Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker received a letter from the Secretary to Parliament in which he pointed out that he would attain the retiring age in December of this year and that he would consequently have to retire on pension with effect from 1 January 1987.

The letter will be referred to the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville in the debate yesterday went out of his way to belittle the role and the task of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. [Interjections.] I think he needs a fairly extensive reply in this regard. This department fulfils an important role and a key role in the efficient functioning of the administration in so far as it renders on a centralised basis specialised auxiliary services to all the other departments of the administration.

I want to give him a breakdown of the directorates and a short resumé of what each of these directorates does. Firstly, there is the Directorate of Finance. It mainly promotes and co-ordinates the entire budget of the administration which amounts to R4 836,720 million in this financial year. This activity entails, inter alia, the collection, processing and composition of the administration’s printed budget in respect of income and expenditure. Furthermore, all payments pertaining to salaries and allowances in the administration are also conducted by this directorate. The total amount involved averages R24,3 million per month excluding the salaries of teachers.

In addition to these tasks the directorate is also responsible for payments to suppliers, payments in respect of travel and subsistence allowances, subsidised motor transport etcetera on behalf of all the departments of the administration. I want to mention to the hon member that approximately 22 000 warrant vouchers are issued monthly by this directorate.

Then we have the Directorate for Efficiency Services which renders services aimed at the functional structuring of the various branches of the administration, determining the manpower requirements and promoting work efficiency.

If the hon the Leader of the House would permit the hon member for Yeoville to listen to the reply, then the hon member might gain some knowledge.

I am listening!

Thirdly, there is the Directorate for Personnel Administration. This directorate promotes the planning, organisation, co-ordination and execution of the administration’s essential personnel administrative activities which entail aspects such as recruitment, appointments, training and development, study schemes, conditions of service, merit assessment promotions and establishment matters. The approved establishment of the administration consists of about 18 000 posts spread over five departments. This excludes about 10 000 labourers who are administered by this directorate.

A comprehensive training policy was formulated with a view to the effective training and development of the administration’s personnel corps, and 1 052 officers have already attended a variety of courses which ranged from in-service to management training. Good progress has been made in establishing productivity improvement within the administration.

The efficiency of almost 1 600 officials was assessed in 1985, and the promotion of 1 300 officials in various ranks was also effected.

Did you not do this before we had own affairs?

I could continue giving the hon member facts and figures. I could tell him about the functions of the Subdirectorate: Auxiliary and Civilian Services which is responsible for the rendering of auxiliary office services to the ministries, Ministers’ Council and heads of departments; the nomination of marriage officers and the organising of elections in terms of annexure 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

The Subdirectorate: Provisioning Administration is mainly concerned with the supply and control of goods and services such as stores, equipment and transport. The stock of the administration is valued at approximately R250 million, and 4 281 motor vehicles are controlled at 1 671 stations.

You have created a new empire.

There is a Subdirectorate for the Treasury and a Directorate for Special Services dealing with security and safety.

The Subdirectorate: Legal Services is a newly created component which is primarily responsible for all legal matters in the administration. Its functions include the formulation and/or revision of legislation, regulations and related statutory measures in accordance with the specific requirements of the departments.

In essence, this all boils down to the fact that the concept of own affairs, having been accepted by this Parliament, has to be properly managed as must the particular own affairs of this House. This is being done by slightly over 500 people, and yet the hon member for Yeoville complains! Does he not want own affairs to be managed properly?

How many people…

The work would still have to be done even if it were not done in this way, because the schools would still be there as would health services and local authorities. He is complaining about a question of organisational structuring. To belittle the work being done here in terms of an Act of Parliament, should really be beneath that hon member. [Interjections.]

Secondly, he asked on what basis we had budgeted because the formulae have not yet been invoked or finalised. I explained that in full, and the hon member must just go and read my Hansard, col 2594 et seq. There he will find all the information that he needs.

That is not correct.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville has spoken twice in this debate. I am not going to allow a dialogue across the floor of the Committee. The hon the Minister is now replying to the debate, and I shall not allow the hon member for Yeoville to keep interrupting the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask you whether you are now going to stop me from making interjections? Is that what you are saying? You do this throughout, Sir. When a Minister speaks, nobody else is allowed to say anything.

Order! Is that meant as a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am asking you whether you will allow me to make interjections …

Order! The hon member has now made exactly four interjections in the course of the hon the Minister’s reply.

So?

Order! I will not allow this spate of intermittent interjections.

What does the word “intermittent” mean, Sir? I am asking you why you are stopping me from making interjections?

Order! I am asking the hon member to sit down now and to allow the hon the Minister to proceed.

Will you allow me to make interjections, Sir?

Order! The rules do not allow for interjections at all. Interjections are in the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is now appealing to the hon member to refrain from making interjections interminably. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I welcome interjections, as long as they are not per paragraph and as long as they comply with the definition …

Order! Every hon member in this House is entitled to protection and, as far as I am concerned, I shall give every hon member the protection to which he is entitled.

May I repeat what I said, Sir? I said he needs protection.

I definitely do not need it against this hon member, because I regard him as being fairly innocuous.

Harmless Harry! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, he asked what my priorities for budgeting were. Naturally the Budget has been drawn up according to a state of predetermined priorities. The printed estimates constitute without doubt the policy document for reaching the goals according to the priorities of the administration. I can assure him that due cognizance has been taken of realistic, affordable and guaranteed minimum standards of services rendered.

He also asked if the expenditure for Whites would increase in real terms. I have already referred to formula allocations in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution, as he will see if he reads col 2343 of this year’s Hansard. I again want to stress that it is the Government’s declared policy to move towards equal opportunities in the provision of services. That is to say that the level on which parity can be afforded by the Treasury, will have to be affordable to the economy as a whole. Finance of specific services for Whites cannot be done without taking into consideration the financing requirements of Coloureds, Indians and the Black population group. With this in mind the formulae which are in the process of being negotiated will have to be revised regularly. However, until we have the formulae in front of us it is senseless to try to give a factual reply to the hon member’s question on a hypothetical basis.

He stated that we did not have the power to impose levies, and that a general empowering law still had to be passed. I want to refer the hon member to section 3 of the Revenue Accounts Financing Act of 1984 which clearly contains the authority to impose levies.

You are misquoting me.

In other words, authorisation already exists in a general law. As I explained on 20 February 1986, the Ministers’ Council has decided not to make use of this provision until all the own affairs’ functions have been allocated to this Ministers’ Council. Only then will we be in a position to ascertain to what extent use will have to be made of this provision in order to augment our income.

*Then he asked me what my standpoint was in regard to the next general election. He knows as well as I do that the life of Parliament is governed by sections 38 and 39 of the Constitution, and that calling a general election is the prerogative of the State President. Furthermore he knows that we debated the matter in this House and that at this moment the Constitution of the country governs the date of commencement of this specific Parliament, and consequently, too, the date of the next general election.

That is why it does not help us to travel down this dusty, well-trodden path again. Our country is in a phase during which we are engaged in substantial reforms. We brought a new Constitution and a newly-constituted Parliament into existence and put them into operation in terms of a very specific mandate from the electorate of this House. We intend to carry out that mandate.

The hon members need not be afraid. The time for a next general election is approaching, and then they will have to give an account of what they have done during the period when our country asked all its representatives to make a constructive and positive contribution in order to lay foundations here on which a safe future for all the people of South Africa could be built. I do not think that calling in a petty-political way for a general election is going to get the hon members any further. When the next general election comes, we hope it will be associated with asking for a mandate for crucial issues …

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister welcome the hon members who are now entering the Chamber?

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon members who are so attractively adorned, were elected to be members of the House of Assembly five years ago. [Interjections.] We want to congratulate the hon members, each of whom is wearing a flower in his buttonhole, sincerely on their election five years ago. The numerical strength of the group that has just entered the Chamber simply confirms once again the clear and obvious mandate the Government has after the great victory it gained in 1981. [Interjections.] Since then we have lost a few members from the team, and I do not take it amiss of them for not wearing a flower today, because they have reason to be ashamed and no reason to be proud. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Yeoville said that this whole edifice of own affairs was not going to last. He based that statement on the argument that the major population group was not included in the system.

*I think that is a factually incorrect statement. Long before own affairs was established for Whites, Coloureds and Indians according to this concept, the Black population groups already had their own institutions which had been created for them. These were vested with powers wider than the own affairs powers provided for under this Constitution. What does the hon member think the legislative assemblies of the self-governing states are if not own political institutions and own political power bases, vested with wide powers over a wide range of matters affecting the population groups concerned?

That is why it is completely incorrect to say that provision has not been made for Black people. I am not saying that adequate general and full-fledged provision has been made for them, but as far as specific own affairs are concerned, the Black population groups in this country had an advantage over the Whites, Coloureds and Indians for a long time. This was remedied when the present constitutional dispensation was introduced.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister how he now envisages returning citizenship to Blacks in South Africa who are not involved in the independent homelands? How are they going to exercise their political rights if they are not in fact part of this structure?

I am not prepared to discuss the Vote of my colleague in full here. Surely the hon member knows that in fact this was inter alia the subject of the State President’s opening address at the beginning of last year’s Parliamentary session. He also knows that in respect of those Blacks living outside the national states and the self-governing areas we envisaged that own structures would be created for those entities. He knows that the State President said in that speech that those structures and the elected leaders within those structures would in fact exercise powers over their own affairs, and would receive final rights of decision over a wide spectrum of matters. All he has to do is to read the address of the State President again. [Interjections.] That is what this process of negotiation is concerned with. That is what my hon colleague, sitting next to me, is busy doing on a full-time basis. That is the essence of the process of development in respect of constitutional matters in which we on this side of the House are constructively engaged. However, we do not want to give one-sided replies. We want those replies to be the result of negotiation.

At the beginning of this year the State President once again indicated further development, and we shall continue to follow this course of constitutional development and to create the necessary structures for joint decision-making, as well as with the creation of further structures for own decision-making over own affairs, until every inhabitant of South Africa will exercise full-fledged political rights in a way in which no group will dominate any other group.

Consequently new structures will be established, and when we come to this Parliament with proposals, the hon member will find the answers he is seeking in respect of the final development of the way in which own and general affairs will be structured vis-à-vis the Black communities in those new structures. They will be created by this Parliament, and the hon member will be afforded an opportunity to make his contribution.

When?

As soon as possible.

The hon member said that this system of own and general affairs was inclining towards a unitary system. He said that we were drifting away from a federation. He knows just as well as I do that our policy and his policy in this connection are not the same. What they advocate—at least that is what I thought until the hon member for Hillbrow spoke, and I shall deal with him in a moment—is a typical geographic federation which will function in every federal state and in the federal parliament on a basis of “winner takes all”. [Interjections.] Therefore, if that is the federation towards which hon members wish to drift, then I say that we do not want that federation, and that is why we are drifting away from it.

It is erroneous to say that we are dealing here with full-fledged centralisation of powers, which is typical of what one finds in a unitary state. The opposite is true. Own affairs is in fact the embodiment of separation of power over important matters, on a rational basis and according to the realities of South Africa. Furthermore, there is no centralisation here in which a winner takes all. The hon member knows how the system works; he also knows how it is working in the standing committees on which we have joint representation. Firstly I can ask: Who decides about own affairs? This House only makes decisions about White own affairs, and in that way the other institutions decide their own affairs. He also knows the system in respect of general affairs, and he also knows that proper differentiation and group protection is an integral part of that system. [Interjections.]

Devolution remains our objective. Surely he knows that a new second tier is being created here. In regard to own affairs I also hope to be able to announce, before the end of this session, how we shall devolve, delegate and decentralise power, precisely so that all decision-making will not take place on a centralised basis, but that decision-making will to the greatest possible degree have to take place on the lowest possible level, as close as possible to the public. That is our objective, and we are implementing it step by step.

The hon member must be reminded of two quotations from what the State President said in his Opening Address at the beginning of this year. He said:

Later, in the same address, the State President said:

That is why it is clear that the hon member was shying at his own Aunt Sally. He did not take into account what has already happened, and what is happening at present.

†The hon member for Umbilo made two speeches yesterday, and I must say that after having listened intently to him, it is still not clear to me whether he is in favour of the distinction between own and general affairs or against it. [Interjections.] I do not want to be unkind but I have come to the conclusion that he is really mixed up about this whole issue. He said that own affairs should be optional. If one had to apply that principle, one might get chaos in a country.

And you may get sense!

Let us, for example, apply this principle to local government. If I understood the hon member correctly, local government A should be able to say that it wants to fall under general affairs and not under the system of own affairs, while local government B should be able to chose to do the opposite. If that had to be the case, one would have to duplicate local government departments for own affairs to accommodate those who prefer to fall under own affairs and for the others who prefer to fall under general affairs. It is absolutely laughable to think that one can even consider taking the question of local option so far as to force oneself to provide a duplicated system for everything.

I guarantee that within two years you will be laughing!

Where does Black local government fit in?

The hon member for Umbilo and other hon members complained that this system was too expensive but every system advocated by every party in this country is expensive because every party is trying to make provision, according to its own convictions, for the special circumstances in South Africa. One can take the argument in connection with costs to great extremes.

