as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Paarl Mountain Amendment Bill (Hybrid) [B 26—83], submitting a Bill [B 26—83]—[B 108—84 (Select Committee)] with amendments [B 108a—84],

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Mr Speaker, we shall soon be completing another chapter in the interesting history of our country. I believe it would be appropriate for me to say a few words about what has been achieved in various fields over the years under the existing system, the system that will soon be coming to an end.

Since 1910 we have lived under the Westminster system and a large section of the population has desired not only to change the form of government to a republican one, but also to give new substance to that form of government. However, this was opposed by another part of the population and as a result a constitutional struggle developed. However, I believe that we can all admit to one another that despite that struggle, exchange of ideas and friction, constitutional means were used, not other means, and this has entailed considerable changes, for White South Africa in particular.

I shall just refer in passing to the equal treatment of the languages of the two White population groups in South Africa. I refer, too, to the fact that we obtained sovereign independence and a republican form of government, as well as a single citizenship of our own, a flag and a national anthem that could serve, and are serving, as symbols of our nationhood. Moreover I wish to refer to a spirit of South Africanism that is manifesting itself to an increasing extent and has in several ways taken root among South Africans. Therefore the constitutional struggle has born fruit in various spheres, and the peace, orderliness and degree of co-operation and better understanding that this has given rise to has also had favourable results in the economic sphere, where people have learnt to co-operate with one another. It has also contributed in general towards making our country a relatively modern state in a continent of cruel contradictions. Today one experiences that spirit of South Africanism and nationhood wherever one goes in the country. One encounters better attitudes among people and a better understanding of one another.

As hon members are aware, during my recent journey overseas I visited two specific places overseas, viz the Kruger House at Clarens and the Delville Wood Monument, in order to lay the foundation stone of the museum which is to be erected behind the monument. I found it striking how that house and the Delville Wood Monument had come into being, albeit by virtue of different approaches and with different ideals. In fact those two points have become symbols of our freedom and our nationhood. Today all South Africans are proud to visit both those places, in a spirit of South Africanism.

Most of us in this Parliament have also been faced with a different reality, a reality which has taken shape over the past four to five decades, viz a further adaptation of the Westminster system which has led to renewal and reform in the interests of the diversity the communities that make up our population. It has led to better accommodation of minority groups; it has led to better structures whereby people have been able to give expression to their political ideals. It is pointless trying to deny this. Particularly since 1960, when the Republic became a reality, it has been possible to devote more attention to the development of the political structures and ambitions, and the political reconciliation of the ideals, of other population groups in South Africa. Whether we want to know about it or not, there are today free and independent peoples who, at the time of Union in 1910, had no political say, no franchise, no self-determination and no way of making their voices heard. Of these, four have become independent by way of the adaptation of the Westminster system. Another group of states has become self-governing, states which, between 1910 and 1960, had virtually no political rights, but which, since 1936, were represented in this House of Assembly by a few Whites. Therefore it is a reality that we have been faced with, that as far as our Black communites are concerned, a drastic change has occurred in the Westminster system as we knew it in 1910. Without the help of those self-governing and independent states and their leaders, the political future of Black communities outside those countries cannot be solved. Therefore, disparaging the leaders and governments of these Black independent and self-governing states will not contribute in any way towards a search for and the finding of a better solution.

Before 1960 there was a struggle concerning reform and renewal, but in 1960 this began to take shape, and every generation will have to carry on with that reform and renewal. The means whereby we are to consider that reform and renewal, are being created daily. Already there are multilateral discussions on a large scale, to which I shall refer again later. There is recognition on an equal basis of the right of leaders to make their contributions. The renewal and reform away from the original Westminster system has know also given rise to new relations for the Coloureds and Indians. I do not want to dwell on this at length today, but will confine myself to saying that whereas we are entering a new dispensation, the greatest responsibility as regards what we say and do not say, rests not only on Whites and the White leaders in this country, but equally on the leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians who have to take part in this new dispensation. If we begin even now to issue threats to one another in respect of statements made by this or that person we shall not find this renewal and reform, but will be playing into the hands of the forces of revolution which thus far have not succeeded in bringing South Africa down.

As I have said, the Westminster system has been adapted by way of renewal and reform to serve South Africa in its diversity. The principle of devolution of power has become a reality, and this is perhaps the most important and fundamental principle upon which the future must be built. Without devolution of power, peace in South Africa, with its minority groups, cannot be found, nor can the threat of domination be prevented. Therefore, we must learn rather to live with it in a positive spirit than to try to disparage it. We should rather try to develop and perfect it, as far as humanly possible, although it will never be perfect. The principle of consultation in matters of common concern has also become a reality. No government, of whatever nature, can deny these two realities, viz the devolution of power and the concept of co-operation in respect of common interests.

In my opinion the powers that seek to incite revolution are getting a less and less favourable response from South Africans. Of course they shout all the louder; they become increasingly reckless—in the outside world as well—even as regards their campaign of slander abroad. However, they are getting a less and less favourable response from South Africans of all communities and all population groups, because South Africans of all population groups clearly perceive the reality that economic prosperity, ecomomic interdependence and peaceful coexistence are prerequisites for our children’s happiness in this country. Therefore I wish to make the appeal this afternoon that we guard against joining with the forces of revolution in what we do and say, and setting them an example by making impossible demands of the country.

Since we are taking leave of the old dispensation, I think that we can look back in gratitude, and at the same time, as a country and a population, look ahead in a spirit of hope.

I wish to deal briefly with certain statements made yesterday by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, which I do not want to allow to pass unremarked. He asked, inter alia: “Is it any wonder that in Africa and now also in South Africa, the highest good for the individual is not to explore his own creativity, but to get a nice secure job from the State?” I should not have chosen that same form of words, but if what the hon the Leader of the Opposition meant by that was greater productivity from everyone, if he meant greater thrift and fewer demands on the State, I agree with him, and I think that is a happy note on which we can agree with one another in this Third Reading debate. The country must be told by all responsible leaders, by all of us sitting here, that South Africa does not have unlimited wealth, nor does South Africa have unlimited resources to share out.

South Africa’s people will have to work harder, and not only work harder, but be more productive as well. Fewer demands will have to be made on the State. We as members of Parliament will have to set the example with regard to what we ourselves ask, not only for ourselves but also on behalf of our voters. We shall have to have the ability to say to our voters that there are certain limits to the resources of a state, and that those limits can only be raised if the inhabitants of South Africa exert themselves to show greater productivity, a greater sense of thrift and greater dedication. Therefore a spirit of service must take root. If that is what the hon the Leader of the Opposition meant I agree with him, and I want to make that appeal a joint appeal to the country today.

However, the hon the Leader of the Opposition also made a few mistakes. I do not take it amiss of him, because it seems to me that he has a bureaucracy in his head office, too, which sometimes gives him incorrect information. He spoke about the number of officials in the Public Service, and the statements he made in this regard differ from the true facts. Between 1978 and 1983 the number of public servants in the central Government increased from 314 321 to 327 000. That is an increase of 58 562. Of this number, the number of teachers in the employ of the central Government who serve the non-White people—that is to say, the teachers in Coloured education, Indian education and those employed by the Department of Education and Training—increased from 61 736 to 82 487. That is an increase of 33,5%. Therefore the Leader of the Opposition should be a little cautious. The total increase in the number of officials in the central Government between 1978 and 1983 was 58 000, and of this number, 20 000 were in the service of education for non-White communities. Does he want that abolished?

No, certainly not.

Very well. Surely, then, he must admit that the conclusions he drew were not really justified.

Let me proceed. In the 1974-75 financial year the salaries of the officials of the central Government amounted to R1 527 million, while the revenue of the central Government was R4 521 million. Therefore the officials, salaries comprised 33,7% of the revenue of the central Government. In the 1983-84 financial year the figure was 30,3%. It is evident from this that the percentage of the revenue of the central Government made up by officials’ salaries has declined from 33,7% to 30,3% since the financial year 1974-75. I think that the hon member should go and discuss the matter with that bureaucracy of his. I think they should do their sums more carefully. In his speech the hon the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the total salary package of officials of the central Government, plus the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the SATS, which amounted to R8 719 million in the 1983-84 financial year. However, he expressed that total as a percentage of the central Revenue Account, and left out the revenue of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the SATS. [Interjections.]

†Then the hon the Leader of the Opposition also referred in derogatory terms to Transkei. Personally, I am very sorry that he did so. I do not deny that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has the right to criticize any of the self-governing states or even independent states should he choose to do so. I want to say, however, that the way in which he did so does not contribute towards establishing better relationships in Southern Africa. Let us compare Transkei with a country like Lesotho. Those two countries border on each other. The hon the Leader of the Opposition tells me that he is all in favour of the independence of Lesotho. He will not deny that. The Lesotho Government presented a budget of R340,6 million in February 1984. Where does that money come from? Do the Opposition members want to argue that the citizens of Lesotho are better off than, say, those of Transkei or Ciskei?

That was not my argument.

It must surely be known that Lesotho is just as dependent on outside funds as are the TBVC countries.

*Very well. Our assistance to the Transkei consists of budgetary assistance, project assistance that is carefully examined before being made available, aid by way of the Development Bank and employment of certain people for specific projects. In other words, we are not providing “hand-outs”. These things are carefully calculated in advance and monitored. According to the best information at our disposal, as far as Lesotho is concerned there are 140 000 workers working in the Republic of South Africa, and their income totals R300 million. That represents virtually half of the total gross revenue of Lesotho. Does the hon the Leader of the Opposition now wish to argue that this makes Lesotho a better or weaker country than Transkei? We are in Africa, and for the very reason that we are in Africa it is not correct to say, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition has said, “The Government’s policy of self-governing states is nothing else but the multiplication of bureaucratic disaster areas”. Surely that is absolute nonsense. Is the hon the Leader of the Opposition forgetting about the multilateral co-operation which was initiated under this Government and which is beginning to bear fruit on a large scale? Is he forgetting about the Development Bank of Southern Africa, which is already engaged in 80 projects totalling more than R300 million?

Those projects come from the Development Bank.

That may be so, but the question is why the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not also mention the better methods of furnishing aid and the better methods of development aid offered by this Government, in contrast to what is happening in Africa? The hon the Leader of the Opposition knows that specifically with a view to countering this problem, the Government has introduced regional development and decentralization of industries, and is he aware of what a great success this is, in spite of the depression conditions? Surely the hon the Leader of the Opposition knows about the founding of the Small Business Development Corporation, which has taken place in consultation with the private sector, and it is clear that it is yielding good results and will make a contribution, specifically to prevent people from becoming dependent on the State.

However, what does the policy of the PFP say? The hon the Leader of the Opposition should just go and look at page 13 of the policy he published.

Is this now “social democracy”?

I do not know whether it is “social democracy” or “democratic socialism”. But listen to this:

Is he, therefore, also going to establish such little states now? Hon members must now listen to what, among other things, will guide them: Firstly, community of interests of the population in the area; secondly, the desirability of a high degree of homogeneity, and in addition, economic viability and potential, administrative effectiveness and the existence of certain semi-autonomous areas. Is that not precisely what we, too, are promoting, viz better administration, greater viability in the economic sphere and development projects whereby to provide people with employment? On what does the hon the Leader of the Opposition base this criticism that he is now, all of a sudden, advancing? It seems to me that the hon the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter because he in fact lacked a good subject to talk about.

I should now like to say something about my European tour. Indeed, I deem it my duty to give a synoptic account of the tour. I did not simply decide, of my own accord, to go to Europe and obtrude myself there, as is suggested in certain circles. I was invited to Europe by certain heads of government, not because I am who I am, but because I believe they realized that I am a Prime Minister of a country that must be taken account of in Southern Africa. Secondly, I did not go as a beggar. In the third place, I did not go to Europe with a presumption, with the presumptious dream that, figuratively speaking, I would be able to take Europe by storm. I went to Europe as a realist.

We conducted a wide range of discussions with heads of State, heads of Government, Government members and opposition leaders, in the first place. We were received by these heads of Government, heads of State and members of Parliament with the utmost courtesy and dignity. Reports to the contrary are entirely unfounded and are only meant to discredit those heads of government with their own people—and the reaction to what subsequently occurred in those countries has reached me. I have received hundreds of letters concerning such reports, and I was pleased to be able to refute that, because I met with only courtesy and decency in Europe at governmental level and at the level of parliamentary institutions.

Other malicious gossip about this visit of mine has been disseminated, but I do not wish to say anything about that today. I shall tell hon members why. I think that gossip is the work of people with an inferiority complex. Therefore I shall leave it at that.

I should also like to specify in this House, as far as possible, the subjects about which we conducted discussions. In Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium and Austria we attended important meetings not only of government leaders but also of business leaders and investors from various continents. Some of those conferences were representative of virtually every continent on earth this side of the Iron Curtain. We addressed those meetings; I had the necessary assistance, because I saw to it that I also had experts at my disposal there. We answered questions and provided information which, I believe, must be to the benefit of South Africa at the economic level.

In addition, we attended several media conferences and addressed individual media representatives, and with some of them we conducted interviews about South Africa and Southern Africa. Fourthly, we attended an important conference of South African ambassadors and conducted discussions in connection with South Africa’s interests and our relations with other countries, and this was fruitful.

Fifthly, certain discussions with government leaders dealt with bilateral intergovernmental matters, and in several instances these were fruitful.

†I also availed myself of the opportunity to bring home to certain Governments the importance of the Cape sea route as well as the importance to the West of long distance reconnaissance in the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans because this is a matter of vital importance to the whole of the Western World. The West, to my mind and I told them so, painted themselves into a corner at the Security Council of the United Nations with regard to the arms embargo, and now some of them do not know how to get out of it. The responsibility in this connection rests heavily on their shoulders. I informed them that the Shackletons were to be withdrawn from service towards the end of 1984. I also told them that we were concentrating on coastal defence because of the denial to us of long distance reconnaissance aircraft. I told them about our modern harbour facilities, especially Simon’s Town which had been developed during the last two decades as rapidly as possible and was to be made one of the most modern harbours for defence in the southern hemisphere. I told them about Silvermine and the facilities at Durban and Walvis Bay. I told them that the arms embargo against us was in many aspects a total failure. I think it was necessary for me to speak to responsible leaders in this way.

Since all of those whom we met were interested in what is happening in Southern Africa and since some of them had interests in South Africa, I shared some thoughts with them on developments in Africa and in Southern Africa. I came to the conclusion that European countries were rather disillusioned with some African countries, just as I have come to the conclusion that some African countries are rather disillusioned with many European countries.

I told them that the realities of Africa constituted a bleak if not tragic picture, and I referred them to reports in this connection. Political instability is evidenced by the fact that in the past 25 years more than 70 leaders in Africa in 29 African nations have been deposed by assassination or purges or overthrown by coups. Economic disintegration is a sad yet undeniable reality. The estimated foreign debt of African countries amounts to $100 million. Essential government and social services like education, health care, transportation and many others are in disarray and deteriorating. United Nations statistics show that seven out of 10 Africans are destitute or on the verge of poverty. In fact, it has been projected that 5 million children in Africa will die of starvation this year. Per capita food production is declining. While Africa’s population increase of 2,9% per annum is the highest in the world, food output grows by only 1,3% per annum.

I brought these figures to their attention and I told them that we could not rejoice in Africa’s plight and that we believed that we had the duty in Southern Africa to plead with other nations of the world to join forces and to change these conditions in the interest of humanity. But at the same time I also told them that South Africa was standing out as a strong regional power economically and militarily and as such could be of service to and act in the interests of neighbouring states in Southern Africa, and we spelt it out to them to what extent it could be done.

*I also spoke to them about the Republic’s capacity for leadership in Southern Africa. I informed them that several hundreds of thousands of people from neighbouring countries were working in the Republic illegally in order to improve their lot. I informed them that we were a stabilizing factor in Southern Africa, but I also informed them that in my opinion, the presence of 30 000 Cuban troops in Angola was being maintained by the Soviet Union in order to destabilize Southern Africa. I encountered strong support for this standpoint. I emphasized the need for the Cubans to withdraw from Southern Africa for the sake of peace and prosperity. I encountered no opposition in regard to this point, except from one or two persons whom I would not really regard as being among the most informed people in Europe.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition said that he was unable to understand an offer which I made in connection with South West.

†What did I tell them? I am going to quote what I told them:

I have been asked why I have raised this matter with European Governments during my visit. The answer to that must be obvious. On 31 January 1984 I stated in this Parliament that it cannot be expected of the Republic of South Africa to continue to bear the heavy burden of South West Africa under circumstances where we do not claim sovereignty over the territory, where we are exposed to criticism from the internal parties of South West Africa, where we are censured by the West and the United Nations is threatening us with enforced measures. I told them further:

That is what I told them, and what is wrong with that? I thought I had the backing of Parliament in this connection.

*In the third place, where important persons asked me questions about South Africa, I provided the information with pleasure, since I did not go to Europe ashamed because I am an Afrikaner or a South African. I said this everywhere. I was not boastful, but I did not grovel before anyone either.

Important questions were put to me concerning the population groups in South Africa that are of European descent and who are existing here at present as minority groups. I stated that they were good South Africans. In any event, I stated bluntly that I was not prepared to accept any form of interference in our domestic policy by any government. That was respected and no efforts were made by anyone to try to push me around. Nor should I have permitted that. In many instances I provided evidence that there was freedom of belief and of worship in our country, because in Europe this is important.

Futhermore I showed that a broadening of democracy had taken place in this country over the course of decades. They were interested to hear that. I also pointed out that law and order prevailed in our country, and that investments here would be safe. In addition I stated bluntly that we were on a road of renewal, and that we did not believe in the inferiority before God of one human being vis-à-vis another.

However I also pointed out to them the diversity of peoples in Europe and in the European Common Market, an institution that sometimes proceeds with difficulty. I referred them, too, to the European Parliament and to what goes on there. When they spoke abojit human rights, I said: “Very well, let us now test your standpoint on human rights at the Berlin Wall and the states in Africa that you trade with, among which are already 27 one-party states.” I found this quite an acceptable way of address one another, because in that way we learned from one another, did we not?

I stated the case of minorities in South Africa and Southern Africa, as well as the case of minorities in South West Africa. Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred contemptuously here to Proclamation AG 8. Does that mean that the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not want minority rights in South West Africa to be protected? Is he not aware that if a full-scale onslaught is launched on the administration rights of those people, that would exacerbate the difficulty in South West? Is he so uninformed about what goes on there?

What does the Department of Finance say?

The handling of finance is something else. On that I agree, and that is why the Government has taken steps, through the Administrator-general, to ensure that savings are affected. However, that still does not undo the fact that minority rights in South West Africa have to be protected. I pointed out to the leaders in Europe that the Creation was not a place of dull uniformity. If it had been a place of dull uniformity, it would have been a miserable place to live in. Its wealth lies in its very diversity.

Our participation in discussions contributed, in my opinion, to the clarification of matters imperfectly understood that may exist between governments. It also contributed towards arousing interest among business leaders, and we shall shortly be reaping the first fruits of that on the arrival of interested business leaders, not only in South Africa, but in Southern Africa.

Thirdly, I became aware once again of the degree of well-disposed interest in Europe as far as we are concerned. There is a great deal of well-disposed interest among important people in Europe and also among the masses. However, I also succeeded in conveying the clear message that South Africa is no push-over. I am convinced anew that if we really want to succeed in future, the solution must be found in our country. We must pursue justice until every population group shares in that justice. We in this country must attempt to provide good government to the best of our abilities. That, briefly, is what I want to say on this occasion.

I wish to conclude. I hope that we shall enter the new dispensation with a new spirit, too, by which I mean that we do not disparage one another to the extent that we often do. Criticism and disparagement are two different things. Criticism and slander are two different things. Criticism and smearing one another are two different things. I hope that we shall enter the new dispensation with a greater sense of responsibility, and that we who form the older part of the new system of government that is to be introduced, will set an example, and make it part of the new dispensation that every public representative needs a great deal of grace to make his contribution in helping to create a better future in a country that is full of problems. I went to Europe and I did my duty. What petty-minded people say about it is irrelevant. In the time that is still given to me I shall continue, together with the best in South Africa, to seek the best for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, at the end of his speech the hon the Prime Minister dealt with aspects of his European tour. In the course of my comments I will also refer to that event.

The hon the Prime Minister started off by reminding us—I think we should be aware of it—of the historical significance of this occasion, the last Third Reading budget debate under the present Constitution and our existing Westminster system. We share the hon the Prime Minister’s sense of history and occasion. Indeed, this is probably the last occasion on which he will take part in such an important debate as Prime Minister.

The hon the Prime Minister said that we could look back with pride on a number of events that have unfolded in South Africa since 1910. I want to say to him that there is much in the past of which we can be proud. There is much we have achieved together. Th hon the Prime Minister will also know that there are also other aspects in respect of which we should be prepared to be highly self-critical in order to see how we are going to behave in the future.

The hon the Prime Minister dealt with constitutional evolution. We are going through a fascinating phase, a phase some people will call a phase of devolution. Others will talk of fragmentation. I do not see that what has happened in South Africa since 1960 as a final pattern of co-existence in this country. While on the one hand we are decentralizing on the other hand we are building up the unity and the oneness of our economy. In future we will have to find a reconciliation between decentralization of power on the one hand and the centralization of economic effort on the other.

The hon the Prime Minister referred to the policy of the PFP. I must congratulate him today because in the past he and his colleagues have dismissed as a simplistic policy of one man, one vote in a unitary system, a “unitêre staat”. Today for the first time the hon the Prime Minister has quoted from a policy statement which shows that PFP policy is nothing of that sort. We in this party have always advocated devolution. But how far can one take devolution? Can one take devolution to the point of fragmentation in independence, or are the centripetal forces keeping the people of South Africa together not more important than those centrifugal ones that are driving us apart? This is the dilemma: On the one hand to what extent can one decentralize with safety and on the other hand, how does one find machinery for taking joint decisions on matters that one cannot decentralize?

In regard to this aspect the hon the Prime Minister referred to the Westminster system and he ended by saying that we should set an example. At this point I must express my disappointment that he did not say a brief word about the question of the pamphlet and the way in which this pamphlet came to be distributed. If the NP and the CP want to fight each other with these tactics, let them do it as politicians. However, the hon the Prime Minister heard a former acting Prime Minister of South Africa, the hon the Minister of Co-operation and development, saying in this House that he had arranged to take from a Government file a confidential State document, and that he had handed that document over to someone else. The hon the Prime Minister said we should set examples. The hon the Prime Minister is soon going to be the State President and he is going to preside over three Cabinets. We want to clear up this matter—not the principle of the “verneukery” that took place—but whether the hon the Prime Minister considers it proper for a Minister of State to take a State document and to hand it over to someone who has nothing to do with State administration whatsoever. He may even be a propagandist for any political party. The Minister concerned handed over this document without any conditions and a year later he said that he did not know what they did with that document.

I agree that we have to set an example. One hundred and thirty eight people who have never been members of Parliament before, are going to become MPs and people who have never held the position before are going to become Cabinet Ministers. They are not steeped in the tradition of parliamentary government. They have had no opportunity for that. I believe that we have to set an example, and I therefore would still like the hon the Prime Minister, if not across the floor of the House then outside the House, to make it quite clear that he condemns that kind of thing; that he will not tolerate that kind of a thing under the new dispensation. I say that because if the public of South Africa believes that State documents dealing with intimate, private or individual matters are going to be released to various political parties, then, I say, heaven help us under the new dispensation. That is the first point I want to make.

