. [Interjections.]

Order!

I was there with the approval of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg must apologise for his disregard of the Chair’s appeal for order.

Mr Chairman, I apologise, but with respect, I want to say that the hon the Deputy Minister provokes one.

Order! The hon member must resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

Order! Unfortunately it appears that the hon the Deputy Minister’s time has now expired.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In this instance the hon the Deputy Minister has unlimited time, and that was what was arranged with the officials.

Order! That may be so, but on my list it says 25 minutes.

No, that is a mistake.

Order! That may be so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the CP does not support this legislation, firstly because the Bill is not being dealt with separately, but as part of a package, involving the establishment of mixed residential areas.

It also purports to strengthen the provisions of the Group Areas Act as regards contraventions of this Act, but it does not succeed in doing so, because the Group Areas Act can only be effective, inter alia, if eviction orders automatically follow on convictions, and this is not provided for in the present Bill, but is left to ministerial discretion, which thus far has shown an inability to act positively.

This Bill does not succeed in properly protecting the established rights of White residents of an area which is already a de facto grey area, and will lead to the unavoidable removal of such residents against their wishes.

Furthermore, the method of compensation to White residents in respect of depreciation contributions is defective and inadequate.

Mr Chairman, I want to confirm that this Bill forms part of a package to regulate the structuring of residential areas in South Africa in the best way possible. Seen from that viewpoint, the measures before the House effectively should be able to provide what we would like to achieve because the Minister is, in fact, being given a discretion to take a variety of factors into consideration when he must consider a specific order. It would be unfair to expect the courts to consider those aspects which political decision-makers take into consideration when it must give its decision. Because we are of the opinion that the political decision-maker is in the best position to take all specific circumstances into account, he must be given that discretion so that he can exercise it to the best of his ability.

I also want to emphasise that in the Government’s opinion this legislation is obviously aimed at protecting and ensuring an own community life. However, the interests of the individual cannot be ignored either. Although the interests of the individual are not above those of the group, his interests must also be taken into account in given circumstances. For that reason it is fair and just for us to incorporate a discretionary power in respect of the Minister.

The House divided:

AYES—107: Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Marais, G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

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

NOES—18: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Uys, C; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is now being read a first time.

This specific Bill, which consists of only three clauses, is probably the shortest tax measure which has ever been before Parliament. Its objectives are set out in the accompanying memorandum, and it is not necessary for me to elaborate on them in this speech. However, hon members are entitled to a short explanation.

Clause 2 is the most important of the three and rectifies a mistake in the Income Tax Bill of 1988 which was passed by Parliament approximately two months ago. Long-term insurers are aware that the change in the formula, laid down in section 28 of the Income Tax Act, has to be applicable “as from the commencement of years of assessment ended or ending on or after 1 April 1988”, and I am sure that they would have calculated their payments on that basis. It was nevertheless felt that the legal position should be rectified as soon as possible, and this amendment is consequently being proposed now.

Clause 1 concerns the recently established pension fund for municipal councillors. As the Act reads, at present contributions made to the fund by municipal councillors are not allowed as deductions in determining taxable income. Although the matter could have been handled administratively until next year, this opportunity is being taken to effect the necessary amendment now.

Mr Chairman, the principle that contributions to a pension fund are deductible from taxable income is endorsed by the CP. For this reason we support this legislation which merely … [Interjections.] I will be brief if hon members just keep quiet … [Interjections.] … Its objective is merely to make that principle applicable to municipal councillors as well. This does not change our standpoint in in terms of which we questioned the matter of pensions for municipal councillors when we debated this last year, but that does not apply to this issue.

The change in the date which is being effected by clause 2 of the amending Bill, in order to give it retroactive effect from April 1988, was necessitated by the error which crept in. These errors creep in because the NP Government, with its precipitate method of piloting through legislation, falls victim to this. [Interjections.] We support the proposed legislation.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I wish to express my thanks to the hon member for Delmas for his party’s support for this Bill.

It is a well-known and accepted principle of any tax system that there must be certainty in the system and that this certainty must be created at the first and best opportunity. These two weeks that Parliament is in session consequently afford us an ideal opportunity to create certainty on the two matters which were clearly set out by the hon the Deputy Minister and in the memorandum attached to the Bill. We take pleasure in supportin g the measures contained in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, when I left here on Wednesday this was quite a tranquil place. [Interjections.] I find myself coming back here this afternoon to what appears to be quite a different House.

We did not miss you!

Regrettably, I cannot join in the chorus of support for this measure. May I point out in the first place that the PFP opposes the concept of pensions for councillors.

Why don’t you boycott it then?

Order! The hon member for Ladybrand must now give the hon member for Yeoville the opportunity to continue.

If he has verbal diarrhoea, I have a good remedy for it.

Order! I have already addressed the hon member.

No, Sir, I do not have to take that sort of remark lying down. [Interjections.] The PFP opposes the concept of pensions for councillors, because it believes …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily, but I submit that the hon member’s remark that another hon member has verbal diarrhoea, is unparliamentary.

It is unpleasant at any rate.

He is an unpleasant fellow.

Order! The hon member is correct.

†It is unparliamentary. The hon member must withdraw it.

It is not parliamentary?

Order! Yes, it is not parliamentary.

I shall withdraw it. He suffers from a disease which keeps on making him talk and give vent to remarks which perhaps are not very palatable.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon member refer to another hon member as “an unpleasant fellow”?

Order! That is not parliamentary either. The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

And he is a Whip! [Interjections.]

What I have been trying to say, is that the PFP opposes the concept of this kind of pension. Therefore, if one is to be logical, one cannot support this amendment.

In any case, there are some things which need to be said. In terms of some of the pension schemes we have heard being announced one is able to buy back-service at considerable expense to the ratepayers of many cities. One then receives not only a pension in respect of one’s back-service but also very substantial gratuities which one can then use in order to pay for back-service.

Did you not buy back your provincial pension?

Mr Chairman, I wonder if you would mind, seeing that you want to maintain order in this House, also applying that rule to the “gentleman” who sits on my left? [Interjections.]

In those circumstances the effect of this is that at considerable expense to the ratepayers of many towns in South Africa one will find that the gratuities will be used in order to buy back the pension. There will still be a surplus, so that one will, in fact, receive the pension virtually for nothing. If this is regarded, in these circumstances, as being a satisfactory way of dealing with ratepayers’ money, it certainly is not so in the PFP’s opinion.

If this is not passed, of course then it will have consequences in regard to the deductibility of contributions which are made. It will have consequences in regard to the taxation on the gratuities which are paid. With great respect, the whole issue which arises here is whether it is desirable that municipal councillors should, in fact, be receiving pensions.

The second part of this measure deals with the question of the taxation of insurance companies, and what is interesting is the fact that when the Budget was presented it was quite clear—the hon the Deputy Minister was correct in his assessment as to what the intention was—that it was intended to raise R170 million for the 1988-89 financial year and that this would have the effect of being applied from the years of assessment ended between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989.

The submissions that we make in this regard are the following. Firstly, we believe that the whole question of the taxation of insurance companies has not been finalised. It is a matter which is subject to negotiation, to proper legislation being introduced, and we took the view throughout that insofar as this particular provision was concerned it should not be introduced at this time but rather that it should be held over until such time as the whole issue of the taxation of insurance companies was finalised. The hon the Deputy Minister will be the first one to agree with me that that issue has not been finalised.

All that you have to do, Sir, to see the campaign that is being waged is to look at the documents for instance that were placed on our tables today where large volumes of documents are being prepared by conflicting parties to this whole issue in order on the one hand to have the minimum amount of taxation imposed and on the other hand to have the maximum amount of taxation imposed.

We do not believe that we should now as an interim measure deal with this issue in this form at all. We said so from the beginning; we said so when it was in front of the committee, and we believe that it is wrong to seek now to bring into force an interim measure of taxation rather than to finalise the position of insurance companies and then deal with the matter in totality so that we know exactly where we stand with insurance companies and insurance companies know exactly where they stand. At the moment, nobody knows where they stand.

The question of insurance companies affects literally millions of South Africans who are policyholders or have shares in those companies. These companies’ shares on the Stock Exchange are affected by what is done in this House, as are policy holders in respect of bonuses on insurance policies. One ought not to deal with this matter in a haphazard manner. It should be dealt with in a way which makes the whole issue clear and allows everybody to know where they stand.

Lastly, I wish to make one simple point. If this measure had been dealt with—we have pleaded for this for years—in the joint committees as a matter of course, in the same way as other financial measures are dealt with, this mistake would not have arisen. All that happened in this case was that we had an informal briefing, and those of us who took the trouble to attend were grateful to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. It was not a formal meeting; we did not go through the matter clause by clause and we could not effect any amendments.

I am pleased that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is present, because he knows how strongly I feel that we should deal with taxation measures just as we deal with any other Bill. We should deal with them clause by clause so that this sort of mistake does not arise.

This measure is being introduced solely because of a careless mistake which should not have been made in the first place. If we follow the correct procedures then mistakes of this sort will not happen.

I regret to say that for these reasons we will vote against this measure.

Mr Chairman, I understand one may not use the word, but I am not going have verbal diarrhoea now. I am glad that the hon member for Yeoville has said that no PFP candidate in the city council election is going to accept a pension …

Order! The hon the Minister had better withdraw that word as well.

Sir, I shall withdraw it as regards myself.

I am glad that the hon member for Yeoville has said that no PFP candidate, if he were elected to the city council, would accept the pension or join the pension scheme which, at the moment, has been accepted by most city councils. I am rather surprised at what precisely is going on in the Cape Town City Council, because I do not think it is controlled by the NP. I wonder whether the hon members of the PFP have so little control over their own house that, as far as I can see, they have in fact allowed the Cape Town City Council to accept this amendment. [Interjections.] Selective!

What are we dealing with here? The hon member for Yeoville said he could not agree with the provision on pensions. He associated this with other legislation which has been agreed to. The principle involved here is that when a person contributes to a pension fund, one allows him to deduct this for tax purposes. That is what we have in front of us. The hon member for Yeoville says he is opposed to this. He is opposed to the principle that people may deduct their pension fund contributions for tax purposes.

The hon member must tell everyone that, including the aged in Johannesburg who have already attacked me about pension funds. He must convey the message that he is opposed to pension contributions being deductible. That is what the hon member said. I cannot interpret him in any other way. [Interjections.]

The hon member mentioned the problem of a specific date. Very well, we made a mistake with a date. We should have inserted a date. We did, however, clearly make provision in the budget for an amount from the insurance companies. May I, however, put a question to the hon member? He attacked us on our taxation of insurance companies. He pointed out that he had received a report today which was opposed to the conclusions of the McGregor report. Does the hon member favour the McGregor report or does he favour the new report which appeared today?

Which do you favour? [Interjections.]

No, I am asking the hon member for Yeoville, because I have an idea that he at one stage he favoured the McGregor report.

One should not favour one or the other. It is simply evidence. You know that.

The hon member has now attacked us because we have increased the tax on insurance companies. For quite some time attacks by a certain Mr Leon have appeared in their favourite newspaper, The Star in Johannesburg, pointing out that we are trying to prejudice the pensioners by doing this. The hon member has now started to make precisely the same statements here. Am I right?

You are confused today.

No, we must now have certainty on this matter. I was rather surprised by the hon member’s approach this afternoon.

You are so confused!

I now want to know from the hon member if he would have supported our accepting the Margo recommendations just as the Margo Commission formulated them.

But I did not do so.

I am asking the hon member if he would have supported them. We had problems, and the hon member knows that. I have an idea that he would have supported them.

Now I want to put a further question to him. If an insurance company had suffered a capital loss, would he have considered that a cost which could be deducted if that formula, which the Margo commission recommended, were accepted? The hon member knows that many of the insurance companies own State shares which they carry at a loss. He knows very well that if we had accepted that recommendation, they would have sold those State shares and we would not have got a cent from the insurance companies.

Another recommendation of the Margo commission was no longer to make dividends taxable in the hands of the Receiver. The hon member knows that we would not have got a cent if dividends were no longer regarded as taxable income for insurance companies, and one were to allow them to write off capital losses. It just so happens that he also knows that their costs are far lower than the figure we have allowed them for costs. This means that if, on the other hand, we had not allowed capital losses, insurance companies would have paid even more than they would in terms of the new arrangement.

But what tax do you want for insurance companies?

Order! Are we discussing insurance legislation or pension funds for city councillors?

Mr Chairman, I am merely replying to the hon member, who says that we are now going to tax insurance companies more heavily. That is propaganda which they are using, I almost want to say in the rural areas, but they are also using it in Johannesburg.

Mr Chairman, I want to sum up. We made a mistake with the date. We are rectifying that. Secondly, we have a principle regarding pensions which applies to everyone. In other words, if one makes a contribution to a pension fund, one is entitled to deduct it from taxable income.

Mr Chairman, I move:

You are supporting corruption.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The hon member for Camperdown said that we were supporting corruption. That, I submit, is unparliamentary.

Order! Did the hon member for Camperdown say that the other side of the House was supporting corruption?

Not this side, Mr Chairman. I said that I did not …

Order! Did the hon member mention that any hon member on the other side of the House supported corruption?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Order!

The hon member must please withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “corruption”, but there was a lot of maladministration.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown must withdraw the words unconditionally.

I withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, I will now proceed to read out the report so that it can be recorded in Hansard.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We on this side of the House are opposed to the report being read out for the purposes of its being recorded.