I want to ask the hon members for Bryanston and Sandton whether there ought to be so many city councils in the immediate vicinity of the central part of Johannesburg. Why is there a city council of Sandton, and so many other city councils? Surely it would be more cost-effective to have one huge city council! One could take this argument further in this way, and arrive at absurd conclusions. [Interjections.]

That is why it makes sense—any party striving for reasonable solutions will admit this—to have a differentiated and a diversified administrative system. The basis on which we differentiate and wish to diversify differs from one party to another, but everyone in this House advocates overriding systems. The hon members of the PFP advocate a federation in which there will be quite a number of federal states. [Interjections.] Every federal state will have to have a federal parliament, and separate structures will have to be created for each parliament. Provision will have to be made, on a democratic basis, so that each of those states will be able to function in respect of legislation and executive authority. Surely it would not be inexpensive, if that policy were ever put into operation!

The hon members of the CP advocate a separate country for each nation and population group. Their system will be far more expensive than the present system! Consequently the argument in connection with costs is futile. [Interjections.] The only cheap system would be if we in South Africa were prepared to become a Zimbabwe, and hon members all say they do not want this country to go the same way Zimbabwe went. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Umbilo referred to the State President’s statement regarding the fact that apartheid, together with colonialism, is outmoded. Against that background he argued that statutory differentiation between general and own affairs should go. Apparently he wants to do it on a voluntary basis. Apparently, I further deduce, he argues along the lines that anything that is statutory is discriminatory.

No, I do not.

May I ask the hon member then if it is his party’s policy that all forms of statutory recognition of group rights should be abolished.

No.

Well, I am glad to hear that, then I need not…

Statutory discrimination on race grounds, yes.

May I then rephrase the question? Is it the policy of his party that all forms of statutory recognition of group rights should be abolished?

Group rights based only on race, yes.

In other words, I must deduce from that that the hon member and his party do not define a group according to population groups. There are population groups in this country. Either one recognises their existence, or one does not. If one recognises it, and if one says that each population group should have its own voters’ roll, then on a statutory basis—according to the hon member’s argument—one discriminates on the basis of race. I am sure that it is the policy of his party that there should be own voters’ rolls. Therefore his argument is illogical as against the policy of his own party.

The hon member for Edenvale referred to what he called the similarity between the needs of the members of the various population groups. Against that background he argues that own affairs should not handle disciplines such as welfare. I think he totally misunderstands the underlying philosophy of own affairs. I would like to refer him to section 14 of the Constitution, which I will not read out because he is undoubtedly aware of the content thereof. There one finds the essence of the definition of an own affair.

*When we consider welfare services we see that making provision for the needy, the disabled and the people suffering hardships in any specific population group does not merely amount to issuing a cheque at the end of the month. Welfare is so frequently accompanied by personal involvement. Because it goes hand in hand with personal involvement, it is essentially a task which, as in the family, can best be carried out by a person who knows and understands the situation.

I have no doubt in my mind that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives is far better equipped for that task in respect of the Coloured community than the ablest White person in South Africa. That is the philosophy underlying this situation. Welfare is also associated with a cultural point of view, one’s outlook on life and philosophy, the structure of a society, that society’s views of family life and interpersonal relations—and so I can continue.

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon the Minister. The hon member for Greytown may not read a newspaper in the Committee.

It is not a newspaper, it is Die Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

Order! It is not the task of the Chair to sit in judgement on matters of this nature, but for the purposes of my ruling, it is a newspaper. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, now that I have seen what the hon member for Greytown is reading, I understand why so many of his speeches and interjections are so uninformed. [Interjections.] For the information of the hon member for Sasolburg, the hon member for Greytown is reading Die Afrikaner.

He is beginning to see the light!

Of course there are in many respects areas of agreement across the dividing lines of groups as far as human needs are concerned, but there are also material differences.

This brings me to the hon member for Hillbrow. He made a very revealing speech. I think he gave us a completely new elucidation of PFP policy. The first interesting thing he said was that they were now striving for a consociational model. I have never heard this from any other hon member in that party.

Consociation? But of course!

Yes, Mr Chairman, now all of them suddenly appear to be Lijphart people.

But of course, yes!

Was the hon member for Hillbrow always a Lijphart supporter?

But of course, yes! [Interjections.]

Very well, Mr Chairman, that gives us a completely new concept of PFP policy. [Interjections.] But then we come to the interesting statement that some of the states in the PFP federation will be predominantly White, while some will be predominantly Black and others will be mixed. Really, I find that to be a very interesting statement. I should now like to know from the hon member for Hillbrow—unless he now supports Prof Carel Boshoff’s new White state of Morgenzon, or is perhaps echoing what Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche has to say—where he, without drawing any artificial boundaries, wishes to establish White federal states with a White majority. Where is he going to excise such states? Are Soweto and Johannesburg, in accordance with their policy, going to fall into the same federal state?

It depends on the convention.

Oh, now the hon member says it depends on the convention. Consequently we cannot believe what he is saying when he claims that in terms of their policy there will be states which will be predominantly White, because the convention will not allow such boundaries to be established. Not their convention, Sir! [Interjections.] That is what they …

Can you never stop thinking in terms of race?

I did not say …

You are absolutely obsessed with race!

It was not I who said that there were going to be states which would be predominantly White. It was the hon member for Hillbrow who said that. [Interjections.] I am dealing with a racial argument, which the hon member for Hillbrow advanced. It is not my argument; it is his argument.

That, Mr Chairman, is what the PFP is now trying to bluff the voters with. They are telling the voters they need not be concerned. This PFP federation on a one man, one vote basis will offer sufficient security because they will establish the boundaries in such a way that in quite a number of states they will have the predominant numbers. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is quite clear that there are substantial differences of opinion among the members of the PFP. While half of the hon members opposite are shaking their heads in denial, the hon member for Hillbrow adheres to his statement that there will be such states, and some of the more conservative hon members of that party have nothing whatsoever to say. They are not saying no, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow let the cat out of the bag. The true colours of that party have been revealed. Their thinking is racist. [Interjections.]

Order!

Their thinking is racist. They want to establish the boundaries of states in such a way that, while they pay lipservice to a system of one man, one vote, they nevertheless wish to create racially dominated states, as part of their solution.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South said there was a likelihood that this whole system would go. Mr Chairman, we have obviously said that we are prepared, in the process of reform, also to look again at what exists.

*The concept of own affairs, the concept of self-determination over matters which are of fundamental importance to a specific population group, and structures to implement such matters, are of decisive importance to us on this side of the House. I want to give the hon member for Hillbrow the assurance that as long as the National Party is the majority party in this House, there will be such structures, and recognition will be given to the imperative need for self-determination and of sole decision-making over matters which solely affect the interests of a specific population group. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Bryanston argued in favour of selective assistance by White own affairs to people of colour. With that, of course, he opened the door a fraction so that one could catch a glimpse of the typical Prog mind. What they want to implement, is nothing but “tokenism”, Mr Chairman.

Oh no, please!

Yes, Sir. By implication he created a distorted image of White own affairs and of what is being envisaged and what is happening in that regard. The image which he created means that we are devising a system here which must serve as a means of ensuring and perpetuating White privilege.

I never said that!

The hon member did not say it in so many words, but I read his speech carefully. Basically what he said in it amounted to everything which the Whites have being better than the things other population groups have, and that we must therefore make what is ours available otherwise—and this is the inevitable conclusion I have to arrive at—the hon is suggesting that we wish to perpetuate the prosperity of the Whites to the detriment of the other groups in the country. If the hon member concedes to me that that is not our intention, I thank him for doing so, because it is not our intention.

It was not my intention either. I said you could use your rotten system to do something good.

Surely the hon member must realise that if we did everything he said we should do, we would not even be scratching the surface of the real, fundamental problems of the population groups that are lagging behind. [Interjections.] It would not solve the education problem of the Black population groups in South Africa to take a few thousand Black children out of their system and to put them in the White education system. [Interjections.] It would make virtually no contribution, because the essential problem which still remains is too few teachers and too few schools, and there are problems in regard to the educational levels of the teachers. I could continue in this way to mention one example after another to him. To do what he recommended is mere tokenism, because it does not address the real needs, the anxiety and the distress of those people in any effective way. That is my reply to him. The NP is determined to make the assurance of equal opportunities in South Africa a reality.

We have not closed our doors to the making available of facilities, and I would be able to quote numerous examples to the hon member to prove that we have not closed our door. [Interjections.] When group existence and group identity are jeopardised, however, we believe that the creation of facilities for each population group, in which that group existence and group identity can be assured, is the best solution. [Interjections.]

Underlying the debate is the question to which all serious South Africans should apply their minds, and that is how to reconcile the needs and the aspirations of the various population groups in South Africa.

In essence, the PFP states that we should lump everything together, and throw everything open. I want to tell them that it will not work. The essential problem is that we do not have enough—not enough teachers, not enough schools, not enough old-age homes, not enough hospital beds! By throwing everything open, we would not be creating more of these facilities. In fact, we would not even be making a dent in the real needs.

The CP, on the other hand, says that we should separate everything, and allow each one, separately, to seek and find his own salvation. That, too, cannot work. For that purpose our interests …

But it works in Bophuthatswana.

For that our interests are too closely intertwined. It works in Bophuthatswana because Bophuthatswana is on its own. [Interjections.] However, it cannot work in every town, in which the interests are interwoven among the various population groups owing to the way we live, where we live, where we work and how interdependent we are upon one another. [Interjections.] It is of no avail one saying, from the position of one’s own prosperity, to a person who is lagging behind, “go hence and prosper”. We shall have to do something about the situation, otherwise those who are impoverished will not prosper, and those who are not properly clad, will not become properly clad. That is why we on this side of the House, without apology and despite the propaganda of the CP, will continue not only to extend a helping hand to other population groups but also to arrange our priorities in such a way that we shall ensure that their interests are promoted, that their quality of life and their living conditions are improved. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Brakpan nods his head and says that he agrees that that is what should be done, his hon colleague must stop his gossip-mongering and stop saying that we are taking White money and wasting it on other people. [Interjections.] That is the propaganda of that party.

Our methods differ …

Very well, now we have an admission on record: The CP will spend just as much money as we are spending to enhance the quality of life of other people.

I did not say that. [Interjections.] Sir, I now ask the hon the Minister whether he himself did not believe, by way of the establishment of separate Black states, that the salvation of the Black people could be worked out and that Black people in South Africa should find their political salvation in the Black states?

I have stated repeatedly in this House that the first part remains the objective. Independence of states and greater autonomy remains the objective of the NP, but time has shown that…

You people capitulated.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must contain himself!

… despite the best efforts of Dr Verwoerd and all the other Prime Ministers, the theory of successful exercising of political rights of people living in this country in an institution governing another, were not realised and are not attainable in practice. [Interjections.] That is why we say the challenge is how to give Black people, living in those states effective political participation in all decisions affecting their lives. If they are living in this country, the decisions affecting their lives must not be taken in another. They are then taken inside the RSA and outside the national states, and that is why structures must be developed so that they, too, can participate in that decision-making.

Now tell us how one protects the minority groups.

The NP says there are two realities in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members for Brakpan and Kroonstad must not conduct an argument with one another while the hon Minister is speaking. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The NP therefore says that we must construct the solutions on the recognition of the two indisputable realities of South Africa. The one is the existence of groups, bound up with which are group aspirations, group fears, the need among groups for security and the need to make progress. The second reality is the fact that among those groups are situated a wealth of common interests, owing to their interdependence and owing to our interwoven society. By negating one of these two in favour of the other, one aggravates the problem and one intensifies conflict in South Africa. The hon members of the CP wish to ignore the interwoven interests, and the hon members of the PFP wish to negate the harsh realities and the strength and power which are an integral part of the reality of the differences which exist between various population groups because this does not fit into their theory.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he regards own affairs as a sacred cow?

Self-determination and the right of a specific population group in regard to what is essentially concerned with its existence, is a fundamental standpoint of this party which we consider to be basic, and which must form part of the solution to problems in South Africa. [Interjections.] One will have to discuss precisely how we have to organise this. I think the concept of own affairs has the potential of expanding even further, and that it will then, if handled correctly, be able to make an even greater contribution to the solution of the problems of South Africa.

The policy of hon members of the PFP is also based on the concept of own affairs. They structure it differently, but they also wish to recognise specific spheres of interest and they also wish to prevent all decision-making occurring in one central place. They also wish to decentralise decision-making so that various interest groups can take their own decisions. That is why they must not disparage the philosophy which is basic to the concept of own affairs, for in that philosophy lies the only workable solution to the problems of South Africa.

An equilibrium must be established and only then is one going to have a reconciliation between conflicting claims. An equilibrium must be found between group interests on the one hand and individual interests on the other. An inherent equilibrium must be found between group rights on the one hand and how one is able to structure co-operation on matters of common concern in a positive way on the other. There must be reconciliation between the claims considered important by each group. Everyone does not feel equally strong about them, but there are many groups that do, and the White group is one, while the Indian group is another. Specific Black peoples set very great store by their own identity and their own group character and their own language and everything that goes with it. These have to be accommodated, because without accommodation no solution in South Africa can find acceptance among the respective minority groups in this country.

