Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Free Settlement Areas Bill appears as the fourth order on today’s Order Paper. If we examine the programme for this week, which was made available to us by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, we see that this means that Parliament will only get round to considering this Bill again on Friday. This surely cannot be correct, because in terms of Rule 102 of the Standing Rules the debate was concluded yesterday evening by the reply of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Rule 150(4) of the Standing Rules provides that if an amendment has been placed on the Order Paper, Mr Speaker shall recommit a Bill for reconsideration to the joint committee which considered the Bill. This was not the case with this Bill. Therefore the decision of the question could not be postponed to a later date for this purpose.

Sir, you did not determine a date for the decision of the question in terms of Rule 104 of the Standing Rules. For this reason it follows that you are required to give a ruling that each House now vote on the Bill, and to determine a procedure for the decision of the question by each House in terms of Rule 105.

A second point I should like to make in this connection is that, as has become customary in this Parliament, we rely on radio and television broadcasts to know what is happening here. In this instance we have heard that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives has intimated that the Labour Party will not participate in the voting on any of this week’s Bills. Furthermore, we have heard that the Chief Whip of Parliament has said that it would serve no purpose if the Bills were merely debated and not disposed of and voted on.

Sir, with respect, it is your duty to ensure that legislation is dealt with properly and in accordance with the Rules. In the light of the statements made by hon members, it appears that we are again engaged in a futile and abortive session this week which threatens to degenerate into a farce.

Order! Is the hon member raising a point of order or is he addressing the House in general terms?

Mr Speaker, I am raising a point of order. I want to ask you to give a ruling. In the light of the statements made by the hon …

Order! What is the hon member’s second point of order?

Mr Speaker, my second point of order is a request to you to give a ruling that Parliament do now adjourn.

Order! As far as the hon member’s second point of order is concerned, I reject it. It has no merit.

As far as the hon member’s first point of order is concerned, I shall give a ruling on it a little later. I have not had the benefit of a preliminary discussion. Therefore I should like to study the hon member’s arguments properly and then give a ruling. It will be during the course of the afternoon.

Mr Speaker, before I comment on the Bill, I should like to say on a point of personal explanation that yesterday, in connection with the hon member for Green Point, I referred to the hon member for Wynberg. I want to say at once that I apologise to the hon member for Wynberg for what I did to him. There was no malicious intent whatsoever in this confusion of the constituencies.

The discussion and disposal of the Bill which has been put on the Order Paper for discussion this afternoon stems, inter alia, from negotiations which were conducted between myself, the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the one hand and the hon the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives, Mr H J Hendrickse, and his deputy leader, Mr I Richards, on the other.

The agreement that was reached during these negotiations entails the following, inter alia, and I should like to quote from a joint statement which Mr Hendrickse and I issued on 1 September this year:

I want to emphasise the next few words—

The Afrikaans version of the statement reads that the Bills will be “gedebatteer en afgehandel” at a joint meeting. I shall continue to quote from the statement:

I shall quote further from the statement:

Sir, the debate today also stems from the agreement which was reached on 2 September 1988 between Mr A Rajbansi, leader of the National People’s Party in the House of Delegates, Dr J N Reddy, leader of Solidarity, Mr S Pachai, Acting Chairman of the People’s Party of South Africa, and me.

This agreement between these leaders and myself entailed that the House of Delegates would dispose of the Income Tax Amendment Bill and the Usury Amendment Bill on the same day, namely 2 September 1988, and of the three other Bills on 7 September 1988.

Furthermore the leaders concerned gave the undertaking that the five other Bills would be disposed of by the House of Delegates during the week of 26 to 30 September 1988. This agreement was reconfirmed on 7 September 1988 in the presence of Mr S Abram, the Chairman of the House of Delegates, and Mr Poovalingam, MP for Reservoir Hills.

This agreement has already been partly adhered to in that the House of Representatives debated and disposed of five Bills on 2 September 1988. In accordance with the agreement the House of Delegates debated and disposed of the same five Bills on 2 and 7 September 1988.

This week’s joint debate is taking place to give effect to the remaining portion of the agreements that were arrived at among the various leaders. The NP has kept to its part of the agreement. The remaining five Bills that had been agreed to by the House of Assembly were withdrawn and this joint debate was convened, as agreed upon, so that the Bills could be debated and disposed of.

Now there is speculation as to what disposal means. It can mean nothing but “afhandeling”, and in the case of a Bill it can mean nothing but that it must be brought to a vote. In fact, in negotiations with the leader and deputy leader of the LP, the question that was put to me was whether it would not be possible to postpone the vote on the legislation until Monday. I pointed out that it would not be possible because the Cape Congress of the National Party takes place on Monday.

Breaking these agreements does not merely imply a disruption of parliamentary business. If that were to happen it would be a flagrant breach of agreements entered into by supposedly honourable members of this Parliament. It would amount to contempt for parliamentary codes and the norms of behaviour and would bring into question the appreciation those involved had for the codes which were necessary to cause a parliamentary system to function properly.

I can hardly imagine that all members of the parties concerned can associate themselves with conduct of this nature. I refuse to believe that all the members of these parties, by definition, have no respect for the parliamentary codes of conduct in terms of which the agreements to which I referred were concluded. The parliamentary institution is based on specific codes of behaviour and norms which have developed over centuries. Those codes did not develop for the sake of any party or government, but to jealously guard the integrity of Parliament.

Who sets the norms?

If the hon the Leader of the Labour Party had been listening to me, he would have heard me saying that these norms developed over centuries, and I can appreciate that he cannot understand owing to a lack of participation. [Interjections.]

How did we lose our franchise? [Interjections.]

Order!

White norms for a White society!

Order!

The codes developed because Parliament became a symbol of honour, of integrity and of the correct way of doing things. [Interjections.]

To satisfy you!

I want to repeat what I said. I appreciate the inability of certain leaders of certain parties to understand it. [Interjections.]

You are fighting for survival! They are going to give you a thrashing! [Interjections.]

Parliament has become a symbol of peaceful constitutional conduct and development. I want to emphasise, however, that Parliament is more than that. Parliament is the symbol of an attitude to life and a way of life—and I am saying this to the hon member for Toekomsrus. [Interjections.]

You want to misuse Parliament!

Parliament is the symbol of orderliness and rectitude … [Interjections] … the symbol of the highest standards and ideals one lays down for oneself—and again I am looking at the hon member for Toekomsrus.

Look as much as you like!

The South African Parliament has a record in this specific connection.

Of oppressing people, yes!

It is our duty, and I believe our responsibility, to maintain that record untarnished.

Who is talking now? [Interjections.]

If we adhered to the agreement, we would ensure that the parliamentary process and the codes of behaviour associated with it were maintained. Their maintenance does not imply that anyone …

Look at me again!

… must support legislation or principles-with which he does not agree. It simply implies that somewhere along the line there is such a thing as a word of honour from people of integrity. [Interjections.]

What did you do to us?

Then we would indeed, as our agreement states—this was a joint agreement—be striving for solutions on the basis of joint responsibility for good government.

As regards the contents of the Bill, it deals with the exercise of the franchise on the local government level in areas which may possibly be thrown open in terms of the Free Settlement Areas Bill if such legislation were to become an Act of Parliament. The acceptance and the implementation of this Bill is dependent on the acceptance of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. However, that Bill is not dependent on the acceptance of this one. Yet the non-acceptance of the Bill we are discussing today would place the local government rights of inhabitants of free settlement areas in a vacuum. For that reason I am dealing with this Bill today.

†The President’s Council investigated the implications of open residential areas for franchise arrangements at local level. They spelled out various options without giving preference to one or making specific recommendations in respect of a priority. Various policy considerations had to be taken into account in formulating measures for local government in free settlement areas.

Inhabitants of a free settlement area must, in terms of the principles of my own party, be afforded effective participation in the decisionmaking processes which affect them, without infringing on the principle of the Constitution that local government matters which affect only one population group qualify as own affairs.

Considerations such as the effective rendering of services and their cost-effectiveness also had to be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion.

The provinces already have ordinances and regulations which provide for the establishment of local affairs and management committees for Coloured and Indian areas and for these communities. These measures are being adapted by the Bill so that similar management bodies may in fact be established in the free settlement areas and for the people living in those areas. All these statutory provisions which apply to the firstmentioned management committees will also apply to the management bodies for free settlement areas.

There are, however, two important differences which I should like to explain. Firstly, the Administrator is empowered to establish a joint committee consisting of an equal number of members of a local authority and the management body concerned. These joint committees will discuss matters that directly concern the free settlement area, as well as matters of common interest.

Powers to decide on the affairs of a free settlement area may be delegated or transferred, by the local authority concerned, to this joint committee to which I have just referred. Secondly, no population group will be excluded from participation in local elections in a free settlement area. The qualifications for voters and candidates for this management body in a relevant area, will be the same as those at present applicable to other management bodies in the same province, except for the absence of any racial qualification.

Voters already on the voters’ roll who may have objections to losing their present representation on an own affairs body are afforded the option of remaining on the voters’ roll on which they were registered before the free settlement area was declared as such. The Bill does not prescribe how voters who exercise this option may exercise their voting rights. This will be regulated by the Administrator of the province concerned.

The reasons why this matter is left to the Administrators and is not dealt with in this Bill, are briefly as follows: The four provincial systems regarding wards, delimitation and voters’ quotas vary substantially. It is therefore more effective for the Administrators to regulate the participation of the voters in a manner compatible with the systems applicable in the various provinces. An Administrator is also in a position to consult, as usual, representatives of organised local government regarding the acceptability of the various methods and options. Another important reason is that we have committed ourselves to a policy of the devolution of power, also to the level of local government. As a result we recognise provincial government as an autonomous level of government which should decide on its own matters within its own jurisdiction.

*Mr Speaker, the Free Settlement Areas Bill seeks to create an orderly and democratic process by means of which free settlement areas can be established. The Bill which is now being discussed envisages a system of orderly and democratic administration of the local interests of the people in and of a free settlement area after it has been established.

I believe that we are engaged in an evolutionary and systematic process. I really believe that it can hold out the prospect of, and can create exciting possibilities for, constitutional development on the local level. We are constantly engaged in constructing acceptable democratic systems for our country. We are doing so under very difficult circumstances. We are doing so in a highlycharged emotional atmosphere. We are doing so in the face of great limitations. It is a difficult task, and sometimes progress may seem to be indiscernible.

I do not think, however, that these limitations should cause us to relinquish our final goal. In fact it would make our task far easier if hon members here in Parliament could, in the first place, keep their word, if they would honour their agreements here in Parliament, if they could join hands and co-operate here in Parliament, if they could set an example here in Parliament to the communities they are supposed to be leading along the road of peaceful development and co-operation. It would make our task far easier if hon members here in Parliament would be prepared to exchange violence for consultation and would declare themselves willing, in spite of all the disadvantages, to act as hon members of a highly esteemed institution—hon members who keep their word, at all costs!

Victory and success are only possible if this is done jointly. Let us try to do so in this House.

Order! The hon member Brakpan raised a point of order at the commencement of today’s proceedings. I have had an opportunity to look at his notes, as well as the Rules in question. I just want to tell the hon member that I cannot uphold his point of order, since the Free Settlement Areas Bill was disposed of in this Chamber late yesterday afternoon. In terms of Rule 107(1) the presiding officer may use his discretion to defer the decision of the question. Rule 107(2) provides as follows:—

The question has therefore been placed on the Order Paper for decision for the ensuing day, and that is today. That does not mean that it must be disposed of today. It must simply be placed on the Order Paper.

What now appears on the Order Paper is the Second Reading of the Bill—that is to say, the decision of the question. This will occur as progress is made with the Order Paper. Consequently I cannot uphold the hon member’s point of order.

Mr Speaker, a number of things have already been said here this afternoon. In terms of interpretation, without wanting to question what you have just said, Sir, but on reflection on what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, you have just informed the House that “die saak gister afgehandel is”.

Order! The hon the Minister must not put words in my mouth. I said that the debate on the matter had been concluded yesterday and not that the question had been concluded yesterday. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

†It must become obvious to the House and to those people who have listened to the hon the Minister this afternoon why he nearly lost the election last year. It happened because he needs to do a special course in human relationships and communication.

I believe there was an attempt by the hon the Minister at character assassination this afternoon in terms of people who do not agree with him. As long as one agrees with the NP, one is doing right. When one disagrees with the NP, one is doing wrong! Then one has been influenced by people outside, then one is committing oneself to the question of violence or creating a situation of violence, and one is not acting in the interest of the country.

I have to remind the hon the Minister and other hon members in this House that the Labour Party’s participation was very loudly and clearly spelt out—that we are here not because we accept this parliamentary procedure and its precedents but in order to dismantle apartheid. If any regulation or Act or Bill, as is the case now, comes before us and it is based on the perpetuation of discrimination or, more than that, based on racism, I can assure you, Sir, that people of colour have no right to and hopefully never will support such legislation. [Interjections.] It is nice to hear some interjections from people who sometimes say they are one’s friends.

I want to refer to that attempt at assassination and hiding behind semantics. Even if we used the word “disposal” in that declaration, I think the waste paper basket is the correct place for it to be. That is disposal. [Interjections.]

The NP in particular, however, if they talk about honour and if they talk about morality, must go back and examine their consciences. They must look at the immoral way the NP removed us from the common voters’ roll in 1957. [Interjections.] They have no right to talk about morality and they have no right to talk about honour, because they had the Senate enlarged in order to get us out against the Appeal Court decision, and they created the High Court of Parliament Act. If that is moral, I wonder what morality is!

I must remind the House and all South Africans of the time the NP was faced with the possibility of Sonny Leon becoming the first person of colour to be elected to the city council of Kimberley in 1971. I must remind the NP that when it became obvious to them and the then Prime Minister that a person of colour would be elected as mayor of Kraaifontein for the first time in the history of South Africa, they used the parliamentary system—which is so honourable and so sacred!—to prevent that situation by removing us from the municipal voters’ roll. [Interjections.]

Now we talk about honour, trust and a breach of trust. This Bill before us today is nothing else but the perpetuation of apartheid. To expect people of colour to support measures of apartheid is questionable. If there are people of colour who are going to support these measures, I think they are responsible to their constituencies in terms of their decisions.

At least they are not going back on their word.

Talking about going back on their word, the people who should examine their conscience are the people belonging to the NP. They must remember that we were not responsible for drawing up parliamentary procedures.

Oh yes, the new rules were accepted by all of us. [Interjections.]

We will come to that. What happened in the House of Representatives in terms of the rejection of the powers that were entrusted to the Chief Whip of Parliament? If those hon members say there was a breach of promise and trust, then I want to ask whether the changing of the programme was not a breach of trust and confidence also.

Come off it!

We can come off it, but the fact remains that there was an agreement with the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Representatives and ourselves that, according to the provisional timetable—we have the programme before us—on Monday 26 September we would be debating the Group Areas Amendment Bill. Why was it printed if it was not agreed upon? Again it was changed provisionally—if hon members on that side of the House want to hide behind the word “provisionally”— by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament without due consultation. My hon Chief Whip was simply informed about the change in this provisional timetable. [Interjections.] The fact that the programme was changed without due consultation is in itself a breach of that agreement that may have been reached.

I want to remind hon members that the Bill before us, as well as the Bill that was discussed yesterday, are Bills of confusion and that even Confucius would not have been able to unravel the confusion created by such legislation. These Bills are nothing else but the perpetuation of racism. Our problem in this country is a problem of racism. An acceptance of the Bill discussed yesterday and an acceptance of the Bill being discussed here today is an acceptance of the Population Registration Act. This Act has used the negative to classify me and this is one of the things the Government will never live down.

[Inaudible.]

You made it!

While God made me a man, the NP made me a Coloured man.

*Sir, if we were created in that image, our dignity would not be determined by our colour, but by what we were. If the basis of classification had been colour, many people in the NP would have to be classified with us. [Interjections.]

†To say to me—in terms of the Population Registration Act—that if I am not White, Black or Asiatic, I am a Coloured, is completely negative. If the hon member for Carletonville wants to use that argument he can do so. However, the fact cannot be denied that the NP by legislation took to themselves a divine right. My reason for saying this is that anthropologically speaking I do not exist. There is no such thing as a Coloured person.

Now the Government perpetuates that insult by asking me to forgo my right as an individual to make a choice by accepting its classification and by living in particular areas, and removes from me the fundamental right to make my own choices.

I wish to say, as my time is running out— hopefully I shall have another opportunity to say this—that as far as we are concerned we are debating this issue for the sake of the question of disposal. Hon members know about the parliamentary procedures which were created for us. Now the NP are afraid to use their own procedures, because according to the procedures that must be followed, if we reject a measure, the hon the State President has the right to go to the President’s Council.

Don’t walk out.

That is my right because you walked out when people sang, “God save the Queen”. [Interjections.] That is therefore my right of protest.

However, to refer this to the President’s Council is to perpetuate White National domination, and nothing else. [Interjections.] That hon member may call it nonsense, but I am not responsible for that nonsense. The “nonsense” says, however, that the President’s Council will make a final decision and recommendation to the hon the State President.

I must also state, however, in response to a statement that was made here yesterday, that I have no vendetta against the hon the State President. I have had five meetings with him this year, and one again this morning, and the atmosphere and the relationship between us was cordial. We spoke as man to man. If hon members wish to talk about vendettas, they should examine the meaning of that particular word.

We are accused of being confrontationist, but if confrontation means not doing what the NP wants us to do, then so be it. We wish to say very clearly that we are here because people have put us here. We are here in order that the voice of those people, even the voice of those who have been denied the opportunity of participating in a tricameral structure, can be heard through us.

I just wish to say in passing that we found it very strange that the hon member for Southern Cape yesterday spoke about “autocratic and dictatorial decisions”. That particular hon member was chairman of the Cape Peninsula branch of the party and came to the meeting of our executive with a proposal. After a lengthy discussion that hon member was prepared to accept the decision of the national executive council, and he took part in a little celebration afterwards “having found each other”. One must examine the whole question in the light of reality and of truth.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council of the House of Representatives is misleading this House. On that particular occasion I did not agree …

Order! I am sorry, but that is not a point of order and I cannot accept it from the hon member.

Mr Speaker, may I then repeat what I was saying, namely that the chairman of the Cape Peninsula branch came to a meeting of the executive with a mandate from the Cape Peninsula branch, asking us to repeal and rescind our decision.