Order! I want to put it to the hon member for Lenasia Central that he has no grounds for objecting. If the hon member wishes to make a statement, he may do so.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House believe that this report is politically biased, prejudiced and subjective. In view of this, we on this side of the House want to place on record our opposition to and contempt for the report, and therefore we shall withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

I shall now read the report:

1. 1.1 Your Committee, consisting of Messrs E Abramjee, MP, M Y Baig, MP, J V Iyman, MP, A E Lambat, MP, R S Nowbath, MP, P T Poovalingam, MP and M Thaver, MP (Chairman), was appointed by the House of Delegates on 25 June 1988, to inquire into and report not later than 29 August 1988 upon:
2. 1.2
   1. (1) the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates of the property known as Odeon Cinema; and
   2. (2) all the allegations of maladministration, corruption and bribery relating to the alienation, acquisition and leasing of property, including the allocation of business sites and premises, the awarding of contracts involving State funds and all matters incidental thereto, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.
3. 2. Your Committee held its first meeting on 14 June 1988 and thereafter held 33 meetings, the final meeting being held on 19 August 1988. All the meetings had to be held on parliamentary premises in Cape Town.
4. 3.1 Your Committee was put in possession, on 29 June 1988, of extremely alarming evidence, which indicated that against the decision of a Committee of the Allocations Committee of the former Department of Community Development, as well as of a Committee set up after 1984, and against the opinions of senior officials of the Department of Local Government and Housing, who had fully investigated the matters, as well as contrary to the views of the previous Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, Mr B Dookie, Mr A Rajbansi had directed that extremely valuable petrol service station sites be allocated to six persons, namely:
5. 3.2 Irene Patricia Hoover, the wife of Mr Tony Adams;
6. 3.3 Jivan Seebran;
7. 3.4 R Ramburan;
8. 3.5 K Krishna;
9. 3.6 C Ramlall; and
10. 3.7 P Imrith.
11. 4.1 The prices to be paid by the said persons are somewhat lower than the actual cost to the State, whereas the possible market value in each case is considerably higher.
12. 4.2 The evidence indicated that it was, among other things because Mr Dookie was not prepared to accede to Mr Rajbansi’s wishes in respect of these matters that he was removed from the post of Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Mr Dookie himself was not prepared to authorise allocations to the said six applicants without proof that they were in fact persons displaced by acquisition or expropriation of their or their parents’ similar businesses in former Indian group areas, which had been proclaimed for Whites in terms of the Group Areas Act, and were entitled to be resettled according to established norms that had previously been set down and consistently applied by the Department. In order to remove an obstacle to his own plans, Mr Rajbansi by deceit arranged for Mr Dookie to be removed from the Housing portfolio.
13. 4.3 From the evidence it appeared to your Committee that prima facie the award of such potentially valuable properties to the persons mentioned warranted further detailed scrutiny by it and that, pending the submission of this report, the alienation of the properties involved from State ownership to private persons be suspended. Such a course would involve only marginal inconvenience to the persons concerned while preventing possible irreparable harm being done to the State and also the possible perpetration of serious injustice to others better qualified to receive the benefit. In this report, any asset vesting in any organ of State is regarded as an asset of the State.
14. 5.1 Accordingly, on 29 June 1988, your Committee submitted its first interim report. (See Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p W 54.)
    Your Committee was satisfied that this report would reach the Minister of Housing and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr A Rajbansi. In any event this interim report was widely reported over the radio and television services as well as in all the major newspapers.
15. 5.2 It does not appear that this report received formal consideration by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates. Your Committee has reason to believe that a majority in the Ministers’ Council, as well as the only Deputy Minister, may well have supported its recommendation. At your Committee’s request its Chairman wrote a letter to the State President (See Appendices [A] and [B].)
16. 5.3 According to the evidence, as soon as the officials involved in these transactions became aware of the recommendation of your Committee, they took due cognisance, construing it an order, and in the case of proposed alienation of a very valuable property to Jivan Seebran they took the necessary steps to suspend such alienation.
17. 5.4 When your Committee was informed of this, it was pleased, especially because of its suspicion—which was later found to be amply justified—that, as in the case of another person, the transaction in respect of Mr Seebran was palpably a fraudulent claim made in collusion with, and certainly with the connivance of, Mr Rajbansi. Despite Mr Rajbansi’s apparent conspiracy with Mr Seebran to commit fraud upon the State, your Committee felt that he would not go so far as to insist that the fraud be perfected by actual alienation.
18. 5.5 Your Committee later learned, to its utter consternation, that Mr Rajbansi had ignored its recommendation and had instructed the State officials to proceed immediately with the alienation of the property to a close corporation named J K R Sanphull C C, which had never been an applicant for any property of the State.
19. 5.6 Your Committee has been advised that this particular transaction has been interdicted by the Supreme Court. However, that provides no satisfactory remedy since, if the litigants reach agreement among themselves, they may seek and obtain the discharge of the interdict.
20. 5.7 The State President has the power to take the necessary steps to prevent the perfection of fraud against the State. As will appear below, the damage in respect of one of the properties referred to in par 5.1 has already been done by grace of Mr A Rajbansi, but in respect of the remaining five, it is respectfully recommended that the House enact the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency. It will thereafter be the sole responsibility of the State President as to whether or not he will assent thereto and have the same promulgated, in order to prevent further fraud.
21. 5.8 The matter of the six petrol service station sites are dealt with hereinafter.
22. 6. Because the terms of reference of your Committee were essentially in two parts, it was decided to deal first with the matter of the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema and since that matter stood out separately from its other work, a second interim report was adopted thereon on 17 August 1988. (See Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p W 61.)
23. 7.1 Several matters relating to its terms of reference were considered by your Committee.
24. 7.2 In its Second Interim Report, your Committee stated that, after respectful consideration, it was unable to accept a recommendation which, if accepted, would effectively have meant the termination or at least the suspension—possibly for many months—of its enquiry even before it had made any real progress. In any event, your Committee has been instructed by the House to complete its enquiries and to submit its Report no later than 29 August 1988.
25. 7.3 In the course of your Committee’s enquiry, evidence was placed before it of examples of very serious maladministration, amounting to disgraceful conduct on the part of Mr Rajbansi.
26. 7.4 It came to your Committee’s knowledge that within a very short time after that evidence was led before your Committee, Mr Rajbansi became aware thereof. Your Committee is completely satisfied that the secretariat maintain impeccable integrity and that they could not possibly be the source.
27. 7.5 Shortly thereafter it was suggested to your Committee from usually well-respected quarters that matters affecting either State officials or other staff or contracts entered into by the Administration: House of Delegates, were beyond the terms of reference of your Committee. Whilst appreciating the advice, your Committee was however satisfied that, as it interpreted its terms of reference, it was also entitled to consider evidence relating to any contract entered into by any Department of the Administration: House of Delegates which involved State funds. Because of the deadline imposed upon your Committee, it was not able to enquire fully into many matters, especially those relating to staff matters and to the acquisition of land for school purposes and the awarding of contracts for the construction of schools. These may receive consideration by the James Commission if its attention is drawn to them, or the House may take other or additional steps in this connection. Your Committee accordingly recommends that a copy of the unrevised evidence given before it be made available to the James Commission. Your Committee will report meanwhile on those matters that have been mentioned in evidence before it.
28. 8.1 Insofar as the petrol service station sites are concerned, it must at once be stated that save and except that the Chairman of the Minister’s Council wanted to exercise direct and personal control over them, there was no justification whatsoever for the purchase by the Administration: House of Delegates of any land earmarked as a trading site, whether for supermarkets, other stores, or petrol service stations.
29. 8.2 Save for those under the control of the former Department of Community Development, the trading sites were in the ownership and possession of the respective local authorities. The former in due course came under the control of the Administration: House of Delegates. In Durban the extraordinary and totally unnecessary arrangement was that the Administration: House of Delegates purchased property, took registration of transfer, held it as idle assets while negotiating to resell, and thereafter resold it with the intention (carried out quite improperly in the Hoover case to which reference is made later) of passing registration of transfer to the allottee.
30. 8.3 Granted that—in proper cases—priority was necessarily given to bona fide “resettlement cases”, all that was necessary then was for the Minister of Housing and/or the Housing Development Board—whose consent is apparently required before transfer to the allottee can be registered—to be satisfied when granting such consent that the transferee was a bona fide case of resettlement.
31. 8.4 There was no cause for this wholly unnecessary and cumbersome procedure adopted at considerable cost to the taxpayer. That the motive was nefarious is suggested by the consideration that were the simpler, direct and less costly procedure to be followed, an independent authority may well have discovered malfeasance committed in the Administration: House of Delegates, whether by an official or a Minister. Thus was eliminated the possibility of a check against abuse.
32. 8.5 Mr Rajbansi’s conduct suggests that this was his intention. This was done at cost to the taxpayer. For example, Mr A Rajbansi instructed that a property in the town centre of Chatsworth, which is situated in a most advantageous position for a service station site, be allocated to his own friend and business associate for the actual purchase price of R400 000, plus R1 000 “handling charges”. All the loss of interest on the R400 000 paid to the Durban City Council, the costs of transfer, as well as municipal rates paid and payable, were intended on Mr Rajbansi’s instructions to be borne by the taxpayer. This also applies to the actual “handling costs”, which surely by far exceed R1 000. Even if Mr Rajbansi’s friend were a bona fide resettlement case, it is hardly proper to saddle the taxpayer with such costs when the intended transferee is quite welloff financially. In this case Mr Rajbansi’s specific instructions inevitably assume a sinister aspect.
33. 8.6 When the two so-called Checkers Supermarket sites in Chatsworth and Phoenix, respectively, with all the unsatisfactory features connected therewith, are also taken into account, the question arises as to why the sum of R6 977 650, which was urgently needed for housing the homeless, was redirected primarily to enrich a few. At the very least, gross maladministration was committed. The suggestion of a serious misuse of public funds for private gain is inescapable. All the evidence points to culpability at the least and indirect complicity at worst on the part of Mr A Rajbansi.

Petrol Service Station Sites

1. 9. Over a period of more than 20 years, many persons submitted applications for the allocation of petrol service station sites and 45 of these remained to be dealt with. Many of the applicants contended that they and/or their parents had been the owners of petrol service station businesses in former Indian group areas, and that their or their ancestral properties had been acquired by the Community Development Board.
2. 10. There is not an abundance of such sites, since town planners have an obligation to keep possible traffic congestion very much in mind in zoning land for such purposes. There is also a limit as to the number of fuel outlets.
3. 11. When land is zoned for a petrol service station, there is—as was confirmed by the representative of a large petroleum company—keen competition to secure the dealership concerned. Petrol companies usually provide not only all the expert help necessary, but also all or most of the funds required to pay for the land, erect the requisite structures, install all reservoirs, pumps and equipment necessary to establish the business.
4. 12. It is not to be wondered at therefore that there is a very great demand for such sites, and the better the location, the greater the eagerness therefor. The relative scarcity of such sites as compared to ordinary trading sites (liquor store premises fall into a category of their own) and the readiness of the resources and facilities add to the demand. Such sites are consequently very valuable, as is exemplified by the fact that at a time when Mr Rajbansi was not in a position to dictate to the Durban City Council and it offered a petrol service station site in Phoenix for sale by public auction, the price fetched was R1,9 million. Even if this was a “flash in the pan”—which Mr Rajbansi suggested it was—your Committee has reason to believe that the price obtainable on the open market for the property allocated under the direction of Mr Rajbansi to his friend, Mr Seebran, for R401 000 would exceed R1 million.
5. 13. Allocations at true cost to genuine resettlement cases can be justified, although your Committee is of the view that where a person obtains a business-generating site considerably superior to that which is being replaced (with ready-made high volume turnover in high-density townships) a case can be made out for close to market-related prices being required and any surplus being utilised in the real task of providing houses for the poor and the needy. However, there is not the slightest reason why other entrepreneurs, if public auction is to be avoided, should not pay the full market price by competitive tender.
6. 14. The evidence disclosed that after the most exhaustive investigations and careful analysis, the officials and the Allocations Committee of the former Department of Community Development came to the conclusion that the claims of all but three of the 45 alleged displaced persons were spurious. The only ones that merited consideration were those of Messrs V M Naicker, P Imrith and H R Shaikh.
7. 15. While he was Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, Mr B Dookie followed the findings of the officials, and refused to obey Mr Rajbansi’s instructions that petrol service station sites be granted to Mrs I P Hoover, Mr J Seebran and the other persons arbitrarily selected by Mr Rajbansi.
8. 16. Mr Rajbansi thereupon, and without consulting Mr Dookie or seeking his concurrence, set up a new Allocations Committee in order, as he put it, to depoliticise the petrol service station sites. The functioning of that Committee was deliberately kept away from Mr Dookie and when he, the Minister in charge of the portfolio at the time, on becoming aware of what was being done behind his back, sought an interview with the so-called Allocations Committee, that request was not acceded to. Mr Rajbansi’s conduct in this episode is understandable, even if reprehensible, for he obviously had the aggrandisement of his friends in mind.
9. 17. In the event, according to the evidence, the Allocations Committee was itself bypassed and under Mr Rajbansi’s instructions, given after he became Minister of Housing in Mr Dookie’s place, the allocations to the persons named in paragraphs 3.2-3.7 were submitted to the Housing Development Board for approval. This Board, then under the Chairmanship of Mr W J v d M Marais was, it is clear from the evidence, deliberately and intentionally misled and deceived into believing that all six the applicants were genuine cases for resettlement in terms of the established norms. Only those submissions which had been rewritten to comply with Mr Rajbansi’s instructions were made available to the Housing Development Board. The results of all the earlier investigations and reports which contradicted the claims of the applicants concerned were deliberately suppressed from the Board.
10. 18.1 There is little doubt that the charade was played so that the Housing Development Board and its highly-respected Chairman could be used as a shield, or rather a front, and everything was carefully manipulated by Mr Rajbansi so that the respectability of the Board would provide a cover for his own machinations.
11. 18.2 Mr Marais did discover, in another transaction, that Mr Rajbansi tried to use him by deceitful deviousness. Your Committee was not surprised to learn that Mr Marais decided not to remain in that post. Mr Marais himself struck your Committee as an able and honest man who is extremely reluctant to say anything harsh about someone else. However, another witness, a respected senior public servant, spontaneously remarked that it was no wonder that Mr Marais retired from the post. It is necessary to record this sad, if sordid fact, since it throws considerable light upon the manner in which Mr Rajbansi tried to command into submission and implicit obedience not only several of his own Ministerial colleagues, but also senior civil servants, some with more than 30 years in public service. It was most disconcerting to your Committee to be told by a succession of senior civil servants that they had to obey Mr Rajbansi’s instructions although they knew that the things they were instructed to do against their better judgment were wrong and improper. They were obliged to obey Mr Rajbansi’s instructions.
12. 19. That the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a domineering personality is evident, but it is also clear that Mr Rajbansi wielded with a heavy hand the considerable power held by him. The fact that Mr Rajbansi was apparently able to use his position to get his own way on important matters obviously weighed with the civil servants in the same manner as it weighed with most of Mr Rajbansi’s Ministerial colleagues.
13. 20.1 Another factor of significance, which may well have contributed to senior civil servants who are White avoiding problems with Mr Rajbansi was inadvertently revealed by himself.
14. 20.2 On 8 August 1988, Mr Rajbansi told your Committee that he had had problems with the “anti-Indian attitudes” of senior White officials, using the plural and conveying clearly that more than one senior White official was an anti-Indian.
15. 20.3 On 11 August 1988, when pressed for the names of the alleged anti-Indian White officials, Mr Rajbansi named only one. He strongly denied that he had used the plural in his previous testimony, but later agreed that the word “officials” had been used.
16. 21. The White official Mr Rajbansi named is a Chief Director who had to follow Mr Rajbansi’s instructions against his own better judgment and who under oath made a clean breast of the facts to your Committee. Until then, Mr Rajbansi had not complained to any responsible person that the official was anti-Indian. However, as soon as Mr Rajbansi discovered that the evidence of the Chief Director concerned had the effect of exposing his questionable conduct, he endeavoured to denigrate that man (and his evidence) by the vulgar employment of the lowest form of racist calumny. Mr B Dookie, who worked closely on a daily basis with that White official for over three years, rejected the allegation of anti-Indian attitudes by that official. Your Committee has had the opportunity of observing that official during testimony over many hours and if he is antiIndian, then his prejudices are extremely well-hidden.
17. 22. Your Committee has no doubt that Mr Rajbansi knowingly attempted to mislead it on this issue; and his motives are obvious. It is equally clear that in the present political climate in the country, no White civil servant will dare run the risk of being labelled “antiIndian” by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is a form of intimidation that is symptomatic of the tyranny imposed upon staff which is dealt with later in this report.
18. 23. Your Committee wishes to deal singly with several petrol service station sites.