That is why we stand by these basic points of departure which are an integral part of this Constitution. That is why we, in the Ministers’ Council and on this side of the House, will work with great dedication to make this concept succeed in practice. It will not be to the detriment of anyone or to the benefit of some with the exclusion of others. In our case the concept must succeed in the interests of what we represent here, and we shall also make it possible for the leaders of other population groups to work within the same framework—as they are already doing—for the salvation of their people and to help create opportunities for their people. Together we shall co-operate from these respective power bases. We must find a way to co-operate more constructively than we have so far succeeded in doing in order to unite in the vast arena of common interests behind common objectives.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 6—“Improvement of conditions of service”, agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill now before this House makes, inter alia, provision for: The amendment of the provision in the Aliens Act, 1937, which regulates immigration on a discriminatory preferential basis; the amendment of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, to enable persons who are exempted from the requirement of being in possession of a permit for permanent residence to become South African citizens; the repeal of Chapter XXXIII of the Orange Free State Law Book which regulates the residence of Asians in the Orange Free State; and the repeal of the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, 1927, which imposes a restriction on the admission of Asians to certain districts of Natal.

A number of Acts are therefore affected by this proposed measure. The first of these was placed on the Statute Book during the previous century and the latest in 1949. The Government has irrevocably committed itself to removing discriminatory and offensive measures from the Statute Book. The proposed measure is irrefutable proof of the Government’s commitment. It has been argued that one should not tamper with legislation of such long standing. This argument ignores the dynamics inherent in our South African society. There are people in our society, however, who regard the proposed removal of the preferential immigration measure as the opening of the floodgates to immigrants. I have even been asked whether the Government now intends opening new immigration offices in certain countries. My answer is a firm no. The criteria for admission of immigrants remain unchanged except for the removal of the preferential measure.

At present the Immigrants Selection Board may only authorise the issue of permits for permanent residence to persons who are likely to become readily assimilated within a reasonable time with the White inhabitants of the Republic. The Minister may—I am referring to the present time— however, exempt a person from the requirement to be in possession of a permit for permanent residence. In this manner persons of colour are in fact admitted to the country. In terms of the proposed amendment the Immigrants Selection Board will have the authority to consider applications for permanent residence by prospective immigrants regardless of race or colour.

The Government’s immigration policy remains one of selective immigration. The aim is to supplement the country’s labour requirements. In the present economic circumstances our efforts are aimed primarily at importing that expertise which can in turn create job opportunities. We need this kind of immigrant and will recruit and accept them whenever necessary and from whatever country, but always with South Africa’s needs and interests in mind.

The Bill also deals with the acquisition of South African citizenship by persons who are exempted from the requirement to be in possession of a permit for permanent residence. The State Law Advisers expressed doubt whether residence in terms of an exemption constitutes permanent residence as contemplated in the SA Citizenship Act. Clause 6 contains a proposal that will remove this doubt.

Finally, I refer to the proposed amendment of the wording of the oath of allegiance. In the present oath the emphasis is placed on the renunciation of allegiance to the country of which the person is a citizen. A person’s sentiments towards his country of origin cannot be changed merely by the signing of a document. The present wording of the oath discourages some people from becoming South African citizens whilst others, who are dependent on a social pension from the countries of which they are citizens, are reluctant to endanger such citizenship for fear of losing their pensions. Dual citizenship is not prohibited by the SA Citizenship Act, and consequently the present wording of the oath of allegiance is strictly not in line with the practice of allowing new South African citizens, at their request, to retain the citizenship of their countries of origin.

Mr Speaker, the Bill now before the House is of course a very comprehensive one. It concerns quite a number of aspects involving the admission of persons to the Republic. One should also take it further than the title suggests and specify that it also includes “parts of the Republic”. It also concerns the residence of such persons in the Republic, and then also in specific parts of the Republic.

There are chiefly two aspects of this amending Bill I want to touch upon. The first involves the question of the removal of race as a requirement for admission as immigrants to South Africa. It has always been a requirement, for persons to be permitted to emigrate to South Africa, that they be able to assimilate with the White sector of our population in South Africa. This amending Bill envisages deleting that provision.

This party is naturally very taken with this amendment and we support it wholeheartedly. What it comes down to is a further step in the removal of racial discrimination.

It is specifically in regard to South African Indians over the past few years that this provision has caused many problems. It specifically caused problems in regard to personal relationships, and here it hurt people very much. I am now referring specifically to South African Indian men who frequently envisaged marrying Indian women from other countries, for example India, Pakistan and other countries in which there are Indians living.

In my view the second aspect is perhaps more important, and I should like to dwell on it for a short while. It involves the repeal of the restrictive measures on South African Indians, more specifically in the Free State and Northern Natal. These measures, the most important of which are contained in chapter XXXIII of the Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat, were in my view amongst the crudest forms of racial discrimination ever placed on the South African Statute Book. It lowered the status of Indians, particularly in the Orange Free State, to that of complete foreigners. One could probably argue that Indians were indeed regarded as foreigners in South Africa when this chapter was originally placed on the Orange Free State Statute Book. What is strange and astounding, however, is that these restrictions remained in force for such a long time.

I have specifically asked the hon the Minister of National Education just to remain here for a short while, because he dealt with this situation in the past and I shall perhaps be referring to him in the course of my speech.

I want to quote from chapter XXXIII of the Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat. If one just looks at the kind of language that was used and the requirements that were imposed, one gets an indication of the kind of discrimination one was dealing with here. Nor is there any mincing of matters in the language that is used. I quote in the old Dutch:

“Koelie”, Mr Speaker! Then the following:

That permission could in fact, as far as the Republic of South Africa was concerned, only be obtained from the State President.

I now want to refer to a further portion of this chapter which gives an indication of the bureaucratic requirements if such persons did, in fact, want to obtain permission to stay in the Free State for longer than two months. These requirements sound astoundingly familiar and are the kind of thing we have on our Statute Book today. A person wanting to obtain such a permit had to report to a magistrate in the district concerned and complete the necessary application forms. Then the application had to be published by the magistrate in their version of the Gazette. It had to be made known to the public in that way so that the public could have an opportunity of lodging objections. The application had to be pasted up outside the magistrate’s office so that it could also be read there. It had to be available for public scrutiny for a period of 30 days. Thereafter the application, with the necessary comments, if any, was submitted to the State President for his decision. Specific provision was made here, of course, for this matter to be referred, by the State President, to a specific commission for investigation.

Hon members will probably realise why this sounds familiar to me. It is so typical of the kind of petty government that we also have in South Africa these days. As soon as a political obstacle arises, it is so easily referred to a commission, even when a reply to the specific question is apparently clear to everyone.

Sometimes one gained the impression that the clearer the answer to a political problem was, the greater was the Government’s tendency to sidestep reality and that answer by appointing a commission.

The chapter concerned went on to state that the State President was not, in any event, empowered to allow an Indian to run a commercial or farming enterprise in the old Orange Free State.

Many drastic restrictions were embodied in chapter XXXIII of the Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat in regard to the freedom of movement and the conduct of South African Indians in the Orange Free State. Over the years, of course, many arguments have been raised in support of retaining these restrictions. I have previously made the point that I find it astounding that such restrictions could remain on our Statute Book for such a long period of time.

For example, when he was still Prime Minister, the State President said that he could not accept that the old city fathers of the Free State could have had any ulterior motives and lacked wisdom when they placed these restrictions on the Statute Book. For that reason it would therefore be better not to tamper with the said restrictions. I do think, of course, that if one were, at this stage, to remove or reconsider provisions placed on the Statute Book a century ago, this could hardly be interpreted as a reflection on the wisdom of those who originally placed them on the Statute Book.

Do you think they had any ulterior motives?

It is very difficult to say but they are undoubtedly racist motives. I have previously made the point that at the time Indians were probably regarded as foreigners in this country. Perhaps people felt more justified, at the time, in placing such restrictions on the Statute Book. The fact remains that I cannot accept the fact that it was correct, even at that stage. I cannot accept it, but in any event, what is more important to us is whether it is the right thing to do today and whether it was the right thing to do over the past few decades. That I do not accept at all. I raised that every so often in debates in this House, making our standpoint very clear.

A further argument that has been used involves the fact that the Free State created the situation and that the Free State itself must now correct that situation. It has also been said that unless the initiative were to come from the Free State itself, one would not be able to do anything about these restrictions.

There is another important argument, of course, and I think that is why the hon the Minister of National Education’s presence here is relevant, because on more than one occasion he made the point that there are no group areas for Indians in the Free State. That is why there would be no sense in abolishing these restrictions on Indians, because in any event where would they live? Let me say at once that although I do not accept this as an excuse or as a reason for retaining this restriction, it is something that is relevant today and is also the honest expression of a factual situation. I think it is something the Government must deal with today. At the time, however, the hon the Minister put it very strongly.

†I want to quote what he said (Hansard: Assembly, Vol 107, col 7865):

That was what the hon the Minister said. He said there were no group areas and as a result there was no legislation in terms of which the present situation could be changed. This is a very strong and a very definite statement.

Now we have once again heard this hon Minister make some Very strong and definite statements. I should now like the hon the Minister of National Education to consider the relevance today of the statement that he made at that time. Does the hon the Minister still stand by it? If he does stand by it, what is his contribution towards resolving this dilemma which has now been created? Whether he is supportive of this measure before us or not, the fact of the matter is that the Bill before us now seeks to scrap Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van den Oranje Vrijstaat”. This immediately creates a dilemma because of the absence of group areas in the Free State. This Bill deals with the residence of people in this country, and therefore it is very relevant to discuss the place where these people are going to live.

Let us examine what the position will be of a South African Indian who actually does move into the Free State. Where is he going to live? There is no group area for him. He may move into and remain in a hotel in Bloemfontein, Welkom, or somewhere else in the Free State, for a period of up to three months. He will be allowed to do that. Now one must ask oneself: How much better is that than the situation which still obtains at the moment whereby he can remain in the Free State for a period of up to three months? That is the time limit allowed by Chapter XXXIII of the Act. The Group Areas Act allows him to stay in the Free State for a period of three months.

Can he get a permit?

My hon Chief Whip wants to know whether he can get a permit. Yes, I suppose he may apply for a permit.

Is it not interesting to compare the permit procedure that such a South African Indian has to go through with the very procedure that is described in Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat”? Once again he has to apply for a permit and declare that he wants to do a particular job in the Free State and reside at a specific place. The relevant department will then advertise this application in a variety of ways. We know that today the application for a permit is made to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning which then consults other own affairs departments on the issue before a decision is made as to whether such a permit should be granted or not.

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

No, the hon member must first give me a chance. I shall answer his question a little later.

The position is very simply that a South African Indian in this position must now go through a very similar painful process of applying for a permit to exercise his newly acquired right to actually move into the Free State. For that reason I find it very curious and very sad that we do not have some kind of reference in this Bill to a provision that is made in the Group Areas Act to cope with the dilemma those people are going to be faced with. Life is going to be made very awkward and very difficult for them if they have to move into the Free State. In fact, the more one examines the process taking place in South Africa today, the more one considers the kind of legislation we have before us as being a part of a process of reform, the clearer it becomes that one has to take the process of reform right through to its logical conclusion. One cannot do it piecemeal. One cannot stop at a certain point and draw a line and say that one will go thus far and no further. The Group Areas Act cannot exist parallel to the removal of this kind of restriction. We must understand and accept that the Group Areas Act itself and its restrictions are being placed under tremendous pressure as a result of the removal of these restrictions. One hopes that the Government is going to take this seriously and do something drastic about it.

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

Mr Speaker, I cannot discriminate in favour of the CP. Maybe I will answer his question a little bit later. [Interjections.]

If there should be some kind of move made by the Government to investigate the establishment of an Indian group area in the Free State, which surely is the logical conclusion …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether a Van der Merwe may put a question to him?

Mr Speaker, I shall now answer questions from him and from the other hon member.

Mr Speaker, I just want to ask the hon member whether he thinks it is fair that today there are virtually no representatives of the Free State in the House? There are only three of them here. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am trying to address the problem the Government is going to be faced with if it seeks to establish a group area for Indians in the Free State. Of course, if the removal of these restrictions is going to make any sense whatsoever in terms of the existing groups areas legislation, the Government must establish a group area for Indians in the Free State. At this stage, where there are no significant numbers of Indians living in the Free State, how does one justify the establishment of a group area for Indians in the Free State? One cannot do it. [Interjections.] That hon member replies that one cannot do it, and he is quite correct. [Interjections.] One cannot create a special group area for perhaps only a handful of people. Perhaps only two or three Indians are going to move into the Free State during the next few months. I see no particular reason why anyone should want to do that, but that may well be the case. The Government will then be facing a situation in which there is no normal justification for the establishment of a group area. Therefore, they have to continue this ridiculous process of granting permits until such time as there are a sufficient number of Indians residing in the Free State to actually justify the creation of a group area. Hon members can see the awkward situation which the Government is creating for itself by way of piecemeal reform.

I maintain that there is no way the Government can sensibly remove Chapter XXXIII from the Statute Book, without making substantial inroads into the Group Areas Act or preferably—to be quite frank—removing it completely. That is the difficulty one experiences when one’s political philosophy has to operate in reverse gear. That is the problem of the hon the Minister of National Education. He makes strong statements about political matters all along the line yet constantly, year after year, he is having to swallow his words. It is time for him to concede that we have changed direction and that we must move boldly in a new direction, taking the necessary steps to do the sensible thing in this instance.