After discussion, that particular chairman got up and withdrew his motion. The withdrawal of that motion was an acceptance of the decision of the national executive. I think we must look even further for a reason and ask ourselves to what extent certain members of the NP have been involved in discussions of which we know and approve. We must also ask ourselves why a certain firm of attorneys in Port Elizabeth, connected with a member of the NP serving on the President’s Council, was consulted even though three persons reside in Cape Town. We just leave it as a question.

I want to say that while we are in this House, we are not just concerned with semantics. A statement was made here again this afternoon to the effect that we must seek a democratic system. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether placing so much power in the hands of the NP-dominated President’s Council is a democratic way of finding a solution. We from our side of the House will in no way support or vote on this particular issue.

Mr Speaker, I am convinced that personal remarks are not going to get us anywhere in a debate like this. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives very clearly explained the basis on which his party came to participate in the system. He said that no one should expect the Labour Party to support one of these Bills. However, that is not what is at issue. Nobody has asked the Labour Party to support one of these Bills. Nobody has ever denied the Labour Party the right to adopt a clear standpoint on matters about which they feel strongly. We are not dealing here with a prohibition on the right to disagree. We are dealing here with an agreement which has very clearly been broken.

I was not present, but if words and statements have any meaning, I can quote this to hon members. I think that hon members must get hold of this statement, which was issued by their leader and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I want to refer to only one paragraph in this statement. I quote:

The Minister has already quoted that.

He has already quoted it, but I think hon members should listen to it again. Their leader will also concede—as clergymen he and I both know this—that one must repeat some truths constantly before they sink in. [Interjections.] I quote:

That is the agreement. It is that agreement which hon members and their hon leader are clearly not adhering to now. The hon leader explained why this agreement was being broken, and said we should not talk about morality. He asked what about the fact that the Coloureds were removed from the common voters’ roll in the fifties? What about the Population Registration Act which was placed on the Statute Book in the fifties? [Interjections.] With all due respect, we cannot advance what happened in the fifties as a reason for breaking a specific agreement now. [Interjections.] After all, we now have a new dispensation. There is a new dispensation, and under this new dispensation we are concerned with new attitudes. We are seeking new solutions for South Africa, and we cannot have recourse to the reproaches of the past and go back on an agreement now.

We have to live with it!

One cannot do that, even if one has to live with it. There are things I have to live with too, but that does not give me the right to go back on an agreement. [Interjections.] We are dealing with the building of a South Africa for the future, and we must not become obsessed with things which happened in the past. [Interjections.] That is all I want to say, with reference to the speech by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council (Representatives), and I merely want to say that it is in the interests of all South Africans for democratic solutions to be found to our problems. However, the precondition for this is that this Parliament be maintained, that the prescriptions of the Constitution be complied with. [Interjections.] As long as that is not the case, democratic solutions to South Africa’s problems are not possible. Those hon members must realise this and we must realise this. However, the NP will continue to maintain Parliament, in spite of the breaking of the agreement, and will go out of its way to seek solutions for South Africa’s problems in a democratic way. [Interjections.]

The Bill we are discussing this afternoon, and which we assume does not enjoy the support of the LP, makes provision for political participation in local government processes by people in free settlement areas. The President’s Council, which investigated this matter at that stage, proposed four possibilities, without exercising a choice. It said people in a free settlement area could be placed on a mixed voters’ list, without any restriction on the choice of a candidate. The President’s Council also recommended that people in a free settlement area be placed on a mixed voters’ list, with a restriction on the choice of a candidate. It also recommended that people in a free settlement area be in a position to elect an area committee. Established residents in a free settlement area remain on an old voters’ list, whereas new inhabitants are placed on a new voters’ list, which is a common voters’ list. The President’s Council also recommended that residents of free settlement areas who are not part of the group in whose area the free settlement area falls, should have no franchise.

The Government decided on the following basis of participation, and basically this participational basis forms the content of the Bill. All residents in a free settlement area who qualify for municipal franchise are placed on a common voters’ list and appoint a consultative or area committee which deals only with the interests of that specific free settlement area. [Interjections.] The Bill also makes provision for the establishment, by the Administrator, of a joint committee which will consist of an equal number of members from the local authority and the area committee.

I merely want to draw attention to a specific sentence in the memorandum to this Bill, namely that the provisions thereof shall only apply to areas which are declared to be free settlement areas under the Free Settlement Areas Bill. Allegations, particularly by the CP, that the method for participation being adopted here will now apply to the whole of South Africa, is therefore also devoid of all truth. It is essential for all population groups to have maximum participation in the decision-making processes of the third tier of government, because this form of government is going to increase in importance in future. For that reason no one may be excluded from it—not those residing in a free settlement area either.

In countries with a multi-cultural composition it is a natural tendency for the third tier of government to come more strongly to the fore, and in many of those countries it does, in fact, develop into one of the most important forms of government.

What about multi-cultural communities?

There is no answer.

That is a subject which I would very much like to debate on another occasion. [Interjections.]

I am of the opinion that in the 300 years in which the Whites have been established in South Africa one can, in fact, talk about a broader White cultural set-up. That is a fact.

What about the thousands of Coloured people who have become White? [Interjections.]

That is not the point I want to debate this afternoon.

Order! I am not prepared to allow hon members to continue to hold an ongoing discussion with the speaker. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I merely want to say that in countries like Switzerland this third tier of government is also increasing in importance and that it has come strongly to the fore there. However, when one has this trend in South Africa, it is suddenly branded as an apartheid structure.

In this Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill provision is therefore being made for a government of the community for the community. Although one is therefore dealing here with a community which is constituted differently from what would normally be the case, this community is, in fact, being constituted in this way on the basis of a specific choice.

Because this Bill deals primarily with political participation in the third tier of government, I am sure you will also allow me to refer to the forthcoming municipal elections. I want to express myself as being most strongly opposed to those who are making it their task to wreck participation in these elections. The revolutionary onslaught in South Africa is being waged on the basis that Black people have no franchise in the country in which they live. Participation in the decision-making process at the third tier of government will, however, expose this allegation as a lie, and this will have a counter-productive effect on the objectives of the revolutionaries. It is no use arguing that this is an inferior form of participation. When one participates in the third tier of government, one also serves on the regional services council, and when one serves on the regional services council one has an opportunity to uplift one’s own areas too.

When they participate in the third tier of government those Black leaders can also appoint representatives who will serve on a board that is going to draft a new constitution for South Africa. That is why I cannot understand how a spiritual leader like Bishop Tutu can also be opposed to this kind of participation. [Interjections.] Through that opposition he is playing into the hands of those who want to establish a Marxist state here. [Interjections.]

He says he is opposed to the Government forcing people to participate by intimidation, but the Government does, in fact, want to afford those who, by intimidation, are being forced not to participate, an opportunity to do so. It wants to counteract intimidation which is preventing participation. I do not know of anyone whom the Government has shot because he refused to participate, but I do know of someone who was shot because he wanted to participate. [Interjections.]

Bishop Tutu says: “I am not defying the Government; I am obeying God.” I also have a theological background, although I “bunked” many classes at the theological seminary. However, I cannot understand how it can be in conflict with the Bible to participate in a process which can improve the living conditions of one’s people. [Interjections.]

Bishop Tutu also says: “There is an alternative to this repressive dispensation, one in which the people can participate democratically in the decision-making processes”. In this connection I merely want to say the following. If those people, into whose hands Bishop Tutu is playing by discouraging people from participating, were to take over, there would be no question of democracy in South Africa.

There is no question of democracy! [Interjections.]

Democracy is a relative concept, and that hon member cannot deny that democracy has been extended since the NP took over. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Douw has now made enough interjections. The hon member may proceed.

The history of many revolutionary organisations shows that they only use the word “democracy” to cover up their abominable objectives. I want to mention one example. In China a “new democracy” was promised, but a communist dictatorship came in its stead. New meaning was given to the concept “people”. “People” are only people who subscribe to the objectives of the Communist Party, and only those people have the franchise. For that reason we must be extremely careful about using the words “people’s democracy”.

In conclusion I want to say that the NP wants to give all people a say in the decision-making process, in the third tier of government too. In this respect it does not allow itself to be tied to rigid systems. That is why it is also making provision for people in a free settlement area to participate in a way which would otherwise not be the case, because it is in the interests of everyone for this democracy to be maintained.

Mr Speaker, following upon certain events I want to make it abundantly clear that the principles of democracy and the principles of rights which are supposed to be enshrined in the conscience of every individual and every organisation—whatever that organisation may be—must be honoured to the letter. Certain events—I am referring to yesterday’s in particular—have led to decisions and indecision and have created a measure of confusion. They have also brought about misunderstanding among certain political parties.

I belong to a political party and I again want to make it clear that when the need arises for certain political parties to find each other and to reach consensus on certain issues, wisdom, decency, justice and the welfare of the people and the country dictate that we must get together. However, such a getting together must not be used as a ploy to fragment political parties and individuals.

Yesterday certain decisions had to be taken. I am speaking on behalf of the NPP in particular when I say that certain decisions had to be taken again today. In doing this, we had to seek absolute clarity with regard to what transpired with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. When we got clarity on that, certain decisions had to be taken with regard to the NPP. Whatever the decisions, let it be borne in mind that we are not here to be in connivance with and to support other political parties in their whims and fancies. We are guided by our own conscience.

It must be remembered that we represent constituencies. At the same time it must be understood that every hon MP or every political party does not necessarily have the same responsibilities. Even where the responsibilities are the same, the constituencies, the circumstances and the problems differ. What do manifest themselves in this Parliament—which is the highest legislative body in the country—are the pangs and pains of people. Posterity will naturally record our utterances and our behaviour. As far as my party and myself are concerned, we understand the dictum of discipline. Moreover, we will give Parliament the credibility that it requires and we will take the necessary decisions with dignity and decorum.

I want to come back now to the Free Settlement Areas Bill which was debated extensively yesterday. Unfortunately, it is interlinked and interwoven with the Group Areas Act and it did not receive general support although I do want to say that the concept of free settlement areas is indeed laudable.

The Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill will only follow the finalisation of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. I concede that the Local Government Affairs In Free Settlement Areas Bill, with the principle of a common voters’ roll naturally devoid of any racial character, can be a forerunner of a new era on the local government scene.

Notwithstanding the acceptable elements of this Bill, we as a party can only reconsider our stance once the Free Settlement Areas Bill gets the nod from us. I do not want to belabour the implications of this Bill. While we appreciate that we have not supported the Free Settlement Areas Bill, it is not logical either to support or reject this Bill, but we can be nonparticipants.

At the same time, we as a party believe that we will continue negotiations and will continually air our views. In this way we will reach consensus that will meet the needs and aspirations of the people, those whom we represent.

Mr Speaker, this spectacle which is now unfolding here, and which is threatening to result in consociational democracy and segmented autonomy ending in chaos, is causing those of us in the CP seriously to doubt whether there is any sense whatsoever in allowing the proceedings to continue. [Interjections.] This afternoon it was appropriate to see the creator of this system also deliver the funeral oration here. [Interjections.]

Let us tell you, Sir, that there cannot be consensus on fundamental matters of principle, and this afternoon nothing has come of the love and peace which we heard about and which was envisaged. What a farce is the Government engaged in here? All the NP has succeeded in doing thus far is to atrociously waste the money of the taxpayers of this country for the umpteenth time, [interjections.] Now the hon the leader of the LP says they are not going to vote on this legislation at all this week, and we wonder what sense there is in having these proceedings.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning pointed a finger at us. In respect of squandering money, how ridiculous can he be! Who called more than one joint committee to Pretoria last week? Members came from throughout the length and breadth of the country, only to adjourn after just ten minutes without achieving anything and then, would you believe it, to continue with this abortive session, which is not going to achieve anything at all if it continues!

If it is true that we are going to debate this legislation before us all day long, and there is no voting at the end of the discussion, it is an exercise in futility, and the Government should suspend proceedings here and now. Then we would prevent further expense to the taxpayer and would first ask the voters to give their decision at the polls. [Interjections.]

In my opinion this Bill before us, which must formulate the practical franchise arrangements and the Government functions, as well as the representation of voters in open residential areas, contains some of the most drastic changes in principle in South African politics. It arranges, inter alia, for the compilation of mixed voters’ lists which will apply in the case of management committees in free settlement areas and the way in which a voter can keep his franchise on the original municipal voters’ list. In other words, it also closely affects municipal elections. Now we already know, on the strength of the McCann Report, what the meercat cartoons, which have more credibility with the voters than NP politicians do, are costing. They are costing something like R4,8 million. The lack of credibility of the Government is also strikingly illustrated by the expenditure of State funds on municipal elections.

Yesterday I received a letter from the hon the Minister of Information in respect of a question as to whether the State was giving financial assistance to candidates in the October elections. His reply was as follows, and I quote:

He then goes on as follows:

The reply should have been a simple “no”, with a clear conscience. However, the long explanation makes me more than just suspicious.

What do you know about a clear conscience?

I would like to hear the actual reply to this question this afternoon from the hon Minister who is now being so garrulous here.

This legislation makes provision for consultative or management committees which are going to be elected by voters of all population groups on the same voters’ list who cast their votes in the same ballot box, and this just after the hon the Minister of Finance gave the following assurance at a recent youth congress of the NP. According to a newspaper report he said:

How is the hon the Minister going to explain this to those young people? I think it should rather be left to the meercats to explain it to them. [Interjections.]

This is just like the NP pamphlet on the assurances by the NP leaders, inter alia the leader of the Transvaal, in respect of open areas in the Vaal Triangle. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning sitting there next to him officially announced the possibility of open residential areas in those very areas. When the hon the leader then wanted to reply to a question, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told him to keep quiet and not to reply, because he would reply to it himself. [Interjections.] What a state of affairs!

The hon member for Roodeplaat said categorically that there could not be such an area in Pretoria, and yesterday the hon member for Innesdal said that there was going to be such an area in Pretoria. Who must the poor voters in Pretoria believe? All I know is that the fencesitting brigade will probably be going the same way as the hon member for Innesdal and will be in favour of open areas in Pretoria. In the microsphere we are going to be dealing in practice with the stark reality of power-sharing. Superior numbers are going to gain full control and at the end of the day the all-important question remains who is going to be governing whom.

No people with any self-respect would allow itself to be forced into a situation which was totally unacceptable to it. This is the basic dilemma of the Constitution which we warned against in 1983, and which is now assuming epidemic proportions, judging by today’s events. [Interjections.] The standpoint of those of us on this side of the House is quite clear. We are seeking self-determination, our own government and our own freedom, firstly for our people, and in addition we do not begrudge other peoples theirs either, if they prefer to gain the same degree of autonomy. [Interjections.]

Now we find that people like the hon the leader of the House of Representatives is holding this up to ridicule. He says we are living in a dream-world. [Interjections.] Let me quote to you from a letter which was written by a Coloured leader as recently as 20 September and was addressed to the Patriot. [Interjections.]

What is his name?

Just give me a chance. He said the following, inter alia:

He went on to say:

[Interjections.] He then went on as follows:

Now we are getting closer. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this correspondent says:

[Interjections.] If the hon members want to know, they should buy the Patriot on Friday and can read this letter in it. [Interjections.]

Order! I would appreciate it if hon members would control themselves, if they can. If they cannot, I shall be compelled to help them. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Of course the CP’s message to the world is refreshing. This is so because this side of the House can formulate the freedom ideal of a people, and in particular our people whom we represent here.

Mr Chairman, I shall react only briefly to what the previous speaker said. I find it very interesting indeed that people from our ranks who support CP policy are always quoted, but they remain nameless, shadows of the night, because that is probably when they say these things. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg said, inter alia, that there was such confusion here now that soon one would not know who was governing whom and that they believed in a people having its own government. The hon member and his party want to do this on the basis upon which they decide how one’s own people should be governed, however. When will they ever find common ground with us so that we can join them?

I do not want to say much to the leader of the Labour Party, but as a matter of interest I want to quote what he said:

In my opinion the nagging question is why the Labour Party is fighting management committee elections so assiduously, so much so that in some wards up to three members of the Labour Party are opposing one another.

To keep you out of there! [Interjections.]

I am not interested in that; surely the hon member knows that.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning mentioned two things with which I cannot agree. He said free settlement areas, as announced in yesterday’s legislation, cannot be established in a vacuum with regard to local government. He added that it was the Government’s accepted policy that devolution of power should take place. It is my considered opinion, however, that that will not be possible on the basis of this legislation. I shall also tell the hon the Minister that from that point of view, and in respect of other aspects which I shall mention, we shall not vote in favour of this legislation.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys, on the other hand, said this gave the free settlement areas an opportunity to take part in regional services councils. He said cultural groups were represented on government institutions even in a country such as Switzerland. I should like a Nationalist to answer my next question. Why, when it comes to us, do separate structures have to be created for us to participate in government institutions, whereas separate structures are not created in the White community for the Portuguese, the Greeks, the Jews, the Italians and the Germans? Even if they live separately, it is not by way of legislation, but merely because birds of a feather flock together.

For that reason I want to appeal to the hon the Minister this afternoon to withdraw this legislation. There is no need to rush it through now. Then we can discuss it properly, not only in the joint committees, but even at Cabinet level, so that we can establish a better dispensation.

If he cannot do that, I should like to request the hon the State President, with all due respect, not to refer this legislation to the President’s Council for disposal, but rather to refer it back to the respective Houses so that we can reflect on it properly.

To get to the legislation itself now, I want to point out that clause 1 (2) of the Bill gives a resident of such an area 90 days in which to apply to remain on the original voters’ list; if not, he can have his name registered on the voters’ list of the free settlement area. I do not think this is necessary at all. That area which is open and in which these people are living simply becomes part of the relevant municipality, and by means of a ward system, or whatever system should apply there, the resident in question should be able to participate in local government. A separate management committee need not be established at all.

To a certain extent some voters are being disenfranchised, because when a voter does not apply for his name to remain on the original voters’ list within the given time, his name is automatically placed on the voters’ list for a management committee. I do not think this is the best way of dealing with this situation.

It is my conviction, and that of the UDP, that we must not create separate local management bodies, but that we must move increasingly toward the situation in which work is done in regional services councils at present. As far as I am concerned, a person must only become a voter in the area in which he lives, and not a voter for a separate structure.

Clause 4 (2) of the Bill under discussion casts the institution of the management body in the mould of one or more group areas or of one or more sections of a group area. Naturally the Government knows our feelings with regard to the Group Areas Act. Consequently when the Government comes forward with a measure of this nature, which we have to support on that basis, we shall unfortunately not be able to do so, because then not only would we be acting in conflict with the wishes of our own people, but also in conflict with our own consciences.

