Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the effect of this motion will be to reinstate the Slums Bill, now renumbered B 119—88 (GA), in the list of those six Bills which were affected by the resolution taken on 25 August in terms of which certain special procedures were allowed in respect of the passing of those Bills. We opposed that motion at the time and it is our view that this motion should not be accepted either.

In order to be consistent with our attitude of last week we will accordingly not be supporting this motion.

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, we have already dealt with the Bill that makes the establishment of free settlement areas possible and have pointed out that this is a new approach. The Bill before us, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, makes provision for the participation of residents of free settlement areas in local government processes. The provisions of the Bill will therefore apply to free settlement areas established in terms of the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

I want to reiterate that it is a great pity that the positive aims of these two pieces of legislation on free settlement areas were obscured by criticism of the Group Areas Amendment Bill. One cannot emphasise strongly enough that these two pieces of legislation do, in fact, make a contribution to the reform process.

It is a principle underlying the policy of this Government that everybody, both individually and within a group context, must play an effective part in the Government’s decision-making processes which have a decisive effect on their lives, aspirations and needs. Local government forms an important part of the government of the country in which decisions are taken which are a decisive factor in the daily lives and needs of people. The political guidelines for reform, 1982, aimed at the establishment, where at all possible, of local government institutions for the different population groups. It is also subject to effective financial measures being taken in order to make local authorities a viable proposition.

The President’s Council also investigated the implications that open areas might have on voting arrangements at local level. They spelt out several options, without selecting any one option or making definite recommendations. A method therefore had to be found to make arrangements at local government level in free settlement areas in such a way that residents of these areas could play an effective role in the decision-making process affecting them, without encroaching upon the principle of government as an own affair, as embodied in the Constitution. Effective rendering of service and cost-effectiveness also had to be considered.

†The provinces already have ordinances and regulations which provide for the establishment of local affairs and management committees for Coloured and Indian areas. These legislative measures are being adapted so that similar management bodies may be established for free settlement areas. All the statutory provisions which apply to the first mentioned management bodies will also apply to the management bodies for free settlement areas. There are, however, two important differences. Firstly, the Administrator is empowered to establish a joint committee consisting of an equal number of members of the local authority and the management body concerned. Such a joint committee will discuss matters that directly concern the free settlement area as well as matters of common interest. Powers to decide on the affairs of the free settlement areas may be delegated or transferred to the joint committee. Secondly, no population group will be excluded from participation in local elections in a free settlement area.

The qualifications for voters and candidates for the management body of a free settlement area will be the same as those that presently apply to other management bodies in the same province, except that there will be no racial qualification.

*Existing voters who may have objections about losing their representation on an own affairs body are given the choice of remaining on the voters’ list on which they were registered before the free settlement area was declared as such. The Bill does not provide how voters who exercise this option may exercise their voting rights. The Administrator concerned will regulate this by notice. The reasons why this is left in the hands of the Administrator, and is not provided for in the Bill itself, are briefly: There are considerable variations between the systems of local government of the four provinces with regard to wards, the demarcation of wards and electoral quotas. The Administrator can therefore make an arrangement which fits in with the system which applies to his province. He is also, as is usually the case, in a position to consult the representatives of organised local government about the acceptability of different methods.

Another important reason is that we have committed ourselves to a policy of the devolution of authority. We therefore do acknowledge provincial government as an autonomous level of government, which takes decisions on matters that fall within the ambit of its powers.

This is a highly technical Bill, and it would serve no purpose to deal with it clause by clause. Suffice it to say that I have already dealt with the essence and significance of the Bill.

The aim of the Free Settlement Areas Bill is to create an orderly and democratic process in terms if which free settlement areas can be established. This Bill envisages a system for the orderly and democratic administration of the local interests of a free settlement area after its establishment.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister made the following observation in the final paragraph of his speech:

To create mixed grey areas is anything but an orderly process, and I foresee a great deal of chaos concerning this legislation in future.

This Bill is the third of the so-called trilogy of Bills. The Government considered them to be so important that it arranged this session at great expense. It is also so eager to dispose of them that it is applying and amending the Rules of this Parliament in order to bend the Constitution so that it can succeed in its aim and thus not have to say to the voters on the eve of the election: “Friends, this Constitution to which we shackled ourselves with chains, throwing away the key, is not going to work. It is a failure.” [Interjections.] It would then, in fact, be telling the voters: “This Government no longer possesses the sovereign power of government, because it is being vetoed by two other Houses.”

No wonder the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal admitted, at a youth congress in Pretoria on Friday evening, that the NP was at present going through a bad patch. Yesterday he denied that he had said that. Apparently he was referring to a less prosperous period. [Interjections ] The following day’s newspapers announced that this youth congress was held in Naboomspruit, but on Monday it was said that it had been held in Pretoria. It appears to me that it was such an “oeloe-oeloe” congress that not even the Press knew where it was being held. [Interjections.] The Leader of the NP in the Transvaal has said that most members of the party have refused to surrender. Therefore, in his opinion there is a minority of members who are surrendering.

According to an article in Saturday’s edition of Beeld, the hon the Minister of National Education said that we must expect that the road ahead—we may as well use his words—would be less auspicious for the party.

Which clause does that apply to?

That is just the introduction to my speech. [Interjections.]

Those words are in fact true, because the difficult part of a less auspicious period still lies ahead, and this trilogy of legislation is providing the soap which is going to make the NP slide even faster.

If I had to choose one of these Bills which best illustrated the integrational obsession of the Government, it would be the Bill before us, which deals with the practical implications of open residential areas or grey areas. [Interjections.]

Here totally new principles are being introduced into South African politics, namely the principles of multiracial voters’ lists for an advisory or an executive committee, which in itself can consist of members from any of the population groups. Those people are also entitled to be nominated as candidates in such an open residential area and can appear on such a voters’ list along with all other races. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting that this is happening less than a week after the hon the Minister of Finance, according to Rapport of 28 August, uttered the following words at that same youth congress:

After less than a week that is no longer true. [Interjections.] In terms of this legislation votes can be cast in the same ballot box and all races can be thrown together into the same residential area. [Interjections.] It is incredible. [Interjections.]

As the hon member for Brakpan indicated during the debate on the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the threat of being thrown open now hangs over every White residential area. [Interjections.] The threat of being included in a mixed voters’ list, and of being subjected to the decision-making powers of a mixed joint committee, is hanging over those inhabitants.

If these principles are accepted in this House today, the question is whether a similar case of second-tier government along the same lines is not possible tomorrow. Ultimately, pressure is going to be exerted for all of them to be included jointly as voters in a parliamentary voters’ list for a specific constituency. Therefore, we now have a process which has to be implemented at the third level of authority, but which will ultimately filter through to the higher, yes, even to the highest level of government.

That is the logical conclusion of this legislation. Surely we know the pattern of the Government. After all, it began by opening up only certain hotels; now virtually all hotels have been thrown open to all races. It began by desegregating only certain trains; now all trains have been desegregated. [Interjections.]

Order! Let me just make it clear that it is the tradition of the House of Assembly that when we are arguing with one another, we do not shout one another down. I am asking hon members to give the hon member for Pietersburg a chance.

I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, or perhaps the hon the Minister himself, this very important question with regard to this election which basically centres around this trilogy of legislation. During question time last week I asked the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting and the Film Industry whether the Government was going to support certain candidates financially in this election, either directly or indirectly. The hon the Minister is a senior Minister, and I am now asking him directly. Is his department, any other government department or any other government fund going to be used to cover the personal expenses of candidates in this election? I should like to know, and I insist on an answer. It is very important. [Interjections.]

To come to the legislation itself, in clause 4, section 2 of the Transvaal Ordinance is being amended to make provision, for example in subsection (2), for the formation of such a management committee or advisory committee for a free settlement area. Clause 12 states who the eligible voters in such an area could be, and in the case of the Cape Province it is stated clearly that every naturalised person over the age of 18 years would qualify. Therefore, in the case of the Cape Province that person could be a member of any population group. That applies to areas that are divided into wards, as well as each ward in which a voter owns or occupies immovable property.

Those are the provisions of the legislation, and in clause 24 provision is being made for a multiracial joint committee, a joint committee, one half of which consists of these members of the management committee that may be multiracial, the other half consisting of the members of the local authority body which forms a joint committee which is being given decision-making powers that are being delegated to this committee, subject to conditions specified by the Administrator.

Therefore, in this microcosm of the home community situation, we are dealing with the principle of power-sharing in its naked reality. All the peoples in such an area will compete for the governing power in such an area. So it is in miniature, as the legislation is prescribing here, and so it is at central government level, as we have seen it practically illustrated in the political arena during the past week.

Therefore, the all-important question that remains is: Who is going to be governed by whom, and whose will is going to be carried out, despite the opposition of minority groups. That is the question. In other words, this power-sharing situation in miniature, in these areas that are now being created, can only work if the ethnic groups are willing to accept the will of one group—in this case, in the House of Assembly situation, the will of the NP—and willingly go along with that.

In such a Utopia there would be consensus. Otherwise it would be doomed to failure. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has also accepted that. The events of last week confirm the statement. No selfrespecting people would allow itself to be forced into a situation which was entirely unacceptable to it. That is the basic dilemma in this Constitution which we warned against in 1983, and which is now sweeping like an epidemic through current events.

It is interesting to look at what led up to this legislation before us. It is contained in the Report of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council on the report of the Technical Committee, 1983, and Related Matters, which was tabled on 10 September 1987. The matter was discussed in detail in Chapter 5, section 5 of that report, which deals with the implications of these open residential areas. In paragraph 5.164, on page 125, these are formulated as follows:

That was in September. In October, the hon the State President adopted a standpoint on behalf of the Government, and the people at local government level began to discuss the matter.

I have here a letter to illustrate how people, and more specifically town clerks in the Free State, feel about this matter. Here in my hand I have a letter which was written by a town clerk from Bethlehem. I understand his nickname is “Pienk Piet” and he is a bosom Broeder buddy of the hon member for Bethlehem. I asked the hon member to be present, but I do not see him here. [Interjections.] This town clerk says the following, because he has to report to the chairman of the Free State District Committee of the Institute for Town clerks. He says that he received replies from 10 town clerks and that they—

That is exactly what they are going to do with this legislation. [Interjections.]

The Free State says no!

The Free State is going to give them a thrashing!

Furthermore, he asked:

However, the NP is introducing it. He says further:

He then comes to franchise, which is dealt with in this legislation, and says:

Or, in this case, a mixed management committee.

Go and read the legislation.

This is very important:

This is what this town clerk said, and he links the school situation in the area to this and asks:

He then comes to recreation facilities in these areas and this town clerk says the following:

He concludes by saying:

The Government is now enforcing it. [Interjections.] The people in the Free State are saying that they are not ready for it. We shall see what happens at the polls. [Interjections.] Furthermore, this committee …

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to give a reply now.

This committee then went further and looked at various possible ways of dealing with franchise arrangements in open areas, considered them and proposed various alternatives.

Firstly, as an alternative, they proposed joint voters’ lists without restriction on the choice of the candidate in such an open area which this legislation is implementing. What is very important, is the consideration given by this committee. It says:

I now want to say that if the same situation is also valid with regard to central government, then precisely the same argument is valid here; how can one give one person the vote and withhold it from another? Another alternative—namely that the local authority can choose between the different possibilities—was rejected. Yet another alternative was also rejected. [Interjections.]

They then come to a fourth alternative, which provides for a voter in such an area being able to exercise a choice as to whether he wants to vote in that open or free settlement area, or whether he wants to exercise his franchise on the local authority of which the area is a part.

If one now looks at clause 1 as it stands, it is very clear that it is the intention of the legislature to ultimately place all those voters on the open voters’ list, because if such a voter does not exercise his choice within 90 days, he is automatically placed on the mixed voters’ list, and his participation and franchise are taken away from him with regard to that local government. As I interpret the Bill, this only applies to the people who are living there now. If a new area is established, or if new people move in, all of them will be placed on the mixed voters’ list. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the committee touched on a very important matter, as did the town clerk of Bethlehem. The committee did so as well. In paragraph 5.183, the following is said:

The legal position is then sketched, as well as the provision that exists at present with regard to exceptions and the whole question of private schools. In other words, education is inextricably linked to the problems of free settlement areas, and must of necessity ultimately lead to school integration or a degree of school integration. How can it not happen? [Interjections.] Now the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is shaking his head. Let me put the problem to him. If the majority of school children in a particular free settlement area were people of colour and there was an under-utilised White school available in that area, does he think for a single moment that they would cart the majority of children to the schools far away from that area? No, Sir, mixed schools or even Black or Brown schools within White residential areas are what await us. If it does not happen today, it will happen tomorrow. It is as clear as daylight. It is the logical conclusion of the Bill which we have to accept here today. [Interjections.]

The importance of this trilogy of local government laws cannot be over-emphasised. It is in this regard that we are going to ask our people to adopt a standpoint in the October elections. If the voters vote for the NP, in principle they will be voting for the establishment of the first multiracial voters’ lists in South African politics and the logical consequences that will follow on that. They will then be voting in principle for the standpoints adopted and the statements made by NP members in these debates. [Interjections.] For example, the hon member for Innesdal made an appeal for the redivision of land ownership, which must be determined by a judicial commission, because according to that hon member the Whites unjustly own too much land in South Africa. The hon Ministers of Defence and of National Education said that it was a good speech.

The hon member for Swellendam said the following in the House of Assembly on Friday, 26 August 1988:

In other words, all the town clerks of the Free State—

[Interjections.] Let me tell that hon member, who is a young back-bencher of the NP, that he will come to regret those words.