I hope the hon the Minister will address this particular subject and that he will tell us what the Government’s plans are. One would hope that it has in fact considered the position. Is it satisfied with merely granting Indians residence in the Free State by way of permit, or is it in fact actually contemplating—despite the ridiculousness of such a possibility—the creation of a group area or several group areas? Surely, if one is going to create group areas, then one must create them in several towns. One cannot create them only in one place. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give us some indication as to what the Government’s intentions are in this respect, so that we can establish for ourselves, and so that the people of this country—particularly the South African Indians—will know whether the Government is serious about giving substance to the reform which it is implementing by way of the Bill before the House.

We hope to hear more from the hon the Minister in this regard. Insofar as this side of the House is concerned, however, we will certainly support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point interspersed his argument with credit he gave us for changes we had instituted. As usual, however, he unfortunately emphasised those matters still to be changed and what remained wrong and illustrated the problems so much so that he implied that if a single Indian went to live in the Free State under present legislation after our deletion of the provisions from the old “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat”, a group area would have to be instituted for that solitary person. This is simply not true. The fact is that even in terms of the Group Areas Act there are many ways in which matters may be arranged today but I do not wish to express an opinion now on the Group Areas Act as such.

I should like to confine myself to the measure before the House and first wish to express my thanks for the privilege we had as members of the standing committee to be involved in this historic legislation which was piloted through the standing committee.

With the exception of the CP—the hon member for Rissik is on our committee—the members of the standing committee were unanimous in their view that this part of the old “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat” be deleted. [Interjections.] I should like to say that this was the case as the hon member for Rissik will concede. I also wish to add immediately that I do not want to become involved in a feud with him. To tell the truth, hon members on this side of the House and I as well as the South African public, to my mind, are sick and tired at this stage of petty politicking in a country crying out for great thinking and great solutions. [Interjections.] I should like to express my thanks to all hon members of the standing committee. We were privileged to share an involvement with our hon friends from the House of Delegates, the Indian members of Parliament, on the standing committee in the deletion of those discriminatory measures which could not be justified in any way whatsoever. Here I wish to agree with the hon member for Green Point. It is actually quite astonishing that such a measure could have remained in the Statute Book so long!

Let us spend a moment examining the introduction to chapter 33 in the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat”. I have the English text in front of me and I wish to request hon members to listen carefully to the title of this chapter: “Law to provide against the Influx of Asiatics and for the removal of White criminals entering this state from elsewhere.” Section 1 runs as follows:

And so it continues.

One may say we are moving from a South Africa obsessed with apartheid to a newly created country. [Interjections.] Each of us in this House should be grateful for all these changes which are being brought about. We are on the way to a newly created South Africa. [Interjections.] This beautiful land belongs to all its people. I could not believe my eyes the other day on reading that people of the AWB—whom I do not even wish to name here—remarked at a meeting that the mineral riches of South Africa were a gift from God to the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] If we still subscribe to such alien and wild ideas at this point in our history, I foresee difficulties for our people! [Interjections.]

Consequently we on this side of the House are not afraid of telling our people that we should like to change what is wrong. We should make such changes in South Africa that we have to give fewer and fewer explanations; it should actually become less and less necessary to explain these matters to ourselves. If we delete a measure which is wrong, we ought no longer to explain to ourselves why it existed in the first place. We should change in such a way that we need not explain to the world which rejects racial discrimination—as we do here. It should go without saying that matters which were wrong should no longer be inscribed in our Statute Book. We should change in such a way that we need not continually explain to other population groups why certain measures, which they perceive as wrong, are included in the Statute Book. It should no longer be necessary either to explain from morning till night what is wrong in our own religious denominations.

Our changes should be of such a nature that our academics, politicians and businessmen do not have to travel the world and South Africa as well going from platform to platform in an attempt to talk matters right. It is simply a fact that one cannot present an incorrect message correctly. There is simply no way in which an incorrect message can be presented correctly.

These discriminatory provisions in the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat” were an incorrect message so it was incorrect legislation we repealed at this stage of our history and we are not ashamed of this. [Interjections.] With this legislation at present before the House we are saying that yet another aspect of apartheid is “out” and that co-existence is “in”. We say it was a mistake for those measures to be inscribed in the Statute Book.

I always find it strange that people are afraid of admitting that something was a mistake. What does it matter if politicians in the RSA Parliament of 1986 say in retrospect that mistakes were made in the history of this country? They were mistakes for which we paid dearly but this is not blame which can be laid at our door; it is part of history. [Interjections.] One can go right back in history in search of mistakes but the most important is that one should be able to look others in the eye and apologise for them. We as Whites in this House need not be afraid or ashamed of looking other population groups in the eye and saying some matters were wrong or discriminatory but that we are repealing those discriminatory measures in the interest of coexistence in South Africa.

It is a fact that the more one emphasises similarity—here I am talking of the similar aspirations of all South Africans—the more the realisation of natural diversity will be established among people in practice. The CP says this itself in its arguments. It claims there is apartheid and division among people throughout the world. That is true this takes place by natural process—but the NP Government says we have reached a point in history at which we are emphasizing the similarity of South Africans and the similarity of our endeavour and that we believe the diversity of groups and people will be a prominent reality in South Africa for all times.

You make me sick. You are talking just like a good old National UP man.

I do not hold it against the hon member for Barberton but they are facing a very great dilemma as their political standpoint regarding the Indian community cannot succeed. If one views politics in South Africa and the CP’s standpoint concerning Indians, one notes an interesting point and I am now referring to its homeland policy. We see the interesting fact that Orania is being debated at the one extreme and Azania at the other. We on the Government side reject the concept of Orania, a small piece of earth the White allocates to himself and, in so doing, implies he has already lost.

He is running away.

He is running away and already implying he has lost everything which is his in the whole of South Africa. He now has to find one small spot in South Africa to which he can flee so that he may guarantee his rights there. [Interjections.] Hon members of the CP are aware that, when we are speaking of the rights of Indians, they had fundamental political differences with one another within their party during the last meeting of their general council but I do not have time to go into that in this debate. Surely they know there are people who say that, if the CP were honourable in its political standpoint, it should not be represented in this Parliament, because the CP rejects this system. Surely that is true. [Interjections.] There certainly are people in the CP who say that to those hon members but I do not have time to debate it now.

Through this measure we are saying apartheid is out and coexistence in; we also say by this measure that we wish to eliminate mistakes of the past and by this the NP reaffirms its standpoint that racial discrimination based on skin colour is out. That is a fact. Let us admit it to one another in the House today. The skin covering the person is far more important to hon members of the CP than the person inside the skin. To us on this side of the House the person is more important that those superficial political standpoints on skin colour subscribed to by the CP. [Interjections.]

I was talking to a man yesterday who said there was an Indian at Botshabelo in the Orange Free State who had started a business through which he had already created 1 000 employment opportunities. The factory was under construction and through it employment opportunities had been created for 1 000 Black people and also a number of Whites. This has been done by an Indian, a person, someone with initiative, playing his part in the Free State.

That is what South Africa is like. Everywhere in the country people with talents and the freedom they enjoy here are being asked to put these to best use in the interest of South Africa. We are not ashamed of this. We say with pride that we are applying this type of measure and that we are eliminating this type of discrimination so that we may progress.

We are also confirming anew through this type of measure that we do not regard other population groups in South Africa as enemies. That is one of the differences between the CP and us; the syndrome that Whites stand on one side and that people on the other side threaten them obsesses CP thoughts continuously. This is simply not true. How can people, all the population groups of South Africa, with their common ideals of freedom, their ideals of a free-market system and common religious views ever be a threat to one another? Therefore we say the whole of South Africa belongs to all the people of South Africa.

Does that include the ANC?

By that we are saying we should see that all people are treated justly and fairly as regards territory—consequently the Free State is also involved. Sir, some of my other hon colleagues will speak on this.

Through the measure before us we are saying that human dignity is a key concept to us in our country. It amazes me that an hon member of this House can look his Indian colleagues in the eye in a meeting of a standing committee while simultaneously opposing this measure. Will someone please tell me how this can happen? I completely fail to understand how it can be based on anything but mere racial prejudice. As far as I am concerned, it has nothing on earth to do with the talent, the ability and the capability of the individual or the person or the group; it is a standpoint which involves nothing but prejudice.

You are certainly a stupid racist!

Mr Chairman, when we reject other population groups in South Africa through our deeds, standpoints and utterances, we must know we are inevitably unleashing aggression and that reaching an ultimate conflict situation can then not be warded off. Whether this is the intention of the Conservative Party or not is of no importance. The fact is that, when a person tells other people living in South Africa— exactly as is being done in the case of the measure under discussion now—that they are being pushed aside because they are inferior citizens of South Africa—regardless of whether this is done directly or indirectly— who had better obtain an own patch of ground somewhere, one has no right to expect anything but conflict in the end. Even if a person says his intention is not to bring about conflict but he tells another person who regards himself as a citizen of the country that he is not one but a second-class citizen, without full rights, he is actually inviting that man to conduct his politics in an aggressive way in this country.

We have already had sufficient aggression in South African politics; we have already had sufficient tension between groups and communities in South Africa.

You are going to have much more of it. Just wait!

That is why we are coming up with one measure after another to defuse that tension and that aggression.

Indians in South Africa have had a chequered history. I do not wish to speak on their experiences; it is far more fitting for them to tell us how they view these matters. What is important to us on this side of the House, however, is that we should seize every opportunity offering itself to get rid of discrimination based on skin colour. It is in the interest of the voters in my constituency, it is in the interest of all White people in South Africa that our people should be able to look one another squarely in the eye. Then we are not talking of running away, of surrendering or crawling. We should realise that no person, no population group, in fact no one on earth has any respect for a man who crawls. No one on earth has any respect for a man who surrenders. [Interjections.] For that very reason, Sir, we on this side of the House say that, in instituting measures of this nature, we are doing it to be able to look other people in the eye as people, as citizens of South Africa, and to be able to tell them we are not occupied with a South Africa obsessed with apartheid; we are working with them on a newly created South Africa.

I believe we shall have to bring many more such measures to this House in future. We shall actually go to our voters fearlessly and tell them why we are doing so. We shall go to our voters boldly to tell them that it is in the best interest of South Africa and us all that we repeal measures of this nature. We are seeking a future for our children; we are seeking freedom for our country; we are seeking progress for our land. A future and freedom and progress are possible only when people can look one another in the eye as people and do away with those things which other people regard as humiliating when said to them.

The South Africa of tomorrow will be a country in which every group by rights will be able to use its opportunities, its rights and privileges to the full. If we want those people, those groups, to be locked in perpetual conflict with one another, however, we in this House or on standing committees, when dealing with measures repealing discrimination, should resist them as Whites.

In conclusion, I wish to tell hon members of the Conservative Party not to attempt petty politicking with me when they rise to speak. They should forget about it. [Interjections.] There is time for that as well actually I am not afraid of it, Sir, I am not afraid of one of them; nor of two of them— not even of the whole bunch together. [Interjections.] That is not the point. The point is that we should not conduct petty party politics. In the debate on the measure under discussion the Conservative Party should rise and tell Indian members of this Parliament and the Indian people of South Africa how they as White members of Parliament of the Conservative Party can look them in the eye and honestly say to them that there is moral justification for their resistance against this measure.

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment:

[Interjections.]

We of this party no longer regard the hon member for Innesdal as a man whose thoughts are very regulated and who is able to view a succession of events from a standpoint of principle but rather as a man using a number of clichés he may have learnt in his travels through America and who is very emotional about these matters. I now wish to make a few comments to the hon member and then leave it at that.

The hon member for Innesdal in no way replied to the hon member for Green Point’s stand on what the actual position of the Indians in the Orange Free State will be. I shall return to that matter later in my speech. The hon member referred vaguely to group areas here and there but he did not tell us what the position would be of the Indian who was now also becoming part of this single great South African nation. I ask the hon member in what position the Indian is going to be in the Orange Free State in this great South African nation—of course, I disagree with him on terminology—in which all discrimination on grounds of skin colour is to be abolished?

The hon member was obviously born in the Cape and has lived in the Transvaal for a while where he started in Innesdal in one of the groups to the far right and this is how I have known him. In all the years I was a member of the NP, as far as I can recall, this hon member not once—either in the study group on Indian Affairs or within the caucus—rose and put the points there which he raised in this House today. [Interjections.]

I now want to read a passage to the hon member from a letter. I am not saying the letter is right but the hon member may confirm whether it is correct or not. The letter runs inter alia:

Apparently he continued:

[Interjections.]

Is that a tape recording or hearsay?

I am merely saying this letter appeared in a newspaper and I want the hon member to comment. [Interjections.]

That is gossip. Where did you get hold of it?

Why do you think it gossip, Morry? Albert has not said it is not true.

Naturally it is gossip. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I merely read from this letter and now the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is becoming very nervous. [Interjections.]

Who wrote the letter?

Was it Peter Soal? [Interjections.]

No, it was not Mr Peter Soal. Another soul wrote the letter. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is very nervous—with good reason—because he can hardly show his face in Cradock any longer. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal stated a whole series of points and I want to ask him directly in this House whether the Group Areas Act is a sacred cow.

No.

The hon member for Bellville says it is not a sacred cow so I shall ask the hon member for Innesdal whether separate residential areas are a sacred cow. [Interjections.] Let the old guard keep quiet and let the New Nats reply to me. [Interjections.] The two new Nats are even sitting next to each other. I ask them— and I am looking the hon member for Innesdal in the eye as I also look the Indians in the eye …

Order! Actually the hon member for Rissik should look at the Chair. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, when I am not looking in your direction, I definitely do not intend disrespect to the Chair but I should like to look the hon member for Innesdal in the eye. I wish to ask the hon member whether separate residential areas are a sacred cow and whether they are not negotiable.

It is an important matter in South Africa and I have always said so; we all say so.

I want the hon member to rise and say separate residential areas are not negotiable as the hon the Minister of National Education said own affairs were not negotiable. The hon member for Bellville must not leave as I want to speak to him as well. [Interjections.] The hon member for Innesdal must also tell us whether separate schools for Whites are not negotiable. [Interjections.]

It is a great pity there are so few NP members from the Free State in the House this afternoon. They will inevitably dwindle even more. The hon member for Innesdal said he despised racial discrimination and separation based on skin colour. I want to put a further question to the hon member for Innesdal. He said Rev Hendrickse was not a member of a people and the Coloureds were not a people or an emergent people.

No.

Other people themselves can …

Will hon members listen carefully so that I may complete my argument. The hon member for Innesdal’s problem is that he speaks too much and listens too little. [Interjections.]

And he does not think at all!

On what grounds is Rev Hendrickse unable to sit in this House? On what grounds is he unable to become a member of the House of Assembly? If it is not because he is a member of another people, it is purely on the basis of the colour of his skin and then the hon member for Innesdal is a pigmentist. [Interjections.]

In 1982 at the last meeting of the NP caucus I attended, I put my standpoint and we told the then Prime Minister that, if he embarked on the way of sound power-sharing with Brown people and Indians, it would ultimately lead to power-sharing with Blacks and a Black majority government in South Africa.

That is the truth.

Yes. We told the State President he would have to follow the way he had embarked upon to the end. We adopted standpoints there which led to our being expelled from the NP.

You left of your own accord! [Interjections.]

We were expelled for them. Now this multiracial coalition Cabinet of the NP comes to this House today with a Bill for which it has no mandate from White voters. It is five years since the previous election and hon members’ mandate is not to introduce such legislation in which the immigration policy of the old NP as well as legislation regarding Indians is changed in principle. This Bill is a further step by the Government to destroy the self-determination, the identity and the territory of the White and the Afrikaner. The abolition and repeal of chapter 33 of the old Free State Statute Book and the fact that Indians will obtain rights in the Free State from now on have become the first step as the hon member for Green Point tried to illustrate to us. The Government must tell us what the position of Indians will be in the Free State in future. The NP has no mandate to alienate the territorial heritage of the Free State. [Interjections.] That is the territorial heritage of the Whites. The State President himself comes from the Free State. People of the Free State have not had an opportunity to express their standpoints on this matter. As early as 1982 the rightists obtained a majority in the Bothaville by-election. In 1982 the rightists lost the Parys by-election by only ten votes. Today the rightists would given NP members the thrashing of their lives in the Free State. Surely the results of the by-election in Sasolburg speak for themselves, and, as for Harrismith and Bethlehem I merely wish to say I worked very closely with voters in those two by-elections. [Interjections.]

The NP’s propaganda and its candidate and the hon Ministers who spoke there told the Free State people that the matter of Indians was a CP rumour. [Interjections.] The NP said there were no group areas for Indians in the Free State so Free State people did not have to worry because Indians would not be able to enter the Free State. [Interjections.]

As regards the 1983 referendum, it did not involve this matter either and especially not as far as Indians in the Free State were concerned. We request the Government, before it comes to the House with this amending Bill, first to hold a referendum among people of the Free State and for people of the Free State on these matters. The Government should then state explicitly what its future dispensation for Indians will be—regarding the Free State as well. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Justice, who is the NP leader in the Free State, is not present today but I wish to say to him: “Shame on your leadership!” In addition I wish to say to hon Free State NP members—obviously excluding my good friend the hon member for Sasolburg—who are sitting here: “Shame on your lack of will and inability to express the interests, the history and the rights of the Afrikaner and the White in this case.” [Interjections.] For the past four years NP representatives of the Free State have left the Free State in the lurch in this House.

I wish to say here today that Indians have no historic or moral right to Free State land. [Interjections.]

They have raised the white flag! They are a bunch of quitters (hensoppers)!

The NP exhibits as much knowledge of Afrikaner aspirations to freedom as most British …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Kuruman permitted to refer frequently to members on this side of the House as a bunch of quitters (hensoppers)? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

… governors exhibited in the previous century or which Milner, Kitchener, Boesak and Tutu exhibited. [Interjections.] That is the extent of their understanding of the Afrikaner’s aspirations to freedom. [Interjections.]

I have personally answered for the origin and struggle for survival of the Afrikaner in the Free State. For the past few years in which I have had the privilege of assisting the CP in the Free State I have made firm friendships with true Free State people. [Interjections.] In spite of faithless leaders and a faithless Volksblad they have remained anchored in their heritage which was obtained through blood on their own land. They have not become faithless. I wish to tell this House today the majority of the inhabitants of the Free State feel the same about this matter as we the rightists feel.

Gen Christiaan de Wet, Gen Hertzog, Dr N J van der Merwe and Adv C R Swart would have been grateful to know that Free State people were not all like the Free State representatives in this House.

Indians have no right in the Free State either through occupation, war or mandate.

What did Dr Verwoerd say about permanence?

The hon member Dr Vilonel had better be quiet now or I shall take out a book given to me by the hon member for Bellville.

That Vilonel was a chap like you—he was a deserter! [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Vilonel had better be quiet now. [Interjections.]

I wish to remind Free State people of the words of their national anthem:

I wish to say to that hon member the great Afrikaner of the Free State and the big “Brother”, the Minister of Education and Culture, should read the Free State National Anthem tonight in solitude and quiet. He should examine the honour he did the Free State Anthem by the deeds carried out together with an abdication government against the Afrikaner today. [Interjections.]

Today I say to the NP’s Free State representatives: The NP’s policy of power-sharing is bringing far-reaching tension and conflict—to the Free State as well. By its abdication, the Government is bringing resentment to the hearts of those Free State people who have not abdicated yet. Because of the misleading glossing over of the actual happenings and consequences of this step, rejection by the NP’s own supporters will be even stronger than the reaction the Government elicits in the Free State from people like me.

Go and stand in the Free State!

Mr Speaker, I wish to put it very clearly to Indians in South Africa today—and if Mr Rajbansi were still present here I would have looked him in the eye while saying it to him …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member for Rissik?

No, I am not replying to questions now. [Interjections.] I want it recorded today that I say to those Indians who intend obtaining rights in the Free State after the passing of the current legislation that the Conservative Party will not recognise or maintain those rights when it comes to power. [Interjections.] We do not regard ourselves in any way bound by laws and measures promulgated by this Government in terms of which the Whites of the Free State will lose their rights as well. [Interjections.]

When rightists have the self-determination of people … [Interjections.] … then no Indian must… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member of this House to adopt the standpoint that hon members of this House, or even parties in this House, need not deem themselves to be bound by legislation passed here?

Order! We cannot prescribe to hon members what standpoints they should or should not adopt. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I wish to put it very clearly that, when we come to power, Indians who have acquired such rights in the Free State must not have recourse to what is happening here today; neither to other matters which may arise from this Government’s actions. [Interjections.] In its struggle for self-determination, the Conservative Party …

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

No, Mr Speaker, I do not wish to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in its struggle to regain the right to self-determination for Whites, the Conservative Party is bound in accordance with its principles and its policy to self-determination for all peoples in Southern Africa. [Interjections.]

Africa north of the Limpopo dealt sternly and mercilessly with Indians on this continent. A Black majority government in South Africa will not hold permanent peace, safety and prosperity for the Indians in this country. The Government of State President P W Botha is temporary; it is a transitional government. This Government may possibly say in its advertisements that it will take certain steps, not because the State President says so, but because he and his Government have the power to do so. Mr Speaker, they do have the power to take certain steps but they do not have the right or the mandate to take all those steps—nor that which is occupying us at present. [Interjections.] I believe this Government will fall from power; it will lose its power to the left or to the right—there is no doubt of that. Apartheid, separate development or partition—whatever people want to call it—holds life and prosperity and peace for the diversity of peoples in Southern Africa. Power-sharing on the other hand will bring destruction and strife and conflict.

I wish to put it to the Indians of South Africa that they should not permit themselves to be misled by a number of White liberals—White liberals who in any case do not care about the Indians’ heritage and distinctiveness. Indians should know that their heritage will be worth little in the hands of this Government because the White liberals neither can nor wish to preserve their own heritage. [Interjections.]

The consequences of the Bill before us affect almost every facet of the life of Whites in the Free State. I want to say to hon members of the National Party that, in the sphere of religion, they are now giving Islam, the Hindu, Mohammed and the Koran the right to a physical presence in every town and every community in the Free State. [Interjections.] Next to Christian churches the National Party will also have to make room for anti-Christian religions. [Interjections.] That is precisely what it will have to do. As soon as those people form part of the new nation and, if the Government does not want to discriminate, the Indians will have to be accorded the same rights as the NP Government demands for itself and its own—as regards religious rights as well.

Mr Speaker, I wish to point out that from the very outset our forefathers in the Free State called upon and professed the Trinity in their struggle to exist and survive in the Free State. Regarding this aspect, I need only refer to the fourth verse of the Free State Anthem. [Interjections.]

The NP speaks of the broadening of democracy. Politics is one of the integrating facets of the life style of a people. If one wishes to broaden democracy or politics, one also broadens religion—with ethical and aesthetical consequences. [Interjections.] The same elements of conflict which are present when one broadens democracy and brings different peoples together which cannot be brought together also apply to the religious facets of different peoples. [Interjections.] The social and educational consequences of this matter will also give rise to the same attendant conflicts.

The hon member for Innesdal did not mention Indian demands to us. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bryanston said separate schools and residential areas should be scrapped. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Innesdal give the hon member for Rissik an opportunity to make his speech.

Every Indian and the Brown persons on this standing committee said they did not want separate residential areas and separate schools. Now hon members should realise that, if Indians are rightfully admitted to the Free State, this will also have consequences in those aspects of our lives.

The present Government has so far already adopted an indifferent attitude towards a tried agriculture and a rural community. Country districts are being strangled by difficult circumstances and bringing Indians into the Free State will aggravate these increasingly difficult conditions. There are between 80 and 100 small towns in the Orange Free State and, even if the Government creates separate residential areas and separate schools there, this will run into enormous amounts. I do not even want to think of the consequences when indifferent people like members of the NP start selling their farms to Indians in these current difficult circumstances. A dearly gained heritage is being offered on a plate to strangers.

The rural trader will have to compete with entrepreneurs whose business ethics are based on Islamic and Indian standpoints. This Bill will contribute to further White depopulation of the Free State. Indians will occupy business terrains and obtain rights in local authorities. I want to say that this holds dangerous and even disastrous consequences for rural retailers.

As regards this measure, the role played by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his department is dictatorial in the way in which they want to arrange, regulate and intimidate. It has come to my knowledge that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning phrases his letters and gives reasons for his measures to poor local town councils in such a way that those people simply have to capitulate totally in the face of the hon Minister’s actions. I can certainly see what may happen. My hon colleagues can speak of numerous examples in which this hon Minister has forced Indians on numerous country towns in spite of standpoints adopted by town councils.

I have known Indians well since childhood. [Interjections.] The knowledge I acquired through personal experience was later confirmed by my scientific research. From the start I was a member of the NP study group on Indian Affairs—this lasted many years—and I was the chairman of the NP study group on Indian Affairs for many years. Why did no hon member ever come to me in all those years—this includes the new Nats—and say my attitude and the way in which I dealt with matters as the chairman of the Indian study group were not correct? [Interjections.]

I familiarised myself long ago with standpoints adopted by Ghandi or Yoshi as well as those of various other Indian writers. I wish to read something to hon members which I quoted to the acclamation of NP members in the years when I was in the NP. This work, The South African Indian Question by Dr Pachai, inter alia runs as follows:

He continues:

An academic could have written this about the old National Party and the Afrikaner standpoint. I wish to say to the Indian community today that it may rest assured that the CP will stand by its statements of principle and policy. We shall not go back on our word where we have made promises and stated standpoints.

I wish to refer hon members to speeches made here in 1946 when their predecessors, Adv Strijdom, Dr D F Malan and Dr Dönges, rejected the principle when the old United Party’s Jan Hofmeyrs sought approval for legislation in terms of which Indians would have obtained political rights and so on here as well as in the Free State. In this respect Adv Strijdom had the following to say about Mr Jan Hofmeyr:

I say the same 40 years later. There are many Afrikaners on that side of the House who feel as I do but they are suffering defeat because the new Nats have taken them in tow. [Interjections.] Adv Strijdom continued:

That is what NP candidates said at the recent by-elections. [Interjections.] Now they have raised the white flag. Members of the NP had better take the white flag as an emblem. [Interjections.] There is a similarity between the period prior to 1948 and the one we are currently experiencing in South Africa. Anyone reading political history and comparing the present NP with the old United Party will find it exactly the same as it is stumbling over precisely the same principles. The arguments and the debates are the same; consequently I say the NP will fall and it will fall because its leaders, its Cabinet and the leaders representing it here are not people of principle. They have no knowledge of history, they have no courage, they have no vision and they have no faith. [Interjections.]