The creation of a local government body on the basis proposed in the legislation under discussion only leads to a dispersion of government functions, which means that we have to meet here separately first in order to advise the local authority, in whose area of jurisdiction that area falls, about what should happen in that area. As a result, the more quickly we agree in respect of joint decision-making on those aspects that affect all of us in the area in which we find ourselves, the better for us. In addition this will eliminate the mistrust with regard to local government, especially as seen by the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reigerpark raised the question of separate structures. Nevertheless it is a fact that in the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Bill under discussion here now, people who do not want to be in separate structures are given an opportunity to settle in free settlement areas—in areas in which everyone can live, in which their names can be placed on a voters’ list which can contain the names of everyone in that area. This specifically meets the need of those who do not want to be in separate structures.

The Bill under discussion gives substance to a number of approaches which I should like to discuss in more detail. I should also like to offset these approaches against the approaches displayed by other parties here in Parliament.

In the first place this Bill confirms the Government’s commitment to reform. Whereas those who want to live in group areas will still have the right to do so, democracy is being extended in that those who do not want to live in group areas are also being given an opportunity to settle legally and to exercise their rights with regard to local government in those particular areas.

This Bill also gives substance to a specific exception. In terms of the Group Areas Act there was a permit system. A system still exists in terms of which an exception to the group areas legislation can be made in principle by means of granting a permit. A further exception is now being created, in this respect with regard to territory.

The CP went along with the Group Areas Act in terms of which exceptions existed in principle. I therefore find it strange that now, when it suits them, they can say that this exception to the principle in the group areas legislation is unacceptable.

A third approach in this Bill is that a certain reality is being acknowledged and comprehensively dealt with. Just as not everyone in South Africa can or wants to be accommodated in homelands or, as we call them, national states, not everyone can or wants to live in group areas. By acknowledging only half of a reality, one is not making the other half disappear.

The CP sees only the reality of those who want to live in own areas, but that does not detract from the reality of those who do not want to live in separate areas. On the other hand the LP wants to see only the reality of those who do not want to live in own areas, but that does not detract from the fact that there are many in this country who want to live in separate areas. We can effect long-term peace in this country only if we acknowledge the full reality in which all people’s needs can be met. [Interjections.]

This legislation also spells out the political implications of a policy. It is unwise politics to institute a measure without paying attention to all its practical implications. We cannot permit free settlement areas while leaving a vacuum with regard to the powers of local government which the relevant people have. That is why we have this Bill.

The question is how the CP spells out practical policy implications. They say there must be a smaller South Africa, but where is this smaller South Africa? The hon member for Overvaal ventured an answer by saying Hillbrow would be excised from South Africa. I should like to ask the hon member for Pietersburg whether Pietersburg is going to be excised from a smaller South Africa. Is Barberton going to be excised? Are places closer to urban areas, where there are many people of colour, going to be excised? Is Roodepoort or Brakpan going to be excised from a smaller South Africa? In provincial context, are they going to excise the Cape Province or perhaps Natal from a smaller South Africa?

I maintain that the CP does not have the moral right to function in any area without telling the voters of that area whether or not they will ultimately be excised from a smaller South Africa. [Interjections.]

The CP tells the voters: “Vote for the CP so that later we can excise you from South Africa and throw you out. You may not know at this time whether or not we are going to excise you. Vote for us first and later you will receive notice of the new Great Trek and where you will have to leave from. At the moment we still need your vote. Later we shall tell you you are being excised from the country.” [Interjections.]

Another approach in this Bill is that it includes an element of choice. For the purpose of a peaceful approach in South Africa, every participant in the political processes must accept that he cannot enforce exactly what he wants to on everyone in South Africa. The CP wants to enforce a South Africa in partitioned segments, exactly as they see it, on everyone in South Africa, irrespective of whether or not they get any acceptance for this in the ranks of the Labour Party.

The NP does that as well!

But that hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives also wants to enforce a dispensation, exactly as he sees it, on South Africa. He does not want to live in separate areas, and so he wants to enforce that dispensation on everyone so that no one may have the right to maintain own areas. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not expect hon members to like what they are hearing, but I do expect them to grant the hon member the democratic right of saying what he wants to in this House because he has the privilege of the House. I shall have to take firmer action from now on. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to say something about the House of Representatives, and in particular about the LP’s approach in this debate. They said they would participate in this constitutional dispensation, even if they were not in full agreement with it. They said that there were benefits for them in this constitutional dispensation and that they would use the dispensation for the sake of these benefits.

Now that free settlement areas are being created, which also involve benefits for their people, they suddenly have an all-or-nothing approach. [Interjections] They no longer want to participate for the sake of the benefits embodied in the system.

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives must make fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

They now have this approach of “give us everything exactly as we want it, or we shall not take part in anything.” I find it strange that now, when a community which experienced a great sense of grievance about their removal from District Six, can get an opportunity to participate in decision-making which may throw District Six open to all people once again, they have a boycott approach to this. They must tell their people that they are boycotting attempts which create a possibility of throwing open District Six once again, because that is the precise implication of what they are doing here with their approach. [Interjections.]

Many negative things are said about the President’s Council, as if it is the cruellest structure suddenly to have dropped from the skies. The point is that when they came to take part in this constitutional dispensation, they knew, four years ago, precisely how the President’s Council was made up, precisely how the President’s Council would work. Now they come with these accusations against this House.

With reference to the exceptional agreement their leaders concluded with our leaders, they now say that in their opinion the expressions “disposed of’ mean “debate”. Two words are used in this statement: “Debated” and “disposed of’. If “disposed of” means “debated”, surely this statement would have said “debated and debated”, but that is not what it says. It says “debated and disposed of”. “Disposed of’ cannot mean anything but “disposed of”, and that is what they agreed to.

I should like to support the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I start I would like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. With all the controversy that surrounds the legislation that is before this Chamber, why is he so insistent on proceeding with this legislation and processing it through this Chamber and then perhaps through the President’s Council?

I want to know, in the light of the opposition to this legislation from the majority of the people of South Africa, and talking about morality, is it moral for us to go ahead with this? When people of colour have spoken out so strongly against this, are we to understand that the Government in this country is only going to do things for the benefit and to satisfy the aspirations of only one section of the community? Is it not correct that we ought to be acting in the greater interests of South Africa? I would like the hon the Minister to consider whether it is moral or immoral to go ahead with this legislation in the face of all this opposition.

I did not want to enter the aspect of the impasse, but having heard some of the comments that have been made—and I refer to the impasse in respect of the so-called agreement and non-agreement— I want to say quite categorically that after some three days of intense discussions with the hon leader of the LP, my leader was invited, at about an hour’s notice, to meet the hon the Minister to discuss the possibility of our reconsidering our earlier decision to have this legislation deferred to 2 February 1989 for debate. At that discussion we were advised—we were told—what the decisions were. There was no negotiation with us. I must make that very, very clear. We were told, and then a plea was made that we should go along with what had been decided.

At that meeting we highlighted our difficulty with the legislation and we stated our problems. We spoke about whom we represented and the aspirations of our constituents. I think we made it very clear that there were certain things which were fundamental to us. We mentioned that we were not prepared to accept any kind of group areas in respect of CBD areas. We said that there should be no group areas in respect of farmlands. There could be no justification whatsoever for that.

In respect of residential areas we said we would meet and discuss it further. There were subsequent discussions and we were told that amendments were going to be made. When one looks at the amendments, one sees that there is no difference between what was contained in the original Bill and what is contained in the amendments. We represent a constituency; we represent our people. Do we have to give in all the time? Do we have to make the compromises? As an Indian community we only have 50 000 hectares of surface land in terms of the Group Areas Act. There is a demand from our side for further land for socio-economic development in this country. Do we have to make the concessions all the time? If we disagree then we are breaking honour and are regarded as dishonourable people. We are not being dishonourable. Our intention is to bring certain things across to the hon members in this Chamber and to the people who matter and have control over the destinies and the lives of the people of this country. We want them to understand those things that affect us most dearly, that affect the people of South Africa as a whole, that cause conflict in this country and are causing urban unrest in the townships in South Africa. If we are not going to address these problems we shall not get anywhere.

I want to make it very clear that our intention is not one of confrontation or of being dishonourable. Our intention is to be honest and to tell people what the problems are that we face in South Africa. Does the rest of South Africa have to be sacrificed only because of the right-wing pressure on the White community? [Interjections.] I leave that as a question for hon members to consider.

I would like to submit that, insofar as non-racial local authorities in South Africa are concerned, this is inevitable. I want to make an appeal that we should let this happen with a good grace. The establishment of so-called free settlement areas, and the subsequent establishment of management committees and local affairs committees in respect of those areas, is not a local authority franchise. There is a massive campaign going on calling on people of colour to participate in municipal elections. Are there really municipal elections? I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates why he has made massive statements to that effect as if to create the impression that people of colour will now be participating in municipal elections. They will not be participating in municipal elections. They will merely be participating in inferior structures. These are structures which play an advisory role. I am not saying that the local affairs committees do not have a function. I am saying that one cannot let people remain at that particular level forever.

We now want to create free settlement areas and get the people to participate even at that inferior level. I want to submit that the solution to this problem in South Africa is to declare all land within local authority and municipal boundaries as free settlement areas—if one wants to talk about free settlement areas. These areas should be opened up. People of colour should have direct representation on all local authorities. [Interjections.] If we want to see harmony among all the peoples in this country, there has to be the greatest possible amount of interaction between people at the primary level, which is the local government level. If one wants to stop the urban unrest and the township unrest, one must have interaction between people at that level. One must let people get together at that level. It is at that level that the town clerk is in direct contact with the people, regardless of colour.

I would like to submit quite clearly that we need to have the greatest possible amount of interaction at primary level. The creation of structures such as management committees and local affairs committees, in respect of free settlement areas, is an absolute waste of time. These structures will be rejected by the people of colour. They have demanded direct representation and that is what we should provide.

I understand—I am not so naive—that it would be difficult to expect to have everybody on one common voter’s role by the stroke of a pen tomorrow morning. That is what negotiation should be all about. I believe as a starting point that there should be healthy power sharing at a primary level. Let people come together. Let people participate and be represented directly on local authorities, be it from Indian, Coloured or Black areas, but don’t create separate structures because they are costing us money. As for the reaction to the pensions payable to the municipalities in Natal in particular, those who are participating in those elections know very well the attitudes of the people with regard to pensions being paid. Now the Government is going to broaden this base to include a whole lot of other people, which is totally unnecessary and a waste of the money of ratepayers and taxpayers.

We sit together in the President’s Council. In support of my argument I ask whether we don’t have common voting. Don’t we have people of colour sitting together, although the Blacks are excluded at this stage? Are they not voting together? There is no segmental voting. Why can’t we allow this to happen at the primary level? What is it that stops us from allowing this to happen? I would like to say that failure to allow people to come together at the primary level will only lead to further polarization and conflict in South Africa. If we want to stop the urban unrest, we need to allow people of colour to come together on a common council and to work together. In conclusion, to allow for that process of negotiation to take place and for consensus to be reached, the hon Minister would be welladvised to withdraw these Bills, which are not wanted by the majority of the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I think it is quite clear that there are a few fundamental principles—I shall come to the particulars at a later stage—on which this Bill is based. The first principle is that it is an apartheid measure—an apartheid measure based on free settlement areas—and as was indicated yesterday, that Bill is based on the concept of separate group areas and on the Group Areas Act, as this Bill is likewise based on the Group Areas Act. It is, without any doubt whatsoever, an apartheid measure, and consequently it is totally unacceptable to me and to the PFP.

The hon member for Stanger, who spoke before me, very clearly indicated why local government bodies could not be created on which everyone living in the area could have equal representation. Why can there not be municipal franchise in which all can participate, something which we in the Cape were familiar with throughout the years before the parliamentary voters’ roll became the decisive criterion, thereby fundamentally disenfranchising people of colour?

The sober fact is that as early as the year before last—and I want to remind the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of that fact—there was a Bill before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development which sought to draw up joint rules and regulations for the election of councillors. On that occasion the components represented by the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates made it very clear that any separate local authorities were completely unacceptable to them. The hon the Minister was asked to attend the sitting of that joint committee. He did so, and that was greatly appreciated. On that occasion it was put very clearly to the hon the Minister that the concept of separate local authorities was totally unacceptable to those communities. The hon the Minister will remember that he undertook to convey to the government the objections raised by those two components. I venture to say that I am of the opinion that my recollection of that meeting is a completely accurate one.

What I want to say is that apart from the principle, about which my party and I feel very strongly, it has been quite clear for a long time that the concept of separate local authorities is totally unacceptable to the Coloured and Indian communities. It is surely no use continuing with legislation which, in fact, reinforces and entrenches that apartheid even further and then expecting the other two Houses to support that Bill.

If we want to talk of consensus and say that it forms the basis of the Constitution and the parliamentary system, it surely goes without saying that in the first place it is essential to take note of the serious objections of the other Houses to such measures and to consider, quietly and calmly, how we can accommodate those objections and how consensus can possibly be achieved.

In all honesty I want to say that the solution does not lie in the drafting and introduction of Bills which have been drawn up unilaterally and which the Houses are then asked to decide about. That is not a search for consensus.

The second point I want to raise is that a stigma attaches to the form of local government which is to be created in free settlement areas in terms of this Bill. I wanted to say yesterday—unfortunately time caught up with me—that a stigma attaches to the concept of free settlement areas as such. As soon as mention is made of affected areas, and provision is made for people who may possibly incur losses because an area has been declared to be a free settlement area, the inevitable implication is that people in such an area are faced with the danger that their property prices will drop.

The obverse can also be true! Prices may also rise.

If that is the case, why is special provision being made for compensation for losses suffered?

Why not? It can only create greater certainty.

Surely it should be accepted that if someone can make a profit, he should be entitled to do so. [Interjections.] I merely want to state that in that regard a stigma attaches to free settlement areas. That stigma recurs in this Bill.

The local government body which is being created is nothing short of what is known as a management committee or a local affairs committee at present. All members know that management committees and local affairs committees are inferior secondary bodies which, in themselves, have no authority or functions. They remain inferior to the local authority or municipality in whose area they have been established. In fact, the President’s Council, for example, states the following on page 126 of its report:

Time and again the components of the other Houses have told us what it means to be inferior to a White municipality to which they do not have access and on which they do not have a seat. There is no reason why one cannot implement the view put forward here by both the hon member for Stanger and the hon member for Reigerpark. We cannot continue with the concept of separate local authorities on a racial basis. We cannot do so. We all know that with the best will in the world we cannot continue with that indefinitely.

Within the framework of the own affairs concept let me say that that kind of implementation of own affairs gets to the root of the own affairs concept because it is irrational and simply based on race and colour. The sober fact is that those local authorities which will be created in such an area are inferior bodies. They are supposed to be inferior bodies. As the hon the Minister indicated—this now brings me to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys—provision is, in fact, being made for a joint committee on which representatives of the local authority will serve. That is basically the White municipality. I am saying it is the White municipality. If I may explain: I am saying this for the simple reason—as was very clearly apparent yesterday—that if free settlement areas were ever to be properly implemented, those areas would primarily have to be created in White group areas. In other words, in the first place we are going to have White local authorities. There may be exceptions here and there, but that is basically what it is all about.

In fact, in the alternatives which were put forward the President’s Council said time and again, in its report, that we need have no fear. What it boils down to is that we need have no fear because the basic character of the local authority would not change. Because those areas are going to be created in White group areas, this would mean that the basic character of those local authorities would not fundamentally change. We should not be afraid to create those areas, nor to make provision for certain people continuing to vote for the local authority within whose jurisdiction that free settlement area is created. There is no doubt that the intention is to create an inferior body here.

There is one specific benefit embodied in this Bill. In all honesty I would be foolish not to acknowledge this. I am referring to the fact that for the first time now—by the first time I mean during the past 20 or 30 years—provision is being made for a mixed body at local government level. Let me say that this is the only specific element in this Bill that can be supported to a certain extent. If having only separate local authorities is no longer a sacrosanct principle, if even in these areas we are prepared to have mixed local authorities—in these free settlement areas—what is wrong with the basic principle of our being able to create local authorities on a mixed basis too?

If we are honest and say that that principle is acknowledged here, surely it is a logical principle to extend that to other forms of local government. Why is it being restricted to free settlement areas? Therefore I merely want to state that we can speak about own affairs and about the fact that in Schedule 1 of the Bill local government is designated as an own affair. I do not think that system is viable. I have already indicated as much. If the Government was prepared to accept this principle of a mixed local authority, let me say then that the underlying reasons thus far advanced in support of why there should be separate local government, collapse completely. I therefore hope that the Government will go further and scrap this entire principle of separate local authorities from its own policy.

Let me take the matter a bit further, however. When we speak about local government, there is one primary principle which ought to be decisive when it comes to who has the right to participate in the activities of that local authority and who has the right to elect members to that local authority, and that is the principle of domicile. A man’s place of residence is what, in point of fact, gives him the right—I want to say that it is an inherent right—to participate in the activities of the local authority which has charge of that area, and then I mean the local authority in the true sense, not a completely inferior body. That is, in point of fact, the principle underlying the Act of 1984. It is the people who are domiciled there, or occupy or own property there—or perhaps a corporate body which conducts business in that area—who have the right to participate in the activities of the local authority. That is the principle of domicile.

It is only because we cling so—I am tempted to say—crazily to the concept of race or colour that we have forgotten this cardinal principle that it is domicile, where a person lives, which gives him— as far as I am concerned—a fundamental right to say that he has the right to participate in the affairs of the local authority which has charge of his affairs, the right to become a member of that local authority and the right to participate in the election of members of that local authority.

We have deviated from that principle and said that domicile is unimportant; what is more important is actually the question of colour or race, or group—if some hon members want to call it by that name—but it is, in effect, colour or race, not “group”. That, too, is a policy which cannot be maintained indefinitely. It cannot be maintained, because it conflicts with every concept of reasonableness and logic, common sense and, in our country, any possibility of achieving better human relations in this country.

The hon the Minister and the hon member Dr Geldenhuys spelt out that the President’s Council had considered the various possibilities. I find it interesting, Mr Chairman, that the Government decided on the President’s Council’s fourth alternative. In other words, the other alternatives which the hon member Dr Geldenhuys mentioned were apparently not considered by the Government, or the Government did not decide upon any of them.

The fact that we decided on one alternative surely does not mean that we did not consider the other alternatives?

Yes. Thank you. I merely want to say that I was given no impression that serious consideration had been given to the other alternatives. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not get so hot and bothered; I do not want to clash with him. [Interjections.]