I now wish to come back to the hon the Prime Minister’s tour. We hope that he has achieved positive results. We hope that it is going to lead to greater understanding and that as a result relationships in future will be more constructive. We hope that it will create areas for co-operation and a climate that will help us to resolve the outstanding problems of this region, including that of our country. Having said that, let us also accept that the results of the tour and indeed the result of Nkomati are not going to be what we say about it but what we are going to do about it. It is going to be tested on the results. It is going to be tested on the way we use the opportunities, not the way in which we talk about it or the way in which it is beamed to us on television. The acid test is what is going to be achieved and what we are going to do with the opportunities that may have been created.

The two areas that I believe we should at this moment be looking at is, firstly, whether it is going to help to bring about real stability in the southern African region. If we are going to use this new climate that we hope has been created, we have to get on with the task of constantly improving our relationship with our neighbours, with Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland. In spite of all that has happened, we know that these relationships are brittle. Only six weeks ago the Prime Minister of Swaziland was received across the road in the Verwoerd Building and within weeks he, together with the Foreign Minister, the Chief of Police and others were ousted. In a very short time the accord that there was on security matters has soured on such things as Ingwavuma and on the customs union. These relationships are brittle and I believe that the Government should attend to them constantly.

Secondly, how are we going to go about promoting development in a region where development is appallingly and dangerously uneven? How are we going to get on with the task to which the hon the Prime Minister referred to today of achieving internationally recognized independence for South West Africa? We have listened carefully to the hon the Prime Minister’s statement on what he said in respect of the offer. We would hope that he will sit quietly over the next few weeks and reflect on his decision to make that offer and to ask himself, whatever was intended, whether it was not in fact an error of judgment. It may have been a successful exercise in impressing on others the cost of South West Africa to South Africa. It might have impressed on other people the fact that we are prepared to get out. However, it also casts a number of doubts. It casts doubt on the depth of our commitment to implement Resolution 435, because we had said that we would implement Resolution 435 if the Cubans left. Now we are saying that even if the Cubans leave, we suggest that the West should take over. South West Africa is not looking at the West to be a new colonial power or a new mandate power, but is looking for independence. At this stage, after having made a commitment in respect of Resolution 435 provided the Cubans left, to come with an alternative course provided the Cubans leave, can only add to confusion and undermine the feeling of other people about our determination to resolve the South West African issue in terms of Resolution 435. The hon the Prime Minister must be aware of it that already our critics have said that this kind of offer made at this stage detracts from the seriousness of our intent regarding South West Africa. I would hope, the offer having been made and having been rejected, that the hon the Prime Minister will now dismiss it from his mind and get back on track and see to it that South West Africa becomes independent in terms of Resolution 435 as quickly as possible.

When we have dealt with foreign affairs and with regional matters, the real test of the success of the Prime Minister’s tour and indeed the effectiveness of the new Constitution that is going to be implemented and of the will of people of South Africa, is in the last resort now how we deal with problems beyond our borders but how we deal with problems inside South Africa and how we bring about real peace and stability within our borders. When I say within South Africa I, like the Leader of the Opposition, for the purposes of dealing with the problems of South Africa, include all the territories that were once part of South Africa, the TBVC countries. I say this because the simple fact is that when one talks about stability in South Africa, it does not matter how much gerrymandering you have done with the political boundaries of South Africa, or how many people you have stripped of South African citizenship, or on how many states you confer statutory independence, the problems of those countries and territories are today as much the problems of South Africa as they were in the past. Disease, poverty, hunger, lack of housing, unemployment and inadequate education do not respect the arbitrary boundaries which this Parliament has drawn on the map of South Africa. The problem of instability does not respect artificially drawn political boundaries. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, you do not add to the stability of a region by creating and propping up inefficient bureaucratic elites. You only start dealing with the problems of the region when you consider all those territories, including South Africa, as one economic region and all the people, irrespective of their so-called independent status, as members of the wider South African community whose destiny is irrevocably interlinked. It is in the context of this greater South Africa that we under the new constitution are going to have to tackle this country’s outstanding social, economic and political problems. When I listen to hon members opposite, when I consider the inept and rudderless handling of South Africa’s financial affairs by the hon the Minister of Finance who seems to have lost his will and his direction—I predict that he will lose his Cabinet post as well—I cannot believe that this Government is serious in facing the challenges which they will have to face in a few months time. I would have expected the Prime Minister at this stage to have given us some indication of the progress made by his Cabinet Committee on Black Affairs. It is absolutely critical to know how we are going to bring Black South Africans into Government, not only at the local authority level, but also at regional and national level. I would have expected some more earnest on the part of the Government on how they are going to get rid of the remaining areas of apartheid, because apartheid, whether the Government likes it or not, is going to be in the forefront of the attacks when the new constitutional system is implemented. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act are all going to be issues which are going to be fundamental in the course of the sessions of the new Parliament. However, towering above all of those problems is the challenge to remove the inequities that exist in South Africa in the socio-economic field. The appalling gap which exists between rich and poor, between the haves and have-nots, still threatens the peace and stability of South Africa. The demands for the removal of these inequities are getting louder and louder everyday via trade unions, via community leaders, via civic organizations and, I suggest, via the Parliament of South Africa next year. Socio-economic inequities have to be removed.

We can respond to these challenges in two ways: Either by more government, by more regulation and by more socialism or by unlocking the wealth-producing potential of the people of South Africa. These are the two alternatives that face us. One cannot unlock this wealth-producing potential, one cannot set the people free to do the work of which they are capable to produce the goods, if there is going to be a system of apartheid or discrimination based on race or colour. One cannot achieve development if people have poor housing or suffer personal insecurity, inferior education and inadequate training and if people have to endure the disruption of the pass laws. One cannot have development or stability in a society in which, to use the hon the Prime Minister’s words, there is an island of wealth in a sea of poverty.

The consequence of continuing with apartheid or discrimination is, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition has said, increasing bureaucracy, increasing State socialism and increasing instability. The alternative to apartheid and discrimination is development in efficiency and stability and real freedom for the people of our country. These are the socio-economic alternatives. If we choose development in efficiency and stability, we will have to dismantle what remains of apartheid; if we cling to apartheid, we must be prepared to endure inefficiency, stagnation and instability.

This Government is going to have to direct our resources away from wasteful ideological fantasies and away from vast inefficient bureaucracies towards the socioeconomic upliftment of our people. We in the PFP believe that this could and should be done. We believe that South Africa could become an economic power-house producing wealth enough for all of its people. What makes the Minister’s Budget so depressing is that it is not geared to unlocking this potential but is committed to maintaining a racial system, an ever-increasing bureaucracy and an ever-increasing inefficiency in government. The price is being paid, as we see in this Budget and in the taxation, not by the Government but by the ordinary South African. He sees his taxes, his living costs and his rental going up while he sees the value of his savings and the purchasing power of his wages or pension going down. The message of this Budget is that this is the price the ordinary people of South Africa are having to pay for the inefficiency and wastefulness of this Government.

Mr Speaker, we are grateful to the hon the Prime Minister for having informed us about matters involving his overseas visit and also about matters in connection with the new dispensation. At a later stage in my speech I shall be referring to a few of the matters he raised.

In the first instance I want to refer once again to the question of consistency to which the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development referred in his speech on Monday. I asked the Whips whether they could arrange for both him and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon the Deputy Minister to be here. Apparently not one of them is here, but I hope they will read what we have said here. The object of the publication of the document was to prove how inconsistent the hon member for Waterberg supposedly is. The hon the Minister of Cooperation and Development—I am glad to see he is here now—argued that the hon member for Waterberg preached separate development, but then allowed a Black student to enroll for a course at the University of Cape Town, a course which Fort Hare also offers, moreover allowing him to stay in a White hostel. What, however, are the facts? Pargraph 3 of the document, the original unfalsified document, reads as follows:

That is a 1959 decision fraudulently omitted from the falsified document. Also omitted, however, was the fact that pressure had been exerted on the hon member for Waterberg, by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister himself, to take this step for the sake of good relations and goodwill. It was a kind of immunity situation. Now, however, they are using that document in an effort to discredit the hon member for Waterberg. Where is there any inconsistency in the hon member for Waterberg’s actions when he says: Be careful, there are still 70 Ministers whose sons can come along and ask for accommodation? In other words, the object that the hon the Minister and his information service wanted to achieve with that document was not achieved, because that was an exception for which there were good reasons.

If those hon members, however, are so concerned about consistency, we must also look at the words the hon the Minister himself used in regard to the so-called events during the period 1948-68 and further into the future. If the hon the Minister were to consult Hansard of 8 September 1983, column 13553, he would see how the hon member for Waterberg handled the 1948-68 situation. As befits a dedicated hon member of this House, he drew the hon the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact of having given his blessing to the 1948-68 document. After Die Patriot published it, however, the hon the Prime Minister expressed himself in the following terms:

Today the hon the Prime Minister again used words to that effect in connection with people who are gossip-mongers because of feelings of inferiority. Here he is saying he cannot but condemn it in the strongest possible terms. The hon the Prime Minister spoke for almost three quarters of an hour and did not say a word about this vile deed. That is consistency! If a course of action is to be condemned, in one respect, as supposed-lyl lowering the standard of public life, and is supposedly and unfounded method of making use of politics, why does he not say so now in regard to this document? Then one must be consistent.

Four times in his speech the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development said this was not done with any bad intentions. The legal position is that when one commits an act, it is presumed that one foresees the reasonable consequences of that act. If one points a loaded gun at someone and pulls the trigger, one cannot tell the court one did not intend to murder the person concerned. Here it is a question of a great deal of trouble having been taken to tamper with a document. It was with a great degree of dexterity that those who tampered with it incontrovertibly intended, by way of falsification, to present a false and wrongful image of the document. The hon the Minister seen the falsified document, and as a reasonable man he should immediately have understood what a false impression it would make. There is only one conclusion to which one can come in this case and that is that the deliberate intention was to do damage. Even though the hon the Minister says it four or more times, he cannot escape that conclusion.

Then the hon the Minister, in his telephone conversation, asks the hon member for Waterberg please not to mention the name of this student. He himself, however, allows the name of that student to be dragged through the streets and the marketplaces of South Africa in this document. In the so-called action of putting matters right, he makes use of a further State document giving further publicity to the symbols obtained by this Black student in matric. The symbols of a person who has written matric are personal and confidential, but they are made public in the market-place. Is that what is done in regard to the son of a Head of State of a friendly country? Shortly the Coloureds and the Indians are going to participate in the government of this country. Is that the kind of example of integrity in the Cabinet that is being set by a senior Cabinet member—the Acting Prime Minister—for future Ministers and Deputy Ministers? The hon the Minister has recourse to the Public Service Regulations and contends that the document was not marked “secret”. Let me just quote to the hon the Minister from section 17 of the Public Service Regulations. Section 17 reads as follows:

They are confidential documents. The hon the member said that if it had been a secret document, he would have dealt with it differently. He knows, however, that the regulation stipulates that it is a confidential document, and he also knows what happens to an official if he makes a confidential document public. The hon the Minister referred to the Archives Act. Has he looked at the Protection of Information Act? Has he seen what section 4 provides? That section provides that if any information which a Minister of the State, in his position of confidence, entrusts to anyone else, or to which he had access owing to the fact that he occupied a Government post, were to become public knowledge to the detriment of the security of the Republic, a crime would have been committed.

There is the further untruth about having allowed the hon member for Waterberg to obtain the document within hours of having received it. He said: The time it took to get the document from Pretoria. That is untrue. The hon the Minister knows that that document was in Cape Town as early as Monday. So to say that it took as long as was necessary to get it from Pretoria, is an untruth. That is an additional untruth. He comes along here says that in a public debate, whilst others who have told untruths in public debates are out of politics today. He said that he judged it to be in the interests of South Africa to make this document public. Is it in the interests of South Africa, not only to make such use of the facts relating to the admission of the son of a friendly Head of State to the university or the hostel, but also to reveal his symbols? No, Sir, that was done for the sake of petty political propaganda. That was the purpose behind making this document public. That is why it is still our demand, our request, to the Government, if it wants to prove its bonafides, that a judicial commission be appointed to investigate this whole unfortunate incident. Until a judicial commission is appointed, or that hon Minister and the hon member for Brits and the hon member for Benoni, who were responsible for this, resign, we shall not drop this matter.

I now come to the Nkomati Accord. Our standpoint is spelled out very clearly in our policy documents. We are prepared to conclude a non-aggression pact with any other state. That is contained in section 1 1(1)(f) of our programme of principles. In paragraph 11(3)(d) we also spell out the fact that we shall not interfere in the domestic affairs of a neighbouring state, and will recognize its borders, as long as such a neighbouring state acts accordingly. That is why—I am sorry the hon member for Bloemfontein North is not here—we contend that section 8 of the Cahora Bassa Agreement, which involves South Africa in the internal strugle in Mozambique, is objectionable to us.

What, however, is the Government now doing? In the referendum the Government alleged that we were the allies of the ANC, and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said we were opposed to our power lines being protected against terrorists and the ANC. He also said that Maputo had notified him that it had obtained information about the ANC and the resistance movement there beginning to work together. According to Hansard of 9 May 1984 he said that he could not confirm that information. What happened immediately prior to Nkomati? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says he does not know of any assistance that was granted. The Government interfered in the local struggle and then left those people who helped them in the lurch. Renamo and the ANC are now fighting together in Mozambique with armaments valued at R200 million supplied to Renamo and with the aid of between 9 000 and 13 000 troops whom we trained. Who is now helping the ANC? The Government must deny this if it is untrue, because the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said he did not know about it.

If you were to ask me who was helping them, I would say that you were helping them.

But the Government is helping them with arms and with trained troops. That is what the Government did before the signing of the Nkomati Accord.

You would help anyone against South Africa.

Let me now refer to the South West Africa question. We asked the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who was Acting Prime Minister, whether the hon the Prime Minister had consulted leaders of South West Africa before making this offer to the Western Powers. I was then referred to the hon the Prime Minister’s speech on 31 January. That speech did not state that the hon the Prime Minister would be offering South West Africa to the five Western Powers on a platter. That question that we placed on the Question Paper was treated with contempt. The offer that was made, without consulting the parties of South West Africa, was an irresponsible one. It was in conflict with the acknowledged point of departure that the peoples of South West Africa should decide their future for themselves. It was a superficial move. It was, by implication, an acceptance of the eventual “one man, one vote” solution in South West Africa, because its acceptance would, from Lancaster House, lead to socialist rule. What would have happened, for example, if the socialistic Mitterand had accepted this offer?

To contend that South West Africa costs the Republic of South Africa R650 million per year plus military and other aid, does not hold water. The State gives enormous amounts to subsidize all four of our provinces. The total amount involved is R4 520 million. [Interjections.] We are governing South West Africa as an integral part of South Africa.

They have already written it off.

Since when is South West Africa a part of South Africa?

We want to know from the hon the Prime Minister or from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—they must spell it out for us—where it appears that this offer is the result of the statement made on 31 January 1984, why the hon the Prime Minister made the offer and whom he consulted in this connection.

For the reasons mentioned by this side of the House, for example by the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon members for Lichtenburg, Sunnyside and Waterberg, the Government can no longer be trusted with South Africa’s future and is therefore asking to be rejected with all the contempt it deserves.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan will forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech. I do not have any bone to pick with him and he had his own fight with the Government.

I want to say to the hon the Minister of Finance immediately, because my time is very short indeed this afternoon, that we in this party are extremely concerned about the trend in building society interest and the effect it is having on the average home-owner in South Africa. We are concerned for the simple reason that the new high interest rates on mortgage bonds affect predominantly the White group because they do not enjoy the subsidies of the other groups. These high interest rates have pushed home-owner-ship beyond the means of the majority of Whites in South Africa. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me. To own a modest home, worth some R60 000, the average home-owner must earn over R2 000 per month. That means that the only people who are able to afford a home today of such modest dimensions—because where can one get a home for below R60 000—are to be found among those fortunate few who either receive State subsidies, or subsidies from their companies or belong to the very rich which we find in the ranks of the members of the PFP. I am extremely concerned about this, and I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to do something about this.

This state of affairs came about and was started when the hon the Minister and his department decided in 1980 to reduce the tax-free portfolio available to building societies to offer investors. The hon the Minister will know how drastically he reduced the amount which each investor could invest in a building society at a tax-free rate of interest. From that day the building societies have been in trouble because they had to compete in the open market for funds where other institutions were able to pay excessive interest rates because of their diversity of functions. Building societies have been restricted in what they can offer. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance today, in the interests of stability and of the quality of life of every South African—it is his or her right to own hearth and home in this country; that is what people expect—to review as a matter of urgency the investment portfolio available to building societies which offer tax-free dividends to investors, both in the scope of the portfolio as well as the amount which each investor can invest with those building societies. I believe this is a matter of top priority.

I would have loved to deal with a number of fiscal matters, but regrettably my time is extremely short this afternoon.

I now want to come to the hon Leader of the Opposition and I want to thank him for being present in the House. I listened with great interest to what he had to say yesterday. I must say that a lot of homework was done to prepare the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s case. His main complaint regarding decentralization, independent homelands and self-governing homelands, was the cost of those projects. However, so typical of the hon leader and his party, they are not prepared to spell out the alternatives which they offer South Africa. What is even worse, they are not prepared to reveal what it will cost South Africa to implement their policy. One only needs to look at Zimbabwe to see that the price we will have to pay for the implementation of their policy will not be R2 billion, but the stability and prosperity of the whole country.

Does the hon the Leader of the Opposition know what it will cost to implement the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission for kwaZulu and Natal which they signed? I am sure he does not because he will not admit that to implement that plan in the initial stages will cost R2 billion, of which R750 million alone will need to be contributed to schools. They always fail to spell out their alternatives and what that will cost.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition should not come with personal remarks to us when he is beginning to fail in his task to offer an alternative in this country. He has asked repeatedly what the role and function of the official Opposition will be in the new dispensation. That role is to offer alternatives to South Africa which they are prepared to spell out. The hon member for Sea Point went on like a record about anti-apartheid, but never a word about the alternatives. What was very significant—and I want to put this to the hon the Leader of the Opposition—was his criticism against the homelands. Why did he fail to comment on kwaZulu? I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition owes this House an explanation of his attitude because if he looks at the Budget relating to the self-governing national states in South Africa, he will see that kwaZulu receives the largest amount.

I did ask the hon member for Umlazi to be here today, but unfortunately he cannot be here for some reason or the other. However, I say to the hon leader of the NP in Natal: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and a little knowledge in the hands of the hon member for Umlazi is a potential disaster. I also say to him and to the chairman of the NP in Natal, the hon Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development—he is here—that inter-group politics at a time of monumental change in South Africa is a matter requiring sensitivity, sophistication and the utmost diplomacy. If the strategy of the hon member for Umlazi is to be used …

He is a bull in a china shop.

… the result will be the same as a bull in a china shop. I can say to the hon member for Amanzimtoti: Great minds think alike! [Interjections.] That speech of the hon member for Umlazi yesterday was shot through with inaccuracies, half truths and omissions. The effect that it will have on inter-group politics in South Africa is yet to be calculated. I want to warn the hon leader of the NP in Natal that he must be very careful whom he entrusts to state the policy and attitude of his party in this House and in Natal, in the interests of that which is in the interests of South Africa.

By way of demonstration, let me tell hon members that the hon member for Umlazi—I have his Hansard here—yesterday launched a tirade against my hon leader, the hon member for Durban Point. He said that a certain Mr Lubbe who had written to the Sunday Times, had it in for the leadership of this party. Amongst other things he quoted from The Daily News of Natal, which is not normally a reliable newspaper, that our Cape leader, the hon member for King Wil-iiam’s Town, was not prepared to comment. That of course was in The Daily News. If the hon member for Umlazi had read The Argus of the same date he would have seen why the hon member for King William’s Town did not comment, because the full statement issued to the Press was that the hon member was not prepared to comment until he had had consultation and discussion with the leader of the NRP, the hon member for Durban Point. Normal party discipline will be exercised. That hon member need not be so concerned about it. We will look after discipline in this party ourselves.

The second supposition that the hon member for Umlazi made was that this party does not exercise party discipline. What absolute rubbish! I refer the hon member—he also referred to it himself—to what happened to the former Senator Mr Webber, who was a leader of this party, when he took a contrary stand to our policy in the referendum. There were also other young Turks. I want to assure hon members that the same fate will await those who are not prepared to support the policy of this party when it becomes official party policy [Interjections.]

Does that include Mr Jayes?

Let me talk about Mr Jayes. I see the hon member for Johannesburg North is very concerned about him. Here, once again, the hon member for Umlazi showed what a transparent attack he made on this party. He read from “Letters to the Editor” of the Sunday Times of 24 June 1984 and he quoted liberally from the letter from Mr Lubbe, the gentleman we will be dealing with. He says Mr Jayes stands accused of saying that in the Rosettenville by-election, which is being fought today, he wishes that the Conservative Party would win rather than the National Party. What absolute rubbish! On the very same page, right next to the letter from Mr Lubbe, appeared a letter from Mr Jayes himself in which, inter alia, he denied that he had said that. In fact, he gave a fair explanation. I will read one paragraph only from his letter:

Let me say that when the hon member for Umlazi gets up here he is not doing the cause of the NP in Natal or South Africa any good.

I want to conclude. I listened very carefully to what the hon the Prime Minister said today and there is very little that I can differ with as to what he said. I should like to commend him in particular on what he said regarding his offer on South West Africa. I also listened very carefully to the speeches of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of the Interior. I should like to say, in response to what they said, that with the referendum on 2 November a new watershed in politics was created in South Africa and from that watershed new streams will be formed. Some of those streams will dry up, while others will merge, irrespective of what may happen to them on the way. That is an absolute certainty. One cannot stop the natural flow of the new political streams in South Africa.

Unlike the hon the Minister of internal Affairs, I believe that there are three power factors in White politics in South Africa: the extreme right, the extreme left and the moderate centre. I personally will make it my business to build up that moderate centre of the Whites against the extremists on the left and the extremists on the right. [Interjections.] Let me say that, like so many other voters in this country, I do not suffer from a Masada complex. I will not, like the hon members of the CP, become a fundamentalist and fight to the death for an outmoded ideology. One must recognize when one’s policy has done its job and when it has not. I will also not join the ranks of the super optimists but I personally will make it my task to build up that moderate centre, irrespective of the cost and the price, because in the end that will be in the interest of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon members of the NRP are people for whom one feels sorry because many of them are well-meaning and have only taken the wrong direction in life. It is quite pathetic to see eight members of this Party sitting here when their party is fighting a vital by-election in Rosettenville. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not make so many interjections.

The hon members of the CP, apart from two or three, are all fighting in the by-election. [Interjections.] In 1977 I was the only public representative in Natal who declined to join that party and one often wonders when making decisions like that. However, looking back today, I am convinced that it was the best political decision that I have ever made. [Interjections.] It is simply a matter of time before that party disappears altogether from the political scene of South Africa, and no tears will be shed by anybody when that happens.