Willie, you must not be so frightened!

This legislation before us deeply affects the group security and community life of our people, and for that reason I predict that each NP candidate is going to meet with serious opposition from all voters in the coming election.

On the other hand, we on this side of the House and our candidates out there are strongly opposed to every form of mixed franchise as embodied in this legislation. We cannot vote for it, but it is the calling of this side of the House to give expression to a people’s ideal of freedom. We are bound to that in principle, and for that reason we shall vote against this legislation.

Mr Chairman, to begin with, allow me on behalf of this side of the House to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, the hon member for Tygervallei, and to a distinguished front-bencher on the NP side, the hon member for Kuruman, on their birthdays. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I actually want to cross swords with the hon member for Claremont, but I shall react very briefly to the hon member for Pietersburg. The hon member became excited here this afternoon about the franchise arrangements that are going to be implemented in free settlement areas. However, he should first go and quarrel with the hon member for Ermelo about this, because surely the hon member for Ermelo is on record as having said that it was proper that one should vote where one lived and paid tax. That is the standpoint of the hon member for Ermelo. [Interjections.] Surely that does not differ in any way from the measures for which provision is being made in this Bill.

The hon member for Pietersburg also said that free settlement areas were going to be forced on the people of the Free State. However, the Bill does not make provision for a free settlement area to be forced on anyone. It can only be established at the request of a local authority or a township developer. [Interjections ]

The hon member also maintained that there would be serious problems with regard to education in free settlement areas. But what is the position in an ordinary residential area such as the one in which I and the hon member live? We have English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, but the English-speaking people still attend English-medium schools and the Afrikaans-speaking people attend Afrikaans-medium schools.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg also happened to remark in his introduction that this Bill was an indication that the Whites no longer had any sovereignty, but that they were dependent on the standpoints of two other Houses. That is precisely the point. Sovereignty of a particular group in the same geographical area must lead to, and is surely a recipe for, conflict and revolution. We are not the only ones who say so. Prof Caret Boshoff also says so. It is for that reason that he wants to work towards a smaller Afrikaner state. He pointed out the consequences of what that hon member was advocating this afternoon, but then the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis said that Prof Boshoff was not a prominent figure in the CP. [Interjections.] However, the less said about that the better.

As has already been said, this Bill makes provision for people in a free settlement area to take part in third-tier government processes. I do not want to repeat the recommendations of the President’s Council, since they have been pointed out by the hon member for Pietersburg. I shall content myself with one option which has not been chosen by the Government. That is the option which entails that if a person, who belongs to a different racial group to the one within the area of jurisdiction of the specific local authority, settles in a free settlement area, that person would have no franchise at all. It would be a punitive measure which would inhibit the establishment of free settlement areas.

We have already indicated why it is necessary for free settlement areas to be established. After all, we said that the fact that there were free settlement areas, gave us the right to enforce the Group Areas Act more effectively in other ways. We also indicated that a free settlement area would, as such, alleviate the pressure on own residential areas.

There is a further reason why it is so important for people in free settlement areas to participate in the third-tier government processes. Third-tier government is going to become more important in the future, given the policy of devolution of power. In fact, as I see the matter, third-tier government is going to become one of the most important forms of government, since the decisions which directly affect people’s lives are going to be taken there. For that reason it would be wrong to exclude people per se from participation in this important form of government. At the end of the day—we have said this in previous debates—it is still the ideal to be represented by one’s own people or by groups with which one associates oneself or to which one belongs. It has also been placed on record that the government has said that the ideal constitutional model for South Africa, at the highest level at any rate, would be a government based on group representation. That is what usually applies in the vast majority of cases of third-tier government. Because free settlement …

The NP has two policies! Choose the one you want!

We are making provision for the general rule as well as for the exception. I am not going to repeat that debate.

With regard to this Bill I want to content myself with the remark that it is essential for people to participate in the decision-making processes of third-tier government, and that this makes the municipal elections of 26 October particularly important. In this regard you will allow me to react to a standpoint the hon member for Claremont adopted last Monday in this House with regard to participation in the municipal elections of 26 October. I do not think that we fully realise the implications of his actions in this House last Monday. The hon member for Claremont stood up here and, on behalf of the Democratic Movement of South Africa, called on the voters of South Africa not to participate in the municipal elections of 26 October. But who or what is the Democratic Movement? Have we already ascertained who this Democratic Movement is that is making this appeal?

The Democratic Movement forms part of the revolutionary onslaught of the ANC-SACP alliance on South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member for Claremont said I was talking nonsense …

Of course you are talking nonsense!

… but I am not the one who said that; it was Oliver Tambo who said it.

[Inaudible.]

But the hon member stood up here and made an appeal to the voters of South Africa on behalf of the Democratic Movement! Oliver Tambo said:

When this hon member stands up and calls on the voters of South Africa on behalf of the Democratic Movement, he is on the same side as Oliver Tambo, but he is also on the same side as Chris Hani, the chief of staff of Umkhonto we Sizwe. The hon member is laughing, but listen to what Chris Hani has said:

That hon member also stands up here and asks Black people not to participate, and then he is on the same side as Chris Hani, but Chris Hani does more than speak. Three days ago a Black man was shot dead in Johannesburg because he wanted to participate in the municipal elections, and now the hon member for Claremont is on that side as well. [Interjections.]

This Democratic Movement has only one objective, and that is to mobilise the masses to revolutionary violence throughout South Africa. Sir, listen to what the mouthpiece of the SACP, Umsebenzi, has to say:

The ordinary voters of South Africa are not usually susceptible to this propaganda campaign of the Democratic Movement which is being manipulated by the ANC, and for that reason this movement has to rely increasingly on intimidation, and in this connection Chris Hani said the following:

[Interjections.] That now belongs to the movement on behalf of which the hon member for Claremont has stood up here and made appeals. [Interjections.] In this connection I can just mention that no responsible government dare allow the continued intimidation of people who want to participate in the democratic processes, and this will not happen on 26 October either, despite the appeals from the hon member for Claremont.

I want to make an earnest appeal to that hon member not to allow himself to be misused in this House by organisations whose ultimate aim is to destroy this and all other peaceful institutions.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House take pleasure in associating ourselves with the congratulations on the birthdays of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and the hon member for Kuruman. May I also sound a warning to them—they had better use birthdays sparingly, because one can die of an excess of them. [Interjections.]

When one hears about an hon friend who is ill or who looks ill, and he assures one that he is well, it gladdens one’s heart. That is why it gave me great pleasure to hear from the hon the Leader of the House last week, as I also saw in the weekend Press, that he was not discouraged—even if he seems to be. [Interjections.] Recently we have heard the hon the Leader of the House say so frequently: “Notwithstanding this and notwithstanding that, I move …” I want to tell you, Mr Chairman, that I am very pleased to hear that, notwithstanding his woebegone look, he is actually not dispirited. [Interjections.]

This brings one to the position in which one can say that the NP has become the “notwithstanding” party. I should like to propose that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Rules which stipulate that I have to speak on the Bill, you permit me to discuss the hon the Minister’s blooming optimism, notwithstanding his dispirited appearance. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the Bill. It deals with the franchise in free settlement areas and the exercise of power in these mixed areas. Earlier this year the hon the State President dealt with the matter of power and politics. The hon the State President was deeply upset when my hon leader said that power was what politics was all about. He called out that, if power was what politics was all about, he wanted nothing to do with it. I read a review in a weekend newspaper of a book, The Future of South Africa, in which Prof Wiechers had the following to say:

The hon the State President apparently has not realised this truth in the 40 years in which he has been in politics, or possibly he has forgotten it because he has been in politics so long. I do not want to suggest that I can make a contribution in that field. I am modest and do not wish to be prescriptive. It gives me great pleasure to use the political buzz-word “prescriptive”. Without being prescriptive, I want to ask the hon the State President whether he does not think the time has come for his retirement.

Here where the subject is power, however, and a discussion of the franchise which is contained in this Bill, the question that arises is what area we are referring to when we discuss the franchise. We are referring to a free settlement area. A free settlement area is defined as an area in respect of which immovable property situated in it may be lawfully occupied, acquired, held or disposed of to any other person, irrespective of the race of that person, by any person.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys spoke about schools. If a school is located in a free settlement area, it is immovable property which may be legally occupied by anyone. Consequently there is no question that anyone can be prevented from doing this. The definition reads that, if that school is situated in such an area, anyone may occupy it legally. It is very easy to say that there are schools for English-speaking and Afrikaansspeaking people in White areas; there are also dual-medium schools. English-speaking people have an additional choice of attending Afrikaansspeaking schools. Will Black, Brown and Yellow people also have a free choice?

There is one point we cannot escape from. It is as clear as day that the NP, notwithstanding it policy, is introducing integration. This is occurring notwithstanding the fact that they say they do not have open voters’ lists. We now have a mixed voters’ list, notwithstanding that policy. Notwithstanding the fact that there have to be own residential areas, there are now mixed areas. Notwithstanding everything which members of the NP say, they are definitely moving along the road to integration. This is not only notwithstanding what the NP said five or ten years ago. I have piles of quotations in which they said that they would never permit mixed voters’ lists. Notwithstanding what the hon the Minister of Finance said three days ago, we are passing an Act today specifically to institute mixed voters’ lists. Notwithstanding the assurance given by the NP and notwithstanding what they said in their newspapers and disseminated among their voters, which is that their formula for power-sharing was very simple, and notwithstanding the hon the Minister of Finance’s statement that White, Black and Coloured hands would not cast ballot papers in the same ballot box, this is what is actually happening.

Mr Chairman, are these people going to vote by means of proxy? Who will insert the mixed ballot papers into the mixed ballot box? [Interjections.] Who will insert these White, Black and mixed ballot papers into that ballot box? Will they get White hands to insert the ballot papers of Blacks or Browns or will they do this themselves? [Interjections.]

That is certainly the party which is held up to people as a party which should be believed by the voters. They cannot be believed. Regardless of what they said on Saturday, they introduce an Act on Wednesday and say that what they said on Saturday is no longer Wednesday’s policy. Former Minister Hendrik Schoeman was frequently asked what the NP’s policy on sport was. He used to say: “I have not seen Dr Koornhof yet this morning.” This is certainly true of that party. The policy changes from hour to hour. The NP is misleading the voters by saying that no mixed ballot papers from different population groups will be cast into the same ballot box. They are introducing this. [Interjections.]

Can’t somebody give that man a loudspeaker?

For many years that party stood firm on the foundation stones on which separateness would be built. I want to tell hon members and hon Ministers on the other side that they cannot create a socially mixed society. They cannot permit the foundation stones to become mixed and think that they can subsequently separate the construction that is built on them. Politics are built on social foundations and grow out of them. They are in the process of bringing about mixed areas and mixed voters’ lists. [Interjections.] They can shout and kick up a fuss about this as much as they like, but it remains a fact.

Who is shouting more loudly than you? [Interjections.]

They are introducing a new principle. They are deviating from their principles. Their politics are becoming pragmatic. They no longer have a principle as regards these matters. Notwithstanding all principles, this is put forward and that is put forward. They are on a dangerous road. If that is the road they choose, that there are to be mixed voters’ lists in this country—because they are preparing them— they should have the courage to stand up and admit this. They must please no longer mislead the voters. They must not pretend to be conservative while they are travelling the same road as the Progs.

Speak up!

The Progs are redundant in this House because the NP is occupying their seats.

I can’t hear you!

The hon member can complain about this; he can ridicule it and say that he cannot hear me. There is none so deaf as he who will not hear. [Interjections.]

The voters’ list is regulated by clause 1 of the Bill. Subsection 2, in fact, provides for the composition of a mixed voters’ list. If one does not personally give notice within 90 days that one does not wish to remain on it, one remains on it. If one does not exercise one’s option within 90 days not to be on it, one automatically remains on it. Subsection 5 provides that one has a second opportunity if one is not satisfied about being on the mixed list from the start. One gets a second chance. After the first election one may choose again and state that one wishes to be on the mixed list.

This is a one-way street. One can never choose to come to this side from the other side, one cannot get off the mixed list, but one can get into the list. If one has not exercised that option within 90 days, because one was ill, because one was away, or because the squirrels did not advertise it clearly that one should do it within 90 days …

Meercats!

Yes, those squirrels that look like meercats. If the squirrels have not told a person, and if one has not discovered it for oneself, one’s name will appear on the mixed voters’ list and one will not get off that list again. [Interjections.]

Why does this traffic run only one way? [Interjections.] Once a person has landed on that list, there is only one way to get off it, and that is to move away. That is the only way in which a person can get off that mixed voters’ list. One will have to sell one’s property there and move. [Interjections.]

But let us look at the linkage if a voter chooses to remain on his old voters’ list. That is also the position which is being created here now. Suddenly a linkage policy is again a good policy because Whites may now remain on their old voters’ lists. They can now be linked. Notwithstanding the fact that one remains there, one can be linked. This is the “notwithstanding” party! Notwithstanding the fact that one lives in Mafikeng, one may vote in the White area, but just do not do this to a Black. If one does it to him, it is a sin but, if it is done to a White, it is all right. Then it is permissible. But please do not do it to a Black man, an Indian or a Coloured! That is a sin! [Interjections.] Here one finds that there are two voters’ lists for the same area. There are two voters’ lists for the same area! Representatives— Black, mixed or White for the others—are elected from two voters’ lists for the same area.

But at the moment that is the case for the three Houses!

At present there are group areas where Blacks have a voters’ list. This is an area where everyone lives and two voters’ lists apply to that same area!

I am sure that the hon member for Langlaagte has applied in advance in that area which is to be instituted on the North-East Rand—Diepkloof. [Interjections.] Of course, this is an area which was proclaimed an open area or which could possibility become an open area although there is no Free Settlement Board. It is common knowledge, however, that that area is to be thrown open. It is a free settlement area without a Free Settlement Board but is already destined for this. And we have been criticised for anticipating matters!

This is just like Hillbrow. Hillbrow will possibly not be the first, but it will definitely become one, regardless of what the Free Settlement Board may decide one day and notwithstanding the policy of the Government!

That is the position as regards this Bill. I want to appeal to hon members on the other side. Reconsider this matter. Hon members are deviating from a principle. It is not only the principle which hon members are playing around with, but the principle that groups are represented by a person of their own choosing on their own voters’ lists. They are opening the way to an integrated South Africa.

Hon members sitting on the other side—each and every one of them—must now decide or, we must assume, have already decided about it. They are headed for that mixed South Africa, and they approve of this. Each of them, together with the respective hon Ministers of own affairs, must reflect on this because an own affair—local government has always been an own affair—is now becoming a mixed affair.

The Government is no longer adhering to any difference in principle or guidelines. Notwithstanding everything, the NP is travelling the road towards integration. Notwithstanding what they want to say to the voters, they are on that road and, notwithstanding what they want us to believe, they are travelling that road. Notwithstanding what the NP may think, they should join the Progs if they want to travel that road openly and honestly. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that the hon member for Bethal used a number of the poorest arguments I have ever heard, he was right on one point, and that is that this Bill deals with the political rights of people in free settlement areas.

A person could say that it deals with the political rights of people of a non-ethnic group. That is certainly what it actually means—at local government level, of course. It deals with the political rights of a new group or a non-group, if one may put it like that, within the sphere of local government. I consider it a pragmatic piece of legislation. It is a fire-escape or lightning-conductor which will make it possible to establish and ensure a general pattern of group rights at local government level.

The hon member for Roodepoort usually deduces from such a statement that own residential areas are impossible. Obviously the hon member will make the deduction again today that I am supposedly saying that own political rights are impossible. If the hon member does say that, he is talking nonsense.

The Bill is a method which the NP sees of dealing, in a balanced and practical way, with the sociopolitical forces tending towards association, but also to dissociation, unlike the hon member for Randburg who wafts about in thin air because he dogmatically keeps philosophising, unbalanced because they glorify individual rights on the one hand or absolutise group rights as the groups on the right do. Both these extreme points of view indicate intolerance in South African society. The Bill makes it possible to establish local government as the base of the pyramid of governmental authority for own affairs government. It is the Government’s standpoint that the concept of own affairs government should be developed further.

At the same time, however, it is important for us to examine the alternatives which the NP is suggesting as a solution to the problem. On the left one has the PFP who are boycotting the debate. They glorify the rights of the individual, but do not want to debate their standpoint on the this Bill with the NP. One therefore need not discuss the PFP any further. On the other side there are the right-wing thinkers who, to my mind, reduce group rights to the absolute.

This brings me to the challenge which the hon member for Carletonville issued to me to appear with him on the same platform, and his advocate, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, who has been involved in frantic correspondence with me over the past few days. One wonders why hon members of the CP issue such challenges to appear with them on the same platform. [Interjections.] The reason is that they cannot debate a matter with us on an occasion like this because they have no standpoint. Those hon members want to have NP members shouted down before a group of yelling racists because they tolerate no other arguments. This indicates their intolerance. They want the NP down shouted down on a public platform. Nevertheless I was quite prepared to appear on the same platform with the hon member in Sasolburg or anywhere else. After a previous occasion on which we held a joint debate, however, and I greeted him in a friendly spirit at the airport and asked him how he was, his reply made me decide that I would never mount the same platform with him again. On that occasion the hon member for Carletonville said to me: “Don’t talk to me. Talk to your ‘hotnots’.” [Interjections.] That is the type of racist comment which that hon member made to my face. All the hon member for Carletonville wants to do in Sasolburg is to jeopardise the sound ethnic relations we are trying to build up there. That is the reason why I refuse to mount the same platform with him or the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

You are looking for an excuse! Are you frightened?

I am not looking for an excuse. The hon member asks whether I am frightened. No, I am not frightened. The hon member could well ask his hon leader how often I have put questions to him at public meetings recently. The hon member could also question the hon member for Barberton and the deputy leader of his party about this; on the contrary, I want to issue an invitation to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to debate the question of partition with him on a public platform in the relevant constituency when the next by-election comes up. [Interjections.] I refuse, however, to appear on a public platform with the hon member for Carletonville because he is harming sound ethnic relations in the country.

The question regarding this legislation is how right-wing groups deal in South Africa with the political rights of these people, whom they do not like, in the difficult situation of free settlement areas. Let us look at an organisation like the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging. The hon member for Bethal is probably pleased that I am not talking to him today, because I think this BBB is a more dangerous organisation than the AWB. To tell the truth, the AWB calls this organisation a sick movement. I am quoting from The Sunday Star of Sunday, 29 November 1987. [Interjections.] Even the AWB says this organisation is sick. Let us look, for instance, at how this organisation wants to handle this type of situation. Firstly, it threatens the hon the State President, and I quote from the report as follows:

The reference here is to the leader of the group, Prof Schabort—

[Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Middelburg! The hon member is speaking so loudly that he does not even hear when he is called to order. The hon member cannot talk across the floor of the House like that. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

How will the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging deal with the situation now? What does it say about the Jews, for example? The report reads:

He says the Jews are a problem; they will be repatriated from South Africa. [Interjections.] The poor hon member for Yeoville and the poor hon member Mrs Chait will, according to these people, have to be deported out of this country.

What about urban Blacks? Of them it is said—

Blacks must go back to the homelands, Sir, the whole lot. That is how they will deal with the situation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This has nothing to do with the Bill which is under discussion at present. I suggest that it is out of order.

Order! I am listening to the hon member for Sasolburg. I want to point out to hon members that discussion of this Bill offers a limited scope, and we cannot permit discussion of it to range too widely. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am trying to show that this is a movement aimed at dealing with free settlement areas, or mixed residential areas if hon members choose to call them that, in a certain alternative manner. By means of this legislation the NP has placed on the table its proposal on what a person should do with the political rights of those people. We want to argue the alternative. I shall deal here with one of the organisation’s alternatives.

What does Prof Schabort have to say about the Indians? He says:

[Interjections.] They can either go to India or have to be sent to the Black homelands. The most ridiculous one is the following:

[Interjections.] This is the first time that it has come up that English-speaking South Africans now have to receive their own homeland as well. That is the way in which this organisation wants to deal with these matters.

The question now is what people go to make up the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging. Prof Schabort says he has a great deal of support among English-speaking people and mentions, inter alia, “the Patriotic Forum based in Durban” adding that among the 14 organisations which support him is “the Stallard Foundation, started by members of the Conservative Party in Krugersdorp”. [Interjections.] His members also belong to the Stallard Foundation.

Now I ask what people go to make up the Stallard Foundation. I shall quote a sentence from the letter here …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is not discussing the legislation at all … [Interjections.]

Order! I am listening to the hon member for Sasolburg. The hon member is explaining who will have the franchise and who will not. I want to ask the hon member to deal more specifically with what the Bill provides and not to range as far afield as he is doing at present.

Mr Chairman, I want to explain to hon members what the standpoint of one of the hon members of this House is. I shall get to it in a moment. Who go to make up the Stallard Foundation? I quote:

The director is the hon member Mr Clive DerbyLewis and the secretary is Mrs Gay Derby-Lewis. That is the Stallard Foundation. According to this report in the Sunday newspaper they are members of the Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging. Note that they are English-speaking. Where will their homeland be? We shall have to ask him about this one day. If I had known that he would walk out, I would have asked him to stay.

I maintain that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was planted here by the BBB to undermine the Afrikaner’s interests. If one does not provide for the interests of other people and groups, one is undermining the interests of the Whites and ultimately also those of the Afrikaners. That is a common point of departure. If one does not provide for free settlement areas, one is undermining the general pattern of own residential areas and, if one does not provide for political rights, one is undermining the general pattern of own affairs government. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys talked a lot of nonsense. However, it is not going to help him with the dilemma in which his party finds itself at the moment. The term “democratic movement” be longs to the whole of the South African population which is seeking a democratic, non-racial South Africa. It is definitely not the sole property of the South African Communist Party. I want to state that categorically. To be frank, if that were the case, I would not have been able to support it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member whether there is any truth in the rumour that the only reason he did not walk out was that he is now being given a turn to speak?

Mr Chairman, let me just tell the hon member: “Jealousy will get you nowhere!”

†Because the principle of free settlement areas is faulty and basically racist, it is therefore my contention that it is impossible to make any electoral system, as is being provided for today, work within these areas. This legislation clearly illustrates the Government’s dilemma of trying, on the one hand, to satisfy the conservative White electorate by ensuring that most of South Africa remains an unfree settlement area with racially exclusive government, while on the other hand trying to placate the Hendrickses and others by allowing multiracial government or management bodies in certain areas within the free settlement areas. In other words, they are trying to satisfy everybody at the moment, both those on the left and on the right. The result is that they are not succeeding in satisfying anybody.

So unacceptable do most Black South Africans find the Government’s franchise system, that Government officials and politicians are at the moment trying to lure Blacks into the elections by means of promises of motorcars, fat salaries and other perks. I will not say in which city it happened or who is involved, but very recently a number of Black people, after a meeting with certain officials, were asked why they did not participate and stand in the Black elections, since their motorcars and salaries were waiting for them. Sir, if one has to get people to vote in that way, one must be desperate. A constitutional structure that has to depend on bribery to obtain participants is fundamentally flawed and has to fail.

*Mr Chairman, such a system is built on sand and must collapse, as is the case at present.

†The hon the Minister reminds one more and more of a modern-day Father Christmas who is trekking from town to town, dishing out sweets left and right in an attempt to lure people to please come and take part in the elections in October.

No wonder that truly representative leaders of the people out there are opposed to participating in a structure which makes use of bribery, gifts and promises to make people participate.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member continue to talk about bribery? The gist of his speech indicates that the hon Minister is going from place to place to bribe people to vote.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

In this legislation, as in other legislation, many decisions depend on the Minister’s discretion, on his humaneness or lack of it, and on his sense of justice or lack of it.

†At present there is a system which provides for the issuing of permits to persons who need to be accommodated on humanitarian grounds.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is not discussing the legislation before the House at all. The legislation deals with local authorities and free settlement areas, and the hon member is discussing permits. This merely shows that the hon member is abusing his turn to speak.

Order! I have a problem with the appropriateness of the hon member’s speech on the Bill. In any event, the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Claremont is taking every opportunity in this House to fan the flames of racial hatred in this country. He does it either deliberately or recklessly.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member has just said that I use every opportunity in this House to fan the flames of racial hatred. Is that permissible? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Is that Parliamentary?

Yes. The hon member for King William’s Town may proceed.

I should like to quote from the unedited version of the hon member’s speech on 29 August in this House when he stated, inter alia:

When the hon member for Turffontein asked him: “Do you support them?” his answer was: “Why should that be a crime? I do support them”. He does support the Democratic Movement to which he refers, the same one to which the hon member Dr B L Geldenhuys referred earlier.

The source of this legislation is the findings and recommendations of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council tabled in this House on 17 September last year. That committee established that due to changed circumstances in South Africa the need had become evident for open residential areas in addition to existing own group areas. Apparently the Official Opposition does not ever recognise that changes take place in this country for they are opposing this fact rather vigorously. However, it was natural that having recommended open areas the question of representation and the franchise in such areas would have to be addressed. Accordingly the committee proposed five alternatives in its report. The fourth alternative contained in paragraph 5.177 proposed that all inhabitants, irrespective of population group, of an open residential area who qualified for local authority voting rights should be placed on one common voters’ roll established for that specific open area. It further proposed that all inhabitants whose names appeared on the open area voters’ roll should be entitled to elect their own area committee. It was envisaged that such a committee would take care of the interests of the area and should have the highest possible number of delegated powers with regard to that open area. It should also have formal powers to participate in the local authority itself. However, it would remain under the general control of the local authority and would not have a final right of decision within the local authority. In essence, it would be an own management or local affairs committee for that open area.

One exception was recommended by the constitutional committee. Where an existing residential area under a local authority is opened, anyone already qualified as a voter on the local authority’s voters’ roll should be entitled to retain such right if he so desires. Newcomers would qualify for the voters’ roll of the open area irrespective of population group.

These recommendations were designed to cater for the changing residential pattern in South Africa. On 5 October 1987 the hon the State President, in a far-reaching speech to Parliament, indicated the Government’s willingness to accept the President’s Council’s recommendations subject to a thorough investigation of all the constitutional implications. The hon the State President indicated that a satisfactory arrangement would have to be effected within the framework of the distinction between own affairs and general affairs at local government level. The Government has undertaken that investigation very thoroughly and has basically accepted the constitutional committee’s fourth alternative with minor adjustments.

The Bill before us embodies the principles to which I have referred. In effect the Bill recognises that the continued existence of own local authorities for each population group should remain. However, it introduces a degree of flexibility with regard to the say the various population groups will have. Within the open area all population groups are treated on an equal basis, irrespective of race, colour or creed. They have a common voters’ roll. There is and can be no discrimination based on colour within the open area. They exercise equal voting rights and they can elect a multiracial committee to deal with their own affairs.

This afternoon I stand amazed at the attitude and the approach of the PFP to this legislation. For years they have fought tooth and nail for the principles which are specifically embodied in this legislation for open areas. They accuse the NP of being totally inflexible, but nothing is more inflexible than their attitude to this Bill today. The NP will continue to secure the interests of all population groups in this country. We will also continue to ensure that those who wish to remain and live within their own communities will be able to do so. For those who wish to reside in their own area the Bill brings absolutely no change to their situation. However, for those who wish to reside in an open area in a multiracial atmosphere this Bill is a breakthrough which will allow them to do just that. It affords them the right to free association. It affords them a democratic franchise and a right to representation. It also allows further representation on a joint committee with the local authority to deal with matters of common concern. All who live legally in the open area will have exactly the same privileges. They will have a say in respect of their own services and their own amenities.

This Government has been accused of ruthlessly proceeding with a trilogy of Bills. We certainly have not been ruthless. We have been determined. No government with any self-respect can allow itself to be blown hither and thither by the winds of hysterical emotion. We have kept to our course of evolutionary reform. We have remained determined to ensure that this package of legislation is placed on the Statute Book to bring about a vast improvement to our national residential pattern. What we have done, we have done after the most careful thought and we have done it in the interests of all the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow up on the hon member for King William’s Town. He always contributes positive speeches in this House.

*Before continuing my speech. I want to make a few comments about what, in his excitement, the hon member for Bethal said a short while ago. He made a great fuss about the whole question of education in these free settlement areas. I shall not reply to him on this issue, but merely give him a reference which he would do well to consult. Let him take a look at the findings of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council on the Report of the Technical Committee, 1983 and Related Matters on p 131 and further.

This Bill has a specific regulatory function. It is true that it is specifically one of the primary tasks of government to carry out the regulatory function in all spheres of life. It is true that people of different cultures and different groups will go to live in such a residential area, just as is the case in other countries. It is also true that one will obviously find a form of conflict of interests. It is specifically the object of this Bill to provide for the regulation of this conflict of interests at local government level in free settlement areas.

The Government therefore, by means of this Bill, again assumes the responsibility of governing this country and harmonising conflicting interests. In this way the developing needs of a community are satisfied.

I now want to look for the explanation of the NP approach to this legislation at its actual source, which the CP has lost track of recently. In a while I shall refer to these matters in my speech.

The basis of NP policy is found in two elements. The basis as regards those of colour is found firstly with Gen Herzog and, secondly, in the NP’s Program van Beginsels. As the Blacks are one of the groups which will live in these free settlement areas on the basis of specific numbers, I think it fitting that one should look at what Gen Hertzog said about this.

As early as 1913 he observed the presence of considerable numbers of Blacks outside their traditional areas. On the strength of this observation, he formulated his well-known policy of separation, a policy which he qualified very clearly in January 1913—75 years ago. In a previous debate I referred to this specific statement by Gen Hertzog. but I think it is as apt here, if not more so, as in that particular debate. Consequently I want to take the liberty of once again paying attention to this aspect.

He said—I am translating from the Dutch of the time—that if the policy of separation did not succeed, we would have to grant the Native part of the population which lives with us the right to a say in governing bodies which deal with matters of common concern. This condition—I want to emphasise it—that if the policy of separation did not succeed, a say in matters of common concern would have to be granted, is stated very clearly.

It is true that until recently the NP and the Whites in South Africa recognised only the idea of separation, without the attendant condition, namely that, if this cannot be complied with—it is a kind of suspending condition—this must happen. I think that Gen Hertzog’s vision in this regard is incorporated further in the explanatory passages in the NP’s Program van Beginsels, as approved at the founding meeting of the NP on 7 to 9 January, 1914, in Bloemfontein. I shall give hon members a further indication of this specific piece of Dutch in Afrikaans.

Did you translate it yourself?

Yes, I translated it myself. I can actually do it.

Section 1 reads:

I shall continue to debate that later. The second element is its endeavour—

What is of great importance here are not the provisions in this specific section, but the comprehensive explanatory passages on them. The course adopted by the NP in the eighties and the CP being on the wrong track are, at one and the same time, to be found in this explanation.

My argument is as follows: When a person analyses this explanation, it emerges very clearly that the NP represents national aspirations and convictions, and, its representing them also means that it protects them. In addition, this protective function also set the party the goal of developing and realising these aspirations. The NP regards these national aspirations and convictions as something precious and sound which should therefore be protected. At the same time these aspirations and convictions, which I shall qualify in a moment, must grow and improve so that they may keep pace with the progress of the people in material and spiritual spheres but—this is important—also progress in maturity of experience and development of intellectual insight, as the explanation states. For this reason the NP strives to develop these aspirations and convictions.

What is meant by “nasionale aspirasie” and “nasionale oortuiging”? According to the explanation, “nasionale aspirasie” means “’n volksverlange, ’n hunkering van die volk na iets geoorloofs wat hulle wil verwesenlik”; and “’n nasionale oortuiging” is “’n gevoel by ’n volk omtrent ’n bepaalde saak”. Up to this point I believe that the principles which I have spelt out ought to be supported by both the CP and the NP. After all, both parties had their origins in this political creed.

The explanation goes further, however …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member would do well to listen. The explanation goes on to state:

What kind of development is this to be? It has to take place by means of—

Here the explanation ends.

I shall give the following short summary of the two sources which I have quoted. In the first place, Gen Hertzog’s standpoint: “Segregeer of skei af effektief, en as dit nie kan gebeur nie, wees dan bereid om medeseggenskap in sake van gemeenskaplike belang te gee.” That was the condition. I am talking about 75 years ago now. In the second place, as regards this programme of principles: “Ontwikkel, verwesenlik, en verbeter en pas aan by omstandighede”—the issue here is national aspirations and convictions.

That is precisely what the Bill does. Thirty-five years ago, when some hon members of that party belonged to the NP, we were firmly united. Blacks were not as politically aware as they are now. The economy flourished. Whites represented 20% of the population. Nevertheless we could not carry out the policy of separateness effectively, inter alia owing to the emerging reality of a large group of people with specific needs as regards housing, accommodation, the economy and politics. That is exactly what this Bill aims to address.

It is a pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should not like to react at length to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North said, except to say that one merely needs to ask the NP how the erstwhile standpoint of Gen Hertzog can be reconciled with free settlement areas because only the NP would be able to give a reply to such an impossibility. [Interjections.]

The Bills for which this short session of Parlia ment has been convened, one being the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, have plunged the tricameral Parliament as a constitutional model into its greatest crisis so far.

The legality of the Government’s conduct is at stake, having unilaterally suspended the Rules in the light of the provisions of section 64 of the Constitution. Nothing remains of the system’s legitimacy. While the Government, only a few months ago, was still considering the co-option of Blacks in a new constitutional dispensation, the other two Houses withdrew from the system. Little if anything has remained of government by consensus. For years the CP warned that a policy of consensus could only work with an approach that entailed making concessions and giving things away, and this has now been verified.

†The Government is now back to square one.

*In today’s edition of The Citizen there was a report about discussions between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives with the aim of reaching consensus also in respect of these Bills which are now before the House. Rev Allan Hendrickse said in this regard:

And he is going to get them too!

Please note, Sir, that Rev Allan Hendrickse is telling the Government what he wants in order to reach consensus. He says that all these areas must be opened where he wants them to be, and that all the central business districts must be opened. I continue to quote:

We ask the NP whether they are again going to give the Coloureds what they want, as they have also done in the past, in order to reach consensus. [Interjections.] Unlike Gen Hertzog they cannot talk of “segregate or die” (segregreer of sterf); as far as they are concerned it is a question of “consensus or die”.

Reach consensus and die!

Perhaps they should rather say: “Reach consensus and die”, because consensus in terms of these important things that the trilogy of Bills relate to can only be reached if they give Rev Hendrickse his own way. [Interjections.]

Order! So far I have allowed the hon member to discuss the so-called trilogy of Bills in broad terms. I cannot allow a repetition of the entire debate on the matter. The hon member must confine himself to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am replying to what previous speakers said in respect of the trilogy of Bills.

I should like to close this part of my speech by issuing the Government with this warning. At the time, Rev Hendrickse said in regard to the group areas legislation—I want to suggest that it be read in conjunction with the Bills before us: “Send the chocolates”. We now want to tell the Government: “Just don’t send the chocolates by post”.

The CP is now asking what other concession is now going to be made so that consensus can be reached on this Bill. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning could of course promise that he will not exercise the power that he has in terms of the Group Areas Act to evict people, and in this way, he could reach consensus in respect of the Bill before us. We on this side of the House are telling the hon the Minister that we shall carefully monitor the way in which he is going to exercise the discretion he has in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Order! the hon member cannot discuss the Group Areas Act now. I am not going to permit the hon member to speak in such general terms. The hon member must come back to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I also want to discuss the Bill with regard to the municipal candidates and municipal elections, because surely this Bill relates to local authorities. I hope that you will give me that opportunity, Sir.

In The Sunday Star of 28 August 1988, under the heading:

the newspaper said the following under a subheading:

Then the report said:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is not obeying your ruling.

Order! The Chair is capable of judging that for itself. The hon member may proceed.

In this report of 28 August, the newspaper said the following:

An hon member says we are going to lose. We shall prove, also with a quotation from this Bill in which the NP accepts mixed voters’ rolls, that in this municipal election under discussion we are going to give the NP the biggest hiding in its history.

You must remember that you voted against the Group Areas Act!

I should like to refer to clause 26 of the Bill in question. In clause 26, which incorporates a short title, the following is written and I want to read it out to hon members:

I truly want to congratulate the NP, the hon the Minister and the hon members on that side of the House on their ingenuity in regard to the discovery of new political terminologies for South African politics. I want to congratulate them on that; I want to congratulate them for having now made mixed residential areas free settlement areas. However, I want to warn them that they must not think that the voters cannot see through this deception. We have progressed from a situation of prohibited mixed residential areas, which was prohibited in terms of the old NP policy …

Oh please, you just want to make a Hillbrow of everything.

We progressed from that to open residential areas, which were recommended by the President’s Council. We progressed from that to free settlement areas which are now incorporated in this Bill. I want to ask the Government whether they are not ashamed of deceiving the voters every time by means of terminology which they change with such ease and profusion. They must not think that the voters will allow themselves to be deceived by that. [Interjections.]

In the last election on 6 May 1987, we had the situation that a pamphlet was issued by the NP in Potchefstroom. They are free to come and consult it here if they think that I am not quoting truthfully from it. The pamphlet states that the CP says of NP policy that mixed residential areas and schools will be established. The pamphlet then states that that is “untrue”. Who has misled the voters now? Is it the CP, which every time has told the voters that mixed areas and mixed voters’ rolls are on the NP’s agenda? Have we deceived the voters or have they deceived the voters with this pamphlet which was distributed by a responsible person in the Potchefstroom constituency and in which they claimed that the CP’s statement that open residential areas was NP policy was untrue? [Interjections.]

I am afraid to say that the NP is committing the greatest deception in South Africa’s political history and that they are not even ashamed of doing so.

Secondly, I want to refer to the NP’s policy document and hon members will note that I am not quoting from the Patriot. I am quoting from their own reports and I am now presenting them with their own words. They will remember—let us perhaps ascertain who wrote it, if the person has the courage to say who wrote it. Who wrote this little pamphlet for the NP for 6 May 1987: NP POLICY—THE FACTS!; NP BELEID—DIE FEITE? Do hon members know what the NP told their voters in it? I wonder whether the hon member Dr Geldenhuys was among those responsible for it, or whether it was Mr Piet Marais. Those hon members must now have the courage to go back to their constituencies, if they have a constituency, and to tell their voters that what they wrote here is not true. Do those hon members know what is written here? The following question was put:

Below this question is the reply. And what a surprising answer it is! Initially it is a reply that seeks to be a little misleading, and then they become frightened of the deception and give a frank reply after all. The reply is:

Already there are joint sittings—

The NP has become the “in spite of’ and the “but” party. They continue to say:

May I, with all due respect … [Interjections.] … ask the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid whether in his heart of hearts he is not ashamed of the fact that this piece of paper was distributed amongst the voters and that they come forward today, without apologising to the voters, with a completely different policy in terms of mixed voters’ rolls?

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

If there is time at the end of my speech, questions can be asked, but I do not have sufficient time available to me.

We shall give you more time.

Thank you very much, can I make use of it? How much extra time does that hon member give me?

As long as it takes you to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

When it came to the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the CP said repeatedly that mixed marriages would inevitably lead to mixed residential areas, mixed schools and mixed voters’ rolls. On numerous occasions the NP said that in giving this warning the CP was lying to the voters and deceiving them because the NP was not in favour of mixed residential areas, mixed schools and mixed voters’ rolls.

And there they are now!

It has been said that the NP would never accept mixed residential areas, mixed schools and mixed voters’ rolls. When on a previous occasion I pointed out the inevitable implications of the NP’s destructive policy of integration, the hon the Minister of National Education—he is not here now to bear it out— gave a reply in the negative, shaking his head.

I ask once again who is deceiving the White voters now with this Bill, because with this Bill the principle of a mixed voters’ roll is after all being accepted. If they on that side of the House still think in terms of principles, the hon the Minister must surely admit that this is the first step towards accepting mixed voters’ rolls in principle. [Interjections.] In fact it is more than that. It is not only the acceptance of the principle of mixed voters’ rolls, it is the actual practical implementation thereof, despite the fact that the NP said something different to the voters on 6 May 1987.

On numerous occasions the hon the State President said he would go far to satisfy the wishes of the other population groups and to accommodate them in a constitutional dispensation. The hon the State President did, however, add that there was one principle from which he would never deviate—he would never end up with mixed voters’ rolls. I can still hear the way he said it echoing like a refrain. Not one of those hon members who are now so quiet, including the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, can deny that the hon the State President repeatedly said that he would not be in favour of mixed voters’ rolls. [Interjections.]

He said it only last Friday!

However, it is an “in spite of’ party and on 28 August 1988 we received the further assurance—the hon members for Soutpansberg, Pietersburg and Bethal have referred to it—in a report in which it was said to the voters again. A message was conveyed by NP newspapers that White, Black and Coloured hands would never cast votes in the same ballot-box. [Interjections.] I am asking what is left of this once mighty NP. Not only is the party in tatters but its morality is totally in shreds.

There is no credibility left!

Where is your beard? [Interjections.]

Those hon members can shout as much as they like, but they will not be able to change the truth. [Interjections ]

Today the NP does not have the excuse that they had the other day regarding the Group Areas Act. They do not have the excuse that they had when they abolished the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Sir, you will still remember that on that occasion they said that we must remember that they said “as far as is practicable”.

Today we ask the Government where their excuse of “as far as is practicable” is to be found in respect of mixed voters’ rolls. Surely there is no such excuse, because they never said it. Surely I read the policy out to them and nowhere is it written “as far as is practicable”, but the day will come when a White electorate will avenge itself for this dishonesty on the part of a political party such as the NP. [Interjections.]

Finish talking so that you can sit down!

I shall not sit down. I shall continue until the people out there can hear that we shall keep on conveying the message the people want to hear. [Interjections.]

Today the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned for the first time that this was a new approach. We thank him for admitting the truth, but we want to tell him it is too late. He should have said it before 6 May 1987. We shall go from platform to platform and discuss this new approach which is accelerating the process of integration in South Africa.

Furthermore, this Bill confirms the principle of mixed local authorities. Not only is the management body of the free settlement area mixed, but the joint committee formed by members of the local authority is also mixed. In this way the principle of own local government is being impaired and the way is being prepared for mixed local authorities. That is another example of how the NP is going back on its own policies.

Surely they have on innumerable occasions, from platform to platform, whether they want to deny it or not, told the voters that mixed local authorities would not come into their own in South Africa. Do hon members know what is probably the most scandalous aspect? It is not so much the lie which the NP spread in this regard, but rather the fact that they do not go to the voters the next day to apologise for that lie they told. [Interjections.] Surely it is as clear as daylight that no one can believe the NP any longer.

I also have to point out the following consequence of this legislation. Authorities do not only exist in respect of local representation. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister expressly and respectfully that he reply to the question relating to what will become of parliamentary representation in these areas. Is he able to tell us what the position regarding parliamentary representation is going to be?

Our electoral system is based on the territorial principle, which means that where one lives is where one votes and where one’s interests are accommodated. Seen from the voters’ point of view the question which arises is who is going to represent the voters of these mixed residential areas in Parliament? Will it be a White, a Coloured or an Indian member of Parliament? For which House—I want to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister this question— are these people in these free settlement areas going to vote? Are they going to vote for the White House, or are they going to vote for the representative of the Coloured or the Indian House? That question must be answered and the words “as far as is practicable” must not be used as an excuse.

Seen from the member of Parliament’s point of view, who are his voters? Is it everyone in that mixed residential area or only the Whites for the White member of Parliament, Coloureds for the Coloured member of Parliament and Indians for the Indian member of Parliament? And what about the Blacks in those mixed residential areas? Surely it is now the NP’s policy to make provision for everyone within the framework of a unitary state, and that is why free settlement areas are being created in order to provide for the aspirations and political rights of Blacks as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it took the hon member for Losberg quite some time to come to the legislation itself.

You have blood on your nose!

At least it is not Lebanese blood!

In his argument he consistently gave the legislation a wide berth, however, and only came round to arguing about a matter of principle towards the end. The moment he did so, he began to lose his footing. When he was no longer gossip-mongering, he began to lose his footing. He then began to ask where these people would be voting at Parliamentary level.

Tell us!

Yes, I am going to reply to the hon member now. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member can put everything straight.

The hon member wanted to know where they were going to vote, because the territorial principle would then apply. I now want to ask the hon member whether he is unaware of the fact that KwaThemba near Springs, for example, falls within the physical boundaries of the Springs constituency. Is he unaware of the fact that a place such as Geluksdal falls within the boundaries of the constituency of the hon member of Nigel?

No, Brakpan!

Very well then, within the boundaries of the constituency of the hon member for Brakpan. Do the people of Geluksdal vote for the hon member for Brakpan or for a representative in Parliament? [Interjections.] Surely that is illogical.

Is it a free settlement area?

At parliamentary level the principle is still that population groups are represented there, and that does not necessarily relate solely to constituencies which are separated from one another on a watertight basis. At times those constituencies overlap, as is the case at present in the tricameral system.

There is another very interesting statement that was made by those hon members, however, and the hon member for Pietersburg must correct me if I misunderstood him. He referred to this legislation and to the fact that people of colour were also going to obtain parliamentary franchise within those municipal boundaries. The hon member said that if a person had municipal franchise, he would, of necessity, also have to get parliamentary franchise.

That was also the proposal made by die President’s Council!

But the hon member agreed that if someone obtained municipal franchise he would also have to get parliamentary franchise.

I do not agree with that!

That is what the hon member said, and he must not back down now, because he also walked into a trap there. [Interjections.]

If I understand the CP’s basic principles correctly, one of the standpoints of the party is that in South Africa Blacks will have municipal franchise and will be able to vote for their own town and city councils. If the CP wants to apply the principle consistently, a CP Government would also be bringing the Blacks into Parliament. That is the upshot of what the hon member said.

You do not understand it!

It is quite clear that the hon member does not understand how the principle of consistency operates.

I prefer to discuss this specific legislation, however, and its importance. When we dealt with the Free Settlement Areas Bill, we argued that with that Bill we would be making provision for a specific need which had developed in South Africa, ie that of a group of people who did not mind living in a mixed area.

On that occasion, if I remember correctly, the hon member for Pietersburg wanted to know from me, by way of an interjection, where such people came from. The fact is that since largescale encroachment took place in Hillbrow, and it became a de facto mixed area, Whites have also moved in. So there are people who do not mind living in such an area, and such needs also exist. It is therefore a question of a specific need having to be dealt with.

In dealing with that need, certain consequences arise, one of those consequences being that one also has to give those people some form of representation and say at municipal level. While the general, basic, valid pattern or rule is still that groups live together in specific areas, one makes provision for exceptions. When one makes provision for an exception, one must deal with the full consequences of such a decision, and that is what is being done by this trilogy of legislation we have debated during this session.

The fact of the matter—this is a standpoint I also adopted in a previous debate—is that group areas cannot be divorced from the constitutional set-up in the country, and that the way in which group areas and groups are dealt with also has fundamental implications for the constitutional dispensation.

If it is accepted that a new group has also come into the picture and that recognition is being granted to that group, one is thereby not denying the group principle per se; on the contrary, the group principle is specifically confirmed by grantin g recognition to an additional group and by accommodating that group. And that is what is happening here.

The fact is that if one does not recognise the reality that in South Africa there are areas such as the Hillbrows, that there are areas in which people want to associate with one another freely and adopt a lifestyle which differs from the general pattern—in other words if that is negated—tensions and pressures develop within the system. Parties such as the CP, the Official Opposition, which is not prepared to deal with the realities of South Africa, seriously endanger the existing order in this country. That will lead to pressure, tension and conflict which one will ultimately not be able to deal with and which will have to erupt somewhere or other.

The NP is now the cut-and-run party!

Mr Chairman, that party is the cut-and-run party which is too scared to face up to and deal with the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.] This party has the courage to deal with the realities of South Africa in the interests of all the people of South Africa, and in particular in the interests of the Whites who are represented here. This party is prepared to deal with them by viewing the overall realities of South Africa and making provision for those realities within the structures which are created, structures of which this Bill forms a part.

When one does not deal with the realities of the situation, the alternative is in effect to adopt Prof Carel Boshoff’s option and opt for complete secession. What does Prof Carel Boshoff say? I do not agree with his option, and I do not think his option is a viable one, but on one point of departure I agree with him. I am referring to what he said in an interview in the September 1988 issue of the magazine Insig.

Surely that is only logical. If one accepts that reality it must be dealt with. If they choose secession as an option they must tell us, because then we can debate the matter and argue about that aspect with one another. One cannot go on trying to walk astride a fence. In any case, it is very dangerous to do so. [Interjections.]

Prof Boshoff also made another statement which was very interesting. He said that at present the Afrikanerstigting was engaged in a viability study of a possible area for the establishment of the Afrikaner state.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I do not know whether the aspect the hon member is talking about now has anything to do with the Bill.

Order! In any case, the hon member for Springs’ time has expired.

Mr Chairman, at a meeting in my constituency I said that I would like an opportunity to bring my entire constituency to Parliament so that they could listen, during the discussion of these three Bills, to what the NP had to say. Today I tried to take note of which of those hon members were participating in the debate. Except for the hon member for Springs, who suddenly came forward from the liberal side, it seemed as if only the conservative members on this side were participating in this debate today.

Don’t flatter yourself.

I am flattering the hon member for Sasolburg when I say that he is very conservative.

No, he is a racist!

He is just confused!

The past few days I have sat listening to hon members on that side of the House, and if one were to summarise their speeches, one would have to say that not one of them said that they had come along here to state the views of the voters of those particular constituencies. The hon members who took the floor here all their own egos first. Each of them said: “I say this, and the NP says we should do that.” They have moved away completely from the voters and from their own people.

Would you people not like to stop telling those lies too for a while?

They have moved away from the actual people who have to vote …

Those lies in Standerton. You people are lying and you know you are lying!

That hon member was also present in the Standerton constituency during the recent by-election …

You people are lying and you know you are lying! [Interjections.]

There that hon member told all kinds of stories, and it cost him dearly. He saw what the result was. [Interjections.]

You people lied and you know you lied!

Order! I think the hon member for Langlaagte should stop his running commentary.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As I heard it, the hon member said: “You people are lying and you know you are lying.”

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, at a public meeting in Standerton I said that they were lying and knew that they were lying, and I say it again.

Order! I do not want a speech from the hon member. Did the hon member say they were lying and knew that they were lying?

Mr Chairman, I said that the CP was lying and that they knew they were lying, and I say it again. They are lying, and there is not the slightest doubt about that, and I have said as much at a public meeting.

Order! I am not interested in that. The question is simply whether the hon member was referring to hon members in the House—whether he said that they lied here.

Sir, I was referring to a newspaper report. I held it up so that they could see it and said that they were lying and knew they were lying. I referred to the newspaper, and I say again …

You said “you people”!

Yes, you people. You people sitting there!

Order! The hon member for Standerton may continue.

Mr Chairman, I would be glad if the hon member for Langlaagte would give me an opportunity to complete my speech.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, I merely want to ask you: When the hon member looks at us and says to the speaker “You people know you are lying”, surely he means that it is the hon speaker who is lying, not so?

Order! If I understood the hon member correctly, he was referring to a newspaper report, and I take his word for it. The hon member for Standerton may proceed.

In the newspapers over the weekend it was actually significant to note—this is actually typical of what happened in this House, and of what the hon member for Langlaagte has just illustrated once more—that we are saddled with “A Government that has gone mad”, as indicated in the headline in The Sunday Star. It is therefore clear that these hon members, in their effort to hide behind all the promises they have made in the past … [Interjections] … are going mad, as that newspaper states. They no longer have any perspective whatsoever on what they said in the past. Here I have quotations of what hon Ministers and hon members said in recent years.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, that hon member has been speaking for five minutes now and has not referred once to the Bill.

I have been interrupted continually.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein East referred to what was said 75 years ago. I merely want to tell him, and the voters of South Africa too, that if any voter in South Africa were to accept a free settlement area, he would be accepting a situation from which he would find it very, very difficult to extricate himself; it is a situation that could prove to be very dangerous and very humiliating. I want to tell hon members of the House that I speak from experience. I grew up in an area which, in present-day circumstances, would be declared a free settlement area. I grew up in Johannesburg in the years 1943-44 to 1948, and I can say that this is not a free settlement area. It is a good name the NP thought up—free settlement area—but at times it is an area in which certain people are forced to live. At times one is forced by circumstances to live in such an area, without any personal choice in the matter.

When one lives in such a free settlement area, one is subject to all kinds of dangers and all kinds of things can happen to one. If one can emerge from there one day, sound in mind and body, and make one’s way in life, one must indeed have been an exceptional person with an outstanding education and exceptional parents. The safety of anyone living in such an area is in great danger. Various newspapers and political philosophers have indicated to us that when such free settlement areas develop, the Blacks and other people of colour descend on them and that those areas are then extended into surrounding areas. In other words, a free settlement area is declared, which subsequently extends so that surrounding areas become part of it. That is the case in areas such as Hillbrow and Troyeville.

Other problems also arise in regard to such a free settlement area, for example in regard to schools for the children of the inhabitants of such an area; where their recreational facilities are going to be created, where their churches are going to be and where they can exercise their political rights. Hon members say that in such cases no rights are being impaired. If a person has exercised his choice to live in such a free settlement area and vote there, however, his rights are actually being curtailed in the sense that he may then only vote for the board which controls such a free settlement area and which does not have the same powers as a city council or a White municipality. The rights of such individuals are therefore curtailed if they live in such an area. The rights of an individual are encroached upon to a tremendous extent.

In my constituency, Standerton, there is an area which, bearing present events in mind, would most probably qualify to become such a free settlement area. I am referring to a place called Perdekop where the Government has simply allowed people of colour to move in. They have taken over the town, and the Whites tried to get rid of their property as quickly as possible because they would otherwise have lost too much. Today I want to tell the NP that the voters of Standerton do not only consist of the inhabitants of the town itself, but that they also come from towns like Volksrust, Perdekop, Chari Cilliers, Evander, Balfour, Grootvlei, Greylingstad, Val and Standerton, and we will not allow free settlement areas to be established by the Government in that constituency. [Interjections.] We shall do everything in our power to prevent the establishment of free settlement areas in that constituency, because such areas are established in places in which poor people live. These areas are normally established in the old parts of our towns and in the areas in which the aged and the pensioners live. Those are the areas people of colour move into. Those are the areas in which the Government intends to establish free settlement areas. The CP rejects this Bill; we shall not accept it, and the voters of Standerton will definitely not accept it. At the next election we shall reject it with everything we have.

Mr Chairman, the peculiar logic of the Official Opposition makes for very interesting listening indeed! I should like to point out two examples to hon members. Firstly the hon member for Losberg asked where the people living in the free settlement areas were going to vote. He wanted to know which House they were going to vote for. Sir, where do the Coloureds who are living on the farms at present vote? Where do they vote? What kind of logic is it to ask such nonsensical questions?

I want to put a further question to the hon member and those who think as he does. Where are the Blacks living on the farms going to vote when the CP introduces its policy of partition? The hon member for Ermelo did say that one should vote where one lives. He said that with great enthusiasm. I have asked him before how he plans to deal with the farming community in order to ensure White majority occupation in the platteland. What is the CP going to do to ensure White majority occupation of the farms in Lichtenburg? Now they are asking the Government nonsensical questions as to when we are going to introduce free settlement areas and controlled local government in free settlement areas.

I should like to point out another peculiar kind of logic. Hon members of the Official Opposition expressed very adverse opinions on racially mixed local governments. They were also opposed in principle to mixed voters’ rolls. They say what is mixed is bad. What does the hon member for Overvaal advocate, however? He says that they should simply excise Hillbrow. If the CP wants to excise Hillbrow from White South Africa, what will Hillbrow be? It does not matter to the CP if there is a Black local government in Johannesburg, as long as there is no miscegenation. It is in order to have a Black Hillbrow, as long as there is no miscegenation. Black is beautiful. That is what the hon members are saying.

Let us go further. The CP is in favour of independent Coloured areas. They say that such residential areas already exist throughout the Cape and elsewhere and that they form the basis of a Coloured homeland. According to them an independent Coloured government throughout South Africa, in an independent state, is quite in order, as long as there is no racially mixed government anywhere.

What about the Black areas? It is clear that officially the CP is in favour of a linkage policy. There can be independent Black residential areas anywhere in South Africa because they are linked to Black homelands. That is fine. That is possible, as long as it is not racially mixed!

Do you accept a racially mixed Government?

Sir, the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about the linkage policy (kop-pelingsbeleid) with such enthusiasm. I should like to quote from Hansard, Friday 22 April 1988, col 7029:

He is a pimp (koppelaar).

No, Sir. It does not matter if every town in South Africa has an independent area under a Black government right at its doorstep. Black is beautiful. That is fine, as long as it is not mixed. Nor does it matter if Prof Boshoff advocates a small state. He may not be a great leader. He may not be an acknowledged leader within the CP, but he can advocate a small state. He might even advocate Black majority rule in the Eastern Cape, because it is Black. That is in order as long as we have no miscegenation anywhere in South Africa!

The AWB—and they are not being repudiated— may advocate the excision of only the “Boerestaat”. The rest of South Africa—including the Cape, the area I come from—will have Black majority rule. That is in order. That is right, but please do not let us have any racial mixing whatsoever.

I can go on proving that we are dealing with an Official Opposition which does not even try to look at problems rationally. They do not even try to face the problems. After all, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that they will deal with the problems later on, but that they have to defeat the NP first; then they will fight it out among themselves. The Oranjewerkers will fight, the AWB will fight …

The Broederbond will fight!

The Broederbond will win! Watch out! [Interjections.] Prof Boshoff’s group will fight and the hon member for Lichtenburg will come forward with his linkage policy, and the hon member for Overvaal will suggest that one makes excisions—if one has a problem one simply excises it from South Africa!

On a more serious note I want to say that the NP has decided that the identity of each group should be preserved within its own community. This also includes that group which does not mind and prefers a lifestyle that differs from the one we choose. That is the NP’s point of view.

The PFP wants to throw everything open. The CP only wants own areas, even if they have to relinquish three quarters of South Africa, to Black majority rule. As far as these three essential points of view of each party are concerned, I have no doubt that the people of South Africa, the White electorate, will support the NP’s point of view.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to reply to the statement made by the hon member for Sundays River that we want a certain area White, but do not mind if the rest of South Africa is completely mixed. That is precisely what the NP wants, however! They want the whole of South Africa to be mixed, and they do not want to allow Whites to have even one tiny spot.

In the second place I want to reply to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, who spoke about a statement I had made that a person should vote where he pays tax. That hon member knows just as well as the hon the Minister who quoted that statement that I used that statement precisely to warn the Government that they must not give other groups permanence here because those people would lay claim to franchise and the Government would be compelled to give it to them. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister then agreed. That is where the problem lies!

What we say is that they must not be given permanence. Such persons may be in South Africa under certain conditions, but they will remain citizens of their own countries, wherever they may find themselves. That is our point of departure. It has never been anything else. Hon members who have advanced that ridiculous argument times without number do not even know that the argument was initially used to try to correct them on their foolish course.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North started off with Gen Hertzog in 1913. That hon member then jumped from 1913 to the present. He forgot to mention one thing, however, for the sake of convenience. He jumped from there to the present, but what he conveniently omitted was that Gen Hertzog had issued a warning at that stage against the foolishness of permitting racial mixing and had said that groups should be kept separate. He issued a warning against that. He said it should never be done. Now the hon member is trying to use that to prove that they adapt themselves to circumstances. I have never heard anything so absurd.

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to questions now.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Losberg concerning the question of words and the choice of words and how the public can be misled in that way. What we are dealing with here is a Bill called Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas. Fortunately the man in the street will not know what it contains, but we are now telling him that this actually means a mixed voters’ list in a racially mixed municipality. That is what this Bill is about. It must be concealed, however; it must be hidden!

I now come to another aspect. I do not have sufficient time at my disposal to react to everyone, but perhaps later I shall have an opportunity to say something about the speech made by the hon member for Springs.

In this debate we have had speaker after speaker on the NP side—from the hon the Minister, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys and the hon member for Parow to the hon the Deputy Minister— all harping on the same theme. These speakers all sang the same tune, viz that none of the Bills contains any deviation whatsoever from the principle of the Group Areas Act. The arguments of hon members on the opposite side of the House are being linked to the fact that the granting of a permit has been built into the legislation itself, that such a permit is granted by way of exception and that no principle whatsoever is contained in the relevant Bill. These are the attempts made by hon members to indicate that exceptions have been made in the past and that consequently the provisions in the Free Settlement Areas Bill are no new exception.

I want those hon members to tell me what, according to them, the principle of the relevant Bill is? After the President’s Council had taken legal advice, they came to the conclusion that the principle in the legislation concerned the control of the ownership and occupation of land for the settlement of groups in separate areas. The principle concerns groups which have to be established in separate areas, and does not concern individuals. Nor is it concerned with the question of whether an individual will obtain rights in a certain place on a certain day. What is at issue is nothing less than whether or not rights are being given to groups. The hon member for Springs—if I understood him correctly—spoke about a supplementary group. The hon member must define the specific group he was referring to. After all, the Group Areas Act refers to respective race groups, not to a mixed hotchpotch. That is the principle, according to the President’s Council. Even the hon the State President spoke about the principle of that Act. Hon members will have to explain to him that there is no such principle. That is the sum total of the arguments put forward by hon members on the opposite side of the House.

That brings me to the Franchise in Free Settlement Areas Bill, because this particular Bill sweeps all the arguments that were advanced by hon members on the opposite side of the House off the table. Previously it was never necessary to effect any change to the existing Act. Permits were granted to individuals, but it was not necessary to change the Act. The Government now has to change the Act by means of another Act to ensure that groups have the franchise. If they do not do so, groups of people in certain areas will have no franchise. The fact that the Government is effecting changes to the Act means that none of the arguments advanced by NP members so far are of any value whatsoever. The Group Areas Act has never related to individuals.

I also want to know from the Government which interested parties or persons are going to decide indirectly which groups are going to have the franchise in a specific residential area. In the first place it is a myth that any such thing as a choice exists. I am pleased to see that the hon the Minister of National Education is present. It is a myth that freedom of choice exists for people who live in areas which are already mixed de facto today. I make this statement for the following reasons.

Why did the hon the Minister say—I should like to quote the hon the Minister—that before a free settlement area could come into existence, there would have to be a survey of needs and that that survey of needs would be a very important guideline. I understand that. Now the hon the Minister says we must not worry; the Ministers’ Council is considering this matter from this point of departure and with this approach. The hon the Minister said that the conversion of existing residential areas into free settlement areas should be subject to the support of the greater percentage of legal occupiers. That was the statement made by the hon the Minister. Is it correct? And I accept that he probably stands by it.

I now want to ask him where in the legislation he found that statement. I want to tell him that the legislation contains no such thing. That is what he is presenting to voters, and it is misleading.

The agreement of the Ministers’ Council is required!

The agreement of the Ministers’ Council may be required, but the hon the Minister made a categorical statement and said it was subject to the support of the major percentage of legal occupants.

That will be the approach of this Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

No, Sir. If that is the hon the Minister’s answer, I want to ask him a simple question. Why did the hon the Minister not include that in the legislation? [Interjections.] It is quite simple, after all. He could simply have included it in the legislation. I shall tell hon members, however …

If that is your standpoint, one must not include any discretion anywhere in any Act. [Interjections.]

No, Sir. [Interjections.] I am going to tell the hon the Minister something else. I think there are things in this legislation that even the hon the Minister does not know about. The hon the Minister said that a local survey of needs was important to him. I tell him, however, that in terms of section 7(6), when a specific area is to be declared as a free settlement area, certain procedures have to be followed. One of these is that the people should be given notice of this. To whom must notice be given? The legislation says the first notice must go to all interested parties. The second section says that the local authority must also give notice, and it must give notice to the people on the voters’ list, and if there is no such thing the legislation says notice must be given to the owners and occupiers. The words “legal occupants” are not contained in the legislation. The hon the Minister spoke about the legal occupants. The legislation does not mention legal occupants anywhere.

One cannot be an owner under all circumstances.

This legislation mentions occupants and owners. It does not mention “legal owners” or “legal occupants”. The hon the Minister said he was going to seek a response from the legal occupants and he was going to determine their needs. I want to issue a challenge to the hon the Minister today. I want to tell him that if he asks the legal occupants of Hillbrow for their opinions, and he adheres to his Ministers’ Council undertaking, he may subsequently find that he has to evict all the Blacks in Hillbrow. He says he is going to ask the legal occupants in the existing area for their opinion and abide by it. If he does so, he will of necessity have to remove the Blacks in Hillbrow by means of violence or otherwise. We shall keep the hon the Minister to his word; if he does not do this, he will be misleading the voters from platform to platform with regard to their rights in this case. [Interjections.]

We shall go and rewrite it! [Interjections.]

I have major problems. I thought the hon the Minister adopted certain standpoints in all honesty.

[Inaudible.]

The challenge remains. Will the hon the Minister honour his word if the voters, the legal occupants, of Salt River and all these areas, as the people who are already there de facto, make their desires known? Will he comply with their desires and wishes, with the results of the survey of their needs which he says he regards as being on a high level of importance—yes or no?

I can already hear you starting to gossip! [Interjections.]

Not only did the hon the Minister say this; he also published a booklet called Live and Let Live. My apologies! It was not published by the hon the Minister. It was published by the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry at the taxpayers’ expense. We have exactly the same thing here. The booklet says that the local authority has to provide all local government voters, legal owners or occupants in the envisaged free settlement area with this. Once again I say it does not exist. The NP does not say this only in Parliament and in this House, but also in publications that are sent throughout the country.

I should like to come to another aspect which was constantly mentioned here, viz that people’s rights in the existing local government areas will be protected. I want to tell hon members that poor people in those areas—and we know there are many of them; the hon member Mr DerbyLewis referred to all the places where they exist— are really at the mercy of I do not know whom. These people initially moved to the areas where they are living today. At the time they had an own, free choice. Their free choice was that they wanted to live in an area where Whites lived. That was the choice they made. Today they find themselves in the following situation. The value of the property on which they live has dropped. I do not want to sketch a sad picture here, but this is reality, especially to those people who find themselves in those particular areas.

People are being told that they will be compensated. They moved into a specific White residential area in 1970 when there were no people of colour there. Subsequently this process of mixed residential areas gradually started taking place. In 1981 their area was already practically grey. In 1988 the area was proclaimed a free settlement area. Now they are told that their property will be valued on the date of proclamation and that they will be compensated. The value of their property on that date is so low, however, that they can never be suitably compensated.

I quoted a letter from an elderly English-speaking woman in this Parliament the other day, and I heard a pointed remark from the opposite side. Hon members may want to know that she is a Mrs Calder. She said that she had moved into an area and that her property was for sale. The area is not a free settlement area yet, but she said that she had not had an offer for her property. She could not find anyone who wanted to purchase it, because other Whites do not want to go and live there. In other words, on the date on which this area is proclaimed, she will be saddled with a property that has no value.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I have been listening to the hon member for 15 minutes, and during that time he has not advanced a single argument in respect of the Bill before the House. He has spoken throughout about a Bill which has already been debated in the House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude this matter by referring to only one aspect. We have been accused times without number in this House that we sit in the joint committees but make no contribution. I merely want to say the following. With regard to this legislation, the NP are doing what they want politically. If I ask them to withdraw this legislation today, that is the contribution I want to make. I can make no contribution in the joint committee but to say that it must be withdrawn. Or should we try to rectify legislation that we are fundamentally opposed to in principle? In all my life I have never heard anything so ridiculous.

Mr Chairman, I see on the Order Paper that for some time now a Group Areas Amendment Bill has been proposed by the hon member for Ermelo. I should like to know whether the hon member intends the permit system to be removed from the Group Areas Act. If that is not the case, and he envisages a Group Areas Act under a CP government in which permits are still used, it means he acknowledges the principle that a coloured person can live among Whites in a White group area. If he acknowledges that principle, surely he acknowledges the principle that people from different groups can live together in one area even if this is by way of exception and with a permit. Precisely the same principle that he acknowledges by accepting a permit system is being acknowledged in free settlement areas. The principle is that people from various groups can live together in mixed areas by way of exception. If. therefore, the CP is not proposing a Group Areas Act in which the permit system is abolished, they are being dishonest in respect of a principle that they themselves proclaim.

If one were to do away with the view of partypolitical opportunism, a view which suits the Official Opposition admirably, and if one were to get rid of the one-sided political commentary and emotional and malevolent political evaluation, they would have to admit that the Free Settlement Areas Bill and in particular this Bill which regulates the local authority matters there, represents some of the most important reform measures this Government has ever tackled. Naturally the Government’s opponents who would like to define reform as White capitulation and surrender would understand little of what is happening here. If, however, reform is defined as what it really is, viz an extension and a broadening of democracy, an extension of rights and opportunities without us Whites having to relinquish our own legitimate rights, we realise that in fact these Bills are creating opportunities and rights which cannot be described as anything but dramatic reform.

I should like to consider the Bill under discussion with reference to certain guidelines. The first guideline that has to be taken into account is that realities must be acknowledged and dealt with. The NP acknowledges the reality that not all people want to live in a group context. This is one of many realities in South Africa, and we cannot constantly try to arrange a South Africa to be exactly as we want it to be. We must also acknowledge the reality of people who have other convictions; there are people who do not want to live in a group context as the CP, for example, would want it to be.

How does the CP acknowledge specific realities? When they consider the problems of South Africa, and are confronted by a majority of Blacks, their solution is merely that 70% of the Blacks must simply disappear and lo and behold, reality will have been dealt with! This leads to excitement and joy, because 70% of these people are simply going to disappear. If we confront them with how they are going to do this, their answer is that they are going to manage it by using certain “measures”. By adopting certain “measures”, 70% of these people are going to disappear, and South Africa will be as they want it. This Bill not only acknowledges a specific reality, but also deals with it in that provision is being made for the local political rights of those people.

The second guideline that must be taken into account is that any reform step must be carried through comprehensively and that all the consequences of that step must be dealt with. Consequently it would not be possible to create free settlement areas without attending to the local political rights of the people living in that area.

That consequence must also be dealt with, and that is what the NP is doing with this Bill. With regard to the CP’s handling of a consequence, I want to ask them something once again. When they make such a fuss about 70% of the Blacks who are going to disappear, what happens to the 30% of the Blacks who remain in South Africa? What if these 30% of the Blacks, with their specific population growth, are going to outnumber the Whites in South Africa? What will the CP do then? Do they envisage more “measures”— new “measures” to deal with this too?

One also wants to ask the CP, which so often points at the Government: What about Hillbrow? What is the CP going to do about Hillbrow? Is that going to be the hon member for Overvaal’s solution? If he is repudiated when he says Hillbrow will be excised from South Africa, what is the CP’s solution to the problems regarding Hillbrow.

A third guideline which must be taken into account in evaluating this Bill is that political rights must be exercised where a person lives and in regard to the authority that can take decisions about the circumstances in that area. That is what this Bill is doing. The people are going to participate in local government where they live. They will be able to influence decisions with regard to the circumstances of the place in which they live. How does the CP deal with this guideline? One hears the CP’s argument that the people in Waterberg can vote for a person who takes decisions in Cape Town. Consequently they can do the same thing with reference to other groups. We take decisions here in Cape Town, however, which influence the people in Waterberg where they live. Consequently this does not mean that if a person in Soweto can vote on decisions taken in the Transkei, the Transkei can do anything about that person’s circumstances in Soweto. This is a ridiculous, absurd argument which one cannot believe is advanced in adult circles and among sensible people. [Interjections.]

A fourth guideline that has to be taken into account is that any solution to South Africa’s problems will have to contain an element of choice. Consequently one is very excited about these free settlement areas and this Bill which grants the franchise in the free settlement areas. It also contains an element of choice with regard to the individual in South Africa. If he wants to live in a group context, this Government will protect that right of his and give him that opportunity. If he does not want to live within a group context, provision is also made for that exceptional case. Because there is an element of choice, one is not forced to accept what a certain group believes or to accept that everyone must think as that group thinks or that things must be as that group wants them to be—which is what the CP wants to enforce on South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an honour to follow the hon member for Rissik. I want to congratulate him on an excellent contribution to this debate.

†On 5 October 1987 the hon the State President in referring to franchise arrangements in free settlement areas, said:

The franchise arrangements for political participation in local government processes by residents of free settlement areas as set out in the Bill under discussion, comply fully with the guidelines set out. Those residential areas where inhabitants want an own community life among their own people will remain exclusive areas. Those who have the need or desire to settle freely in areas open to all will have the right to do so and will not have to break the law in order to live outside their defined group areas. They will also be able to participate in local government processes as set out in this Bill.

The PFP and the NDM are boycotting the discussions on these Bills and they have no regard for the wishes of either the Whites or other minority groups in South Africa. They only concentrate on the individual. They are fast becoming totally irrelevant in South Africa.

*The establishment of free settlement areas will bring about a lessening of the pressure on own residential areas and will in fact be conducive to their maintenance. The principle of own residential areas is therefore being maintained, but open residential areas will also be recognised, where necessary. This is positive legislation which also makes provision for those people who wish to live in such an open area. In spite of what the CP says, nobody will be forced to live in a free settlement area; on the contrary, in suitable cases provision is being made for compensation.

If one were to make the following statement here today, I am sure none of us in the House would believe it. Hon members must listen carefully to this statement: “Daar bestaan geen moontlikheid dat wettige, afsonderlike woongebiede naas gemengde woonbuurte sal bly voortbestaan nie.” Can anyone who knows anything about these three pieces of legislation accept the validity of such a statement? No, it is impossible. However, in the Patriot of 26 August an article appeared under the heading: “Op Pad na Bont Buurte”. The following sentence appears in bold print:

[Interjections.] This statement is accompanied by a photograph of the hon member for Pietersburg. This statement was made in spite of the Group Areas Amendment Bill. It was made in spite of express statements by the hon the State President, hon Ministers and hon members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] It was made in spite of the attitude of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates as well as that of the PFP and the NDM. Every right-minded person who knows anything about this legislation can surely see the blatant untruth of that statement. No one with any political integrity can defend such a statement. I wonder what the hon members of the CP have to say about this statement. I see the hon member for Randfontein is not here. What has the hon member for Ermelo, a man with a legal background, to say about such a blatant untruth? [Interjections.] We shall point out to the voters these blatant untruths which appear in this publication of the CP. They will not get away with this.

Mr Chairman, I see the newspaper from which the hon member is quoting costs 75c, which is 25c more than the price of an ordinary newspaper. I would just like to know whether that is excise duty for all the nonsense published by this newspaper. [Interjections.]

The CP creates the impression that it prefers to ignore the fact that the present efforts to create revolution in this country are aimed at placing the power in the hands of a Black majority government in a unitary state. Its disregard for the rights of people of colour, its blatant racism and its whole policy of “baasskap” is in fact the best recipe for a revolution. If an attempt were to be made to apply the CP’s impracticable policy—as set out here today—the moderates would be driven into the hands of the revolutionaries. If that happens, the CP-AWB alliance will not be able to stop the revolution, and then what the CP says here will become true. Then there will be no possibility of legal, separate residential areas, because it will be too late to negotiate anything for the Whites in this country. In spite of what the CP says, they will sell out the future of the Whites in this country.

Prof Carel Boshoff says the same thing. He also says it will then be too late for negotiation. Apparently the revolutionaries now have the following slogan: “If you are ANC, vote CP.” They also know that there is no better recipe for a revolution than the policy of the CP-AWB alliance. The more one listens to them—this afternoon was a fine example—the more convinced one becomes that this statement is correct. In spite of what they say, their policy, if an attempt were to be made to apply it, would result in the destruction of the future of the Whites in this country.

I have pleasure in supporting this legislation, because it provides for a choice, also for people who believe in freedom of association. Because provision is now also being made for them, they can also be expected to respect the rights of the majority who want their own community life in their own residential area. If no provision had been made for them, we could not expect them to do so; now we can. This legislation contributes to the orderly management of residential areas for all the various population groups of South Africa and recognises and deals with the realities of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by thanking hon members on this side of the House for the closely reasoned and calm contributions they made to elucidate the Bill and to react illustratively to its contents and meaning. This afternoon, on the other hand, hon members of the Official Opposition—perhaps one can single out the hon member for Standerton; he was not too excited—really made one slogan speech after the other, with very little content, but with great excitement and propoganda.

We hurt you, didn’t we?

Surely that hon member also had an opportunity to make a speech. He could have done so and at the same time he could have reacted to the hon member for Sasolburg. We could then have heard what his …

What he said today was a blatant lie.

Surely the hon member had an opportunity to make a speech …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to make that kind of remark here? [Interjections.]

Order! To whom did the hon member refer?

Mr Chairman, I referred to a remark made by the hon the Deputy Minister in which he said I should rather have reacted to what the hon member for Sasolburg had said earlier today. I then replied that what he had said was a blatant lie.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I cannot withdraw it, because it was a blatant lie.

Order! I must ask the hon member to withdraw it.

For the sake of the prevailing mood I shall withdraw it.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, hon members on the opposition side made nothing but propaganda speeches this afternoon. Earlier this week we discussed the Free Settlement Areas Bill and I have an idea that when we came to this Bill this afternoon the hon members, in some way or other, suddenly came to their senses and got a big fright. They then realised what the implication was from their point of view. [Interjections.]

What is the position? Let us see what the implication is. We debated a matter. It concerned the necessity or the need to make the throwing open of specific residential areas possible. Proceeding from this we submitted a Bill which was debated in the House earlier this week and which made provision for the establishment of such free settlement areas.

The next question which immediately cropped up was what would happen with regard to franchise at local government level in such an area. Must one remain silent on this or must one react to it? We say it goes without saying that we must react to it, and find an answer to it and I should like to refer to what the hon State President said about this in this House as long ago as 5 October of last year. I should like to quote this specifically for the hon member for Losberg’s sake. The hon the State President said (Hansard: Assembly, 5 October 1987, col 6675):

This concerns local franchise—

According to the hon member for Losberg I said here this afternoon that I was introducing a new arrangement, but the hon the State President …

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

Sir, I want to complete my argument first. The hon member can ask his question later. [Interjections.]

The hon member said I had stated here this afternoon that this was new, but the hon the State President referred to it as long ago as 5 October of last year and said:

He did not say that prior to 6 May!

If the hon member will just keep quiet, I shall reply to all his questions.

The hon the State President went on to say:

That is precisely what we have done here. This is, in fact, what is before the House this afternoon. We are therefore implementing a method to reply to this cardinal question: How is franchise to be handled in respect of a local authority in such an area?

Why is it important to deal with this? For the hon member for Losberg’s sake I shall try to explain this as slowly and as clearly as possible. The fact of the matter is that as regards the central government level the entire country is divided into parliamentary constituencies in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Every member of those three groups is therefore in a parliamentary constituency; it does not matter where he happens to be living in the country. As far as Parliament is concerned he can therefore cast his vote in a specific constituency.

What is the position in respect of local authorities, however? If there is a free settlement area within a local government area, this means that those residents are living in a specific ward of a local government area, and we say that anyone may legally live in a free settlement area. Now the implication is that if such a resident is not or cannot become a voter in a ward which belongs to that local authority, he will not have a municipal franchise. Does the hon member want that?

We do not want free settlement areas!

No, it does not matter whether the hon members agrees with this. He must forget about the merits of free settlement areas. Does he want the people living there not to have a municipal franchise—yes or no?

We cannot give answers without taking merit into consideration.

Let us not pursue this matter. The hon member is opposed to free settlement areas—we know that—but they are now becoming law. Once they are law and a free settlement area has been established, must the people living there not have a municipal franchise at all? That is the question.

That is an abortive question, if you know what that means!

I am tempted to say who is abortive.

Go ahead and say it! Do not be afraid! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg is now making too many interjections.