Do not make that kind of statement! You are an academic, are you not?

Mr Chairman, if I, as an academic, have a contribution to make to the proceedings in this place, I should like to do so without apologising for the fact …[Interjections.]

The first alternative was a joint voters’ roll without any restriction on the choice of candidates, and in its motivation for that possibility as an alternative—I want hon members to listen to this—the President’s Council stated, in par 5.174.5 of its support—on page 128:

That is one of the reasons why it was stated that this alternative was not advocated, but one of the benefits that was seen to be embodied in this alternative was set out as follows in the President’s Council’s report:

What situation can obtain here? Two people live next door to each other, and in terms of the proposals in the Bill, one man can vote for his local management body, while the other can vote for the local authority. Do hon members understand that? Then we say that a joint committee can be created and that powers can be delegated to that joint committee. It is certainly stated in the Bill. I want to say, however, that as it stands at present it means, in principle, that two people can live next door to each other and the one can be told: “Look, you can only vote for an inferior local management body.” The other says: “No, I am not interested in your local management body. I have a vote in the local authority—the municipality”. What is more, in regard to the choice which is given to him and which he can exercise, I want to ask in all honesty: If we think of local affairs committees and the management committees, what choice is there for those people? What choice is there for Coloureds and Indians, if I may use those terms, who live in such an open area? They can only choose whether they are going to vote for that local committee which is being established.

Or they do not vote.

They do not even have a choice. What is also interesting is that only those people—call them Whites—who are there at the time, who are residing there at the time of the creation of that free settlement area, can exercise a choice. If someone subsequently moves into that area from outside, he has no choice. In other words, this means in fact, as was rightly indicated here, that the effect of that would be that certain people would be disenfranchised. That is the effect. Hon members will understand if it seems to me that a fundamental injustice is being perpetrated here. This injustice is the result of the maintenance of the principle of separate local authorities at all costs. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the reason the hon member Prof Olivier is always able to grip his audience, is that he is not inclined to insult its intelligence. I therefore compliment him on an excellent speech.

Yesterday we expressed concern about the Free Settlement Areas Bill. By and large the concern expressed was focused upon the brand of gradualism of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We made no bones about our dissatisfaction with the slow pace of supposed reform in this country. What did we earn for our efforts, for our participation and our parliamentary conduct in that process of debate? With no regard for the sensitivity of the whole matter of group areas inasfar as the LP is concerned, the hon the Minister, in a rather vicious attack on the leader of the LP and on the party itself, decided to refer—in rough terms, I would say—to a supposed breaking of an agreement.

We are amazed at the undue aggression displayed by the NP. This undue aggression is expressed in the questioning of our integrity. In his allegations that the Labour Party of South Africa reneged on this agreement, he expresses no confidence in our participation in the structure of his creation. It would seem that the NP believes that negotiation involves only debate and compliance.

I want to say that it will no doubt find that compliance which it so desperately requires in terms of the broadening of apartheid—his own words—in the embittered participation of the hon member for Southern Cape in particular.

The LP will not tolerate a lecture on honourable conduct in this House or elsewhere. We talk about trust and integrity, and we believe in those two factors of human understanding.

It seems to me that the CP particularly enjoyed the speech made by the hon leader of the LP. However, I should like to remind them that they too were Nationalists and that they were party to many of the things that happened in the past and that reflect on the integrity of Parliament. [Interjections.]

I want to point out that the LP has been extremely co-operative in its participation over the past few years. We passed Bills, and we certainly voted for amendments to Bills, but we co-operated. We did not comply unnecessarily. We co-operated and we made our contribution. We opposed measures whenever they did not suit the needs of the people of South Africa. We made our contribution by opposing measures that we found undesirable. Hence we will never subscribe to the whole issue of compliance.

We have also had the experience that we spoke, negotiated, in certain instances pleaded or demanded, and it was the Labour Party that offered its hand in co-operation in many instances, but we did not get reciprocal co-operation from the NP. Now our integrity is being questioned!

I want to ask hon members to reflect on the manner in which the NP has used Parliament in its participation over the years—in the years in which it built apartheid, and in the recent past when it has tried to defend apartheid or to delay the inevitable. We cannot postpone the inevitable. This country is moving forward to become one of the world’s best countries, with total racial harmony, because we address the problem of racial differences. Some of us do not tolerate discrimination on the grounds of race. Others do. However, we will solve those problems with or without the co-operation which we so desperately require from the NP in South Africa.

I should like to refer to an interjection made by the hon the Minister of National Education, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. He claimed that the Rules in regard to joint debates in Parliament had been changed earlier this year. I should like to remind the House that the LP was in fact opposed to many of the provisions contained in those Rules. It also made its feelings clear. However, for the sake of consensus we allowed certain measures through. Now we are very cagey about passing any type of faulty legislation, simply because it is used against us afterwards, as the hon the Minister has tried to do this afternoon.

I should like to refer to some comments made here this afternoon, and I would definitely like to know from the NPP exactly where they stand in regard to the whole issue of group areas. I could not for the life of me understand what the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture (Delegates) said here today.

I should also like to respond briefly to what the hon member for Rissik had to say. He said that the CP wanted to force partition upon the whole South African population, and he went on to accuse the LP of being the other side of the coin in demanding nothing but total integration.

I want to aver that the NP does not offer the best of both worlds. It offers the best of neither world, because its formula allows for discrimination on the basis of skin colour, and this is the principle which must be fought in South Africa if this country wants to steer a true course of reform.

I want to respond to the hon member for Reigerpark who questioned the participation at the moment of the LP in municipal elections. This is the silliest kind of argument he could have used, because it is the LP which by resolution brought the hon member for Reigerpark to Parliament. The LP by resolution now takes people into local government. [Interjections.] He has to deny this.

As far as the LP is concerned, we say that it is party teamwork … [Interjections.] The kitchen is rather noisy today. [Interjections.] It is party teamwork which will bring about that which many of our people outside so desperately wish for. It is party teamwork on the part of the LP which will bring direct representation, and not the efforts of groups of self-motivated individuals that will succeed in the end.

I have to state that we cannot accept the Group Areas Act, and therefore we cannot accept either the Free Settlement Areas Bill or the related Bill which is on the Table today. The reason I say this is because I want to make it absolutely clear where we stand.

I need another minute, but I know that Mr Speaker will not grant it. However, I must refer to certain statements made by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. The hon member made some strange statements, as was the case yesterday when he referred to autonomy. He said yesterday that the LP had not been asked to support the Bill and that nobody denied the LP the right to reject the Bill. I now want to ask whether that means that he will deny us the right not to vote on the Bill.

Order! I regret to say that the hon member’s time expired a few seconds ago.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Wentworth has said that the LP has constantly complained about the slow pace of reform. However, if they look back to four years ago and they look at the present situation, surely they can only say that there has been considerable reform during the time that they have been in Parliament. [Interjections.]

The legislation before us today deals with voting and with franchise. South Africa is at the moment in the throes of a municipal election and we are all involved in one way or another. On a lighter note it has been said that at least in an election year one’s faith is again restored in humanity because one sees important men running around loving everybody; and that there are two kinds of voters: Those who vote for one’s own particular candidate and a lot of ignorant, prejudiced fools.

This legislation is a logical consequence of the introduction of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. This was pointed out by the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council. That committee reported that it was natural that if open areas were established the question of representation and the franchise for people living in such areas would have to be addressed.

Clearly participation in third-tier government is an important requisite for the continuation of democracy in South Africa. Greater emphasis on participation is afforded by the fact that now in 1988 for the first time all communities can take part in municipal elections on a national scale simultaneously in this country.

Surely this is not cosmetic reform. Since the Free Settlement Areas Bill provides for open residential areas only, it is abundantly clear that such areas will not, in fact, constitute viable, fullfledged local authorities on their own. Nevertheless, there will be many aspects of day-to-day living which affect the people actually residing in that area. They will require municipal services, recreational amenities, security and so on, but who will speak on their behalf and represent their community in dealing with the local authority which has jurisdiction over them?

The Bill before us makes it possible for those residing in open areas to elect representatives to a management committee for that area. In so doing, they are taking part in the democratic process. People who decide to make their home in a free settlement area and who qualify as voters in terms of the relevant municipal ordinance of the province in which they reside, will now be entitled to exercise a vote by registering on a common voters’ roll for that open area. The question of their group affiliation does not arise, because the voters’ roll is a multiracial roll. The only consideration is whether, in fact, they meet the ordinary requirements of the ordinance.

With regard to the management committee to be elected, the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council envisaged that such a committee should take care of the interests of the area and that the committee should have the highest possible number of delegated powers.

It was further envisaged that such a committee should also have formal powers to participate in the local authority itself. Both these suggestions are embodied and provided for in this Bill. The various provincial ordinances are being amended to provide that the powers, functions and duties presently conferred or imposed on management committees can be extended, by regulations promulgated by the Administrators of the provinces, to free settlement management committees.

In addition, such committees are given representation at third tier government level, because the Bill provides for the establishment of a joint liaison committee consisting of an equal number of members of the management committee and the municipal council to deal with matters of common concern. Naturally, however, the municipal council will continue to exercise overall authority.

By implication this Bill recognises that the continued existence of own local authorities for each population group will remain. However, it introduces a degree of flexibility with regard to the say the various population groups will have. Within the open area all residents are treated on an equal basis. There is and can be no discrimination based on colour within that area. People will exercise equal voting rights and elect a multiracial committee to deal with their own affairs. The Bill, however, also provides for those residents who already qualify for a municipal vote and who will fall within a new free settlement area either to retain their vote or to elect to register on the common roll of the area. Newcomers to the area will qualify, irrespective of population group.

This legislation is the result of an in-depth investigation by the President’s Council. The hon the State President indicated on 5 October 1987 the Government’s willingness to accept the recommendations of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, subject to a thorough investigation by the Government of all the constitutional implications. The Government in turn undertook a very detailed, thorough investigation. The Bill is therefore the result of many hours of deliberation, research and a great deal of thought.

What I find difficult to understand is the attitude of the PFP, the Labour Party and the parties in the House of Delegates to this Bill. Here we have a new and exciting concept of a multiracial residential area and of a multiracial common voters’ roll being introduced into the framework of South African society. The parties I have mentioned have fought tooth and nail for these principles. Yet, when they are introduced—and one would expect them to be welcomed and hailed as the beginning of a new order—they are summarily dismissed and cast aside. Where, I ask, is the spirit of compromise and give and take?

The hon member for Stanger said that people of colour are having to make concessions constantly. This Bill represents a major concession on the part of the NP. Never in its forty years of government has it previously propagated a mixed residential area or a common voters’ roll. It is therefore not difficult to imagine just how we in these benches feel when this bona fide reform measure meets with a rebuff. Nevertheless, the NP is prepared to exercise goodwill, restraint and patience in the greater interests of our country.

We sincerely believe this is a step forward. We believe this measure will meet a need which has developed in our South African society. We support this legislation because we believe it will alleviate the situation of thousands of South Africans of all population groups. We have adapted our policy and placed South Africa first. I heartily support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, following on the hon member for King William’s Town, the only matter on which I agree with him is that his English language conveyed to me what I understood best. I am, however, unhappy to say that the hon member for King William’s Town does not understand the expression “local government”, the implementation of local government and the taxpayers and ratepayers who contribute to local government.

There is a classic example in Durban where the Indian ratepayers contribute a large slice towards the city council’s coffers and where, in addition, Black labourers contribute—not indirectly but directly by their labour—to the coffers of the city council by working for White entrepreneurs. Therefore, to say now that there is a free settlement area and that participation in local government affairs in the free settlement area is a concession belies the words “rightful participation in local government”.

The object of this Bill is simply to look at local government in the free settlement areas and nothing more. This Bill completely disregards the aspirations and hopes of the people of colour in this country. Are we going to be participants in passing a Bill which will become law and further entrench apartheid? Not in our lifetime!

One must talk to people and not just tell them what one is going to do. That is so important! Therefore the Government must realise that human relations are the best relations. If one wants reciprocation for what one’s intentions are, one must be able to accommodate. Courtesy begets courtesy! If these courtesies are denied, I am afraid this Government will get nowhere but retain the status quo as present, despite what they say they intend to do in the way of reform.

As far as reform is concerned, we saw the wisdom of establishing a proposed national council against the wishes of our own supporters who sent us to Parliament, and this side of the House and the other side of the House, except for the far end on the left, supported the Bill which proposed a national council. What was the objective of the national council? It was to look at discriminating legislation and at future legislation which would be to the benefit of all South Africans.

What is being done by this trilogy of Bills? They are negating what was hoped for. That is what is going to happen.

Then the Government will cry out and say they are not getting the support of the people, but how can they expect the support of the people when, with the one hand they give us food while with the other hand—and I say this with the greatest respect—they give us poison. How can we accept that?

I appeal to hon members to look at the South Africa of the future. The hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry just the other day made a beautiful speech overseas, referring to free enterprise. Where is the free enterprise in relation to this Bill? Where will free enterprise come about in South Africa? However, I concede that there is certain good in some Government principles in relation to the industrial entrepreneur, but industrial and commercial entrepreneurship does not justify Bills of this nature.

The Government says that in these free settlement areas there will be local government affairs but they relegate local government in these areas purely to consultative committees. That is what is being done. On the one hand the Government gives it a flowery name—local government affairs in free settlement areas—but this Bill relegates those who are to participate in these local affairs only to consultative or management committees. Is local government not the level where we meet people, where we render services to people? Will it not be to the benefit of all the people of the country if we allow, throughout the country, participation by people of all colours at local government level where it matters most?

I want to say, with the greatest respect, that I disagree with hon Ministers in the Government, as well in my own Ministers’ Council, and no one must deny me the right to disagree. It is unacceptable for anybody in this country to seek to force their intentions upon the People’s Party of South Africa, and for that matter upon all hon members of integrity in this House. Whatever the agreement was, this Government has perpetuated parliamentary procedures and conventions. Conventions are that even in the last minute one can disagree and do what one thinks is right in the interests of the country. Senior members of the LP and the People’s Party of South Africa took a stand on what they thought was best for the country, and that decision should be respected by all. Courtesy begets courtesy. The Government should not alienate itself from people who matter, people who are giving them a helping hand towards their reform measures. This is how it should be because the moment the Government snubs hon members …

Mr Chairman, may I please ask the hon the Minister a question? Did that hon Minister give an undertaking to me personally yesterday that they would vote on two Bills and that they would discuss the other one this morning?

Sir, I want to state categorically that I gave an undertaking to the hon the Minister on the understanding that he had an understanding with the LP. I had to do that. If I was misled, it is not my fault. Be that as it may, we are looking at international perceptions, but what will our international perceptions be if we indulge in luxuries based on skin colour? What are we going to do about the economy of this country? Are we going to stay in isolation? We in this country are reeling and we must face facts. Hon members must look at the economy of this country. We cannot say that we are prepared to reel under the economic pressures of the international world.

I wish to say today that I have had the greatest disadvantage as a participant in a tricameral system. I have gone overseas, but not at the expense of the Government. [Interjections.] I have never done so at the expense of the Government. I went there to defend my participation in this tricameral system, but I saw more light at the end of the process. Therefore, while we are working towards a South Africa free of all kinds of constraints and restraints, I plead with my colleagues in Government, who can assist in the proper decision-making, that we should walk the road together. Let it not be said that we are going to let one another down.

A clear example of good relations at local level, the lowest level of government, is Tongaat, where there is a multiracial town council, consistin g of Indians and Whites, and if there were any Coloureds, they would be included too. Unfortunately, however, because of the Government’s regulations the Blacks cannot participate fully in the Tongaat Town Council. However, there is an arrangement by Blacks are brought in, and they sit with the town council and advise them and express their desires at the town council meetings, and their inputs are implemented. [Interjections.] If such a thing is possible, why is it then not possible to have Blacks participate legally in the Tongaat Town Council?

All that is true, and I believe that if the House of Delegates, and particularly the PPSA, shoot this Bill down in flames and say that they reject it, we will be giving the Government an easy passage to the President’s Council. We do not wish to be ruled by decree of the President’s Council or by any hon Minister. Democracy must not be brought so low. I believe that the hon the Ministers in Government have done all that is possible to bring about reform. I ask hon members not to thwart those reforms that they had in mind.

When I speak in this tone of voice I do not mean that I am not a South African. I am a South African. I am not being unpatriotic; I am being sincere and genuine when I say that South Africa and all its people come first, not only the privileged White community of South Africa. If that is not so, there is no difference between the policies of the NP and the CP. There can be no difference whatsoever in our view if we see the same perpetuation of privileges as far as the White community is concerned.

I speak with deep emotion, and from the bottom of my heart. My involvement in politics goes back to 1947, when we as a delegation met the then Prime Minister of South Africa, Gen Smuts. Following upon that we have seen several Prime Ministers in succession, up to the present hon State President. Where have we got to? The nitty-gritty of racial hurt to people of colour has not yet been removed. The Government brought us into Parliament; fair enough. We concede that. However, having been brought into Parliament does not necessarily mean that we have to consent to everything that is pushed down. [Interjections.]

With the greatest respect to my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates, I wish to state that he conveyed no message to this House as regards the aspirations of the Indian people and the other people of colour in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what the wisdom of debating this Bill is when the Free Settlement Areas Bill did not receive support? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that question simply demonstrates the inadequacy of the hon the Minister. I am not discussing the Free Settlement Areas Bill; I am discussing local government affairs in free settlement areas. [Interjections.] Therefore I want to say … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have to listen here to pious words this afternoon about how one has to keep one’s word and not break it. In a very paternalistic way, the hon member without a seat, Dr Geldenhuys, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had much to say about how one must keep one’s word. I should like those hon members to tell me how long one must keep one’s word. Must one keep it for a day, a month, two months or a year? I want those hon members to tell me why they broke their word to the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is very easy to come and say all these things today. Do they still adhere to their twelve-point plan, however, and what they wrote in it about the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act? Or did they break their word there? I want to ask those hon members among them who stood up during the election and told the South African voters that they were going to introduce a mixed voters’ list. Did any of them do that? I should be pleased to read it somewhere. That word was broken. A mixed voters’ list is being instituted today, albeit on the third-tier.

Who among them said, however, that mixed municipal voters’ lists would be instituted? Let us not try to preach sanctimoniously to others if we ourselves do not keep our word. The hon the Minister must tell us and the voters of South Africa where they told the voters that they were going to introduce mixed voters’ lists. Instead they blame the people on my left and say that they did not keep their word.