*I shall come to a few of the arguments of the hon member for Durban North later, but first I want to refer to what the hon member for Waterberg said in his speech yesterday. He spoke about a “staatsvolk” and said that the NP was trying to form a “staatsvolk” that could be compared to a state nationalism á la Prof Degenaar. I find it strange to see how obsessed hon members of the CP are with the concepts “people” and “nation”. However, the problem is that one cannot in fact bring about ethnic sovereignty in South Africa and the Whites in the country realize this. One can speak of Afrikaner ethnic sovereignty but how can there be a sovereign nation in South Africa while the hon member for Yeoville and I are present here in Parliament and are part of the White nation? [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg spoke about a White group with sovereignty and power over its own security, its language, etc, but what he was in fact advocating was not a “staatsvolk”, which according to him the NP was aiming at, but a racially defined people, and that racially defined people is a White people. I think that this is in fact the CP’s idea. Let us approach this from the point of view of a people. The hon member for Waterberg is Afrikaans-speaking; he has a Dutch Reformed religious background. He obtained a degree overseas and, fortunately for him, also a doctorate at the University of Cape Town. Now who is the person who, culturally speaking and in terms of a people, is closest to the hon member for Waterberg? It is a certain Rev Boesak. As far as the public life of those two people is concerned, they have more in common than I have in common with the hon member for Waterberg, that is speaking in terms of the culture of a people. Both are Reformed; both are Afrikaans-speaking; both are very interested in politics and public life and both are trying to do the best for their people. The two of them have more in common in terms of culture and the Afrikaner nation than I have in common with them. However, the hon member for Waterberg will not accept that because his concern is not so much with his people, but with a racially defined people in the same way that he tells the NP that they believe in a “staatsvolk”.

I want to refer to something else the hon member for Waterberg said. He said: “In addition I want to say that one will not create satisfaction either by increasingly allowing the Republic’s territory to be occupied through Black urbanization in a White area.” He said it was a very difficult matter. Later on in his speech he also referred to the Black areas of kwaZulu adjacent to Durban and said that he did not envisage a Coloured homeland being established in the arid North-West but as part of the Cape Peninsula since the Coloureds were occupying a part of this area and one could draw a boundary between the White and Coloured areas there. We must now decide whether the hon member was correct in this respect. Why does the hon member for Waterberg say that Coloureds can have their own Parliament and continue to remain in the Cape Peninsula but that the Blacks living in so-called White areas cannot get political institutions? The hon member subsequently contradicted himself by referring to the Black areas in the immediate vicinity of Durban, but which were situated in kwaZulu. If the Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula can become part of a homeland, then why, in terms of his thinking, can Soweto not be declared a Black homeland.

The real problem with the approach of the hon member for Waterberg is that he believes that land-ownership can offer political solutions. Perhaps land is a factor but we believe that if one proceeds from that standpoint one immediately experiences major problems. In this respect I need only refer to the situation in the Southern Free State where it has been calculated that only 25% of the farms are occupied by Whites. Is that area, therefore, a Black area? Of course not. The same principle applies to consolidation.

†Mr Speaker, I would now like to deal with the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. He talked about the impoverishment of Black homelands. The hon member for Durban North actually missed the point of the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. What he was saying was that if one allows the administrative and bureaucratic aspects of Third World countries to consume too large a portion of the wealth of such a country, you are actually impoverishing it. The expert he quoted says that as soon as the figure rises above a 40% factor, such a country is heading for impoverishment. That was the point the hon the Leader of the Opposition was making. He used the example that in the Black states this Government has created, that figure is being exceeded. That is one of the major reasons why these states are not developing. He pointed out quite rightly that we are financing the losses and the lack of development in those states and that it is not good enough. South Africa has limited resources and we have to use them as efficiently as possible. It is all very well to ask what our policy is going to cost, but to postulate expenditure is difficult. However, to know what has been spent is quite simple. That is the issue. What we can say is that the Government’s policy in terms of a development strategy has been a failure. Of course we have to try to find alternatives, and we could offer some if one has time enough in a debate like this, but I want to stress that the Government’s policy in this regard has been a failure. That is going to exacerbate our problems in the urban areas.

Urbanization is not just a South African problem; it is an international problem, a Third World problem. However, urbanization presents an opportunity. I believe that that is the spirit in which we must approach it. No country in the world has been able to make the best use of its natural resources without urbanization and the opportunities that brings with it. It is a fact that, if people have to live in slum dwellings or in shacks, they at least have a better chance of developing if they are living in poverty for a period of time in a city than if they are living in rural poverty. For that reason people will choose to leave rural poverty to experience urban poverty because they then have the potential and the economic hope of being able to overcome that. I believe that, if we do not accept the importance of developing an urban strategy which acknowledges that urbanization is in fact a development opportunity for South Africa, we will be making a grave mistake.

I believe that the Government has grasped that fact. If one looks at the Government’s attitude to urban Blacks, one detects that an important change has taken place. It has recognized the permanence of the urban Blacks, which has been a major breakthrough in thinking and in approach, and we welcome that. The Government’s style has changed, primarily—and I have said this before in the House—because of two urban events, namely Sharpeville and Soweto. The hon member for De Kuilen should listen more carefully.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member, in view of his appointment as chairman of a subcommittee to go into the position of urban Blacks, whether he or his committee will be prepared to give evidence before the Cabinet Committee on this issue?

Our party is very happy to give evidence, in fact, not our committee, but because we are looking essentially at the socio-economic problems, the hon the Leader of the Opposition will himself be giving evidence, and I can assure the hon member that a lot of work is being done to prepare that evidence. I believe that it will perhaps be some of the best evidence to come before that Cabinet Committee.

The difference between Sharpeville and Soweto is that, while after Sharpeville the Government applied a policy of repression, after Soweto the style of the Government has changed in that it has attempted a approach things rationally, scientifically and on the basis of reform. One of the fruits of the Government’s very cautious approach has been the fact that the hon the Prime Minister could go to Europe last week. We are a black sheep in the Western World’s family, but the Western World has detected signs of reform, of a departure from the delinquency on the part of that black sheep. Therefore our Prime Minister was welcome to go.

Our cities are going to be crucibles or pressure-cookers of change. Even the CP cannot deny that, and it has been in our cities that political change has had to be hammered out and sorted out. I believe we have to apply a policy of urbanization together with a policy of rural development. Amongst the major factors forcing urbanization, apart from Government policy, have been the drought, inflation which has eroded the economic base of people in the rural areas and the rising expectations of people in rural areas. Nothing has demonstrated the poverty of our rural areas and the lack of facilities there better than the outbreaks of cholera.

Urbanization has to go hand in hand with rural development. One of the most interesting contributions to the approach to rural development has come from the hon member for Klip River. In his speech on 11 June—I refer hon members to col 8523 of Hansard—he raised a number of issues which I believe we can debate positively, because badly located Black rural areas can not be dealt with effectively by simply moving those people into other overcrowded Black areas. This has to go hand in hand with an urbanization strategy, with the right to freedom of movement within an urbanization strategy, the creation of decent community life with facilities, and the recognition of the fact that Blacks are urban people.

The most conservative estimate in regard to Black urbanization is that by the year 2000 when I am 56 years old there will be 20 million Black people in our cities. This means an additional 10 million people within the next 16 years. That is an immense challenge to all of us in this House. I believe that the Government and particularly the hon member for De Kuilen who is a member of the Government’s Urbanization Committee is going to have to come up with answers, not ideological mythology but realistic solutions in regard to the opportunity presented by urbanization to South Africa over the next 20 years.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and his party see South Africa in a totally different light to the CP. The hon member and his party see South Africa as a unitary state in which Black, Whites and Coloureds will have to be included in one government to govern South Africa. What this amounts is that South Africa will eventually have a Black majority government. For that reason the PFP has been rejected in election after election.

The CP says that there is a diversity of peoples in South Africa and that each of these peoples must be guided to self-determination and real freedom in their own territory. For that reason the CP is glad that this Parliament has decided to give the Xhosa people real freedom in their own fatherland. When kwaNdebele asks for its independence in the near future the CP will support this.

As far as the Coloured and Indian peoples are concerned, we say that for them, too, there can only be real freedom for them in their own fatherlands where they can decide for themselves on every facet of their lives. If we do not begrudge this to other people, we say that the Whites in South Africa are also entitled to decide in their own father-land, in their own parliament, on every facet affecting their lives.

I should like to quote from this little blue book which by this time has acquired a blue cover. On page 22 of this little book, under the heading “Indiërimmigrasie”, it is stated:

The authors of this little book are therefore saying that if the CP were to come into power the floodgates would be opened to allow Indian immigrants from India and Pakistan to stream into the length and breadth of South Africa. It is also stated that under the NP Government in South Africa there is a strictly controlled immigration policy, and the final words are:

What is the proven immigration policy of the NP? It is that immigrants can only be recruited from our mother countries. Who determines this proven policy of the NP at this stage? The NP congresses determine that policy. A White political party determines Government policy on immigration. Legislation on immigration is piloted through, and agreed to in, this White Parliament. Who governs the country, and who implements that proven immigration policy? A White NP Cabinet governs the country in terms of the laws of a White Parliament and in terms of the policy of a White political party. A White Minister is in control of a White Government department which implements this proven policy. This is the situation today and this will be the situation up to 3 September of this year.

What then? Immigration is a general affair. Who will then govern South Africa? I should like to quote the hon member for Randburg concerning who will then govern South Africa. He said:

A multiracial Cabinet is going to govern South Africa from 3 September. The Leader of the Indian majority party and possibly one or two more Indians are going to be included in the Cabinet, and they are going to be part of the government of South Africa. It will no longer be a White Cabinet governing for a White political party; it will now be a multiracial coalition Cabinet of the majority parties of Whites, Coloureds and Indians that is going to govern South Africa for those parties and that is also going to deal with immigration, which is a general affair. It is no longer the NP that is governing. It is going to be a multiracial coalition Cabinet that is going to implement its immigration policies. The hon member for Randburg put it so well when he said:

He went on to say:

Does that hon member agree with him? Does that hon member of the NP agree that the NP is no longer going to govern?

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

No, I am asking a question now. Does the hon member agree that the NP is no longer going to govern? [Interjections.] That hon member does not have the courage to say what the hon member for Randburg said, but it is true. Surely the NP is no longer going to govern. After all, a multiracial coalition Cabinet is going to govern. The hon member for Randburg made that as clear as daylight. It is no longer the NP that is going to take decisions and govern; a multiracial Cabinet is going to take decisions and govern. It is no longer the NP’s policy in regard to immigration that is going to be implemented. There will have to be a compromise in respect of the policies of the White, Coloured and Indian majority parties with regard to immigration. If at its congress next year—the congress is the highest authority of the party—the NP were to adopt a resolution in which they endorsed, the proven immigration policy of the NP, then the Leader of that party would have to tell that Congress: “Congress, you have adopted this resolution but you must remember that, as in the case of Defence and Finance, this is a general affair. You have to remember that in terms of the new constitution the NP, viz the Whites, cannot decide alone on matters of common interest. Immigration is a general affair and we cannot implement the proven policy of the NP any longer. We now have to reach consensus with the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi.”

In short, the NP will no longer be able to implement its proven immigration policy. All decisions concerning immigration are subject to consensus decisions of a multiracial Cabinet, a multiracial tricameral Parliament and multiracial standing committees. In terms of NP policy the Indians have now become part of the South African nation. I am mentioning these things to the Government because the NP said that if the CP were to come into power it would open the floodgates for Indian immigration. According to the standpoint of the leader of the NP the Indians are now becoming part of the South African nation and they are also becoming part of this Parliament. In terms of the policy of the NP, India and Pakistan are now becoming mother countries of the South African nation. [Interjections.] As a result of the policy adopted by the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, India and Pakistan are now becoming mother countries of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to quote from this little blue book in which the authors write:

You should first have …

Hon members of the NP write these things and that hon Deputy Minister—he is a former minister of religion—approves of the falsifications in this little book. I have not yet heard him condemn them. This story is being written as if the CP is going to open the floodgates and admit Indian immigrants. It is being said that people in India and Pakistan still have family in South Africa and that that family will then exert pressure to bring immigrants here from those countries. Mr Rajbansi, who may serve on the Cabinet, may have family and friends in India and Pakistan. Mr Rajbansi is going to become a member of the Government of South Africa. I now want to ask the hon members for Benoni and Brits, the compilers of this little blue book in which falsifications and innumerable distortions appear …

Mention those distortions and falsifications.

I want to point out to the hon members who advance these arguments in order to use them against the CP, that by virtue of their arguments, India and Pakistan are now being given a say in the Government of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] By virtue of what is stated in this little blue book, the family, friends and descendants of people in India and Pakistan are now being given the opportunity, in terms of the new constitutional dispensation, to exert pressure in the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa.

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

No, Sir, my time is extremely limited.

What is being said just proves how ridiculous the arguments are that are being advanced by the NP to embarrass the CP. [Interjections.] I contend that in terms of the reasoning of the hon member for Benoni, the people of India and Pakistan are now being given an opportunity to exert pressure on or to have a say in the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa. What is more, the Minister of Internal Affairs, who may deal with immigration in the new dispensation, may be an Indian in terms of the fundamental standpoint of the governing party. The Minister dealing with immigration can be an Indian in terms of the principles of the NP.

Quite correct.

The hon the Deputy Minister says he agrees wholeheartedly with that. The Director-General dealing with immigration can also be an Indian.

Of course.

the hon the Deputy Minister says “Of course”. In the new dispensation, in the new Cabinet, the NP is going to be confronted by Indian Cabinet members and Indian members of a Ministers’ Council with the request to bring Indian immigrants to South Africa.

But we are already dealing with this every day.

Then the NP, through the hon members for Benoni and Brits, has the audacity to write, with regard to Indian immigration, that that policy of the CP will open the floodgates so that Indian immigrants can stream to South Africa.

I maintain that it is the NP that is opening the sluice-gates so that an Indian can be included in the Cabinet, in the Government of South Africa, where he can also govern Whites. It is the National Party that is opening the sluice-gates and that is responsible for the fact that an Indian Chamber of 45 members can veto the wishes of the Whites with regard to constitutional changes.

The hon member’s story of a veto is absolute nonsense.

The hon member Mr Vermeulen does not understand the new constitution very well yet. His eyes will only be opened when he realizes that Mr Rajban-si, as a Minister serving on the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa, takes decisions affecting the people in the Free State, where Indians are not allowed to live. [Interjections.]

It is the National Party that has declared Indians to be a part of the South African nation and in that way has opened the flood gates for Indian immigrants to come to South Africa.

I predict that the multiracial tricameral parliamentary system will not work. The hon the Prime Minister could not reach consensus in his Cabinet and caucus with his compatriots on the future of Coloureds and Indians. How will he reach consensus with regard to conflicting group interests in a multiracial coalition Cabinet? I am convinced that the architects—hon members must now listen carefully—of the multiracial tricameral Parliament knew that it could not work. I see the hon member Mr van Staden is smiling. He knows very well what I am talking about.

After a trial period of a year or two, during which time temporary facilities will still be used for the separate Chambers, the architects will come forward and say that the three Chambers do not work. The architects will then say that the Coloureds and the Indians are already here, are part of the Cabinet and that the only practical solution is that there must be a multiracial unicameral parliament.

That is a good idea.

The Progs agree with that. I want to tell the hon member that the Government is implementing the policy of the Progs. Hon members of the PFP must just be patient. The architects of the multiracial tricameral Parliament considered a multiracial unicameral Parliament, but they said that the Transvalers would not accept it and that it could not therefore be piloted through. Initially three ethnic parliaments were proposed and subsequently a tricameral parliament, regarding which the hon the Prime Minister had previously reprimanded the former hon member for Moorreesburg, on the grounds that that was not the policy of the National Party. Those Transvalers and the hon member for Umhlatuzana who swore with me that the day Coloureds entered Parliament they would leave, but who later agreed to the multiracial tricameral parliament; they, too, are still going to swallow a multiracial unicameral parliament.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that the self-declared cream of the Afrikaner people has gone sour. It is very clear to those of us on this side of the House that it is one thing to strive for perfection and another to live with imperfection. We on this side of the House shall live with the imperfect ethnic reality in South Africa. It is quite clear, judging from what we have heard from hon members of the CP, that the tortoise’s slip is really showing.

Everyone in South Africa can see that the Conservative Party wants to disseminate a spirit of pessimism and despondency throughout the country. [Interjections.]

Order! the hon member for Kuruman must not make interjections while sitting with this back to the Chair.

The hon members of the Conservative Party are nursing a parasitic conservatism in South Africa, a conservatism that preys on the anxieties and fears of people, and we as Afrikaners and as Whites, we on this side of the House, refuse to face the future with that spirit and attitude.

They want to perpetuate four myths that exist in South Africa at present. The first myth is that the Afrikaners are the chosen people. We in the NP reject that and say that the Afrikaner has a key role to play. I want to put it to the hon member for Kuruman that we must not do in South Africa what the CP is doing. We must not try to politicize Christianity in South Africa. We must christianize politics in South Africa. I repeat: We must not politicize Christianity, but we must christianize politics.

The second myth they want to perpetuate is that South Africa is a large and powerful country, that the Afrikaner and the Whites are large and powerful and that the world is small, and that we can ignore the world. We on this side of the House reject that myth too and we say we want to make the country as large and as powerful as possible with the co-operation of as many people as possible.

There is another myth they also cherish. They have a deathly fear and anxiety about integration. We on this side of the House say that the ethnic reality in South Africa will be our directing principle and guideline for the future. We believe that all people in this country are proud of their identity. We do not have a terrible and desperate fear that we will lose our identity if we join other people in working for the future of our country.

The next myth hon members of the CP are cherishing is the myth that the Whites are the pivot on which the economy and the future hinge. I do not have time today to refer to this in detail, but I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that I could have proved to him, quoting chapter and verse, with figures I have before me, that a town like Potgietersrus would collapse completely and the Whites of that town would be ruined if it were not for the co-operation between Whites and Blacks there. If it were not for those Black people, those people that the hon members of the CP malign so because they supposedly overrun the town on Saturday mornings, that town would collapse completely. [Interjections.]

We believe that these days in which we are living call for scouts, explorers and pioneers. I am referring to people who can scout a little, explore a little and who can lead the way, like the Voortrekkers of old. It is in this spirit that we want to face the future. We do not want opportunities to become embarrassments. We want to turn opportunities into greater opportunities. The CP like the past because they fear the future. We like the future because we believe in ourselves and in the power of everyone in this House to set an example as Whites, to do our share and to gain the respect of other people with the policy and standpoint we want to adopt for the future. [Interjections.]

It is an ironic political phenomenon that hon members of the CP boast that people applaud them because they, the CP, stand by 1948. Sir, is it not incredible that people should want to be applauded for 1948’s affairs?

Mr Chairman, I have great appreciation for the standpoint of the hon member for Innesdal. He is a product of my influence over many long years in the Transvaal Provincial Council. [Interjections.] Therefore I listen to him with some pride when he speaks here in this House.

I assume that the speech by the hon the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon was the last he will deliver in this House as Prime Minister of South Africa under the present dispensation, before he is elected, as he soon will be, the first State President of the country. I assume that after his successful trip overseas his speech was intended to be a triumphant celebration of victory. However, the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development came and spoilt the whole thing, in that the hon the Minister of Finance gave evidence here of his incompetence and the deplorable way in which he manages South Africa’s financial and economic affairs. In addition to that the hon the Minister of Cooperation and Development came along with a pamphlet that was not only to South Africa’s discredit, but also discredited the whole NP. As I sat here looking at the hon the Prime Minister I was reminded of a man who suddenly contracted measles on the first evening of his honeymoon. He was looking forward to the occasion so much and then he contracted measles. [Interjections.] I am not referring to late evening, but to the early part of the evening. Those measles are the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. [Interjections.] I predict that the hon the Minister of Finance is going to be sacked by the hon the Prime Minister within the next day or two. What the fate of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is going to be I really do not know.

I want to refer briefly to the speech by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Here we have a very interesting phenomenon. In his speech the hon the Minister referred to a so-called lie Dr Mulder told in this House. However, in his very next sentence the hon the Minister said:

Nowhere in the budget of the Department of Defence for those years was there any indication that provision was made for information funds. Immediately after he said that Dr Mulder had told a lie the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself—I cannot use the most appropriate term here—told a blatant untruth. If hon members do not believe me they can go and read the hon the Minister’s speech and make sure of the facts. [Interjections.]

I now want to say something about the NRP.

Who did you say told a blatant untruth?

I was not referring to that hon Minister but to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

†I do not think we can end the present constitutional dispensation in South Africa without saying something at the graveside of the NRP. When I listened to the pathetic way in which their leader and other hon members protested against the treatment that the NP was handing out to them, it made me think of the story of the black widow spider. The male of that species is very small and insignificant and after he has mated with the female, who is large and very powerful, she devours him. What happened here is that while the NRP in the referendum campaign was mating with the Government, they found it exhilarating and exciting; they experienced orgasmic bliss. However, as soon as that was over and the Government had benefited from the submissive, pathetic support of the NRP, it now looks at them as the black widow spider looks at her mate and is on the point of devouring that poor, unfortunate creature.

The NRP has failed because it lost direction and jettisoned its principles. It banked on opportunism for its future. But it has lost out and it is about to disappear from the scene because it has abdicated its responsibilities to South Africa and to its followers. For short-term gain it was prepared to cooperate with the Government in conflict with its own principles and its own philosophies. They hoped to gain certain advantages from it.

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

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to answer questions at this stage.

All that remains is for some of the hon members—not all of them—to slither across the floor on their bellies and join the Government on the other side. [Interjections.]

I should now like to come back to the hon the Minister of Finance. A qualified observer of the South African financial scene over the past 30 years has made certain statements, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with those statements. Going back to 1951, this observer said:

Can the hon the Minister remember that? The same person said a few days after that:

It seems as if very few things change and that only the political affiliation of the hon the Minister of Finance changes from time to time. That person also said:

I can continue to read other things said by this person, but I am not going to read them all. I want to quote just one further comment of his, namely:

Here he is referring to South Africa:

He calls my country a plague! I do not like that. He then says:

Unfortunately I do not have time to read many of the more interesting extracts from all these statements, speeches and articles. All I want to inform the House of is that this soon to be ex-Minister of Finance was the author of these statements. The significance of it is that he did the wrong thing when he joined the NP. He knew it was the wrong thing to do, and he has been wrong ever since. He has been wrong in this debate and has embarrassed the Government and South Africa. The hon the Minister has become so arrogant and self-assured that he has the temerity to declare in this House that he is the only one that is right and that everybody else is wrong. The bankers are wrong, the economists are wrong, the academics are wrong and the business people are wrong. He said that all is well. “Alles gaan goed”. There is no problem. However, let us look at a few things. The Reserve Bank, the Department of Statistics and the Bureau for Economic Research have said: Bank overdrafts have soared in five years from a modest R2 800 million to over R14 300 million, more than fourfold over five years. The rand value of court cases for debt has rocketed from R111 million in 1981 to R148 million in 1982 and to R198 million in 1983. The number of debtors brought to court reached a staggering 660 273. Judgments for non-payment of hire purchase instalments last year increased by 63%, the steepest rise ever, to top R31 million. Worse, according to many observers, has been a 43% increase in judgments for the non-payment of rents. Not only were more and more families falling deeper into debt, but at least 14,3% of families had been forced to crack their savings piggy banks to meet all the bills flowing in.