Irene Patricia Hoover

1. 23.1 On 27 May 1983, Mr Rajbansi, who was then the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the now defunct S A Indian Council and as such effectively in charge thereof, being the political head, in his own handwriting wrote out an application (by completing the prescribed form) for and on behalf of Irene Patricia Hoover. In that application it was claimed: That the Department of Community Development had acquired property at 9 Andruth Road in Cato Manor from Mrs I P Hoover; that she was married in community of property (her husband’s name was not disclosed); that she had an income of R1 000 and was possessed of assets to the value of R105 000 and that she sought a petrol service station site in either Chatsworth or Phoenix.
2. 23.2 No mention was made of the fact that Irene Patricia Hoover was as at 27 May 1983 the legal wife of a Mr Tony Adams with whom she cohabited in a common household. That this was not a careless omission becomes clear when regard is had to the following:
3. 23.2.1 Mr Tony Adams had previously sought and had been granted a petrol service station site in partnership with a Mr Ameer.
4. 23.2.2 Mr Tony Adams had provisionally been allocated another petrol service station site, which he had agreed may be passed on to one Rugnath in consideration of the payment to him of a sum of R90 000 by Rugnath, which condition had been stipulated by a petroleum company in favour of Mr Adams.
5. 23.2.3 Mr Tony Adams has for many years prior to 1983 been a close friend of Mr Rajbansi’s. Indeed, Mr Ron Sandalls, of a large petroleum company, volunteered the information that Mr Tony Adams had claimed to Mr Sandalls that he, Mr Adams, acted as a bodyguard for Mr Rajbansi.
6. 23.3 When regard is had to these factors, the omissions acquire significance and indicate a deliberate intention of concealment.
7. 23.4.1 The evidence shows that Mrs Irene Patricia Adams (born Hoover) never owned any property in Cato Manor and no property of hers was ever acquired by the Department of Community Development, and that her claim thereto (as written by Mr Rajbansi) was quite false.
8. 23.4.2 Mr Rajbansi’s explanation is that he acted as an “ombudsman” and simply wrote down the information given to him. Quite apart from the fact that no ombudsman with the slightest integrity should have acted as Mr Rajbansi did—considering that he was Executive Chairman of the SAIC and that there were numerous other contenders for trading sites—your Committee rejects as intentionally false the claim by Mr Rajbansi that his involvement was one of impartial disinterest.
9. 23.4.3 From the evidence it is clear to your Committee that:
10. 23.4.3.1 Mrs Adam’s father during 1944 acquired a small dwelling house from the Durban City Council at a subsidised price in terms of the provisions of the Housing Act for an amount of £505 4s 2d (R1 010,42).
11. 23.4.3.2 The property was zoned for residential purposes only, and in terms of the conditions of title, use for any business purposes was expressly prohibited.
12. 23.4.3.3 No business of any kind was conducted upon the property nor was any evidence in support of the claim thereto produced. However, Mr Hoover did apparently own an omnibus which he possibly may have parked overnight upon or outside the property.
13. 23.4.3.4 There is no evidence that there was any application to the Durban City Council for non-conforming use of the relevant land; nor was there any evidence of any application either to Court or to the Administrator of Natal for the removal of the restrictive condition in the title deeds which prohibited the conduct of business on the land.
14. 23.5 There is not the slightest doubt that the claim that a motor garage and petrol service station business was conducted upon the relevant land was knowingly false.
15. 23.6 It is unquestionably clear that neither Irene Patricia Hoover nor any other children of the late Walter Hoover was a “displaced person” entitled to a trading site, let alone a petrol service station site, and it is abundantly clear that had Mr Rajbansi taken the trouble to consult the voluminous documents and notes assembled between 1983 and 1987 by the permanent officials—who remained unimpressed by the spurious assertions made by or on behalf of Mrs I P Hoover—this Minister would have been left in no doubt as to the falsity of the claim. Your Committee is satisfied that his failure in this respect was not due to negligence, and that he knew of the fraud.
16. 23.7 From the evidence it is obvious that, having made the application for and on behalf of the wife of his close friend, Mr Rajbansi was determined, once he acquired the power, directly to influence and latterly to impose the decision in her favour. He did so by giving instructions thereto after he had got rid of Mr Dookie. There is no doubt that a fraud was committed and that Mr Rajbansi aided and abetted the endeavours and finally was directly responsible for the fraud succeeding.
17. 24.1 Evidence shows that the deed of sale with Mrs I P Hoover was signed on 9 March 1988 and that with Mr J Seebran on 9 December 1987. Mr M Rajab, MP, put a question to the Minister of Housing in the House of Delegates regarding details of petrol service station sites, whether any allocations had been made, details thereof, including persons to whom allocated, the prices applicable, etc.
18. 24.2.1 Following normal departmental procedures, the officials prepared a draft reply which was submitted to the Minister of Housing, Mr Rajbansi. This draft showed that deeds of sale had actually been entered into between the Administration: House of Delegates and Irene Patricia Hoover in respect of a property in Phoenix, and Jivan Seebran in respect of a property in Chatsworth, also showing prices payable.
19. 24.2.2 Mr Rajbansi deleted the most important sections of the information which showed that a petrol service station site in Phoenix had been sold to Mrs M L S Hoover for R221 000 and that a site in Chatsworth had been sold to Mr J Seebran for R401 000. Deleting very important information, Mr Rajbansi in his own handwritin g substituted the words “None. Some are being finalised.” It is quite clear that Mr Rajbansi intended to conceal important information and that he intentionally misled the House. (See Annexure [C] for the questions asked, the draft replies pre-’ pared by the officials and the alterations thereto made by Mr Rajbansi.)
20. 24.3 It transpires from the evidence that at the very time Mr Rajbansi was telling this deliberate falsehood to Parliament, the alienation of land was actually taking place. It is obvious that the false statement was designed to prevent any steps being taken to stop the same.
21. 24.4 During December 1987 Mr Rajbansi gave instructions that instead of the property in Phoenix being transferred to Mrs I P Hoover (to whom he had previously caused it to be allocated), the sale should be concluded with Mrs M L S Hoover, the mother of Mrs I P Hoover. At that stage there had never been any application by Mrs M L S Hoover. Nor was there ever any application by the company to which the alienation did eventually take place, namely Fairchance Service Station (Pty) Ltd. It is obvious that Mr Rajbansi took this arbitrary decision because he knew that Mrs I P Hoover never owned land in Cato Manor.
22. 24.5 Your Committee is satisfied that the contention that an application by Mrs I P Hoover was made prior to 27 May 1983 is false. Had there been one, there just had to be some documentary evidence, if only of correspondence. Even if the departmental file were “lost”, the applicant would in the normal course of events have kept some document relating to such earlier application. None such was produced.
23. 24.6 It is recommended that the entire transaction be referred to the Attorney-General; and also that the State Attorney give consideration to steps to claim restitution to the State of property acquired from it by fraudulent misrepresentation and in respect of damages that may have been suffered.
24. 24.7 Your Committee has dealt in some detail with the case of Hoover in view of the fact that alienation has already taken place.

Jivan Seebran

1. 25.1 Mr Jivan Seebran is the youngest son of the late Mr Basanth Seebran, who died in 1982.
2. 25.2 In March 1970 the late Mr Basanth Seebran applied to the Department of Community Development, stating that he was a former bus owner whose business had fallen away after Cato Manor was proclaimed a group area for Whites. On this application there is no claim of any partnership with Mr Paraw Seebran or that Mr Basanth Seebran ever had any interest in any pertrol service station. Mr Basanth Seebran requested a stall in the Chatsworth market to enable himself to be resettled. Later, he sought instead shop premises in the Moorton Shopping Centre. A shop was allocated to him and he and his sons established an apparently successful motor spares business therein. The business is now in the ownership of a company in which Mr Jivan Seebran is the majority shareholder and is also apparently the controlling Director.
3. 25.3 It would seem that Mr Basanth Seebran’s entitlement to resettlement had been met. But his son, Mr Jivan Seebran, and his friend, Mr Rajbansi, evidently did not think so.
4. 25.4 On 27 June 1983, the then Chairman of the Executive Committee of the SA Indian Council. Mr Rajbansi, personally wrote out an application in terms of which Mr Jivan Seebran claimed that the Department of Community Development had acquired from his late father Mr Basanth Seebran a considerable number of properties, amplified by letter as including residential lots and business premises upon which had been conducted three different petrol service stations at different addresses, a general dealer’s store, a factory, a butchery and so on. All these assets, Mr Rajbansi contended, had been part of the so-called “Seebran Empire” owned and conducted in partnership by the late Mr Basanth Seebran and his four brothers, all the assets being held in the name of the eldest brother, Mr Paraw Seebran.
5. 25.5 For some four years, notwithstanding pressure from Mr Rajbansi after he became Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the officials remained completely unimpressed by the claims of Mr Jivan Seebran. The officials finally capitulated only when instructed to do so by Mr Rajbansi after he had got the unco-operative Mr Dookie out of the way, and took over control of this crucial Department. The officials pointed out in evidence that in the final analysis the Minister of Housing, in this case Mr Rajbansi, had the power and his instructions just had to be obeyed.
6. 25.6 Because a dispute between Mr Jivan Seebran and Mr Paraw Seebran is the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court, your Committee has had to caution itself in terms of the provisions of Rule 95.
7. 25.7 Accordingly, your Committee had to restrict its report in this aspect to Mr Jivan Seebran’s dealings with Mr Rajbansi and the Administration: House of Delegates by noting that a careful examination of all the written representations and the oral evidence has satisfied your Committee that there is no substance whatever in Mr Jivan Seebran’s claim to be entitled to resettlement.
8. 25.8 There was evidence that Mr Jivan Seebran, who is a well-educated, articulate, obviously highly intelligent person with considerable knowledge and experience of accounting, had been Mr Rajbansi’s bookkeeper. However, this was denied by Mr Jivan Seebran, who initially also showed reluctance to admitting a relationship of personal friendship with Mr Rajbansi. Mr Rajbansi did not deny such friendship after he was informed that another witness had testified that Mr Rajbansi often visited Mr J Seebran at the latter’s butcher shop, about which more later. What is of significance however is that Mr Rajbansi not only wrote Mr J Seebran’s initial application in 1983, but assiduously nursed it along throughout the past five years.
9. 25.8.1 Mr Rajbansi also pressed the claim of Mr J Seebran to Mr Marais, then Chairman of the Housing Development Board. As Mr Marais put it in evidence, Mr Rajbansi gave him a lecture on Indian culture and tradition, stating that all assets in a family after the father’s death were held for all the sons in the name of the eldest son. Coming from a Cabinet Minister who purportedly represented his community, this conveniently-manufactured “tradition” impressed Mr Marais, who obviously did not realise that he was, in common parlance, being “taken for a ride”. Mr Rajbansi evidently forgot that in South Africa, if a person dies testate, his will clearly sets out the succession. If he dies intestate the Master of the Supreme Court sees to it that all legitimate issues of the deceased receive transfer of immovable property or the proceeds thereof. Mr Rajbansi evidently also overlooked the fact that his own favoured candidate was the youngest son of Basanth. Indeed Basanth’s eldest son, Mr Mudanjeeth Seebran, denied the truth of all the contentions put forward by Mr Jivan Seebran and Mr Rajbansi.
10. 25.8.2 Mr Rajbansi insisted, and by exercising his powers directed, that a very valuable property in the Chatsworth Town Centre, which had been acquired for R400 000 from the Durban Corporation (and which would probably realise over R1 000 000 on the open market), be awarded to his friend Mr Jivan Seebran at considerably less than cost price, since the R1 000 added to the price would not even begin to cover the costs of transfer from the Durban Corporation to the Administration: House of Delegates, the costs of holding the property—ie interest paid/lost on the capital outlay between payment to the Durban Corporation and receipt of payment from the eventual transferee—and rates paid. If Mr Rajbansi’s purposes are permitted to be served, the overburdened taxpayer, including the very poor as they also pay GST, would be mulcted for the benefit of a well-to-do businessman who happens to be a friend of Mr Rajbansi.
11. 25.8.3 So impatient was Mr Rajbansi to convert this scandalous transaction into a fait accompli before the House could receive this report that he instructed the officials to proceed at once with the interrupted transfer.
12. 25.8.4 Mr Rajbansi played a prominent, indeed the dominant role, in this attempted fraud, and this matter also needs to be referred to the Attorney-General. Your Committee is satisfied that Mr Rajbansi’s pretence that he was doing a public duty as an “ombudsman” is in this case quite dishonest and amounts to blatant hypocrisy.