Let us go a little further, however. The hon member for Rissik gave an explanation of that agreement and said that the phrase “debate and dispose of” should actually have read “debate and debate”. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because that is the only thing that is being done here. We debate, and we debate again, and we are going to debate this matter once again. No vote is going to be taken. We have voted already, after all. The Houses that wanted to vote have voted. What are we doing? Wasting time? We are repeating it all. We are debating and debating. I think perhaps the hon member for Rissik should request that this agreement be rectified, because the only thing that is in fact happening here is that we are repeating what we said. Nothing is improved by repetition. On 31 August I said what I had to say about this legislation. It has been recorded in Hansard. If there are hon members who did not hear it, they can go and read it there, but I am not prepared to waste the time and money of this House any longer. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when I came to the podium now, I heard somebody ask, “Is hy wakker?” I wish the culprit would own up, so I can reply to him. If it is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives I want to tell him that perhaps being asleep was the only freedom I had in the Labour Party while I was there. For the rest, there was nothing else. [Interjections.] Yes, the culprit owned up. Thank you. It was almost as though there was no political Labour Party anymore. It became his party, his private bit of inconvenience. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Matroosfontein allowed to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives is a culprit?

Order! Did the hon member for Matroosfontein say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives was a culprit?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let me start by saying that this little piece of legislation, as well as the Bill that we discussed yesterday, is rather insignificant. People are always saying things are too little and too late. I agree in this particular instance. As was the case with the Bill that we discussed yesterday, this is rather insignificant and maybe it is very late in the day. I would not say it is too late, but let me say it is very late in the day. Yesterday we indicated our support for the Free Settlement Areas Bill because we felt that at least a chip of the old Group Areas Act—this monstrous thing under which I and everybody else suffered—could perhaps be broken off. This is looking at the matter positively, because I am always looking at the positive aspects, wherever I find myself. Even in the worst company I will always look at the best side of life, and I shall continue to do so.

When one looks at the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, one salient point at least emerges and that is that people will again be placed on a common voters’ roll. We have been shouting and asking for that all these years. Again I say it is very little, it is very late in the day, but at least it is there. As long as one can make progress. One can only move a wheel spoke by spoke; one cannot move the whole wheel at once, unless one has a very powerful engine. Let us face it, this debate today is not a very powerful engine. [Interjections.]

It is an old ox-wagon.

Is this a very powerful engine that will turn the wheel full-scale? If that were the case I might be prepared to listen. [Interjections.] I say again that joint decision-making is at least envisaged in clause 1 of the Bill, where people will be sitting jointly. We have been talking about joint decision-making all the time. In fact, I learned about it in the LP. I am prepared to give recognition for what I learned in the party. [Interjections.] However, I am told today to please go back and forget about it all. [Interjections.] In terms of the very last sentence of clause 2, no population group will be excluded from participation in a free settlement area. That is a little bit of progress.

There are also a number of things—as I will admit freely—in this piece of legislation that are not exactly perfect. A lot of things have to be ironed out. A lot of things are not satisfactory. To this end I intend to place amendments on the Order Paper at a later date. [Interjections.] Let us agree that some people should not be disenfranchised. They should never be disenfranchised, and we support the principle contained in the Bill that those people must be enfranchised—that is, they must have the right to vote and to be voted for, according to the principles enunciated by the LP itself.

We have shouted for these areas throughout the years. We have said: “Leave the people in Lansdowne and Hillbrow. Do not take them out and kick them about.” However, we have never said: “Give them the vote as well.” I will go further and say leave the people in Hillbrow, Lansdowne and everywhere else. I will say they should also be able to vote in that area. Some hon Ministers or Deputy Ministers may look at me askance, but I will deal with them if I still have a few minutes left. [Interjections.] We want to keep the doors open for negotiation so that we can negotiate these problems at any given time. Let us therefore, Sir, keep our minds and our hearts open to all South Africans. I am saying this so that all of us can enjoy all the good things that this country has to offer.

In conclusion, I challenge those hon members who said they were opposed to the Bill we discussed yesterday to vote against it, and not simply to walk out or stay away. Let them vote against it and show the world that they are voting with the Conservative Party. Why are they afraid to vote with the Conservative Party? [Interjections.]

Let us bring this out into the open. When they walked out yesterday, I called them cowards, and what happened? [Interjections.] An hon Deputy Minister invited me outside to receive a physical hiding because I had called him a coward. However, I do so again here, Sir, on pain of assault.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon member prove that I threatened him physically?

Yes, I can. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not entitled to call another hon member a coward in the House. The hon member must please withdraw those words.

That was yesterday, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member referred to the same issue today, and the hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the remark I made today, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I do hope, after what I have said, that I shall not be physically threatened once again, because I am doing this in all honesty. I am doing this in all sincerity. I defied the party out of honesty, because it was not a matter of money. Whether I had stood for the management committee or not, I would have received the same pay. Perhaps I would have received a large gratuity as well but I am not in a hurry to receive that large gratuity because I have a commitment to my people. [Interjections.] A choice was put to me. I had to choose between my people and my party, and I chose my people.

Mr Speaker, I am taking part in this debate once again because I want to react to certain standpoints adopted by hon members.

†There are two distinct issues which I should like to address. The first issue is the issue as to whether an agreement was, in fact, reached between the leaders of various parties. In this regard I should like to address the issue as to what the terms of such an agreement would have been had such an agreement been reached. I should like to address the position as to whether there was a breach of that agreement.

Let me say right at the outset that the other issue which we discussed, concerned the provisions of the Bill before us. Let me deal with the last issue first in the interest of clarity. At no stage was it alleged or averred that there had been an agreement between my party and the Government and any other party in this Parliament that they would support this Bill or any of the other Bills. Therefore, to argue, as did the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives, that provided they supported the Bills, we would co-operate, and that if they did not support the Bills …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the House of Representatives has not yet spoken in this debate.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I take the point which the hon member wants to make. Perhaps it would be opportune if the hon the Leader of the House would speak. [Interjections.] Perhaps he should speak. Furthermore, I hope that when he speaks he will relate the facts as they are, and not as he wants them to be interpreted. [Interjections.] I stand corrected—I was referring to the hon the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives.

Let us argue the point as to whether anybody had suggested that there was an agreement that the Labour Party—or any party for that matter— would support the Bills. The reason for the negotiations related to the fact that certain Houses decided to boycott the proceedings of Parliament. The whole substance of and the basis for these negotiations had been to endeavour to persuade the hon members of all Houses—notwithstanding their objections to the substance of the Bills—to work within the rules and the Constitution. Therefore an agreement reached that we would operate within the Constitution as well as the Standing Rules of Parliament never implied and was never intended to imply an acceptance of any or all of the Bills.

*It is therefore a smokescreen to argue that it is being alleged that the agreement implied that some of the parties to the agreement were expected to humbly return and support the legislation.

†However, let us see whether there had in fact been an agreement. I want to refer to the Afrikaans statement and I want hon members to remember that this was a joint statement.

That is ancient history!

It may perhaps be ancient history. The Bible is also ancient history, but certain people must hear it over and over again before they are converted.

Do not use the Bible now!

What is the hon the leader of the Labour Party saying? He is saying that our agreement entailed the withdrawal of certain Bills that had been accepted by the House of Assembly. I want to add that they were agreed to by the House of Assembly in terms of the suspension of certain Rules to enable the House of Assembly to consider those Bills. The first element of the agreement is therefore the withdrawal of legislation that the House of Assembly had already agreed to. The functionary in the withdrawal of this legislation was the hon the leader of the House of Assembly, and he upheld the first part of the agreement by moving that the legislation be withdrawn. The hon the leader of the House of Representatives—I believe I am now addressing him correctly—knows that what I am saying is true.

The second element of the agreement—I am now speaking in the first person in the words of the hon the leader of the Labour Party—is that “amended Bills be introduced and considered by the joint committees in question during the week of 19 September 1988”. The second element of the agreement with the hon the leader of the Labour Party was complied with not only in spirit but also to the letter.

Make the agreement a schedule to the Act! [Interjections.]

I would then make that hon member a zero on the contract. [Interjections.]

I think we should place the facts on the Table. That part of the agreement that the hon the leader of the Labour Party announced in the first person, has also been complied with. The joint committees considered the legislation.

The third element, according to the statement made by the hon the leader of the LP, is that at a joint meeting of all the Houses of Parliament to 26 September to 30 September, the following laws—I quote—will be debated and disposed of.

Disposed of— thrown into the wastepaper basket!

I should like to suggest that when we debate in this House we do so in a responsible manner.

What are you trying to do by political assassination?

I am not assassinating anybody. What is happening is that the facts are assassinating the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and therefore he must not complain that I am assassinating him. I challenge him and any hon member who has been a party to this agreement to refute any element of the statements I have made. [Interjections.]

*However, do hon members know what else was said in the statements? It says that the agreement to return to discuss the Bills within the Constitution and the Rules of the House, does not mean that the parties have to accept each other’s standpoints. That is contained here in the statement.

†I want to take it further. Look at what the hon the leader of the Labour Party said in the debate today. He said that they had not been a party to the acceptance of the Rules of Parliament.

We were not.

The hon member interjects that they were not. The fact is, not only were the hon members party to the acceptance of the Standing Rules of Parliament, they were also party to changing the Constitution to make provision for those rules. What kind of debate are we conducting in this House?

I want to take it still further. Hon members of that House had rights and of their own volition exercised those rights, firstly, to accept the Rules of Parliament and secondly, to support the amendments to the Constitution.

Tell us what you said in the House of Delegates.

I am going to do that, the hon member need not be worried. However, let me go on.

What I told the hon the Minister of the Budget, Mr Rajbansi, the leader of that party, and what I told Dr Reddy—he will confirm this—is what I have just read out to the hon House. I say that anyone who suggests that I did not do this is telling a lie.

Is it a white one? [Interjections.]

I challenge any hon member and the hon the Minister of the Budget to deny the truth of what I am saying now. I challenge the hon member Dr Reddy to deny what I have said now.

Let me take this further. After I had had discussions with the leaders of the Labour Party, I had discussions with the leaders of the other parties in the House of Delegates on the same evening.

I was not there.

But I never said that you were a leader of a party—unless you have formed one in the mean time, and I would not put that past you either! [Interjections.]

I spoke to the leader of his party—the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs—and he will confirm this. I also spoke to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates as well as to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in that House. I spoke to them on 1 September and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council accepted the agreement which I had reached with the leader of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] In all fairness to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Delegates) and to the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs I must mention that they first wanted to consult with their caucuses. I respected that then, as I do today.

I met with their caucuses on the morning of 2 September. They then did not accept the agreement which I had reached with the leader of the Labour Party. However, while we were debating the farewell to the Secretary to Parliament the hon member for Stanger approached me and asked if I would meet them again for further discussions after the House had adjourned. I met them and they then agreed …[Interjections.]— including the hon member for Reservoir Hills [Interjections.] because he was there—to deal with two Bills that same afternoon; namely the Income Tax Amendment Bill and the Usury Amendment Bill. This was done. They also agreed that they would deal with three other Bills on 7 September—I see the hon the Minister shaking his head—and they did so. I met with these hon members on the morning of 7 September. [Interjections.] In the presence of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament they reaffirmed their commitment not to support the Bills, but to dispose of the Bills at a session from 26 to 30 September. [Interjections.]

He is fighting for his life!

No, Sir, I am fighting for honour. Maybe that hon member should follow my example. [Interjections.]

I want to take this further … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, following upon the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I want to repeat what I said yesterday. It is not too late to withdraw the three Bills for discussion. The hon member for Wentworth posed a question this afternoon about the direction in which the NPP is headed as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned. I want to give him the assurance that we abhor and reject it. Because of that stand and, as I mentioned yesterday, because these three Bills are linked together, we therefore also reject this particular Bill before us.

I would like to repeat what the hon member Prof Olivier said here. He made a very valuable contribution concerning the aspirations of the people of this country when he said that we want direct representation in local government. This cry of direct representation in local government has been heard for years. I do not wish to repeat what the hon member Prof Olivier said, but I fully agree with his sentiments. I still maintain that the only solution in respect of local government is direct representation by members of all racial groups in the specific city or town council in which we now serve as MECs or LACs. I do not wish to belabour this point. I merely wish to reiterate the fact that just as we cannot give our assent to the Free Settlement Areas Bill, so we cannot support the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill.

Mr Speaker, the shambles that we are witnessing here today is actually a direct result of the Government’s irregular conduct during the previous session. It is irrelevant to try to come with this swampy, messy approach of the hon the Minister and to question whether or not people agreed to the Standing Rules. It is irrelevant whether or not one agreed to the Standing Rules. The Government takes it upon itself to unilaterally suspend them and to impose its own procedure. That is why we are back here, and that is why we are again in a messy situation. Whenever the hon the Minister comes with another speech to try to prove who is right or wrong in this debate, he gets himself even deeper into the swamp, because outside everyone knows that the reason for our being in a deadlock is because the Government refuses to negotiate and to take seriously the aspirations and wishes of the majority of South Africans. It is blocking, with full determination, every possible concession. That is why we are in a mess. [Interjections.]

The NP’s approach towards representation in local government is an example of its total confusion at the moment. It typifies the NP at this stage. One gets the impression from some members that they really want to tackle the problem, but lack the political courage to really do so. There can be no other approach towards voting rights at local and national government level than an approach of equal rights for all citizens. If the number of inhabitants in an area increase, then it means that voting rights have to increase in that area on an equal basis. Equal voting rights or universal franchise is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of local and national government structures. To continue to cling to racially defined groups leads us further and further into disaster. That is what the Government is doing at the moment.

The free settlement areas have for the first time brought the NP Government into contact with the reality that it cannot proceed with the racial group concept in those areas. What has the Government done? It has created a new group, namely a free settlement group. [Interjections.] It is a free settlement group which consists of people who are not a group. It is a non-group group. [Interjections.] This new group will, as far as voting rights are concerned, be dealt with in a completely different manner from any other group, and there are already so many groups.

It is about time that the NP stopped kicking for touch. With this Bill they are again kicking for touch rather than grasping the nettle. They are kicking for touch to the left and kicking for touch to the right. It is time that they went for the goal-posts. The longer they wait to do so, the more dejected faces we will see in the NP benches. As they sit here, they do not know where to go. The answer is to kick and to play for the goal-posts.

Mr Speaker, the emotional outburst of the hon member for Durban Central is not foreign to the spirit that is prevailing in the Chamber once again today. It is striking that the rational and considered discussion of difficult problems comes from the side of the Government and the NP. That comes as no surprise, because the burden of government, the burden of considering South Africa’s complex problems, rests on the shoulders of the hon the State President and the Government.

If this Government argues today that this Bill that is being discussed now is indicative of a search for a solution in which we can see a further buildingblock in the evolution of structures, that in the midst of so much tension in our country, in the midst of the tension among groups in this country, we are honestly seeking solutions, we simply cannot continue to debate in this emotional way. Our country, complex as it may be, has the potential to become the giant of Africa.

We have the potential in South Africa to become the dynamic leader of Africa. Let us place this on record. And if I must be frank, I must be frank. Let us place on record that in building up South Africa, in the day-to-day administration of South Africa, in the Government of the country, there is no room for people’s emotional caprices. [Interjections.] There is no room for people who are blind to the realism and the complexity of our country because they are blinded by their own obsession with grievances they have in their hearts.

You are afraid of the CP!

I shall come to the CP in a moment. Then the hon member will see that I am not afraid of the CP. They know that.

This Government, and let us place this on record, will continue to fulfil its task of governing the country in a calm and controlled way, within the framework of the Constitution. It is very easy to refer to the Government as wanting to force certain things through. Let us remember that it is the prerogative of the State President to take decisions about these matters. Let us have no doubt, however, that this Government represents the majority of the votes that were cast in the election. People must not lose sight of that. [Interjections.] They can go and count their votes now too, after all.

Let us place something else on record. That is that the reproaches that come from the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, and those emotional outbursts, and the spectacle the hon member for Bethal entertained us to, can leave us cold too. While the Government is building up structures within which we are going to seek solutions for this country, the members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly are still deciding what the country for which they have to build up constitutional structures must look like.

A while ago the hon member for Lichtenburg said in the House of Assembly that the boundaries of South Africa had been drawn already. He was very emotional about that! What he did not say was that they had also decided that parts should be excised for a Coloured homeland. They also omitted to say that the same member, the hon member for Lichtenburg, had called out passionately that he was an advocate of the linkage policy—in other words, more Black areas must be excised from South Africa.

The hon member for Overvaal wants to excise Hillbrow, and there are probably many other areas that have to be excised. Surely there are also members of the AWB, who advocate a “Boerestaat”, in that party; people who have not yet been able to explain to the people of the Eastern Cape in particular, and to people in the rest of the Cape Province, what is going to happen to Hexania, the part that is to be excised and handed over to a Black majority government.

Then they still have among them the great old philosopher, Prof Boshoff, who says that only that area which the Whites themselves can live on and cultivate—only that part—is going to be excised. What about the Oranjewerkers, who want to claim only a tiny piece of South Africa?

Order! I think the hon member is deviating much too far now.

With all due respect, Sir, if I can come back to the legislation under discussion, it is no wonder that that party does not see its way clear to debating a Bill such as the one before the House, because they have no scope within the framework of their policy and their ability to tackle South Africa’s problems, let alone the problem of accommodating the hon member for Losberg, who is such a strong advocate of the principle of free association. Let it be placed on record that on this day on which we have had to experience the spectacles of so many hon members of this House, moderation and rational thinking will be the victor in the end and will make South Africa the great country it can be.

Order! Since the beginning of this afternoon’s debate I have been very patient in permitting hon members to cover a wide spectrum but I think it must come to an end now. Those hon members who participate in the debate from now on must please confine themselves to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Speaker, in view of the ruling you have just given, please permit me to make a few brief remarks relating to what hon members said earlier. I am referring, inter alia, to what the hon member for Sundays River has just said, ie that in the past I supposedly made certain statements about the right of free association.

Today the NP’s credibility hangs so precariously in the balance that one cannot even rely on the way in which one is quoted. This is apparent from the way in which the hon member for Sundays River quoted me.

Secondly—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred on two occasions to this agreement which was concluded before this session commenced—the NP is making such a song and dance today about parliamentary institutions having to be maintained and about the importance to South Africa of parliamentarians being able to take one another at their word.