In a publication issued to us recently we find the following:

The hon the Minister of Finance is absolutely wrong when he says that all is well. There are huge problems in South Africa and we will be facing crises in future. What we need is not a Government that denies that these problems exist or runs away from them, but a Government that is capable and willing to face them squarely and to do something about them.

In the few moments remaining to me I want to say something about the responsibilities of the hon the Prime Minister. He is the chief executive of South Africa. He, and nobody else, is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the Members of Parliament in his party and of the members in his Cabinet. He cannot evade that responsibility. He cannot run away from it. He must face that responsibility and, when it is necessary to discipline those people in the interests of the credibility of the Government, this Parliament and South Africa, he must do so. He must not run away from that responsibility.

In the last couple of days we have had an example, a very unfortunate example, of a governing party falsifying State documents and using them for party-political purposes. This was not a matter of extracting quotations and placing them in a party-political pamphlet. This was a matter of producing a photostat of a falsified document to indicate that it was in fact the original document of that State department. When Minister Ben Schoeman was Minister of Finance in South Africa, he said on occasion that he had examined the file of Mr Gideon Bands, who was an MP from Natal. When the Opposition objected, Mr Ben Schoeman was big enough to stand up in the House and say: “It was wrong and I apologize”. Now the Government, which cannot tell the difference between the State and their political party, has abused its authority and power and has in fact, without authority and without any right to do so, taken a State document and used it for party-political purposes. I believe that the hon the Prime Minister is the man who is ultimately responsible. Not the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who put up a pathetic performance here, but the hon the Prime Minister must act and act effectively.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 75.

Mr Speaker, all I can say is thank goodness that diatribe has come to an end. What a performance! Here we are busy with a historic debate, as the hon the Prime Minister and other hon members have pointed out … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply to the questions put to him.

I was saying that this is a historic debate. It is the last debate of this kind we will witness in this House. I do think that in the circumstances the hon the Leader of the Opposition could have arranged for somebody worthy of the occasion to speak last for his party. I say that with great respect. I have been trying to think how I can characterize the hon member for Bryanston without being unparliamentary and the best I can do is to say that he is a loud-mouthed complete misfit. For an hon member like that to talk about finance and financial policy makes a mockery of the House. We heard what he had to say about the supplementary budget.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to cast a reflection on an hon member by calling him a loud-mouthed misfit?

The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “misfit”. It is unparliamentary.

All right, I will withdraw, Sir. If you ask me to withdraw it, I withdraw it. However, I can think of no other appropriate description that will get past you. [Interjections.] I think it is a very great pity that this last major financial and general debate should end on that note. I just want to say that, where the hon member had the presumption to talk about my colleague the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development as he did, I am very proud to be classified with him. [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point can laugh as much as he likes, because he is a complete light-weight. I would have thought that an hon member who has made such a gaffe when he talked about budgetting the other day with reference to the Supplementary Budget as the hon member for Bryanston did, would have learned his lesson and kept very, very quiet on finance. However, apparently some people have no capacity for learning.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti also said some very remarkable things in this debate. He said some really quite astonishing things. He said that what we had to do was to reduce Government spending by 10%. Therefore, a budget of R25 billion must be reduced by R2,5 billion. The hon member had before him all the details in regard to Budget expenditure. These were set out in minutest detail in the very substantial Estimate of Expenditure. The hon member did not give us one single item which should have been cut out of the Budget or on which expenditure should have been reduced, and I want to suggest that he was unable to do so. If he could have done so, he would have been under an obligation to do so. This is also the hon member who said that the Minister of Finance controls the money supply. The Minister of Finance does not control the money supply. That is controlled by the Reserve Bank as an autonomous and very highly regarded institution. However, what is so surprising to my mind is that in these financial debates that hon member invariably shoots his mouth off. You know, Sir, a couple of years ago he said that the country was going bankrupt. However, he sits next to an hon member from whom he should be able to learn something. [Interjections.] The hon member for Durban North, as much as we may disagree on financial matters, puts his case fairly and calmly and in a balanced fashion, and we are pleased to listen to him. The hon member for Amanzimtoti who sits next to him takes no lesson from the hon member for Durban North at all.

While we are discussing this sort of thing—it was, of course, the hon member for Bryanston who raised these delightful issues—I want to say that the hon member for Yeoville is a very excitable hon member especially when he talks about finance which I would have thought was the last thing that he should get excited about.

You make me excited at the slighest provocation.

The hon member is very excitable. He too has a very good example of a calm and considered debater in his ranks in the person of the hon member for Edenvale. We are always prepared to listen to the hon member for Edenvale very carefully because he knows what he is talking about. [Interjections.] He talks authoritatively on his subjects. I have said this before. I have even given the hon the Leader of the Opposition good advice. [Interjections.] I think it was about three years ago, if he will remember, that I told him that he had a first-class man on financial matters in the person of the hon member for Edenvale, and I asked him why he did not make him his spokesman. He has not done so yet. [Interjections.] I said the same thing to the hon leader of the NRP. I told him that he had somebody in his party to speak in this regard but he has not taken my advice either. [Interjections.] Therefore, in these debates, Sir, we have to listen to some of the most remarkable and often ridiculous statements being made about financial matters.

That very brilliant financier, the hon member for Bryanston, says that we know nothing about finance. He shouted, as he usually does, that our policies were all wrong. I have here before me that latest Standard Bank Review which I received last night. [Interjections.] Yes, I received it last night. [Interjections.]

Order! I have kindly requested hon members not to keep making remarks and commenting aloud on the hon the Minister’s speech. I now request hon members once again to obey my ruling otherwise I shall have to prohibit all interjections.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: When I was speaking, the hon the Minister did not stop interjecting for one second. Does the same rule not apply to him? [Interjections.]

Order! I have by no means prohibited interjections, but I will not allow the hon the Minister to be continually interrupted by comments from either side of the House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The hon member for Yeoville must contain himself. He is too excitable for words.

I concede that you are a protected species.

I have here the Standard Bank Review, and what does it say? It says that there are problems in the short term, which is exactly what I said. In my speech I said four times that we had serious problems, and I mentioned them. I said there was need for belt tightening and also that there was need for treat financial discipline. I said it four times. The hon member for Bryanston is not interested in facts, I said it four times, so the hon member should withdraw what he said. Now what does this paper say—and they have some authority—because the hon member for Amanzimtoti said that I must talk to the local bankers and not worry about the bankers overseas. I see the local bankers every week. I could not fit more time in than I do to speak to the financial leaders of this country. The facts are in my diary.

Read all they say.

Now what does this bank say? This bank says:

Then they go on to strongly support the rise in GST. It was the right policy, they say. Here it is. The hon member might read it. However, it is not only that. This morning I received Barclays latest business brief. The hon member can laugh again. I do not know what is so amusing about it. And what does Barclays say? They say:

They go on to say:

That is precisely what I said during the discussion of my Vote when I announced this and it is precisely what I said in this debate and in public. So what does the hon member say now?

Why do you not quote what they said about your fiscal policy?

I come to the hon member for Yeoville. He is a man who bandies things about in this House in the most reckless manner.

I quote correctly.

Oh, do you? Just take one example. In a debate in this House, the hon member quoted Prof Kantor against me on fiscal policy.

On monetary policy.

On fiscal policy.

On the control of the money supply.

On financial policy.

Please quote me correctly.

I do not know who is speaking in this debate. The hon member always complains that he is being misquoted but I am not misquoting him.

I was talking about the monetary policy.

Order!

What did Prof Kantor say? Hon members must remember that this hon member said that there was a great balance of payments problem while I said there was not. I said that there was not a fsical problem either. But what does Prof Kantor say? In the Financial Mail of 8 June 1984 he said:

That is exactly what I have said all the time. How does one debate with people like that who simply say what comes into their heads? This afternoon the hon the Prime Minister, in what I thought was a most statesmanlike speech in this House, in this historic debate, explained precisely what the so-called offer was that it has been alleged that he made about South West Africa to countries overseas. He pointed out very clearly that he did not make an offer. He pointed out that in fact he was simply stating under what circumstances South Africa would be prepared to withdraw from South West Africa. That is what he said.

The hon member for Sea Point spoke so fast that the hon member for Durban North correctly said that he goes on like a gramophone record. One can hardly keep up with him. I suppose that is really the reason why one has to look in vain for a spark of originality and depth in what he says on these important issues. He too, when caught out, becomes personal and throws in personalities.

In what way?

You said it about me.

What did I say about you?

Go and read your Hansard. The hon member must read his Hansard and then write to me.

You have lost your sense of direction.

No. Read your Hansard and write to me tomorrow and tell me what you said.

You can do it.

Right, then I shall do it.

We are bringing a few things to account now. I have listened to this debate for 12 hours and I have listened to some nonsense from the Opposition that I have not heard in this House or the Senate in 14 years. What does this hon member say? He says that the hon the Prime Minister’s explanation of the circumstances under which he would withdraw from South Africa had thrown doubt upon the hon the Prime Minister’s bona fides when he said that he was prepared …

I did not use the term “bona fides”.

He said it cast doubt on the hon the Prime Minister’s statement about his preparedness to accept Resolution 435. That is what he said.

Yes, but it is the alternative now being put.

I am drawing the attention of this House to what the hon the Prime Minister said and what construction the hon member for Sea Point immediately put on it. The construction is completely incorrect.

Read my Hansard.

The hon member for Durban North drew my attention to the interest rates on mortgage bonds. It is so that they are high. The whole interest pattern is very high. As Minister of Finance I have no power to determine interests rates on mortgage bonds, and the hon member knows that. I talk to the building societies, I am talking to them again within a few days, and we reason things out. The hon member knows that there is a new dispensation coming, for building societies and I do believe that that new dispensation will bring about certain improvements. It is going to make the building societies much more competitive, not only among themselves but also in the whole financial sector. I think only good can result. I should like to draw the attention of the hon member to the very substantial interest subsidies that exist in this country both in the public sector and the private sector which make a very big difference to the situation. That is the factual situation.

I should like to refer tomorrow just very briefly to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke about the development policies of the Government, especially in relation to the national states and one or two other matters in that regard, but at this stage I move:

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The proposed amendments in regard to free trading areas as contained in the select committee’s Group Areas Amendment Bill, emanated from a recommendation by the Riekert Commission in 1978. This commission proposed that the restrictive provisions in the Group Areas Act, 1966, on acquisition, ownership or occupation by disqualified persons in specific areas in the central business centres of cities and towns should not be applicable to properties which are used exclusively for trading, commercial and professional purposes. Following this recommendation, the Government expressed its intention in a White Paper during 1979 to amend the Group Areas Act, 1966, to the extent that accessible areas may be determined for business, trading or professional purposes. Further inquiry into certain aspects was, however, necessary.

The Technical Committee of Inquiry into the Group Areas Act, 1966, and Related Legislation—the Strydom Committee—recommended the establishment of free trading areas subject to the condition that should such a free trading area be situated in a group area, the occupational rights be reserved for the qualified group, and should such an area be situated in the controlled area, the Minister may simultaneously designate the group who may occupy such area for residential purposes. The committee also recommended that ownership rights be granted in such free trading areas.

The Select Committee on the Report of the Technical Committee resolved that the recommendations be carried into effect.

*With a view to making provision for the establishment of free trading areas, a number of sections in the Group Areas Act imposing restrictions on ownership, acquisition or occupation by disqualified persons must be repealed. It is regarded as desirable that the repeal of the relevant provisions in the Act be done by way of proclamation, depending on whether the free trading area is situated in the controlled area or a group area, in order to eliminate any uncertainty about the rights of traders in those areas. Since free trading areas will not, owing to various factors, necessarily be delimited at all centres within central business districts, it is advisable that any reference to the central business district of a town or city be omitted from the proposed section. The Bill does not only make provision for specific areas as free trading areas, but also includes even a single building which houses professional suites, for example council chambers, and may not be situated within the central business district.

The approximately 30 proclaimed section 19 user areas are all situated within the controlled area declared and defined as designated areas in terms of the legal requirements. Apart from the Diagonaal Street area in Johannesburg, where a considerable number of Indians are occupying property for residential purposes, the rest of the proclaimed areas are chiefly, if not exclusively, being used for business purposes and there consequently appears to be no valid reasons why the relevant areas cannot summarily be converted into free trading areas in terms of legislation.

I must emphasize, of course, that the proposed free trading areas will not automatically be established, since this will have to be preceded by the customary steps applicable in terms of the Act relating to the establishment of any group area. Consequently it follows that a local authority, organized bodies or even the Minister can submit a request to have a specific area investigated for the purposes of declaring it a free trading area. Such an investigation will then be advertised in advance, with all the interested parties being given an opportunity to make written representations in that connection. There will be a public inquiry and thereafter the Group Areas Board will draw up a comprehensive report, with recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister considers the report and makes known his decision, whereafter the necessary proclamation is promulgated by the State President.

I also want to point out that the new section 19 states clearly that in regard to trading in other areas referred to, occupation and use are not reserved for any specific population group, applying as they do to everyone—including members of the Black group. This does not, of course, apply as far as residential purposes are concerned, and if there is any residential use, of whatever kind, in the trading area, the existing provision remains in effect, ie that only the qualified group may own or occupy such property, except on the basis of the necessary permission granted by way of a permit. As far as the existing section 19 user areas are concerned, which are now to be converted into free trading areas in terms of the legislation, the occupational prohibition will still apply unless a specific designation for use as residential purposes is made.

The position of a woman who is married to a member of another population group, or who is cohabiting with him and, on the death of the man concerned, or the termination of such an alliance, reverts to her own population group, thereby becoming a person not qualified to inherit or to occupy such a man’s property, has also been considered, and it has been decided to amend the Act to allow a woman who is a party to such an alliance to retain, upon termination of such alliance, the rights in regard to the land which he or she owns or on which she resides.

The Strydom Committee recommended that the Chinese community, which comprises a small percentage of the total population of the Republic of South Africa, be granted exemption from the provisions of the Group Areas Act relating to White areas, since they live in White areas and make use of White facilities, etc, in the course of their daily rounds.

The Chinese constitute a minority group of approximately 10 000 individuals, 7 000 residing in the PWV area, 1 600 in Port Elizabeth and 1 400 scattered between Cape Town, Kimberley, East London and Durban. Nowhere is there a concentration of Chinese sufficient to justify a viable group area. Kabega Park in Port Elizabeth is the only Chinese group area in the country and has already been considered for de-proclamation. It is expected that the necessary notice in that connection will appear in the Gazette on 6 July 1984.

The amendment subjects the Chinese to the same prohibition that applies to the White group at present, ie that if a Chinese man were to marry or live with a member of the Black, Coloured or Indian group, he would be regarded as a member of the population group to which the relevant woman belongs.

Since investigation into quite a number of user areas—section 19 areas—has already reached an advanced state, and the immediate commencement of the amending Act would result in the necessary investigations having to be undertaken from scratch, in the Committee Stage I should like to move that the amending Act come into effect on a date to be published by proclamation.

Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a difficulty for us as an Opposition as we are opposed to the Group Areas Act because it is one of the pillars of apartheid. The Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act are the very foundations of apartheid. Therefore, in principle, we are opposed to the Group Areas Act, but because these amendments represent an improvement of what we regard as a thoroughly undesirable piece of legislation we will be supporting it. [Interjections.] We believe that this kind of legislation does not resolve problems in South Africa. People will choose to live with their own communities, and they should be allowed to do so. As South Africa urbanizes and as our cities begin to conform to the large cities of the rest of the world where there are several millions of people living in a city, we will find that the Group Areas Act will come under tremendous pressure. We believe that to have racial solutions to what are very considerable problems of urbanization is aggravating those problems and not helping to resolve them. It is for that reason that we are disappointed that we do not have a Bill representing better amendments, but preferably a scrapping of the whole of the Group Areas Act.

Mr Speaker, this amending Bill is a product of a committee, the members of which were appointed by yourself, to investigate the technical report by Judge Strydom. I think it is appropriate to mention this report. However, before I do that I also want to state that the chairman of the committee, the hon the Minister of Community Development, has indicated that this committee is to continue in existence. Hopefully it will result in more changes to the Group Areas Act and when the new Parliament comes into existence it will become a more effective committee with Coloured and Indian members serving on it. These are the people who have felt the harsh hoof of this legislation. I should also like to mention that I think that the chairman of that committee did a good job. He looked for consensus and sought to reflect in the best way the new style of government that South Africa is endeavouring to apply.

People should know that the essential assumption of the Strydom Committee report, although technically one of the better reports that has been brought to Parliament and to hon members of this House, is that apartheid must remain and that residential segregation of immovable property must be legally enforced. In fact, in the report the hon judge warmly recommends the effects of group areas removals and gives them his approval.

The select committee, however, had some problems with one of the Strydom Committee’s recommendations, and that was that a Land Affairs Bill should be introduced to change the whole structure of the Group Areas Act; in fact scrap the Group Areas Act and replace it with a Bill dealing with land title control. While not necessarily rejecting that recommendation, the committee felt that it was a radical change. The majority of the members of the select committee did of course support the principle of segregation, but because it meant a completely new approach to enforcing legal racial segregation of immovable property felt more time should be spent considering the implications.

I now intend dealing briefly with the three changes that are being introduced. I believe it is unfortunate that six years after the Riekert Commission’s report the Government now introduces this amendment.

*Mr Cas Greyling, the then member for Carletonville, always told a story of a “dominee” and an elder who paid a call on one of their parishioners on a farm in the Western Transvaal one month in summer. During the afternoon storm clouds gathered, the sky became overcast and it started to rain. The “dominee” and the elder bid the member of the congregation farewell and departed in their horse-drawn cart. The floodgates of heaven opened up and while they were crossing a stream they saw that the river was in flood. The elder said to the “dominee”: “Dominee, now we must pray”. The “dominee” replied: “No, brother, now is the time to whip the horses!”

†I really think that if this Government is going to move at such a slow pace it could take the advice of that “dominee” to heart. If we are going to have reform in this country, we have to get moving a good deal faster than to take six years before introducing what is a very mild amendment in response to a recommendation made by the Riekert Commission. Of course, the people who have actually made the biggest contribution to this amendment are amongst the most hardworking, skillful members of our business community in South Africa, and that is the Indian community. The Indian community have in a very skilful way, in the best spirit of free enterprise and entrepreneurial skill, worked hard, with the assistance of many decent White South Africans, to get themselves established in the central business districts as traders. It is that reality that has partly made the Government realize that the Group Areas Act in central business districts is not going to work.

Furthermore, we know that over 50% of the moneyspenders in the central shopping areas are people who are not White. One can go into any supermarket in the world, and one will find that it is crowded. But when a South African supermarket is crowded White people see it as being crowded by people who are not White. That is a reality in South Africa. In fact, the Johannesburg central business district is often called Soweto’s central business district, and anybody who visits it on a Saturday will agree with that. Clearly, if we are going to develop our non-White community, the need for multiracial central business districts will become even greater.

Having paid tribute to the Indian community, I hope that as a result of this change of the law, the nominee system which was forced on the Indian community, will fall away. A nominee system was an attempt to circumvent the law. It is my hope that the Indian community will have sufficient confidence in this amending Bill to be able to stop making use of that system. I should also immediately say that I think the hon the Minister should give us an indication as to whether he is going to repeal Proclamations R 5 to R 7 relating to the employment of people of colour as managers who are disqualified in those White areas that are not declared central business districts. Hon members may be aware that a group as large as Edgars incurred a criminal conviction because it employed a disqualified person as a manager of one of its stores in a White area. I hope the hon the Minister will move quickly to get rid of that provision. I also hope that Proclamation R 228 is also going to fall by the wayside. I think it is an intolerable situation that any supermarket or cafe can admit whomever they like to buy in that shop, but if they want to sit down and eat their hamburger they cannot do so. I think it should be left to the ordinary shop owner to exercise his right of admission.

The second aspect relates to widows being allowed to go on living, even if they are disqualified persons in terms of the Act, in certain areas and I think this is a humane and decent provision which we will support.

The Chinese community will now also be free of the awful burden of this Act which has been such a pressure on them. Our Chinese community is the most integrated Chinese community in the world. Generally speaking they go to White schools and White universities. In contrast to Chinese communities in other parts of the world where Chinese tend to live in their own relatively tightly knit communities the Chinese of South Africa are fast undergoing the sort of pressures which the French-speaking Huguenots were subjected to when they came to South Africa in the 17th century. I believe that people with a culture which is millenia old should be given at least these decent human rights. I think it is not inappropriate to ask whether these Chinese people are going to get the franchise. Are they going to be allowed to vote and for whom are they going to be allowed to vote? [Interjections.] They might even vote for the hon the Minister of Community Development.

This Bill is a small step to reform and in many ways it is just making de jure something which is de facto in South Africa. In that sense it is not a huge step forward, but we will support it because we believe it is an improvement.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that his party will be supporting this Bill, and I wish to express my gratitude for that. The select committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister made unanimous recommendations and consequently, I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss this matter at length again. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North covered a wide field and discussed various matters affecting this matter. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I am sure that the CP will have a turn to speak in this debate, and I therefore ask the hon member for Kuruman to give me an opportunity to finish speaking. He will have his turn in a moment. In discussing various matters, legislation as well, it struck one that it was like the spider and the bee. One collects honey, and the other collects poison from the same flower. I therefore want to say that as regards this matter the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that although he is in favour of the legislation, the entire Group Areas Act should be abolished. The hon member is supporting it now, but with a view to the whole matter being rejected ultimately. I want to emphasize very strongly that this measure certainly does not deal with residential areas. I also want to point out to the hon member that the Theron commission also emphasized very strongly at that time that it was not in the interests of the various ethnic groups to be placed in the same residential areas. If he doubts that, I can read him that recommendation of the Theron Commission.

Sir, this matter has a long history. It began with the report of the Riekert Commission. The President’s Council also made certain recommendations subsequently. The Stry-dom Committee considered it. Then the select committee made the unanimous recommendations which gave rise to the measure before this House at present. As the hon member rightly said, it is not so much a question of a new principle being involved in this matter, whilst it will in fact mean that it will be possible to deal with matters more easily and that it will cause less irritation to those who are involved. In South Africa we have a free market system. I should like to emphasize that. If we want to realize this it is necessary for us to carry this measure through. We therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

I want to indicate what the procedure will be in practice. The local authority or another institution will take the initiative in the normal course of things with the proclamation of the free trade area by making the proposal, whereupon a further procedure will follow. The Department of Community Development will then undertake its own investigation and the proposal will then be advertised. The relevant section of the Group Areas Board will then hold a public hearing and the report will then go to the full Group Areas Board. Those recommendations are then referred to the State Department and the Administrator concerned. The department then reports its findings to the Minister. That is how the matter will be disposed of.

As I said initially, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on this matter any further. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated that the official Opposition supports this legislation I shall therefore let this suffice. I should like to indicate that we believe that this legislation is going to be valuable. We hope that when it comes into operation it will be to be benefit of everyone in commerce.

Mr speaker, the hon member for Welkom contends that this legislation is the result of a unanimous decision of the select committee. I just want to place on record that the hon member for Lang-laagte, who served on that select committee, was not present when the final resolution was adopted. He consistently indicated that he was not in favour of this. We are therefore placing on record that we do not sanction this Bill. Accordingly I shall be moving an amendment at the end of my speech.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member for Brakpan? If the CP representative was not present in the select committee, and also lays down conditions which he knows to be in conflict with what is customary, can the hon member for Brakpan rightly declare that his party opposed this issue in the select committee? When this resolution was adopted, the CP representative was not present. So how was the committee to deduce what his standpoint was?

Mr Speaker, all I want to place on record is the fact that we do not agree. All the members present voted in favour of it, but it was not a unanimous decision.

Why was he hiding away?

It is very easy to say that he hid away, but he was in bed. He was sick. The hon member for Randburg is also sick, but is that held against him? Are those the kind of arguments being used by hon members of the NP? They are bent and twisted and are getting to be increasingly more bent and twisted. [Interjections.]

†Unfortunately, Sir, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is not in the House at the moment. I should like just briefly to refer to one point he made. He said that the PFP was committed to free association. Obviously, Sir, we differ fundamentally from the PFP on this point. We argue that in a plural society such as we have in South Africa there has to be the constant protection of minority groups in order to ensure that those various groups retain their identities. That is why the CP still believes firmly in separate development and in the segregation of groups. We believe in this because we say it is to the benefit of all groups in South Africa.

In respect of the socalled Land Affairs Bill, we were given to understand that stricter offences would be created in the Bill. There was even talk of the fact that if a person lets a property in contravention of the law to an unqualified person, he may be dispossessed of that property. Apparently the Government has not decided to proceed with such strict measures which also obviously demonstrates their lack of courage to proceed firmly with the matter in order to ensure that the full intent of the Group Areas Act is carried out firmly.

*It is strange to see, too, section 19 of the principal Act providing the following:

In the past he therefore had to consult the Administrator, which was actually the local authority. The hon member for Welkom has said that in practice certain things would now happen. In practice the city council would take the initiative, after which the Group Areas Board would convene an open meeting at which objections could be raised, etc. That is not in the legislation. What is, in fact, now happening is that that right, which the Administrator had, is now being taken away from him and given to the State President. [Interjections.] It is no use the hon the Minister saying, in his Second Reading speech, that the Group Areas Board will go on functioning in a certain way.

Just read the Bill. It reads “after consultation with the Administrator”.

Mr Speaker, may I please put a question?

No, Sir, The hon member should rather make his own speech. Our further argument is that what plays an important role here are not so much the interests of people of colour, but rather the fact that the “fatcats” and the domesticated Progs in the ranks of that party put pressure on the Government because the central business districts were emptying out. We have Eloff Street, Adderley Street, Church Street, Maitland Street, Smith Street and other main streets in our cities and towns. They are emptying out. Now they want that business back in those White areas. What has become of the idealism of the NP which, in the first instance, brought order to the commercial sectors of the cities and towns of South Africa, the idealism that established sophisticated Coloured and Indian business complexes? Millions of rand have been spent. The White Paper on the Riekert Report states that this should not lead to underexpenditure in regard to trading facilities established at great cost by the State in new group areas and that it would not result in a mixing of the races on a residential basis. Tremendous costs have been incurred over the years in decentralizing with regard to the Indian, Coloured and Black group areas and trading areas. What is now going to happen to the development that has taken place there, what is going to happen in regard to the struggle there was in the capitals of South Africa to develop those areas, for example in Pretoria’s market where the business areas and business premises of the Indians were moved away? Are they simply going to go back to those areas where, with so much effort and idealism, the Group Areas Act was implemented?

What is really happening here is that a de facto illegal situation is being legalized. I know what my own experience in this regard has been. Brakpan, like the Free State, is an area where Indians are not permitted to have businesses in the trading areas. Over the years, however, Indian businesses have been established there in the names of other persons who were registered or who had obtained the licences. We lodged complaints with the group areas division at John Vorster Square. We lodged complaints with the hon the Minister when he was still Deputy Minister and also with his predecessor. We asked for an end to this. It is no use saying that nothing can be done, because the licence is in a White person’s name. We furnished the proof, after an investigation, that those people were there on an occupational basis. The Government, however, did nothing about it.

That was when you were still a Nationalist.

That has been the case throughout the years. It was the case when our ambassador in Ciskei was the Minister. Even then we complained about it and asked for help. If you are in favour of putting an end to people being crowded out…

Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Brakpan aware of the fact that some of these people who submitted applications for the Indians are members of the CP?

That is not the point. Whoever they are, they have circumvented the law; and we notified the hon the Minister of the fact that the law was being circumvented, but instead of taking positive steps to put an end to it, the Government is now simply legalizing that illegal de facto situation. That is what is happening here now. If, for example, such a person has a jeweller’s shop, a consulting room or counsel chambers on the ground floor of a building in Eloff Street, why can he not be permitted to go and live on the first floor in a flat? What chance has the Government of successfully maintaining the Group Areas Act in the residential areas? It cannot even do so at the moment. Here we have another example of the threat to the security of groups, to which I referred in the Budget debate and on which the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs so vehemently attacked me.

The Government acknowledges that it can no longer maintain separateness, and it certainly cannot do so any longer. Just the other day I pinpointed examples for the hon the Minister. In Volksrust the Government has granted an Indian school principal permission to live in the White area of Volksrust. In conflict with two unanimous decisions taken by the Volksrust town council, the Government intervened and nevertheless permitted an Indian to move into the White area of Volksrust, a small community in the Transvaal. That is the kind of thing that is happening, because if one makes concessions on one point, this leads to further concessions.

The contention is now that one is dealing here with special circumstances: In a group area there are no residential erven or dwellings for such people. If a White person from one town is appointed to the post of school principal in another town, however, it is his job to find accommodation in the town to which he has moved. What we are dealing with here attests to a Government that is weak in the knees and is growing even weaker.

Regardless of that, it is provided in clause 1 that:

I wonder whether hon members know what those various sections stipulate shall not be applicable, not to Black people either. Section 13 involves restrictions on the acquisition of immovable property in controlled areas and provides:

Are Black people going to obtain proprietary rights in White business areas in terms of the new section 19? Could the verbose hon member give me an answer to that question?

Yes.

Is a Black person, in terms of this legislation, going to be entitled to obtain proprietary rights in White areas?

I shall be replying to you on that question.

Section 14 deals with companies. Section 17 deals with the restriction on occupation of land or premises in areas specified under section 16. It prohibits occupation to certain people there. Those are all sections that can be done away with in terms of the Bill. Let me also refer to section 20:

The whole question of proprietary rights, of occupation for the purposes mentioned in the new section 19, is now being opened up.

That is nonsense. Note that what is stated is “any”.

Yes, “any”. It is, however, being opened up for any of those purposes. If one therefore wants to open up a business there, or doctor’s consulting rooms, or if one wants to start up a jeweller’s shop, under certain circumstances that can be done. It is the thin end of the wedge and is a further example of the fact that the Government, the National Party, the hon the Minister are en route to integration and can no longer put on the brakes. This step is an acknowledgement of that fact, and I therefore move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, I just want to react to two of the irresponsible statements on this Bill that the hon member for Brakpan made.

In the first place the hon member hurled the reproach at this side of the House that section 19 of the Group Areas Act was now being amended in such a way that the Administrator need no longer be consulted. That was how he interpreted it, and then he launched an attack on the Government. According to him the Administrator must at present be consulted in terms of section 19 of the Act, but he said that this was being omitted from the Bill before this House. Section 19 of the principal Act reads inter alia as follows, and I am quoting:

The proposed new section 19 reads inter alia as follows, and I am quoting:

It is perfectly obvious that the hon member for Brakpan and his party have no idea of what the Group Areas Act and the Bill before this House provide. As a matter of fact his party is not interested in this.

I now come to the matter of the Black people. [Interjections.] The hon member does not want to do me the courtesy of listening when I react to the statements he has made. He does not want to debate these matters because he knows that his argument has no substance. He proclaims half-truths for petty political gain among the general public. The Conservative Party is constantly misleading the public with political distortions. I shall therefore not say another word about the hon member’s arguments. [Interjections.]

The Bill before this House is the consequence of the deliberations of a select committee which was appointed to investigate the report of the Technical Committee of enquiry into the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the community Development Act as well as certain relevant proclamations. On behalf of this House I should like to thank those persons who participated constructively in the activities of the select committee, and particularly the hon the Minister as chairman, for the expert and able way in which he guided the select committee to arrive at certain conclusions, which are indeed contained in the legislation at present before the House. The business of the select committee has not yet been concluded. Very important matters remain unfinalized, including the matter of Proclamation R228 to which the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred. The matter of Proclamations 5, 6 and 7 has not yet been finalized either. All these matters are still going to receive attention when the select committee continues its business.

I want to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North for his support in this connection. Both he and the hon member for Green Point made constructive contributions to the business of the select committee. The same also applies to the contribution of the hon member for Umbilo, who expressed expert and well-considered standpoints on the select committee.

As far as this legislation is concerned, I want to accuse the CP of running away from their past. The legislation now before this House is the result of innumerable commissions of enquiry. The President’s Council looked into this and so did the Strydom Committee. The report in which the opening of trading areas was initiated was the Riekert Report. By the way, this report is one of the most respected reports that has ever been tabled in this house. All the hon members of the CP were members of the NP in 1979 when the Riekert Report was accepted. [Interjections.] We are now witnessing an egg-dance.

When was that report debated?

I shall tell you in a moment. I should like to quote what the commission recommended in this regard. I am quoting from page 225 of the report:

be lifted. This matter was debated by the NP study group on community development in 1980, but those hon members did not say a word.

It was referred back to the Cabinet.

Even worse. Then the Cabinet published a White Paper. [Interjections.] If I am not mistaken the hon member for Waterberg—I am speaking under correction—was a Deputy Minister in 1979.

Just make certain of your facts.

I would not speak here without first checking my facts. He was the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations. The White Paper on the Riekert Report was published. At that stage the hon members of the CP were still members of this side of the House. The White Paper reads as follows:

I now accuse the CP of doing one of two things. They could have changed their standpoint on this matter, which I doubt, because the hon member for Brakpan would then have said that they had changed their standpoint. So this is not a possibility. The only other possibility is that they supported the Riekert Report and the White Paper on it half-heartedly, while behind the scenes and among themselves they lobbied to have the recommendations rejected. [Interjections.] This is the only logical conclusion one could arrive at in this connection.

In this specific connection the CP stands accused of running away from its past. Why do those hon members not stand up like men and admit that they have changed their standpoint? [Interjections.] The CP is playing a hypocritical game.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that we are playing a hypocritical game? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bellville did not specifically use the expression against an hon member of the party, but against the policy of the party. The hon member may proceed.

The CP knows that the matter of group areas is a very sensitive matter in South African politics, but in spite of that they are playing a hypocritical game and they are running away from their past, because at that stage they supported the principle embodied in this Bill. The principle of open trading areas is now completely unacceptable to them. South Africa has a free market economy and this requires the participation of everyone who is well disposed towards the interests of South Africa. If South Africa is made strong, this means that all the groups in the country will also be able to develop.

In conclusion I want to refer briefly to the spirit in which the Group Areas Act is approached by this side of the House. In the past, and this is still the case to day, this Act has been an instrument to implement social order. The Act as such is not a principle that must apply for all time, like a sacred cow. It is an instrument to ensure social order, to eliminate friction and to realize the best potential of each population group.

In conclusion I want to say that one should not only assess the Group Areas Act on the basis of how many people are shifted where, but on the degree to which it has succeeded in serving as an instrument in establishing a Christian civilization here at the southern point of Africa. The success or failure of the Group Areas Act should not be measured by who lives where, but by the extent to which it has succeeded as an instrument in structuring all the various communities in South Africa. The Group Areas Act is not an unchangeable principle, but a mechanism for structuring society.

Mr Speaker, it is quite obviously not my function to defend the legislation of the hon the Minister from the depredations of the CP, but the hon member for Brakpan made one point which I must comment upon, namely that in a plural society there must be constant protection for minorities. This point is obviously a matter of opinion, but from experience one does find that in any area where you over-protect, you weaken. This being the case, I would suggest that as a broad statement it was rather an unwise one to make. As far as I am concerned and to take it to its logical conclusion, if you oppose the concept of shopping areas being open to all races to run, quite obviously you should extend that and say that only White people can shop in White shops, Coloured people in Coloured shops, etc. That is the logical thing, otherwise you are not truly giving the protection you should be giving. I merely mention this in passing.

I want to thank the hon member for Bellville for the kind words he said about my participation in the Select Committee. I regret that I did not contribute as much as I might have done, but nonetheless I thank him for his kind words.

As I see it the bill before us is in the nature of an interim Bill, because there is no doubt that the intent originally was to re move this Bill entirely and also several other Acts like the Slums Act, the Separate Amenities Act, the Community Development Act, the Housing Act etc and to put them all into one Bill. Quite obviously this would have been a highly contentious operation and would have resulted in a very long drawn out process. In fairness to all, and with the intent of getting the open business districts in operation as soon as possible it is desirable—and I go very much along with it—that we just have the amendment to the Group Areas Act for the moment. I suggest that in due course there may well be other amendments. Having said that I want to make the position very clear that I am still in the long term, although I am quite happy to support the Bill, unhappy about one aspect, namely that the opening and making available of central business districts and other business districts will still be a Ministerial function. I believe that this is undesirable and that it should at least have been a question of the local authority having the local option. In the event of a local authority going against the will of the majority of its citizens, the Minister should have the right to interfere. That is how I personally would have preferred to have seen it develop. Nonetheless, this is certainly a vast improvement on not having the business districts open at all. As far as I can see, this development will be very helpful.

However, as I understand it, it goes further than the central business districts. If, for instance, there is a need for major shopping centres to be opened, that can be done. There is one point in the first clause that intrigues me somewhat. I refer to the words:

I am a little intrigued by the “partially for residential purposes”. What happens in the case of a major shopping centre if there is a flat for the caretaker there? Does that constitute “partially for residential purposes”? If, as in the Gardens Shopping Centre, there are some flats in one part of a big shopping centre, does that constitute the premises being “partially for residential purposes”?

Then we issue a permit.

Yes, but that is the whole problem. We are trying to get away from the permit system. I leave that with the hon the Minister. Perhaps he can in due course comment on that particular issue, because I do think it is a point that has to be borne in mind.

I also want to draw hon members attention to the peculiar thinking of some South Africans. On page 23 of the Strydom report one reads, with reference to nominees:

For goodness sake, does this constitute an evil? I have a totally different idea of what constitutes evil. Something that is evil is something that is against a natural law and not something that is against a man-made law, and this is very definitely a law that could only apply in South Africa. Therefore I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see it as being evil per se. In any case, that is not before us in the Bill and I merely mention it in passing.

I am very pleased that there was no question of introducing in this Bill harsh punishment in respect of nominees. Presumably, that will be dealt with at some stage in the future. I believe that this Bill does represent a vast improvement. I am very happy that in respect of the Chinese community there is considerably more flexibility concerning group areas. They may well in certain circumstances say that they do not want to be involved with the White community. That is something we will have to look at the appropriate time.

The question of the widow being able to retain ownership and occupancy of property in the event of the death of her husband is obviously a humanitarian aspect which must be supported. There have been hardships in the past because of the relevant provision. So, Sir, I am very happy on behalf of the NRP to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it came as no surprise to me that the hon members of the NRP support this Bill. In fact, I had already made a note in my prepared speech that the PFP, as well as the NRP say that this Bill is a step in the right direction. It is a movement away from separate development on the path of integration.

It is a step forward.

When one speaks about separate development the hon member for Innesdal says one is moving backwards. However, we say that separate development affords peoples the opportunity to govern themselves in fatherlands. That is a policy about which peoples have fought bloody wars over the years.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, before adjourning for dinner, I said that I was not surprised that the NRP and PFP are supporting this Bill. Both parties have said that it is a step in the right direction. It is a step away from separate development and a step in the direction of integration. When I said that it is a step away from separate development, the hon member for Innesdal said that the CP was living in the past with its separate development.

He did not say that.

I find it odd that if someone in the CP speaks about separate development, one is living in the past. According to some people one is then speaking about an obsolete concept. [Interjections.] When I said that the CP stands for separate development and that every people can have full self-determination in its own geographic area, hon members opposite made all kinds of remarks.

I want to quote from the twelve point plan of the Government party. Point No 3 reads as follows:

It goes on to say:

That appears in the document of those hon members. The alternative to an own geographic area in which every nation could rule itself as it pleases is integration, conflict and engulfment of the Whites and other minority groups. That is what it says in the document. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the hon member for Bellville. The hon member for Brak-pan asked the hon member for Bellville whether the abolition of section 13 means that Black people can obtain freehold in White urban areas. The hon member for Bellville then undertook to reply to the hon member for Brakpan. A moment ago he spoke about people who run away, but he ran away from this reply. I therefore want to ask the hon member for Bellville whether the Black people can obtain freehold if section 13 is abolished.

The hon the Minister will reply on my behalf. I shall react to that during the Committee Stage.

The hon member said he would furnish the answer and I am therefore asking him whether the Black man will obtain that freehold. [Interjections.] I find it odd that the chairman of the NP’s study group is now instructing the hon the Minister to reply on his behalf. It is a very simple question, but I know what the personal standpoint of that hon member is. I know that he advocates freehold for Black people, here in the Western Cape as well. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister is going to reply to the question the hon member for Brakpan put to the hon member for Bellville.

He never chickens out.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if by that he means that the hon member for Bellville is a chicken.

No, I said that the hon the Minister was not chicken.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs falls into the trap in every debate.

The hon member is not prepared at all. He does not know what to say.

The hon member for Bellville said the CP is running away from its past. He also quoted from the Riekert Report and the White Paper. I want to remind the hon member that as Minister of Community Development, Mr Marais Steyn submitted a Bill to the caucus study group of the NP which established open business areas, grey areas. Under the leadership of members of the NP caucus who are in the CP at present there was so much opposition to that in the caucus that that Minister withdrew the proposed Bill. [Interjections.] They are sitting here. We who are sitting here, as well as Mr A C van Wyk who is the chief secretary of the CP at present, objected to it. [Interjections.] We objected vehemently to it in the caucus group and, as far as I know, it was the first time in history that a Minister capitulated before a study group of the NP. He withdrew that Bill and went to the Cabinet. [Interjections.] What are these areas other than grey areas, grey business areas? The hon the Minister, the Government, was just waiting for those Conservative members who opposed integration, who opposed the White man being crowded out of his own living space, to disappear, to get out. And now they are coming forward with this Bill. There is no longer any resistance whatsoever in that party. The hon member says that the CP has changed its standpoint. When the NP accepted power-sharing and the principle of a mixed government in 1982, a number of members left the NP and formed a new party, the Conservative Party of South Africa. We gathered Afrikaners from different political parties, the greatest percentage of whom were former members of the NP. [Interjections.] Yes. Former members of the HNP, who were also members of the NP previously. The members of the CP held a congress and we discussed and accepted a policy at an open congress, and that policy which was accepted at an open congress differs with that of the NP—the NP to which we belonged—in respect of practical implementation. We accepted that at a congress. We have changed, but that was endorsed by a congress, and we represent that party. We are not sitting here as former members of the NP; we are sitting here as members of the CP.

I now want to come back to the Bill. It is a consequence of the Constitution, and I want to tell that hon member that the NP has also changed. It has held five congresses to change its policy. I do not think one should be ashamed of changing. I do not take it amiss of them for having changed along this path. This Bill before the House at present is aimed at removing certain restrictions on the occupation and use of buildings, land and premises for trading, commercial, professional or religious and educational purposes. In principle, the Group Areas Act is aimed at affording every people or population group the opportunity to give full expression to its community life within an own group area. Consequently, over the years the NP has striven to delimit areas in every town and city for Whites, Coloureds, Indians, as well as for Black people. Over the years the NP has striven to create an infrastructure in every group area for that particular ethnic group, and infrastructure which is aimed at creating a fully-fledged community life for the ethnic group concerned. The objective of the NP was an own local authority, own educational institutions, own sports clubs and own sports facilities, own churches and own business centres. Mr Piet Marais, the former MP for Moorreesburg, was very fond of re-fering to the developing White and Coloured group areas in towns in the Boland as dual towns. He was very fond of referring to that as the development of dual towns. The NP was in fact creating fully-fledged dual towns, and when Black people were present, triple towns. I can recall very well how as Nationalists we told the Brown people that they cannot compete with the White businessman in the main street of Kuruman, nor in Adderley Street in Cape Town, nor in Voortrekker Road in Parow. The Coloured person can be a fully-fledged businessman in Wrenchville or in Mitchell’s Plain, without competing with the moneyed White man.

Consequently, today we have a fine little Coloured town plus-minus 5 km outside Kuruman. I am referring to Wrenchville. When one approaches it from a distance, one sees the towers of different churches in Wrenchville reaching into the sky, one finds a butchery, a restaurant, shops and a two-star hotel, where Coloured businessmen conduct business in their own right. There we find an own post office, with a Coloured postmaster.

Under the government of the NP.

As an NP member of Parliament, I asked for that town and it was granted, and the Coloureds are grateful to me for that, but the NP is deviating from that path and members of the NP must wake up and realize that.

I hope that shortly there will be an own police station in that beautiful little town as well in which a Brown police officer is going to be the commander in his own town. This little town has its own management committee. Kuruman, the White group area, a White town with its own business area, own sportsfields, schools, churches, a police station, a post office and own residential areas, lies parallel to Wrenchville. Kuruman is the cradle of the White inhabitants of that group area.

I should like to quote from point 2 of the twelve-point plan of the Government party. The NP says it rejects any system of horizontal differentiation which amounts to one nations dominating another. I continue to read:

How many of those 12 points still work?

Few of the 12 points are working at present, and I want to tell the hon member that it is because the Government is in the process of taking over the policy of the PFP little by little. One of these days the PFP will have to go and look for another policy.

Surely the group areas of Kuruman and Wrenchville are the finest realization of the principle of vertical differentiation. Here we find vertical differentiation by way of separate development: Whites and Coloureds who can develop along their own lines to the full realization of their potential. Here we have an own business area, own sports facilities, own local government, own educational institutions.

In this Bill the principle of vertical differentiation, the principle of separate development, is being encroached upon and that is why the PFP supports the Bill. It is being encroached upon in that certain restrictions on the existing group area is being done away with. Encroachment on the principle of the Group Areas Act by this Bill is a consequence of the new course of the NP in making provision for the logical consequence of power-sharing and a multiracial government. That is why this Bill is being introduced. The Bill is before this House to amend the Group Areas Act in such a way that it fits in with a multiracial tripartite coalition Cabinet. This amendment is the first step in the direction of the total abolition of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Let us look at a few examples.

First there was separate sport, then there was multi-ethnic sport and now we have multiracial sport. Constitutionally, there would first have been three ethnic Parliaments. Now there is one multiracial tricameral Parliament and within three years there will be a multiracial unicameral Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Community Development said that certain restaurants would be thown open so as to accommodate certain people and that he would issue permits. Today all restaurants are open. The PFP are therefore quite right when they say that it is a step in the right direction. That is the foot in the door about which Mr Rajbansi spoke.