P Imrith

1. 26.1 In this case, the evidence is that there were two family components in a company called Suburban Garages (Pty) Ltd, which company did previously own and operate a petrol service station in Cato Manor and was a genuine displaced person. For convenience the components are referred to as Juggernauth and Imrith respectively.
2. 26.2 As a consequence of group areas being established, the business of the company had to be sold, the company went into the doldrums and thereafter ceased to exist. There is no record of how or to whom the assets of the company, which logically must have included the sale price of the company’s assets, including the goodwill of its business, which presumably was worth some money, were distributed. It must be assumed that these were shared between the two components.
3. 26.3 The first houses in Chatsworth were constructed in 1963 and by 1964 a substantial number had been occupied. Therefore it is not quite clear as to why the company or its beneficial owners delayed for a considerable time to seek resettlement. The only reasonable explanation is that the company continued to trade profitably until then.
4. 26.4 Anyhow, the Juggernauth and the Imrith families made what really amounted to competing claims. The company having folded, and Imrith having died, the Juggernauths claimed that they were entitled to resettlement as the so-called “living heirs”. The Imriths disputed this, contending that inasmuch as the “living heirs” had a claim, so too did the heirs of the deceased Imrith.
5. 26.5 The rather extraordinary result of all the wrangling, in which the Juggernauths were legally represented, was the legally bizarre decision of the former Department of Community Development to grant a petrol service station site in Chatsworth to the Juggernauth family, leaving the Imriths out in the cold, thus doing them serious injustice.
6. 26.6 It appears that neither at common law nor under any statute could the Imriths have sought relief from the courts. A present senior official in the Department of Local Government and Housing in the Administration: House of Delegates, and formerly of the Department of Community Development, told your Committee that the Allocations Committee of the Department of Community Development decided to keep in mind the claim of the Imriths. This sounded rather like the old trick of dividing a pound note into two by separating it in the middle!
7. 26.7 A witness named Mr Shan Maharaj who, as far as your Committee is aware, could have had no knowledge of what the witness referred to in par 26.6 told your Committee, appeared at his own request before your Committee and gave a far more sinister explanation. Your Committee is necessarily very wary of the contents of Mr Maharaj’s sworn statement. Quite apart from the confession he makes therein regarding himself, he represents himself to be an accomplice in the commission of what are clearly illegal acts. Furthermore, it would appear from his own statement that he has some reason for personal vindictiveness against Mr Rajbansi. Your Committee has to caution itself against placing undue reliance on his statement. (See Appendix [D].) It is necessary to mention here that this witness claims that in his presence Mr Rajbansi, then a member of the SA Indian Council, arranged with a Mr Du Plessis of the Department of Community Development, in return for a consideration, to ensure that the Juggernauths were favoured over the Imriths. If this is true, and your Committee’s caveat should be heeded, then the other officials could also have been misled. This aspect also requires the attention of the AttorneyGeneral.
8. 26.8 Mr P Imrith told your Committee that he appreciated the unwisdom of awarding sites on a two-for-one basis, but that since his family component had been unjustly bypassed, they were now morally entitled to a site. He said that all the heirs of the deceased Imrith would benefit. Had the Department of Community Development done the proper thing and either awarded the Chatsworth site to Suburban Garages (Pty) Ltd or required all its former shareholders to form a new company to receive the site, he said, this problem would not have arisen.
9. 26.9 The problem was essentially created either by the illicit machinations testified to by Mr Shan Maharaj or by a simple error of judgment. Whichever occurred, an injustice appears to have been done to the Imriths and if this is so, then redress is necessary.
10. 26.10 However, this is a matter for further detailed investigation by the Housing Development Board, which should also give consideration to whether the price should in all the circumstances be subsidised at cost, which means the real or marketrelated cost.

K Krishna

1. 27.1 Mr K Krishna claimed that his father-in-law, the late Sewbujjan, had owned property in St Augustine Road, Escombe, upon which inter alia a petrol service station site stood.
2. 27.2 Whereas the Allocations Committee of the Department of Community Development and the officials of the Administration: House of Delegates were not satisfied that a petrol service station had indeed operated in St Augustine Road, this was also one of the six applications propelled into priority at the insistence of Mr Rajbansi. Your Committee considers that the frauds in at least three other applications pushed forward by Mr Rajbansi, should not automatically prejudice Mr Krishna.
3. 27.3 Accordingly, it is suggested that this matter is also one that the Housing Development Board should cause to be fully investigated. If there had been a viable petrol service station business upon the property, and since Mr Krishna appears to have retained some old records, this should be capable of being established by documentary evidence including income tax returns and the liquidation accounts of the estate of the late Sewbujjan, the Board will no doubt take account thereof.
4. 27.4 Furthermore, since Escombe was predominantly under White occupation prior to the implementation of the group areas legislation there, the likelihood of the business, if it existed, having to be closed down would appear to be remote. In any event there ought to be some residual evidence such as the place where storage tanks existed, the recollections of older persons in the neighbourhood and so on.
5. 27.5 This is another case which requires the fullest further investigation by or at the instance of the Housing Development Board.

C B Ramlall

1. 28.1 Mr C B Ramlall is an apparently well-organised and an articulate, colourful personality, who has well-kept records confined unfortunately mainly to his application, but not to the basis upon which his claim is made.
2. 28.2 In short, his claim is that his late father, Mr B Ramlall, was the owner of a large tract of agricultural land in what was previously known as Cavendish, upon which he also operated a box-making factory, a general dealer’s store, a butchery, and a petrol service station.
3. 28.3.1 A box-making factory could have been re-established comfortably in the Chatsworth industrial area. There does not appear to have been any attempt to do this.
4. 28.3.2 Mr C B Ramlall also did not seek to re-establish a general dealer’s business or a butcher shop.
5. 28.3.3 According to Mr Ramlall’s evidence, he knew precisely what he wanted, a petrol service station site and nothing else.
6. 28.4 However, while he pursued this goal, Mr C B Ramlall did not remain idle. He applied to the Transportation Board and the National Transport Commission and was granted several motor carrier permits, for which competition was fierce. He sought and received special consideration because his father’s properties had to make way for the Chatsworth township. Mr Ramlall told your Committee that his bus business operated reasonably profitably and that in due course he sold his bus business at a fair profit to himself.
7. 28.5 None of the aforegoing should detract from Mr C B Ramlall’s claim to a petrol service station site if in fact his late father owned and operated one on the farm in Cavendish. But did he?
8. 28.6 Over a period of many years and despite persistent pleas by Mr C B Ramlall, the Allocations Committee of the Department of Community Development and the officials of the Administration: House of Delegates were unimpressed.
9. 28.7 According to Mr C B Ramlall, his father’s petrol service station consisted of an oldstyle “bottle-type” handpump from which fuel was used to supply his father’s own trucks and for driving the box factory’s machinery. Neighbouring farmers, claimed Mr Ramlall, also puchased fuel from this service station.
10. 28.8 Your Committee is not impressed by Mr C B Ramlall’s claim, which is rather a tenuous one, but is not prepared to declare it bogus. In this case also, the application should not be tainted simply because it was improperly propelled to the fore by Mr Rajbansi. The Housing Development Board should cause this matter to be fully investigated.
11. 28.9 In the investigations regard should be had to the following:
12. 28.9.1 The elder Mr Ramlall’s properties were apparently sold by private negotiation to the Durban City Council.
13. 28.9.2 In all cases where the Durban City Council expropriated land for housing, whether in Cavendish, Welbedacht or elsewhere, there was access to a fair and impartial Arbitration Board, in direct contrast to the travesties that masqueraded as Arbitration Courts, established by the Minister of Community Development, the same Minister who applied and administered the hated group areas legislation. Thus a fair price was presumably obtained by Mr Ramlall for the land by negotiation with the Durban City Council.
14. 28.9.3 Furthermore, there would have been compensation paid to the owners or the lessees of the several businesses on the land arising out of the loss thereof consequent upon the acquisition of the properties for housing purposes. Again, in contrast, the Department of Community Development was notorious for its failure or refusal to pay compensation when owners of businesses became “affected persons” in terms of the group areas legislation.

R Ramburan

1. 29.1 Mr R Ramburan’s claim for a petrol service station site rested on the rather thin ground that a small portion, some 168 square metres of his father’s property, had been expropriated by the Natal Roads Department and that on this very small piece of land his father’s petrol service station business stood.
2. 29.2 The officials had painstakingly put together a great deal of documentary and other evidence which demonstrably established that Mr Ramburan’s claim held no substance.
3. 29.3 Mr R Ramburan’s claim was not recommended by the Allocations Committee and there the matter lay until the officials were instructed by Mr Rajbansi to give high priority to this very unfounded application. The officials were surprised by Mr Rajbansi’s instruction, which went directly contrary to all the information that had been gathered, but they felt obliged to obey the Minister. There is no explanation for Mr Rajbansi’s extraordinary conduct in this matter as well, but what acquired considerable significance was the relationship between Jivan Seebran and the strange conduct of Mr R Ramburan, when he appeared before your Committee, of distancing himself from Mr Rajbansi and wanting to create the impression that he had hardly spoken to such a munificent benefactor.
4. 29.4 If Mr Ramburan failed to impress your Committee, the evidence of his uncle, Mr H Ramnanan, did. This was to the effect that the petrol service station business which grandfather Ulassi had conducted in Inanda was being conducted to the present day by himself and that neither Mr Ramburan nor his father, Mr Ulassi, ever owned or conducted a service station business.
5. 29.5 Mr Ramburan was unable to give any acceptable explanation as to why, if only 168 square metres out of a ten acre lot had been expropriated, the petrol bowsers and tank which he contended had existed were not relocated on the same property. He conceded that there was no reason that this could not be done, but suggested that the business may have been very poor in any case.
6. 29.6 Your Committee has no doubt that this application was completely bogus and that Mr Rajbansi’s instructions to the officials were quite improper and constituted serious maladministration.
7. 29.7 Incidentally, Mr Ramburan told your Committee that his father was previously a bus owner, and is still alive, working for the Natal Provincial Administration. In these circumstances it is curious that it is not the allegedly displaced person who is seeking resettlement.

V M Naicker

1. 30.1 Mr V M Naicker was one of the three applicants regarded as being worthy of favourable consideration when suitable sites became available, the other two being P Imrith and H R Shaikh. However, Mr Rajbansi at first instructed the officials to relegate V M Naicker and H R Shaikh to positions behind the six preferred by him.
2. 30.2 In the event, the public furore that this gave rise to has evidently assisted Mr Naicker— whom Mr Rajbansi had earlier instructed the officials to fob off with an industrial site—in that, so your Committee has been informed, Mr Naicker has been allocated a petrol service station site near Mariannhill.

H R Shaikh

1. 31.1 Mr H R Shaikh’s application was also relegated to an inferior position at Mr Rajbansi’s instance, notwithstanding the fact that the former Community Development Board as well as the officials of the Administration: House of Delegates were satisfied that Mr Shaikh’s claim was superior to those favoured by Mr Rajbansi. However, after Mr Shaikh had instructed a firm of Durban attorneys, which threatened Mr Rajbansi with Supreme Court proceedings, the Minister had a change of heart and restored Mr Shaikh for priority consideration. Since then Mr Rajbansi has apparently had direct dealings with Mr Shaikh.
2. 31.2 When he appeared before your Committee, Mr Rajbansi indicated that he now had evidence which cast doubt upon the validity of Mr Shaikh’s claim.
3. 31.3 This is therefore also a matter in respect of which the Housing Development Board should, it is suggested, have further full investigations conducted especially to establish the truth or otherwise of Mr Rajbansi’s latest suggestion.

Redbro Centre

1. 32.1 Mr Siva P Reddy, the effective owner of the Redbro Centre (the reconstructed premises of the former Gemini Cinema), gave evidence before your Committee.
2. 32.2 Mr Reddy told your Committee that while the Redbro Centre premises were being renovated, he was telephoned by Mr Rajbansi, who requested that he, Mr Rajbansi, be granted the tenancy of two shops, a proposed liquor store and a proposed butchery.
3. 32.3 Mr Reddy’s response to Mr Rajbansi was that he had earmarked the liquor store for his own family, but that he was agreeable to Mr Rajbansi having the butchery premises. The premium for the premises was worth R10 000 and although he required and accepted premiums from other tenants, he did not ask Mr Rajbansi for a premium. He said that he could not ask Mr Rajbansi for money, as he was a Minister and one never knew when one might need him. Mr Reddy expected that, in return for what in effect was an indirect gift of R10 000, Mr Rajbansi might do him a favour.
4. 32.4 According to Mr Reddy’s evidence, this was attempted, when on the official notepaper of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr Rajbansi gave Mr Reddy a handsome character reference designed to influence in Mr Reddy’s favour the decision of the Liquor Board in respect of an application by Mr Reddy or a company controlled by him for a bottle store liquor licence. In the event this application failed. The reasons for refusal are not known. It is noted, however, that the premises concerned are situated at the very busy junction of two major one-way streets, which from a traffic congestion point of view, would hardly have recommended itself to the Police. Also, there is an existing bottle store in the adjoining block.
5. 32.5 After Mr Reddy had agreed to grant Mr Rajbansi the lease of his butchery premises, Mr Rajbansi brought to Mr Reddy one Mr G V “Dave” Pillay and requested that the lease be granted to Mr Pillay. Mr Reddy stated that had Mr Pillay approached him in the first instance, he would not have waived the R10 000 premium. Mr Reddy informed your Committee that after establishing the butchery business, Mr Pillay sold it at a clear profit of some R50 000 which was not, however, shared with Mr Reddy.
6. 32.6 Mr Rajbansi denied that he had requested the liquor store and said that it was Mr G V “Dave” Pillay who had requested those premises. Your Committee is satisfied that Mr Reddy told the truth. As to why Mr Rajbansi should have made a quite unnecessary but false denial is inexplicable except that he may have knowledge of a request on his behalf or by him for a liquor outlet in the proposed Checkers outlet in Chatsworth and also his association with liquor licence applications and that this knowledge influenced him to steer away from any liquor business.

D G Pillay

Clarion Homes

Procor Realtors

Procor Homes

Citiplan

1. 33.1 Mr. D G Pillay informed your Committee that basically he was the principal person involved in the aforementioned firms, close corporations or companies. Mr Pillay’s statement is confirmed by the prominent position in which his name and/or signature appears in documentation relating to the said concerns.
2. 33.2 Your Committee was rather surprised therefore when Mr Rajbansi in his evidence endeavoured to obscure this fact. He at first quickly denied the correctness of what Mr D G Pillay had told your Committee, but when advised that Mr Pillay had indeed made such a declaration, Mr Rajbansi changed his evidence. Ordinarily, such denial may not have much significance. However, Mr Rajbansi is obviously a quick-thinking and very astute man. This quick denial did not conform to the general pattern of deviousness and evasion that largely characterised Mr Rajbansi’s answers to questions put to him.
3. 33.3 It is only when his conduct is related to other salient features involving Mr D G Pillay that a clear motive emerges.
4. 33.4 Mr D G Pillay is the person who arranged and directed a donation of R15 000 to the political party of which Mr Rajbansi is the Leader with the intention that such donation would induce the Minister responsible, who is Mr Rajbansi, to ensure the allocation of township land to entities in which Mr D G Pillay had an interest and from which he stood to make a profit. The payment of the R15 000 in such circumstances is a bribe, for whenever an inducement is offered or given in return for which benefit is expected improperly to accrue, that is a bribe in any language.
5. 33.5 Mr Rajbansi declared in Parliament that he had refused permission for the Isipingo Town Council to sell housing land to Clarion Homes, in which Mr D G Pillay is the principal person, with his wife and a number of other directors because he (Mr Rajbansi) had decided that the land concerned should be used for low-cost housing. Yet your Committee was told by Mr W J v d M Marais, the then Chairman of the Housing Development Board, that the Board had made the decision concerned in spite of urgings by Mr Rajbansi that the consent sought be granted, which it unreservedly accepts as the truth.
6. 33.6 Mr Rajbansi stated in Parliament that the tender of R450 000 by Clarion Homes for the parcel of residential land in Mountain Rise, which yielded 81 lots, was the highest. Yet Mr Marais gave evidence, which your Committee accepts, that a higher tender for R30 000 more had in fact been received. This higher tender was not accepted partly by reason of a technicality which could easily have been overcome by a simple enquiry, but largely, so your Committee gathered from Mr Marais’s evidence, because Mr Rajbansi had personally argued in favour of Clarion Homes, contending that it was an experienced concern with substantial resources which was larger than Radiant Designs, the higher tenderer. On the basis that the Minister was better informed, Mr Marais allowed himself to be influenced by Mr Rajbansi’s arguments.
7. 33.7 However, doubts were raised in Mr Marais’s mind when later, in respect of land to be allocated for the small builders, a plan mooted by Mr Rajbansi, Clarion Homes was presented as a “small developer”. This time Mr Marais refused to be taken in by a confidence trick. It is a pity that after his eyes were opened to the obviously shady goings-on, Mr Marais, with all his considerable experience in the housing field, did not stay on and insist upon cleaning up what clearly had become a corrupt administration at the level of the political head. Perhaps the provisions of section 10 of the Housing Development Act, which Mr Rajbansi had, according to other evidence, wielded as a threat, was an influencing factor. This section gives considerable power to the Minister of Housing. When the House enacted that legislation, Mr Dookie was Minister of Housing and clearly it was not envisaged that he would be got rid of with the obvious object of abusing these powers. Nevertheless, Mr Marais’s disillusionment has not deprived Mr D G Pillay and his associates of other considerable benefits.
8. 33.8 Under Mr Rajbansi’s influence—
   1. (a) the officials and the Housing Development Board have agreed to allocate 149 residential properties in Chatsworth and 218 in Phoenix to another so-called small developer, Procor Homes, in which Mr D G Pillay has a substantial interest; and
   2. (b) Mr D G Pillay and his Citiplan Group have in a matter of only 10 months received from the Administration: House of Delegates more than R193 437 in respect of claimed professional fees and disbursements.
9. 33.9 The R15 000 investment by Mr D G Pillay has evidently brought him and his associates rich rewards. See also Report of Select Committee on Question of Privilege (House of Delegates) [C3-88].

The Checkers Deals

1. 34.1 The chequered wheeling and dealing in respect of the so-called Checkers deals are capable of bemusing even experienced investigators.
2. 34.2 At the beginning, the Durban City Council, under whose jurisdiction and ownership the respective large supermarket sites in both Chatsworth and Phoenix fell, was negotiatin g the sale of the Chatsworth site to Pick ’n Pay.
3. 34.3 Obviously if those transactions were permitted to proceed, there would be no easy pickings from Pick ’n Pay. Thus was proclaimed, loud and clear, that large chain stores were unwanted and that in the interests of the Indian entrepreneurs the Whitecontrolled concerns would be kept out. Mr Rajbansi publicly proclaimed that over his dead body would any large chain-store supermarket be permitted.
4. 34.4 Allegedly in the interests of the Indian community, the Durban City Council was therefore obliged to sell the two supermarket sites to the Administration: House of Delegates.
5. 34.5 This in itself was a very astonishing development. The taxpayers’ money is made available, to be administered by Ministers, for the provision of housing and essential amenities for public benefit. Except where premises had to be constructed to assist resettlement applicants who had suffered under the Group Areas Act, there was no need whatsoever for the acquisition from another organ of government of land which was destined in any event to be sold to private enterprises.
6. 34.6 By its astonishing conduct the Administration: House of Delegates—
   1. (a) tied up urgently-needed housing funds and thus robbed the public of what was due to it;
   2. (b) made absolute nonsense of the claim that South Africa favours free enterprise;
   3. (c) went against the declared State policy of privatization wherever possible; and
   4. (d) made possible all sorts of manoeuvring, manipulations and machinations with very strong overtones of graft and corruption.
7. 34.7 On the basis that the Indian group areas should not be deprived of large supermarkets, and after the acquisition of the sites by the Administration: House of Delegates, however ignoble that was, and that “resettlement” was not involved, there was not the slightest reason why the sites should not have been put up for sale by public auction. The only inference is that that kind of clean administration could not have permitted manipulation.
8. 34.8 According to evidence before your Committee from Dr P N Govender, a well-known medical practitioner who resides in the Chatsworth complex, there was a consortium of businessmen who were described as tenderers, some of whom were apparently original and others not. The number in the consortium was at one time eight but was finally reduced to three persons. Dr Govender himself got involved, he told your Committee, while seeking premises or property for a medical surgery. However, he was invited by Mr G V “Dave” Pillay and Mr Logan Reddy to join the consortium and he joined because he saw that there was possibly money to be made.
9. 34.9 There was indeed the promise of money to be made, R1 000 000 of which, according to Dr Govender, was offered as a “consideration” to the consortium by Mr Paul Fox representin g the Checkers group. It is to be noted that the consortium held no real right of any kind in or to the land which was public property bought and paid for with taxpayers’ money. The looming influence and presence of a mysterious Mr X apparently was felt, but, says Dr Govender, his identity was never revealed although a Mr Mac Naidoo unexpectedly appeared at one meeting apparently representing someone else.
10. 34.10 Dr Govender informed your Committee that the matter of the Checkers transactions were being investigated by the SA Police, apparently in order to lead evidence before the James Commission, and accordingly your Committee felt that it need not probe further into this matter.
11. 34.11 The following needs only to be recorded:
    1. (a) Without giving any reason for his actions, Mr Rajbansi, after details had been finalized, instructed that the sale agreement not be signed until further instructions.
    2. (b) Mr Rajbansi denied to your Committee that this had anything to do with any request by him for a lease to him on favourable terms for the liquor outlet on the proposed Checkers premises in Chatsworth. However, he stated that it was not he but his friend Mr G V “Dave” Pillay who sought those premises.
    3. (c) The financial loss to the taxpayer from the acquisition and proposed resale of the two properties concerned is more than R1 227 963, calculated up to 31 August 1988. The total money outlayed and frozen for such a long period, namely R8 207 613, would have provided urgently needed housing for at least 205 families. The loss to the community, whether or not any person makes a private profit from the Checkers transactions, is therefore quite considerable.

Mr Chairman, at this point I shall resume my seat while the hon the Minister of Education and Culture continues to read this report for the record.

Mr Chairman, I shall now read the balance of the report.

Order! I just want to point out that there is not a speakers’ list as such.

The report continues as follows:

School Books

1. 35.1 According to evidence before your Committee, the awarding of contracts using State funds by the Administration: House of Delegates for the acquisition of school books had from the time that free school books had been instituted, been handled, as is the proper course in any administration, by the Supplies Section. However, on Mr Rajbansi’s instructions, the matter was summarily taken out of the control of the Supplies Section and placed in the hands of Dr G K Nair, who played the role of Mr Rajbansi’s agent in the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema Complex which he (Dr Nair) himself admitted was a blunder and a white elephant. A committee was appointed but never had any work, nor was it given an opportunity to function as a committee. Dr Nair, in his own handwriting, prepared lists of firms to whom contracts had to be awarded, stipulating the amounts to be paid, and handed them over for implementation. The so-called committee was, a witness testified, merely a “rubber stamp”. One such list is annexed (See Appendix [E]) and the following is noteworthy:
   1. (a) Completely newly established firms were given substantial orders.
   2. (b) Three apparently independent firms to which orders valued at more than R1 200 000 were directed by Dr Nair to be given, are controlled by a single parent company which, according to the evidence, executes the orders from premises in Durban.
   3. (c) In order to make up the amount of the contract as per Dr Nair’s instructions, a school in Cape Town had to be instructed to take up its supplies not from a more convenient Cape Town bookseller, but from a firm in Durban.
2. 35.2 Your Committee desires to make it clear that it neither sees any objection in principle to large orders being placed with the more efficient suppliers nor has any evidence of malfeasance been produced. However this is a serious instance of maladministration and, having regard to the wholly unfavourable impression your Committee has had of him after many hours of talking with him, it is open to serious question whether such power should vest in him.

Moorton Butchery

1. 36.1 Even among the many extraordinary facts presented to your Committee, that relatin g to the Moorton Butchery in Shop No 4, Moorton Shopping Complex, was very extraordinary.
2. 36.2 According to the evidence, a Mr K Moodley conducted for many years a butchery business under the name and style of Ridley Park Butchery in Ridley Park Road, Malvern.
3. 36.3 Mr Moodley gave an option to the late Mr A “Falcon” Khan, father of Mr N E Khan, MP, for the purchase of the business and for about nine months, while awaiting the lessor’s consent to grant Mr Khan a lease, Mr Falcon Khan traded as a butcher upon the premises together with Mr Moodley. However, the negotiations fell through because the owner of the property refused to grant tenancy to Mr Falcon Khan. Whether or not such change of occupation could have been illegal except by a Group Areas permit is moot. Mr Moodley testified that upon such refusal, he refunded the money advanced by Mr Khan, who thereupon left the premises. Thereafter Mr Moodley continued to conduct business as a butcher until obliged to quit business and vacate the premises because of the effects of the Group Areas Act.
4. 36.4 Mr Moodley told your Committee that he made application to the Department of Community Development for resettlement and is still awaiting the allocation of premises intended for a butchery.
5. 36.5 Meanwhile, according to evidence presented to your Committee by Mr N E Khan, MP, he mentioned to Mr Rajbansi that his father had traded in the Ridley Park Butchery as he believed his father had. He stated that he was not aware that in fact it was aborted by the failure by Mr Khan senior to obtain the tenancy of the premises.
6. 36.6 Thereafter, according to Mr N E Khan, MP, Mr Rajbansi, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, made all the necessary arrangements for butchery premises in Shop No 4, Moorton Shopping Centre, to be rented, and he brought in Mr Jivan Seebran as an ostensible partner but in reality as the true owner. The charade of the so-called partnership continued for some months and thereafter Mr Khan signed whatever documents Mr Rajbansi required him to sign and Mr Jivan Seebran became the sole owner in law as he was in fact. Mr Khan declared that he never traded on the new premises and that he at no time had any real interest in the business.
7. 36.7 Mr Jivan Seebran confirmed that he was brought into the business by Mr Rajbansi and claimed that Mr Khan had made a free gift of his half-share of the business to him. He confirmed that he was not a particular friend of Mr Khan’s.
8. 36.8 Mr Khan’s evidence was that as far as he was concerned, the business established on the premises was that of Mr Rajbansi, an old friend of the Khan family of whom the late Mr Falcon Khan was fond.
9. 36.9 Mr N E Khan, according to Mr Rajbansi, is not telling the truth. Your Committee is satisfied that it is Mr Rajbansi who is being untruthful. There is no doubt that Mr Rajbansi intentionally used the name of Mr Khan to acquire for himself and/or J Seebran premises owned by the State intended for the resettlement of displaced persons while knowing that neither he nor Mr J Seebran was a displaced person. That he may possibly have believed that Mr Khan’s father was a displaced person, does not dilute the fraud in which Mr Rajbansi connived.
10. 36.10 Mr R Ramburan, the applicant for the petrol service station site in Phoenix, who had been helped by Mr Rajbansi to acquire a Community Development house in Silverglen, also played a role in the Moorton Butchery, even if briefly. He took over the business for a year but gave it up, presumably back to Mr Seebran. During this period, he said, he used to be on the premises regularly on Saturdays and there he frequently saw Mr Rajbansi, who came, not to make any purchases according to Mr Ramburan, but to talk to Mr J Seebran.

Moorton Bottle Store

1. 37. Mr Jivan Seebran, who was propelled by Mr Rajbansi into a top position for a petrol service station site, apart from being the majority shareholder in the ownership of the company referred to in par 25.2 and being the purported sole owner of the Moorton Butchery, also owns, so he claims, the Moorton Bottle Store, thus being the effective owner of shops 4,5 and 6 of premises built with taxpayers’ money for the primary purpose of helping to resettle persons whose businesses were adversely affected when they became displaced.
2. 38. Mr Jivan Seebran had never been in business in any affected area. He entered the accountancy field (in which he has remained) at an early age and was never a displaced person in respect of any business.
3. 39.1 According to his evidence, Mr Jivan Seebran is not only an extremely lucky man to have the ownership or control of three lucrative businesses whilst some 295 displaced persons are still desperately awaiting an opportunity to acquire a means of livelihood. If his evidence is to be believed, he is also an extraordinarily generous man.
4. 39.2His generosity has led him, so Mr J Seebran claims, to make over his lucrative bottle store business for the past five years to Mr Mac Naidoo, whom he did not really know well. Mr Seebran told your Committee that for the past five years Mr Mac Naidoo has run the business on his own, making all the purchases with his (Mr Naidoo’s) own money and keeping the proceeds of the sales, obviously also hiring and firing staff and paying all accounts. In fact, Mr Seebran stated, the profit and loss in the Moorton Bottle Store has for the past five years been for the sole account of Mr Mac Naidoo.
5. 39.3 There is not the slightest doubt that Mr Rajbansi knows far more about the Moorton Bottle Store than he is willing to tell. Your Committee is of the opinion that Mr Seebran is simply being untruthful in pretending such great generosity towards a person who is neither a close friend nor a relative. His claim that the only payment that Mr Mac Naidoo makes is the R418 per month rental payable to the Administration: House of Delegates is so highly improbable as to be unbelievable. Further investigation by the Commercial Branch of the SA Police into this matter is clearly indicated.
6. 39.4 According to Mr Seebran’s own sworn testimony, he has clearly breached not only the lease or tenancy agreement between himself and the Department of Community Development and/or the Administration: House of Delegates, but he has breached/contravened the relevant provisions of the Liquor Act. It may well be poetic justice if the tenancy agreement is cancelled and made over to the obvious true occupant, Mr Mac Naidoo, who should thereafter be required to pay the true market-related rent and not the obviously subsidized rent.
7. 39.5 If the rental paid so far has been the subsidized and not the true market rent, then unquestionably fraud has been committed against the State. This also requires to be referred to the Attorney-General and attention should be given to recovery of the amount by which the State has been unjustly deprived of income that would otherwise have accrued.

Raj Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Montford Butchery

1. 40. This company and this business gave rise to strange sensitivities on the part of two witnesses and also evidenced great generosity on the part of a Seebran, this time the patriarch Mr Paraw Seebran himself. In fact, so sure was Paraw Seebran that his generosity was real, that he maintained his version even after being told that if what he said were indeed correct, then he may well forfeit any further claim to any other business site of any kind from the State for resettlement purposes.
2. 41.1 When Mr Jivan Seebran appeared before your Committee the first time he was quite voluble in his evidence, until he was asked what he knew about Raj Investments (Pty) Ltd. His demeanour suddenly changed. He became quite excited. He refused to answer any questions on the subject until he had his legal advisers present. He insisted on having legal representation at the meeting. Not even the Chairman’s advice that no legal representation could be allowed in a parliamentary inquiry without leave of the House quelled his rising indignation when he was asked to tell what he knew on the subject. Eventually, he was advised that after the adjournment and before his next appearance before the Committee, which was arranged for a later date, he could consult his legal advisers.
3. 41.2 On his return, Mr Jivan Seebran told the Committee that the shareholders in the company were Mr Paraw Seebran as to one share and Mrs Sarojeni, sister-in-law of Mr Rajbansi, as to 99 shares. He stated that his involvement in Montford Butchery lasted for about one year, until it was sold.
4. 41.3 At this stage it is necessary to mention that according to the evidence of Mr Paraw Seebran, Shop No 14, in the Montford Shopping Centre, Montford, which had also been built with taxpayers’ money in order to resettle displaced persons, had been allotted to him in lieu of a butchery business he previously owned in Cato Manor.
5. 41.4 Mr P Seebran went on to say that Mrs Sarojeni, was related to him and was well known to him. He knew that Mrs Sarojeni was not a displaced person and therefore did not qualify for the butchery premises in Montford, but when they asked him for it, he decided to give it to them. No explanation was forthcoming as to the employment of the plural when Mrs Sarojeni should obviously be referred to in the singular. Mr P Seebran speaks fluent English and is clear-thinking and articulate. In any event, he gave over the premises and the licence to Mrs Sarojeni.
6. 41.5 Mr P Seebran stated that he was well aware that such a business can fetch quite a high price if sold, but he had not asked for any payment. His was purely an act of generosity towards a relative, so he said.
7. 41.6 When Mr J Seebran returned to your Committee and once he realised that your Committee knew more about Montford Butchery and Raj Investments (Pty) Ltd than at first appeared, he was more forthcoming.
8. 41.7 He told your Committee that the business had been sold to Mr G V “Dave” Pillay, a person whose name recurs frequently in many transactions involving business premises, mostly in Chatsworth. According to him, the price was R55 000 of which R30 000 was paid to Mr Rajbansi in consideration of equipment which Mr Rajbansi had put into the butchery business, and the remaining R25 000 had been paid by Mr Pillay to Mrs Sarojeni.
9. 41.8 Mr J Seebran stated that he knew about the transactions as he and Mr Rajbansi were actually business associates in that four butcheries, the ones at Montford and Moorton, respectively, as well as two others owned by Mr Rajbansi personally, had formed a consortium for the purpose of making joint purchases directly from the abattoir and other related business transactions. This resulted in savings to all concerned.
10. 41.9 Mr Rajbansi’s version of the facts was somewhat different. He first stated that his name had merely been used for the convenience of the business. He had not in fact acquired the equipment in the Montford Butchery for his own purposes but had lent his name in the nature of a guarantor. Not he but the Montford butchery business had paid the rent and/or the instalments payable on the equipment, the costs of which had been paid off by the said butchery business, or so he gave your Committee to understand. He had no financial interest at all in this business and had made no input into it.
11. 41.10 Later, after he was informed that your Committee was aware that the Montford Butchery had been sold to Mr G V “Dave” Pillay, who does not appear to have been an affected person requiring resettlement, Mr Rajbansi’s evidence took a somewhat different turn. This time Mr Rajbansi’s version was that the business had indeed been sold to Mr G V “Dave” Pillay for R55 000 and he, Mr Rajbansi, knew all about it and was right in the thick of the arrangements. The sum of R30 000 was actually due and payable to him personally, he said, for the equipment. Altogether, Mr Pillay had paid him R55 000, of which he retained the R30 000 due to him, and he paid over R25 000 to Mr J Seebran who was entitled to that amount, thereby completing the circle. Mr P Seebran had described his nephew Jivan to your Committee as a fraud, but he had been very generous indeed to his relative Mrs Sarojeni, sister-in-law of Mr Rajbansi. According to Mr Rajbansi, when the business was sold, it was Mr J Seebran and not Mrs Sarojeni who collected the profit from Mr Rajbansi to whom Mr Pillay had paid the money. What makes it more strange, is that Mr J Seebran’s version differs from both Mr Rajbansi’s versions. Since all three versions cannot possibly be true, it is obvious that neither Mr J Seebran nor Mr Rajbansi was being truthful in their respective evidence to your Committee. The conclusion is almost irresistible that these two men were the de facto partners in the business and that Mrs Sarojeni was just a front, in the same way that Mr N E Khan said he was used in the Moorton Butchery affair. Even if Mr Rajbansi was not personally implicated in having a beneficial interest in this business, he obviously knew that neither Mrs Sarojeni nor Mr J Seebran qualified for the resettlement butchery premises and acted grossly improperly in all his acts of commission and omission in respect thereof. The least a Minister of State can do is to avoid connivance at such conduct.

Shanthi Funeral Services

1. 42. The abovementioned firm of undertakers has for some time been operating within the Chatsworth complex and indeed in many parts of Durban, having its offices and place of business in Chatsworth Main Road in the Umhlatuzana township. There are two other firms of funeral undertakers in Chatsworth. It has to be noted in passing that for the whole of the vast area, consisting of 12 suburbs which fall under the Northern Durban Local Affairs Committee and which excludes Phoenix, there is not a single resident funeral undertaker. For the whole of the rest of the population of Durban, who are mainly Christians, be they White, Black or Coloured, except for the Gorba Fund for Muslims, there is not a single funeral undertaker in the suburbs. This background has to be borne in mind for the consideration of what follows.
2. 42.1 In the Chatsworth suburb of Havenside there is the Havenside Shopping Centre, also built with public funds for resettlement purposes. According to the evidence placed before your Committee, Shop No 13 is unsuitable for any business selling or serving consumables because of a sewer pipeline that runs beneath it. Why this should be so escapes your Committee, but that is the evidence.
3. 42.2 Over a long period, Mr V K Naidoo has made attempts to obtain tenancy of these premises to conduct a business. His application was rejected because he is not a displaced person in need of resettlement.
4. 42.3 Without any prior warning or discussion, Mr Rajbansi gave an instruction that, on the grounds that there was no funeral undertaker with business premises on the eastern side of Chatsworth and that such services were essential services and that consequently the usual rules did not apply, the premises should be let to Shanthi Funeral Services.
5. 42.4 When the Minister directed, and especially for such noble reasons of providing an essential service to the community, the officials complied and the premises were let to Shanthi Funeral Services on the authorization of the Housing Development Board.
6. 42.5 Naturally, the officials did not monitor the actual occupation of the premises that were let but in due course were somewhat surprised, according to the evidence, to receive an application from Mr V K Naidoo, the gentleman whose previous applications for the same premises had been rejected, who it turned out, was the proprietor of Shanthi Funeral Services. Mr Naidoo wanted to convert the usage of the premises, namely Shop No 13 in the Havenside Shopping Centre, from the funeral undertaking business for which service the Minister responsible, Mr Rajbansi, had assured the officials that there was such a need as to require waiver of the rules, into a soft goods store. That application had the full support of Mr Rajbansi, the Minister who thus by deviousness influenced the officials of the government department of which he is the political head into doing what they knew ought not to be done. It must be recorded that there is no evidence that Mr V K Naidoo was personally engaged in attempted fraud or was himself in any way dishonest. Mr Rajbansi’s motives remain with himself.

Maladministration in certain staff matters

1. 43.1 Your Committee did not solicit evidence concerning matters directly relating to staff matters. When such evidence arose in the course of other evidence, your Committee decided, in interpreting its terms of reference, that since any contract of employment where the State pays salaries involves the use of State funds, consideration thereof did not fall outside the purview of your Committee. This decision was only necessary because, very shortly after certain evidence in this connection had been placed before your Committee at a meeting in Cape Town, Mr Rajbansi in Durban appeared to have become aware of the substance of that evidence and took certain steps.
2. 43.2 Your Committee was startled to hear from a senior official, whose functions include inter alia the management of personnel, that Mr Rajbansi had instructed the recommended promotion of a highly qualified and hardworking official not to be allowed, and that arrangements be made for this official and another to be transferred to some other posts. The two victims of Mr Rajbansi’s intended attentions are South Africans of Indian descent, and from their names, which were furnished to your Committee, they appear to belong to a linguistic group different to that of Mr Rajbansi’s. This too would not ordinarily be mentioned here save and except for what follows.
3. 43.3 Fortunately for the sake of the two officials concerned and even more fortunately for the sake of decency and putting an end to that kind of maladministration, the senior official to whom that instruction was given, a White official recently employed by the Administration: House of Delegates, was not prepared to obey instructions which he regarded as unfair, unnecessary and morally repugnant. He could not effect the promotion in the face of Ministerial refusal, but he could, and he did, stand up for decency. It is sad that moral corruption should have reached such a dangerous level as to involve a Minister of State.
4. 43.4 Evidence was also given to the effect that Minister Rajbansi gave instructions for the intended appointment of certain staff who had been selected by experienced officials purely on the basis of merit and of suitability for the jobs concerned, to be drastically changed and for persons whose names did not appear on the official list, but which Mr Rajbansi had furnished, to be appointed in their stead. The evidence is that Mr Rajbansi thereafter harangued the official concerned about differences within the Indian community between Indians from the North and those from the South, in which lecture Mr Rajbansi instructed that henceforth he did not want to see so many Tamil names. Your Committee is satisfied that the senior official concerned was being quite truthful and was just conveying his own sense of shock.

Misuse of staff and stationery

1. 44. Your Committee is satisfied, on the basis of evidence obtained, that on the instructions of Mr Rajbansi, Government employees, Government stationery and Government equipment, such as photocopiers and telex machines, have been improperly used for party political purposes. This was glaringly apparent during the by-election campaign in Tongaat in October-November 1987, when thousands of photocopied letters with photocopied newscuttings of and concerning Mr Rajbansi’s pronouncements, under cover of post-free envelopes, were posted to thousands of householders in the Tongaat constituency. A Ministerial Representative from Natal, who is a paid public official, tried to give support to the pretence that all this material and the paid-for time of the staff was merely to give good publicity to the House of Delegates. It is understandable that such a person has to support those to whom he is beholden, but that does not alter the fact of gross misuse. The timing of the undertaking and the fact that it was directed only to one constituency and the further fact that the material contained not a word about the Constitution or the functioning of the tricameral system gave the lie to this hypocritical pretence. Your Committee also records that again by serious misuse of Government stationery and postage, Mr Rajbansi caused the staff to distribute photocopies of a newspaper article which, on the face of it, was laudatory of him.

Gross maladministration in line function

1. 45. A number of very senior officials, some of whom have had three, and others at least two, decades of experience in the Civil Service, gave evidence on a matter which causes serious concern. These officials have had experience in commerce, in local government, in provincial government and in the central Public Service. The single thread as concerns good order and government insofar as administration is concerned, is the observance of what is known in the Civil Service as line function. Essentially this means that the hierarchy in the Civil Service must be respected and that the proper and recognised channels of communication must be observed at all times. This is a wholesome and necessary tradition which is universal wherever a civil service exists and is the result of centuries of experience. It is not for nothing that a fine line is drawn between the three main organs of good government, ie the legislative, the judicial and the executive authority. Your Committee has had numerous instances given to it of higher officials being deliberately bypassed and Mr Rajbansi calling junior officials to his office and giving them direct instructions. On several occasions, your Committee was told, Mr Rajbansi actually sent instructions to senior officials through their juniors. Your Committee does not wish to enumerate all the many instances quoted to it only because, to its utter consternation, Mr Rajbansi blandly told it that he saw nothing wrong with such conduct. He was of the opinion that it was perfectly proper for him to behave in such a fashion. Your Committee was told that the morale was so terribly bad among the staff of the Administration: House of Delegates that two senior officials, whose health was not so good that they could continue to take the strain, preferred to opt for early retirement. The services of two experienced and diligent officials were thus lost. Mr Rajbansi appears to believe that he can just ride roughshod over the feelings of civil servants, White as well as Brown, and to insist upon his wishes being followed regardless of the circumstances. Your Committee heard evidence that on one occasion he ordered the secretary of the Housing Development Board to inform the then chairman, Mr Marais, that if Mr Marais did not allot certain pieces of land to a nominee of Mr Rajbansi’s, Mr Rajbansi would do so in terms of section 10 of the Act. When this was put to Mr Rajbansi, he denied it. Your Committee has not the slightest doubt that the secretary concerned was telling the truth. Short of special legislation, which would not be easy to draft, the only way in which this Minister’s flagrant maladministration can be cured, which is urgently necessary to prevent a complete breakdown within the civil service under the jurisdiction of the Administration: House of Delegates, is by taking urgent executive steps.

Strange behaviour

1. 46. The evidence indicates that in many respects the behaviour within the Administration: House of Delegates can only be described as unique. Reference has also already been made to the extraordinary situation in which, in circumstances which Mr Rajbansi insists are proper, he gives direct instructions to junior officials not only over the heads but frequently also behind the backs, of heads of departments. Furthermore, in matters in which throughout the world Ministers make policies and leave the actual administration to the officials, Mr Rajbansi has frequently personally given instructions to junior staff, even in fairly low-level matters. Officials with wide experience have told your Committee that in all their several decades of experience they have never had similar experiences. From the evidence presented it appears that Mr Rajbansi regards the Administration: House of Delegates as his personal domain, and its officials are obliged to obey his every wish.

Attempted destruction of documents

1. 47. According to witnesses from the Civil Service it is absolutely forbidden for any document to be removed from any file of papers and no document may be placed on any file except in the normal manner, ie by introduction sequentially as and when received. In evidence before your Committee a senior official stated that in his presence, and without enquiry or explanation, Mr A Rajbansi removed fourteen pages of documents from a file and put them into his wastepaper-basket. This occurred on 28 March 1988. According to the official it is just not proper for documents to be removed from a file in such a manner, let alone any attempt at the destruction thereof, which seemed the obvious intention behind Mr Rajbansi’s actions. What astonished the official even more was that the fourteen pages Mr Rajbansi had removed had been carefully numbered with many other documents. These had been perused by a lawyer from the Office of the State Attorney and also by an advocate in preparation of a Supreme Court case in which Mr Rajbansi was the defendant. It appeared to the official that, apart from the offence of the removal of the documents from the file, the intention was to eliminate certain documents. Your Committee has obtained copies of the documents involved, but because these also relate to a pending trial in the Supreme Court and because of the sub judice rule, these are not referred to in this report in any detail. In any event, it appears that Mr Rajbansi has been warned against any repetition of such conduct by a senior representative of the State Attorney. When questioned on this matter, Mr Rajbansi did not deny the removal of the documents from the file. He contended, however, that these were merely duplicates and all that he did was to remove surplus documents from the file. He had no reasonable explanation as to why, if indeed these were surplus documents, he did not merely draw the attention of the official thereto, which would have been the normal reaction of any person who had no personal interest at stake. The official has advised your Committee that there was no duplication. Mr Rajbansi denied to your Committee that he placed the documents in the wastepaper-basket and insisted that he had merely placed them in the “out” tray. Your Committee, having observed both the witnesses, and having noted their demeanour, has no hesitation in accepting that the official was telling the truth. Furthermore, the probabilities do not favour Mr Rajbansi’s version. If indeed he found the documents to be duplicates, and if indeed he was innocently of the opinion that it was in order to remove these documents, then placing them in the “out” tray, which in the ordinary course would eventually have resulted in the filing clerks restoring them to their numbered positions in the file, just makes no sense. Mr Rajbansi is an intelligent and a shrewd person. The probabilities are wholly against his indulging in a nonsensical exercise and wholly in favour of an intention that the documents concerned be destroyed.

Attempt to introduce document

1. 48. On 28 March 1988, the same day when Mr Rajbansi attempted to destroy documents from official files, he tried to introduce into the files, relating to the purchase of the Odeon Cinema complex, a document which had never officially been part of the documents on file. According to the evidence, Mr Rajbansi handed this document to a senior official and instructed him to insert it into the file, in between other older documents, in such a manner that it would seem that this had formed part of the official file of documents all along. By this time the official was suspicious and the matter was raised with the representative of the State Attorney, who directed that Mr Rajbansi’s instruction not be carried out. The conclusion is unavoidable that only a person with an ulterior motive would cause documents to be either destroyed or, in the case of documents which did not previously exist, to be suddenly introduced. Mr Rajbansi declined to admit to either of these allegations. Your Committee is however inclined to the view that, having regard to all the circumstances and the conduct of the two witnesses involved in these matters, as well as their respective demeanours when appearing before your Committee, it is the official who has been telling the truth.

The Terreblanche letter.

Yes.

100 Erven

1. 49. A very wealthy businessman, who among other things owns hardware businesses that function mainly as suppliers of materials, has for many years been an ardent supporter of the political party of which Mr Rajbansi is the leader. While Mr Rajbansi was Chairman of the Executive of the SA Indian Council, the then Minister of Community Development, in response to a recommendation by Mr Rajbansi, authorized the allocation of 100 residential sites in Lenasia on very easy terms to a company controlled de facto by this businessman. The land was set aside for this company at a price of R18 per square metre, which was very reasonable, even in 1983. Up to 1986, however, no houses had been built. Meanwhile land prices escalated but the purchase price, which was only payable after the houses had been built and sold, remained static. The Department of Housing had to absorb all the holding costs whereas in normal township development it is the entrepreneur who has to bear such costs. Theoretically when the impulse on the part of the developer is charitable, such a substantial subsidy by the State may be understandable. However, neither this businessman nor his company is a charitable organization. There is evidence that the businessman concerned publicly claimed that he was entitled to sell the houses at any price he wished. That being the case, the allocation to his company would contribute to its profit at the expense of the long-suffering homeless. Your Committee recommends that the entire transaction in all its aspects be fully investigated by or on behalf of the Housing Development Board. The one factor above all which causes concern is that whereas it was Mr Rajbansi who in effect was responsible for the 100 sites being made available to his friend, he constantly insisted that it was Mr Pen Kotzé, the then Minister of Community Development, who had made the allocation.

Lenz Medical Centre

1. 50. By common cause, Mr Kistasamy Naidoo, also known as Mr Kessa Thambi, is a prominent personality in Lenasia, Transvaal. On 19 January 1986 Mr K Naidoo made highly publicised allegations of serious maladministration within the Administration: House of Delegates. These were of a serious nature but unfortunately, perhaps because it was considered that Mr Kessa Thambi was a disgruntled entrepreneur, insufficient steps were taken to probe fully the allegations he made. Hindsight shows that had this been done, some of the later excesses may well have been prevented. Certain of these excesses are dealt with later in this Report. For the moment it is proposed to deal with an application by the Lenz Medical Centre (Pty) Ltd of which Mr Kessa Thambi was the de facto principal controlling shareholder and director. This company made application to the Administration: House of Delegates, as was necessary, for permission for the erection and operation of an unattached operating theatre unit and emergency unit, forming part of aclinic on Erf 2654, Extension 2, Lenasia. After many months, Mr Thambi’s company was officially informed by the Director of Health and Welfare: House of Delegates that the Transvaal Provincial Administration, having carefully investigated the matter, and being unable to recommend the granting of the said application, declined it. It is necessary that this fact be borne in mind. Mr Thambi, however, is a resourceful man. And, according to the evidence, he took up the matter with Mr Perry Chetty, Mr Rajbansi’s nominee and the incumbent as Ministerial Representative in the Transvaal for the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates. It would appear that Mr Chetty was not lacking in resourcefulness either. During July 1987 there was a by-election in Lenasia as a consequence of the death of Mr Abie Choonara, MP, whose name requires remembrance even for certain other transactions that are reported hereunder. Mr Perry Chetty, according to the evidence, arranged a meeting between Mr Pillay, MP, of the NPP, its Leader, Mr A Rajbansi, MP, who is inter alia Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr Chetty himself and of course Mr K Thambi. Mr Thambi told your Committee that he raised with Mr Rajbansi the question of the refusal by the Department of Health and Welfare of the application by his company for special permission to conduct a clinic in Lenasia. At that stage, according to Mr Thambi, he was not an avowed supporter of Mr Rajbansi’s party. He told your Committee that in the course of the discussions Mr Rajbansi stated that provided he, Mr Thambi, switched his support to the NPP candidate, Mr Rajbansi would reverse the unfavourable decision and change it to a favourable one. This discussion, said Mr Thambi, took place on 18 July 1987 in Johannesburg. He stated that, in response to Mr Rajbansi’s proposals, he had to switch his support to Mr Rajbansi’s favoured candidate, namely Mr M S Shah, MP. Mr Rajbansi kept his promise and on 22 July 1987 Mr Rajbansi personally delivered to Mr Thambi in Johannesburg a letter signed by Mr R Bhana, MP, Minister of Health Services and Welfare, granting the application made by Lenz Medical Centre (Pty) Ltd. (See Appendix [F].) Your Committee finds it interesting that such a speedy decision could be given on any appeal against the refusal of an application. The normal procedure is that when an appeal is made to a Minister, such appeal is referred back for full comment by the department that initially dealt with the matter, and that only upon receipt of the report will the Minister make his decision on the appeal. In this case, not only was there no referral back to the officials involved, either in respect of the House of Delegates or the Transvaal Provincial Administration, but not even the Minister of Health and Welfare or his senior officials were shown the courtesy of any consultation. Your Committee is satisfied that Mr Rajbansi caused the letter to be written. The letter was typed on or, alternatively, is dated 20 July 1987. This is noteworthy, since Mr Bhana was not in his Durban office. He told your Committee that it was on 22 July 1987 that the said letter (see Appendix [F]), which had already been prepared and typed, was put before him with a request, which he was told emanated from Mr A Rajbansi, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that he sign the same. The evidence is that Mr Bhana signed the same and handed the letter over personally to Mr Rajbansi, who took the same with him and he in turn personally handed it over to Mr Thambi. When asked to explain, Mr Rajbansi quite blandly stated that the matter was quite in order. An appeal had been made to him by Mr Thambi, he said. It was not true that he promised help if Mr Thambi switched sides to support Mr Rajbansi’s candidate in the by-election. According to Mr Rajbansi, Mr Thambi had been an NPP supporter all along. Mr Rajbansi was asked how a decision taken by the Director of Health Services on the basis of apparently careful analysis by the actual health authority in the Transvaal, the Transvaal Provincial Administration, could so swiftly and summarily be reversed by himself. Mr Rajbansi replied that the letter was handed to him by Mr Bhana and he, Mr Rajbansi, had merely taken it to Mr Thambi. He was asked whether he was not aware that the manner in which the letter was handled by-passed the normal procedures of being entered into the outgoing mail register. Mr Rajbansi said that it was not his responsibility. The letter had been handed to him by Mr Bhana for delivery and it was Mr Bhana’s responsibility to have ensured registration in the outgoing register. Mr Rajbansi’s explanation defies credulity. Your Committee has not the slightest doubt that Mr Bhana told the truth. Your Committee is completely satisfied, noting that the external facts corroborate Mr Thambi’s version, that there was a gross abuse of authority by Mr Rajbansi, in an endeavour to buy political support. Bribery there certainly was but in this instance it was a Minister of State, by misuse of ministerial power, who attempted to gain benefit for his party, and since Mr Rajbansi desperately needed every single vote he could obtain within the House in order to remain in power, for his direct personal benefit as well.
   Since Mr Thambi was not a public official and since the attempt was to bribe him, Mr Rajbansi’s conduct may not actually amount to a criminal offence. Nevertheless, this matter also should be referred to the Attorney-General, for the conduct involved is so morally repugnant that further investigation is warranted.
   The attention of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and probably that of the Minister of National Health and Population Development should also be given to another aspect, namely as to which authority had jurisdiction over such a purely administrative matter as the one at issue. It does occur to your Committee that in the same way that direct instructions by Ministers can cause administrative chaos, likewise simultaneous jurisdiction in matters such as these may not be desirable.

Land Allocations—Lenasia South

1. 51. In Lenasia South the Housing Department of the House of Delegates inherited a considerable number of residential sites from the former Department of Community Development, which had previously arranged for houses to be built. In 1985 it was decided, in keeping with the new policy of privatisation favoured by the State President with a view to accelerating housing development, and also since building societies were flush with funds which they were prepared to make available to private individuals as well as property developers, to make land available to developers for the construction of houses and sale to persons on the Department’s waiting list. The arrangement was that land would be made available to such developers who, however, did not pay for that land until after the land had been resold. Meanwhile, with a relatively small capital outlay, since the building societies made funds available on what is known as “progress payments” in the building trade, the developers were able to proceed with the erection of houses and do business with a view to profit-taking. The percentage profit was limited only by the laid-down maximum prices set by the Department. Another factor that was to limit selling prices was the “first-time home buyer’s subsidy”, in terms of which such a buyer had his interest payments subsidised by one-third for five years (the State providing the subsidy) provided that the cost of the houses did not exceed R40 000. The land was made available at the low price of R18 per square metre.
   In theory this arrangement was good. Yet it also made possible easy money-making. Legitimate profit-taking is unexceptionable and, your Committee realises, is a necessary inducement to encourage entrepreneurs to add to the urgently needed housing stock which, it is clear, cannot in the foreseeable future be provided by the State alone. To explain: Where the State itself employs the contractors, State funds have to be available to cover construction costs as well as that of the land. But where private developers are involved, the funds for the actual buildings are provided by banks or building societies. This also helps generally since it absorbs much of the cash liquidity and helps the fight against inflation.
   Nevertheless, if profit-taking at an unreasonable level is permitted, this would harm the house-buyer. The ceilings on selling prices are fairly simple to monitor where the developers are large corporations. When a large number of small developers are introduced, the way is opened for what is called “under-thecounter” activities to take place. It has, for instance, been alleged that certain developers required house-buyers to pay moneys in cash, for which no receipts were issued and which was not reflected in the documentation relating to the purchase price. Accordingly, the “official” selling price, which conformed to the ceilings laid down, was not the real price, the extra amount being paid in cash “under-thecounter”. Where proved, such actions may possibly constitute fraud against the State and would also result in contraventions of the Transfer Duty Act. Since the buyer would have also signed a declaration confirming that the “official price” was the correct price, and also since if it was revealed that the total cost of the house actually exceeded the R40 000 limit, the interest-subsidy would be withdrawn, there is obviously considerable inducement for the house-buyer not to make full revelation. Thus can an unscrupulous developer evade regulations and obtain a higher, if illegal, profit.
   Your Committee does not suggest that only large corporations be granted land, although it was impressed by evidence from a senior official that in view of the great urgency for housing, it is essential that, using the economy of scale for costreduction, as many houses as possible be built as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. This aspect is a matter which merits earnest consideration by the Housing Development Board. Sight must not, however, be lost of the opportunity for a different kind of abuse where there is a multiplicity of so-called small developers.
   Details of one such abuse were furnished to your Committee by Mr N E Khan, MP, who stated that he and Mr Rajbansi had been friends for many years. During September 1984, said Mr Khan, two Transvaal members of the National Peoples Party, of which Mr Rajbansi is the leader, had joined the Solidarity Party, of which Dr J N Reddy is the leader. During that period, Mr Khan told your Committee, there was a meeting attended by Mr A Rajbansi, Mr N E Khan, the late Mr Abie Choonara, Mr Dennis Pillay and Mr S Collakoppen, the last-named not at that stage having switched to the NPP. Mr Rajbansi, said Mr Khan, appealed to Messrs Choonara and Pillay to return to the NPP and promised Mr Choonara that if he did so, he would get land. The result was, Mr Khan stated, that Mr Choonara returned to the fold and that thereafter during 1985 the reward was given when 30 erven in Lenasia South were allocated to a firm called Goris Investments, controlled by a member of the Choonara family.
   Mr Rajbansi denies this. However, your Committee believes Mr Khan. Your Committee also notes that Mr G K Collakoppen, son of Mr S Collakoppen, MP, was also granted 30 erven, about which more later. Your Committee is unable to accept the protestations of Mr S Collakoppen that he is completely unaware of this transaction except for hearsay; that although he has met his said son dozens of times since the matter was made public, he never discussed this with him. The probabilities are wholly against the acceptance of Mr S Collakoppen’s denials of knowledge. The motive for such wrongful denial can only lie in the fact that, whilst expressing not the slightest disagreement on a matter of policy or principle with Dr J N Reddy’s party, Mr Collakoppen deserted Dr Reddy and transferred his support to the man who, as it transpires, was responsible for his son getting 30 erven from the Administration: House of Delegates.
2. 52. There were two sets of land allocations by the Administration: House of Delegates in respect of Lenasia South and these are necessarily dealt with separately. But first it remains to be noted that of the earlier allocations by the Department of Community Development, the 100 granted to the company referred to in par 49 were not taken back, notwithstanding inordinate delay in development, and that these have since been developed. During August 1985, an advertisement in newspapers invited applications for a total of 754 erven then made available in Lenasia South for housing development.
   The Regional Director of the Department in Johannesburg handling these matters at the time was Mr J van Rooyen. He told your Committee that upon receipt of applications from 12 housing developers (and also from 44 private individuals for individual erven for the construction of houses for themselves) he and his colleagues set about investigating the background of each of the applicants who were developers, such as their experience and expertise, availability of resources (financial, equipment and staff etc,) and were preparing their report for submission to the Director-General at the Head Office in Durban. However, even before the report could be despatched, let alone be received or considered, whether by the Director-General or the Minister responsible, decisions were apparently being made at the Head Office. Eventually, instructions were received by the Regional Office that the Ministers’ Council had decided that erven be allocated in the following manner:

It requires to be noted that in his submission dated 18 September 1985 the Regional Director, whose office had done careful investigations and analyses relatin g to each of the applicants, had given high rates to LTA-Comiat, Amalgamated Construction and to Lonrho, which are well-known, large-scale building construction firms. The allocation of only 40 erven each to two big developers is hardly capable of employing cost-effective methods of large-scale development which would obviously produce beneficial results to the end-user, that is the hardpressed house-buyer. The following also requires noting:

1. a) A firm called Exquisite Construction received a good rating but were omitted by the Ministers’ Council.
2. b) Lenasia South Housing Development were recommended, this being a so-called utility company with which Mr K Thambi of Dashanya Residential Development is closely associated, but whereas Dashanya were allocated 90 erven, the utility company was not.
3. c) It was recorded by the Regional Director that the application by S A Block had been submitted by Mr F M Khan, MP, who, while not a member of the National Peoples Party, has been a consistent supporter thereof.
4. d) Gori’s Investment is the firm associated with the family of the late Mr Abie Choonara, to whom Mr Rajbansi promised land in the presence of Mr S Collakoppen.
5. e) Jalc Development Corporation was a firm controlled solely by Mr G K Collakoppen, son of Mr S Collakoppen.

Mr Chairman, at this point may I request the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare to continue?

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

Mr Chairman, the report goes on as follows:

1. f) Reza Investments was controlled by a Mr Liaqat Alli Mahomed, whose office is in the same complex occupied by Golden City Housing and who shares the same post office box number as Mr Sayed Hoosen Mia and his brother Mr M H Mia.

It was established by evidence to your Committee that neither Jalc nor Reza constructed any houses. Both Mr Sayed Mia and Mr G K Collakoppen tried to conceal that which had clearly taken place—Reza and Jalc had simply made over the erven allocated to them to Golden City Housing. Mr Collakoppen received R90 000. He tried to make out that he had in fact developed the erven jointly with Golden City Housing but that this was merely a very thin facade became obvious when he confessed that whatever profits may have been made by Golden City Housing, his share was limited to R3 000 per site. That Mr Collakoppen has done exceedingly well out of the transaction is clear. He invested not a cent, whether his own money or borrowed. He ran no risks whatsoever. His own input was but marginal. And he received a clear profit of R90 000 in a relatively short period from land made available to him at the instance of, your Committee is satisfied, Mr A Rajbansi, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who in turn had benefited by the support given to him by the father of the beneficiary of his generosity. The parallel with the allocation to the Choonara concern called Gori’s is obvious.

Your Committee has no doubt that Mr Rajbansi has abused his authority in handling affairs of State by wrongfully awarding State assets to persons not entitled to the same. In evidence before your Committee, Mr Rajbansi denied that he had been responsible for the allocations set out above. That was done by Mr Dookie, he claimed. On the other hand, Mr Dookie stated in evidence that the final list, as sent to the Regional Office, was dictated to him by Mr Rajbansi and he wrote out the names of the allottees and the number of erven allotted as directed by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is noted that the telex to Regional Office from the then Director-General states that the decision was that of the Ministers’ Council.

Taking into account the circumstances surrounding this as well as other transactions, your Committee accepts that Mr Dookie was probably acting under force majeure, having regard to the dominance that Mr Rajbansi then had in the Ministers’ Council. Nevertheless it has to be recorded that these transactions do little credit to either Mr Dookie or to the Ministers’ Council of that time, for they all together either participated in gross misuse of power or supinely sat back out of fear of losing their own jobs while such gross maladministration was perpetrated. Your Committee is wholly unimpressed by Mr Rajbansi’s pretence of disinterested innocence. His conduct over the Odeon Cinema affair and his proven propensity, as Mr N E Khan put it, of using other people as “fronts”, and his threat to the then Chairman of the Housing Development Board, all point to one thing: Once Mr Rajbansi has determined on a course he brooks no refusal.

That Reza is either a dummy of or a front for Golden City Housing emerged from the evidence of Mr Sayed Mia, who stated that while the payment of Reza’s share of the profit had not yet been made, it would not be less than that paid to Mr Collakoppen. Mr Sayed Mia was at first not completely candid with your Committee. However, as the matter proceeded, he became somewhat uneasy and thereafter was more forthcoming in his answers. The impression of complete charitable disinterest which he first sought to convey, changed as his candour increased. It was obvious to your Committee that this witness was not generally accustomed to concealing the truth. Although Mr Mia stated that the sole interest of his company was to help the poor, it transpired that some of the houses built by Golden City Housing were for the upper-market range where the prices as well as profitability were obviously much higher than in the normal range of houses. Mr Mia was not able to furnish details of the profits made by Golden City Housing because, so he said, that company’s financial records have been taken into the possession of the SA Police.

Nevertheless, on his own admission, since for 30 erven Mr Collakoppen made a profit of R90 000, Golden City Housing must at the very lowest show a net profit of not less than R450 000. Your Committee was told by Mr Mia that it was quite in order for a public utility housing company which is supposedly a non-profit company and as such enjoys many privileges, including tax concessions, to make profits since such profits are to be ploughed back into further development. This, said Mr Mia, was the intention all along of himself and his brother, Mr M H Mia. Mr Mia was taken aback, however, when it was disclosed to him that your Committee was fully aware that he and his brother had, after the Golden City Housing Association, ie the utility company, had established a good record and a nice image, formed another company with a name of striking similarity, namely Golden City Housing Developing (Pty) Ltd, which is a company wholly owned and controlled by the two Mia brothers and which is wholly a profit-making company.

Mr Sayed Mia was obliged to make these admissions. Mr Sayed Mia was also obliged to admit that during 1987 the allocation of 180 erven (the latest such allocation) had been made not to the non-profit utility company but to the profitmaking one of similar name. The latter had not built a single house and was itself possessed of no funds worthy of the name. When pressed, Mr Mia conceded that the possibility for sleight-ofhand and for fraudulently pretending that the profit-making company was a non-profit one did exist, but he strongly denied that he and his brother had any intention whatsoever of making a profit. Any profit that is made by the profitmaking company (to which 180 additional erven have been allocated, thanks to Mr Rajbansi) will be made over to the utility company. He had no acceptable explanation to offer as to why, if that indeed were the intention, a profit-making company was formed which sought and was allocated the additional 180 erven. He could not explain how the utility company could benefit even if what he stated as his intention was the truth, for after all, the profit-making company receives no tax concessions and about 46% of whatever profit its makes would thus be lost to the utility company. The question arises as to what will happen to the profits accumulated by the utility company.

The case of Golden City Housing inevitably recalls the matter of Clarion Homes (a so-called utility company) which shares directors with Procor Homes, a profit-making company. In that case, if both are functioning at the same time, the possibility of building material being purchased ostensibly for the utility company but being delivered to the profit-making company is not only possible, but, having regard to the fact that Mr D G Pillay gave four versions of a single transaction all under oath, is also probable. Your Committee therefore recommends that a very close check be kept on applicants and where there is any possibility of sleight-of-hand being perpetrated, no sites should be allocated to any company or firm with which such persons are directly or indirectly connected. Your Committee is also of the view that there is not the slightest doubt that the contention that “small builders” or “small developers” be given priority is merely a camouflage for improper practices to be perpetrated. In order to give small builders an opportunity, there is not the slightest reason why vacant erven or subdivisions should not be allotted to qualified individuals on the same basis as that available to developers per se, who could then engage the services of the small builders on a competitive basis.

In respect of the allocations of erven made in the third and fourth quarters of 1987, Mr Rajbansi gave the instructions himself. The evidence is that during July or August of 1987, he called at the Transvaal Regional Office and received from Mr Grundling, the present Regional Director, a list of the applicants for the latest allocations. Mr Grundling and his colleagues were gathering information of and concerning the applicants. And once again, even before the Regional Office could make its submissions, instructions were received, which the evidence showed emanated from Mr Rajbansi personally, directing that the following allocations be made:

This gives a total of 470 sites. It is of significance that among the allottees are two entities named “Comfort Homes” and “House-It”. These existed not even on paper save and except for almost childishly obvious home-printed letterheads. On such letterheads were the applications made by two employees of Mr Sayed H Mia. These were naturally disregarded by the Regional Office. Yet Mr Rajbansi instructed that they be allocated 30 erven each.

After Mr K Thambi of Dashanya submitted an affidavit, dated 3 October 1987, to the AdvocateGeneral, Mr Rajbansi on 16 October 1987 instructed that the allocations to these two entities be withdrawn. Clearly the exposure was too glaring for these to remain allottees. Evidence was led to the effect that the allocation of the 30 erven to Dashanya was withdrawn as punishment for the expose.

Mr Rajbansi denied that he intended to punish Mr Thambi. Your Committee does not believe him. Mr Rajbansi claimed that the reason for the withdrawal of the erven vis-á-vis Dashanya was because Dashanya had not performed satisfactorily in respect of the previous allocations. The Regional Director on the other hand gave Dashanya a good report and recommended further allocations to it. Your Committee is satisfied that the Regional Director’s approach was the disinterested one. It is recommended that, in view of the fact that alienation or development has not yet taken place, the Housing Development Board reconsider the whole matter of the 1987 allocations in order to obviate even indirect fraud as is possible in the Golden City Housing matter.

Interference with Witnesses

1. 53. Your Committee has received several complaints, made to it through its Chairman, of alleged interference by Mr Rajbansi with persons who were about to or did give evidence before it. The Secretary to Parliament is not able to take any action; only the House can. It is therefore recommended that the House take such steps as are necessary to ascertain the facts and thereafter to take such further steps as may be necessary to protect the integrity of the House and its Committees.

Conclusion

1. 54. In view of the far-ranging nature of its task, your Committee has had to make many and heavy demands upon the parliamentary staff, who have given every possible help and co-operation. Your Committee records its appreciation to them.

Debate interrupted.