I now merely want to take a brief moment to raise the following issue and ask the hon the Leader of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly to deny this in public at some stage or another. In the September 1988 issue of Insig the following is stated, and hon members would do well to read this for themselves. I am referring to the article about the concept of a “Staatsgreep en die belangrike voorwaardes waaronder ’n moontlike staatsgreep vir Suid-Afrika oorweeg kan word” …

Order! In my opinion a coup d’etat has nothing at all to do with the Bill. The hon member must return to a discussion of the Bill.

I want to come back to the Bill. I want …

Order! The hon member must obey the Chair’s ruling and order must now prevail. The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on this point?

Order! The hon member may proceed. I have given my ruling.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand your ruling about hon members digressing, but the hon member who is now speaking is, amongst other things, reacting to what was said previously, and specifically to points relating to the hon member himself. He is quoting a relevant passage, and my plea is that you allow him to do so too, since everyone else was guilty of digressing.

Order! I allowed the hon member for Losberg to reply to that portion which related to him, and I than asked for his cooperation in obeying the Chair’s ruling. I stand by that ruling. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, in the light of your ruling about my not being permitted to refer to an impending right-wing take-over which would make it possible for a coup d’etat to take place in South Africa, I should like to refer to what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in regard to the agreement concluded between him and the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly on the one hand and the other two Houses on the other. The hon the Minister intimated, amongst other things—he said it here twice today—what the substance of that agreement was.

I want to point out that in the Citizen of 31 August there was a report about discussions which took place between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives. According to that report the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives said the following to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

He then elaborated on that by saying—

We have seen that that is precisely what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did—those areas which Rev Hendrickse wanted to have declared open areas, have now been declared open areas in terms of the hon the Minister’s announcement. It is therefore incorrect, as he alleges, that the only agreement was the one that he repeated here twice today. Surely he has then agreed to the opening up of these requested areas. [Interjections.]

Today the NP made a great to-do about how one should keep to one’s word, particularly when that word is embodied in an agreement. I should like to refer to a pamphlet which appeared in the last election on 6 May 1987 in Potchefstroom, a pamphlet which was published by the NP and in which it was stated that the CP alleged, in connection with NP policy, that mixed residential areas and schools would be created. The NP pamphlet says that that is untrue, but today we see that it is not. Surely mixed residential areas are being created, and surely provision is being made for mixed voters’ lists in this legislation. I am now asking this House: Who has misled the voters? Who presented the voters, on 6 May 1987, with a policy different to that which the NP presented at the time?

Secondly I should like to refer to an NP policy document entitled NP-Beleid—diefeite / NP Policy—the facts. In that document the following question was posed:

The NP’s reply was as follows:

Is the NP not ashamed at having misled the voters to such an extent with a statement such as the one contained in this document of theirs? [Interjections.] I am now looking at the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly. Can he justify the publication of such a policy document to the electorate when, a few months later, he breaks his word—while they are the people who claim that they never go back on their word. [Interjections.] A few days ago …

Order! Hon members of the CP in this House must decide for themselves today how far they intend to go in regard to the office of Speaker in this House. I am not prepared to allow such references to be made from the floor of the House, to the Speaker, who occupies the Chair and whose position is traditionally not a protected one. I am not prepared to listen to anything the hon member for Overvaal may want to say to me about this. I am simply addressing myself to the House, and hon members must decide how far they wish to take the matter.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I respectfully suggest that if you feel so strongly about this, you consider leaving the Chair and having the debate …

Order! That is not a point of order. Would the hon member please resume his seat. The hon member for Losberg may proceed. [Interjections.]

What is more, Sir, it is not only the NP which went back on its word to the voters of South Africa in pamphlets distributed to voters in the general election, but also the hon the State President who, on numerous occasions, said he would go to great lengths to have other …

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

The hon member is wasting my time. I am not prepared to answer any question of his.

On numerous occasions the hon the State President has said that he would go to great lengths to accommodate other population groups, but that there was one thing he would never do, and that was to incorporate mixed voters’ lists as a part of NP policy.

When we look at the Bill being considered here, it is apparent that the hon the State President’s word was not worth the paper it was written on and was not worth listening to. By way of the Bill under consideration here today these promises were also broken.

The NP’s integrity and credibility lie in tatters. Surely we have seen, during the past two days, that those faces which once reflected the pride of being a Nationalist, now show very clear signs that here that there can no longer be any question of their being a proud party. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence. Before I begin my speech I want to say that it is a pity that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is trying to sling mud around. I want to tell him in no uncertain terms that we in the Labour Party have full confidence in our leader, as well as in the leadership. Regardless of what anybody says, we say that the NP is beginning to slide around in its own mud.

Pascal said the following:

I quote from the publication South Africa: Why don’t we try common sense and enlightened pragmatism to find the middle ground? by Dr R R Tusenius:

These words are very relevant in the times in which we live. Today we are discussing one of the most important issues in our lives, namely local government, because local government deals with the lives, and has a direct effect on, the people that are ruled.

We in the Labour Party, as well as Assomac, assert that our policy is direct representation on all councils of the land for everybody in South Africa. We talk about the right of the individual and we do not have that group mentality.

The question that we ask is what the role of local government is. Local government has to render services. It has to give attention to the economic development of the people, education, health, traffic and planning for the community. It also has the important function of ensuring the fair distribution of money.

We are aware of what discrimination means in terms of local government in South Africa. The Government came to power and immediately enforced the Group Areas Act. As a consequence of that our people were removed from the common voters’ roll, and advisory councils were established as far back as 1964. These councils had to advise the local authorities. In terms of their mentality they thought that they had to change the rules and establish management committees. However, the medicine was exactly the same; they were just using a different bottle. Emanating from that, the status quo has since remained and they expect us to be happy about it.

I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not here, but I see that the hon the Deputy Minister is here. [Interjections.] What has happened is that people have been thrown into ghettos. People have been removed from the places where they used to live. Then people are expected to accept what is happening in South Africa.

I want to quote from South Africa: Why don’t we try common sense and pragmatism to find the middle ground? by Dr R R Tusenius. On page 30, we read the following:

This morning I saw a certain Mr Winterton on breakfast TV, who said that the moment that the CP took over in South Africa sanctions would be imposed. There is no difference between the CP and the NP; the NP is implementing the policy of the CP. That is what they are doing. [Interjections.] The NP has not got the guts of their convictions. They are more verkramp than the CP, because they want to bluff people. We saw it today. We have seen how the hon the Minister performs. He is trying to justify something which morally cannot be justified.

On top of that I look at the morality of the NP. Because they have a monopoly on broadcasting in South Africa, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament was able to tell some story. If they wanted to be fair they would have called all the people involved to have an open debate so that the people of South Africa could see what is happening.

It is hopeless. The more they try that sort of thing, the more their credibility is doubted. This is what the effect has been. I want to say to those so-called White people that I have not got time to give a definition of a Coloured man.

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

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence.

Order! No, the hon member must now come back to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to explain that management committees are only meant for people who are not White.

†That is why I say that I want to come to the definition of a Coloured person, as I see it, in terms the law. This Bill deals with people of colour. This Bill says that the White man will still have the privilege of voting in the local authority he desires. The White man has just to give notice to the Administrator within 90 days and then the status quo remains. The other people in that area form a management committee and they are consulted when the local authority takes a decision.

I want to say to the hon member for Matroosfontein that we never put him on a programme to speak because of his quality. [Interjections.] I am surprised … [Interjections.] I am amazed that today the so-called “Independents” put him up! [Interjections.] It shows that they have no speakers of quality in their ranks, and I am asking …

It was you who brought him to Parliament! [Interjections.]

The LP brought a lot of people to Parliament, and a lot of people are beginning to run away into the political wilderness. That is their choice, but I want to say emphatically this afternoon that all those members who run away will not come back to this Chamber. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, let me continue to quote:

Let us look at local government in so-called Black areas. Let us go back to 1975, and let us examine what has happened there. The policies of this Government have resulted in atrocities in Black areas because the Blacks did not accept the so-called local government option, and what has transpired is that the Nats, in their wisdom, have now appointed persons to rule a whole area. There will be administrators all over South Africa, and it will be a White man who rules a whole township. Now I ask, if the Government’s policy is so good, why it is that Black people do not want to participate in local government institutions. When we look at the economy of the country, we have to work, we have to slave and we have to bring in the money but we cannot partake.

Let us look at so-called central business districts. We buy and we generate a lot of funds, but in the final analysis we have no say. When an area is planned we have no say; we are dealing with consultation.

Mr Speaker, I want to say that the future of Black local authorities is bleak. Several financial and political reasons account for that. They are of such a magnitude that it is …

Order! This Bill has absolutely nothing to do with Black local authorities as such. The hon member must please come back to the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with this Bill. [Interjections.] If we read the memorandum, we see that the person who is in fact going to rule the free settlement areas will be the Administrator. Let us question the appointment of the Administrator. Who appoints the Administrator?

The NP government appoints him, and the basic function of that Administrator is to see to it that NP policy is carried out to the letter. We have had several instances—we have seen this, and unfortunately I am going to be curbed by Mr Speaker if I try and say this—but I want to say that in terms of this Bill there is going to be no change in a free settlement area. It is going to be another group area, where one has so-called Black people residing. What is tragic about this whole thing is that the State President takes the decision. If we look at consensus, I think it is important that all people must be consulted, and we are saying—I want to repeat this—“Scrap the Group Areas Act and make the whole of South Africa a free settlement area.”

Mr Speaker, looking at me, you can probably understand that at half past six in the evening I make a better job of eating than I do of talking. [Interjections.]

I shall now come to the hon member for Haarlem. I am sure, Sir, that you will allow me to make just one brief remark about the tirade and the sheer volume of noise the hon member for Losberg made. You know, those who are hunters, those who know the gemsbok, will understand what I am going to say about what the CP is now doing. We are faced with a very real problem in South Africa. It is a factual situation that we must deal with. What does that hon member do? He has what I shall call a gemsbok mentality, a mentality typical of the CP. When things actually start happening, the gemsbok backs into a thornbush and noisily indicates that it is ready to take on all comers. A gemsbok’s rear end is designed to cope with thorns, however, but the CP’s is not. If the CP carries on like that, there is something I must tell hon members today. There is a song that goes like this: “Eina, my Ma, daar is ’n doring wat my pla.” I want to say that within five to 10 years that CP will be singing: “En daar’s niemand in Transvaal wat die doring uit kan haal!” [Interjections.]

As far as this kind of politics is concerned—we shall be coming to the Group Areas Act tomorrow and then I shall speak about that—that hon member has spoken about what was stated in NP pamphlets, but let me say that today there are still blatant lies in CP politics and in their pamphlets, and I shall prove it.

Prove it. We are not the NP.

I shall leave the hon member at that.

The hon member for Haarlem said that local government was one of the most important aspects in our lives. He is, of course, quite correct. I therefore find it regrettable that now, when we are discussing this subject, a slightly argumentative, if not confrontational, atmosphere exists between the NP and the LP. I would have liked us to discuss this legislation, which is positive legislation on the road to a new South Africa, in a different atmosphere and possibly in a different frame of mind.

I wrote down here, to begin my short speech, that it was a pleasure for me to participate in the discussion of this legislation. It is positive legislation which is part of the new course being adopted for South Africa. I wrote that I would like to divide my speech up into three sections. In the first section I want to make a few remarks which, from the point of view of principle, relate strongly to the Bill. Secondly I want to highlight the necessity for, and the positive aspects relating to, free settlement areas, including the accompanying franchise arrangements. Then logically, if time permits, I also want to discuss, in a bit more detail, the system of franchise as such.

The hon member for Haarlem said: “The CP is simply adopting the old NP policy.” In a certain sense that is, of course, true.

Since he is now completing his tenth year in power as executive head of State of South Africa and will start his eleventh year tomorrow, I am sure hon members will permit me to tell the hon the State President that he took the NP and that part of NP policy which it was proven could not work, and could not offer us a complete solution to our problems, out of a blind alley. That is why we can discuss this legislation today on a new road for South Africa, something for which we convey our thanks to the hon the State President.

The LP must also understand that in discussing this legislation we are asking whether we cannot do so in a more fitting and proper manner. We mainly represent people who want their own residential areas, whereas there are, in fact those for whom it does not matter. Hon members in the LP perhaps find themselves in precisely the opposite situation. They represent people who do not want their own residential areas, although I am of the opinion that many more do want their own residential areas than the LP is willing to concede.

Let us discuss these issues with one another. The NP had a policy and said that just as Europe was divided up into different countries, South Africa should also be divided up into various countries or pieces of land. Time has proved, however, that this cannot work. The NP said that by 1976 to 1978 the Blacks would move out, but that did not happen. What happened was quite the reverse. The hon the State President led us out of that blind alley, and that is why we are now on this new road. [Interjections.] The hon member says we should go further. Very well, let us discuss that. This legislation is positive, it could have been coupled to the Group Areas Act and it could have been introduced as an amendment to the said Act. It is, however, being introduced separately. Surely hon members have had every chance to say that it is positive legislation, that it is not what they want, but is nevertheless the right course to adopt.

I want to make three observations. Firstly it is essential for us to take realistic cognisance of the realities of South Africa and to include them in our calculations. This applies to us, and to the so-called Coloureds, Indians and Black people. It applies to all people in South Africa. We must take reality into account. It is no use the LP saying it wants everything or nothing. Nor is it any use for the CP to say it wants everything or nothing. In that respect the LP’s reactions are virtually the same of those of the CP. They simply want everything. [Interjections.] To hell with what other people think! Different people think differently. Let us talk to one another about these differences and try to find solutions. We are prepared to make certain concessions. Everyone in South Africa must be prepared to do so. One cannot have one’s own Utopia. No one can—not the Whites or anyone else. We must reach agreement with one another. This legislation is part of the process.

We must also proceed from the standpoint that we must emphasise similarities and not differences. We must use those similarities as points of departure. Why do I say this? All hon members in Parliament—even the CP members—say they are dissatisfied with the status quo. Of course! In its high-speed reverse gear the CP wants to retreat blindly into the future. It is their own blind future. Other people choose to move in other directions. All are agreed however, that there must be change. The status quo cannot be maintained.

Just a little faster!

Very well, we can argue about the speed. There are those who say we must move more slowly; on the other hand there are others who say we must move more quickly. We can see what we can do in this regard. We must not say, however, give me everything or nothing. If we emphasised similarities, we would see that this legislation was part and parcel of that. There is not, of course, complete similarity, but an open area principle has actually been declared.

Sir, before my time is up let me say that I am in favour of opening up areas—as quickly as possible. We must not drag our feet.

In Mayfair the CP issued a R1 000 reward and on that reward poster the following question was asked: “What does Dr Vilonel say about Mayfair?” I have the pamphlet here; I do not need to quote it to hon members. In my election pamphlet I said the following about this R1 000:

I did not tell lies about these aspects. I was honest with my voters, and I polled more votes in Mayfair than the CP, HNP and PFP put together. [Interjections.] Correct, but at the same time I said, and this I want to quote to my hon friends in the LP:

I also said that. That is why I am saying that we should talk about that. The relevant parts of Mayfair, Hillbrow and Woodstock will never again be White. That is why we need legislation such as the legislation which we passed yesterday and that which we are possibly going to pass today—or which we are at least discussing—to make it possible to open up those areas.

Let us not drag our feet on that score. This is positive legislation we are dealing with. Let us dispose of it and not try to steal a political march on one another. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the fact that Blacks cannot change the racist nature of the constitutional dispensation by participating—nor can they change the racist voting system—is the main reason why the majority refuses to participate in the October elections.

†Black residents of a new section in Bongolethu township in Oudtshoorn who showed opposition to participation have as punishment recently had their newly installed electricity meter boxes ripped out of the walls of their homes by the municipality, as part of a massive intimidation campaign to make people vote. Residents were also told that if they failed to register or vote, they would cease to exist and would not receive any further services, repairs or anything.

Oudtshoorn is but one of many towns on the platteland where this shocking system of intimidation is taking place at this moment. People are being forced to participate. They do not have the right to exercise the democratic right of not participating.

Mr Speaker, we have grown accustomed to the hit-and-run methods used by the hon member for Claremont.

Although the legislation under discussion is not as dramatic as many would like—for others the change is too dramatic; and some even want to fight, as the hon member for Langlaagte said— this does not detract from the importance of this legislation.

This legislation contains extensive changes, which are being carried out. These are not merely cosmetic, but will have far-reaching consequences. This legislation is extremely technical, but it will only become possible after yesterday’s debate. In other words, it is a building block which needs to be placed on a previous one.

The consequences will be determined not only by the the contents of the measures, but by the attitudes and behaviour of those who will play a role in terms of those measures. It will be the way in which the legislation is applied, rather than its contents, which will determine whether the forces of change—there are many forces of change at work—which are inherent in these measures, are going to operate to the benefit of all. Those who will play a role are going to determine whether or not the value system will be maintained and strengthened. They will also determine whether people are going to be freed from regulation, and whether peaceful solutions will be assured.

It depends solely on those who will play a role whether or not they will succeed in harnessing the forces of change, the power of reform and the evolutionary process to everyone’s benefit. This will be decided by the actions and objectives of the participants, rather than by the contents of the legislation. If hon members had listened to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning yesterday—unfortunately not many of them did—they would have realised that hon members on this side of the House will do their utmost to make the legislation succeed. The forces of change cannot, however, be harnessed by boycotts. Boycotts are a type of escapism, and that is the weapon of a weakling. Participation is the weapon of a person who has confidence in his own capabilities and in the merits of his case.

When hon members on this side of the House decided 10 years ago to come out in support of the appeal from the hon State President and to reform what was wrong, they knew that this was not an act of escapism, but a decision to build a better future for everyone. One does need cooperation, however. It is significant that some hon members have accused us of failing to listen to the standpoints of others. Such hon members are guilty of exactly the same behaviour! The hon member for King William’s Town pointed out what a big step this Bill was for the NP. Hon members only had to listen to hon members of the CP today to realise how dramatic this piece of legislation is.

To choose these pieces of legislation as a casus belli is to deny the spirit of negotiation. Since change has to be found in a constitutional way it is probably not that dramatic. Since these Bills work as a group, however, there is a greater chance of success. I have already mentioned that this Bill follows on from yesterday’s Bill, which deals with the settlement of people. The object is to make provision for political participation in local government processes in free settlement areas and the adaptation of existing regulations and ordinances of the various provinces. As hon members know, this Parliament has a say, through its committees, in those ordinances, when they are submitted to us.