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

No, Sir. According to the PFP it is a step in the direction of integration and the abolition of the Group Areas Act. Why is the Government effecting this change to the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.] The first reason for this is the legalization of students of colour who live in White group areas and who study at White universities. [Interjections.] Hon members in the Government party laugh about the fact that the Group Areas Act is being amended and that separate development is being done away with. However, the people are settling the hash with the Government in Potgietersrus. The people will also settle the hash of the Government in the next by-election, the one in Ladybrand. [Interjections.] With the amendment of the Group Areas Act, the Government party is making provision for the legalization of students of colour who live in White group areas and who study at White universities.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon the Minister says I am talking nonsense, but I want to put it to him that this very provision in the amending Bill will be used to do so. Provision is also made for people of colour to be able to live in university hostels with White students.

Order! To which clause in the Bill is the hon member referring now?

Mr Speaker, it says in the Bill that exceptions can be made in respect of certain educational purposes.

The hon member must indicate the specific clause.

I quote from the long title of the Bill:

The hostels of the University of Stellenbosch are buildings, they are on premises and are used for educational purposes. The hon the Minister of Community Development is making provision for people of colour to be able to live in university hostels with White students.

The chairman of the student branch of the National Party at Stellenbosch, Mr My-burgh, is an ardent supporter of people of colour studying at Stellenbosch living in hostels like Wilgenhof and Dagbreek. Does the hon member for Stellenbosch agree with him? [Interjections.]

I agree with him.

The hon member for Bryanston agrees with Mr Philip Myburgh. It is quite strange that certain Nationalists and certain Progs agree on certain matters.

Another reason why the Group Areas Act has to be altered is to give effect to the policy of the NP of sharing facilities. I want to quote from a speech made by Mr Hernus Kriel at Springbok about sharing facilities. He said:

He said that that is the NP’s policy. He is the MPC of the hon the Minister of Community Development and the MEC responsible for Local Government in the Cape Province. He went on to say:

[Interjections.] Sir, those hon members think that they will confuse me, but they are so confused themselves that they make a joke of everything. [Interjections.] I want to quote that again:

That is why I say that another reason for the amendment of the Group Areas Act is to make provision for this policy of sharing. Gone are the days when sports fields, school halls, town halls, camping facilities and caravan parks were peculiar to the ethnic group in whose group area those facilities were situated. Those days were past. Multiracial sports clubs, multiracial Government institutions and multiracial community organizations such as development associations, for example, are compelling the Government to abolish the restrictions in terms of the Group Areas Act. Let me mention just one example in this regard. Surely there will not be three development associations in the Western Cape for the different groups, but only one. As is the case at present, all members of Parliament will be involved in the activities of the development association. White, Brown and Indian members of Parliament from the Western Cape will first have to obtain the necessary permission in terms of the Group Areas Act when they hold a congress in the town hall of Malmesbury, for example. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is being introduced. [Interjections.]

There is another reason why the Group Areas Act is being amended. Today large school buildings and school hostels are standing empty in some rural towns, which were once vital towns, and where there were many young White children. There are a large number of Coloured children in those towns today, and I want to predict today that in terms of these amendments to the Group Areas Act—those hon members can shake their heads if they wish—the Government will give permission in the future for Coloured children to make use of these schools and hostels. [Interjections.] Those hon members can shake their heads if they wish, but that will happen. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs that I told people that a Coloured would never wear a Springbok blazer.

Who said that?

I did. The hon member did, too. [Interjections.] I had to swallow that remark later. The Coloureds are wearing their Springbok blazers now. Consequently, I say those hon members can shake their heads if they wish, but this legislation is going to be implemented to use those schools that are empty for Coloured children. [Interjections.] This amending legislation makes it possible for the Government to use those schools and hostels in White group areas for Coloureds.

There is another very important reason. Wealthy businessmen who want to attract the business of Black and Brown consumers to the White business centres for their own benefit are pressurizing the Government into altering this Bill.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to reply to that hon member’s questions. [Interjections.] Wealthy businessmen who begrudge Black and Brown businessmen having businesses in their own areas, wealthy businessmen who would not like to see the development of own business areas for Black and Brown people in their own group areas, are pressurizing the Government into altering the Group Areas Act. They also make large contributions to the NP’s funds. [Interjections.] Hon members to my left are making a noise because they do not want to hear truth. [Interjections.] Wealthy White businessmen know that Coloured businessmen who are entering the business world for the first time cannot compete with them in Adderley Street and in Voortrekker Road, Parow, and that Black businessmen cannot compete with them in Eloff Street, Johannesburg. That is why those White businessmen are making large contributions to the NP, which is seeing to it that the Group Areas Act is now being altered.

The CP is satisfied with the Group Areas Act as it stands at present. Our standpoint is the same as the one set out in this information document of the NP, viz:

That is our standpoint, since we know that the alternative is integration, conflict and engulfment of the Whites and other minority groups. [Interjections.] The NP has taken that first small step on the road to abolishing the Group Areas Act in its entirety. After all, we know now that when Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi come here, they will strive to have the Group Areas Act abolished, together with the NRP and the PFP. [Interjections.]

The CP is of the opinion that there are the finest opportunities for people of colour in their own groups areas. Brown businessmen should be given the opportunity to begin their own business undertakings in their own right here on the Cape Flats in the group areas of the Brown people and to continue unhindered without the competition of wealthy businessmen, the “fat cats” of Cape Town. In our opinion, it is not necessary for those people to have to compete with the “fat cats”, the wealthy White businessmen, in Adderley Street. [Interjections.] We do not begrudge the Brown people being able to develop unhindered to the highest level of which they are capable in the commercial field in their own group areas. Nor do we begrudge them that in their own areas as regards education and matters pertaining to sport. [Interjections.] We do not begrudge the Brown people and the Indians all these things in their own areas, but we also claim them for the White man of South Africa. For that reason the CP cannot support this first small step.

You are a racist!

The hon member for Kimberley South says that I am a racist, but I want to quote what he said during the referendum campaign—and I quote him verbatim;

That is what the hon member for Kimberley South said.

Do you agree with that?

No, I do not agree with that. [Interjections.] (Time expired.)

Mr Speaker, I would have liked to have made a meaningful contribution to the debate this evening and prepared myself for it, but after a member of the CP, the hon member for Kuruman, spoke, it was almost impossible for me to do so. To make a decent speech after a speech such as the one we have just been listening to is almost like arriving at a barn dance dressed in a tuxedo. It is completely inappropriate.

This afternoon the hon member for Brakpan made the first contribution on behalf of the CP. What did he begin with an astounding blunder when he said that consultation with the Administrators was being thrown overboard in this Bill. It was obvious that the hon member had not prepared himself properly—if he had prepared himself at all—for this is stated in the very first line of the first clause of the Bill. When the hon member’s attention was drawn to this, and he realized his mistake, he did not apologize. He did not even show his embarrassment, but fell back on the old hackneyed arguments which the hon member for Langlaagte always advances. After all, the hon member for Langlaagte always talks about the “fat cats”, and then tries to associate the NP with them. These are merely random arguments and provocative statements which are being made for want of proper arguments. The hon member for Brakpan said this afternoon, and the hon member for Kuruman repeated it, that businesses in Adderley Street were losing customers. Anyone who has ever walked down Adderley Street knows that to be absolute nonsense. A person who dishes up such arguments here, has no arguments. He also used the old tactic of quoting exceptional cases, exaggerating them out of all proportion, and presenting them as new principles of the NP. He mentioned a case in Volksrust to which I think the hon the Minister will reply. He capped it all with a grand finale by saying that the NP was irrevocably committed to a course of integration and then smugly resumed his seat. The things he said were nothing but groundless exaggerations.

A moment ago the hon member for Kuru-man rose to his feet and continued to embroider on the same pattern. Since I have been sitting in this House, and I am saying this with all due respect, the hon member for Kuruman has been singing the same old refrain, and one really needs the help of providence to endure it. He uses the twelve-point plan and always wrests it out of context. He quotes selectively from it. From the party’s programme of action he quotes point 3, but then only the bold print. He skips the essential part and then quotes a single sentence again. Those are the kind of debating methods one gets from those hon members. He glibly equates the so-called grey areas with free trading areas, and surely one cannot do that. He talks about a community living its own life in terms of this Bill, but since when have communities in this country lived their own lives in the shops of our cities? When he alleges here that we have embarked upon a course of integration, as far as residential areas are concerned as well, he knows that there is a White Paper that was published by the Government. He was a member of the NP when that White Paper was published, and he will not be able to evade shared responsibility for it. If the hon member had done his homework, he would have read this White Paper, and if he had not agreed with it, he could have stood up in the NP caucus and recorded an objection to it. However, he did not do that.

It is stated clearly in the White Paper that in the investigations which preceded the allocation of such accessible areas, the Group Areas Board will, inter alia, satisfy itself that the allocation of such an area will not lead to the underutilization of commercial facilities established at great expense by the State in new group areas and that it will not lead to mixed residential areas. Surely this is the policy of the NP as announced in the White Paper, and why is the hon member now trying to imply the opposite? I am now going to allow myself the luxury of ignoring the hon member for Kuruman. Surely their actual speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte, has already placed on record their party’s opposition to free trading areas. He did so on 24 February 1984 in a debate on a motion of the hon member for Umhlanga. He said, inter alia (Hansard, 24 February 1984, col 1734):

I repeat: He said it was a requirement of life that one must keep to one’s own group. What nonsense is that? If the hon member’s standpoint had to be implemented, it would mean that we could never go out into the street. No person would ever be able to leave his house. One would never be able to go to a shop. One would never be able to go out to work. Wherever one goes, if one sets foot out of one’s own house, one will have to move outside one’s own group. That is simply the way things are. It applies to everyone in this country and it applies to all people everywhere in the world. It is ridiculous to absolutize group consciousness and the endeavour to retain group identity in this way.

This Bill was a long time in the making. It began shortly after the Erika Theron Commission brought out its report. After that the Government for many years applied the policy of creating so-called free trading areas in terms of section 19 on the basis of requests or in places where the Government itself deemed this feasible. To date approximately 30 such areas have been created. These were created under the present Group Areas Act, which the hon member for Kuruman praised so highly. By implication, therefore, the hon member for Kuruman is also in favour of the 30 areas which already exist.

The Riekert Commission then instituted a proper investigation and, inter alia, investigated the status quo. I just want to give an indication of its findings. I think these are of material importance to the debate. The commission found, inter alia, that some of the disadvantages of the present system were: The resettlement costs which it entailed for the State; the dissatisfaction which it caused among traders who had to be resettled; the inconvenience for the general public, which is surely an important argument; and the fact that only a small percentage of the community benefitted from the protection of trading rights.

Another very important finding of the commission was that the protection of trading rights by means of the implementation of the Act was totally irreconcileable with the principles of the free market system which are being practised in our country and that it impaired competition, entrepreneurial freedom, consumer sovereignity and the maximalization of welfare. These are excellent arguments as to why we should be part of the movement which this Bill represents.

General free trade was also considered by the commission and they found that there was a great deal of merit in the idea because there was a great deal of merit in completely free trading areas. The commission also decided against this, however, particularly because it would encroach too much on vested interests and hence cause too much friction.

Ultimately they came forward with the recommendation of demarcated free trading areas. This recommendation was accepted by the Government in June 1979 and published in a White Paper, the White Paper to which I have referred a moment ago. Today we are simply implementing a policy undertaking given five years ago by the Government.

This Bill is a movement in the direction of a more balanced participation of all population groups in the economy of the country. It is necessary for us to move in this direction. It is necessary in the interests of the welfare and prosperity of all of us. It is no threat whatsoever to the survival of the Whites. Nor is it a threat to the preservation of our own identity. For that reason it is a good measure which deserves our support and I gladly support it.

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us is of course more remarkable for what it does not achieve than for what it in fact does or will achieve. I think there is scarcely any doubt about that. To tell the truth, I think that my standpoint is supported by the nature of the debate being conducted here. When it comes to the Group Areas Act and its application, there is very little difference between the standpoint of the CP and that of the Government, in spite of the strong language and the tremendous arguments between these two parties in the course of such a debate. As the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North indicated, we shall give our support to the Bill because it introduces a marginal and very slight improvement. I wish to say that the improvements are superficial. There are three or four of them included in the Bill. We have no choice but to support it, however. Of course, this follows on the recommendations of the Strydom Committee, the technical committee that was appointed to investigate the provisions of the Group Areas Act. It is understandable that a Bill following on such a report will of necessity have to make superficial changes and that it cannot really go any further. In my opinion the report itself was fairly superficial because it was a report that could not be thorough. It was an investigation and a study that could not be thorough owing to the limited terms of reference of the committee.

I now want to dwell briefly on a few aspects of this legislation. Let us first consider the position of the Chinese. It is interesting to note that this Bill takes an easy way out as regards the position of the Chinese in South Africa. Because there is a limited number of them here, because they are fairly concentrated in certain areas and owing to the fact that there is only one Chinese group area in South Africa, it was decided that the answer would be to consider the Chinese to be Whites for purposes of the Group Areas Act.

From the viewpoint of the NP, with the racial standpoints it adopts, this is probably the only meaningful approach it could take. I do however want to ask a question in this connection: Where is the principle the NP relies on and advocates? What is becoming of that principle in consequence of this Bill? When we refer to cultural differences which are supposed to justify the separation of the races in South Africa, when it is said that cultural considerations and other considerations of ethnic diversity justify the separation of the races being maintained legislatively in residential and business areas, then I ask: What is becoming of the fundamental principle of the approach of the NP as far as this legislation is concerned? Here we have a group of people with interesting cultural characteristics, characteristics that have developed over many centuries. In terms of this legislation they are now summarily to be considered White merely because it is not meaningful in practice to do anything else with them. We have no objection to this happening. But the fact remains that this makes a mockery of the NP’s approach to ethnic diversity, and I think it just shows how ridiculous that principle is in any case, wherever it is applied in practice.

There is also the matter of open trading areas. I think it is necessary to say at this stage, and to have it placed on record, that the NP Government’s record with regard to open trading areas is deplorable. It is already more than six years ago that a former Minister of Community Development, Mr Marais Steyn, announced—and he received tremendous publicity about this—that central business areas would be opened to trade by all races. He referred specifically to Coloureds and Indians in this regard. At that stage a great deal was said about this and many people were very hopeful, because of the statement that was made. But what has in fact happened in the interim? An amendment to the Group Areas Act was passed to make this possible, but only 32 such areas have been declared throughout South Africa. Thirty-two is a relative number, but when one considers how many towns and cities there are in South Africa, 32 is a pathetic number to say the least. It is a pathetic number bearing in mind the need that exists for more potential for the creation of trading facilities, in the Indian community in particular. It is a pathetic show—there is no doubt about that—particularly when one considers the quality of what has been created. I am well acquainted with one such area in the Cape Peninsula, where there is the largest concentration of the Coloured population in South Africa. Here one open trading area has been proclaimed, one section 19 area and it constitutes the street-fronts of three or four streets in Woodstock. It gets nowhere near the Adderley Street the hon member for Kuruman referred to. It gets nowhere near the actual central city area of Cape Town, and there are Coloureds, Blacks and Indians walking about here. Everyone does business and everyone spends their money there, but those Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are denied the opportunity to benefit from the business being done here. They are allowed to spend the money but they are not allowed to earn the money.

†That is the disgraceful aspect of these restrictions. That applies in Cape Town and it applies in all the other town centres in South Africa. I think one must be very careful, and I think possibly the media should be careful, not to overestimate the significance of the Bill before us. All this Bill really does in terms of open trading areas is that it creates a different procedure. It creates the possibility for the Minister of Community Development to take the initiative in respect of the establishment of such areas rather than that it should come from local authorities. I want to make the point that surely until now it has been quite possible for the Minister of Community Development, the local public representative, the member of Parliament, the member of the Provincial Council or any member of the Cabinet to approach a particular local authority in a particular area and to ask them whether they did not think that they should make representations to the Government that such an open trading area be established in their own town or city. Apparently that has not been done or, certainly, if it was done it was done without success whatsoever, considering the limited number of such areas and have been established. Once again, let us make no mistake about this. The significance of this amendment in respect of open trading areas will depend entirely on what the Government is going to make of it in the future. Nothing new is being written into the law that is going to make one shred of difference to an Indian, a Coloured or a Black businessman. It depends entirely on what this hon Minister or his successor may make of this new power that is being written into the law for them to act upon.

I think the Group Area Act in general in respect of residential areas is a discriminatory measure. It is a hurtful piece of legislation, but I suppose it can be justified in the twisted minds of those who believe that racial purity and exclusivity is in fact more important than fundamental justice. However, when it comes to the operation of the Group Areas Act in respect of business areas, it achieves a new standard of pettiness that can only be sold to and justified in the minds of the worst bigots in this country. One cannot justify it on any moral grounds whatsoever. How can one talk of anything else but racial supremacy, racial discrimination in its worst form, when it comes to the effect of the Group Areas Act in business areas? A White businessman can have a Coloured labourer sweeping the floors of his shop. He can have an Indian emptying his dust bins. He can have a Black carrying all the heavy loads for him. Heavens help him, however, should he want to appoint one of those people to a senior position in the management of his business. How does any decent-minded person justify that kind of discrimination? They can be there, they can come to spend their money, they can do all the menial little jobs for one, but heavens help one of one should put that man in charge because then one offends against the Group Areas Act.

That is not correct, not now.

No, it is correct, and the hon member knows that it is correct.

Not now.

He knows that it is still correct. He knows that those proclamations are still valid and that people cannot appoint such persons. Earlier on mention was made of the fact that a very large retail chain in this country was charged in a criminal court because of appointing a Coloured man as a manager in a shop. Therefore I say that it is still possible and today it can still be done, and that in spite of the fact that representations and recommendations for the repeal of this legislation was made as long as six years ago. That one cannot justify in terms of the morality of any decent human being, and I believe that one has to get rid of this sort of thing as quickly as possible.

It was interesting to listen to the hon member for Kuruman talking proudly of the position in Wrenchville, a Coloured town in the vicinity of Kuruman, the constituency which he represents in this House. He said with pride that the Coloured people could do business there in their own right. What, however, is the chance that White people will go to that Coloured town to buy from those businessmen? What are the chances on the contrary that the Coloured people will buy in the White part of the town? The Coloured people have to work there, they are part of the economic establishment of Kuruman. The most far away town in this country will have a large Coloured or Indian daily population simply because people have to be there on account of their jobs, on account of the functions which they have to fulfil in the economic life of that town. Those people buy there. It is really quite facile to make a comparison of that nature.

*To talk about a person who can do business in his own right, makes me think of the fact that one can also erect a tuckshop in one’s own right in the middle of the Namib Desert. Of what use will that be? It is in total conflict with all the realities of our time. I do not think one need take that sort of argument seriously at all.

The amendment we have before us today, in as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, is really totally inadequate. It rectifies one or two minor injustices and it helps to facilitate the position somewhat in certain areas in our country. But the fact of the matter is that when one is dealing with an Act that causes so much misery and so many problems in our country and has done so much to disrupt race relations, that has caused so much bitterness among the non-White groups in South Africa, one finds it almost laughable that we have a Bill of such a superficial nature before us and have to take it seriously.

We are not going to be able to avoid a fundamental new inquiry into the Group Areas Act, and the sooner hon members of the NP accept this, the better. I want to express the hope not only that they will use these new provisions being included in the Act, and use them to the greatest possible extent, but that a large free trading area will be opened in every city and town in South Africa. I also want to express the hope that we shall really try to get to the heart of this problem by launching a comprehensive investigation as soon as possible after the new dispensation has been introduced. It must be a multiracial investigation so that people who can really attest to what the Group Areas Act means to them can also be involved. I think that in this way there may be a chance for real improvements and changes to be made to this kind of legislation which will be more meaningful and really make a difference to the situation. The abolition of group areas legislation is inevitable. It will have to happen at some stage, because it is absolutely impossible to justify it on the grounds of any decent morality. I am looking forward to the day when this becomes a reality.

Mr Speaker, there was little the hon member for Green Point said that I need reply to. He merely referred, in passing, to the changes being brought about by this amending Bill and chiefly devotes his speech to other provisions of the Group Areas Act to which he is actually opposed. One could not prevent him from doing so, but I do not want to elaborate on those aspects this evening, because they do not have a bearing on this legislation. [Interjections.]

The hon member also spoke of abolishing the Act and for further investigation of that issue. The select committee has not yet completed its work. Over a period of more than two years an in-depth investigation has been carried out by the Strydom Committee. All those who wished to, had an opportunity to give evidence before the Strydom Committee and to put their case on the Act. A report was then published, a report which hon members have at their disposal. They should now process the information in the report and put it to the best possible use in future.

I want to thank all hon members in the House, except those in the CP, because they did not co-operate, for their contributions which made it possible for us to reach our present point this evening. It is only because of the time factor that we have now had to come along with this interim report. As I have said, there has been very little criticism of the Bill to which I need reply this evening, except perhaps for a few of the arguments of the CP, which are not, in point of fact, relevant either. I therefore do not want to wander up any side-streets, but rather confine myself as far as possible to the provisions of the amending Bill we are dealing with.

The hon member who introduced the debate for the official Opposition, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, had a few friendly words to say to me concerning my chairmanship of the select committee. I want to thank him for that, and also for the tenor of his speech. For want of anything else to say he did, of course, also have some venomous comments on the Group Areas Act. I cannot blame either him or the hon member for Green Point. I do, however, want to express my thanks for the support I have received from the official Opposition and the NRP. The fact is that, apart from the Chinese and the rights of widows, this legislation on free trading areas is giving expression to a principle the Government decided on, on the strength of the report of the Riekert Commission, as far back as 1979.

The hon member for Kuruman is free to grunt and groan as much as he wants to, but he will not escape the necessity of giving some or other explanation or offering some or other excuse to explain why he and other hon members of the CP did a somersault in regard to this very principle which they supported in 1979. The hon member will simply have to acknowledge frankly that he has changed his standpoint.

I have said, have I not, that we held a congress at which we formulated a policy.

In other words, the hon member is now saying frankly that he did a somersault, having shown a clean pair of heels as far as his principles are concerned. It was a policy that the hon member supported throughout the years. [Interjections.] I did not unnecessarily want to put the cat among the pigeons, but if the shoe fits, let them wear it.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North wanted to know when the time would come for Proclamation R.228 to be withdrawn. The hon member knows what our problems in this regard are. If I had obtained a little more help from hon members of the official Opposition in the select committee, we would have been able to make a little more headway as far as this matter was concerned. The hon member is, however, aware of our problems in this regard.

The question of the Chinese franchise is not at all relevant here. This legislation does not deal with the franchise rights or other rights of the Chinese as citizens. That falls under other departments.

†As far as the nominee system is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North that the introduction of more open trading areas should reduce the need for traders to enter into business areas of other population groups in an illegal way. The future action of traders will therefore determine whether further attention will have to be given to this problem.

*I very sincerely want to thank the hon member for Welkom, the hon member for Bellville and the hon member for Stellenbosch for their contributions. They dealt quite adequately with some of the arguments, particularly those of hon members of the CP, for example the argument the hon member for Brakpan, in his ignorance, tried to raise about our restricting the power of the Administrator in this legislation, whereas in this amending legislation those powers are not being changed one iota. When we drew the hon member’s attention to that across the floor of the House, he dropped the matter like a hot potato. And he acknowledges it now. Well, there is still hope for someone if he acknowledges his mistakes. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to other recommendations of the Strydom Committee, about which we are not presenting the House with resolutions at this stage. The hon member should know, however, that the select committee has not yet completed its deliberations. All those decisions will be receiving attention in due course. We have already given attention to the question of the problems created by nominees. I refer him to my reply to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. We have simply not yet been able to come to an agreement about what we should do in this connection. The hon member for Umbilo, however, quoted the hon member a passage indicating that in the provisions of the Group Areas Act at present there is no efficient means for taking action against nominees. We can only hope that the more extensive facilities being created for all those groups by the free trading areas will, to a certain extent, combat this evil. It will depend on what relevant decision the select committee adopts. The select committee is, as I have previously said, still engaged in its deliberations.

The hon member also referred to certain restricting sections in regard to the right of possession and other rights, one or more of which can, in terms of this legislation, be suspended by way of proclamation. He then specifically wanted to know what the position in regard to the Blacks was. In this connection I want to refer him to what the legislation provides. Abolishing these restrictive provisions is subject to the condition that the buildings, land or premises shall only be occupied or used for trading, commercial, professional, religious or educational purposes in terms of a town planning scheme which is in operation or binding under any law in that area. Right of possession will only become relevant if and when sections which are restricting in regard to the right of possession in this legislation are specifically repealed by way of proclamation. That will depend on circumstances. It will also depend on investigations that are to take place. It will also depend on the evidence to be presented. In such cases the proprietary rights of Blacks will still be subject to the provisions of any other legislation regulating proprietary rights for Black people in South Africa, just as there is other restricting legislation in regard to Indians. It will therefore mean that although there are free trading areas, Indians will not be able to make use of this in Northern Natal or in the Orange Free State, because other legislation will have provisions restricting those rights, and the same applies to other groups, too.

The hon member also referred to the case of the Indian school principal, although it does not have a bearing on this. Because it is such a special case, however, I do think I should furnish the House with the reasons why we granted an Indian school principal a permit to live in the White area in Volksrust.

Volksrust is a tiny community with a fairly large Indian community. Until fairly recently there was no Indian group area, and the Indians there simply lived in certain controlled areas. The department, however, realized a long time ago that there ought to be an Indian area and therefore proclaimed one. The local authority and other people raised objections, however, because they were dissatisfied with the Indian area that had been proclaimed, and this caused delays. Subsequently the local authorities identified another area which again had to be investigated and which I only recently, approximately a month or two ago, proclaimed an Indian area. There are not yet any services or other facilities, however, and the Indians can therefore not settle there yet.

There is an Indian school at Volksrust, and the principal had to travel to and fro from Newcastle each day to get to that school. The department has now issued him with a permit to live next to another Indian who has been living in the White area for some time now. The hon member, however, does not want us to grant that permit, because the Volksrust town council did not approve it.

When was the other Indian permitted to live there?

He has been living there for some time now, but I do not know who allowed him to live there. Probably that was prior to my taking over this portfolio. The fact is, however, that there is no Indian group area ready for occupation. [Interjections.] The hon member must give me a chance to put my case. It is not necessary for me to apologize for this, but I must point that it is merely a temporary arrangement. We issued a temporary permit to the Indian school principal, and knowing the hon member as I do, I am sure that he would also have done so if he had been in my shoes.

Mr Speaker, may I please put a question?

Let me first complete my argument. We have now proclaimed an Indian area, and as soon as possible we are going to help that Indian legalize his position, so that he can setlle in his own group area, by helping him to obtain accommodation there in the shortest possible time. Let me reiterate, however, that I do not need to apologize about this. I think it is based on humane considerations, and the hon member would have acted no differently.

Mr Speaker, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether they consulted the town council in regard to the decision he gook there.

I did not take the decision; a person delegated to do so, the Government took it on my behalf, and I endorse it. The town council was consulted on the decision. I do not know how many CP or NP members serve on the town council, but that was irrelevant. The town council intimated that it was not in favour of the permit being issued, but that still did not result in the Indian vanishing into thin air. He still had to have a place to live. I surely cannot be guided, in all respects, by a town council, although I do allow myself to be guided by local authorities as far as possible. I must adopt a just, humane and fair attitude. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Umbilo pointed out that this legislation should be seen as an interim step while the select committee completes its investigations. I agree with him. The hon member also asked that local authorities and communities should be given decision-making power in respect of such areas. I cannot agree with him on this score. It should be borne in mind that personal and other interests sometimes overrule community interests, and the Minister is now in the fortunate position that he has to consider a comprehensive and unbiased report from competent members of the investigation board who have no personal or other interests in that area. That is my reply to the hon member. I have already replied to the hon member for Pietiermaritzburg North with regard to the nominee system.

*As far as the hon member for Kuruman is concerned, I have already told him that his contribution was simply a political tirade. He never got anywhere near the legislation, and I do not think it is my duty to reply to his speech. He even went to the absurd lengths of intimating that I would declare the Stellenbosch University hostels as a free trading area so that students of various race groups could live there. As far as these matters are concerned, no changes are being made to section 19 of the Act. The hon member, however, stood here waffling, without having looked even once at the legislation. The existing section 19 made provision for an area to be defined for any specific purpose. In other words, it could be employed for schools or for sports or cultural activities, or for any other purpose. The new section 19 will be more restrictive in nature, only including uses prescribed in terms of a town planning scheme. Everything the hon member was waffling about I can already do in terms of the relevant section. That merely goes to prove how politically biased and how blind he is to any arguments.

I do not think I should prolong the debate any further. I want to thank hon members for their contributions. We ranged fairly widely in our discussions, but I must take into account that hon members of the official Opposition must stake their claim as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned. I want to thank them and members of the NRP for their contributions, particularly the hon member for Umbilo who made a valuable contribution to the deliberations of the select committee.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question.

Division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz Messrs J H Hoon, F J le Roux and J J B van Zyl) having supported the demand for a division,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act No 110 of 1983, provides that norms, standards and income groups for the financing of housing shall be dealt with as general housing matters in the new constitutional dispensation.

†During the past two years there have been encouraging signs of a closer co-operation between the public and the private sector in the field of housing provision, particularly for the lower income categories. This process is clearly illustrated by the following:

1. 1. The private sector has for the first time made substantial loan funds available to the Government for low-cost housing.
2. 2. A number of new housing utility companies have been established throughout in the country in the past twelve months.
3. 3. The private sector has become actively involved in the establishment and development of new townships for the lower income categories.
4. 4. The financing and erection of housing units for lower income categories by the private sector is no longer a dream but has in fact become a reality.

This new approach towards housing has once again emphasized that the Government’s role in the housing field is not only restricted to low-cost housing, but it should also entail the whole spectrum of housing including an over-all housing strategy and policy.

*This Bill provides for the determination of a national policy for general housing matters. The Minister of the department of State responsible for housing may determine the general policy to be applied in relation to housing in the Republic in respect of norms, standards and income groups for the financing of housing. He will take action in this regard after consideration of the recommendations made by the SA Housing Advisory Council established in terms of clause 2, and after consultation with every Minister of the “own affairs” departments of State.

The proposed SA Housing Advisory Council will consist of 15 members, who will be representative of both the public and the private sectors. It is the intention to appoint to this council the leading experts in the general housing sphere from all sectors of the community. The council will submit proposals and recommendations to the Minister on an on-going basis, with the aid of permanent and other working committees, in connection with—

1. (a) land and the provision of land for housing;
2. (b) township planning and township establishment;
3. (c) methods of housing;
4. (d) cost of housing and services;
5. (e) methods of financing;
6. (f) the obtaining and processing of data with a view to advance planning;
7. (g) research regarding the provision of housing;
8. (h) the co-ordination of housing matters generally; and
9. (i) any other matter as to housing which the Minister or a Minister of a department of State responsible for housing refers to the advisory council or into which the advisory council inquires of its own accord.

The Bill provides that every Minister of a department of State responsible for housing shall carry out the policy determined in this way by the Minister of the general housing department at the recommendation of the advisory council, and that progress reports concerning the implementation of policy decisions shall be submitted annually to the Minister charged with general affairs.

†The Housing Matters Advisory Committee and the Housing Policy Council have for the past five years played a meaningful role in the field of housing, norms for services, township establishment, etc. Due to the fact that these bodies only have limited powers and that there are so many other authorities—in all three tiers of government—who are involved in this field, there is, however, up to this stage no uniformity or co-ordination in respect of housing matters. These two bodies are therefore now disbanded and the Co-ordination of Housing Matters Act, No 66 of 1978, repealed.

“This proposed Act will now pave the way for a uniform housing policy for all population groups in the Republic of South Africa, while the physical implementation of the policy will be undertaken by the “own affairs” departments of the respective population groups.

Mr Speaker, when he introduced this Bill, the hon the Minister, right at the outset, made certain general statements on the housing policy and the success achieved in the regard. Although there has been progress, I just want to say that the hon the Minister is far too lyrical about it.

But I have hardly begun to sing yet.

There has been progress, it is true, but there are enormous problems, too, and an enormous backlog in respect of the provision of housing for all the different sections of South African society.

†In essence, this Bill seeks to abolish the Co-ordination of Housing Matters Act under which was established a Housing Policy Council and a Housing Matters Advisory Committee. These were two bodies that were fairly limited in their composition in that they consisted essentially of representatives of the hon the Minister and representatives of the Exco’s of the four Administrators. The Bill also seeks to establish a broader based Housing Advisory Council to advise the Minister on housing matters. To the extent that it changes the original committee into a broader based body and brings it into phase with the new constitutional system, we have no objection to it. As a philosophy we think it is correct that the hon the Minister should ask this House to adapt the previous advisory machinery to the new situation as far as the new constitutional dispensation is concerned. However, because of the lyrical approach of the hon the Minister to the success of his housing policy I want to make it quite clear that although there has been progress, this hon Minister and this Government must realize that there are still very, very many serious problems that have to be solved in regard to housing the citizens of South Africa. I do not wish to be dramatic but I think that for certain sectors of our society the problem of housing is approaching crisis proportions. This is not so for all but for some. In the second instance, housing is already becoming increasingly politicized. Even those people who have no vote are seeing housing in political terms. The hon the Minister and his deputy will be aware of organizations such as Cahac which see housing in political terms. I warn the hon the Minister that when Coloureds and Indians are introduced into Parliament, albeit in separate Houses, the result is going to be that housing is going to become even more politicized because those are the people who are in desperate need of housing. The hon the Minister must realize that he is moving into a new era and that therefore it is going to become more important for him to ensure that he can satisfy housing needs. I would prefer housing not to be politicized. However, if there is a shortage of shelter and defensible space, there is going to be politicization of that problem. If the hon the Minister does not want it to be politicized he will have to do something more about it.

Right here and now let me define for him certain specific problem areas which this hon Minister through the newly established South African Housing Advisory Council will have to deal with. As from the beginning of last year the hon the Minister announced a new housing policy together with his bosom colleague, the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. That was that the State would accept responsibility for housing people with an income of less than R150 per month. [Interjections.] In excess of that, all the State would do would be to provide the infrastructure. The hon the Minister will have to adjust that housing limit upwards. To say that one will only accept responsibility for people with an income of R150 per month is to make nonsense of any policy because even the old age pension is more than R150 per month. I would say that the lowest figure to which the hon the Minister will have to adjust that limit will be R250 or R300 if it is to be at all meaningful. However, whatever the level is to be, it will have to be a great deal more realistic than the R150 that he has set.

Whatever the hon the Minister’s intention may have been—and we support the concept of home-ownership—the fact remains that his grandiose scheme of selling off half a million houses within one year has not been successful. I do not want to be negative about this but against the target which he set it has been a failure. Even if the period is extended, the fact remains that that sales campaign has not been effective and has not produced the desired results.

Economic circumstances have been unfavourable.

The hon the Minister is now telling us that it is not his fault but the fault of the hon the Minister of Finance. He talks about economic circumstances. The hon the Minister of Finance says that there is nothing wrong with the economy of South Africa. [Interjections.] All I am saying is that if because of economic circumstances a campaign fails one must have an alternative campaign.

It has not failed.

Well, that reminds me of the hon member for Durban Point who said: “We did not lose; we just did not win!”. The campaign did not fail; it just did not succeed! If in fact the campaign has not succeeded, then the hon the Minister must think of something else to put in its place.

There is a third point I want to put to the hon the Minister. The hon member for Durban Point, in one of his brighter moments when he was not creeping across the floor to the NP as he has been doing for the past six months, raised the question of the interest rate on mortgage bonds. The increase in interests rates on mortgage bonds is pricing the ordinary average middle income group citizen out of the housing market. In particular it is affecting the first-time homeowner, the newly-marrieds, the people who want to acquire their first home. The hon the Minister must talk about this to the hon the Minister of Finance because the situation cannot continue on the present basis. He is crippling that very heartbeat of the productive community of South Africa, the low and middle income group in our urban areas.

The fourth point that he has to apply his mind to is the question of housing for the aged. On his left, slightly behind him, is the hon the Deputy Minister who is charged more particularly with the responsibility of housing the aged. Something has been done, but I have asked questions in the Cape Peninsula and I find that precious little has been done. All I can say is that the rate at which one is producing houses for the aged is far lower than the number of aged who are looking for houses.

You will never satisfy that need.

I am never going to be satisfied. I want to tell the hon the Minister that when it comes to the need of the aged and the senior citizens, I am not going to be satisfied until this Government does its duty towards them.

You misunderstood me.

I am not going to be satisfied until the hon the Minister meets their needs.

I did not say that. I said you will never be able to satisfy that need.

What an admission! What an approach by the hon the Minister! He says let us start our new policy on the basis that we will not satisfy the need. What kind of approach is this? [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister has only limited resources—and I accept the fact that he has limited resources—then I say to him that there are two categories of people who have to be dealt with namely the people who are right at the bottom end of the economic scale, they have got to be dealt with and, I believe the senior citizens of South Africa have also got to be dealt with. The inbetweens may be able to look after themselves. I say that no civilized society can say that we do not worry about whether or not we can satisfy the needs of housing for the senior citizens. I believe that this Government has got to find incentives, it has got to conduct pilot schemes, it has got to get involved in new designs and it has got to get involved in new financial structures to provide retirement communities, retirement villages and retirement cottages and flats for the older people of South Africa.

That is precisely what we are doing.

They must do this not on the basis of the State doing it all, but on the basis of the State combining with the private sector, ie the big insurance companies, in order to see that there is housing for the aged citizens of South Africa.

In spite of what the hon the Minister says—and I think this is one of the problems after consulting with the hon Deputy Ministers, unfortunately the hon Minister of Cooperation and Development is not present here—housing is administered by two departments, namely the Department of Community Development and the Department of Co-operation and Development. Whatever his intentions may be, I want to say that especially when it comes to Black housing in South Africa there are still too many restrictions, there are still too many obstacles and there are still too many tortoises in that department which make it impossible for the private sector to play the part it would like to play in housing the Black citizens of South Africa. I want to tell him to get hold of that Minister, to shake him by the neck and to say to him: Let us get on with building houses and let us forget the red tape that is still in that establishment.

Over the past 18 months or so there has been a moderate cooling off in the rate of increase of building costs. If one takes 1982, one finds that it was something like 24%. In 1983 it came down to 18%. If one takes this year, one finds that it is round about 6% or 7%. If one reads the latest quarterly report of the Bureau of Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch, one finds that building costs in the domestic scene are about to take off once again. We can look forward to a year-end rate of an 18% increase in the building costs and we can look forward to a year-end rate next year of something like 25% in building costs of domestic accommodation. This is not good enough; this is inflation in the housing context gone mad. The ordinary South African citizen is not going to be able to find any way of affording a house for himself.

Finally, under this question of housing policy, I think the hon the Minister, because he accepts overall responsibility for housing, must once again be reminded of something. I know he has problems with the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I know that he has all kinds of restrictions, but in the end the hon the Minister of Community Development is effectively the Minister of Housing in South Africa. I now want to quote from a report not of an independent commission, but a commission under the chairmanship of Mr Venter, the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, the Commission of Inquiry into the Establishment of Township Establishment and Related Matters. This report shows that in relation to the housing need, the housing shortage for Whites is 0,5%. That is all it is. For Coloureds it is 13,5%; for Asians, 27,6%; and for Blacks 27,4%. In other words, one quarter of the people who need to be housed cannot be housed in terms of existing Government policy.

On the following page the report indicates the type of housing programme that has to be embarked upon over the next few years, and basically if between 1980 and the year 2000 we want to accommodate our housing need, let alone the backlog of 258 000 houses, we have to build on average 89 000 houses per annum, but we are building something like 36 000 houses per annum.

I raise these points because we are setting up a new South African Housing Advisory Council, and all the advice in the world is no good unless the hon the Minister does something about it. He can look at me with a happy smile on his face, but the fact is that while one has had the Viljoen Commission, one has had the Fouché Commission and one has had the Venter Commission, the backlog in housing remains today as large as ever it was. I raise these points to indicate the gravity of the housing situation facing South Africa, and no amount of advice is going to solve this problem unless the Government takes action.

I now want to look at the more detailed aspect of the Bill. The Bill envisages the setting up of a South African Housing Advisory Council. The first point is that in terms of clause 2 it will consist of a chairman and a vice-chairman appointed by the Minister. Well, for the Minister that is fine. Secondly it will consist of one person designated by every Minister of a department of State responsible for housing.

We do not know what departments of State are going to be responsible for housing. We must assume, because of the Schedule of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, that there will be a housing department for Whites, a housing department for Coloureds, a housing department for Indians and obviously there is going to be a general housing department because this legislation deals with general housing. We want to know where the major housing problem in South Africa fits in. Is there going to be a department of housing in respect of Black housing? Is it going to fall under general, Coloured, Indian or White? If it falls under any of these, we should like to know from the hon the Minister if, whereas the others are represented, the Black housing department will be represented on this Housing Advisory Council. I would say that while the votes may be in White housing, Coloured housing and Indian housing, the crisis, the instability, the conflict in South Africa is in fact in Black housing. We want to know from the hon the Minister whether in respect of clause 2(l)(b) he can assure us that the department responsible for Black housing will be represented on this Housing Advisory Council.

There is a second point to which I want to refer. As an old party organizer, the hon the Minister must have drafted clause 2(l)(c) himself, and I quote it:

The UME must therefore nominate eight people and the Minister can then choose two Nationalists to serve on the council. I think that is too much. It could be two out of three or two out of four, but to tell the UME that they can nominate eight members and that the Minister should then be able to handpick two “boeties”, is too much for us to swallow. We will be moving an amendment to this at the Committee Stage. I believe the hon the Minister will realize that this is embarrassing and is also nonsense.

Clause 2(l)(d) reads as follows:

We all know from the history of the appointment of Senators, way back from A P J Fourie to Mrs Koch and others, that certain people were appointed to the Senate because of their special expertise in relation to the needs and aspirations of Coloureds, Indians and other non-white people. I believe it should be more specific and that at least half of these people should come from the private sector because if the Minister wants the private sector to become involved in the housing process, he must make specific provision for the representation of the private sector on this council. It could be people representing the Chamber of Commerce or Chamber of Industries.

And the Urban Foundation.

Yes, the hon member for Houghton has actually jumped the gun. I believe that the Urban Foundation has become mature, important, sophisticated and positive enough for it to be recognized by statute and to be represented on this new Housing Advisory Council. We would like to know the hon the Minister’s views on this.

The rest of the Bill is padding to a large extent, but I want to refer to clause 6. We have no objection to this clause, but if it is read as a whole, it actually makes a complete farce of the Government’s concept of self-determination for the various racial groups. The Constitution states that housing shall be an own affair, except in so far as it is regulated by general law on norms and standards in finance. I want to quote from clause 6, as follows:

He can therefore determine norms, standards and income groups in terms of the Constitution. One should also look at what is left over for the Coloured or Indian Minister to decide. The Minister himself may determine the general policy with due regard to land and the provision of land for housing; township planning and township establishment; methods of housing; costs of housing and services; methods of financing; the obtaining and processing of data with a view to advance planning; research regarding the provision of housing; and the co-ordination of housing matters generally. In case there is anything thought to be left over for the Coloureds and Indians, the Minister may also determine the general policy to be applied on any other matter referred to the advisory council. We do not object to this because we believe that there should be a single non-racial Department of Housing in South Africa. To the extent that this Bill makes any sense at all, it is in fact concentrating all the authority and responsibility for housing in the hon the Minister and in the central general affairs Government of South Africa. To the extent that it makes nonsense of self-determination in this field, we think it makes sense in so far as the provision of housing is concerned.

For all these reasons we will be supporting this measure. We think in a sense that it is necessary to have this to give effect to the new Constitution, but we are delighted that the terms of this legislation mean that housing will in fact be under one department and will not be fragmented on racial lines. It is for these reasons—in fact the reverse side of the coin of apartheid—that we will be supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting listening to the hon member for Sea Point. What has typified housing debates in the House over the past few years has been a general openness and a constructive approach on the part of everybody participating in the debate. Today, again, the hon member for Sea Point made a few valid points. One appreciates the thought he has given to this. One, of course, also appreciates the support that he and his party have given to this measure. The reason why we have had such openness in the whole housing debate, which is such an important de bate, is to a large extent due to the openness and accessibility of and the approach of the hon the Minister to this great problem. It can also be attributed to the hon the Minister’s dynamism and his ability and capacity to grasp the nettle in so far as that has been necessary in our society.

*One can say the same of the hon the Deputy Minister. The legislation before us is typical of the fine legislation emanating from this department.

†Having listened to the speech of the hon member for Sea Point I want to say, with respect, that not many of the problems which he sketched are new.

They are real.

They are real, but they are not new. We are all well aware of them. We have heard them from various other people over the past couple of years. However, one must ask oneself one question: Given all the problems—there are other problems which he has not sketched—does this legislation improve the situation or not? The hon member is nodding his head in approval. This measure does improve the situation. It can respond to the challenges which the hon member for Sea Point has also raised, and thus it is good legislation. We are delighted that it is before the House.

I said earlier to the hon member for Sea Point—I did not mean it in any derogatory way—that we had heard most of the arguments which he advanced here today. I think it is also true to say that South Africans know what the housing problems of their country are. South Africans have all the talents and skills to meet the challenges that exist. The problem in our country is to properly organize those skills and talents; to properly co-ordinate, establish and rank our priorities; to properly transfer knowledge from one part of the country to the other, from one discipline to the other or from one group in our country that does have the answer to a specific problem to another group. Those are the problems. This legislation will serve as a great clearing house for information because it co-ordinates the ministries of State, local governments, the central Government and regional governments and it also brings in the private sector. It also concentrates specific skills in one central body in our country.

The hon member for Sea Point did not refer to it, but an important provision in this legislation is contained in clause 5(1) and (2). There one also has the capacity of this new body and the Minister to establish technical committees that can do the necessary research for the advisory council on a project basis or on a once-off basis. In the nature of things the kind of people who are going to be serving on this advisory council are going to be the successful people. They are going to be the busy people and the people whose skills are very much in demand in our country. For that reason they are often going to be people who will not be in a position to waste any time. They will offer their judgment, talent, background, knowledge and experience etc, but they will not be able to offer their time in terms of doing basic research. Clause 5 is therefore very important and we welcome it.

Whenever we speak about housing, the hon member for Sea Point says that this is a matter that is going to become very politicized. He has been saying this for years. We must, however, ask ourselves whether the Bill before the House assists in defusing that situation. Does it help in defusing or depoliticizing the situation? I think the answer to that must be yes. The hon member for Sea Point was most effusive in telling us about how badly the sale of the 500 000 houses was progressing, but the people who are politicizing the situation in our country are the members of his party. [Interjections.] The members of the Cape Town City Council have done more to obstruct the sale of these houses than any other local authority in the country that I know of. [Interjections.] That is a fact, and the hon member knows it. If, therefore, the hon member for Sea Point wants to accuse people of politicizing the question of housing, he must start at home. He must go and talk to his own people in Cape Town and tell them not to politicize housing.

However, I do not think that that scheme has been a failure; I believe that we expected too much. We expected that when that scheme was launched, it would at once go off with a bang. It obviously could not happen because the basic work had to be done first. For instance, the surveys had to be done.

We told you that.

They may have told us so and, if they did, congratulations! However, the fact of the matter is that extensive basic work had to be done. One cannot go to the city hall, nail an edict on the door and then say: “So shall it be”. One has to operate through the local authorities and, while some of them were very helpful, others were not. Some were fast, others were slow in responding. We had to learn and we undoubtedly learnt a great deal.

Then we had to contend with Black people—and I do not say this disparagingly—who have had no experience of home ownerhsip. They have never owned homes, not under this Government or under any previous government. They have a long tradition of non-homeownership. A very good friend of mine owns a number of factories on the Reef and has 6 000 people in his employ. He telephoned me recently and told me that he intended helping his employees to take advantage of the scheme that the Government is offering. He said that he wanted them to become home owners and that his company would help them in every way. He issued a circular in which the staff were informed that the company was prepared to help them, but he got no response whatsoever. Only after he had asked officials from the Urban Foundation to come and explain to his employees what the basic benefits of home ownership are, did he get any response from them. We must therefore not expect these things to happen overnight. I do however think that we will find that the sale of these houses will accelerate and that the demand will increase. Indeed, the time will come when everybody will realize that the scheme is a success.

Property and housing is a heavily regulated field and it tends to be heavily structured. It is an industry where very often today’s innovation can become tomorrow’s straitjacket. Just as there is a need for co-ordination, standardization, regulation, research and all the other things that we have spoken about and for which this Bill makes provision, so there is also a need for deregulation to allow spontaneous development in other parts of our country and in some sectors of the housing industry. I think that one must therefore be careful that we do not control housing to such an extent that in fact we smother it. We so controlled township development in some parts of our country in order to protect people, we were so careful, so stringent and strict and so regulated that ultimately nobody was the least interested in undertaking township development. Therefore, although there is a need for co-ordination and standardization and for the transfer of skills to those parts of the country where they are needed, this should be done in such a way that it does not smother development.

I should like to give one example of what I mean. Whereas there will have to be a flexible approach and guidance given, there will also be times when tough action will have to be taken. I want to give only one example. During the past two weeks the Kraaifontein Municipality here in Cape Town passed a by-law or a regulation—I am not sure how they did it—that does not allow anybody in the Kraaifontein municipality to build a house of under 100 square metres. It is the most retrogressive step I can think of that at a time when the middle and higher income groups are already over-housed and we are already building houses which are too luxurious, a suburb which caters very largely for the lower middle and lower income groups adopts a rule that will not allow a house of under 100 square metres to be built—as if size is any yardstick at all of quality. The hon the Minister will know that just down the road in a place like Edgemead houses of 90 square metres are being built at a much lower cost for which there are waiting lists of thousands of people who are queueing to get into them. That kind of arbitrary, unthinking action is the kind of thing we should try to get rid of so that we can streamline things and bring down the cost of housing in this country.

I hope that this new housing body will have permanent premises in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town or wherever it is going to be so that it can build up a library, because there is a great need in our country for a central housing library to be built up that can be added to and be part of a data bank which would result in our having a central repository of housing skills. The team the Minister appoints will be an ever-changing group with people being appointed and people leaving. However, if such a library is established we will not lose all the skills a person has when he is no longer part of the team. Very often with regard to housing particular people have played an absolutely cardinal role, but when they are no longer involved in a project, all their skills are lost. We have seen this with great projects in this country and abroad, for example the Snowy River project in Australia and the Hendrik Verwoerd scheme in South Africa. Tremendous expertise is built up for a particular project but when the project team is disbanded one day all those skills are lost. I would like to suggest that we build up a central repository of information on housing in our country and that it be added to on an on-going basis.

I hope that this body does not become a federation of people delegated from the particular “constituencies” to look after the parochial interests of the bodies from which they come, but will be composed of people of skill drawn from those industries that will work together for the common good regardless of their background.

In the short time left to me, I should like to make a concrete suggestion to the hon the Minister in respect of allowing the more rapid production of lower middle and lower income housing. During the discussion of his Vote the hon the Minister drew attention to the fact that building societies should play a larger role. Whilst I agree with this and whilst I also agree that that part of the private sector is pre-eminently the part that should play a role because they have the money, the skills and the background, they are being frustrated by the fact that the building society development companies that were established in 1969, were originally floated with an authorized share capital of R4 million in terms of section 22 of the Building Societies Act.

*However, the Registrar of Financial Institutions then stipulated administratively that the building society development companies could not borrow more than their issued capital. In 1980 there was the concession affecting the older building societies, in terms of which they were allowed to borrow up to three times their authorized share capital. The fact of the matter is that the building societies, who are pre-eminently people who can make a major contribution, are being hampered by the Act on the one hand and the administration thereof by the Registrar of Financial Institutions on the other.

†Certain building societies have not been able to increase their loan capital at all. One must bear in mind that R4 million in 1969 is perhaps R1 million today. So they can make no contribution. I believe that at this moment between 1% and 6% of the total funds of building societies, depending on the building society we are talking about, are actually being channelled into their own developments. I think we can do much more to bring the building societies quickly on stream. They want to make a contribution, they can and they even have land, but we must just administratively help them to come on stream and to respond quickly. The new building societies legislation might well deal with this problem, but the problem there is that that legislation will probably serve before parliament only in a year’s time. So we will have lost a year. We can deal with this matter quickly administratively to get them going. They have land and they can come on stream very quickly.

There is another problem, and that is that the building society development companies are allowed to lay out townships on residential land but they are not allowed to develop commercial sites inside the townships they lay out. The fact of the matter is that it is the development and sale of those commercial sites which in fact bring down the average cost of the residential erven. I am not speaking in the air, because in fact the utility companies have done that in the past. They have been allowed to develop commercial centres and that has allowed them to plan properly and to maximize those developments which has had the effect of bringing down the unit cost of the residential erven in those developments.

*I want to congratulate the hon the Minister very heartily on the legislation before us today. I want to say to him that this is a step forward.

†Any one of us who has been connected with housing over the years will know that the major criticism has been: “You know, you chaps have so many committees, commissions and advisory bodies that we do not know where we are anymore”. Here we have a more rational approach to the whole problem. I wish to conclude by thanking the hon the Minister for bringing this measure before the House. We know that this will be a major step forward in the evolution of the provision of better housing in our country.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Maitland thanked and congratulated the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister a number of times. Oh well, he has every right to do so, but I have a few questions I should like to put to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] The hon member for Maitland kicked off with one good question, namely whether it would improve matters. I have my doubts on that score. I do not think this Bill can improve matters much. This Bill is really a consequence of the Constitution Act. The greatest potential for conflict is built into this measure. I shall indicate in a moment where it is situated. In Schedule 1 to the Constitution Act, in paragraph 5, community development which includes housing, is specified as an own affair.

The Bill contains a definition of “Minister” in clause 1, which reads as follows:

Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell us how these two ideas are linked together.

Housing is a general affair and an own affair. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, during the referendum campaign it was blatantly stated, particularly in my own constituency, that housing was an own affair.

Of course it is an own affair. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister says that is an own affair, but in this legislation provision is made for a Minister of the department of State for general affairs. [Interjections.] Let me state the position in this way. There will be a co-ordinating Minister for general affairs, and then there will also be a Minister for own affairs in each of the three Houses to take charge of each group’s own housing affairs. I also want to say that this co-ordinating Minister of Community Development may be a Coloured or an Indian.

What a discovery!

The hon member says: “What a discovery!” That hon member has just woken up and suddenly discovered that he is a member of the House of Assembly. He should go and see what has happened in Potgietersrus. That is why they are so quiet here. [Interjections.] Sir, the finest in the world happened in Potgietersrus this evening. [Interjections.]

It is being provided in this Bill that the Minister who will administer this legislation will be the Minister of the department of State for general affairs responsible for housing. He is now going to proclaim and implement policy. The South African Housing Advisory Council will have to provide the Minister with advice in this task, and various people will be appointed to that council. I think the hon member for Sea Point also raised an important point in this connection.

There will be Blacks and Coloureds and Indians on that council.

Yes.

Yes, but this is also the case at present. They are sitting there now. [Interjections.]

Sir, I accept it. I have already said that every Bill introduced by the NP Government is integrated legislation. We know that.

May I please ask a question?

Yes, certainly.

I just want to ask the hon member whether he is aware that the National Housing Commission is at present a mixed body.

More than just that body is mixed. During the past year the NP has appointed quite a number of mixed councils. [Interjections.] There is the Board of the SABC and many others. Every time you open your eyes you discover that people of colour have been appointed to another body, and then those hon members go about in public talking about apartheid and own affairs. That kind of thing is usually done quietly and stealthily. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the question of housing. The hon the Minister knows that there is a serious housing shortage in my constituency. There are a great many elderly people in my constituency, and there are other constituencies as well in which the position is the same. As I said the other day, those people are now having to pay far in excess of R200 for their flats, for which, until very recently, they were only paying R90 per month. These people receive a pension of R166 per month. I also expressed the wish that children should look after their parents, but these people do not always have children. They do not have children who can look after them in the sense that many of the children they have are poorer than they are. What has the hon the Minister really done during the past few years to make cheaper land available for housing? As a result of the functioning of the machinery of State and insufficient number of plots is being made available, and a plot in a suburb costs approximately R80 000, and then it is a small plot to boot.

Is the hon member not aware that land is being made available in Newlands and Bapsfontein?

Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware of plots in Wonderboom. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to deprive the hon member for Sunnyside of the opportunity to state his case on this legislation, but I think the hon member is now straying a little too far from the Bill.

This Bill is aimed at distributing housing among all the people in a simple easy, cheap and proportional way.

Did you not prepare a speech? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to state his case.

The hon the Minister will have to concede, for example, that no one can pay an interest rate of 17% on a mortgage of up to R20 000. Between R20 000 and R40 000 the interest rate is 17,5%, between R40 000 and R60 000 the interest rate is 18% and above R60 000 it is 19%. Matters simply cannot be allowed to continue in this way. What is the policy of the hon the Minister going to be? If the present hon Minister is going to be the co-ordinating Minister for general affairs, what are his instructions to building societies going to be?

Building societies fall under the Minister of Finance.

Order! I also do not think the hon member is dealing with the Bill now.

The hon the Minister is jointly responsible for this, and he must intercede with the hon the Minister of Finance. Since we are going to have various Houses of Parliament for various population groups, I am now going to indicate where conflict is inherent in this Bill. For the past 1983-84 financial year—and I am now referring to the department’s figures—the amount spent on White housing was R86 238 079, while the same Whites paid R3 152 million in taxes. On the other hand, during the same period, an amount of R114 961 779 was spent on Coloured housing while they paid R77 million in taxes. During the same year R81 300 962 was spent on Indian housing, while they paid R74 million in taxes. When the provisions of this Bill are applied, what is going to happen? Is the money going to be distributed evenly, according to the taxes people pay, or what? I should very much like the hon the Minister to give us more information about these few matters.

There are a few other things I wanted to discuss, but I see the hon the Minister is looking at his watch and I realize that he wants to get this matter over with. We can therefore discuss the Bill further during the Committee Stage. Because the potential for grave conflict is an integral part of this Bill, we shall not support it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside, whom I respect, is my senior by far in this House. He kicked off this evening by saying that he had a few questions he wanted to put to the hon the Minister. Then he went on to say that this Bill was a consequence of the Constitution Act, as if it was a discovery he had made and that he was telling us something we did not know, but of course we do not dispute that. The hon member then demonstrated that he had apparently never understood the Constitution Act properly and that he still did not understand it today. The hon member seems to think that housing is now, through this legislation, being made a general affair. Surely that is not the case.

I do not know what to do about the hon member, and I want to ask the hon the Minister, at some opportunity this evening, to read him a lecture in this connection. We heard that the legislation was a consequence of the Constitution Act, Act No 110 of 1983, which will be implemented soon. Even when divorced from the Constitution Act, this Bill contains an approach which should be welcomed. In fact it is a pity that a similar measure was not placed on the Statute Book long ago. For the first time in history machinery is now being created which makes it possible to co-ordinate the South African housing action, or, if one wishes to call it this, housing strategy, properly.

In particular I like the flexibility which is an inherent part of this Bill. For example, just consider the composition of the South African Housing Advisory Council, which was given all kinds of names here this evening. It is a “housing advisory committee”, it is a “housing” this and a “housing” that, and even a senior hon member like the hon member for Sea Point used various names here.

The formula in the Bill makes it possible for this advisory council to involve expertise from the private sector, but organized local governments is also being afforded an opportunity to make inputs, and the State will also be able to make a contribution by means of its officials. Nowhere is any prescriptive provision being made determining how many members of the council shall be officials and how many should come from the private sector. No, the Minister is being empowered to involve the public and the private sectors in the best interests of the country according to the needs and possibilities of the day.

If there is one aspect of this Bill which I welcome even more than any others, it is the possibility which is being created in the composition of the council to involve representatives of our Coloured and other communities as well in the deliberation and planning process. In this connection I want to come to a remark made by the hon member for Sea Point who said that we were already in the position, as a result of the desperate housing shortage in certain categories, that housing in our country had been politicized. He then went on to say that in the new dispensation it would become even more politicized. That is not the case. That hon member may think it is the case, but I have had experience of housing discussions with people of colour, people with interests different to mine on local authority level, and I can give the assurance that this Bill, as is also the case with the entire approach to the Constitution Act, will be conducive to resolving conflict in this sphere as well. I have frequently stated it as my conviction that it is a mistake to plan for communities without involving adequate direct inputs on the primary level by leaders and experts from the ranks of those people. I know quite a number of Coloured people who could teach all of us something about community development. They are leaders for whom the circumstances of life of their people is a serious matter. They are people who know and understand the needs and aspirations of their communities. However, they are also realists. Our discussions on many occasions demonstrated that they were also people who had an understanding for the limitations to which we are all subject, particularly in the financial sphere. The overall housing strategy in our country will benefit from the fact that the skills of such people are now being officially involved in planning and advice.

Clause 6 contains the guidelines according to which recommendations on norms and standards should be made. It provides indications of what the Government has in mind. It also indicates the problem areas that have been identified in the existing situation. This also brings one to the deficiencies in the situations, deficiencies to which the hon member for Sunnyside also referred. After all, we know what the deficiencies are, the deficiencies which the hon member for Sea Point also pointed out. All those deficiencies are known, as the hon member for Maitland has said. After all, we recently had the Venter Commission which identified those deficiencies once again. We know that we have an unhealthy scarcity of building sites. We know that our cumbersome township establishment processes are one of the reasons for it. We know that the standards for services required by some local authorities are excessively high. We know that our available land is now always being utilized to best effect. We know that all these factors and others have resulted in housing in South Africa becoming too expensive.

We said all these things often enough, and I think it is high time something was done about it. This Bill will be an instrument in the hands of the Government with which it will be able to alleviate the problem areas in our housing set-up. With this measure we are in more respects than one entering a new housing era, one that offers exciting prospects.

A general department for housing matters is being envisaged. Virtually the only function of this department will be to determine macro-policy and to allocate funds accordingly. This department will not establish towns or build houses, and the hon member for Sunnyside would do well to listen to what I am saying now. It is clear that this will be the case. The function of the other departments will be to build houses, and so on.

With a view to discharging their functions and subject to the general policy, these departments will be able to pass their own legislation, or will, as is sometimes said, be able to lay down the micro-policy. If the South African Housing Advisory Council functions propertly, it will co-ordinate the entire housing scene. As I see it, one of its tasks will be to determine the norms in such a way that the respective communities will still be able to look after their specific interests. I do not think that the needs of one community are necessarily identical with those of another. Any macro-policy ought to make provision for accommodating this reality. It is possible for this to be done, because the recognition of the distinctive needs of a specific community does not necessitate a general lowering of norms and standards.

The challenges in the sphere of housing remain unchanged. However, this legislation makes it possible to meet the challenges more meaningfully, and for that reason I gladly support it.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is basically of course a consequence of the Constitution as certain consequential changes have to be made. One comment I would like to make before I refer to the Bill is that the policy of the government for quite some time has been rationalization. I believe, in all honesty, that this Bill is the first piece of genuine rationalization I have seen in that two committees are being replaced with one. To me this is genuine rationalization. I only hope it is not spoiled by the one committee having more members than the two previous committees together.

From my own experience of committees, this committee—which will probably have been 16 and 20 members …

There will be 15 members.

It looks as if it can quite easily have 16 to 20 members, which is a little too large to be effective.

As far as housing is concerned—all my colleagues who have been speaking on housing have referred to this—we know what the problems are. I do not believe that any Parliament has been better served as we have been by organizations, committees, select committees and commissions to tell them what the problems are as we have been. The function of this committee for which provision is now being made is to assist us in resolving these problems. If those problems are to be resolved—the hon member for Sea Point said that the two major problem areas are the Indian community and the Black community of which more than one quarter is inadequately housed—then I would suggest that it would be very necessary to have people on this committee who understand the needs of the Indians and the Blacks.

Over the years I have had a fair amount to do with Indian housing in particular. I know that one of the problems in this area is virtually irreconcilable, if the planning and organization are done by Whites. This is that their demands are far in excess of the amount they wish to pay for housing units. This is standard, but if the community concerned is represented on that committee, I believe one will get some kind of result which will be acceptable to that community.

In so far as the Indian community in particular is concerned, there are a substantial number of Indian builders and developers who have a healthy knowledge of housing. They are building major projects for the province and for the Department of Community Development. Surely, if that is a major area of trouble it is very desirable to have people of that community on that council in order to find out what they need, what they will except and how much they will pay.

The major problem obviously is the question of Black housing. I suggest that one will never resolve that problem by using orthodox methods and those orthodox methods that are likely to be recommended by the normal sort of committee—in this case the SA Housing Advisory Council, as provided for in the Bill—which consists largely of officials of one sort or another. I am sorry, I do not believe the Government will resolve it. The council will consist, inter alia, of a chairman and a vice-chairman appointed by the Minister. I assume they will not necessarily be people from the Master Builders Association or financiers who have developed big schemes. I do not know, but I would say that they probably will not come from these fields.

The council will also consist of one person designated by every Minister of a Department of State responsible for housing, and appointed by the Minister. I do not know how many are going to be involved. The hon member for Sea Point suggested that as there are going to be own affairs and general affairs one member will be appointed from each Housing Ministry of the Individual Houses. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is also responsible for housing. The SATS is amongst the biggest housing developers in the country. Are they going to be part and parcel of this?

They finance their own housing.

That may be, but clause 2(l)(b) says “every Minister of a Department of State responsible for housing". This is what the Bill says. I am wondering whether that is desirable.

I also query the question of the UME having to present eight names for two to be chosen. The UME is the most responsible municipal body in the whole of south Africa. It is the top body. I think it is a bit of an affront to them to ask them to submit eight names of which the Minister will choose two. I feel that is a little bit unfair. I would suggest, as has been put forward by the hon member for Sea Point, that the clause be amended to enable the Minister to choose two names out of three or four. That does seem more reasonable.

I cannot help but feel also that there are suitable bodies. The National Building Research Institute, for example, is a very good body which works in close collaboration with the Master Builders Association, the national body. The Master Builders Association itself is also one. There may even be members of the Institute of Architects who may be desirable. However, maybe some of these people will be considered by the Minister in terms of paragraph (d). I would recommend that the hon the Minister give serious consideration to these. There are also big developers who have considerable experience in the development of cheap housing and who, if given some opportunity to range a little freely in their thinking, would be able to produce housing much cheaper than it has been.

The functions of this council are also mentioned, for example township planning and methods of housing. That is fine. I am all in favour of them having this sort of function, but one of the major problems in housing has been persuading the local authorities that they have to accept certain standards. Unless it is built in somewhere along the line that local authorities are compelled to accept certain minimum standards one is not going to achieve one’s objective. The hon member for Maitland has referred to some unusual local authorities that insist on a minimum area of 100 square metres for a housing unit for the lower and middle lower income groups. The company which I have been associated with for the past 30-odd years and which has been building thousands of housing units per year for the average home-owner has been doing an average of 85 to 95 metres for this particular category of persons. A law like that passed by a local authority should be ultra vires.

Similarly, there are local authorities that insist on immaculate standards of finish that are quite impossible. It is the finishing parts of housing that cost the real money. I still maintain that one can build houses very, very cheaply if it were not for the ridiculously high standards of finishings that are demanded. When I first got involved in the housing industry, during the late forties, the normal house for the ordinary working man had granolithic floors in the bathroom, toilet and kitchen and in many instances even in certain of the other rooms as well, although the living rooms normally had strip floors. The houses were cheaply constructed and yet those houses are still going today and are today selling at R60 000, R70 000 and R80 000 in the hon the Deputy Minister’s own constituency. I know of many of these houses because I was involved in their construction in those days.

I believe that we are demanding far too high standards of finishing, and this is where the heavy cost is coming in. I would say that at least 40% of the cost of housing is due to the finishings. If we could reduce the standards and let the owners add the additional trimmings at a later stage, the cost of housing will be cut. The point is, however, that local authorities and building societies will not allow people to build in that way. They will not give them loans and they will not get their plans passed. If we wish to achieve something in this regard and provide homeownership for those people who need it most, those people who are less affluent, we will have to see to it that the standards required are at such a level that they can be an economic proposition.

The hon member for Maitland suggested that we should have something in the nature of a research library. I think it is a very good idea, but I feel that we should not have a proliferation of these institutions. I understand that the National Building Research Institute has already built up a very substantial library of material in regard to construction, housing and all matters related thereto and I feel that we do not need a variety of these organizations.

I will obviously have more to say in the Committee Stage, so with a view to ensuring that we can proceed with the Bill, I merely want to say now that we will be supporting it. We believe it is a sound proposition and that it is going to be very useful. [Interjections.]

There is, however, one other point that I should like to make and that is in regard to this nonsense in many local authorities that one can only have one housing unit on a stand. [Interjections.] This is utterly ridiculous. We already have problems in regard to the housing of the aged and one cannot build granny flats. I think it is disgraceful. I believe that granny flats should be allowed and that local authorities should be persuaded to allow such flats in their areas.