Let us argue, if that is at all possible, only in respect of the question under discussion, namely whether or not we want to disenfranchise people in such a situation in respect of local government participation. Obviously the Government adopts the responsible standpoint and says we must make an orderly arrangement in respect of local government franchise in such a situation. This is what the Bill envisages and is going to achieve, in order to give those persons, who would otherwise be disenfranchised in a specific ward, the right to vote.

After all, the implication is not that because the person may participate in municipal elections, this will suddenly create a new issue as regards his participation in parliamentary elections. As the hon member for Sundays River rightly pointed out, this is not the only situation in which that issue comes to the fore. This also applies to the labourer on the farm. Who does he vote for?

[Interjections.] Surely that is ordinary logic. I am trying to point out to the hon member that when one is dealing with parliamentary franchise one is, because of the division into constituencies, obviously dealing with a different situation and I hope the hon member can understand that.

You are creating a monster!

I shall come back to the hon member for Losberg later, because I should like to settle a few matters with him, but I should first like to react to the speech by the hon member for Pietersburg. He made a statement here which was typical of the slogans with which that hon member and his party would like to intimidate people all over the country.

It was a good speech!

This kind of statement that a sword is hanging over every White town because it may be declared an open area is ridiculous. A procedure has been laid down in the Bill, one which makes provision for free settlement areas. [Interjections.] Did the hon member not read the procedure to be adopted to have an area declared a free settlement area, which was laid down in Bill 110, which we have dealt with here in the House?

It can happen in every area!

Surely the hon member proclaimed a blatant untruth here when he said that over every town in the country …

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

Yes, of course.

Mr Chairman, if a certain procedure may be adopted in terms of this Bill, surely it is possible for something like this to happen in the urban areas throughout White South Africa. [Interjections.] Consequently every square metre of White land is at risk, not so? [Interjections.]

Surely the fact of the matter—and this is why I am referring to the procedure—is that not every town is now going to be declared a free settlement area. That is only logical. [Interjections ]

Let us quote a few passages, and let me also react to the hon member for Ermelo who tried to confront the hon the Leader of the House here this afternoon with regard to the procedure which must be adopted and the recognition of the local community.

Do hon members know what that hon member did? I should like to add that that was the general trend of all those hon members in their participation here in the House this afternoon. The hon member for Ermelo quoted only part of the relevant clause when he confronted the hon the Leader of the House here, and he knows it. The hon member served on the joint committee in which we discussed this clause. The hon member was present when we discussed this clause, and he knows what the issues were which we shared with one another. But at that stage the hon member sat there with nothing to say.

As always!

Now he comes here this afternoon and confronts the hon the Leader of the House with an absolute half truth. Sir, that is worse than a lie. Let me quote something to the hon member for Ermelo—I want to challenge him to take out his Bill No 110, which deals with the procedure which must be adopted with regard to free settlement areas—because it is clear that he either does not know this or he is being wilful. [Interjections.]

Let me quote this to him, because he argued here earlier this afternoon that only those persons who were occupants would be consulted. Let us quote what the clause in fact states.

That is not what I said!

Clause 7(5)(b) reads:

And then that procedure follows. Now it is only logical that we have a voters’ list for a local government area in every single town in South Africa. Yes or no?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Why did the hon member single out the proviso which follows on this as if it were the important one?

What does the previous one say?

I maintain that this was blatant deception, and it was probably done deliberately too.

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

No, I shall come back to the hon member later. [Interjections.]

Now we know what the truth is!

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to a letter by the town clerk of Bethlehem, and he quoted from this letter with a great flourish. I have not seen the letter and I would like to see it.

He will not show it!

I have an suspicion—perhaps he could indicate this to us across the floor of the House—that that letter was written with reference to the report of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] I should like to hear what the date on the letter is. The hon member need not repeat the contents. I suspect that that letter was written after the report of the President’s Council appeared. [Interjections.]

Willie, be honest and say yes.

What is interesting—we shall deal with the letter later and the hon member should send it to us; I should like to see it—is that after the report of the President’s Council appeared last year, the Free State Municipal Association held a special congress to discuss the report of the President’s Council with regard to these matters.

The special congress took place in December of last year, or thereabouts. On that ocassion a proper discussion was held on the report of the President’s Council. If I remember correctly, members of the President’s Council were present, who dealt with the report and gave the Free State Municipal Association an explanation. Then a decision was unanimously adopted that open areas, as proposed by the President’s

Council, were accepted. What does the hon member have to say about that?

This is a letter from a town clerk who conducted an opinion poll.

Surely the hon member knows what local government is. The hon member also knows that the town clerk of a specific town is, in fact, a functionary of that local authority.

[Inaudible.]

The Free State Municipal Association took that decision after they had been given an explanation. What is more, the hon the Minister recently referred to the fact …

It is strange that that letter was sent later.

At a recent meetin g the United Municipal Executive unanimously accepted free settlement areas. The hon the Minister referred to that. I have a letter here in which the UME confirmed on 18 August—ie two weeks ago—that they had accepted the principle of free settlement areas.

Are free settlement areas the same as mixed areas? [Interjections.]

Why did the hon member use the view of a person who at that stage probably did not have all the information in respect of what was at issue? Why did he use this to try once again to mislead hon members here in the House?

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also asked what the position was in respect of the franchise for people who did not move into such a free settlement areas. It is quite clear that such a person, once it is a free settlement area, moves in of his own free will knowing that he will then be on the voters’ list of that free settlement area in terms of the provisions of this Bill now before the House. Surely that is clear.

The fact that we are making an arrangement in the case of an existing resident who is living in that area and continues to live there by saying that he retains his existing franchise on the existing voters’ list of the existing White local authority or the voters’ list of another existing local authority, is merely the protection of an existing right which that person has, and one is not necessarily perpetuating that right for the new resident who moves in later. That is only logical.

And if he does not have a choice?

When the hon member for Bethal began speaking and repeated the word “in spite of’ in different sentences, he reminded me of my daughter in standard two who was instructed to make up a sentence containing the words “in spite of”. The hon member spoke for 20 minutes …

In spite of your being her father, she is glad that she is a person. [Interjections.]

I wanted to say that in spite of the fact that the hon member spoke for 20 minutes, he did not say anything. [Interjections.]

No, he did say in spite of.

The hon member mentioned the remarks of the hon the Minister of Finance last weekend in respect of the franchise arrangements with regard to parliamentary elections. The hon member for Bethal said that this was what the hon the Minister of Finance had said on Saturday and now we were introducing legislation which affirmed the opposite. Surely that is not true. That is an outrageous and totally ridiculous consequential inference the hon member made. It is ridiculous to say that what the hon the Minister said on Saturday, was not true with reference to this Bill.

I explained so carefully to the hon member that the arrangement at issue here was to make provision for the franchise in a local government area, specifically when it was proclaimed a free settlement area. This is clearly what is it issue, and it has nothing to do with voters’ lists for parliamentary elections …

The thin end of the wedge.

Order! The hon member for Bethal has a very powerful voice. Perhaps he should use it less often. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

He has a powerful imagination too, only it is distorted.

The hon member for Claremont has apologised, and he is not here now. I do not think it is worth while reacting too much to his speech, but I merely want to repeat that the hon member is adopting a disgraceful pattern in this House. Just listen to what he said this afternoon:

Is that not disgraceful? [Interjections.] Those are the words the hon member for Claremont used here this afternoon. He is not in the House at the moment, but I assume that we shall see the speech that he did not make here in tomorrow’s newspapers.

Such a remark is a disgrace. I think that that hon member must be challenged in some way or other to explain what he meant and what evidence he had on which to base this kind of remark. All of this is completely untrue; I can vouch for that.

I want to come back to the hon member for Losberg. The hon member started off here with three or four different statements which were all completely devoid of truth—right at the outset. He stated—the hon member was as far as I know, a professor of law—that the other two Houses had withdrawn from the system. Surely that is not true. Cannot the hon member differentiate between what the other Houses of Parliament are doing and a withdrawal from the system?

It is a de facto withdrawal.

No, Sir, the hon member would seem to be unable to differentiate between the fact that the House of Representatives suspended its proceedings and the fact that the other House postponed its Order Paper to a later date. Surely that has nothing to do with a withdrawal from the system. [Interjections.]

Order! Nonsensical interjections are being made here, and this must stop. I am not prepared to allow any more of this. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Losberg made another statement which I do not think was true. He said that Gen Hertzog had said: Segregate or die. As a matter of interest I addressed inquiries as regards this remark to some of our colleagues, who are fairly good historians, because as far as I know it is totally in conflict with the standpoints adopted by Gen Hertzog. I should like to know where he came by that statement. I should like to have reference for that statement that Gen Hertzog said: Segregate or die. [Interjections.]

I think I have finished talking to the hon member about his question on parliamentary franchise. I have already referred to the hon member for Standerton. I merely want to mention that he referred to the headline in the Sunday newspaper which read: “The Government’s gone mad”. Sir, what did that headline refer to? It dealt with the fact that we were dealing with this legislation which is before the House this week.

What will they say about the CP?

What will they say about the CP? They will probably say to the CP that they are possessed by the devil, or something of the sort. [Interjections.] The hon member for Ermelo referred to the fact that this was a deviation from the principle underlying the Group Areas Act. That was what he said.

The hon member knows that in the present Group Areas Act, the principal Act as it reads at present, there were innumerable exceptions, which were foreseen in any case. The permit system is one of these. He has just made an appeal that we should use the permit system. He encouraged people to make applications in terms of the permit system.

There is also another procedure which still exists in terms of the principal Act. I think it is section 26(3), which provides that the State President may in fact proclaim an area open for occupation by everyone. This is an exception which now exists. The hon member would seem not to be aware of this. The fact that there were deviations from the principle of an own community life was absolutely part of the present Group Areas Act. This is not a new matter. This is not a new deviation.

I think I have dealt with the contributions of hon members. I should like to refer to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys and thank him for the effective way in which he dealt with with the hon member for Claremont, and the statements the hon member made earlier this week, as well as the effective way in which he dealt with with the Official Opposition. I have already referred to the hon member for Sasolburg.

†The hon member for King William’s Town referred to the President’s Council’s report and the fact that in this case we needed a flexible approach, also as far as the particular situation of free settlement areas was concerned.

*In other words, the fact is that we must adopt a flexible approach and, as we argued earlier in the week, that the rule exists but that exceptions must also be provided for. For that reason we need a specific local authority procedure like this. Legislation is needed to legalise this.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North pointed out that the line which can be followed in one’s arguments with regard to what we can justify in the legislation goes back as far as Gen Hertzog’s statements in 1913, which, in principle, are also a part of this.

The hon member for Springs referred to the need to which attention must be given, and which in this way in fact comes into its own because we are prepared to see the reality of the need in the situation.

The hon member for Sundays River pointed out to the Official Opposition that there was an interesting contradiction in the approach which they were apparently prepared to adopt. On the one hand they say that they are prepared to exclude Black cities and towns from their White South Africa, whether it is the hon member for Overvaal’s examples of Lekuwa, Sebokeng and Evaton or whether it is Soweto, which they are always prepared to exclude.

In a case like this—this is a contradiction which appears in the hon members’ argument—they are apparently not prepared to make that exception for a special arrangement, in spite of what the hon member for Overvaal said about this earlier on. I think the hon member for Sundays River advanced a valid argument in that regard.

The hon member for Rissik referred to the fact that the Official Opposition was always silent when we wanted to know from them how they were going to rectify this matter and, if they did not agree with the hon member for Overvaal, how they were going to succeed in moving people of colour out of Hillbrow. Their reply is either a deathly silence, or they say that they will make arrangements, whatever those arrangements may be. [Interjections.]

I also thank the hon member for Durban Point for the effective way in which he dealt with the Official Opposition.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that it has been adequately argued in the House that this Bill is needed to make provision for the effective arrangement of a local government franchise in the free settlement areas, and that this is a fair and essential arrangement to meet the needs of the people who are going to live in a free settlement area.

Mr Chairman, the CP is vehemently opposed to the establishment of multiracial consultative or management committees in free settlement areas, because it amounts to a mixed form of government which, in terms of the Constitution, should be an own affair.

This Bill also makes provision for the very important new principle of one voters’ list for all the population groups which find themselves in such an area, and therefore makes provision, for the first time, for a joint election with all the votes of the various peoples being cast in one ballot box. This will lead to a power struggle among the peoples in such an area, which is undesirable in our multinational situation in South Africa.

The establishment of a joint committee with decision-making powers brings joint government of other peoples into the centre of the Whites’ traditional living-space in their own community. In conclusion, the options clause in respect of the franchise on the voters’ list of a free settlement management committee or, on the other hand, on the voters’ list of the local authority, has been designed in such a way that White residents of such an area will ultimately be completely disenfranchised and will no longer have a say in the general management of their own town or city.

This is totally unacceptable to the CP, and that is why we are voting against the Bill. In fact, we feel so strongly about this, that if the old rule were still applicable, we would have moved to omit all the words after “that” and to substitute “this day six months”.

Mr Chairman, by way of Bills before Parliament which have already been discussed, the Government has made provision for the establishment of open areas or free settlement areas as a supplement to the pattern of own residential areas that has been and is being maintained and which the Government still feels strongly about. In addition to that pattern of own residential areas, we have made provision for free settlement areas.

You want it, we have it.

Since it is essential that the residents of such an area enjoy representation on local government level, it is essential that we make arrangements for their right to vote for local authorities by way of legislation. The legislation before the House at present is necessary, therefore, in order not to disenfranchise such persons already living there and to make valid franchise arrangements for those who might move into such an area. That is why we need this legislation.

The House divided:

AYES—111: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; 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, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; 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; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J.

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

NOES—20: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

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