As hon members have indicated, the President’s Council considered various alternatives. We chose this particular alternative because we believe that it will work best. Each governing party has to bear such responsibilities. As I have already indicated, however, it does not matter all that much which alternative has been chosen. What does matter, is how the participants are going to acquit themselves of their task.

I should like to address the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. They published a photograph of their chief leader during the campaign for the municipal elections. I concede that he looks better than many of their candidates. The words “Hy veg vir u” accompany the photograph, but against whom is the CP fighting? If one analyses it, it is clear that the CP is fighting against the forces of change. We on this side of the House want to cause those very forces to operate for everyone’s benefit. Fighting excludes negotiation. Fighting is the antithesis of negotiation.

Mr Speaker, allow me to say that the slogan is not very original. Hon members know that it has been used over the years by Mr Jaap Marais of the HNP. If the CP now believes that the HNP is out of their way—because they have taken over the HNP’s policies—they may as well take over the HNP’s slogans. The HNP’s policies did not work, nor will its slogans work for the CP. Fighting has another result. One can count oneself lucky if it results in the destruction of one’s enemies, but it can often be self-destructive as well. It is the wrong road to choose.

Mr Chairman, I certainly want to respect the ruling of Mr Speaker by trying to remain within the bounds of the legislation. Whilst respecting that ruling I certainly want to appeal to you to afford me the privilege of the protection other speakers have enjoyed and certainly with the protection the hon the Minister enjoyed. I feel affronted in this instance because my person, my dignity and my honesty have been questioned in this Chamber by name, and I believe I have the right to defend myself.

When one looks at what was said earlier on, it appears that we were expected to come to Parliament to perpetuate the NP Government. Right at the outset I made my intentions quite clear— that I was not here to see a continuation of the NP Government and certainly not the perpetuation of NP policy. I have my own beliefs and I will perpetuate those beliefs.

Earlier on my hon leader explained the whole question of an agreement. One must realise that an agreement binds both parties. It does not just bind our party. I would be big enough to admit it if I had changed my mind in an agreement, but that agreement was not respected right from the start. As Leader of the House of Representatives I was invited by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to negotiated the order of precedence for the debate during this session.

Where is the Minister?

Unfortunately, when I got here on Friday, I discovered that the order had been changed without my consent and certainly without my being consulted. Of course I take exception to that! Please do not expect me to be honourable in the face of dishonesty.

Where is the Minister?

Order! I think the hon member for Sandton can now discontinue this continual questioning about where the hon the Minister is. I think everybody has heard him by now. The hon member may continue.

But where is the Minister?

Order! If the hon member continues interjecting, I will ask him to leave this Chamber. I will not have him continue these interruptions. The hon member for Toekomsrus may continue.

The basis of this Bill is to provide another glorified management committee. Those hon members and I who have served on these management committees—I am sorry, some hon members did not enjoy the privilege of having that experience, that insult to one’s dignity of being purely advisory and of never being in a position to bring forth anything meaningful to your community—will know the kind of respect we and people on this side of the House have for management committees in their advisory capacity. Please do not expect me to support or even be seen to be associated with management committees.

That is autonomy.

I am very glad the hon member has made that interjection. The hon member mentioned it earlier on in his address and I was going to come to that, but let me deal with it immediately. Where the hon member and I come from, Randfontein, the seat he lost to the CP, he has been trying to sell autonomy to the people of Toekomsrus for a long time, so much so that he has intimidated them to such an extent that his electricity bills are measured at a different rate to the rate which is applied to the people of Toekomsrus.

That hon member has the audacity here in this highest Chamber of this country, to ask me to be a willing partner to exploitation. How dare that hon member insult me and my people like that!

It is the dishonesty of the NP that has forced my people to show distrust in whatever they offer us.

*Autonomy is a farce. It is a means of exploiting my people. I would have expected the hon member Dr Geldenhuys to know that. I want to come back to the Bill.

†If anybody thought that we would come here only to sing the praises of the Government they were mistaken. It reminds me of the historic debate that took place in this Chamber when we debated the National Council Bill. I have several letters of congratulation here from hon members of the NP telling me what a brilliant contribution I made to that debate. Now, however, my integrity is questioned. I am not going to name people. I do not want to offend my friends, because I still have friends in the NP. I still believe that together we can create a South Africa to be proud of, but with this fashion of absolute intimidation we are not coming anywhere near consensus to compromise in the interests of the greater majority of South Africans.

If the argument is that free settlement is the beginning of the greater South Africa we would all like to see, then certainly I will agree. I ended on that note here yesterday when I pleaded for free settlement, but free settlement in the whole of South Africa. I want to continue the debate on that same note by saying that if we have free settlement and the type of government we want to see in free settlement throughout the rest of South Africa and all local authorities, only then will we begin to address the problems of this country. If we look at these things piecemeal we are only creating more problems. It is unfortunate that the hon the Minister is not here, because he is not even beginning to address the real problems of South Africa. Integration in South Africa is absolutely inevitable. We, Sir, are proof that integration is a fact and that it is working in South Africa. If the Government is afraid of a free South Africa, it need only look at this side of the House. Hon members on this side of the House are proof that freedom in this country, in all its forms, be it by settlement or otherwise, is inevitable and certainly desirable in the interests of South Africa.

Local government is closest to the hearts of the average South African, because it touches them immediately. It is a form of government that makes an immediate appeal to them. If that government is abnormal then obviously its problems cannot be normally addressed and analysed. That is why we ask that the Government find a way to construct a local government system acceptable to all South Africans. We will then not have the problem so many of us fear, namely boycotts.

I am not here because I wanted to boycott something. I did not boycott my way into Parliament. I used the system to get into Parliament; I did not get here by virtue of boycotts. The accusation that the LP or other hon members on this side of the House are boycotters is unfair, because if they were boycotters they would not have been here. They are here, however, and do hon members know why? It is because of their great love for this country and for the people of this country, and moreover, because of their concern for the future of this country. [Interjections.] This is unlike a previous Prime Minister who stood on this hollowed ground—I wanted to say hallowed ground, but the ground where he stood was hollow—when he referred to the problems of South Africa and he said: “Let me leave the problems to the children.”

*I cannot leave the problems of South Africa to my children to solve. I am prepared to lay down my life for the solution of these problems. It is unfortunate that the hon the Minister is not here, because I am not intimidated easily. I would like to invite him to my office. There are monuments of intimidation to be seen. It is also unfortunate that the hon the Leader of the House in the Assembly is not here. The monument which he signed was the release of this person whom he regarded as a criminal who had to be locked up. Like my leader, however, I am proud to be here, †I am here. Please use me in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of finding peaceful solutions. If we do not find one another and we do not find solutions the future of South Africa is too ghastly to contemplate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the debate today was a very general one, and unfortunately the greater part of the debate did not really deal with the merits of the legislation before us. [Interjections.] I should like to debate the merits of the legislation this evening. I should like to enter into a debate with my colleagues and friends in the Labour Party. [Interjections.] However, before I do so, while this legislation deals with free association, and seeks to make provision for the accommodation of people who prefer to live together on the basis of free association, hon members must at least allow me to react to an allegation made by the hon member for Losberg that he had been incorrectly quoted and that that was yet another ostensible indication of the NP’s lack of credibility.

How wrong were you, Piet?

A big surprise still awaits you in that regard, Gramophone. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, a book appeared in 1981 on a legal congress that had been held, and the results of the legal congress were published under the editorship of the hon member for Losberg. It dealt with the legal implications of the new constitutional dispensation. The hon member for Losberg acted as chairman at some of the discussions.

During the presentation of one of these papers, Prof Marinus Wiechers referred to the protection of group rights. Prof Wiechers argued that group rights ought to be protected, but the standpoint which he adopted was that group rights could be most effectively protected by allowing free association of groups; in other words, to allow people to associate freely within groups. Prof Wiechers then said the following about these freely associated groups:

He also pleaded for the representation of groups—

To that, the Chairman, Prof S C Jacobs …

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

No, I am sorry, I am now dealing with the CP. I will come to the hon member’s party later.

‘Sir, the Chairman, a certain Prof Jacobs said the following during the discussion of that paper, and I quote:

If words have any meaning, that hon member felt so strongly about the right of freedom of association that he felt that the group should have the right … [Interjections.] I have already indicated that I am not prepared to reply to questions.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it correct that this debate is continuing, while the hon the Minister who introduced the Bill has been absent for over an hour without explanation?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, before I come to the merits of the Bill and discuss them with the representatives of the Labour Party, I should like to refer briefly to what the hon member for Durban Central said. The hon member for Durban Central said that we were continu ally kicking for touch and that it was time that we aimed for the goal-posts. To that hon member I just want to say that the NP is not going to try to win by means of drop kicks. We want to win by scoring goals. [Interjections.] The fact is that he is a part of a collection of groups that are entirely split up and do not really know where they are going. Until they succeed at least in organising themselves properly, we cannot take them seriously at all.

†The hon member for Wentworth referred to the sensitivity of this subject.

I thought you shared it with us.

I share his belief that it is a very sensitive issue. Of course it is a sensitive issue and I fully understand that it is sensitive for the people he represents. [Interjections.] Of course I have an understanding for the sensitivity. Please hear me out. What I am pleading for— I have been debating this with hon members since yesterday—is that they understand that for the majority of the people whom we represent it is also a very sensitive issue, for different reasons and with different motivations. For the people we represent it is also a very sensitive issue. [Interjections]

I want to say to the hon member for Wentworth that we—and I in particular, because we have come a long way together—have a real understanding of the sacrifices they have made to take part in this new dispensation. I know it was not easy.

*I am aware of the hon the Deputy Minister’s situation. I paid him a visit in hospital after there had been an attack on his house shortly after he was elected. I can understand the …

Order! A few hon members here are making too much noise. I am referring to the hon members for Swartland and Mamre, and I could also mention a few names of hon members at the back. We cannot continue in this way.

Therefore, I can quite understand what they are talking about. However, if one were to look at the sensitivity of the type of subjects with which we are dealing here, one must also look at—I cannot say whether it is true or not—the bomb which exploded in a discotheque in Hillbrow, which was planted by a White right-wing radical group.

Order! The hon member must confine himself to the legislation under discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this legislation deals with the creation of and the manner in which new circumstances should be dealt with. The hon member for Durban Central maintained that we would create a new group. That is not true. We are not trying to create a new group.

New Nats!

I am still waiting for the hon member for Overvaal to participate in this debate, so that he can tell us about his standpoints with regard to Prof Jakes Gerwel. He must stop interjecting and make a constructive contribution to a debate about the future of South Africa.

Tell us about the …

We shall reach agreement with each other on that issue. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must stop making remarks. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we are not creating a new group. What is happening is that for the first time statutory recognition is being given to the fact that there are people who want to live together through free association.

That has always been the case.

I accept that it has always been the case. All that I am saying, is that for the first time statutory recognition is being given to the existence of that group. Constitutional recognition is also being given to that group although it really exists at a primary level by means of the specific legislation before this House. [Interjections.] At the end of the day …

Order! The hon member for Addo must make fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

In the final analysis, the Group Areas Act and the legislation which has bearing on it is not concerned merely with socioeconomic aspects. It is concerned with what those hon members experience as injustices of the past. It is concerned with free association. It deals with the right of people to live where they choose to live. It deals with the right of people not to have to live with certain people if they do not want to. It deals with the creation of a full spectrum of choices. At the end of the day it also deals with the constitutional solution which one is going to achieve in South Africa, and there is a variety of options. [Interjections.] What this legislation does not do …

Order! I apologise for the interruption—I shall allow the hon member sufficient extra time. The hon member for Wuppertal has now made enough interjections. If hon members do not help me and carry on in this way, I am afraid that I will be obliged to ask them to withdraw from the Chamber. I should not like to do so, but I want to give hon members the assurance that I will do it with a smile if I have to.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wuppertal is not here. [Interjections.]

Order! Then who is the hon member who is sitting in the wrong place? [Interjections.] I thank the hon member for Border for having brought that to my attention. Then it must be the hon member for Dysselsdorp who is sitting in the wrong place. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to repeat that, in the first place, what this legislation is not doing constitutionally, is that it does not make the option of a constitutional solution with the group as a basis impossible. It does not exclude that, but at the same time it accommodates those who want to associate freely and want to live as an open group or community. In this way the options in South Africa are being increased, not decreased, and I believe that we must see it in that light.

I really hope that at the end of this debate we shall have ceased to argue with one another about matters which are unimportant; that we shall have ceased to dwell on the past and that we will rather be discussing the future and the development of the options which lie ahead of us. For that reason I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is not, I believe, without significance that the hon member for Springs promised to come to hon members of my party but failed to do so. I believe he failed to do so because he does not know how to answer hon members of the PFP. [Interjections.] I believe it is the height of political cynicism for the hon the State President and his Government to tell us that reform is continuing in this country and that apartheid is an outmoded concept that needs to be abandoned, and then to introduce measures such as the Bill before this House, which not only is structured on the basis of apartheid but also further entrenches apartheid in this country.

I believe that it is the height of political cynicism for this Government to talk about consensus politics in its tricameral Parliament and yet be hell-bent on thwarting the wishes of hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates simply because it has the power to dominate the wishes of the majority in this Chamber in terms of a constitution which has been fashioned and created by itself.

I further believe that it is the height of political cynicism for this Government to create free settlement areas and then to strangle their civic development by linking them to local affairs committees which are nothing more than advisory talk shops. We have heard a great deal about this this afternoon.

I also believe that it is the height of political dishonesty for anyone to say that this Government is broadening the base of democracy, whatever that may mean, when it then moves away from democracy by legislating against the wishes of the majority of the hon members of this Chamber, and against the wishes of the majority of the people of this country.

The LAC system and the management committee system have been rejected by the very communities for whom they were devised, precisely because the system entrenches the notion of apartheid. Despite this, the Government talks about reform and then is mesmerised by its follies of the past. The only logical inference that can be drawn from the Bill is that it is the intention of the Government that people who prefer to live in a free settlement area must accept that their local government body will not carry the status of a fully-fledged municipal authority or even a ward of a municipal authority. In other words, those persons advocating or supporting the concept of a free settlement area have to accept the principle of inferior and separate local authority institutions.

White people living in such an area have a choice to remain on the voters’ roll of the White local authority. The same applies to Black voters but Coloured and Indian people have no such choice.

I believe that these provisions will place constraints upon the creation of free settlement areas. The Government understands this, and yet it makes no provision for the fact that South Africa will ultimately have to move towards a non-racial democratic society. I believe that it does so at great peril, not only to itself, but to all of us in this country. I believe this is a point that was raised by the hon member for Wentworth.

I believe there is only one way. Apartheid must be destroyed, whatever that gentleman may say.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member a question. Is it only the White areas that could become open areas? What about the so-called Indian and Coloured areas? Can they not also become open areas? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I will answer that hon gentleman. The Indian and Coloured areas could become free settlement areas, but the point that I was making is that there is a differentiation. The status of those free settlement areas will be no higher than the status of local management systems which have already been rejected by the majority of the people of this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pity the PFP is again adopting such a destructive attitude. Unfortunately in the past their destructiveness has also resulted in their becoming virtually irrelevant in South African politics. For that reason they do not deserve much more attention either. They do not understand and do not want to accept that we also have voters for whom this legislation is a sensitive issue and that politics is the science of what is possible. It is not only the wishes of one group that must be taken into consideration.

I listened attentively to the debate thus far and was struck particularly forcibly by one aspect, and that was the strong emotions that came to the surface, both from the right and from the left. These emotions appear when mention is made of the past, of what did or did not happen, the consequences of certain acts or omissions of the past and the wisdom or lack of wisdom involved in such acts or omissions.

I can understand that certain measures aimed at physical planning caused individuals and communities a great deal of pain in the past. It can also be argued, however, that there were not only disadvantages but also many advantages for individuals and communities resulting from such planning measures.

Name them!

I am not going to give in to the temptation of becoming involved in an argument about this, because in my view it is irrelevant to this debate. If we were dealing here with a debate involving historic events, that would have been quite a different matter. In my view, however, we are busy discussing events of the future. To lapse now into recriminations about the past would not bring us one centimetre closer to finding solutions to the problems and challenges facing South Africa. If we do not begin to co-operate in the search for peaceful solutions to our many problems in South Africa, one fact is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that the pain every South African will have to suffer, regardless of his race, colour, language or religion, will be inestimably greater than any past or present pain. Let us remember that.

It is therefore vital for all well-intentioned and reasonable South Africans to begin to co-operate in the search for solutions within the framework of the realities of South Africa. Only then can there be a firm and secure future, with all of us ultimately triumphing as South Africans. Then, however, we must face up to the realities of our population structure and deal with them. Then we must be prepared to bury the quarrels of the past and to respect one another. Then we must be prepared to relinquish an all-or-nothing or winner-take-all approach. Then we must be prepared to make use of opportunities which present people with choices and in terms of which more people can be accommodated than at present.

This Bill before us, together with the Free Settlement Areas Bill, presents us with such an opportunity. Whereas the Free Settlement Areas Bill allows us to demonstrate that the principle of free association, alongside that of own communities, can successfully be implemented in practice, this Bill presents us with the same opportunity in regard to the administration of such an area. Whereas the Free Settlement Areas Bill deals with socio-economic planning, this Bill also deals with the constitutional implications of such socio-economic planning.

This Bill as such therefore creates unique opportunities. It acknowledges the realities of our society, ie that there are those who prefer to live in an open area on the basis of free association and that provision should also be made for them to exercise their political rights at local government level.

The principle of own residential areas is retained for that large group of people who choose to have their own community life amongst their own people. The CP’s propaganda in this regard is devoid of all truth. In the Patriot of 26 August 1988 the following appeared in bold type under the headline “Op pad na bont buurte”—and this appeared alongside a photograph of the hon member for Pietersburg. Listen to this quotation in bold type:

There can surely be no right-minded person, who knows something about the present legislation, who cannot see the blatant untruth of that statement. Surely no one with any integrity can defend such a statement and say it is true.

I should like to support this legislation because it makes provision for a choice, and this also applies to those who believe in freedom of association. Because provision is now being made for them as well, they can also be expected to respect the rights of those who desire to have their own community life in their own residential areas.

This legislation is contributing to the orderly administration of residential areas for the various population groups of South Africa and recognises and deals with the realities of South Africa. Whether we want to know it or not, this Bill, in conjunction with the Free Settlement Areas Bill, is one of the most important social, economic and constitutional reform measures of the past decade.

You are dreaming!