I have touched upon only one aspect of this amending Bill today. I wish to tell and warn hon members of the NP that they are taking conflict and tension into every aspect of our life style, into every town and every community, by the policy of power-sharing. When this position of power-sharing later lands them in a situation in which they ultimately have to surrender power to the left, they should realise that this has set their feet on that road. I wish to tell many of my friends sitting opposite that it is easy to leave the NP. As my friend the hon member for Lichtenburg says, the further one goes from the Nats, the uglier they become. It is an easy step. [Interjections.]

This amending Bill contains many clauses of fundamental importance. I hold it against the hon the Minister that he has come up with an amending Bill in which so many cardinal and radical changes are involved. These are all concealed in one amending Bill so that we really do not have the opportunity in our debating to argue each of these matters fully.

I wish to say to hon members that, as regards immigration, on which my colleague the hon member for Kuruman and others are still to speak, hon members are in the process of deleting the qualification “White” because everything White has become unacceptable to them. [Interjections.] They are now starting on an immigration policy, exactly as General Smuts did in the forties, in which they take no account whatsoever in the formulation of the Bill of the so-called ethnic diversity of South Africa. I want to tell the NP that this type of Bill means the beginning of the end for that party. I have no doubt that all this will cause the end to be reached far sooner that we thought. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, today the hon member for Rissik came along here with a tirade of hate and discrimination that is in no way characteristic of the Afrikaner. What I want to say is that that hon member is a fugitive from the various political parties he has belonged to. He did not have a good record with the United Party—because of his subversive activities—nor with the National Party. He is a nomad in politics, a dangerous man as far as this country is concerned. [Interjections.]

That hon member says he would like to debate the issue. I therefore now challenge him, because I am saying that he does not have the courage of his convictions to say what he said here today in front of the Indians in the standing committee. He is too scared of them. There he did not open his mouth. He did not speak at all. The hon member for Rissik could not look them in the eye. [Interjections.] Now he comes to this House with his scare-mongering for the Free State and Northern Natal. He wants to come and tell us what we have to do. He, as a Transvaler, wants to tell us what we should do in our areas; whether we should revise an Act after 50 years or not. I now just want to ask him—since he has such a good relationship with the Indians in the Transvaal that they can even speak Afrikaans and that he tolerates them there—why he comes along and tells us what we must do in Natal and the Free State? [Interjections.] It is, after all, a fact that that hon member cannot tell me that he has never bought anything from an Indian. There are Indians in this country who made pots of money from people like him, people who do not practise what they preach. After 45 or 50 years we must be willing to look at reform as far as outdated practices are concerned, and that is what we are doing. We in the Free State and Northern Natal are willing to examine and evaluate this situation, and we also have the electorate’s permission to carry out reform. [Interjections.] We obtained a two-thirds majority in the last election, and on the strength of that we are examining laws which are many years old, which are discriminatory and which bring people in this country up against one another.

Let me tell hon members that if we continue to listen to people like the hon member for Rissik then we—the Whites and the Afrikaners—will not have any peaceful future in this country. What I am saying is that his utterances are dangerous. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg, who is taking to his heels now, would do well to resume his seat.

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

No, Sir. That hon member, who fled from Worcester, is no longer welcome there. He and his leader came from the Transvaal to tell us, in Northern Natal, what we should be doing. We do not need to listen to those hon members. No inhabitant of Natal has come along to sign any petition. His leader came along to arrange things. That hon member would do well to stay in the Transvaal, because he is already there with the Indians. He must not come and prescribe to us. [Interjections.]

This matter we are dealing with today concerns five areas in Northern Natal, ie Vryheid, Utrecht, Paulpietersburg, Babanango and Ngotshe. Those are five districts which are different as a result of the legislation specified in Act 33 of 1927. That Act restricted the movement of Asians in certain parts of the province of Natal. Let us look at the province of Natal, where the Whites are in the minority in comparison with Blacks and even Indians. It was provided that there would be no freedom of movement in regard to our fellow citizens in South Africa, and I call the Indians fellow citizens in South Africa because that is a fact. [Interjections.]

Yes, and Daan helped to bring that about.

He helped.

Dr Verwoerd made them citizens.

That is correct! We cannot restrict these people in their freedom and prescribe certain things to them. What, however, did that Act provide? In terms of that Act the Indians were not even permitted to travel through those five districts without a permit! In such an event the police had the right to take them into custody. Nor did an Indian have the right to work there, to live there or to transact business there.

It is strange that this legislation was only applicable to male Indians. From 1927 to the present day an Indian woman could move around freely and work in the northern districts of Natal. [Interjections.] So surely it was necessary for us to examine this legislation! [Interjections.] It is perhaps news to hon members here in the House that when this legislation was passed by Parliament in 1927 there were some Indians working at one of the mines in the Vryheid district. They have been working there from 1927 to the present day. The Act is not applicable to them. There is an Indian school that has almost 200 pupils—the children of Indians who have legally been living in the Vryheid area all these years. We are not afraid of the Indians; we are not as afraid of them as the hon member for Rissik and we do not regard them as a threat!

In 1973 there was some relief in the sense that the measures were somewhat relaxed. People said it was terrible that in any one of those five districts an Indian could simply be caught by a policeman for not having a permit. It was then decided that Indians could at least travel through the area without a permit.

Today, in 1986, we are saying that their freedom of movement should be extended further. My neighbouring towns, Newcastle and Dundee, are 70 km from Vryheid, and almost from the beginning of the century the Indians and the Whites have been living there side by side. They have never threatened one another and have never attended one another’s schools. Now the hon members of the CP say that if those measures are no longer implemented, we would have them in our schools and in our residential areas. That has not happened in almost 100 years; why would it suddenly happen tomorrow?

The CP is intimidating the people, and we know what their solution to the problem is. The CP is so afraid that its solution is to establish a new Boer State in Northern Natal, in the Free State and in the Transvaal. They would not, however, have a harbour and would therefore simply arrogate the whole principal seat of kwaZulu to themselves, necessitating the movement from there of 3 million people so that they can have access to the harbour. Those are the kinds of solution they advocate. [Interjections.]

They also ask who we have consulted about this. I shall tell them in what way we consulted people. We decided in Vryheid that we would consult the inhabitants of those five areas. The farming associations— there are 25 of them—could each send two delegates to put their standpoint. The overall administration of the five local authorities could come along to put its case and the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Afrikaanse Sakekamer also sent their representatives. We did not ask whether they were HNP-orientated or CP-orientated. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs came to Vryheid and told them he wanted to know from them what was in the interests of the community.

What is interesting is that the people discussed the matter like adults. The people who went around spreading scare-mongering stories, however, like my friend the hon member for Rissik, began to take their chances. The two great scare-mongers, the chief spokesmen of the HNP and of the CP, carried on so that their stories of racial hatred and mistrust put the wind up an increasingly larger number of people. After all, my people buy things too, and the Indians who have permits also work in the vicinity and commute from Dundee on a daily basis. We know each other by now and have found that in certain respects we need each other.

Things then took a decided turn and we gave them two hours to talk freely. Do hon members know what happened then? The hon member for Sasolburg must now listen carefully. Apparently the leader of the HNP’s delegation, who lived this side of the Buffalo River, in the Utrecht district, had an Indian foreman. We are not permitted to have an Indian foreman, but he has one, and that hon member’s house and the Indian’s house are a short distance apart. Their children play together every day. [Interjections.] What they then said was: “But look, the HNP and the CP want to prescribe to us.” [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Speaker, my time is fairly limited; I am busy at the moment. No, the hon member should rather sit down. [Interjections.]

Those people then saw that those individuals did not practice what they preached. They knew that those people-Whites, but I am not saying from what party—drove from Vryheid to Standerton, to Newcastle, to Dundee in order to be able to buy from Indians, because they thought they could get a better deal there. When they saw, however, who the people were who were telling them not to do this, whilst they themselves were doing it, the people of Vryheid said: “No, we listen to the best advice.” I now want to contend that of the 73 delegates, who were not picked by me, more than 90% said we should of course give the Indians freedom of movement, that we should give them job opportunities in Vryheid, because an increasing number of them were commuting to Vryheid on a daily basis. We should also give them travel and residence facilities. We in Northern Natal say yes to the new South Africa. That is also what the NP says.

I want to tell hon members that the Indians are not individuals who are of no value to this country. They are very valuable to the country. They are of value when it comes to job creation and in various other capacities. I say again that they are citizens of this country, fellow citizens of mine and of other hon members, and the hon member for Rissik, who says that he will oppose this legislation, will not. He will not practice what he preaches. He will continue to speak Afrikaans to the Indians in the Transvaal. I thank him for that.

Those who object to this are not the inhabitants of Natal. They are the inhabitants of the Transvaal who come along and tell us … [Interjections.]

It is the CP.

The Transvaal CPs.

The hon leader of the HNP was there to hold a meeting and to tell my people that they should fear the Indians, that they would be the ruination of my people’s faith, would cause our commercial downfall, would drive us out and I do not know what else. [Interjections.]

Jurie, your time is up. [Interjections.]

The chap sitting here next to me is no friend of mine. He is a Transvaler.

Withdraw your words about the Transvaal.

I withdraw them. [Interjections.]

Today we are faced with this situation, and I wonder where “orreltjie” is—I mean the hon member for Koedoespoort. Do hon members know where he is? He and another Transvaler, Mr Werner Weeber—the hon member for Sasolburg must listen now; it is one of his men—will be holding a meeting tomorrow evening at Vryheid to tell the people there that the kwaNatal discussions should not take place. Sir, trust us, as the NP inhabitants of Natal, to make our own decisions under our own leader.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased that the hon member for Vryheid has at least reminded us of the fact that Northern Natal is also concerned about this Bill. Irrespective of what any of us may think, it is a sad reflection that here we are a hundred years away from the original Chapter XXXIII of the old Free State Act, and we are some 60 years away from the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act of 1927. Yet only today, in 1986, are we doing something about this. Up to this point of the debate, I think hon members on the Government side have in their protestations almost been making excuses for the fact that these steps have not been taken until now. I feel that all of us in this House should take the blame for the fact that nothing has been done until the present. I also have to admit to the House that I cannot recollect anybody in the old United Party wanting to do anything about either of these laws before 1948. I do not think there is anyone in this House who was connected with any political party in South Africa prior to 1948 who did anything about these laws. Let us all then accept responsibility for the fact that these laws have been part and parcel of this country since the foundation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, and since 1927. That should be a sobering thought!

I also do not think that hon members should stand up one after the other, seeking to justify why it has taken us so long. Let us rather say: “Thank heavens—we’ve got there!”

I think too that it is appropriate to use the words of the eucharistic response in the Book of Common Prayer: “It is meet and right so to do”. It is meet and right that we have seen this measure go through both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives before being debated in this House. It is meet and right that they should first have considered these measures because they—not just the Indians but the Coloureds as well—are the people who have been affected more than anybody else. So let none of us posture piously here today. Not one of us has anything to be proud of in this regard.

We in this party welcome the Bill. As far as the rest of the debate is concerned, I know there is going to be a lot of talk about the status of Indians in the Orange Free State and Northern Natal, and about the Coloureds. Many hon members will probably want to quote at length from Chapter XXXIII of the old Lawbook of the Orange Free State. It is a historical document, and in the language of its day it did not read badly. It is in the language of today that it reads badly. It certainly makes no bones about certain facts, referring to Coloureds as people commonly called bastards. That was the language of that day, but today we reject that type of thing.

The Rehoboth people are still called Basters.

There are, however, also other measures in this Bill, the most important of which is the amendment of the Aliens Act, 1937, which completely removes references to race. No longer is any racial preference accorded to people who are seeking to immigrate into the Republic of South Africa. Immigration, which we discussed during the debate on the Home Affairs Vote, has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It is therefore pleasing that this amendment will allow us to address the problem by seeking immigrants of all colours. Before anybody raises a howl about it, why should we not allow professional people of other races to live and work here? Members of the medical profession, for instance, might want to enter this country and, as the hon member for Innesdal so rightly put it, serve people of their own skin colour. How I agree with the hon member that it is not the colour outside but the man within that really counts! We should be looking for this expertise and not worry about the colour of the person’s skin. That is, in fact, what we will be doing from now on.

A second very important amendment is the one that will enable persons who are exempted from the requirement of being in possession of a permit for permanent residence to become South African citizens.

The third important aspect deals with the subject matter of the first portion of my address this afternoon. Another very important aspect of this Bill, however, has to do with the amendment to the oath of allegiance. In terms of this amendment we no longer call on a person who takes an oath of allegiance to declare the following:

Instead we merely ask a person to declare on oath that he—

The hon member for Rissik says he is not going to observe all the laws.

Well, that is between the hon member for Rissik and his conscience. For my own part, I would most happily subscribe to this oath over and over again. In fact, I think there are a lot of people here who have citizenship of other countries and who are reliant on other countries for a source of income in the form of pension, for example, who would be a lot happier to subscribe to this oath than they have been to subscribe to the oath to which we have asked them to subscribe until now.

Finally, I would like to say that in my view one of the most important statements made by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and one which I should like to repeat here this afternoon for the benefit of this House, was his statement that the Government “has irrevocably committed itself to removing discriminatory and offensive measures from the Statute Book”. He went on to say that “the proposed measure is irrefutable proof of the Government’s commitment”.

We on these benches want to congratulate the hon the Minister on that single paragraph of his speech. Moreover, we want to say that we accept and acknowledge that that is indeed the commitment of the Government and we look forward to the day when it will no longer be necessary to have to declare this commitment because it will, in fact, be a thing of the past and because we will have removed every discriminatory and offensive measure from the Statute Book of the Republic of South Africa. We support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, for various reasons today is a very historic day for South Africa. Firstly, this Bill translates into reality the pledges given by the State President on the occasion of the official opening of Parliament this year. He pledged, and I quote:

He also said:

This then translates into reality the declaration of intentions given by the State President to repeal discriminatory legislation such as those measures that are objectionable on moral grounds.

This Bill is also of historic significance to the members of the Indian community of this country. There can be no doubt about the fact that the provisions of the Aliens Act, which regulates immigration on a discriminatory, preferential basis, were designed at that time especially for the members of the Indian community. So too were the following measures: Chapter XXXIII of the Orange Free State Law Book, and the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, 1927. These measures affected the self-respect, the human dignity, the life and the liberty of loyal Indian South Africans.

The special significance of the proposed repeal of this discriminatory legislation is, first of all, that it is taking place in this newly constituted Parliament and, secondly, that it is aimed at removing these objectionable measures after the struggle for their removal began in this country as a result of the initiative of one of the greatest pacifists of our time, Mahatma Gandhi, who spent 20 years of his life on South African soil. [Interjections.] If Gandhiji were alive today this …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he also regards the Group Areas Act as a discriminatory Act?

Mr Chairman, as a result of the short time available to me I will consider questions at the end of my speech.

If Gandhiji were alive today this would have been his proud day because he did not believe in boycott politics. He was a negotiator who believed in adopting a tactic and a particular strategy dependent on the circumstances of the time. This is because the discriminatory measures are being removed peacefully, as a result of a peaceful process, through constitutional means, through the process of evolution and, most important, through a process of negotiation and through a process which the State President once described as “co-operative coexistence”.

I also want to take this opportunity of personally thanking my colleague the hon the Minister of Home Affairs. We in the House of Delegates and the Indian community in particular have embarked on the course of quiet diplomacy on issues like these because we have shown as a result of the patience of 75 years tremendous understanding for one another and especially for one another’s problems. This understanding and patience has paid handsome dividends, ie the Bill that is under discussion in this House today.

I also want to express a word of appreciation to those people of the Republic of South Africa, of the Orange Free State and of some districts of Northern Natal who have given their blessing to the repeal of Chapter XXXIII of the Orange Free State Law Book and the repeal of the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act of 1927.

The South African Citizenship Act of 1949 has also hurt us. It affected our way of life, our activities and our movements. It has no doubt caused us pain, disruption of our family life and labours and also suffering. It has placed a stigma on the declaration made by a former Prime Minister a quarter of a century ago that Indians were citizens of South Africa when we were denied the rights of full citizenship by being regarded as foreigners in certain parts of South Africa. The announcements by the late Prime Minister Dr Verwoerd were major changes in policy towards the Indian community at that particular time. It was the abandoning of the policy of repatriation or the policy of the assisted emigration scheme.

There were many historic exchanges between the Governments of India and South Africa in the past 75 years. Great Indian leaders were involved in these exchanges as a result of deciding to follow the peaceful approach and as a result of deciding to make use of the platforms created by the British Government at that time. I want to mention for example a great Indian lady, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, who played an important role even at the United Nations after India became independent and who led an important delegation to South Africa to the Cape Town conference. The entire South African Cabinet under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of the time signed the historic and internationally accepted Cape Town Agreement of 1927.

I want to make it very, very clear this afternoon—I have said this in other forums and around negotiation tables with former Ministers of the Interior, for example, ex-Minister Dr Mulder—that at no stage in our negotiations and at no stage in our struggle for the removal of these discriminatory laws and practices did we ever ask for Indian immigration. If anybody wants to present any opposition to these measures using Indian immigration as a bogeyman to get support against these measures I want to publicly on behalf of the Indian community state this afternoon we have not asked for Indian immigration and we will not regard these measures as paving the way for Indian immigration and we will not push for Indian immigration.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I will not take a question at this stage as a result of the shortage of time.

We have been very much concerned about the ban on foreign Indian brides. This was relaxed about eight years ago through the efforts of the South African Indian Council who discussed this problem with the Minister of the Interior at that time—I have already mentioned his name.

It took a great Natalian, 126 years ago, to stand up and be counted against mighty opposition to bring Indians to save the economy of Natal from certain disaster. He was none other than Mr T R Saunders who informed the early English settlers of his experiences with the Indian workers in Mauritius. I want to quote from a letter which Mr Saunders sent to The Natal Mercury. It was published in that newspaper on 3 November 1860. I quote:

One of the reasons advanced at the time for the opposition to bringing Indian labour to the Colony of Natal was the question of disease. The report of the Medical Officer of Health in 1860 is on record in the Natal Legislative Council buildings and if anybody wants to support that particular objection the records are there for their benefit.

I have referred to the role of a great Natalian, Mr T R Saunders. Today it takes another great Natalian, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, to present a Bill in this historic Parliament to remove measures which we have abhorred for almost one and a quarter centuries. [Interjections.] For this we are indeed grateful.

Some stated, when we fought very, very hard to lift the ban imposed on foreign Indian brides, that the floodgates would be opened. To those who believed that the floodgates would be opened and to those who believed in opposing foreign Indian brides coming to this country, my simple answer is: The statistics speak for themselves. The department has the applicable statistics and the number of applications has now been reduced to a trickle of only a few per year.

Although the provisions of the Aliens Act do not refer to Indians we are aware of the fact that the deeming order which came into effect in 1913 and which was later repealed, referred especially to Asiatics, and we are aware that this Act was designed especially at that particular time for the members of the Indian community. It may be necessary for me to repeat—just in case some people may be unnecessarily worried—that we have not asked for Indian immigration.

Our self-respect was seriously affected by the issuing of the deeming order on 1 August 1913 in terms of section 4(2)(a) of Act No 22 of 1913. The admission of Asians to the Republic was regulated by this deeming order. However, until restrictions imposed by the provisions of Act 43 of 1953 became operative with effect from 10 February 1953, Indian men were permitted to contract marriages abroad in terms of section 5(2)(g) of Act No 22 of 1913.

It may be necessary to highlight attitudes towards Indians in the last one and a quarter centuries in this country. In 1843 Sir George Napier, the Governor of the Cape Colony, reiterated the colonial policy of Britain as follows:

Following the 1914-18 War, General J C Smuts wrote:

Just in case there is any gloating over this statement, I should tell hon members that General Smuts retracted it after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

Former Prime Minister General Botha rejoiced in the applause that greeted these remarks he made in the House of Assembly:

In contrast, historian Edgar H Brooks has written as follows in A History of Natal:

Speaking in the old Legislative Assembly of Natal in July 1908, Sir L Hulett stated the following:

Section 13(1)(a) of Act 59 of 1972, which embraces the terms of section 4(1)(a) of Act 22 of 1913, states which persons are prohibited in terms of law but does not mention Indians by name. That section of the law, however, authorises the deeming of any person or category of persons on economic grounds, or on account of standards or habits of life to be unsuited to the requirements of the Republic or any particular province thereof.

Today we are facing the reality, which is an extension of the historic declaration made by the late Prime Minister, Dr H F Verwoerd, that South Africans would no longer be foreigners in this country, but would be part…

Traitors!

Say it out loud … if you have the nerve.

Traitors!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon for Kuruman refer to these hon members as “traitors”?

He was referring to you!

May he refer to me as a “traitor”?

To whom was the hon member for Kuruman referring?

I was referring to this lot sitting here in front of me.

The hon member must withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw that, Sir. [Interjections.]

It is a disgrace!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Should the hon member for Rissik not also withdraw his allegation that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament was a traitor?

Mr Speaker, I shall withdraw that on your insistence.

You are a disgrace!

Did the hon member for Rissik withdraw that?

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Turffontein say that the hon member for Rissik is a “disgrace”? [Interjections.]

I think the hon member for Turffontein should also moderate his language a little. I do not think we should refer to hon members as “disgraces”. After all, we are all people.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Rissik say that I am lying?

Did the hon member say that the hon the Minister was lying?

Yes, Sir, I did say that and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I was referring to the historic decision made by the former Prime Minister, the late Dr H F Verwoerd. [Interjections.] Today this historic Bill translates into full reality and gives our people full citizenship rights in respect of the Orange Free State and certain districts of Northern Natal. As far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, we shall pursue our negotiations with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in accordance with our policy of adopting a pragmatic approach.

While I am talking about the legislation relating to certain districts of Northern Natal, I would like to mention something about Paulpietersburg which forms part of that territory. I noticed that the licence plates of their vehicles bear the letters “NPP”. This might just be a historic coincidence!

I want to wind up with a very important quotation of a guru of Mahatma Gandhi, the late Rabindranath Tagore, particularly from the point of view that Mahatma Gandhi started the struggle in respect of the repeal of the legislation which is being discussed in the House. I quote:

Mahatma Gandhi said:

His pupil, or in Indian language, his tjela, became a great Prime Minister of India, and when he was addressing the UN Assembly, he said:

Mr Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to follow the hon the Minister this afternoon.

This year it is exactly 30 years since I moved to Natal from the Orange Free State where I grew up. For the benefit of the hon members on the CP side, I shall come back to my Free State bona fides a bit later, but I want to say that in the 30 years that I have lived in Natal, the province where 80% of the hon the Minister’s fellow countrymen live, I have come to know the Indian population of Natal well. Today I count many of them among my friends, and I must say in this 30 year period I have not, through my close contact with the Indian community, lost one iota of my love of my own heritage and my own Afrikaans background; on the contrary, getting to know the Indian population of Natal has taught me that there are certain sterling qualities in the people of that population group which we would do well to emulate. One of them, which is possibly not so well known, is their very deep love of their own people and their own customs. Another is the very deep sense of religion of the particular religious groups to which they belong. The third and possibly the most captivating of their attributes is the fact that there is no population group in South Africa that I know of that cares more and does more for the education of their own children.

The hon member for Umhlanga has already sounded a penitent note that it is only now that we have got round to passing this particular legislation. I agree with him although I do not think that there is any need now to humble ourselves collectively for the sins of omission over these many years. Having said that, however, it needs to be said that it is a proud moment for us on this side of the House to be instrumental in the removal of this legislative anachronism.

This is far more than just opening up a part of South Africa to a particular section of the South African population. This Bill is part of a much larger reform process, a process aimed at the removal of all forms of hurtful discrimination among South Africans. It is hoped that eventually there will not be any cause for anybody to speak of first class and second class South Africans.

The hon the Minister and his party may agree with us in some respects. His party may also differ from us in some respects. However, he represents that broad group of moderates among the Indian people who believe in the politics of negotiation rather than in the politics of confrontation.

If there is to be a future for our country, it will have to depend on those people among the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the Black people who choose the politics of negotiation rather than those of confrontation.

*We have said that it took a long time before we tackled this legislation. I find it strange—if I must now come back to the hon member for Rissik—that during this year, 1986, hon members of the CP can still object to this legislation.

When all is said and done, hon members of the CP probably do not want to imply that it is this State President, this Government of Pres P W Botha, which has been responsible for the acknowledgement of the Indian population as a permanent part of the South African population. I have always thought that as far back as 1969 the HNP broke away from the NP because it believed that the late Mr Vorster had deviated from the NP’s set course. We also hear the CP now saying that the present State President has deviated from the course set for the NP by the previous Prime Minister. But it was not, after all, Mr Vorster or the present State President, when he was still Prime Minister, who recognised the Indian population of South Africa as a permanent part of our population. [Interjections.] Was it not more than 20 years ago that the late Dr Verwoerd accepted the Indian population as a permanent part of our society. That was, after all, the NP leader who not only had CP adherents, a CP following; the hon member for Sasolburg was then also a staunch Nationalist! For 16 years—in his own words—that hon member had been wandering in the desert, and surely he is still in full agreement with Dr Verwoerd’s standpoints. He says, does he not, that we on this side of the House have deviated from Dr Verwoerd’s standpoints. So if the hon member for Sasolburg acknowledges the fact that the Indians were accepted by Dr Verwoerd as a permanent part of this population, how much more so should the CP not acknowledge this?

Up to that stage the official policy of the NP was one of repatriation. So one can perhaps excuse the fact that as long as the NP was adopting a policy of repatriation, it allowed the 1927 Act and the old Free State legislation to remain on the Statute Book. At that stage, after all, that legislation drew no distinction between various permanent South Africans, as seen by the NP.

As soon as the leader in chief of the old, true NP—according to the description of those hon members—said that he accepted Asiatics as members of South African society, that legislation of 1927 and earlier began to clash with the concept of one South African population and non-discrimination amongst South Africans. The worst that hon members of the CP and of the HNP can blame us for is for having waited an exceedingly long time to eliminate this anachronism! They certainly can blame us least of all for doing so today. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik, with tears in his eyes, spoke here about inherited land we were relinquishing, etc. In no way do I stand back for him in my appreciation of my heritage. Let me tell the hon member something that I do not very much like to boast about. I am the grandson of an old Free State diehard who fought in the Free State artillery to the very end of the Anglo-Boer War. [Interjections.] The family homestead, which was burnt down during that war, belongs to me today, as does the land on which it stands. I could speak of inherited land in the Free State; I could speak of a Free State heritage. That hon member is a Free State import who has not yet been given one single mandate by the people of the Free State. Where does he get the right to tell us, who were born and bred in the Free State, what the Free State wants or does not want? [Interjections.]

It seems now to be very fashionable to point out to us each and every point on which the NP has deviated from tried and trusted paths. Why does the hon member for Rissik not get up and say that his erstwhile leader, Dr Verwoerd, should have amended the Act when he decided the Indians were a permanent part of this population? Why does the hon member not get up and say that? The principle Act of 1927 and the old Free State Act were surely no longer reasonable once that announcement had been made. [Interjections.] Surely he could not then have continued to have recourse to those old Acts. Surely he should then have adopted and introduced, by way of legislation, a permanent policy of discrimination against the Indians or have passed the legislation that we have here today. Now the hon member for Rissik comes along with long crocodile tears, not because they cherish any terribly deep feeling of love for the Free State, but because they think they can derive some political benefit from this legislation.

The people of South Africa have left that mentality far behind. They know what South Africa wants, and they know that today it is infinitely more important for us to take along with us those moderates who want to take the Whites by the hand and go forward than to try to backtrack to so-called benefits we had previously and make them a permanent source of irritation that just keeps dragging on.

Mr Speaker, in its own way, this is a historic day. It is so for two particular reasons. One is that we are debating the repeal of certain discriminatory measures and the second is that this afternoon we saw the delivery of a maiden speech in this House by a person of colour.

In that respect I must express my regret that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates did not stand here in his own right. He came here as a Minister of the Cabinet, and it is in that capacity that he is entitled to come and address this House. However, the other hon members of the House of Delegates do not enjoy that right and are thus not permitted to come and address this House. That is very regrettable. [Interjections.] We look forward to the day when all the representatives of all the people of this country are able to take part in debates in this House. [Interjections.]

It is also appropriate that we should be dealing with this measure that has been introduced by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs today while some of the hon members on the other side of the House are wearing white flowers in their lapels. What they are commemorating today is their election to this House five years ago on 29 April 1981. However, instead of wearing white flowers they should be wearing black armbands because it is inappropriate for any hon member on that side of the House who was elected for a period of five years to be rejoicing in that fact without having gone back to the voters to seek a further mandate. [Interjections.] In that respect the commemoration of their election is sad and I am not happy to see those hon members sitting there with their white flowers. Even the hon member for De Kuilen, who can hardly be called a new member, is wearing a white flower. He has been a member of many, many parties and has sat in many benches in this House, and for him to rejoice in the fact that he has been a member here for five years is ironic indeed. [Interjections.] I cannot hear the hon member, but we will talk later.

I want to get back to the Bill. Like my colleague the hon member for Green Point, I want to say that we will support the Bill for a number of reasons. The first is that it simplifies certain measures in the department. The second is that it removes doubt concerning aliens and concerning the question whether they have to possess a permit in certain circumstances. However, we will mainly support the Bill because it removes discriminatory measures from the Statute Book.

It is often said about South Africa that we enshrine discrimination in the Statute Book, that it is often practised in other countries but that we are the only country in the world to enshrine it in statutes. That is quite correct and therefore it should be welcomed when we repeal a discriminatory measure, and this has our wholehearted support.

The discriminatory measures repealed include measures to restrict immigration of wives to South Africa. Much has been said about that, particularly by the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Delegates. What has been made clear is that the Aliens Act at present provides that the Immigrants Selection Board shall not authorise the issue of a permit for permanent residence to any person unless that person is likely to become readily assimilated with the European inhabitants of the Republic within a reasonable period. That is now being amended to provide that the criterion required shall be that a prospective immigrant shall within a reasonable period after his entry into the Republic become assimilated with any community of the Republic. We welcome that provision. This means that the Immigrants Selection Board is no longer restricted by the provision that prospective immigrants have to be assimilated into the European inhabitants of the country.

If we are to have reform by stealth and if we are to have reform by instalments then this is one of those measures which—if I have to repeat myself—we have to welcome. We would rather have a clear indication of where the Government is going—a clear statement of intent. However, if it has to be done by instalments then this is the type of measure which we can expect from the Government.

The hon member for Innesdal was correct in saying that there was a fair degree of unanimity on this measure in the standing committee. Other than the one dissenting vote of the hon member for Rissik this measure was accepted and received with enthusiastic approval by the standing committee.

I have mentioned the one discriminatory measure which is to be repealed. A second measure is the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, 1927. Another measure is Chapter XXXIII of the “Wetboek van den Oranjevrijstaat”. Both these measures have been mentioned by previous speakers but I want to highlight one or two aspects of those Acts.

The Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act is really a very disgraceful discriminatory piece of legislation and I am extremely pleased that it is going to be repealed. The Act provides that those Asiatics resident in the northern districts of Natal at the time of the commencement of the Act— which was on 1 January 1928—would be entitled to registration and to remain in the area. This was bad enough but anyone wanting to live in the northern districts had to make application and the registrar had to publish all the applicant’s personal particulars in the Gazette. Anyone could object to the application and the poor applicant had to suffer the humiliation of responding in court to the objections raised by any individual.

The most discriminatory section of the Act is section 7 which provides that:

1. (1) Every adult Asiatic entering or residing in the northern districts shall upon demand made upon him by any European member of a police force lawfully established in the country or any other European person authorised thereto by the Minister, produce the certificate of registration of which he is the lawful holder and supply such particulars and furnish such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulation.

That really is a disgraceful piece of discrimination and it is entirely appropriate that it should be repealed.

Section 7(2) reads as follows:

This refers to an order removing the Asiatic from the district.

The entire Act is to be repealed. As passes for Blacks have been abolished, it is appropriate that they be abolished for Asiatics as well.

The second piece of legislation that is to be repealed is that relating to the entry of Asiatics into the Orange Free State. We support the removal of this provision from our Statute Book because, among other things, it provides “against the influx of Asiatics and for the removal of White criminals entering this State from elsewhere”. The hon member for Umhlanga reminded us about the style of language of previous years, but it is nevertheless obvious that Asiatics and White criminals were linked in the Orange Free State in those days.

The old Orange Free State law states the following:

It provides that Coloureds may reside there under certain conditions which are similar to those imposed upon Asiatics in the northern districts of Natal. It is, however, grossly discriminatory towards Coloured people as is shown by the following provision:

It also makes the following provision:

Those were terribly discriminatory pieces of legislation enacted in the last century, and we are pleased they are to be repealed.

Now my colleague, the hon member for Green Point, has raised the question of the Indians who may now enter the Orange Free State but, in terms of the Group Areas Act, may not reside there. So, one must ask, how the situation is to be improved. Where will Indians live in the Orange Free State? Where will they attend school in the Orange Free State? I hope the hon the Minister will address his mind to this problem and give us some sort of answer when he replies to the debate. However, in this connection, I want to make a suggestion to him. I should like to suggest that he considers recommending to the State President that the provisions of the Group Areas Act should be suspended as far as the Orange Free State is concerned. This would be a simple way of dealing with the problem and, as we are in a time of reform and adaptation, it will be appropriate to repeal or amend or adapt laws rather than to impose restrictions on people. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister will give due consideration to recommending to the State President that the Group Areas Act be suspended in the Free State. It would be an excellent pilot scheme and it could be extended to other parts of the country.

The final provision of the Bill which is worthy of comment, is clause 12 which provides for the Oath of Allegiance to be amended. The hon member for Umhlanga drew attention to this provision and noted that certain sections, namely the section which provides for the unreserved renouncing of allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state or head of state, is to be withdrawn from the oath. It is now simply an oath to the effect that the immigrant or prospective immigrant “will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, observe its laws, promote all that which will advance it and oppose all that may harm it”. This is a much simpler oath and we are pleased that it has been included in the Bill. We welcome it, as we said at the time in the standing committee. We felt that the previous oath was far too restrictive because people who had been resident in South Africa for many years but were citizens of other countries had found that they did not necessarily want to renounce any allegiance or fidelity to their previous countries of residence. At the same time they wanted to become South African citizens, but they found it difficult to take the oath which was prescribed in the previous Act. Therefore this oath has made things a lot simpler for the people and it will not upset them. We welcome it.

In conclusion I just want to mention the attitude of the members of the CP. One does not deny them the opportunity to put their point of view, but their reaction to matters of race are really so objectionable that we reject them with utter contempt. We will have nothing whatsoever to do with their amendment, and we will support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, various standpoints have been put here this afternoon on this important matter. In opening I wish to point out that I spoke in another debate on certain aspects of immigration and the way in which it takes place. The hon the Minister did not reply to the representations I made to him but I wish to thank him that his department has meanwhile informed me that those matters will receive attention. I wish to point out to the hon Minister that I regard those matters as of exceptional importance.

The hon member for Johannesburg North again proceeded in his usual vein and involved other matters here at which I shall not pause now.

When there is a change and certain Acts are repealed or amended, we are sometimes inclined to say that those who included those Acts in the Statute Book at the time made a mistake. This may have been so but I think we should be realistic and take the circumstances under which that measure was considered into account. In consequence I now wish to put it that I am in favour of the amending Bill before us but I do not wish to express an opinion on the decisions taken at the time under circumstances differing from those of the present.

I wish to refer to clause 13 in particular which affects the old “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat”. I want to state that, when that Act was passed, the Free State population was much smaller than it is today and circumstances quite different. The economy also differed from that of today. I shall leave it at that as I should like to respond to the hon member for Rissik’s statements.

The hon member asked in the first place where this side of the House had obtained its mandate to take such a step. I merely wish to ask the hon member—he is the so-called leader of the CP in the Free State—whether he did not take note that the annual congress of the NP in the Free State decided almost unanimously that Chapter 33 of the “Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat” could be deleted.

The NP congress is not the entire Free State. Just understand that very well!

The hon member for Rissik can say what he likes but he knows the Free State annual congress is able to determine policy and take decisions.

For the NP but not for the people of the Free State. [Interjections.]

Of course the annual congress of the NP does not decide for the CP nor do I think they are interested in deciding for it. Thirteen of the 14 elected representatives of the Free State here are members of this party in any case.

The hon member also repeated the story as regards religion and said for instance that Islamic churches would also have to be erected now. Nevertheless he knows the Constitution provides for freedom of religion and faith. Is he not content with that? Neither is it included only in this Constitution; the previous one also laid this down. Does the hon member want to reject that now? [Interjections.]

I wish to tell him there are quite a number of people with CP leanings in my part of the world who travel to neighbouring towns in the Transvaal, for example Klerksdorp or Bloemhof, to buy their provisions.

That is an old rumour! [Interjections.]

If Indians were to enter that vicinity, CP supporters would find it far more convenient as they are travelling quite a distance even at present to purchase supplies! Even merchants purchase stocks from Indian traders.

I wish to refer to the run-up to this matter. The State President declared he would consult the elected leaders of the Free State in this regard and that he would be guided by their decision. By coincidence the hon member for Rissik is not an elected Free State leader. [Interjections.] As I have already said, NP leaders in the Free State and the NP congress decided that this was a desirable amendment.

You have an elected minority in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Kuruman’s constituency is not in the Free State in any case. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon member for Rissik and his party that this matter no longer carries any political punch in the Free State. They will really not be able to extract any more poison from this matter. [Interjections.] The matter is no longer even discussed; the Free State regards it as a fait accompli. I do not think the hon member can make any more capital out of this. What does Chapter XXXIII of the Wetboek van den Oranje-Vrijstaat lay down? It lays down that no Arab, Chinese, Coolie or other Asiatic Coloured may live in the Free State for longer than two months without the permission of the state president. In addition, people to whom this prohibition applies may not possess any fixed property neither may they operate a commercial business or farming enterprise—directly or indirectly. The provision may also include Taiwanese.

I wish to state further that this Act is not clear. The question arises whether a Lebanese—of whom scores live in the Free State—is an Arab. Who falls under Asiatic Coloureds? Is a commercial business and an industry one and the same? Does that provision also affect industries? Mr Justice Strydom does not think so.

What about Bengalis?

Mr Justice Strydom stated that industries were not affected by this restriction on a commercial business.

I wish to point out further that the Free State assembly of the time did not come to a unanimous decision when the legislation was passed. At the time when that decision was taken the Free State was an independent state but it now forms part of the Republic of South Africa. That is an appreciable difference. That independent state could take certain decisions but now the Free State is part of the Republic of South Africa. I do not believe an area within this country can be excluded from legislation.

The reasons put forward in favour of the legislation at the time in any case are no longer valid today. That is really so.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h00 until tomorrow at 14h15, pursuant to the Resolution adopted on Thursday, 27 March.