The hon member can say I am dreaming, but I am telling him that that is a fact. However, I would like, with all the seriousness at my command, to make an appeal to every hon member today. Let us put the destructive emotions of the past behind us. Let us do so in the interests of South Africa and all its people. Let us become—in the positive sense—emotional about a search for workable solutions—I am saying workable solutions—within the framework of the realities of South Africa. Let us do that. Only then will there really be any future for us in this country.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to apologise on behalf of the hon the Minister on Constitutional Development and Planning, and for the sake of the hon member for Sandton, for the hon the Minister not being available at this stage to conclude the debate, although he introduced it. However, this has been arranged with Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to say thank you very much … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister is replying to hon members who considered this debate to be serious enough to participate in. The hon the Deputy Minister considers it to be serious enough to reply to. The utmost courtesy is requested from hon members to give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his business and reply courteously to hon members. I have already spoken courteously to hon members, and now for the last time I am requesting them please to give the hon the Deputy Minister a chance. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I should like to thank the hon members who spoke in support of this Bill. They will pardon me if, in the limited time at my disposal, I am unable to refer to each individual. Collectively, however, I want to say to everyone who spoke in support of this measure that I think excellent contributions were made by hon members who argued the matter well. I should like to thank all the hon members collectively for having done so.

I should also like to refer to the remarks made earlier in the afternoon concerning the agreement which led to this Bill before the House. [Interjections.] It was inevitable that I was also party to the talks which led to the agreement, and it is also inevitable that I have to comment on this matter. The reproach was constantly being levelled about the person who spoke about it not having been present. I find it a pity that we have to discuss this subject at all this afternoon. I am saying this in all earnest and with much commiseration. [Interjections ] In the first place I should like to say that I think the majority parties in the respective Houses are probably the closest to one another as political parties. They are even closer to one another than the opposition parties, and this is obviously the case because the majority parties are responsible for maintaining and serving the parliamentary system in question—not in order to serve or to be of use to one another, but to serve the system in some way. This does not necessitate assenting to various standpoints, and it does not mean that we ought to emulate one another slavishly and go along with any standpoint and any matter debated before this Parliament or every Bill before this Parliament. I am making this statement, in the first place, because I think the respective majority parties should, in fact, be closest to one another.

However, I want to take it a little further in regard to a subjective opinion by saying that I think the Afrikaners and the Coloured people are very close to one another in a special way. [Interjections.] I think this is the way it ought to be. [Interjections.]

We are related!

That hon members says that we are related. One never knows. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that we are close to one another in some ways. [Interjections.] It is a pity that we should seek ways … [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but I am also asking the leaders of the parties in the Houses for their co-operation here. I am not going to treat them any differently to other hon members, and I am asking hon members to control themselves. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I want to take the point further and say I think it is essentially the case that Afrikaners and Coloured persons are close to one another. [Interjections.] For that reason I should like to say that I certainly am sorry that we had to take this debate to such extremes this afternoon.

In the talks which led to the agreement to which repeated reference was made, the respective leaders concerned held very meaningful negotiations and, I want to say, reached agreement with one another in a way which fills one with excitement about the success of consensus and true negotiation. What was, in fact, achieved with that agreement did not for one moment mean relinquishing standpoints. It did not mean abandoning the various standpoints that we had adopted in regard to this contentious legislation.

Oh, is it contentious?

Of course it is.

Then, why do you introduce it here?

The fact of the matter is that it is not only contentious from one point of view; it is not only contentious for Coloured people, but also for White people. [Interjections.] It is contentious, because we have different standpoints, precisely when we debate the matter with one another.

Perceptions!

Hon members can call it perceptions, but there are also a lot of facts associated with it which we cannot ignore.

I want to make a point about the agreement that was reached. I want to tell the hon member for Toekomsrus that I do not think reference was made to him in order to impugn his integrity or to affront him.

It has already been said!

The hon member was a participant in the talks which led to the agreement.

I am referring to your immoral actions, because you discussed the matter in our absence.

The hon member had a chance to make his speech, and I am asking him, with all due respect, to give me a chance to react to it. I should also like to react to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives.

Numerous talks were held, and these were not concluded with that agreement which was announced on 1 September, but were followed up by personal discussions. However, I am not going to disclose the content of those discussions without the consent of hon members. The hon members for Toekomsrus and Addo know what was discussed in further follow-up discussions which they held with me and at which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was also present. [Interjections.] I do not want to disclose the content of those discussions, and it is not necessary to do so either. I regard them as confidential discussions.

One thing I cannot understand, however, and one thing I am sorry about, is that those talks ended at a juncture when we had asked for them to be continued. The hon members know what I am talking about. This afternoon recriminations to the effect that there was no effort to negotiate are being hurled in this House. Hon members who made no contribution whatsoever to promoting the process of negotiation, but rather to breaking it down—I am referring to certain speakers from opposition parties—have stated that no effort was made to negotiate on this issue. An attempt was made with a great deal of goodwill—the hon members for Addo and Toekomsrus know what I am talking about—to continue the discussions and the negotiations which were taking place. However, these were suddenly and abruptly ended. An appointment made for last Sunday was not kept, without any prior notice having been given. [Interjections.]

What I find to be a great pity is that we heard yesterday evening for the first time, in a public announcement by way of a news conference, that the agreement that had been reached would no longer apply. It was not conveyed in any other way; we heard it in public. That is a pity because the goodwill, the promotion of actual negotiations and the search for consensus which were involved, and which did in fact take place, were abruptly cancelled. This was done for no reason that is known to me, except that I was told that the proposed appointment was cancelled when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives returned from abroad last week.

Because it would serve no useful purpose!

At no juncture was it intimated that the discussions we were involved in served no purpose.

The last talks at which the hon member for Toekomsrus, the hon member for Addo and the hon the Minister and I were present were, in fact, courteous ones, which indicated progress as far as the search for consensus was concerned. Suddenly this process was abruptly terminated. [Interjections.]

This in shrill contrast to the statements which are being made, and the request for us to negotiate, to see whether we can find common ground. I do not for one moment want to insinuate that the hon members were prepared to relinquish or set aside their standpoints. That is not the insinuation I made.

We on the Government side are not prepared to set aside our standpoints either. We were making an effort to see whether we could not find common ground. That is why it is such a pity that the talks which the hon member for Toekomsrus and the hon member for Addo were conducting with the hon the Minister and myself were terminated.

I am stating a fact; I am not trying to drive in a wedge. I am trying to state a fact which leaves a question mark in my mind, and I am saying it is a great pity that such a situation developed. [Interjections.]

Questions are also being asked about strange conversation which allegedly took place between a group that broke away … [Interjections.]

Order! I do not know with whom the hon member for Bethal is conversing so vehemently, but they can surely continue their conversation outside if it is so necessary. I should also like to ask … Since the two hon members have left the Chamber that problem is of course eliminated. I just want to say that I have another problem. The hon member Haarlem, inter alia, is making quite a running commentary after having already made a very good speech. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mention is being made of alleged contact between people who left the LP and the NP. I am not aware of any contact, and I went into the matter after such allegations had been made to me over the weekend. I tested their accuracy at all possible points. I could find no proof of this, and I should like to put this on record.

What I find a little strange is the kind of—and I am saying this on the assumption that one easily recognises one’s own failings in another—bargaining which occurred yesterday between members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in regard to a strategy for the non-voting campaign. In other words we are talking about a strategy which was apparently worked out yesterday among representatives from these Houses to break the agreement which was entered into on 1 September. [Interjections.]

It is a fact that those negotiations and those inside manoeuverings took place yesterday. The hon members referred to this. [Interjections.] All that I am saying is that they may do so; they have the right and are free to do so. Nevertheless they may not then, since they are themselves guilty of this failing, accuse other people of holding discussions with one another across political lines. At the same time, having made enquiries I deny that I have any knowledge of such discussions—either by the hon the Minister or by me.

You have become verkramp since you became Deputy Minister!

Order! I do not think it is fitting for the Chair to compliment certain hon members on their speeches, as I have perhaps done to the hon member for Haarlem. I just want to say that he made a very good speech in the sense that it was good and long. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

I should like to place something else which I think is important on record. I should like to say that the subject of the dignity of all of us in this House, irrespective of the party we represent, has no colour connotation. This ought to be the case at all times. The Rules of Parliament and the ethical codes are, after all, what we have to adhere to here, irrespective of whom we represent here and where we come from. [Interjections.]

I should like to make a final point in this connection. It is concerned with the question of the concept of “dispose of’ or “afhandel”, which was at issue in this agreement. If one looks at the dictionary definition of the concept of “dispose of’ in English and in Afrikaans it means “afhandel”. That means to vote or to bring to a vote. [Interjections.] In that regard hon members can look at any dictionary. Allow me to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives that he will have to concede that he, the hon member for Toekomsrus and I, in the discussions which took place that week, spent more time in one another’s company than any of the others involved.

You agreed with us, but your hon Minister did not.

Yes!

I just want to point out to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives that he referred very appreciatively to that aspect towards the end of that series of talks, and to what happened there.

To you, yes! You differ with your hon Minister.

I just want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives that in the end it makes no difference what is stated in that agreement—and I say this is a correct version of it— because the fact of the matter is that we agreed around that conference table that the Bills would come before the House and would be disposed of by being brought to a vote. That, and nothing less than that, was what constituted the agreement. We did not in any way ask for hon members of the LP to vote for any of these five Bills and there was no agreement that they would. That was not on the table, and that was not part of the agreement.

That was not the subject of the consensus at all. The subject of the consensus was, however, that these Bills would be before Parliament and would be disposed of—in other words would be brought to a vote. [Interjections.] That is the important point, because it means that we are taking effective action. That is what the hon the Minister was referring to earlier this afternoon when he said that it was a pity that part of that agreement had been broken.

I should like to refer to a further observation made by the hon member for Toekomsrus. He said that the agreement reached on 1 September had not been honoured. He then referred to the fact that the sequence of the proceedings this week was changed. However, that agreement of 1 September did not in any way deal with the sequence in which the legislation would be dealt with. That point was not even at issue and, in other words, had nothing to do with the agreement. [Interjections.] I do not know why it is necessary to be so cynical about everything.

Because it is a question of morality!

I should like to mention a final point in relation to what the hon member for Toekomsrus said. The hon member, at the end of his speech, invited us for further talks. I just want to ask him, then, why the talks scheduled for Sunday evening were cancelled. I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

(The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates yesterday and today described his position insofar as the voting on these Bills is concerned. I think we can accept that he might have been misled yesterday as to the explanation of what took place. Today he explained it to hon members in the Chamber and I think we can accept that explanation.

*The hon member for Pietersburg used all kinds of words to describe what is now happening in this Parliament according to his own opinion and his own perception of things. He said it was a circus and referred to it as the end of “consociational democracy”. He said it was a waste of money and an abortive session. Those were the kind of statements he made.

I should now like to ask the hon member what his alternative is.

It is not relevant now!

No, the question arises as a matter of course. If that hon member says that this is an abortive exercise, what is his alternative? His alternative is in the first place that Parliament, this system, should be dismantled. That is what he would like to accomplish. He does not take into account the costs and the implications this would have for the country. He is not prepared to take that into account, but let us see what he would want to replace it with if he had an opportunity to do so.

He wants to give each group, including the Coloureds and the Indians, a homeland. Let us just ask: Who supports this? Is the Labour Party going to support a homeland for the Coloured people? Is anybody in this Parliament going to support it, except the CP? In other words, he has no solution that he can place on the table, no alternative which he can place on the table for this system we have at present. If the hon member talks about cost, what would be the cost of what the CP wants to place on the table as their alternative? It would be far more. What would be the cost of a separate Parliament for each of the population groups? What would be the cost for capital cities for own administrations, for fullfledged Ministries for all departments which are at present operating as general affairs? The cost in each case would be tripled. [Interjections.]

The hon member can react to that later, and the hon member for Bethal may as well keep quiet now. Naturally the hon members evade the issue every time they are confronted with this point, and we never get that answer from them. It is very easy, as hon members do, to excuse themselves and in fact to derive pleasure from it, but I should like to say that I think that this system will still exist long after the CP has made every attempt to take over the reins of Government.

The hon member referred to a letter, and tongue in cheek I should now like to ask where the letter, to which the hon member referred and which was addressed to the Patriot, came from? Who is the author of that letter, and what is the address on it? Did it not perhaps recently arrive from America?

†The hon member for Stanger said that he was told on the evening of 1 September what had been negotiated between the hon the Minister and the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Representatives. Sir, that is not true; I was present there as well when he was informed. He was told what had actually been negotiated between the two parties, between the hon the Minister and the representatives of the LP. That was what he was told about. The question was then put to him to tell us whether he was prepared to talk about this negotiated settlement, and he gave his clear statement that evening that he could not reply, that he had to consult with his caucus, which he did the next morning. There is no problem with that. He was not forced or prescribed to at any stage as far as his own viewpoint on that settlement was concerned. But later that day, as the hon Minister earlier referred to, he agreed after consultation with his caucus to accept the content of the settlement that had been agreed on by the other two parties.

The hon member also referred to the problems relating to land and housing and emphasized that there should be an interaction at local level between the various communities and local authorities. But that is exactly what this Bill is aimed at—to get representation for the people in a free settlement area. If there is no representation, how can one then have interaction?

*The hon member Prof Olivier made a few statements, beginning with the statement that this was an apartheid measure. What I found strange—I then tried to establish why he had said it was an apartheid measure—was that he did not argue the point immediately. Later in his speech he made the following statement:

He himself then made the statement that in other words there was, for the first time, a movement away from an existing model which he would describe as apartheid. Then surely the new model is no longer apartheid. How can he make such a statement? I do not quite understand it, and I would be pleased if he would elucidate it for me at a later opportunity. [Interjections.]

Read my Hansard.

The hon member also mentioned a few other aspects which I want to deal with very briefly. He said that a stigma attached to these free settlement areas and to the form of local government that was going to be applied there. Actually he said that a stigma attached to free settlement areas as such. It is a great pity that the hon member attaches such a connotation to this matter. It depends entirely, of course, on what the population and all of us are going to make of these areas.

I have an idea that free settlement areas are going to be representative of the whole spectrum of development which we find throughout South Africa. Consequently it is not only low-income areas which are going to be free settlement areas, but also extremely high-income areas. For that reason the entire spectrum is going to be represented in free settlement areas, as is the case with any other natural development in respect of any other sector of the population in this country. For that reason, as far as I am concerned, no stigma need attach to these areas.

If hon members were to examine specifically the areas that have been identified for possible investigation with a view to free settlement, they would find the exact answer implicit, because some of those areas in themselves presuppose high-cost housing merely on the basis of their location.

The hon member also made the statement that there was an unfairness embodied in the fact the people who had an existing franchise would be in a different position to that of new inhabitants who are going to have a different kind of franchise in those areas, but surely it is very clear that because some people who have an existing franchise are going to be phased out, it is going to be a temporary situation in this sense that in the end everyone would have an equal vote in respect of participation in such a joint committee or management committee.

It is also very clear that there is indeed going to be equal representation as regards quality, substance and significance. That joint committee which is going to be established will, after all, be able to take independent decisions in respect of that area on all matters delegated or assigned to it.

I find it very strange that the hon member did not argue that the local government institution that is being created here cannot develop a full-fledged, independent status. From the hon member’s perspective, I find it strange that he did not advance that argument.

†The hon member for Wentworth said that the Labour Party had co-operated in many instances over the past years. That is true and I accept that. Then he said that they had not received any co-operation from the NP. According to what has been stated by the hon member for Toekomsrus that is not true.

I am sorry to have to refer to the hon member again, but when the question “So who won the skirmish between the NP and the LP?” was put to him in the Financial Mail of 23 September, he replied that he felt that it was a victory for his party. I quote:

Who has achieved this? If the hon member for Toekomsrus is claiming this, the NP has of course also given as far as that is concerned. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Central—I do not see him here at the moment, so perhaps I can skip him—made an appeal that we must kick for the goal-posts. I would like to ask the NDM where their goal-posts are.

*That party or movement or whatever it may be has existed now for approximately a year, and we have been hearing time and again about the vision for the future. We should like to hear, for a change, what that vision is. In other words, what are the goalposts we are talking about, which we should aim at.

I shall not quarrel with the hon member for Haarlem this afternoon. I just want to make the observation that if the hon member says that the NP and the CP are the same, he is certainly not listening properly, because precisely what is happening in this debate this afternoon? Three of the hon members of that party participated in this debate this afternoon, and each of them totally rejected the Bill before this House, because they do not want rigid implementation of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] No, then it is not worthwhile trying to argue with the hon member any further.

I can just point out to the hon member for Claremont that he could have tested the information which he presented in his minute-long speech in this House—I am certain that it will probably appear tomorrow in all the newspapers as usual—in the municipality of Oudtshoorn. The hon member would then have established that the electricity supply equipment of those 10 inhabitants had been removed because the persons concerned did not furnish an application for the equipment. It had been incorrectly installed. I should like to suggest that any journalist who wants to write something about this matter, which the hon member for Claremont raised in this House this afternoon, should first verify the information with the municipality of Oudtshoorn. He could then furnish a proper and correct version which would also be good journalism.

†I think that much has been said during today’s debate, as well as yesterday’s, about the subject of free association. I would like, for the record, to make something clear as far as that is concerned. It is clear to me that a number of hon members have no idea of what freedom of association or freedom of choice really means. My time is limited and I will continue tomorrow or on another occasion with this particular subject.

*The hon member for Reigerpark said that one should perhaps take a look at the possible alternatives which could be considered for a management institution in free settlement areas. The hon member lodged a plead for this Bill either to be withdrawn or to be referred to the President’s Council. I cannot react to that, but I want to say I think it is a valid argument—something which could possibly be considered—to see whether a local government institution could not be devised for a situation such as this which could perhaps better serve the interests of a free settlement area. That is what I would like to say in conclusion.

I thank the hon members once again for their participation, specifically the hon members who support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Claremont asked me for an opportunity to make a personal explanation. I now afford him such an opportunity.

Mr Chairman, in the Hansard account of my speech in this House, on 29 August of this year, I was reported as follows with reference to the appeal made by the NDM for people to boycott the October elections:

Meaning the NDM and its supporters—

Although these words do occur in that sequence on the Hansard tape recording, the word “peacefully” was merely a reaction on my part to interjections made by hon members in the middle of that sentence, and should therefore not form part of the aforesaid sentence. [Interjections.] The sentence ought to read as follows:

Moreover it is my standpoint that people do, in fact, want to boycott those elections in a peaceful way. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I request leave of the House to alter Notice of Motion No 1 on the Order Paper, and I accordingly move: