Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House, I wish to point out that the discussion of the Internal Affairs Vote will take place on Monday, 26 April, while the National Education Vote will come up for discussion on Thursday, 29 April. The Finance Vote will be dealt with by a Standing Committee in the Senate Chamber on Friday, 30 April.

For the rest this House will deal with legislation, as it appears on the Order Paper, during the intervals between the discussions of the various Votes.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

It is customary to start the discussion of a Vote with a reference to the annual report of the department concerned, but I must say that in this instance I think it really would be kinder to ignore the report because it is more noteworthy for what it omits than for the information that it includes. Urban Blacks and their affairs do not receive very much attention in a report of 36 pages and the acute housing shortage throughout the country is grossly underestimated in the introduction of the report while progress with the 99-year leasehold is described as satisfactory. Well, Sir, my impression is that it is anything but satisfactory.

It is estimated that there are approximately 3 million Blacks on so-called White farms and there is not a single word about them in the report. There is also nothing at all in the report about the miserable conditions in the resettlement areas where hundreds of thousands of Blacks live in abject poverty. We read about 58 townships which have been developed in the border areas and in the homelands and we read about the health clinic, for instance at Onverwacht, which no doubt is what inspired the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare to make his idiotic remark yesterday when he compared health services at Onverwacht with the health services in Houghton.

In chapter 1 we are treated to a lot of gibberish which appear to have amanated from the “Blacks-are-slow-thinkers” school of thought. I am going to read just a portion of this and I hope that we are not going to have any of this in future reports. This is what is said on page 1—

I sincerely hope that the research anticipated in the report will be abandoned forthwith. We do not have the money to waste on nonsense like that.

I am going to abandon the departmental report right now and am going to turn my attention to a report which I think warrants much more attention. That, of course, is the Viljoen Report, on which, I note, that the hon. the Minister will be speaking at a conference at Unisa some time next week. I may not be able to attend the seminar myself, and for the benefit of members who will not even try to attend, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to anticipate the speech that he is going to give at Unisa and to answer a few relevant questions. For those hon. members who have not read the report, I just want to remind the Committee that the Viljoen Committee was appointed to investigate private sector involvement in resolving the housing backlog in Soweto. The report was signed on 22 July last year, and six months later—why we had to wait that long, I do not know—a joint statement was issued by the Ministers of Co-operation and Development, Community Development and the Deputy Minister of Finance. Apparently the Government, according to the statement, endorses the principles contained in the report of the Viljoen Committee, including, inter alia, “the fundamental change in approach and reversal in the former policy regarding the temporary status of the urban Black community”. Hallelujah! is all I can say to that. After 32 years of an absurd policy of the non-recognition of the permanency of urban Black people, many of whom came to the cities to stay before the Second World War, we at last have official recognition of the fact that the Blacks are here to stay. As a result of the policy of not recognizing the permanency of urban Blacks, we have this shocking backlog of housing in the urban areas throughout the Republic today.

Mr. Viljoen estimates that the overall shortage in the urban Black areas alone is approximately 168 000 units and that the cost of providing these units will be R1,7 billion. In Soweto alone the shortfall is 35 000 units and is growing at a rate of 4 000 per annum. Something like 55 000 units will have to be provided over the next five years. 1 000 ha of land is required immediately, according to the report, in Soweto alone, and an additional 200 ha every year. The total cost of land acquisition over the next five years and of servicing and developing that land is estimated at R800 million. That is a daunting task for any Government to have to face. What worries me is what was not accepted in the statement, namely the all-important proposal regarding the payment of a subsidy for housing. This issue was referred to Deputy Minister Steyn for urgent investigation, as was suggested by the Viljoen Committee, in January 1982. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what has emanated from this inquiry of Deputy Minister Steyn, for it is my contention that without a proper formula for subsidization, all the housing schemes and proposals are still-born and would not mean a thing. I would like to emphasize that throughout the report the phrase “as a matter of urgency” occurs again and again. Indeed, as far as the subsidy question is concerned, Mr. Viljoen states on page 5—

A further three months have passed since Deputy Minister Steyn’s committee has been set up, and that makes it nine months since Mr. Viljoen has reported. Meanwhile the shortfall of housing in Soweto alone has gone up by a further 2 660 units, basing this projection on 4 000 units per year.

What has, in fact, been done in the critical area of housing? We know that legislation was passed at the end of last session to implement one of the recommendations of the Viljoen Committee, i.e. to allow the private sector to obtain leasehold rights in the Black townships similar to those rights obtained under the 99-year scheme by Black individuals. One would have thought that that was the object of the amendment, but I am assured that this is not the case. The private sector is not at all certain that it has been given the same security of tenure as Blacks under the 99-year leasehold scheme. Moreover, the shortage of land remains a perpetual stumbling block—a major one at that-—in the provision of housing units in every single Black township in the country. As for the obstacles provided by the absolute idiotic regulations about survey, they continue to make the acquisition of 99-year leasehold, either by individual Blacks or by the private sector where Whites are concerned, practically impossible. The hon. the Minister will remember a letter which he received from a certain Mr. Hart who was trying to get a house for his domestic servant in Daveyton. He stated how the costs went up, how no land was available, how the survey costs added to the scheme and, finally, how he, only with the greatest of difficulty, was able to achieve this.

I have here the February issue of New Horizons, which is a very glossy paper put out by WRAB in Soweto, and it announces proudly that 1981 was a year of progress in Greater Soweto and other Black towns on the West Rand. It tells us about the large amounts that have been spent on infrastructure, for example on the provision of storm water drainage, sewerage, electrification etc. It says that houses are being wired at the rate of 4 000 per month and that those already wired and waiting connection, should receive the new Escom supply, which was made available this year, at the rate of 3 000 per month. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether in fact 6 000 houses have received electricity in the last two months in Soweto? If the houses are already wired, if Escom is ready to supply and the houses were supposed to be supplied at the rate of 3 000 per month, then we can expect that 6 000 houses should have been supplied with electricity. I must say, however, that New Horizons is less lyrical when it comes to dealing with housing plans. This is quite understandable, I might add. Practically every paragraph that mentions housing projects states “when funds become available”. I add: When? This year? Next year? Sometime? Never? But the real question that should be asked is: Why not two years ago? When the Government was flush with money, why were more houses not built over that period? The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that there was hardly any progress in the provision of housing over that period of time. I cannot but wonder whether the regrettable withdrawal of Mr. Louis Rive from the Greater Soweto Planning Council is not in fact due, despite his tactful explanation, to utter frustration over the lack of housing. “Build more houses or I go,” said Mr. Rive in May 1981. I might add that by June 1981 exactly 48 houses had been built in Soweto by the State. I do not think that very many more were built during the second part of 1981. Every single Black township in the Republic is experiencing the same enormous problems due to the shortage of accommodation. One has only to look at the headlines. “WRAB faces irate crowds”, says one headline. “400 residents, who have been on the waiting list since 1976, crowded the offices”, appeared in The Sowetan re Kwa-Thema at Springs. “Central Transvaal Administration Board under fire” is another headline about a waiting list of 5 000 at Mamelodi in Pretoria, where they say there has been no action by the board since the early ’sixties. Many articles refer to the bitter disappointment over the non-fulfilment of promises made by the hon. the Minister re Alexandra Township three years ago. Now New Horizons tells us that “when funds are available” building is expected to start soon on a few hundred units at Alexandra Township.

In the Eastern Cape the Linde Committee, appointed in February 1981, made an emergency examination on the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation’s recommendation about the situation there, which he quite rightly said was fraught with danger. The Linde Committee emphasized eight “crisis points” in the Eastern Cape’s 75 townships. Will either the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what, if anything, has been done about these crisis points? The very use of such words would, one would think, have galvanized the Government into some sort of action.

I shall not deal with the Western Cape in detail because my hon. colleagues are going to do that, but it is in the direst straits of all, largely due to the Government’s obstinacy in retaining the Coloured labour preference policy in the Cape. I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said about the squatter problem, but I do want to say that the word “squatter” is a completely misnomer as far as these particular Nyanga people are concerned. A Black Sash survey done on the Nyanga people revealed that 30% of them had come to Cape Town 10 years ago, over 40% more than 10 years ago and that 95,4% of the men and just on 84% of the women were in employment. I believe that such people are not squatters but are, in fact, residents, although they are unauthorized residents. Many of them have been in and out of gaol for pass law offences, and I want to remind the House of what Dr. Jan Lange of Unisa said. He pointed out that illegal workers from the homelands could spend nine months of the year in gaol for influx control and pass law offences and still end up better than if they had stayed in the homelands, and several 100% better if they had been imprisoned for a shorter time than nine months. What an indictment this is of the sort of livelihood provided by the homelands! I can only hope that the Orderly Urbanization Bill of the hon. the Minister, which we have not yet had sight of, is going to take cognizance of that. I do not believe that the decentralization plans are going to come into operation in such a way that they are ever going to be able to offset the advantages of working in an industrial urban area, as opposed to the setting up of factories in areas that are not economically viable without enormous Government subsidies.

At this stage I want to draw the attention of the House to what I call another deliberate deviation from the original intention of an Act passed by this Parliament, rather like section 6 of the Terrorism Act and the original intention that was announced in this House when that Act was passed—at that stage it was said that section 6 would apply only to terrorists in the bush. I am referring here to the use of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, Act No. 59 of 1972. That Act makes provision for the summary deportation of foreigners from South Africa, or for imprisonment for a period of up to six months without the option of a fine. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I think—and he knows this—that this is a disgraceful misuse of an Act as it is now being used, i.e. as an additional weapon in the Government’s influx control armoury against people from Transkei and other independent homelands. Yet, when in 1972 that Act was passed, it was passed without any objection or discussion, because it was considered to be non-contentious. I certainly would have opposed it, had I ever dreamed that it could be used as an additional influx control measure. The fact that it is used as such is, in my view, a disgrace.

Prof. Martin West of the University of Cape Town pointed out that with the independence of Transkei and Ciskei, virtually every Black person in Cape Town has technically become a foreigner. They have become technical foreigners subject to instant deportation under this particular Act should they be in Cape Town illegally, without even the minimum recourse to the courts of law that exists in terms of other influx control legislation. I believe that that is really a disgrace. I have examined the lists in the office of the Clerk of the Papers, as Section 23 of the Act demands that lists of people who were deported under the Act should be tabled within the first two weeks of the session. These people were evidently sent back under another section, because there is no such list although there are lists and lists of what I call “genuine foreigners” from countries all over the world and who have been deported because they were in this country illegally. Now we are using this Act against our own citizens, people who were born in this country when Transkei and Ciskei were still an integral part of the Republic. I think this is a disgrace, Sir.

In conclusion I want to return to my original theme, and that is that I believe the Government is dilatory in the extreme over the whole burning question of housing and the need for urgent action. I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that it does not need liberals and agitators to fan the flames of anger that exist among Blacks who have been living in the urban townships in acute discomfort, in indoor squatter camps, which Soweto is, with houses accommodating 15 to 17 people at night while they were intended for only six. Blacks have been living in acute discomfort while they have been on waiting-lists for years. Those people ask: How long will it take the Government before they recognize that we Blacks are human beings?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has just said that Soweto is a squatter camp. However, I do not think it is helpful to refer to the areas where Black people live and where the Government is at present going out of its way to create better conditions, as squatter camps, when they are not squatter camps. Surely the hon. member for Houghton knows that the conditions in Soweto are nothing like the conditions we encounter in squatter camps. [Interjections.] The hon. member spoke at length about housing conditions for Black people.

Well, what is wrong with that?

No, I am merely stating a fact. All I want to say is that there are other speakers on this side of the House who are going to discuss housing and who will reply to the hon. member’s speech. She also said that she failed to find any reference in the report of the Department of Co-operation and Development to accommodation for Black people on farms.

No, I did not say that.

Well, then I misunderstood the hon. member. I am sorry.

I said there was no mention of them at all.

But that is what I said in Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member says that she fails to find any reference to Black housing on farms in the report.

I was not talking about “behuising”.

However, I should like to invite the hon. member to come to Bothaville, where I live. There I shall show her what the White farmers …

You do not understand English. That is what is wrong.

… do about accommodation for their Black workers. [Interjections.] In that district there are 50 or more houses on farms, houses which the farmers themselves have built for their workers. They are neat houses, some of which are even supplied with electrity and water. [Interjections.] I want to invite her to come and see what the farming community have done for their Black workers as far as housing is concerned. [Interjections.]

However, I also want to attend to another aspect to which the hon. member referred, viz. influx control. I do so with reference to squatting and the impact which the lack of development in Black States has had on squatting in White areas. I believe that the Black people do not come to the White area from the surrounding States searching for political rights in South Africa. That I do not believe. They come here to seek work, to enable them to look after their families. This is a natural urge or motivation on the part of every person. Therefore I shall not condemn squatters merely because they are Blacks. Apart from the social, administrative and political problems which squatting entails for us—the presence of squatters in South Africa also affects interstate relations—there are three aspects of squatting which the White Government of South Africa must bear in mind at all times.

The first is that there are insufficient job opportunities within the Black States for their own people. That is a fact. However, Black people have to eat, and people who do not have work, go hungry. Hungry people are, of course, dangerous people. They are potential plunderers, murderers and terrorists. The potential for unrest and revolt is finely balanced on the breaking point of starvation. This is a situation which can become acute for any person within 36 hours from his last meal. Therefore it is essential that we regard the creation of job opportunities within the Black States as a very high priority. I believe that this would reduce squatting and that this situation is directly related to squatting in South Africa.

The second aspect is that squatters seem to think that there are unlimited job opportunities in the White area. That is wrong, of course, because job opportunities within the White area are also limited. However, it is also a fact that incitement, too, is connected with the coming of squatters, or a great many of them, to South Africa. Accordingly, the Government is compelled to take steps to protect the interests of people who are lawfully in the White area and who live and work here. Influx control measures, to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, are not intended to be unreasonable or inhuman, whatever connotation is attached to them, but to protect the vested interests of people who are here lawfully. Let me say to the hon. member for Houghton that the people who live and work in the White area lawfully, expect of this Government to protect their interests. How else are we to protect their interest if influx control is not applied?

The third aspect we must bear in mind at all times is that development in the Black States and the concomitant creation of employment opportunities has not progressed satisfactorily to date. We must admit that. A relevant factor in this regard is, however, that for the most part, Black States seek investments with a view to industrial development. This does not materialize overnight, and in consequence the reproach is levelled that this Government is indifferent to the needs of development in Black States. That is not correct. This Government is very sympathetic in that regard and will also assist such development within Black States to the extent that its means permit. However, development within the Black States is not the primary task of the Government and White entrepreuneurs in the RSA. Black States and Black entrepreneurs surely also have a responsibility and a duty in this regard. It is true that they cannot succeed in recruiting and mobilizing White capital without the necessary guarantees from the Government. I concede that. However, that is a sphere in regard to which these Black States can indeed attract investments and promote development without great effort, viz. in the agricultural sphere. Little attention is given to the possiblity of investment in agriculture by individual White farmers with a view to meat and milk production and grain farming—to mention only a few—which would not only produce sufficient food for the Black States themselves but would also produce surpluses with a view to exporting them. Economic independence is an absolute prerequisite for political independence, and agriculture is the obvious practical possibility as regards an improved economic dispensation for the Black States; however, due to the communal system, it is the least developed. South Africa itself was a predominantly agricultural country for many decades. It was only really after the end of the previous century that this country also developed into a mining country; it is only since the last World War that South Africa has really developed into an industrial giant on this continent; and it is only since then that three pillars have been established on which our economy has been built, viz. agriculture, mining and industry. Therefore at this stage, agriculture is more important than factories in the development of the Black States. The Black States must develop their agriculture, and no new land ought to be added to Black States, apart from the 1936 quota, until the existing agricultural potential is utilized in accordance with recognized economic principles; nor until such time as steps have been taken and guarantees provided that new additions of land will remain economic production areas. In my opinion, the best guarantee in this regard is the channelling of White capital and skills to the Black States. Agriculture is not necessarily labour-intensive, nor will it create job opportunities in large numbers. I concede that at once. However, the passing on of skills and training opportunities to Black people in agriculture will contribute considerably to the Black States, because the majority of Black people in the national and independent States are for the most part agriculturists.

Order! I regret that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise in order to give the hon. member for Parys the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful to the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition for the opportunity he has afforded me to complete my speech. I shall not take up much more of the Committee’s time.

By adopting a scheme of purposeful recruitment of White farmers who may farm on their own account on economic farming units within the Black States, we shall guide the Black people from their present subsistence economy in agriculture to an advanced, profit-oriented agricultural economy which could lay the basis of future development in several other spheres in the Black States.

The primary issue, however, is that agriculture in the Black States must first be developed, and because direct private investment, for example that of a White farmer in agriculture within the national States, together with the passing on of farming practices and management expertise, must necessarily be associated with in-service training—and this is very important, particularly in view of the fact that industrialists spend thousands of rands on the in-service training of their workers—such a system can therefore make an important contribution towards relieving the shortage of Black entrepreneurs capable of practising agriculture on an economic basis, and the shortage of trained workers in agriculture within the national States.

When a Black State makes economic farming units available, it need not seek large amounts of development capital elsewhere. It need only approach experts in agriculture. At the same time, the yield will be out of proportion to the present production value of agricultural land within the national States.

However, one matter which must be given attention in this context is the need for accelerated urbanization within the national States themselves, so that an end may be put to the innumerable settlements on agricultural land, which are rendered totally unproductive by the communal system. However, this will require a totally new vision and purpose from our Black leaders and a radical break with established traditions which no longer take into account the demands of the times. Such a system would give a totally new dimension to agriculture in the Black areas. It would enable them to convert the existing unutilized agricultural land and agricultural resources into an asset for the national States themselves.

I am convinced that I speak on behalf of the Government—the hon. the Minister can reply to this—when I say that if Black States want to introduce such a scheme with regard to the direct recruitment of farmers for their own agricultural purposes, and if they also want to give such farmers the necessary guarantees, they will enjoy the support of this Government. Indeed, I believe that the Government will then go out of its way to furnish assistance in that regard. By doing so the Black States will also show that they are in earnest as regards putting their agricultural land, too—apart from the development of their industries—on a sound basis, and in so doing promote agriculture and other developments within their countries.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

With regard to what the hon. member for Parys said, I do not want to differ with the hon. member as to his plea that development of the national States should enjoy priority and that agriculture is the basis for that development. I want to agree wholeheartedly with him on that, because it is true. As regards the method he advocated to bring about that agricultural development, I just wish to say that that is a very interesting subject and I think that there will have to be a great deal more deliberation in that regard. Accordingly I do not wish to agree or disagree with the hon. member about that this afternoon. I must say that the subject is such that there is not much sense in disagreeing on it. However, I do want to mention that there are examples achieved in Southern Africa of successful agricultural campaigns in some of our national States. In this regard I refer in particular to Bophuthatswana, which sets an example to any state in Africa. That state has already succeeded in producing more maize than its local consumption and this year they also expect to produce more wheat than their local consumption. I contend that the system, the method followed to bring this about, incorporates the secret of how to practise agriculture successfully in an African State. However, we can discuss that on another occasion.

That is more or less his programme. I do not differ with the hon. member.

We are going to fight in a moment. I am coming to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Before beginning with what I have to say, I think that the first statement I must make is that in these times tremendous efforts are of course being made to hang all kinds of labels around the neck of the CP. One of those labels is that the CP does not care about other population groups; that we begrudge them everything, that we have no intention of affording their rightful place and that we say they must be trampled into the dirt and mud. [Interjections.] That is the impression that is being created and I want to say that that is not so. I want to state very clearly and bluntly that the CP believes that justice must be done in terms of the policy of separate development and in terms of a policy whereby every population group, in its own right, obtains opportunities and rights and privileges within its own context, without this affecting the rights of other groups. In that sense we believe that all groups must have acquire rights separately and in their own context, and therefore I want to say that when we say we believe in separate development, this does not mean that we do not want other people to have rights, to progress and be prosperous. We believe that that is the only way in which we can eliminate friction. We believe it is the only way in which we can achieve stability and, indeed, the only way in which stability has in fact been achieved in South Africa. We believe, too, that it is the only way to achieve true co-operation among various groups to form a united front against the onslaughts being launched on this continent.

What is your constitutional plan?

Does that hon. member want me to discuss the constitutional plan for the Coloureds and the Indians now? [Interjections.]

I should like to come back to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land affairs during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, when he launched quite an attack on me and intimated that I had been in favour of power-sharing and also of land ownership by Black people in the White area. I want to say at once to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am not in favour of either of those things. As regards the report that he quoted, he has got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick. If he had read that report in its entirety, he would have realized that that is not what is advocated in that report.

I shall read it again.

The hon. the Deputy Minister would do well to read it again, but I just want to say to him that the opposite is indeed true. I asked myself the question: Why is this hon. Deputy Minister launching such an attack on me at this point?

You accused me of power-sharing.

But, Sir, they said that they accept that. [Interjections.] I did not accuse the hon. the Deputy Minister of that.

The hon. member does in fact accept power-sharing in that report.

I do not accept that and I shall prove it to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister now trying to contend that I am falsely accusing them when I say that they accept power-sharing? [Interjections.] That is their policy, after all; I did not accuse them. Are there hon. members on that side who say that they did not accept power-sharing?

I said that you accepted it too.

This is really a ridiculous situation. We have been kicked out of that party because we do not accept power-sharing, but now there are hon. members here who say that they have never accepted power-sharing.

Who said so?

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I was accusing hon. members opposite of it.

He said that you also accepted a form of power-sharing.

No, the hon. member for Innesdal was not listening. The hon. member said that he did not accept power-sharing. This is a ridiculous situation.

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

No.

It is an easy question.

I do not answer easy questions; I prefer the difficult ones. [Interjections.]

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the report from which he quoted. The very first sentence of the report reads—

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister overlooked that by mistake.

On what page is that?

I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister later. I shall not invite him to come to my office; I shall follow protocol and go to his office to explain the report to him. I shall tell you why. I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister understands and accepts the report he will achieve something for South Africa because it has great potential—for him too.

And elements of power-sharing.

No, there are no such elements.

Let us proceed to page through the report as far as page 3. I shall now take the hon. the Deputy Minister through it step by step as a schoolmistress would do. [Interjections.] On page 3 we come to the concept of nation. There we read—

Is this power-sharing?

Our policy too.

Of course. I am not arguing. The right of every nation to rule over itself is not power-sharing; it is the division of power. Listen carefully to what the report says—

Therefore this is a division of power in order to link the Black man in the White area with his heartland, his national State.

And joint deliberation.

No. Joint deliberation is by no means joint decision-making. Here we have an example of how one deliberates together, which powers one can transfer to him, so that he can then take decisions on his own.

And when one has finished deliberating who takes the decision then?

Then he takes his own decisions about those things and you take decisions on your own, after you have transferred the power to him. That is what that hon. member cannot understand, and that is the difference.

That is why I say that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made an absolute fool of himself, because he tried to prove two things. The first was that I had advocated power-sharing, whereas that is not the case. This is a perfect example of the division of power, something which hon. members over there always used to advocate. The second thing he is trying to prove is that I am in favour of land ownership in the White area. Then he must read that I said that this could take place in those areas after they had been excised from the Republic of South Africa and included in a Black State.

And over which the State President retains control.

That is true for the Black areas that are not yet independent, but it is out of his jurisdiction and therefore the power is granted to him. That is why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not understand it when he read it.

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

No, give me the chance to continue now.

I asked myself why the hon. the Deputy Minister had tried to link these two concepts to me. I shall now provide an answer to that. I also asked myself why he had launched the attack on me. I then reached the conclusion that the hon. the Deputy Minister had perhaps decided that because I had occupied his post before him, I could be in a position to judge whether he has made a success of his job or not, and therefore that the situation justified attack as the best means of defence. I shall come back to that again shortly.

Are you challenging me now?

Yes, I am challenging you.

I can prove where you also made bugger-ups.

Prove it. I invite the hon. the Deputy Minister to do so. I want to say to him that he and the hon. the Minister had brought that policy to a total standstill. They no longer carry out the policy; in fact, they no longer carry out anything, and I shall prove it. They have reached a total standstill. The hon. the Minister is the leader of that hon. Deputy Minister and he has got him that far.

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister use the word “bugger-ups”?

Yes, Sir, and I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

I asked myself why the hon. the Deputy Minister linked the concepts power-sharing and land ownership to me. A year ago they were still saying that the political home of the Black man in the White area was the national State. That had already been thought through, they said. Last week, however, the Government said that this question had not yet been resolved. I ask them whether they are laying the table for the Black people, too, to be included in the political dispensation for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians?

I now wish to refer to a very interesting pamphlet someone gave me at a meeting. It deals with the future constitutional set-up. Hon. members are acquainted with the one we used when I was still a member of the NP. However, someone has now given me a new one. He told me that it was a very remarkable pamphlet. On the front page the words “Nasionale Party van Suid-Afrika, Oktober 1977” appear in orange letters. He then pointed out to me that if one read this strange pamphlet against the light, one would see that these words were pasted over the words “Nasionale Party, Maart 1982”. I asked why this was done. If one looks inside, one sees that these two pamphlets are the same, for the most part, except that one important aspect was deleted from the one. In the 1977 model, among other things the following appears “Die Swart man uitgesluit”: that, however, has been deleted from the 1982 model, which has been given the 1977 trademark.

What are you trying to prove?

I am not trying to prove anything. I am asking hon. members of that party what it means. Why is this 1982 model different to that of 1977? [Interjections.] It is not us who issued it, but the NP.

We have not seen it.

Has the hon. member not seen it? The hon. member is in total ignorance about what is going on. I shall have to invite him to my office to inform him.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister that the development of the national States forms the cornerstone of the success of that party’s policy. The question now is: to what extent are they succeeding in carrying out that policy. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has been entrusted with an investigation into the consolidation of the National States. According to the modest information at my disposal the hon. member is working hard and making a thorough study of this important subject. In the meantime, however, the Government has to carry out that policy.

In 1977 the hon. the Prime Minister stated in this Parliament what the aims of this investigation were. The terms of reference were—

This concerns consolidation—

In other words, two matters are at issue: The expediting of this process and greater consolidation. The hon. the Prime Minister laid down certain guidelines. As far as the first guideline is concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister said—

With regard to the first of these two objectives set by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that this should be expedited, the Government has handled the various aspects of this matter in such a way that all but one have reached a standstill. At this stage the Government is only buying from Whites. But as regards the exchange of land and the resettlement of people to bring about greater consolidation, that process has come to a total standstill. In an effort to achieve greater consolidation—the 1975 proposals made provision for an eventual 24 blocks—as the Government is carrying on now, there will probably eventually be 100 blocks. Will the hon. the Minister not tell us how many blocks the 24 blocks will eventually come to if the Government continues to do what they are doing now?

Are you opposed to a chequerboard policy now?

I say that that is the Government’s directive. It is the directive of this Parliament, and I want to know whether the Government is going to bring about greater consolidation, because I contend that the Government is not striving to achieve the objectives that have been set. The Government is not carrying out the policy. They are not succeeding in doing so. All the Government is doing is purchasing land, and at a slow tempo.

Guideline No. 5 reads—

Is the Government still exchanging land, or have they stopped doing so? Surely the Government has stopped completely. Guideline No. 2 reads—

Now I want to put a question to the hon. Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. In Northern Transvaal, in the Dendron region, where some of the best agricultural land in the Northern Transvaal is to be found, where one finds the best cattle grazing region and there is fantastic irrigation land, approximately 30 000 ha have been purchased for Black people in order to bring about consolidation, and planning was done in respect of the development and utilization of that region. The Government of Lebowa was consulted and people were satisfied. The first people moved in and began to occupy the region. Now, however, I read in the newspaper that that land is going to be leased to White farmers once more in order to be sold again at a later stage. In other words, this land was purchased and then leased with a view to selling it at a later stage. In other words, all these things were done in order to achieve nothing. This was an opportunity to bring about the economic development of national States and of South Africa.

Were you in favour of that?

Of course I was in favour of it. All the Government had to do was to carry it out. Why did the Government not succeed in doing so? Do hon. members know what the Government has done to the economic development of South Africa and of the Black States? This was an opportunity to implement projects which had already been planned, projects which had achieved success in Bophuthatswana. However, the Government allowed the opportunity to slip through its fingers. According to the information at my disposal, the boreholes on those farms, which used to be show farms, irrigation farms, are closed, and nothing is going on there. What has this contributed to the economic development of the Black States and of South Africa? As far as that is concerned, the Government has retrogressed. The Government has acted to the detriment of the economic development of the Black States and of South Africa. The Government has not achieved its aim.

You were not present when that decision was taken.

Of course I was not present. If I had been, I would have implemented it, because after all, I was busy implementing it. After all, that hon. Deputy Minister knows it, and I was successful, too.

I want to conclude by saying that the Government does have a policy, but they no longer have the power, the courage or the will to implement it. They cannot get that policy carried out. They have brought the policy to a standstill and in some respects they have put it in reverse gear and are going backwards. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon. the Minister is doing.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

It is tragic that it is so, and I am ashamed that South Africa has a Minister who cannot get his policy implemented.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lichtenburg commenced his speech by complaining about being labelled. One label of which the hon. member of the CP cannot rid themselves is that they are systematically exploiting and inciting racial prejudices. [Interjections.] The situation in which we find ourselves calls for precisely the opposite behaviour. It has become clear on numerous occasions that the CP is indulging in exploiting racial prejudices, and this the CP cannot deny. However, I want to raise another small matter.

†I should like to speak on the question of Black spot resettlement and matters relating thereto. This is an extremely emotional issue. It affects the Black people, and not only the Blacks themselves, but also a number of organizations that participate in creating emotion to make matters such as resettlement virtually impossible. I should like to quote from a letter that I received from a farmers’ association in my constituency and in which the chairman says—

The writer refers to an area called Cornfields which covers approximately 1 600 acres, and of Tembelitha which is about 500 acres in extent Even in the normal farming areas of that district, the maximum permissible carrying capacity as far as cattle is concerned, would be 350 cattle on a farm of 1 600 acres. The chairman of the farmers’ association continues—

I quote further—

I quote this letter to give an impression of the circumstances that exist.

I should now like to deal with the question of a positive attitude towards possible resettlement. There are many Black spots in Natal, especially in my constiuency, and there is an emotional side to the question of resettlement. About that there is no doubt. Here we have an arrangement, however, whereby the normal laws applicable to erosion, over-grazing, squatting, etc., do not apply to land owned by Blacks in White areas. I should therefore like to suggest that the same laws applying to White farmers should be made applicable to Black land-owners in rural farming communities. What is essential is that there should be orderly urbanization. By far the majority of squatters on these lands. Cornfields and other similar Black spots in my constituency, are employed in industry or other urban employment sectors. It is absolutely essential that there be orderly urbanization, because on the Black farms where they are squatting at the moment they are not obtaining property ownership and can never obtain property ownership. The owners are merely exploiting them by way of the rental they obtain from them. If they were resettled in Kwazulu, in eZakheni and surrounding areas, at least they could obtain property ownership. They could then be provided with water, sewerage, roads, refuse removal, electricity, etc.

Could they have freehold there?

They could have freehold title there. Provision could be made for co-ordinated transport facilities, for co-ordinated community services, for secondary schools, for technical education, for sports facilities, for cinemas, for shopping centres, for postal services, for police services, and what is more important, provision could also be made for real, co-ordinated industrial development and the development of employment opportunities.

In the programme that has been announced by the Government, encouraging industrial development in decentralized areas, there is provision for considerable subsidies for industrial development. In the eZakheni area, for example, as well as in Isithebe and other areas, provision is made for a 50% railage rebate. There is a labour subsidy of 95%, up to a maximum of R105 per month per labourer. There are tax reductions for training facilities. There is a 50% subsidy on housing of staff and there is reinbursement for the resettlement of industries in that area. There is a 10% price preference for tenders that are received from those areas. I would like to suggest that we should move in the direction of removing the emotional element in regard to matters of resettlement. To do that I am prepared to concede that those Black landowners in those Black spots who are intent on farming or economically developing that land should be given the opportunity of remaining on the land, provided they farm economically. To assist them in doing that, loan and financing facilities should be made available to bona fide Black farmers in those areas.

Hear, hear!

Then we should, however, obtain the co-operation of KwaZulu. Those who are employed in industrial and commercial undertakings and other services should agree to orderly resettlement in areas where there can be a positive upliftment of the community as a whole. We should get rid of the emotional attempts to discourage the resettlement of Black squatters who are employed industrially in rural areas throughout Natal.

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

No, Sir. I would gladly reply to his question, but my time is very limited. There are areas, for example Groutville and the Ifafa Mission, where there are Blacks who are farming economically. As far as I am concerned, those who wish to continue farming economically should be given an opportunity of continuing to do so … [Interjections.] … but then they should fall under the laws that apply to farming and rural areas generally. [Interjections.] At the same time there could be positive development, because we must encourage industrial development and orderly urbanization for the Blacks in South Africa.

There must also be administrative integrity. KwaZulu already has self-government. It has control of numerous State departments. There can only be administrative integrity, however, if there is proper, planned consolidation of those areas. I am therefore making a plea for our consolidation proposals to move in the direction of accepting that if there is economic agricultural use of land by Blacks, they should not be compelled to resettle.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. member for Klip River, may I express my appreciation to my colleague who is the NRP spokesman on Co-operation and Development for affording me the opportunity at the commencement of this debate to make my speech. I have to leave for Natal immediately after this, and I therefore apologize for my absence should any mention be made of my speech while I am away.

Mr. Chairman, I was extremely interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Klip River because it did indicate that there is a break-through in Government thinking with regard to Black-owned property or “Black Spots”, in White areas. I very much agree with his comments in relation to urbanization in the rural areas as a means of consolidating the provision there of longterm facilities. I also very much support the suggestion that those Black owners of land, who wish to farm properly, if I may put it that way, and who are keen to make a living out of agriculture, should be accorded every facility that is applicable to other sectors of the agricultural community.

I wish to refer briefly to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance at the commencement of his reply to the Second Reading debate on the budget where he indicated that an amount in excess of the R64 million would be made available for the purposes of the consolidation of land. This is welcome news indeed in that it provides a glimmer of hope for the owners of those farms which were earmarked for consolidation as far back as 1975 and 1976. Those people will now be released, as it were, from the shackles of uncertainty regarding their future. I wonder whether the House really appreciates the predicament in which the owners of some of these farms find themselves as a result of the Government’s decision to expropriate their farms. A decision taken as far back as 1975. I therefore make no apology for raising this matter again after having raised it on previous occasions. Let me state that I shall continue to do so in the future as long as it is necessary.

There are people in my constituency, as there must be in other rural constituencies, who have been subjected to considerable hardship during the past five to six years as a result of the delay in receiving payment for their farms. I wish to quote from a Press cutting which bears out the material hardship with which these people have had to contend—

I am not saying that. I am quoting. I continue—

… and so on. I must ask the House to spare a thought for those who are suffering from ill-health and who fall in this category. They have had to continue farming operations in order to provide a livelihood for themselves. I have some of these unfortunate people in my constituency and their plight can only be described as pathetic. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give prior attention to this matter particularly in regard to these people who are suffering from ill-health because their farming enterprises are deteriorating and their whole potential is being cut away completely from under them. Whilst I do not wish to labour this point unduly, may I also draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that due to the delay in payment and the subsequent increase in land values there will now be a number of farmers who will not be able to re-establish themselves in agriculture.

I want now to turn my attention to the question of Black spots in my constituency. I regard the decision of the hon. the Minister and his department as well as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt to review the whole question of Black spots in the Ndaleni area as a very welcome one and I can assure hon. members that it is very much appreciated by all those involved. I have been asked particularly to make it known that the people of Richmond specifically are extremely grateful in this regard. I want to refer in a little more detail to the areas of Ndaleni, Vinksrivier and Newlands adjoining Richmond Township in Natal. I want to deal briefly with these three areas but for the purposes of debate I shall treat them as one to which I shall refer simply as the Ndaleni complex.

I would imagine, Sir, that there are conditions in the Ndaleni complex that would apply to other parts of the country as well so perhaps in a way one is talking about generalities in this regard. I have also noted with great interest that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt who is chairman of the commission has indicated that certain resettlement areas in Lebowa will now not be finalized. With regard to the Ndaleni area I must point out that it is estimated that there are 60 000 people there. As I said previously, it is good news indeed to learn that the Government is not irrevocably committed to the removal of these people. However, in view of the decision that has been taken, I must impress upon the hon. the Minister and those who are responsible for making the decisions in this regard how absolutely necessary it is that hand in hand with decisions that are made in regard to Black spots must go the question of the development of those areas. That is absolutely vital and I do hope that this is something to which attention will be given.

In the very short time still at my disposal, I should like to turn to some cases of Black spots that have been removed in the past. I accept completely what was said by the hon. member for Klip River, namely that considerable criticism has been levelled at some of the removals that have taken place in the past. However, I want to make it quite clear that we on these benches feel that the Government must not stand condemned in respect of all such removals. In some cases these removals have been highly beneficial to those people who have been removed and, in fact, to the whole surrounding community. As a result of these removals the people involved have been able to enjoy far better living conditions. It cannot be denied that certain of these Black spots that have been removed were nothing more than festering sores within a community. I want at this stage to make one point very clear and that is that I trust that any move away from the 1975 proposals—I am sure the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter—will not be made outside any agreements that were concluded with the Natal Agricultural Union.

Finally, may I just say how heartened I am sure a large number of us are in the Opposition benches by the fact that the Government is adopting a more flexible attitude in regard to the whole question of the urbanization and development of the rural Black.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River made a very positive speech here. On a recent tour with us in the national States the hon. member for Mooi River behaved just as positively and I really feel I ought to thank him for this today. I am also thanking him for the positive way in which he behaved here this afternoon.

I should like to deal with the very important question of urbanization. No one can determine precisely when people on earth began to live together in urban areas. Experts say the city is at least 5 000 years old. According to Gordon Childe, an urbanization revolution took place in the third century BC in Mesopotamia, when between 12 000 and 24 000 people gathered together in cities. The urbanization revolution has continued over the centuries, and is still taking place today on a vast scale throughout the world. In Africa and South Africa, too, a rapid urbanization process is under way.

According to the recent 1980 census, the vast majority of Whites, Coloureds and Asians in South Africa are already living in cities. In 1980, 88% of the Whites, 77% of the Coloureds and 91% of the Asiatics lived in cities. Today those figures are probably higher. What is important, however, is that it is estimated that by the year 2000 75% of the total Black population of the Republic of South Africa as a whole will be urbanized. The bare facts of the 1980 census tell us that our internal population mobility is increasing, and that urbanization in the Republic of South Africa is a process which can no longer be halted. The facts also tell us that an imaginative programme of dencentralization, of deconcentration and of development of growth points will rapidly have to be implemented. If this plan is not implemented rapidly enough the vast majority of the population will have moved to four main metropolitan areas within the foreseeable future.

For this reason I want to ask in all seriousness today that the entire question of re-establishment of industries, of township and urban development in the Black States be accorded high priority in our future planning. It has become imperative that we develop the Black States at such a rate that we are able to reverse the flow, which will prevent a further accumulation of Black people in the so-called White areas. In order to succeed in doing this, priority will have to be given to development projects in and near the Black States. In addition, priority will also have to be given to the implementation of co-prosperity projects, and to the new comprehensive regional development strategy, which has become of cardinal importance to both Blacks and Whites.

If we are going to allow our Black States to be reduced to the level of struggling and poor economies, such as those of other States in Africa, the NP’s policy of independent national States cannot succeed. What we need in the national States is greater internal economic dynamism. When one visits the national States one is struck by the great potential there. There is great potential in human material, in land, in water, in minerals and in other resources. On such a visit one is also struck by the fact that there is no lack of will and desire among these people to build up and develop their country. It is touching to see the national pride of those people who are building up their own states.

All that is missing in the national States is entrepreneurs with initiative and capital. One wishes that the financiers of South Africa would recognize the great realism of the situation and would help us to get these wonderful embryonic States further off the ground. I therefore want to make an appeal to the financiers of South Africa to help us to give this important aid to the national States so that we can make progress there.

I also want to appeal to Black entrepreneurs in the Republic of South Africa and to Black entrepreneurs in those national States, who have to a great extent built up their own capital. It is estimated that there are approximately 22 000 Black undertakings in the national States which represent a total business investment of about R740 million. Outside the national States there are approximately 7 500 Black entrepreneurs who have invested about R500 million in undertakings of one kind or another. Black business men therefore already have capital totalling approximately R1 240 million. It is also well-known that there are quite a few Black millionaires, and many more Blacks are well on their way to becoming millionaires. I want to ask those people to plough back their capital into the national States to help their own people, in the words of Dr. Verwoerd, “to create their own future there”.

We hope most sincerely that the Constellation of States Plan which is a wonderful plan, will bring about a new outlook and will give investors more confidence to invest more money in the Black States.

We must try to prevent a further accumulation of Blacks in the White areas. We can only do so by creating work for those people in the Black States. This can be done by further stimulating township development there and by getting the urbanization process effectively under way in the Black States.

Cities attract people, particularly cities with work in or near those cities, and where there is a possibility of owning one’s own home. A good example of this is the new city of Bochabella, previously known as Onverwacht, at Thaba Nchu, which has grown, within about three years, from nothing to a city in which it is estimated there are now between 120 000 and 150 000 people. People are still streaming in.

Up to now the national States have not yet been able to provide sufficient work for their own people. The result is that too many economically active Black men leave the Black States. This hampers economic development there and it is a pity that they cannot stay on to assist the economic development there. Only by means of greater economic activity in the Black States or on their borders, can the people be kept in or drawn back to those areas. A special effort is needed for this. Planning of the highest quality is needed for this. Imaginative initiatives are needed for this.

The provision of housing must also be converted into a powerful instrument of development in the national States. This can find expression in self-building schemes, using the simpler, cheaper methods of the Third World. For this the greatest measure of co-operation and involvement of the Black people themselves must be obtained. There are few things which people are prepared to save as much and work as hard for as their own home. There are few things which can stimulate family pride and self-respect as much as a home which the family has built itself.

We must get the urbanization process going in the Black States in an effective way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has made a plea today for more funds for the national States, particularly in relation to urban development there. I think it is true to say that to the extent that development there is based on the economic potential and economic profitability of the investment, the investments will come, but if they are to be attracted on the basis of ideological commitments, they will not come.

It was also interesting to hear the hon. member referring to the fact that urbanisation as a process is irreversible. That is something with which members on this side of the House will certainly agree, and it is on this topic that I wish to address the Committee this afternoon.

It is my belief that here in the Western Cape policies are being applied to Blacks that result in frustration, discontent, mistrust and give rise to racial hatred. We will all reap what this Government sows. I fear the consequences of the inhuman treatment which is meted out to Blacks in the Western Cape on a daily basis.

I would like to illustrate this by means of an example. Firstly, on a personal level, I would like to give the example of one individual with whom I had dealings. In terms of section 10(1)(a), this man qualifies to live in the Western Cape, in other words, he was born here and has resided here continuously. The Government, in terms of section 10(1)(a), therefore accepts that he is entitled to be in the Western Cape, that he belongs here. This man has some limited, semiskilled qualifications and managed to find himself a job suited to his qualifications. The process then followed whereby he went to the Administration Board in Langa. First of all, he had to get a permit or some form endorsed relating to lodging. So the next day he went to Guguletu, stood in queue, obtained a form and subsequently went to the person with whom he was lodging and got the form signed. He went back another day, paid a certain fee and eventually he had his lodging sorted out. Then he went back to Langa where they gave him other forms and referred him to the Department of Manpower here in town. The Department of Manpower in turn gave him a whole lot of forms to fill in, either by himself or by his employer. He had to answer question about whether for his occupation there were Coloured people available. A whole series of questions was asked about toilets. There were questions about when last they advertised for Coloured people for that job. He went back to his employer, who was merely a person trying to run a business, and the employer said: “Look, I do not have time to fiddle around with all that. I have been through that process before; you get shunted from pillar to post. It is a waste of time.” The end result was that the man said that he no longer had a job.

What reaction do we expect from a man who has been denied the right to obtain a good job in the area where, according to the Government, he belongs? Any White, Coloured, Indian or White foreigner can come from anywhere in South Africa to the Western Cape and take any job, irrespective of whom they put out of work. The Government accepts that a Black person belongs here, but yet he cannot take a job on the same basis. Is the hon. the Minister surprised that there is a widespread frustration, anger and bitterness? Is he surprised that more and more Blacks are rejecting the so called free enterprise system when they see how they are dealt with? In speaking to this man when he came back to me, I felt embarrassed, ashamed and angry.

Are you talking about a 10(1)(a) case?

Yes.

Supply his name then.

This is what I am coming to and I am going to ask for clarity. The look of despair on that man’s face made me feel sick in the stomach. It is claimed that this Government is Christian; it is claimed that there is an acute shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour and it is claimed by this Government that it rejects racism. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

One cannot start making sense if one tries to tell a man who has at least made an effort to obtain some education and vocational training that, despite his qualifications, he should take a job as a petrol pump attendant or as a labourer because he is blocked by the Coloured labour preference policy from obtaining better jobs. To continue to perpetrate injustices of this sort will destroy whatever racial goodwil remains between Black and White in the Western Cape.

Secondly, on a general level, and I refer now to Blacks who qualify in terms of section 10(1)(a) those people who were born here, or section 10(1)(b), people who have qualified through the process of long-term residence or employment, and section 10(1)(c), relating to spouses and dependants. A view was expressed by the Chamber of Commerce here in Cape Town that these people did not require permission from the Department of Manpower to take a job in the Western Cape. That was an opinion given. But that opinion is not being applied by the Administration Board here in the Western Cape. It is not a court opinion; so they are not obliged to apply it. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to clarify this matter in relation to those categories, viz. section 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) cases, and say whether or not they require permission from the Department of Manpower if they want to take a job here in the Western Cape.

Irrespective of what the correct interpretation is, I would in any event earnestly request the hon. the Minister to ensure that those Blacks who qualify to be in the Western Cape permanently be exempted from the need to obtain clearance from the Department of Manpower before being able to accept employment. Such a step would remove a major cause of dissatisfaction among Blacks and would result in greater productivity and faster economic growth in this region without having any major, adverse impact upon the employment prospects of others in the Western Cape.

There is a second matter I wish to deal with. The past year, starting with the eviction of people from the Langa barracks, has at best been an unhappy one, and more likely, an absolute disaster when it comes to the relationship between homeless Blacks and the authorities in the Western Cape. We have had people bussed back to Transkei and subsequently coming back; we have had busses shuttling people back and forth; we have had the case of a baby dying on a bus; we have had the fast in the St. George’s Cathedral, which is now being investigated—a total of 850 people are involved—and we have had the problem of 521 temporary permits for Crossroads’ residents being cancelled during the month of March, etc. We have had all sorts of problems.

Urbanization has been mentioned as being inevitable and irreversible. Even the hon. the Minister accepts, irrespective of what else, that the Black population in the Western Cape will increase. That is inevitable. Something must be done about it.

An unsatisfactory and unstable situation has developed in the Western Cape. It would be irresponsible of us just to hope that it is going to go away, because it is not going to. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to take action. As an interim measure. Blacks in the Western Cape should be granted a moratorium to enable them to legalize their position. That would at least bring some stability and sense to the situation and would give a measure of security to tens of thousands of innocent people who are continually being hounded and harassed by the authorities.

It is madness to plan for the future while ignoring the fact that, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own figures, 42% of the people are here illegally, and yet accepting that their numbers will increase. We need a recognition of the realities of the position of the Blacks in the Western Cape, and an imaginative, meaningful gesture from the Government to herald a new era in which the prospect for racial peace in this area will improve dramatically.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the concept of “justice” because no lasting constitutional structure is possible without it. I also want to place the concept in its correct perspective in view of the CP’s slogan of so-called “freedom with justice”. [Interjections.] I shall outline the concept of justice and show that in theory and in practice it runs like a golden thread through the NP’s policy and actions or, to put it another way, that the NP’s ethnic policy is based on justice. [Interjections.]

In contrast to this I shall demonstrate that the PFP’s policy will not withstand the test of justice. [Interjections.] I shall also demonstrate that the CP, on the basis of its first statements, is a caricature, a mockery of the concept of justice.

Just like apartheid. [Interjections.]

I am thinking specifically of the speeches of the hon. members for Langlaagte and Kuruman. They have no idea of the difference between right and wrong. How can they therefore have justice as a principle in their policy? I want to state that there is one thing of which the PFP and the CP cannot accuse the NP, and I feel that both parties will concur with me in this. I am referring to the fact that the NP authorities have at all times and under all circumstances, from the very outset, governed with fairness and justice. [Interjections.] That is why the NP was successful with its policy in respect of Afrikaans and English-speaking people, and with its policy in respect of Black people as well. That is why the NP policy is succeeding, because justice in the right sense must triumph. [Interjections.] To support this statement I want to take only one NP Prime Minister as an example, namely Advocate J. G. Strydom, and I want to refer to his view of history and also to his statements, and I feel that in this regard, too, the CP will not disagree with him.

After Advocate Strydom had become Prime Minister he made the following assessment of the NP’s policy on 3 December 1954 in his first radio message. He said—

Then Advocate Strydom gave the following undertaking—

A few weeks before he died, he also urged, in his last speech in this House, that the Whites stand together to ensure the continued existence of White South Africa, and at the same time to do justice to the non-Whites, in other words the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. This does not only apply to Advocate Strydom, but also to Hertzog, Malan, Verwoerd, Vorster and P. W. Botha. That is why the people and the nations, including the Black nations, have confidence in the NP Government and why they know they can negotiate with this Government with confidence and help it to establish a confederation and a constellation in Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik wanted to know what the concept of justice means. I shall give him an example. There must be judicial confidence in a State; if there is none, that State will go under. I now want to reply to his question: Why justice in particular? From the earliest times in the history of the Western civilization, a heritage in which we share, the State philosophers have wrestled for centuries with the essential idea as to how the correct legal relationship between the State and the individual may be determined. There is too little time to disucss this in detail, and I shall therefore only touch on the main points.

The ancient State philosophers of the Greeks and the Romans such as Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, wrestled with this problem. Then there were the Roman Catholic concepts, and the outstanding philosopher in this connection was Thomas Aquinas, and that is why we refer to the Thomistic philosophy. He also wrestled with this concept. That was followed by the Christian State philosophy of Augustine and Calvin. We then had the humanistic philosophy. There we had for example the ideas of Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu. There were also the liberals, the spiritual forefathers of the PFP, national socialism—which the CP seemingly wishes to begin to follow—and communism. [Interjections.] It is not a coincidence that the Christian State philosophy focused pre-eminently on and developed the concept of justice. Why? The reason is that Christian ideas on the State flow from his Eternal Law, not in the sense—and the CP must listen to this—of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but in the sense of balance and harmony in a multiplicity of judicial interests. This means government in the interests of everyone, in the interests of the Black nations as well as the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Because the Christian ideas were accepted in France, the Netherlands and England, they were also accepted in South Africa. No wonder therefore that the Voortrekkers took the principle of justice with them on their Great Trek into the interior. That is why Piet Retief said in his manifesto—

The Voortrekkers did not exterminate the Black nations. The Voortrekkers treated them fairly and justly. The Voortrekkers frequently protected these Black nations against one another. The principle of justice was also the foundation of the Boer republics, also as far as the non-Whites were concerned.

When the NP was formed in 1914, its founder and leader, J. B. M. Hertzog, wrote the principle of justice into the NP’s Programme of Principles. It is born and bred in every Nationalist. One cannot get away from it by flaking off.

What is justice?

That is as it is stated in our party’s programme of principles. Our party stands for the justice and equal treatment of all sectors of South Africa and of the unbiased preservation of the rights and privileges of every sector of the population. However, this concept of justice is conspicuous by its absence in the programme of principles on page 5 of the mouthpiece of the CP. One does not find the word there.

This concept appeared in the governing party’s undertaking given on the eve of 1981 general election, which was also enthusiastically propagated by the present CP. What was stated there? I quote—

Did the hon. member for Rissik not understand that? Why is he now asking what justice means? Did he not agree with that?

The NP is not insulting to or contemptuous of the other population groups of South Africa. It accomplishes what it undertook to do. The NP knows what is right. It knows this instinctively. [Interjections.] That is why over the years the NP governments have always governed—as the present one is doing—in the interests of everyone and have therefore kept a building up sound race relations and have in fact established four independent Black States. This is the path of the NP.

I want to emphasize that the NP Government does not govern only in the interests of the Afrikaans or English-speaking groups. It governs in the interests of all the nations. That is why it has established four independent States. The PFP’s policy will only lead to Black majority rule and this will lead to injustice. The CP’s policy is not in the interests of the Whites, because as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned they want to follow a policy of freedom with injustice which will bedevil race relations between Blacks and Whites.

Must we include the Asians? Is that justice?

I want to make a final comment. What would the position be if the CP were to follow a policy of freedom with injustice for the Coloureds? They allege they were driven unjustly out of the caucus …

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

However, they keep quiet about the fact …

What about the Indians?

… that the hon. members for Rissik and Meyerton were looking for trouble, and they found it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, It is an honour for me to speak after having listened to the fine elucidation of the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for Rissik. He and I were both trained as social anthropologists at the Department of Social Anthropology of Tukkies. We have agreed on many things and have also disagreed on many things. Although he is now sitting on the opposite side of the House and although we are going to have a stand-up fight in Pretoria during the next election, I cannot, in the process become, angry with him as a person. I should like to ask the hon. member if he is opposed to the 99-year leasehold system for Blacks in urban areas.

Why did you not introduce it in the Cape?

Where do you get that from?

In the Western Cape. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. member for Rissik opposed to the 99-year leasehold system for Blacks in urban areas?

[Inaudible.]

Is he opposed to it?

It is the policy of …

Does he still support it? [Interjections.] I am glad the hon. member says he still supports it …

I said that while we were still members of the NP we supported it.

… for the moment he says that, he is acknowledging a reality with which we are wrestling in South Africa. I should like to say a few words about this reality. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that as far as the Blacks in the urban areas are concerned the hon. members of the CP will inevitably, have to court the HNP supporters in Transvaal constituencies. As I told them the other day, they will have to do this if they wish to poll even 20% of the votes and if they want to accomplish anything in politics.

I find it interesting that the CP has taken over several debating points from the HNP. I have heard them referring on public platforms to the concept of integration in exactly the same way as the HNP does. By implication they are saying that this Government advocates a kind of integration policy in respect of the Blacks. Is that true? I want to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte whether they maintain that the NP is advocating a policy of integration as far as the Blacks are concerned. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I only have 10 minutes. I want to tell the hon. members of the CP that in formulating race relations policies in South Africa we are dealing with certain realities. I also want to say this to my fellow social anthropologist. We are living in a Southern Africa in which integration, even at the biological level, cannot be statutorily enforced by any Government or party, even among people who want to integrate.

Do you want to abolish it?

The hon. member for Rissik knows that just north of Pretoria we have a Black State where people can mix freely and intermarry if they wish. We have the same in the Free State with Lesotho and we have the same in Swaziland. This is a reality. What I want to say is that the NP is a party which rejects integration with the Black people. However, we believe that the preservation of identity is situated in the feelings, in the hearts and minds of people.

Must the relevant laws then be abolished?

We are not prepared to turn this point into a political issue for then one eventually ends up in the same predicament as the HNP.

Another point which is being used—I hear this to an increasing extent outside this House—is that the NP has embarked on a course of making concession towards the Blacks. They ask where it will all end and where the demands of these people—Blacks, Coloureds and Asians—will end. There is no end to the demands being made by individuals, groups and nations. There is no such thing. There is no individual, community or nation in the world that will ever reach a point where it will say it has enough in the sociological, political or the economic sphere. This is the reality we must live with in South Africa, the reality that the insistence by nations and communities upon political rights, economic rights and social equality, is an eternal problem we as Whites in the Republic will have to live with.

When did you discover that?

I discovered that long ago. I have already explained why I wanted to raise this matter again. I also think the hon. member for Lichtenburg said the same thing in the good old days when he was still a member of the NP. However, I am emphasizing this today because they are making use of this argument out there. We are not as stupid as they think. We are going to fight the CP with no holds barred. In respect of this Black problem we are still going to give them such a hiding that they will never forget it.

We are waiting for you!

Since we are now discussing the Black people, I should also like to express a few ideas on the Blacks in our urban areas. The Whites in South Africa did not seize control; we did not unlawfully acquire control from someone else. Nor did we take over control by violent means. Therefore the NP will not allow others to deprive the Whites of their right to govern themselves. The NP will not allow the Whites to be unlawfully deprived of this right or allow it to be taken from them by force.

Having said this, the NP nevertheless concedes that there are people and nations, that there are communities in urban areas, which impose a responsibility upon it. As a matter of fact we cannot escape the reality of the constitutional dilemma which this causes.

Now I should like to remind hon. members of the CP that there was a time when the NP conducted many debates on the concept of temporariness.

On freehold rights as well.

I shall still discuss that issue with the hon. member. The fact of the matter is that large numbers of Blacks living in the urban complexes will always be there. The political party in South Africa that overlooks that constitutional reality, is not only playing with fire, but is also feeding the electorate an absurdity when it alleges that that reality can be ignored. For this reason the NP is intent on intercepting that problem. This is the central issue we should be debating today. The NP and the Whites in South Africa cannot escape the fact that we should determine the constitutional position of the Black people in urban areas. That debate is at present in progress in South Africa and we must, in the constitutional field as well, ensure that these people are treated fairly and justly, in the interests of everyone in South Africa.

I suppose you mean everyone must become one South African nation.

One can soup up an oxwagon. One can install a GT engine in an oxwagon. One can do anything one wants with an oxwagon. However, if one wants to move forward into the future, one must use the vehicles at one’s disposal.

Do you want the Blacks to become part of the South African nation?

I want to point out to the hon. member for Kuruman that there is common Southern Africanism here in this country, a common Southern Africanism we cannot run away from. However, this also has constitutional consequences. Of course, the PFP’s reply to this is their policy of a federation, which is nothing else but a recipe for capitulation. However, that does not matter. Whether one wants to deal with it by means of a constellation recipe, as the NP does, or by means of the concept of a commonwealth of nations, as Dr. Verwoerd called it at the time, the fact remains that one cannot get away from this problem. It is therefore of no avail for Whites in South Africa and members of the CP to sing “Sarie Marais” while our enemies around us have been singing “Nkosi Sikelele” for some time now. We must be wide awake when we approach this problem. The fact of the matter is that there are many aspects centring around the problem of Blacks in the urban areas, aspects we cannot run away from. It would be a good idea to look at the figures in this connection.

The hon. member for Rissik is a social anthropologist. He would do well to take a look at the figures in connection with the reality of the Blacks in our urban areas. Having done so, he must tell me in all honesty whether we can simply run away from this problem. I want to know from him how he and his party can cope with this problem in future.

Do you want to give the Blacks freehold rights?

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Rissik was very annoyed about the 99-year leasehold system. He alleged at the time that it amounted to a freehold right. That is why I advanced this argument at this juncture.

I did not say it was a freehold right.

The hon. member for Rissik said he considered it to be a freehold right. He knows that he said that. He has just indicated that he still stands by what he said. That is why I put the question to him.

You have done me a tremendous favour now.

I should like the hon. members of the CP to realize that we must accept the reality of the Black people in our urban areas. This confronts us with tremendous challenges in every sphere. We also accept that the constitutional problems centring around the presence of these people cannot be seen in isolation but that, according to the approach adopted by the NP, the general problem of a potential revolution, the military onslaught being made by our enemies and the constitutional position as a whole, all have to be considered simultaneously. Having said this, I want to repeat what I said at the start of my speech. The NP accepts that the constitutional problem of the urban Black people will have to be solved but it also accepts that we as Whites have a right in this country, a right we do not and will not need to forego in accordance with our concept of right and justice. However, we are not prepared to tell the Black people in the urban complexes that they have no rights. We are not prepared to tell the Black people in the urban areas that they do not have the right to discuss things with us. It has been my experience over many years that constitutionally the Black people would like to talk to those people who take the decisions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal peppered us with questions and I should also like to put a question to him. I want the hon. member to tell us if he still adheres to the standpoint he advocated in this House that Blacks should be given freehold rights in White South Africa. That is the issue here because it will eventually have to determine the constitutional position of those people.

The 99-year scheme is a type of freehold right.

If I have to single out one subject I have been intensively involved in over the past seven years as a representative of Pietersburg it is undoubtedly consolidation. It has caused great unhappiness, confusion and uncertainty among our people. We cannot get away from that. I shall not have enough time to deal with this subject properly and can only touch on a few aspects.

At the beginning of the 1979 session the hon. the Prime Minister stated that the Government had decided to have a further investigation into consolidation and that the quota in terms of the 1936 Trust and Land Act could be exceeded if this were found to be necessary. After the Government had stated categorically prior to 1979 that it would not be prepared to go further than the 1936 quota, this in itself caused a shock wave of reaction among the Northern Transvaal farmers. This is a fact. The first guide-line that had been laid down was that the 1975 proposals of the Parliament had to be expedited and implemented as quickly as possible. These proposals involved, inter alia, the declaration of certain poorly-situated Black areas to be White areas. It is now 1982 and I do not know of a single poorly-situated Black area in my region which has finally been declared to be Whites whereas the so called compensatory land was purchased long ago, and the White farmers who were farming on the best family farms in the country, namely in the Dendron Vivo area were therefore removed from their land under compulsion. However, we persuaded those people that it was in the interests of the greater cause for the White farmer to make his contributions but what now? Now that the farmers are insisting that the other side should also make its contribution, absolutely nothing is happening, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out.

On 13 April the hon. the Minister issued a statement which in effect meant that they were no longer going to declare the Matoks-Ramagoep area to be a White area. This came as no surprise to the NP divisional executive of Pietersburg, nor to me because the hon. Minister informed us of this at a meeting of the divisional executive.

Yes, the hon. member was there and he also agreed.

It is true; I was there.

And the hon. member agreed.

This meeting was held in November and 180 divisional executive members were present. Just let me make my point. [Interjections.] By the way, those 180 NP members compare rather favourably with the divisional executive meeting of the CP which we held there last week and which was attended by 200 people. In effect what the hon. the Minister was saying in that statement was that the total consolidation effort in that area had failed. What has actually happened there over the past ten years? A total of 32 000 ha of the finest agricultural land has been withdrawn from the White agricultural industry in South Africa during the past ten years, with terrible neglect of that land and the improvements on it. However, that is a separate subject which we can discuss later.

However, I want to return to the divisional executive meeting in November. At that specific meeting the hon. the Minister also indicated that the Van der Walt Commission had recommended that the Palmietfontein farms should also remain a Black area but that he as the Minister, who did after all have the final say—to use his own words—work his fingers to the bone to ensure that that area was declared a White area. Does the hon. the Minister still remember those words?

I remember them very well.

The hon. Minister used those words to tumultuous applause from the audience. I want to know what became of that fight. Did the hon. the Minister adopt a standpoint on behalf of the farmers of that area? I assume that since finality has now been reached on the Matoks and Ramagoep areas, a final decision has probably been reached on Palmietfontein as well. Does the hon. the Minister not want to allay the fears of the farmers and make a statement in this connection? Alternately, does he not want to tell the farmers of the Northern Transvaal that he is still fighting for Palmietfontein?

I do not see any bones.

I hope I shall never act as dishonourably as you.

Eventually the electorate of the North is not going to believe the hon. the Minister any more. In November last year the hon. the Minister told the divisional executive of Pietersburg what a good MP they have—so hard-working, etc. [Interjections.] I must say the people of Pietersburg and I quite liked that. [Interjections.] But then another hon. Minister came to Pietersburg, the Minister of Manpower. A mere three months later he came there and told precisely the same audience that their MP had not done his job.

He was right.

In the interim there had been a holiday month as well. [Interjections.] Who should the people believe? Should they believe the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development or the hon. the Minister of Manpower? [Interjections.] In my humble opinion the people were not very taken with the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s statement.

We now come to the problem of credibility. I also want to refer to the pamphlets to which the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred.

No, that will not work.

The pamphlet I have here in my left hand, is the real 1977 pamphlet and printed on it are the words “Published by the NP of South Africa in October 1977”. But if one holds it up to the light, the clear light of truth, one sees the date “March 1982” shining through.

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

No.

I want to know why this was done. What is the difference between the two pamphlets? The only difference is that the one published before a start was made with the State dispensation says that the Black man is excluded from this dispensation. These words have disappeared from the new pamphlet. That is the difference. This is really misleading the public of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to come to guideline 10 which the hon. the Prime Minister announced in 1977. He said—

He said the interests of persons who might be involved would be accorded the highest priority.

In this regard I want to point out one aspect. There are still farmers with State securities who, owing to circumstances, are still in the process of replacing their land. The concession was made that the securities could serve as security at the Land Bank—we are very glad about this—but that is still not good enough. If we really feel that the interests of these people must be regarded as a priority, we must see to it that the State gives these people their money for land legally purchased by the State. In all fairness, it is indefensible that those people cannot use the money to buy land. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. There cannot be many of these cases. Cannot he judge these cases on their merits and give the people the money legally owing to them for that land? They want to use that money to buy compensatory land. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now present to give further attention to this matter, so that those people can continue with their farming activities.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by reacting to what the hon. member for Pietersburg has said. Later I shall react to what was said by the hon. member for Lichtenburg.

With regard to the information document which the hon. members are getting all worked up about, I can just assure them, in any event, that if there is anyone who will know whether or not the Government’s policy in respect of the Black people has changed, it is I. I can give them the assurance that the policy is still exactly the same as in the past. Furthermore, with regard to this document, I can only say to the hon. members that I really do not think that we should make use of such things if we want to conduct a meaningful debate.

I can assure them that I am not even going to raise my voice in this debate, because it is not a pleasant experience for me to cross swords in this House with my friend, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, about certain things. He will admit that. To me personally this is a serious matter. I also want to tell them that our behaviour should not be such as to make it impossible for us eventually to discuss South Africa’s politics with one another.

Let me now tell hon. members what happened with this information document. [Interjections.] The Transvaal information committee gave the instruction that as a result of the debate which is now taking place about the question of power-sharing with Asians and Coloureds, there should be a reprint of the information document which had been issued previously, only in respect of that part of the document which dealt with Asians and Coloureds. The instruction was that it should be printed and distributed to constituencies as quickly as possible. I have with me the document which was originally published. [Interjections.]

It is not my fault if those hon. members refuse to listen. The hon. member for Langlaagte should please not shake his head in a manner which I find annoying. [Interjections.]

Hon. members will notice that the document received by the Press and the SABC starts on page 8. The organizer at the party office saw fit to have it printed and distributed in this form. The printers made a mistake with the date. There is no sinister intention with regard to this whole matter. It was merely a quick action which was intended to bring the situation in respect of the Coloureds and the Asians to the attention of party members as quickly as possible.

When hon. members try to tell me now that they interpret this to mean that we are now bringing the dispensation for the Black people into line with that for the Coloureds and the Asians, I want to tell them that they are wrong. They are quite wrong. We shall be having further discussions concerning the whole question of the dispensation for Black people in South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to a number of matters, including Matoks and Ramagoep. He will remember that the commission made a recommendation concerning Matoks and Ramagoep to the Cabinet and that the Cabinet accepted the recommendation that these two areas should not be turned into White areas. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will agree that the Cabinet decided in October last year that Matoks and Ramagoep should not become White areas. After the Cabinet decision, the commission, the Minister, the Deputy Minister, officials and other members of the House of Assembly involved with those areas—the hon. members for Pietersburg, Potgietersrus and Barberton were present—had talks in Pretoria about where consolidation was called for and where there were Black spots. What is more, members of organized agriculture and representatives of divisional executives whose constituencies were affected in the process were also present at that meeting.

At that meeting, we took a hard look at the situation. The consensus which was reached at that meeting was that if we could not turn Matoks and Ramagoep into White areas, the people would simply ask for the compensated land earmarked for Matoks and Ramagoep to be returned to White ownership and control. That is exactly what happened. We were aware of the fact that the situation was delicate, but we also felt that there was no need to keep a sword hanging over the Whites and Blacks of Matoks and Ramagoep with regard to this matter. Therefore we simply cleared up and finalized the matter.

As far as Government securities are concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister, I myself and many hon. members of this party and of the PFP have received representations made on behalf of people who own Government securities. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, probably have Government securities which you would like to exchange; is that not true? [Interjections.] We are aware of this situation and we have asked organized agriculture to make a survey for us, in co-operation with the department, and to tell us which farmers still owned Government securities which were likely to prejudice them. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance helped us to make certain arrangements by amending the legislation relating to the Land Bank so that Government securities could be used as security at the Land Bank so that people wanting to purchase land could be helped by the Land Bank.

However, we did not leave the matter at that. We are still working on this matter. It is a very difficult matter, however, since these Government securities are negotiable documents, and it is very difficult to ascertain who has suffered losses in the process. There are also people who initially gained in the process. An hon. member shakes his head, but there are people who initially made money out of those Government securities. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will tell the hon. members, after all, that the Government securities were introduced in his time. They were introduced as a means of obtaining funds for speeding up consolidation. Therefore we must understand the farmers’ situation under these circumstances.

I should now like to talk to my friend, the hon. member for Lichtenburg. That hon. member said that we had stopped implementing our policy. However, I want to tell the hon. member that he was Deputy Minister in February 1979. Under his leadership, and thanks to the new initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister, instructions were given that the question of consolidation should be re-examined. The hon. member agrees with that, because it is true. The hon. member helped to appoint the Central Consolidation Committee.

For the purpose of speeding it up.

That is precisely what we are going to talk about.

The hon. member read out the guidelines laid down by the Cabinet, such as the more rapid implementation of the proposals, and related matters. What happened in practice was the following. After all, the hon. member has enough experience to know what reactions arise when certain things happen while we are working with these Black people. I agree with the hon. member, because we on this side of the House admit—we were all together in the past, and we admitted it even then—that the progress we are making with our policy is not rapid enough and that we want matters to be speeded up. However, our intention was precisely to ascertain why, among other things, we could not speed up the consolidation and development of the Black States.

When it became known that consolidation was to be re-examined, the reaction among our Black people was that they would not co-operate in carrying out any removals. Even today, some people tell one: Finalize consolidation so that we can see where the borders are, and then we can talk about this situation again. This matter is one of vital importance to the White people of South Africa and to the Black people of South Africa, in fact, to all the inhabitants of South Africa. Irrespective of whether one supports the views of the PFP, the NRP or the CP, the development of Black areas, the creation of homes in the Black areas and the handling of Black people in South Africa are of vital importance. We must realize that. The commission examined this situation and we reported to the Cabinet—the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet at that time—and we all took a joint decision there.

I have said before in this House, with the concurrence of the entire House, including the Opposition parties, that land alone does not offer the solution to the situation of the Black States. We immediately proceeded to implement the decisions which had been taken, namely that the economic development of that Black area should be re-examined.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member.

What happened then was that the regional economic development plan was introduced. We all saw that we were not making any progress with the old idea of decentralization of industries, the creation of border industries and all that kind of thing. The fact is that it was decided to emphasize that aspect of regional economic development. I also remember how the hon. member for Houghton attacked the hon. member for Lichtenburg as chairman of the commission because of the fragmentation of the homelands. That was at the time when the hon. member was chairman of the commission, and arising from the 1975 proposals, when we were still unable—the hon. member knows very well what my standpoint is in connection with this matter—to bring about geographic consolidation. At that time the hon. member’s reply was that fragmentation could in some ways be beneficial to the Black people because it gave them labour mobility.

And development potential.

And development potential. Now the hon. member and I are on the same wavelength.

I am simply saying that your interpretation is wrong.

No.

The process came to a temporary standstill. I concede that. I am not going to argue with the hon. member about that. But why did the process come to a temporary standstill? Because it is essential, with this whole new concept of regional economic development, to take another look at the fragmentation which exists and to see whether, in the interests of development and of labour mobility—this was the hon. member’s standpoint—certain of these Black spots should still be cleared up or whether they should not be cleared up.

It is as simple as that, and I do not think we should simply link the question of consolidation in South Africa and the creation of homes for the Black people within their national States to the situation of Black areas which may be poorly situated.

I have with me the report of the commission of which the hon. member was chairman, and to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. I also have the report of the commission of which the hon. member for Waterberg was chairman and which investigated Black education. The commission of the hon. member for Lichtenburg examined the situation of the Black people in the White areas.

It serves no purpose, in my opinion, for us to transfer all kinds of curious things to these people. Nevertheless, the hon. member’s commission decided at the time that certain powers could be transferred to Black Governments. The standpoint of the hon. member for Waterberg was that that Black Governments could not be given any say in White South Africa with regard to education. However, education is one of the things which the commission of the hon. member for Lichtenburg believes can be transferred. In their report they say—

That is what the hon. member’s report says. Then they mention, inter alia, all the things that can be transferred. They refer, for example, to the care of children and young people, institutions, the development of the system of community service, pensions and allowances, the employment of young people, welfare organizations, extension services, sport and recreation, schools, administration of justice, law and order, registration of births, marriages and deaths, buildings, equipment and levies. There are many others.

That is not bad.

No, I personally do not have any problems with it. Is the hon. member implying, however, that if these recommendations were to be implemented, it would not require joint decision-making and consultation?

No …

In his report, the hon. member even went so far as to say that we should convert this Black urban area so that its ownership could be vested in the Bantu Trust.

Some of them.

Yes, some of them. That is correct. Some of them must be vested in the Bantu Trust, while in the cases where this cannot be done, we must provide corridors from those Black urban areas to the homelands.

Yes, to include them.

The hon. member also said, among other things—

As the position is with KwaZulu today.

I should like to complete the picture, Sir. There are many things I could quote, and I could deal with the corridors, and some hon. members of the Opposition parties will be frightened when they see what was supposed to have happened.

The hon. member also said in his report—

[Interjections.] It is Bantu Trust land that is being discussed here. However, I can assure the hon. member that we shall discuss this matter again. Whatever name we give it, I want to tell him that we shall achieve nothing in this connection if we do not have joint decision-making and if joint responsibility is not accepted for certain things.

We must get the CP into power, then we shall achieve it. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that neither the CP nor any other party in this country will be able to achieve certain things in South Africa if the realities are not taken into consideration. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the CP can help us in many respects. [Interjections.]

The hard reality is that money is required for South Africa’s priorities with regard to this matter. Talk is cheap, but money buys the whisky. Therefore we shall have to find some way of obtaining the money required for taking steps of this nature.

Furthermore, I believe that the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Waterberg should get together to discuss the question of education.

This is proof of people being able to disagree and remaining in the same party.

This is a complicated problem, and we must not approach it from a position of stagnation. In saying this, I am not alleging that those hon. members are stagnant in their approach, but I also want to appeal to the PFP and the NRP and to say that we should not remain ensconced in our own ideological ivory towers, approaching this matter as though the solution to it had been revealed to our own parties only.

Who is talking now?

The same applies to the NP. We shall have to try to create a climate in South Africa in which we can deal with the situation of the Black people outside party politics, for we may think that we have problems at the moment, but the future problems regarding the Black people will make our present problems look like a Sunday school picnic.

Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. He is someone who knows his subject. Even if one does not agree with him, one must admit that he does have a wealth of information on the matter under discussion here today. I must agree with him wholeheartedly about the fact that it has been concluded that the solution to this problem does not lie only with the purchasing of land, but also with the development of the homelands. It is a question of looking at the whole issue in a flexible manner and, in fact, getting on with the job.

I should now like to come to the very good speech of the hon. member for Parys.

Thank you.

He touched on much the same ground. He did, in fact, make some points about bringing the White entrepreneur back into the homelands to develop the agricultural potential and to relieve the pressure on the rural areas by urbanizing within the homelands so that the agricultural potential could be realized. He displayed a new flexibility, certainly in regard to the point of view of the Government about these issues. I cannot pass up this opportunity of saying that it has been a very painful process just to come to a conclusion that this party reached at the very outset. Where we should have started was with the development of the homelands. Then we could have avoided a tremendous wastage of this country’s resources—especially financial resources—in moving people around and in buying wonderful farmland that is now lying idle. It is, in fact, deteriorating. We should have got on with the job of development in the homelands and should perhaps, at the same time, have tackled the housing situation. But can there be anybody in this House who does not have the greatest amount of sympathy and understanding for an hon. Minister who has a portfolio with all the problems? He has to deal with housing, consolidation, removals, etc. He must have nightmares! [Interjections.] We hope the nightmares will start coming to an end with the new flexible approach to this matter which is not ideologically hide-bound.

I think it must be repeated that the position that people affected by consolidation find themselves in commences as soon as the Government even starts talking about lines on maps. That is when the rumours start circulating. That is when the media get hold of the issue, sometimes even years before the actual valuations are done, let alone the process of actually buying up a property. So years before the time the people involved find the value of their land decreasing, their ability to farm the land decreases, their neighbours take it for granted that they will be moving out in due course and therefore fail to observe the normal laws such as those of trespass and ownership. In such situations the S.A. Police are powerless—I say this advisedly—to maintain normal law and order vis-à-vis trespassing, stock theft and even the protection of people on their own property.

I would say that the thoughts expressed by many hon. members here today illustrate that what is actually required, in this new approach of flexibility, is a new plane of thinking. It has to be initiated by the hon. the Minister himself. It has to be pushed by him and by his party. Somehow he has to push it past the hon. the Minister of Finance and past the hon. the Prime Minister. There has to be a completely new approach to dealing with housing, consolidation and development of industries in the homelands. That boils down to one word: Money. That was only mentioned by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt towards the end of his speech. We cannot go on year after year hearing this House voting pittances, R60 million or R80 million, to deal with a matter which we know is going to cost hundreds of millions of rand or even thousands of millions of rand. We cannot go on talking about developing the homelands, we cannot go on talking about housing for Blacks, when we are still fiddling around with the amounts of money which people have become accustomed for the House to vote. This department has to receive two, three or even four times the amount it is receiving for the future. A new era has to be ushered in in which every hon. member in the House will do his utmost to introduce reality in the discussions about housing, consolidation, and the implementation of schemes, as have been suggested here, to bring entrepreneurs into the homelands. We cannot do this if we fiddle around with the sort of budget we have before us today. We cannot even begin with this this year. I think that, even if the hon. the Minister makes himself the most unpopular man in the Cabinet or somehow forms a whole new party, he is going to have to consider floating loans overseas and getting the money for the department that it really deserves. We cannot go on like this. I am sure that the hon. the Minister himself must be one of the most frustrated people imaginable. That is the main point I want to make here today.

I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister and from other hon. members in the House whether we cannot look anew at the way in which we are going about this. We simply cannot fiddle around for a couple of years. Just to mention one instance, already it is being said that it may be possible to carry out the 1981 proposals in 1984 or 1985. People cannot live under those conditions for three or four years. They cannot exist in the circumstances where to all intents and purposes they belong in a national State and find themselves in a kind of limbo, in a stage of transition. Their property is going to rack and ruin and they have no will to continue. In addition, in many cases their personal safety is not guaranteed. This is a fact. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order is no longer in the House. I have already made a point concerning him. We have to acknowledge, however, that in those circumstances the S.A. Police are unable to see to the maintenance of law and order in the sort of twilight area in which the people concerned live. When the relevant Select Committee has completed its work and the House passes the 1981 proposals of the Van der Walt Commission, I believe they must be implemented within a year and be done with. I would really ask the hon. the Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and members of the NP to make an all-out effort to find methods of getting a far greater input into his department to enable him to deal with matters which are at present out of control. We cannot at present deal with them as we would like to. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with that. All the present crises are going to remain crises, because they get worse from year to year and not better. That is the point I wanted to make in this speech. I shall raise other points at a later stage in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for King William’s Town this afternoon. In broad outline, I think he wishes to make the point that there should be much more money available to this department in order for it to carry out its duties. I think that everyone in this House agrees with this.

What I wish to speak about is the necessity for the decentralization and the development of the homelands in the rural as well as the urban areas. In order to discuss this matter properly, I wish to refer specifically to the factors which are going to play a role in this matter. Each time an infrastructure has to be created somewhere, there are a number of factors which contribute to either expediting or delaying matters. In the approach of the hon. the Minister and his department as a whole, there are many excellent examples of achievements with regard to agricultural as well as urban development in the homelands, for which the deserve praise. However, I wish to point out in the first place that I regard it as wrong—regardless of what Opposition party or what individual does this—to single out certain critical problems and hold them up as an example of what generally happens in South Africa without at the same time emphasizing the successes of the hon. the Minister and the department. Another aspect I wish to point out, is that a great deal of this development will centre around the economy itself. What is important, therefore, is the question of how the economy is going to influence movement to the homelands, urban development in the homelands and the influx of Black people to job opportunities in White areas. One of the most important aspects in this regard is the housing benefits which the Government grants to Black workers in White South Africa.

I wish to focus attention on this in particular, as I maintain that subsidized housing provided by the Government for Black workers in White South Africa is one of the main factors which have an inhibiting effect on development in the homelands, as well as on the implementation of certain fundamental policies of the NP, even within the White area.

When we consider the principle of the 99-year leasehold system, which everyone in this House has accepted as being a sound system whereby the Black man in urban areas is granted the right to own the house in which he lives, it is clear that this could do much to combat the intimidation and vandalism which occur in Black urban complexes. Another aspect of the matter is the following. Apart from the enormous amount in subsidies involved in this, it has yet another negative implication. We shall find that in the long run, what is important to the Black man is the net amount which he has left after his expenses have been deducted; the money he has available to spend on his own requirements and for saving purposes. We also know that the Government has accepted the principle of equal pay for equal work. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in the wages of Black people in the last few years, despite allegations to the contrary by the official Opposition. Nevertheless, the rental which they pay for their houses is so low that their wages could really be regarded as being disproportionately high compared with what they have to pay for their housing. This creates another imbalance. One now finds that Black people in White rural areas live in houses which have been built by White farmers. This means that housing of this nature has to form part of the cost structure of the White country-dwellers, while the industrialists in the cities do not have to take a similar factor into account in their cost structure. This is why it is far easier for Black people to come to the cities from the rural areas, because they are paid higher wages in the cities, while at the same time they pay lower rentals for their houses than in the rural areas.

I believe that the hon. the Minister should give attention to this matter as it is evident that urban industries derive a certain advantage from this imbalance, which, of course, does not help to encourage industries to move out of the urban areas and to establish themselves in the deconcentrated areas, or even in the homelands. I believe that as long as we fail to emphasize these points and to bring them out into the open, progress in these matters will be slow.

There is another aspect I wish to discuss which was also raised by the hon. member for Bellville. It is an aspect which is closely related to this. We have introduced a leasehold system, and every time the hon. the Opposition asks us to what extent this leasehold system has succeeded. They are given the figures, and then they pretend that no progress has been made. Even with regard to that particular point, there are a number of factors which play a role. One of the most important factors is merely an economic calculation which the Black man has to make with regard to what he has to spend on rent and what he would have to spend on capital, as well as interest on the capital, for a leasehold house which he has to build, the loans which he has to repay and for the benefit he derives from this. When he has made that caluclation, he finds that ultimately it will not really pay him to acquire a leasehold house. I say, therefore, that we should gradually phase out this basic principle of subsidized Black housing in the urban complexes. When I say “gradually”, I do not mean over a period of 10 years, as I think the phasing in of equal pay for equal work took place more rapidly. On that basis, this phasing out of subsidized housing should also take place more rapidly. I wish to make a very strong appeal to the hon. the Minister today for all the machinery to be put in motion to phase out this subsidized housing as soon as possible. If we could do that, then I accept that there would be opposition from the Black local authorities who have to collect the levy, and that there would also be opposition on the part of the Black tenants in the urban complexes. However, we believe that the principle on which this is based is a sound one.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to speak after the hon. member for Ventersdorp, but I must honestly say that I disagree fundamentally with certain statements he made. I just wish to say that the money which the State makes available in respect of subsidies comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket, and that Black people make a material contribution to the ability of the industrialists to pay tax. However, I do not wish to conduct a debate on that aspect now, as there are other important matters that I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The problem with this kind of debate is that one can never really analyse the standpoints advanced in this House. Unfortunately, this is true.

I immediately wish to say that I listened with interest to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, and particularly to the appeal he made when he said that the time had come for us to get away from this ideological preoccupation and from continually being at loggerheads, and that in future we should reach out to one another, as the problems are increasing. I wish to express the hope that my own contribution this afternoon will be made in that spirit, and I also hope that other hon. members of this House will accept that advice of the hon. member.

Before I come to the hon. the Minister and discuss a few broad political matters with him, there are only three aspects of the annual report to which I briefly want to draw his attention. The first is a point which has been touched on frequently, finally by the hon. member for King William’s Town as well, i.e. that it is really shocking to think that the Trust remains the owner of and continues to control such a large area of land in South Africa—1 640 000 ha, according to the annual report. I believe the time has come for that land which is situated within the borders of the national States to be made over to those national States as soon as possible; subject to certain requirements, certainly, but it should be done as soon as possible. It is a reflection both on the department and on the Trust that it can still be said in South Africa that we cannot transfer the land because those people cannot cultivate the land properly. I wish to add that I think it is a disgrace, a reflection, that land is bought—if I remember correctly, it is 0,5 million ha—and then leased back to Whites because apparently there are no Blacks who can cultivate the land properly. It is a reflection on the department that in all these years it has not succeeded in finding Blacks who can cultivate that land properly. This is a matter which has many sides to it, and it is a pity that time does not allow a full discussion of this.

The second point I wish to raise is in connection with the report on research projects undertaken by the Committee for Development Research. Obviously this is something which we are all interested in. Is it not possible to make these projects, or at least those undertaken with State funds, available to the general public? I think it is absurd that the department should have results of research in its possession which are not available to the general public for discussion and closer examination.

Thirdly, I wish to return to a point raised by the hon. member for Houghton. I am referring to those disgraceful statements concerning Black people which appear on page 1 of the report. I do not even want to read them, but the hon. the Minister cannot allow them to be blazoned abroad.

It is just rubbish.

If it had been said here that these people live in a rural environment and adhere to a traditional cultural way of life and that for this reason, it is naturally difficult to persuade them to accept change, I would have said very well, there is some merit in such a statement. However, this cannot be said in thise case, as the Blacks are being compared with Westerners in a general sense. This is what the report says—

This statement is then compared with the Black man, and the report goes on to say—

Why on earth are you repeating that?

But it is rubbish! It is a load of rubbish! I would like this to be said to Mr. Buthelezi or Dr. Motlana and the millionaires to whom the hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred! [Interjections.] All I want to say is that I cannot understand how such statements could appear in a report of this department. I urgently request the hon. the Minister to repudiate what is written here, this very afternoon.

I will certainly reply to it, and that is why I am asking: Why on earth are you repeating that?

But it appears in the annual report of the hon. the Minister’s department!

I really want to return to a number of political aspects. Although we are sick and tired of the exchange of recriminations between the NP and the CP—I do not wish to exert myself any further on that score—it is true that during the past few weeks, a new spirit has emerged in this House, and that is that we are able to view concepts and principles more objectively. I am grateful for this. It is clear that concepts such as “self-determination”, “power-sharing”, “people” and ”identity” have acquired a more relative meaning, whether we like it or not. We no longer think of those concepts in the absolute terms of the past, and I welcome this.

We naturally realize that these matters are creating tensions within our nation and in politics. I do want to say, however, that it is essential that we begin to clarify some of these concepts. This afternoon I wish to single out one, two or three concepts which are applicable to the area of Black affairs, and which are used time and again by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister in particular. These are that the policy of the Government is to free peoples; not countries, States or territories, but peoples. Then they quote in support of this the views of Pres. Woodrow Wilson and the charter of the UN, which speaks of “self-determination of peoples”, and they declare that the word “peoples” in fact forms the basis of NP policy.

Mr. Chairman, Pres. Wilson and representatives at the UN were speaking against the background of the colonial period, of the colonial domination which existed. It was not the intention of Woodrow Wilson and of the UN that a people living within a particular State should be freed. Do hon. members on the opposite side of this House mean to tell me that Woodrow Wilson said that the Red Indians of America should become sovereign and independent? Do they mean to tell me that Woodrow Wilson and the UN proposed that all the ethnic groups in all the States of Africa, where there is plurality of population, should become independent? Do they mean to tell me that the charter of the UN envisaged the Flemings in Belgium becoming a sovereign, independent nation? Surely that is ludicrous. The whole basis of that statement should be seen against the colonial period in which it was made and in the light of the large number of peoples, States and countries which were not free. However, using that concept to justify a policy in respect of our own Blacks in our urban areas in order to deprive them of their citizenship and to say: “Look, we give nations their freedom; and because we do this, we are justified in depriving you of your citizenship”, is the biggest lot of nonsense under the sun.

Now I immediately want to say to hon. members that the harm that this approach has done is incalculable. I am being honest. The concept of the “self-determination of peoples” is the concept we used at the UN to defend the Odendaal Plan for South West Africa. Where did that get us with the UN? It is because we used that concept that it was impossible for us to deal effectively with the attack made on us at the UN. Eventually, we had to give it up. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier made a political attack here and I leave it to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to reply to it. However, he touched on one aspect which I feel is very important and which I should like to react to. This is the matter of the 1,6 million hectares of trust land which is not being handed over. The hon. member claims that it is not right that these lands are given to White farmers to use. I want to point out immediately that there are certain problems in this connection. Trust land cannot simply be handed over. It consists of compensatory land and quota land and I think the hon. member is aware of the legal position in respect of this land. In this pool of 1,6 million hectares the quota land and the compensatory land are not necessarily demarcated and specified. In other words, there is somewhat of a legal problem regarding the handling of this situation.

But we are still in a position, as far as certain States are concerned, to make this determination and to transfer the land. I want to point out at once that we hold many discussions with the national States on this matter and these States, who think in a responsible way about this aspect, also realize that the land cannot simply be transferred without further ado. To transfer land and leave it to them to develop the land, means that they must have manpower and must make certain technical inputs etc. We assist them in this connection.

I also want to point out that last year, by way of an international agreement between Bophuthatswana and the Republic of South Africa reached after discussions between the two Ministries, an implementation committee was established with the hon. member Mr. Hennie Van der Walt as chairman. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, the Department of Co-operation and Development and representatives of the State concerned, Bophuthatswana, are represented on this implementation committee. For the information of the hon. members I should like to mention—I have just consulted the hon. member Mr. Hennie Van der Walt—that the amount of land we transferred to Bophuthatswana is at present approximately 100 000 hectares. We hope some time in July to transfer a further 90 000 hectares. We are in the process of expanding the system of implementation committees because this system works well and through them we can negotiate with the Black people themselves on their needs in respect of the transfer of land. At the same time we can also argue and deliberate with them on the removal of Black spots. That process is also under way, and we have already held fruitful useful talks in this connection with, inter alia, Lebowa. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt is at present negotiating with the Ciskei to establish a similar committee there. We have their co-operation in this connection.

It has already been established.

There you have it. It has already been established. The transfer of land and the processes which have to be initiated in terms of the consolidation policy to return certain poorly situated Black areas to the Whites, are also being negotiated.

I should like to deal with a matter which the hon. member for Mooi River touched upon here. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present at the moment. He has apologized for his absence. The hon. member raised a very important aspect, namely the kind of captive position, as he put it, of White farmers on land earmarked in terms of the 1975 proposals. I want to admit at once that this creates tremendous problems for the department because one constantly has problems with farmers who experience financial problems during times of drought and who then find themselves in the position that they have to realize their assets while there is only one buyer, i.e. the State. We also have problems daily with people who as a result of poor health can no longer continue their farming activities. We have a policy in the ministry which has been successful for many years now, in fact ever since the hon. member for Lichtenburg was the head of the department. We go into the hard-luck cases. We look at these people’s problems and we squeeze money from our budget to buy out these people for cash. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall give special attention to every meritorious case. All the hon. member need do is bring such cases to our attention.

In the present financial years it goes without saying that we experienced grave problems in implementing our purchase programme. The House is aware of the shortage of funds and the problems the State is having in balancing its overall budget. We found ourselves in a position where we made certain evaluations of properties according to the purchase programme. We had a further problem, i.e. the tremendous escalation of land prices. The purchase programme is of course worked out long before the time and we consult the agricultural unions and the farmers. They know what our programme is. We then found ourselves in the position that we had to carry out this purchase programme under these difficult conditions. It is a pleasure for me to be able to say that we are in a position to carry out the entire purchase programme as it was initially planned for this financial year. Purchases totalling R104 million will be made. This is the largest amount ever spent on the purchase of trust land.

And we did this under such difficult financial conditions.

Yes, under such particularly difficult conditions. This shows the sympathy the Government feels towards these farmers whom the hon. member mentioned and who, according to him, are in a captive position. Notwithstanding its financial problems the Government is continuing with this programme. It is true that to implement this programme properly we cannot pay these people out in cash. We pay them a percentage in cash. In view of the fact that we cannot compensate the people in cash for their land as we usually do, we have taken into account the fact that we are inconveniencing these people and they may suffer because a cash amount is not made available to them. For this reason the Department makes provision in its offer for any further loss which a farmer may suffer under these circumstances and we also try to compensate him for that.

My sincere thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, who has stood by me exceptionally well in regard to this problem. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, referred to State securities. The position is that at present we are negotiating with the S.A. Agricultural Union, and the agreement we have with them is that they will inform us how many of the original State securities are still in the hands of farmers. When we have that figure and have been able to ascertain that scope of this matter, we have undertaken to negotiate further on this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

A while ago I snapped at the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In the interim I have cooled down a bit. I just want to tell the hon. member as far as State securities are concerned, this is something I inherited from him. I do not want to reproach him for it. I think conditions at that stage were such that he had no option. The recommendation of the department at that stage was, however, that we should not use State securities, but in his wisdom the hon. member decided that they could be used. I think this was a mistake, because today I am saddled with this problem. However, I am not reproaching the hon. member. I understand the circumstances. [Interjections.] I now want to return to what the hon. member said. He got very hot under the collar about his report. However, I want to tell the hon. member why I examined the report. The hon. member stood up here and said that the CP rejects all forms of joint decision-making or power-sharing at all levels and in all spheres.

Exactly!

The hon. member says “Exactly!” This prompted me to look at the report, because I still remember what the hon. member said. I should now like to quote an excerpt from the report to the hon. member. It deals with the extraterritorial powers he wanted to give the States over Black people in the White area. On page 9 of the report he stated—

Exactly!

Surely this means that there must be joint deliberation in order to have joint decision-making. This prompted me to look at the report. In my opinion this is not a dangerous form of power-sharing.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he considers all the agreements South Africa has with the independent States to be power-sharing?

No. It is a question of division of power. However, from division of power an element of power-sharing must of necessity develop because there is joint decision-making and joint deliberations. How else can one reach an agreement? This is the point I wanted to make. However, I shall leave the matter at that. I now want to consider other matters.

I think that at this stage it is necessary for me to say something about agricultural development in the national States. In the first place we negotiated with the Governments and Departments of Agriculture of the national States to draw up agricultural development plans for those States. This directive was given to the department two years ago and I think there are three national States whose agricultural development plans are not yet completed. The plans must serve as a basis for implementing agricultural development in the national States and not for the sole purpose of having a basis either. Once one has discussed an agricultural development plan with the Department of Agriculture of a national State—and it has been accepted by that State’s Parliament and its Cabinet—one has the support of those Black people for implementing that agricultural development plan. At present we are implementing development plans in some of these States, and the Black Governments are also being involved in this. One can initiate agricultural development in the national States in a variety of ways. With certain projects one can launch wonderful schemes, but then one still does not have agricultural development on a horizontal level. Nor has one solved the problem of urbanization. One merely has certain growth-points where there is an abundance of water and favourable climatic conditions. Agricultural development of this nature is not in the interests of the national States either, because one must bring about the horizontal development of agriculture.

There are certain problems in connection with agricultural development, and I believe they are general knowledge. One of the first problems we encountered was in fact the migration problem. Good Black entrepreneurs are leaving the Black States and settling in White areas, a situation we are investigating thoroughly at this stage. Recently we held talks in this connection with the Commission for Co-operation and Development in an effort to find ways and means of channelling the capital of Black people in the White areas more effectively to the national States. It therefore amounts to Black people—White areas investing in their own national States, and I believe there is tremendous potential in this field, as there also is in the field of agriculture. In this connection I now want to refer to what the hon. member for Parys said.

If we want to move in that direction, we shall have to be very careful about encouraging farmers in the national States with investments from White sector, for then we are obviously going to have competition between Black and White entrepreneurs. However, the hon. member knows just as well as I do that Black people set great store by land, and therefore one must handle this situation very carefully.

However, I have taken cognizance of the positive suggestion which the hon. member made, because I feel we should see whether it cannot be accommodated in the agricultural development programme accepted by the Parliaments and Cabinets of the national States.

Agricultural development is problematical, but we realize that this very important economic programme has to be implemented for various reasons. The hon. members referred to a report, and said, inter alia, that Black people were being insulted in it because it was alleged that they did not easily accept Western systems. However, it is interesting to learn what Chief Minister Buthelezi said in this connection, namely—

We experience this daily. We tried to introduce the co-operative system in the national States. It is a wonderful system which worked extremely well among the Whites in South Africa. But it is impossible to apply a similar system in the national States because it is unacceptable to the Black people. What were we to do? We had to alter the entire co-operative system and try to adopt it to the tribal system, because the tribal system in the national States is a power system one has to take into consideration not only in the social sphere but also in the economic and political spheres. We then held discussions with a number of the tribes and worked out models for collective production with them which were suited to their particular circumstances. We therefore had to readjust the Western method completely to get an acceptable production model. We also succeeded, in many of these tribal areas, in maintaining production at as high a level as four tons of grain per hectare. In a specific area we achieved an average milk production of 15 litres a day, one of the highest in South Africa. Of course we had to take the customs and traditions of those people into consideration.

However, there is a second aspect we are working on and with which we are achieving tremendous success at the moment. We give far greater recognition to the Black woman in the development of agriculture in the national States because it is traditional among the Black people—particularly the Zulus—for the woman to be the person involved in agriculture. It is part of the food provision process, and it is the task of the woman. We are training Black women as agriculturists and also as extension officers. [Interjections.] I should like to mention a production model we launched in KwaZulu. We made projections, and if the same growth rate is maintained there as has been the case during the past two years, KwaZulu will be in a position to feed all its people, without being in any way dependent anymore on the RSA. In this regard we therefore have tremendous potential, but we must not think that we can simply force Western systems upon them, because there are Third World conditions and First World conditions which are not easy to combine in order to achieve the necessary success. We are moving in that direction.

This brings me to the agricultural resources in the national States. In this regard the position is extremely good. In March 1980 the Economic Development Corporation invested more than R240 million in agriculture alone in the national States. They made a profit of their investment, although it was not a very large one. The profit on the total investment was approximately 3,9%. However, the potential, the possibilities, are there. We are carrying on, but this sort of thing takes time. One cannot expect to introduce sophisticated Western systems into the national States and think one can undertake agricultural development and build factories just as one wishes.

That was not the point I made.

It merely frustâtes the Black man.

That was not the point I made.

We made mistakes with this kind of development. This is shown by what happened in the past. I prefer not to go into details. However, we shall not make the same mistakes again. That is why we are undertaking intensive research to determine what the needs of the Black people are and how one can accom-modate them in development schemes in terms of their customs and culture. I hope I have replied adequately to this aspect. The development of the national States depends to a very great extent on negotiations which are conducted with these people from time to time. We have on-going negotiations with the national States in various spheres. From time to time we conduct negotiations with the development corporations of the national States, inter alia, on the transfer of quota land. We are at present working on a scheme to identify certain farms and to hand them over to the development corporations. We shall tell them that they can lease these farms and can utilize them until such times as the implementation committee can take over this undertaking. As is the case with any development, how-ever, financing is the problem. Without financing one cannot achieve anything. If one does not have finance, a plan cannot succeed. We are investigating certain sources of finance in the field of agriculture, sources which may be more adaptable in the agriculture set-up. We are thinking of adding a section to the multilateral bank which is at present being established, a section which will concentrate specifically on agricultural financing in the national States. As South Africa has shown us, agricultural financing is a completely different form of financing. It is a completely different field. It is long-term financing and also risky financing. One must therefore differentiate between this type of financing and other types. We shall definitely work in that direction so that we can also make arrangements in regard to the financing efforts to ensure that we can launch these projects on a sound basis.

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended taking part in this discussion, but since I am the only member of the Transvaal Information Committee of the NP present in this House this afternoon, I think it is desirable, for the sake of the record, to react to the accusations of the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Pietersburg in regard to the alleged misleading of the voting public by the NP of the Transvaal by the reprinting of a replica of a certain pamphlet issued by the party in 1977. Firstly, I wish to state that at this stage, five years after we submitted the constitutional proposals in 1977, no one could still have any doubt that the urban Blacks do not form part of the NP’s constitutional plan for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. That is why they are not participating in the President’s Council. There were many questions concerning this in 1977, particularly from the NRP, which wanted to involve urban Blacks in the so-called “common area” in terms of their federal policy. They asked why the urban Blacks were not being brought into that plan. At that time, the PFP also had similar questions. However, after we had debated about this for five years, and had not admitted Blacks to the President’s Council, and as it is known that the NP has a twofold constitutional approach, viz. one dispensation for Black people which, to the best of my knowledge, is not a matter of dispute between us and the CP, and another dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asians, which is, in fact, a matter of dispute between us and the CP, there was a split in the party, and the Transvaal Information Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of National Education, met and decided that it would be as well to remind people of the 1977 plan, as it was submitted to the voters at that time. We therefore decided that it was not necessary to reprint all the explanations with regard to Blacks, explanations which were irrelevant. In order to save on costs, we had the pamphlet reprinted from page 8, in other words, the section applicable to the constitutional plan for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Furthermore, we gave instructions that it should only be sent to committee members of the party and to certain newspapers in the Transvaal. I immediately made photocopies of the document from page 8, and of the cover, and gave it to the Transvaal newspapers, as well as to the SABC, just as it was. I obtained the copy of the SABC this afternoon, to substantiate my statement here. A further instruction was that it should not be reprinted in a new form, but that it should be a precise replica, with its cover, of the document from page 8.

Unfortunately, that instruction was not carried out by the printers. On their own initiative, they also changed “October 1977” on the cover to “March 1982”. We then had to decide whether we were going to discard the pamphlet, as we genuinely wanted to reproduce the original proposal of the 1977 plan and send it to our committee members, or whether we should simply paste a sticker over the “March 1982”.

As I have said, this edition was for committee members. If we had wanted to mislead the voters, we should not have printed the other pamphlet which I have here. 300 000 copies of this pamphlet were printed in Afrikaans, and 200 000 in English, to be distributed in the Transvaal. Therein it is stated absolutely clearly—

1. 1. One solution for the Blacks.
2. 2. Another solution for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

Then, under the heading “The Black nations”, information is given concerning the independence of the Black national States, the envisaged Confederation of States and the urban Blacks, about whom the following, inter alia, is said—

It is therefore quite clear that the so-called urban Blacks have nothing to do with the constitutional proposals of 1977, which still constitute the unchanged policy of the NP and which are before the President’s Council at the moment. Only once the President’s Council has made its own proposals, and when the Cabinet, the caucus and the congresses of the NP, and eventually the nation as well—and of course, finally, this House—have decided on this by means of a referendum, can that situation and that policy be changed.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg is a friendly person; I do not want to offend him. However, I believe that his party, the party which distributed the pamphlet which I have in my hand now, does not have the moral right to speak in this House about misleading the voters. After all, he is well aware that the President’s Council has not yet put forward any proposals. And yet, in this pamphlet, certain absolute statements are made, inter alia, the following—

Who in the NP, from the Prime Minister or any other Cabinet member to a single pamphlet of this party, has ever said that? Where do they get it from? And so they go on in this pamphlet. One misleading statement after another is made. They even refer to the story of having been driven out, and as proof that they were driven out of the NP, they quote the Financial Mail, of all newspapers. Whether they think it is an NP newspaper, or even that that newspaper has representation in the NP caucus, I do not know. Meanwhile, they themselves were in the NP caucus. They ought therefore recall very clearly that their hon. leader, the hon. member for Waterberg, walked out of the caucus before the voting had been completed, and when … [Interjections.]

That is not true!

… and when the newspapers asked him why he had walked out of the caucus, he replied—this appears in newspaper reports; unfortunately I do not have them with me—that he walked out because he felt like it.

That is not true!

He said: “I felt like walking out.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Benoni make an allegation here which is completely untrue? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members will also recall that the hon. member for Jeppe, who drew up this pamphlet, did not only walk out of the caucus. He could not run out fast enough to go and tell the Press that he “is finished with that Prog, P. W. Botha”. [Interjections.] However, let us leave this misleading story of theirs about having been driven out, at that. The correspondence between the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg on the one side, and the hon. the Prime Minister on the other, has been published in the interim. I believe that the situation has been cleared up completely and I also believe that the CP has no moral right to speak about deception in its information documents. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to express any opinions here today in connection with the merits of the so-called pamphlets that have been shown around the House here by the hon. member for Benoni. I must state, however, that I do have a certain amount of sympathy with hon. members of the CP because during the last election we were indeed subjected to different pamphlets in different parts of the country by the National Party pamphlets intended for different people. [Interjections.] I can therefore agree with hon. members of the CP that they indeed have a problem. It is hard to pin the NP down to what they exactly mean. I believe they are trying at the moment to be all things to all men. [Interjections.]

I should like to return now very briefly to a few of the comments made earlier today by the hon. member for Klip River. I must say it is very seldom that I find myself in a position of full agreement with what the hon. member for Klip River has to say. I do agree, however, with his comments on conservation farming. I also agree with his comments in connection with encouraging Black farmers to farm in a correct and normal fashion. I should, however, like to put a question to the hon. member. He made certain statements in connection with Black farmers who hold freehold titles in so-called White farming areas, and if I understood him correctly he intimated that those farmers should be allowed to remain in these areas to carry on their farming activities, provided they followed correct farming methods. Could the hon. member tell me whether that is correct?

The reason why I ask this question is not because I want to address myself to the question of Black spots today. Other hon. members of my party will be dealing later with the subject but I wish to obtain clarity on this point.

There is one further question I want to put to the hon. member for Klip River. If it is all right for a Black farmer to farm in a White farming area with a White farmer as his neighbour, why is it not all right for a Coloured man to live in Constantia with White people as his neighbours? What is the difference? Can he explain that to us?

Is Constantia a farming area?

It is still in a White area. [Interjections.] The only difference is that you might have them 200 yards or 2 miles apart. What then is the difference? Mr. Chairman, I should like to proceed this afternoon by addressing myself to the subject raised by the hon. member for Houghton during this debate relating to the question of Black housing. I should also like to follow up the suggestion made by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and try to make a few constructive comments in this regard to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention and perhaps comment on at a later stage.

We are all aware of the problem of urbanization in this country. This is happening at a very rapid rate indeed. In fact, the recent Human Sciences Research Council report confirms this. Up to a few years ago, urban Blacks were unfortunately regarded as a temporary phenomenon by the Government. As a result, because the main responsibility for the provision of housing fell on the Government, a very large backlog has built up. According to what the hon. member for Houghton told us this afternoon, the Viljoen Committee reported a shortage of 168 000 units in urban areas and a shortage of 250 000 units in Trust areas. It is impossible for the State to make up this backlog. I think the hon. the Minister himself is on record as having stated that this is not possible. Therefore, if something is to be done to alleviate the shortage, we are going to have to get the private sector involved in the provision of this housing in order to assist the Government to make the necessary accommodation available. However, if we wish to include the private sector in this work, what we have to do is to create the right environment in order to persuade them to become involved. I know that the hon. the Minister and various bodies, including the Urban Foundation, have in fact expressed disappointment at the lack of involvement of the private sector in the provision of Black housing. I do not believe that the fault lies entirely with the private sector because there are still certain laws and regulations which are in fact stumbling-blocks in the way of the private sector in assisting in the provision of Black housing. I shall come back to this in a few moments in order to mention a few examples to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance.

As an illustration of what I say, I should like to mention the specific example of an area called Wilgefontein near Pietermaritzburg which is S.A. Development Trust land. I want to mention this as a specific example but I am sure that it applies to any S.A. Development Trust land forming part of a similar area anywhere in the country. The situation is as follows: First of all, the officials of the hon. the Minister’s department are experiencing a squatter problem on the land in question. This is due partly to a very serious housing shortage in the townships around Pietermaritzburg as well as to the natural phenomenon of people gravitating towards an urban area. Secondly, there is no ideological reason why these people should not be there. It is Trust land which it is intended eventually to hand over to the Zulu nation and the people there are Zulus.

The next point I want to make is that a steering committee has been established which consists of all shades of opinion in the area including members of the hon. the Minister’s party, members of my party as well as a large number of other people representing various business organizations to investigate the establishment of a utility company to make a start in regard to the provision of housing in that area. We all know that this is a means of mobilizing funds and, it has also been suggested in the Viljoen Committee report as a means of mobilizing funds. In the Pietermaritzburg area the Drakensberg Administration Board has trained teams of Black entrepreneurs. These people are builders and are quite competent to do the type of building work that has to be done there. Unfortunately they are running out of work at the moment. Thirdly, there is bridging finance available until such a time as the hon. the Minister’s department can make funds available for the provision for basic infrastructures and approaches have been made for other financing. We therefore have the situation where there is the land, there is a need for the land and there is the will on the part of everybody concerned to do something about providing housing. We then ask ourselves the question why has nothing happened. This is due to certain legal impediments, and I will mention a few of them here. Proclamation No. 293 of 1962 relates to conditions under which deeds of grant can be withdrawn. This proclamation makes it extremely difficult for building societies to make funds available. It is a relatively minor thing, but it needs to be looked at. Secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty with building societies as to what will happen when Trust areas are handed over to the national or self-governing States, and this is another stumbling block. Thirdly, there is the question of subsidies. It has not yet been finalized as to what the subsidies will be. I think it is generally accepted that at the lower end of the spectrum for housing, some form of subsidization is necessary. I will not go any further into this. I will be submitting a report relating to this within the next few days to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. I can only hope that he will have a look at it, because if he does and he removes these impediments, the willingness is there to try to help with this problem of providing Black housing. It is essential to remove these small impediments. The ball is now in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s court.

There is one other thing to which I would like to refer today, and that is the question of farm labour. I know that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has instructed the Manpower Commission to investigate farm labour, but the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is also involved because it is his department which has the say over the movement of farm labourers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, since he has confined himself to local problems to which the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly react.

Before discussing a particular aspect of this Vote, I would like to refer to the explanation the hon. member for Benoni gave with regard to this information pamphlet issued by the National Party, and to address the two hon. members of the Conservative Party who tried to discredit this information document this afternoon. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. members—I think the hon. member Mr. Hennie van der Walt displayed a very sensible approach in this regard by saying that we should rather concern ourselves here with important issues, issues which are often provocative. Accordingly I now ask hon. members—who by implication sought to insinuate this afternoon that this was a trick, or involved a degree of dishonesty—whether they accept the explanation that there genuinely were circumstances which resulted in the pamphlet being as it was and that it was not designed to mislead.

That is how we put it to Mr. Hennie van der Walt.

Thank you very much. We therefore understand one another as far as that matter is concerned.

At this point I should just like to refer to the development of the Black local government in White areas and state that they are one of the most important facets in the process of the constitutional development of the Blacks in White areas, particulary at this juncture. Urbanization is a characteristic of modern development, and its orderly development demands a great deal from everyone involved. That is why, Sir, I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation on this occasion to the Department and its officials, as well as all the other esteemed gentlemen who are involved in this task, for the way in which they are dealing with this matter. In addition, there is evidence that the Government is in earnest about this matter and that it is adopting a positive approach in this regard. The fact that the Commission for Co-operation and Development has been extended in order to give one of its committees the active task of devoting attention to Blacks outside the national States, should have a meaningful result, and attests to that approach.

When I speak of the Blacks in White areas, I wish to say that they have been settled in urban and peri-urban areas. As a matter of interest, I could point out that the figure in the Orange Free State indicates that there are 478 223 urban Blacks, while the figure in the case of non-urban Blacks is 950 792. These are the census figures of 1980, and they give one an indication of the population composition in that area.

It is true that most Black people—although this is sometimes denied—have homeland and even ethnicities, or national ties. It has been proved by people who deal in practice with these matters and these people daily, that they still have patriarchal ideas, and that this is another characteristic of the lifestyle of many of these people. The national ties of the head of the family are usually the decisive factor. But, Sir, I wish to say at this point that the establishment and development of autonomous local governments for Black townships in White areas is a positive step which will place Blacks on the road to responsible government. This has been necessary in many respects, but the self-imposed guardianship and responsibility which the Whites have in respect of the services and livelihood of Blacks, should be transferred gradually. It has been in the interests of Blacks that they have been assisted, but the time has come for them to accept increasing responsibility for their own people. Whereas it often happens that the Whites are held responsible, or are even reproached, for some matter, this will mean that those people—and I am speaking of the urban areas in particular—can put their problems and complaints to their own local governments. I realize that these things cannot happen overnight, but it is something that must come.

Even the control and guidance of the governments of Black townships must eventually become the task of the Black government of that national State, as it cannot be denied that local government forms an integral part of an entire State structure, and I believe that it must eventually develop in that direction. However, I wish to make a practical suggestion to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I may say that it does not imply any criticism. A prerequisite for the successful implementation of the system, is that streamlined communication with the authorities concerned, is most essential. The delegation of powers to regional officials or chief commissioners would contribute a great deal towards establishing satisfactory interaction. At present, it is often the case that it is necessary to wait too long for Pretoria, even when a decision has to be made concerning elementary matters. It is very important, particularly as regards the successful implementation of the system, that decisions and permission be more readily obtainable. I think that the senior officials in the various regions are quite capable of making that decision if the necessary powers are delegated to them. Although the implementation of decentralized constitutional structures would set heavy demands and could even be a laborious process, I believe that this is the key to the peaceful co-existence of the various national groups in South Africa.

With reference, too, to the approach of the hon. member for Lichtenburg this afternoon, I just wish to express the confidence that as far as the future handling and development of Black people in this country are concerned—I think the hon. member is a responsible man who is also interested in the development of this ideal of this Government, of which he was also a member for a long time, and in which he held a responsible office—the hon. member will realize in future, as far as this very important and difficult matter in particular is concerned, that the hon. the Minister has a very difficult task. The hon. member is aware of this, as he was intimately acquainted with the matter. The hon. the Minister is always in the limelight, and he gets more criticism than credit for what is achieved. That is why the hon. member should be positive in these debates, and not merely seek out the bad things. The hon. member has an intimate knowledge of these matters. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the biggest asset of any enterprise besides its capital is its staff, and the productivity of the staff determines the final result of all the inputs. The staff of the Administration Boards are the biggest asset. What is more, I am convinced that in the case of the Administration Boards, the staff are an even greater asset than all their capital assets. There are approximately 47 000 employees in the service of the Administration Boards, and if the value of these employees is to be calculated in terms of the contribution which they make to the development of a power structure which helps to create the continued harmonious existence in this country, then they are worth far more in real terms than the R1 007 million which the annual budget of the Administration Boards runs to.

These officials build houses, roads, infrastructures, etc., but they also build bridges, bridges over topographical obstacles, but also bridges over human obstacles, such as human relations. They recognize and respect ethnicity, and despite this and other factors which impede the regulation of the societies in which the Black people live, each day of the year a new dispensation for the Black people in this country is worked on. The officials who labour daily in the contact situation, are motivated and inspired by the idealism of peaceful co-existence, and that is why so much is achieved in this respect. For the majority of officials who find themselves in the contact situation, it is a challenge to help build townships and cities which can offer the Black occupants a higher standard of living.

Moreover, they have made the administration of the Black population within the White areas their career, and they do not only build their future on the material benefits attached to such a career.

However, we should not be misled by assuming that all this takes places without frustration on the part of the officials. In my opinion, the greatest amount of frustration arises when projects which are tackled with a great amount of enthusiasm and are concluded with great perseverance, are disparaged in public as worthless or insignificant. Officials are often criticized or disparaged in the execution of their duties for political gain, to the extent that they are hesitant to encourage others to follow a career in the Administration Boards.

When one is building, there have to be cornerstones at some point in the construction, and the cornerstones of the Administration Boards are the officials who dedicate their lives to the solution of our ever-increasing problem, viz. the influx of Blacks into White areas. We should therefore not allow the critics or bureaucrats to frustrate the officials and discourage other people from choosing careers in the Administration Boards.

After the unrest of 1976, a great deal of uncertainty about the future of the boards arose among officials, and in various quarters efforts were made to cause uncertainty among the officials, and to exploit the situation. If the Administration Boards as a structure of authority, were to collapse, it would probably be the greatest victory for the country’s enemies and would result in the greatest possible political defeat for the Government. However, the enemies of the country have not reckoned with the determination of the Government and the will of the officials to preserve what has been built up with a great deal of sacrifice and trouble.

However, we have certainly not seen the end of the tracks on the Administration Board and the officials attached to them, but it is clear that most citizens of the Black cities and townships now accept that our efforts to uplift them are sincere, and that a repetition of the unrest of 1976 would be to their own detriment.

The criticism of the activities of the Administration Boards and the disruption of the officials pose a threat to us all. It is a process in which the future of our country and our own survival is being gambled with.

I am aware that the hon. the Minister has the welfare of the officials at heart, that his intentions are sincere as regards the citizens of the Black townships and cities, and that he will protect the interests of the Whites in their own areas. After all, he has repeatedly proved and said this.

I note in the latest report of the Department of Co-operation and Development, that arrangements have been made for an investigation by the Commission for Administration into the rationalization of the Administration Boards. It is further stated that during the past year under review, they have succeeded in making uniform the conditions of service of the 14 Chief Directors and that the conditions of service of the White staff of the Administration Boards, which are laid down by the South African Industrial Council, are nevertheless continually reviewed by the Directorate.

It is also mentioned in the report that during the past year, a start has been made with the introduction of salary and post structures such as those applicable to community councils, in respect of Black employees of Administration Boards. Action of this nature is evidence of the interest of the hon. the Minister and the Directorate in the welfare of the officials.

However, I wish to ask the Minister to give the officials the assurance once again that their position within the Administration Boards will not be prejudiced in any way, and that a promising future still awaits able young men who are employed in the service of the Administration Boards.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Maraisburg has just said. I sincerely appreciate the fact that he, too, focused on the problems of the officials in this House.

I should like to confine myself to administration boards today, and in particular, cast a backward glance over the history of administration boards. The administration boards were established in 1972. Twenty-two administration boards were established, and later they were reduced to 14. In the ten years of the existence of administration boards, more has been done for the Black man, in the urban areas in particular, than in the previous 100 years. If one bears in mind what the administration boards inherited from the White local authorities, one must say that one can have nothing but praise for what has been done since that take-over. In point of fact, all they inherited was squatter camps. However, that is not to say that everything has been put right during the period of the administration boards, because there is still a substantial need for housing, roads, sports facilities, etc. However, the biggest problem is still the shortage of funds to provide these things. Here I want to associate myself with the plea by the hon. member for Ventersdorp that the Blacks themselves should also make a contribution towards providing some of these services, because I contend here today that there is far more money in these Black residential areas than is generally recognized. When the administration boards took over, and when community councils were established in 1977, the Black people really did know very little about management. In 1977 they were also given a say in the form of decision-making and administration within their own residential areas. The officials have a major role to perform in training those people so that those institutions may become full-fledged local authorities. In that field the officials are also doing a wonderful job as regards the training of those people who have to take over that management.

If a monument were to be erected in South Africa today, I should like it to be dedicated to the officials in the service of the administration boards. They are really the people who are in the forefront, the people who have to cultivate good human relations and satisfy everyone, White and Black. They are in fact the people who form the direct point of contact between the Third World on the one hand and Western civilization on the other.

On several occasions in this House I have listened to criticism levelled at the administration boards, by the official Opposition in particular. However, I ascribe this to ignorance, because they have not ascertained for themselves exactly what is being done here.

I want to indicate briefly—indeed, I do so superficially, because I do not have time to go into the matter in depth—what, for example, is being done by one administration board. I want to refer in particular to the West Transvaal Administration Board. I can say that we—I say “we” because I had the privilege of serving on that administration board myself for the ten years of its existence—surveyed whole new residential areas, built new houses, constructed new schools, laid on water and laid new roads in these residential areas, and bulldozed the old slums level with the earth. Hon. members can imagine for themselves what quantities of money were involved in these undertakings.

I want to refer to the Black town near Carletonville in my own constituency. There we have a fine example of co-operation. Hon. members need only go and look at the self-build schemes being introduced there and how the Blacks are working there to obtain their own houses. In that town and in other towns in the Western Transvaal, sub-economic as well as economic houses are being constructed. It is nothing unusual nowadays to see houses costing R30 000, R40 000 and R50 000 going up in Khutsong, the town near Carletonville. There is truly outstanding co-operation between the administration board and the Black towns under its jurisdiction in the Western Transvaal. One of the best advantages, and something that is much appreciated by the Blacks, is the high mast lighting system that is being provided in these Black towns at great expense. I can assure hon. members that this has led to a considerable drop in the crime rate and members of the community councils have in my presence expressed only the highest praise and appreciation for this outstanding work that is being done by the administration boards.

I also just wish to touch on one matter relating to housing. It has always been cast in the Government’s teeth that houses are not looked after. I want to ask the hon. member of the official Opposition whether they have seen to it that each of their workers has a house. I have my doubts in that regard. It may be so. I should be grateful if they could all honestly say: “Yes, I have seen to it that my servant has a house.” Let me tell you what is happening in the Western Transvaal. Not only the industrialist and the businessman, but also the ordinary salaried man, is buying a house for his own servant. This is the spirit that prevails in that region. In the field of sport a tremendous amount is being done for the Blacks. Sportsfields are being laid, pavilions are being built and trophies are being donated by the administration boards to the winners. You can imagine, Sir, how these people are doing their best to shine in the field of sport. Before my time has expired—I only have a minute left—there is just one matter I still want to refer to with regard to the Western Transvaal. A farm in the district of Zeerust has been purchased to serve as a recreation area and has been converted into a game reserve for Black youths. This farm is in such demand that we have built up a long waiting list, because the Black youth are so keen to go there. By visiting that place they can once again make contact with nature in its natural form. Hon. members must bear in mind that these Black pupils have been born and brought up in a Black town and have never seen the platteland, because if they had gone there, they would have broken the law and been prosecuted. Now they have the opportunity to see it, and I can assure hon. members that after they have been there once they keep going back. We simply cannot keep up with the groups of Black youth who want to go there. Moreover, they come back far better people than before.

Since the administration boards are now to be converted into development boards, I want to say that that task of development will be in the best hands in the country in this field. I can give hon. members the assurance that that development will be undertaken in a way that no other body in the country would be capable of.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago a book entitled Die Swart Vryheidspaaie was published. It was written by a former Minister of the department the Vote of which we are discussing here tonight. It is a very interesting and informative book about a very important period in our country’s history. Former Minister M. C. Botha dedicated this book to, as he puts it—

At the outset I wish to point out that I believe that when, one day, the history of particularly the relations between the Whites and the Black nations is written—particularly as far as the policy over the past number of years is concerned—history will prove the correctness of the content of this book, which is dedicated to men and women who have done a very fine job in the course of several decades. Political parties and politicians often claim the credit for themselves—something which is in itself perhaps not entirely wrong—but it should be borne in mind that there are always men and women in the background who do good work. While I am on this subject, I should also like to pay tribute to a small group of people in the department. They are not always liked by everybody. However, I think that they make a special contribution. I refer specifically to the ethnologists in the department. They, too, have done excellent work over the years in the special set-up of the department concerned.

Of course, in the position in which I find myself these days, I, too, realize that one has to learn to look anew and very penetratingly at the problems of our country. When one realizes to what extent problems have increased in this country, one has appreciation for those in the academic world who teach ethnology and applied ethnology, as well as their predecessors, who wrote ethnographic and ethnological works on Black nations and tribes in Southern Africa.

I now wish to turn briefly to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The hon. said that he no longer enjoyed the debate which has been going on between the CP and the NP recently. I want to point out to the hon. member that I believe that to the two parties concerned it is indeed of importance—in the years to come it will become increasingly important—that we conduct a political debate with one another. It was not for nothing that the events of the past weeks and months took place. Each of the two sides has a specific case, a specific approach to the matter, and therefore I believe that it is good for the political debate of the day if that political debate be conducted in the spirit advocated by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. Indeed, I believe that hon. members of the CP can also make a contribution by expressing level-headed ideas with regard to this matter, particularly, too, on account of the background which we have. I listened with great appreciation to the speech of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. I do not wish to put him in an awkward position but I do have something on my mind.

I shall look after myself; do not worry about me. [Interjections.]

I believe that he was one of the best student leaders I have come across in my day. I think he is an exceptionally capable man, especially in the way in which he sees to these matters. However, there is one aspect—we shall not discuss it now—on which we are going to disagree very sharply later on. However, when disagreeing with the hon. member, I shall do so in the same spirit and with the same attitude which the hon. member adopted when addressing the CP tonight.

I made a Nat of you in 1958; I shall make you a Nat again.

Well, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt must realize that he is really setting himself an enormous task.

I did in 1958; I can do it again!

The hon. member did manage to do it in 1958. I am still faithful to those same principles today. However, I want to leave the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt at that for a while.

Since we are in such a friendly mood now I cannot refrain from pointing out that the CP has grown in the past month. Only yesterday we received a new member.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I think this is an excellent achievement. [Interjections.] The hon. member for North Rand joined the CP last night. I want to assure the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt that there is no doubt in my mind that the day will come—in a month’s time, in a year’s time, in five years or even ten year’s time—when the possibility may well exist that he and some of the hon. members of the NP will be in the same party with me again. However, I wish to make it clear that the spirit in which I shall do that, will also satisfy the norm set by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, viz. that I will not choose my words in such a way that it would be difficult for us to come together again. [Interjections.]

Earlier today the hon. member for Bloemfontein East adopted a standpoint here when he said that the CP, in its ethnic policy, did not adhere to the principle of freedom and justice, but to the principle of freedom and injustice. The hon. member knows that if that is his standpoint, I appreciate it and have respect for it, but I want to say to him that he chose to devote his speech to the concept of justice. I just want to say that when he had finished speaking I could not quite make out what the hon. member’s concept of justice was, what the origin of the concept of justice was, what the essence thereof was or how it could be implemented in practice, not only in one’s own social context, but also in an area such as Southern Africa—how justice manifested itself in terms of one’s basic principles. I think that in the months ahead there will be two points which will be argued at great length, not only from our side, but by all the parties represented here: how we see the freedom of nations, what freedom means to us, how we want to implement it in the Southern Africa situation and how we see justice from our point of view, justice not only in regard to oneself, but also justice in regard to other nations. These, then, are standpoints which we shall be discussing in future. [Interjections.] Furthermore I want to say to the hon. leader of the NRP that it is not we who must say where we disagree. I think that in South Africa the difference exists in regard to the relationship between the Black nations and ourselves, and in this regard there will be the old, old division between those who want to solve the population problems by means of power-sharing and those who want to solve them on the basis of non-power-sharing. My knowledge of the population problems also goes back many years and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in a certain area of the thinking of the NP I perceive exactly the same idiom as that which, at the end of the fifties, I perceived in the hon. member Prof. Olivier and those who were with him in Sabra at that time and against whom Dr. Verwoerd adopted another standpoint at the time. When the hon. member Prof. Olivier was still a member of the NP the same idiom, the same background and the same arguments as those which were raised against us today by some hon. members of the NP, formed the elementary things with which that hon. member started at the time.

I want to say that there is another idiom, too, which I detect in the NP. As I see it, and particularly in recent times, the issue for the NP, as far as the whole concept of civilization is concerned, is no longer that nations and the way in which nations are made up, but merely that of civilization. This reminds me of Cecil John Rhodes’ standpoint of “equal rights for all civilized men”. This is why I want to say that the debate which lies ahead is going to be one of the most interesting debates which we have had here over the past number of years. It is just a pity, however, that the world situation and the situation in Africa makes it more difficult for us as Whites to solve these problems. However, I want to say that there are many people who believe that if there is enough time we could solve the problems. From my point of view an individual has the opportunity to solve problems as long as he lives as an individual. As for a nation and its battle to survive, as long as that nation exists and lives and has a will to live, there is a chance, and the opportunity to solve those particular problems. I also wish to say that it is essential that in the period ahead of us—and I address this in particular to the hon. member Prof. Olivier—we should reconsider terminology, terms and concepts. After all, these are the things with which one works. If we are not able to not only identify but also understand the content of the concepts with which we are working today—what a concept such as “nation” means and what various other things we work with mean —then the debating situation today is such that we need to give meaning to them once again, otherwise we shall have a veritable Babel of tongues if we cannot understand what we are saying in the language in which we work. Another matter about which I am concerned, relates to what the hon. member for Benoni said. He stated categorically that it was not the policy of the NP to involve Blacks who are living in a White area, in the dispensation which the NP has in mind for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Rissik. We have known each other for many years. I want to agree with him that a lance be broken for ethnologists. It is a great pity that there are not more students who qualify themselves in the field of social authropology. I think our nation needs such people at the moment and I should like to see that more of them qualify in this field.

The hon. member referred to justice. As far as justice is concerned it is not very difficult to find a norm. We can simply use the Bible as our norm. The hon. member is a theologian. We do not have to struggle to find norms for we can simply turn to the Bible. However, we should not approach the Bible rigidly but in the Christian spirit in which it was written. The hon. member went on to speak of words and to elevate words into principles. To him a word is a principle. The content of a word is no longer important to him. I can understand it, for that is the way the hon. member thinks. But I must say that I could not follow the rest of his speech. I could really not find a single point in it which I could follow.

I should like to say that I found the annual report very interesting. This report is proof of the enthusiasm with which the department acts on behalf of all the Black people in this country under the leadership of the hon. the Minister and his two hon. Deputy Ministers. I should like to convey my congratulations in a narrower context to the hon. the Minister and his department for (a) the provision of housing to Black people which they have undertaken, a fact which emerges clearly from the report, (b) for the fact that leasehold rights are now becoming a reality and (c) that effect is now being given to regional economic development. I believe that the hon. the Minister had the lion’s share in this. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the department not only for what they have achieved, but also for the spirit in which it has been achieved. I am convinced that there are few people in South Africa whom the Black leaders in this country trust more than that hon. Minister. In the creation of that trust he did our nation and all the other nations an immeasurable service. I thank him sincerely for it.

I should now like to say something about the question of urbanization, particularly as far as the Black man is concerned. In this connection I should like to quote from a publication with the title Urbanization: Development Policies and Planning issued by the UNO. I think that the quotations will be very apt. I quote—

The second quotation I wish to make reads as follows—

†They go on to list four points: There is a labour force, there is a concentration of people providing a market, capital is available, as are manpower and entrepreneurs. All these one finds in a city.

The following important statement bears reflecting upon—

*These are very important statements and I should like to elaborate on them. The fact of the matter is that the urbanization process is a normal phenomenon in the twentieth century. This process must be directed and regulated. A further fact of the matter is that urbanization leads to industrial development and that in modern times that is the basis of of the development of the State. This is why we Whites took cognizance of this long ago already. We are aware of this and we believe in it, and that is why we are regulating the urbanization of the Black people, for we believe that it must be controlled. There are three Bills in this connection which we hope will come before the House during the present session this year. Then there is also the expanding of leasehold rights to create stable communities and we are succeeding in doing this. From 1978 to 1980, for example, 570 leaseholds have been registered while in 1981 730 were registered. This is a tremendous percentage increase. It is clear that controlled urbanization constitutes very great benefits in addition to maintaining law and order. The community which is created in this way is a result of the connection between urban development and industrialization. In the second place it is important for insuring national prosperity to stimulate industry. For this reason we applied the best principles of town planning in the White areas, and we Whites consider this to be very important for the development of South Africa. However, it seems to me as if some of the national States and some independent States, too, are not sufficiently aware of this. They are not sufficiently aware of the fact that they have to establish and develop more towns. They are also not aware of the fact that they have to create an established corps of city dwellers. I contend that it is absolutely essential that they should do this. If they want to establish industries and share in the distribution of wealth in Southern Africa it is essential that they should build cities. If they want to create jobs for a growing population it is necessary that they should do so by building up more industries. Some of the leaders are under the impression that all they have to ask for is more land. They think that the problem can be solved by claiming more land. However, this offers no solution and it does not offer a peaceful solution at any rate. So they shall have to think in another direction. Agriculture alone does not create a basis for the development of the national States; it does not offer an adequate base and cannot be extended sufficiently. I agree with what is written in this report. On page 2 mention is made of the fact that communal land-ownership, communal grazing, etc. hampers the expansion of agriculture. As the numbers of the inhabitants increase in their own areas this communal use, if it continues, will lead to impoverishment. So this cannot simply continue indefinitely. These people will have to concentrate more and more on industries and residential areas so that industrialization can take place there, so that the per capita income may rise and so that more employment opportunities can be created.

In this connection I should immediately like to say a few things. In the first place the building of cities complements industrial development; the one cannot take place without the other one. What is contemplated in the White Paper on economic regional development will not succeed if the States do not provide the necessary housing as well. This is why I say that we must have full-fledged urban communities. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and the department in this connection. In the past year they demercated approximately 113 000 plots with a surveying staff of just over 60% of its normal strength. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister on this achievement, but I also wish to address a friendly request to him and his department to continue to request the national States and the independent States in the first place to regard urbanization as unavoidable. In the second place they must regard the regulization of urbanization as absolutely essential. In the third place they must build proper cities. They must plan a set-up which will make a proper life possible, e.g. business areas, residential areas, work areas and recreational areas must be provided. In the fourth place it is essential to establish a corps of urban dwellers there so that industrial development may take place. In the fifth place I think it is essential that city dwellers should receive leasehold rights since they will have to lose their communal rights in due course. These people, too, must receive rights there.

I believe that it is important that these five points should be brought home to them with enthusiasm and conviction so that all of us may live better lives in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I like to follow the hon. member for Pretoria West. As usual he made a very realistic speech. He usually has both feet on the ground. I should like to pursue further what he said about urbanization and the requirements set in that regard. Permit me, however, Mr. Chairman, to begin by referring to an interesting point that struck me, viz. that every party represented in this House has its own perception of the realities of South Africa. What is important to us tonight are the realities surrounding our population situation. There are parties in this House that perceive matters in terms of what one could call horizontalism. They do not recognize ethnic diversity in South Africa because it does not suit the fundamental philosophy on the basis of which they usually argue. Nationalism is not a word that belongs in that philosophy.

In the last few weeks it has begun to seem to me that we appear to have another party here that thinks in terms of verticalism, if there is such a concept. I want to say to these hon. members that one must be careful, when laying claim to it, that one knows what nationalism means, and particularly what Afrikaner nationalism means, and that one does not mean thereby, Afrikaner imperialism. Afrikaner imperialism would have as little chance of succeeding in South Africa, particularly in our situation, as British or Zulu imperialism. The reality is that we share a common lot with other population groups in this country. We are economically interdependent on one another. We are fighting a common enemy, namely communism. Therefore there must be contact among the various population groups. One cannot place each of the population groups in absolutely separate camps so that they never come into contact with one another. I fear, and I have a presentiment, that although it has never been spelt out by the hon. members of the CP, they will eventually have no choice but to move towards that absolute extreme. In terms of the view of this side of the House that simply does not form part of the realities of South Africa.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria West and refer specifically to Black urbanization. There are several demographers who predict that within the next 20 years, viz. before the year 2000, approximately another 20 million Black people will be urbanized, and not only in White South Africa. This will mean that by the year 2000, approximately 60% of the Black people in South Africa will be urbanized as against the present 38%, according to the latest 1980 census figures. The question that each of us must ask is this: Where is this urbanization to take place? 20 million people mean, basically, 20 cities equivalent to Soweto. Where are those 20 cities to be established? In the nature of the matter it is NP policy that future urbanization will take place primarily within the national States. Accordingly, the stated policy of achieving a better geographic distribution of economic activities, and specifically industrial establishment in South Africa, is of the utmost importance here. The reality however, is that urbanization of Blacks will also take place outside the national States, viz. within South Africa’s borders. In accordance with the policy of the NP, such urbanization will take place within a national context. In this regard I want to mention an example to hon. members which we have encountered in the Free State over the past two years, viz. the town Onverwacht where provision is made for South Sothos.

Within two years, 160 000 people came to settle in Onverwacht, whereas it took fewer than 100 000 Whites more than a century to establish themselves in Bloemfontein, which is situated near Onverwacht. If that is not evidence of the success of the NP’s policy in regard to urbanization of the Black population within the national context, then I do not know what success is.

Since the hon. member Prof. Olivier is in the House at present, I wish to address myself to him. I note that he put questions in regard to Onverwacht. I want to say to him that we Free Staters have got along very well with the Black people in the Free State for more than a century. He must therefore take care. The PFP must not come and interfere in our area. I do not really know what they want to dig up there or what relations they want to bedevil, but I warn the hon. member that the people there live in peace and quiet. Anyone can go there without any fear whatsoever.

Do you agree that Onverwacht is a second Houghton?

The hon. member is now seeking to take the matter entirely out of context. I myself have seen the medical facilities available at Onverwacht. Has the hon. member ever been to Onverwacht? Has the hon. member for Houghton ever been there to see what medical facilities are available there? The hon. member for Houghton has never been in Onverwacht and therefore she does not know what is going on there. I, on the other hand, have been there personally so I know what medical facilities are available there. [Interjections.] The clinics in Onverwacht have the best equipment possible, and apart from that there is the Pelanomi Hospital in Bloemfontein, where the most modern equipment in the world is available. There is also a hospital that is even closer than Bloemfontein, viz. the one at Thaba ’Nchu which can serve the people of Onverwacht, and in future, hospitals will be built at Onverwacht too. The hon. members on that side must not, therefore, contend that medical facilities in Onverwacht are of poor quality. That is not true. Nevertheless, that is the impression they are trying to create. [Interjections.]

What do they live on?

However, I should also like to refer to the political future of Black cities, because this is of great importance to us. Of course, the Republic of South Africa has no jurisdiction over the Black cities which are going to develop within the Black States, nor do we wish to prescribe to them what to do at the local Government level. However, the Government has already announced the structure for Black cities within the borders of the Republic, and legislation is being prepared in this regard. Local authorities will be established for these Black cities and, depending on their size, they will be city or town councils, or even a smaller local authority.

However, in accordance with the NP philosphy it is still essential that the inhabitants of these Black cities should retain links with their mother States. The hon. member Prof. Olivier had a great deal to say about that, too, this afternoon, but he cannot get away from the fact that a Tswana who is settled in a Black city in the Free State is still a Tswana.

What has that to do with the price of eggs? [Interjections.]

It has everything to do with the price of eggs. As I said before, the concept of nationalism simply does not suit that hon. member’s vocabulary.

I did not say that he did not remain a Tswana. [Interjections.]

It is of the utmost importance that the necessary structures providing for contact between the Black urban communities within South Africa and their national States be established. There has been talk here of extraterritorial representation and there are various methods in this regard.

Tell us how.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier wants to know how this is to be done. Throughout the world it is being recognized and indeed, it is being said increasingly that South Africa is not only the social and economic laboratory of the world, but that we are in fact also the political laboratory of the world. If the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the other PFP members—in fact, all hon. members of this House—think that they can level criticism here without contributing to the philosophies which we are concerned with in this regard, then they are taking the easy way out by avoiding the responsibility to plan for South Africa’s future.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member Dr. Odendaal who, among other things, remarked that the PFP totally disregarded the issue of ethnic diversity in South Africa. That, of course, is entirely untrue. The point is that the PFP does not try to manipulate ethnic diversity or any other kind of diversity in this country in order to create a convenient political dispensation for the Whites or anyone else in this country. That is the fundamental difference between our approach and that of hon. members on that side of the House. In fact, in the process of manipulating the ethnic or racial diversity in South Africa, the NP has over the years placed a question mark over every concept relating to the relationship between the people and the State or between the inhabitants of a specific region and the authority that controls them. They have attached a questionable meaning to each of those concepts, specifically due to the fact that those concepts have been manipulated by the creation of alternative concepts or terminologies. A word like “citizenship” simply no longer means what it traditionally used to mean. For example, if it is said that a person who lives in Cape Town and has never been in the Ciskei is a Ciskeian citizen, that is simply rubbish.

Yes, it is nonsense.

It is meaningless … [Interjections.] … and the sooner hon. members on that side of the House understand that, the better. In fact, what it amounts to is political fraud.

In this regard I should just like to dwell for a moment on a point raised earlier this evening by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I refer to the statement that the Government liberates peoples and not simply pieces of land or territories. This statement, like many other terminological discoveries of the NP, covers a multitude of sins. As far back as March of last year the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation used this expression in defence of the Government’s standpoint relating to the urban Blacks. Incidentally, on that occasion he also raised the position of the Black man on the farms in the rural areas and dealt with that issue in the same manner. The expression that the NP or the Government liberates peoples rather than territories is really used to imply—I think hon. members will agree with me—that the geographic basis of citizenship and of sovereignty or political rights is not so important and that it is therefore quite in order that a Black State, more than half of whose citizens are resident outside that State, can be made independent and that citizenship of that State can then be forced on that half of the citizens who do not live in the State. The Ciskeian living in Cape Town has no say over the independence or otherwise of the Ciskei. True, he could take part in a referendum, but in the case of the Transkei, a Transkeian citizen could not even do that. However, the entire matter has nothing to do with such a person. However, citizenship of the Ciskei is forced on that person and he is deprived of this citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. This approach is, of course, a hopeless smokescreen and it is incomprehensible that the Government does not want to grasp that, particularly at this time, when so much is being said about power-sharing and so much attention is being given to the position of the Coloured.

You must not steal NP policy now.

We must make no mistake about that. It is the very lack of a geographic basis for the Coloured, the very untenability of the idea of a Coloured homeland which, by way of a painful political process, has forced the Government to entertain the idea of power-sharing with the Coloured. It is that very dilemma that has eventually compelled the Government to accept power-sharing with the Coloureds. The position of the urban Black man and that of the Coloured with regard to citizenship and political rights is so analogous that I contend that the Government will eventually reach the same conclusion as far as the urban Black is concerned. We only hope that this will occur sooner rather than later, because a delay in this process costs frustrations, it costs money and, indeed, it costs lives. We only hope that it will be recognized very soon.

The statement that peoples are liberated will not help to conceal or evade this dilemma. The mere fact that a person has some remote link with a liberated homeland simply cannot justify his being deprived against his will of his South African citizenship. That urban Black man has just as few political rights as have the Coloureds in South Africa today. The other day the hon. the Prime Minister conceded that the Coloureds have no political rights. The urban Black man is equally deprived of political rights, political rights in the sense that they have anything to do with his daily life. It is pointless having political rights in another man’s country. It is pointless having political rights in a country which one came from years ago and which has no influence on the way in which the laws of one’s country and the administration of one’s country affect one.

To the Black people living in the cities of South Africa, the franchise in an independent State means nothing. They have nothing to do with that. The Transkeian living in Langa has nothing to do with that. He is not interested in how the budget is spent in Transkei. He is not interested in how tax is levied in Transkei. That tax is not levied on him. It has nothing to do with him. He pays tax to the South African Government. It is interesting that the Government of South Africa recognizes the permanence of those people in the urban areas of South Africa in the sense that they levy tax from them and they spend that money. Surely it is absolutely meaningless to have political rights of that nature. In fact, such an urban Black man has every possible justification for retaining South African citizenship and obtaining political rights here, whereas on the other hand there is no good reason for him to be interested in a vote in one of the homelands that have become independent. As I said, he has nothing to do with how tax is levied there, how that State’s money is spent and how the laws are made there. It does not affect him in the least. Ten to one he does not even have any family there and has no interest whatsoever in that region.

To set against these irrefutable arguments—I think they are irrefutable because hon. members have never been able to refute them—the NP has traditionally advanced just one defence, and that is that the urban Black man’s residence in, and link with, the Republic of South Africa as a political unit was in fact only of a temporary nature. This argument, of course, bit the dust a long time ago. I think hon. members have conceded this because noises to this effect have been heard. In this regard one need only refer to the 99-year leasehold system. How can it be said of a person who has entered into a 99-year leasehold agreement that he does not live permanently in that urban area? Ninety-nine years is longer than the average lifetime of anyone anywhere in the world. If that person were to take the trouble to enter into a contract of this nature, with all the financial complications and investment complications it involves, do hon. members really want to make out that that does not mean that that man is settling there permanently? Do hon. members want to make out that this does not entail all kinds of consequences for him, that he is not, then, affected by the laws on property and the imposition of tax in the country and that his investment in such a leasehold agreement does not mean that he is taking a step which dissociates him even further from his link with his homeland, whatever it may be? This question of peoples being liberated is meaningless. It is meaningless in the sense that the Government uses the term.

How can you liberate a piece of land? Surely one can only liberate people?

Mr. Chairman, yes. I find it interesting that the hon. the Deputy Minister reacts to this in that way. [Interjections.] No one is arguing that a piece of land can be made independent. However, what I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister is what he has to say about the following example. There are Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners in Argentina, who went there almost 80 years ago. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister think that the right to vote in the South African political system is of any value whatsoever for those people? [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point wasted no time in renewing his efforts to sow suspicion with regard to the 99-year leasehold system. That is all hon. members of the PFP are good for. We are now getting on the same bandwagon as hon. members of the CP. They have now found kindred spirits whom they can join in attacking the NP for supposedly intending to deal with the urban Black man in future on the same basis as that on which we deal with the Coloureds.

Oh no, you are talking rubbish, man!

I am not talking to the hon. sea-lion for Barberton now. In any case, he bleats just like a sheep.

And you bleat like a goat! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point made three statements. In the first place, he contended that the various peoples were being manipulated by the NP with a view to securing a safe future for the Whites. He also discussed citizenship and disparaged it by saying that the urban Black man’s citizenship of his specific Black State meant nothing to him. In the third place he complained about the standpoint of the NP that we liberated peoples. Of course, I can reply in just one sentence to these arguments advanced by the hon. member. It is very difficult to debate with hon. members of the PFP because they deny the right to self-determination of peoples in South Africa. They are champions of a unitary state. How, then, can one conduct a debate with them?

In the few minutes at my disposal tonight I wish to dwell on the problems of Soweto. Whenever one discusses the Black man in White urban areas or anywhere else in South Africa, there is one reality which has to be faced. It is the economic interdependence of White and Black in South Africa. Therefore it is understandable that the report of the Viljoen Committee had the following to say about this problem. I should like to quote this because I believe that this is one of the most scientific and objective reports on a cardinal problem in South Africa I have come across for a long time. The Viljoen Committee puts it, inter alia, as follows—

The “permanence”—I put the word between quotation marks because this is the word used in the report of the Viljoen Committee—of the Black man in the White urban area is therefore presented as a problem and as a reality which the Government must take into account. However, before this problem can be dealt with, it must be seen against the background of a very definite standpoint on the part of the NP, viz. that solutions must be found within the framework of separate development in the field of national politics. This statement I have made is and remains a cornerstone of the NP policy, notwithstanding the sowing of suspicion and the distortions practised by the CP, who are spreading allegations to the effect that since they were sitting on this side of the House the NP has supposedly changed its mind as regards how to deal with the issue of the urban Black man. What are the essential points arising out of the report of the Viljoen Commission? In the first place, there is the factual statement which the hon. member for Houghton made in her speech here today, viz. a housing backlog in Soweto of approximately 35 000 houses which is going to grow at the rate of 4 000 houses per annum for the next five years, which means that 55 000 houses will have to be built in the next five years. This calls for land and capital at an estimated cost of approximately R800 million according to the Viljoen report. I want to say that I think this House can take it that the Government recognizes this problem as a problem that has been identified and that it will deal with it rapidly and effectively to the best of its ability. Government responsibility and Government accountability with regard to the provision of all low-cost housing is, of course, inadequate. I want to say here this evening that one of the main reasons why this backlog is building up is that funds for this purpose have simply not been available. The responsibility for the provision of housing in terms of the proposals of the report of the Viljoen Commission is analysed in three ways. Firstly, there is the necessary responsibility in regard to housing which must also be transferred to the individual in South Africa. In this regard, too, I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Ventersdorp had to say. I agree that not all Black people in South Africa ought to be subsidized with regard to housing, but only those Black people who are deserving of welfare. After all, it is a fact that due to the social and economic upliftment of the Black man in South Africa, those people also occupy positions in the economy, in industry and commerce nowadays, enabling them to earn the kind of salaries which we as Whites as well as the Coloureds earn in South Africa. One can speak to the businessman in Johannesburg or anywhere in South Africa and he will tell one that the people with the purchasing power in South Africa today are the Black people. Therefore we shall have to channel the purchasing power of these people in the right direction in a responsible way and particularly, I contend, in regard to the provision of housing for themselves. In the second place, the Viljoen Report tells us that there must also be the necessary responsibility on the part of the employer of the individual in South Africa, particularly those employers in the White urban areas of South Africa that have such a surplus of Black people in their service. We find a very interesting remark in the Viljoen report. I do not want to take up too much of the hon. members’ time in this regard, but I do just want to say that with reference to the 99-year leasehold system the following is said—

All that this Viljoen Report tells us is that if we expect the private sector to play its part in regard to the housing of its employees, then we shall also have to consider making it as attractive as possible for them to do so. In the final analysis this is of course still the responsibility of the State. What does the Viljoen Report tell us? We must involve the Black man in the housing problem we are faced with in South Africa. Then, too, there is of course the question of land. We cannot keep buying land in White urban areas to accommodate these people. In the first place, there must be better utilization of existing and available space and accommodation, for example, by building an additional one or two bedrooms per house which would already go a long way towards solving the problem in regard to accommodation. I think that consideration should be given to density housing schemes for the Black people, because the infrastructures already exist there. We cannot simply continue purchasing land and allowing these people to build houses for themselves on a single unit basis. What is important, however—and on this note I want to conclude-—is that the burden must be relieved by checking the Black influx into White urban areas in the long term. In this regard I think the official Opposition must help us. They must join us in accepting the challenges of decentralization and deconcentration, and hon. members on that side of the House must refrain from disparaging and criticizing this Government’s standpoint. They must join us in accepting this responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a rather interesting debate particularly in comparison to the debate last year. It has almost been love and kisses compared to a considerable amount of enmity. I should rather imagine that most of us would prefer this. When one listened to the hon. member Mr. Van Der Walt and the hon. member for Klip River one could almost have thought that they were members of the NRP caucus. [Interjections.] One thing that I did find very refreshing is that there is an air of realism in this department. They have moved away from pure idealism which, although it may be very laudable, has not been very practical. The realism which is evincing itself now I believe can only be of considerable benefit to the Black people in South Africa.

And to the Whites!

Well, obviously to the Whites as well. Does the hon. member mind if I make my own speech? [Interjections.] There are certain points which the Government has taken a new view on and they are in respect of consolidation and economics in the self-governing homelands. For this—we in the NRP have argued on both points for years—we are indeed most grateful.

However, there has been a considerable amount of debate on both sides of the House in respect of housing for our Black community. There is no doubt about it that we have what is commonly called the urban drift and, difficult as it has made things in the past, I can only foresee that it will be infinitely more difficult in the future. The fact is that these people want to get close to where they see the job opportunities. I know that attempts are being made to diversify industry and to create job opportunities in other areas. Unfortunately however the magnet will always be the major urban areas and therefore it is quite obvious to me that proper cognizance must be taken of that fact. If cognizance is to be taken of that fact, then housing must be provided for the Black citizens of South Africa in reasonably close proximity to the major urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, there is considerable criticism of the Government over many things. There is the criticism in regard to Langa and Nyanga and the people who were in St. George’s Cathedral. Nobody ever gives the Government credit for the great amount of terrific work they have done in this sphere. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that people will always remember the things they consider to be bad a lot longer than they will remember the good things that have been done. This is why I believe it is vitally important for the Government to give serious consideration to a fact of life, i.e. the urban drift, and to provide ways and means of resolving this problem. In the past it has generally been the policy of the Government to provide what is usually referred to as formal housing. They have to a very great extent set their faces against shack development and informal housing. Idealistically, I suppose, it may be said that they have been right in so doing, but in terms of practical reality it just has not worked. According to the figures that are available to us, as has been mentioned several times today, the backlog in Black housing at the present moment stands at something of the order of 160 000 units and the sort of money we are talking about to try to make up that backlog and to maintain the position in respect of future growth, is something in the region of R1 billion per annum which is far beyond our capacity at this stage to even hope to meet; that is, if we are talking in terms of orthodox housing. Therefore I believe that it is essential to accept the fact, as has been accepted in many countries overseas, that a certain amount of unorthodox housing is absolutely essential, regrettable as it may be. It is essential that we have unorthodox housing which may be self-help or even squatter housing. I have travelled fairly extensively in South America, North America and Europe and in most of the major cities …

Have you visited Soweto?

Yes, I have, funnily enough. Quite frankly, it is a beautiful concept.

What?

There are bad areas there certainly, but the concept is good. [Interjections.] In spite of what the hon. member for Houghton says … [Interjections.] … I wish she would keep her little black cat and broomstick somewhere else and keep out of my hair! [Interjections.] The position is that as far as I am concerned, we must accept the fact that there is a necessity for a certain amount of unorthodox housing. If we do not accept that, we will never be able to cope with the situation. The finances of the country cannot cope with it, the manpower cannot cope with it and even the production of orthodox materials cannot cope with it. Therefore it is necessary for us to give very serious consideration to the self-help and various other forms of non-formal housing. I was reading a very interesting article by Prof. David Dewar of the University of Cape Town’s Urban Problems Research Unit and he makes this very interesting comment—

This seems slick and it seems clever, but it also is very, very true. As far as I am concerned, I do believe that it is practical and possible to provide the few needs for the many. In the province of Natal, as is well-known, we have a very much larger proportion of Black people than White people. Obviously I am including the independent homeland of KwaZulu in my argument. [Interjections.] Sorry, I meant the self-governing homeland of KwaZulu. I am afraid they are not independent and I do not think they will be so voluntarily for a very long time. The position is that we do have this sort of situation where the homelands are in very, very close proximity to the major urban areas and as a consequence of this one finds that on the periphery of every major urban area there are huge developments of what one might call slums. They are for the most part either in the homelands or on land in private ownership which has been turned into shack farms. I do believe that one cannot avoid this. I believe one has to accept that it happens, but I also believe that one can accept it and control it by ensuring that the basic minimum requirements of hygiene and health are maintained. To a very large degree, where we have had some control, and that is outside the KwaZulu area, in other words, in the privately-owned land part, in the so-called White Natal, the Provincial Administration has controlled the situation. I believe it can be controlled further. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo will pardon me if I do not follow on what he and his assistant who sits in front of him have said. I want to spare myself the embarrassment. So much of what he has said I believe is true and in agreement with what I think, but I want to spare myself the embarrassment of also being invited to join his party. Unfortunately I have no authority to invite him to join my party.

This afternoon we had occasion to listen to a speech by the hon. member for Houghton that was so uncharacteristic that I was really wondering all afternoon what was wrong with her. Either her geriatrician is not achieving what he wants to or …

What?

If the hon. member does not know what the word means, she must look it up. She told me the other day to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary. Therefore she can go and look up that word as well. Either her geriatrician is not achieving what he wants to do or she has become completely irrelevant in the political situation in South Africa today. I have never heard a more negative speech from that hon. member than the one I listened to this afternoon. We are used to her criticizing, but we are also used to her putting forward positive points.

I have given up. It is a waste of time.

Not one positive thought crossed her lips this afternoon. Even if we do not agree with her, the fact is that she did not even express a single positive thought. She was full of criticism, she was negative and, unfortunately, she was also very ignorant about certain situations. She made the accusation that the annual report of the department was cluttered with what it did not say. Her speech was absolutely characterized by what she did not say. The hon. member is unaware of the fact, and by way of an interjection a moment ago this was made very clear, that last year the Act was amended by the hon. the Minister so that White people and White entrepreneurs could …

I mentioned that in my speech; you did not listen.

Will you please allow me to make my speech? I did not interrupt you when you made your speech.

You must quote me correctly.

After all, when you had the occasion to make your speech, you said nothing. So why do you want to say it now?

Obviously you did not listen to me.

The fact is that you displayed complete ignorance. In terms of the amended Act a White man or a White entrepreneur can obtain 99-year leasehold in a Black township for his workmen.

And nobody in the private sector says that it has worked. That was what I said.

That has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is that the provision is there.

I said so. It does not work.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is going to explode soon.

I am coming to you. Just you wait. I shall still deal with you.

The hon. member for Houghton said that there were no plots available in Soweto for the 99-year leasehold scheme. I just want to enlighten her in this regard. At the end of February there were 182 372 plots available for leasehold.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not require the hon. member for Houghton to assist me with my speech. Will you therefore please ask her to desist from it?

She can’t. She is like a parrot.

At the present moment there are more than 24 000 applications for leasehold sites. These are being processed and, at the end of 1981, 1 200 had already been approved.

Big deal! Twelve hundred …

Order! The hon. member for Houghton is not allowed to conduct a running commentary.

No commentary at all, Sir?

Not a running commentary.

Mr. Chairman, I do not mind if the hon. member conducts a running commentary but then it should be sensible. It must not be the rubbish which it is at the moment.

She is responding to rubbish.

The hon. member asked a question in regard to what she termed the crisis districts in the Eastern Cape. There were eight of these districts, i.e. Queenstown, Duncan Village, Grahamstown, Fort Beaufort, Stutterheim, King William’s Town, Port Elizabeth and Seymour. I shall start with Duncan Village.

The East London city council, which is a PFP controlled council, has now all of a sudden, after acting as our agents for 15 years in developing Mdantsane and disestablishing Duncan Village, decided to request the department to stop the disestablishment of Duncan Village. They have had the temerity to request that we remove all the “illegals” from that area. I did not know that the word “illegal” even existed in the PFP’s vocabulary, yet we are being requested to remove all the “illegals”, to upgrade the township and to retain the status quo. This is their attitude after 15 years of being our agent in the disestablishment of Duncan Village. Furthermore, in November last year I had a meeting with the council, and at that stage they were in full agreement with the disestablishment of Duncan Village. In the meantime, however, according to my information, the youth section of the PFP insisted that the disestablishment should be stopped immediately.

McIntosh.

I would not be surprised if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North played a part in this. [Interjections.] Now, all of a sudden, the city council of East London has decided that the disestablishment of Duncan Village should be stopped immediately. Strange as it may seem, on all the money that is being spent on the disestablishment of Duncan Village and then allocated for the establishment of houses in Mdantsane, the East London city council receives a commission of 2,5%. They did not tender their resignation as agents for this scheme. Oh no, they are continuing because they receive quite a substantial amount in commission. Last year we allocated approximately R12 million for the disestablishment of Duncan Village, and the East London city council received 2,5% of that amount. Hon. members will agree that this is quite a substantial amount. [Interjections.] In spite of this, the former mayor of East London now has the temerity to demand that I be relieved of my post. [Interjections.] That scheme has been on the go for 15 years now, so what has changed all of a sudden? They have all sorts of reasons why those people should not be established in Mdantsane. From the moment of its inception 15 years ago, Mdantsane has been part of the Ciskei homeland. It is now part of the Republic if Ciskei. So what has changed? Why do they only discover now that it would not be wise to re-establish the people in Mdantsane? That is the illogicality of the PFP.

What has that to do with the argument?

What has what to do with which argument?

What does it have to do with what I said to you?

The hon. member asked me to give her a report on what had happened to those crisis points. I am now telling her what has happened, but apparently she does not like it.

[Inaudible.]

If I were that hon. member I would not have liked it either. If my party colleagues had treated me like that, I would have told them to go to Hades! [Interjections.] I do not want to deal any further with the hon. member for Houghton.

That is a great honour.

And, for my part, a great pleasure! [Interjections.] I now want to deal with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens who made a most irresponsible speech. It is, however, the kind of speech we have come to expect from him.

That is a great compliment. I would be highly gratified if I received such a compliment.

I am not talking to that hon. member now, but I also ask him not to talk to me. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a very irresponsible speech in this House. However, this is something we have become accustomed to. He accused us of all kinds of ideological manoeuvres to keep Black people out of the Cape. I shall discuss these in greater detail presently, but I first want to tell him a few home truths.

†In regard to the squatters in the cathedral, he questioned our morality. I just want to tell him that the PFP has no monopoly on morality or Christian morality. I just want to assure him of that fact.

Your problem is that you think you have cornered the market.

That hon. member has the idea that the standpoint adopted by him and his co-religionists is the only valid one. I do not want to involve the churches in this, not at all, but there is a difference of opinion, for my church believes that the cathedral was misused and that the fast which was held there was also misused. According to our beliefs, this is not the purpose for which a fast should be used. Therefore that hon. member must not imagine that they are the only people who have an opinion on a matter and that we are obliged to accept it as being the correct opinion.

This situation has prevailed all these years, but the hon. member strongly objects to the fact that we implement certain control measures to keep Black people who are not entitled to come to this area out of the Cape. That hon. member told us a long story about one single case. He told us about a person—a section 10 case—who found it so difficult to register in a particular job situation that his employer eventually dismissed him because he felt that there was too much red tape and that the person could therefore not be employed. The hon. member is very quick to approach us with other matters. Why did he not bring that single case to our attention?

It is one of hundreds.

That hon. member knows absolutely nothing about it, so she must please keep out of the argument. I am not speaking to her. I have dealt with her.

There are hundreds of them. That is a fact.

That is not a fact.

It is a fact.

It is not a fact. Let the hon. member prove it.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. member must prove it. There are thousands upon thousands who are employed, as I shall illustrate just now. I wonder how that happened if, as the hon. member claims, there are hundreds and thousands of such cases.

… of people who have to go through that rigmarole.

It is absolutely an exaggeration. The case the hon. member quoted is an exception. I request the hon. member please in future, when cases like that arise, to bring them to our attention. Then we can judge whether his assertion that there are hundreds and thousands of such cases is true or not.

That is why I asked for the name; but he did not supply it.

Yes, he did not even know that.

We investigate each case on merit. The hon. member should know that too.

I just wish to report further about a couple of these places in the Eastern Cape I omitted to deal with.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? I used one example by way of illustration. My question was specifically whether it was not possible for Blacks in the Western Cape who qualify under sections 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) to be exempted from having to go through the Department of Manpower before they can get a job here. I am talking about the ones who qualify; not squatters or people coming from Transkei.

It is not possible for practical reasons.

Well, there you are!

We also have a responsibility towards the Coloureds living in this area who have nowhere else to go. This is a Coloured labour preferential area. That has been so and it will remain so for the future.

Hear, hear!

The Coloureds will be protected against unfair competition.

Why is it unfair?

Because we have these people coming in illegally. [Interjections.] All right, then I shall reply to the hon. member’s question regarding section 10(1). The fact is that this is a Coloured preference area. If there is no Coloured available for a particular job, a Black who is here under section 10(1)(a) or (b) can have that job. He must, however, have that certificate. What is wrong with that? The hon. members opposite are always moralizing about the Blacks, but when we moralize about the Coloureds and try to protect them from competition from outside, they cannot…

Not from outside.

Will that hon. member please let me make my speech? I want to ask the hon. member for Umbilo how he got that hon. member in front of him to be quiet, because I cannot get him to be quiet.

I sit behind him and threatened to thump him. [Interjections.]

Oh, thank you very much. The fact is that the Coloured of the Western Cape cannot go to Ciskei, Transkei or Venda to find work. He has to find work here in the Western Cape where he lives.

That is not the only place where they are.

They are in Sasolburg.

As I say, it is required, and will be required in future, for such a Black to get a certificate from the Department of Manpower stating that there is no Coloured available to do the job before he can obtain the job here. That is policy, and it is not ideology. It is for socio-economic reasons and for the protection of the Coloured people of this area.

It is blatant racism breeding revolution.

I have now let off steam and shall continue very calmly and in very simple language with the hon. member for Houghton.

Don’t bother! You are not worth listening to.

In that case I shall not reply to that hon. member any further.

You are just an embarrassment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about urbanization. I do so in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. Perhaps he would understand it better if he showed the desire to understand anything. However, if the desire is lacking, I cannot make him understand it. The fact is that, as several hon. members have already said, the urbanization of Black as well as White is an irreversible process, and there is nothing we can do about it. The Government accepts that. What is alarming, though, is that this process of urbanization is taking place on an enormous scale in the rest of Africa, and that socio-economic problems are being caused by it which are virtually insurmountable. I am referring, for example, to a place like Addis Ababa, as well as Accra, Nairobi and Blantyre, cities which already accommodate between 50% and 90% of the total populations of the countries concerned. There are no jobs for them in those cities. Even here in South Africa the situation is disquieting. 29,26% of the total Black population, as against the figure of 33,01% for 1980, finds itself in the PWV area, while the PWV area constitutes only 4% of the total area of South Africa.

†Because of the nature and the extent of this migration of Blacks from the rural to our urban areas it is inevitable that grave social and economic problems will arise in our cities and our metropolitican areas for all the established citizens, Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. Should we allow the process to continue uninhibited and uncontrolled there is ample evidence of similar problems arising in South Africa to those already existing elsewhere in the world—with frightening consequences of course.

*I believe that urbanization can in fact stimulate our economy, especially if we take cognizance of its causes. After all, the process of urbanization is a sympton of a disease which lies elsewhere. We admit that our problem actually lies in the homelands. That is where the development should really take place. Several members have said so this afternoon.

In the Cape Peninsula and surrounding areas, however, there are specific problems which make the influx to this area highly undesirable as well as dangerous for the economy of this region. I am not saying this for ideological reasons. I am saying it for purely socio-economic reasons. Over the past 20 years, the Black population of the Peninsula has increased from 85 000 to 187 000; a rate of increase of 3,9% on average, as against the 3,3% and 2,3% of the Whites and the Coloureds respectively. According to the latest available information, there are 158 602 Blacks legally present in the Cape Peninsula, as against 28 000 illegals. Those illegals are taking the work out of the hands and the food out of the mouths of Coloured people who have to work here. [Interjections.] Is this not true? [Interjections.] Whose jobs must they take over? Mine? Taking over the work of the hon. member for Green Point would not be worth anybody else’s while, in any event. [Interjections.]

Intensive investigations and calculations indicate that at a conservative natural rate of increase of 2,7%—i.e. only births and deaths—the legally present Blacks will increase to approximately 352 700 souls by the year 2010. With the presently available surface area of the Peninsula, a population of 142 000 souls can be accommodated at the moment. We shall therefore have to provide for enough land within the next 20 years to accommodate an additional Black population of between 209 000 and 357 000 by the year 2000. I believe that even the hon. member for Green Point—even he—will concede that the Government cannot create additional land, that land is a constant factor, and that it cannot be increased.

One could use land more economically, in any event.

How on earth does one use it more economically in a residential area? When that hon. member has his next turn to speak, he must tell us how land can be used more economically in establishing a Black residential area. I am not talking about a farm; I am talking about a Black residential area. [Interjections.] At the growth rate of 2,7%, at least another 2 000 ha of land, and at the growth rate of 3,9%, at least another 3 600 ha of land will be required to accommodate the projected numbers of Blacks. If this additional land cannot be obtained, it could lead to large-scale squatting merely as a result of the pressure of the population on insufficient land and the absence of the necessary infrastructures. These are the physical facts. These are the realities which we as a Government must take into consideration and which my department must bear in mind. In the short term, and in order to make up an existing back-log, it appears that there is still sufficient land to be obtained in the Umfeleni area and that it will also be possible in this way to ensure that the residential areas serving the Peninsula are more or less contiguous. Unfortunately, it will be necessary to make provision in the long term, quite possibly on the West Coast—and you know, this will have to be done to the west of Atlantis; we shall have to acquire land for these people there to house them there, and hon. members will realize what the cost of that infrastructure and the cost of transport will be. Perhaps those hon. members want us to use some of our precious agricultural land for establishing Black residential areas.

The same problem occurs where they come from.

In the Western Cape it must be accepted as a fact that the Black people are supplementary to the Coloured workers who are housed here. This applies in particular to construction and factory jobs, where heavy manual labour is involved, as well as to cold storage and harbour services. Even this has its limitations, with the result that we can only offer these people a limited number of jobs. Therefore we cannot allow an unrestricted influx of Black people, specifically to the Peninsula, because we would only be creating problems for ourselves by doing that. There are approximately 4 000 legally present registered Black work-seekers in the Cape, and more than 2 000 Coloured work-seekers. Are we to allow an uncontrolled influx of Black people to this area? No matter how much one may sympathize with them, no matter how strongly one may feel about their right to a decent living, one must first of all consider the interests of the people who are already settled here, those who have already been accommodated here, who are already employed here. We would be creating a serious situation if we were to disrupt the established Black population that is already housed and employed in this area by allowing people to come in from outside to compete with them. What do we find? What are the real facts? These people come to the Peninsula illegally and sell their labour at a much lower tariff than the established labour force in this area. The established labour force already has responsibilities, they have financial obligations. They have had houses built for them and they have certain constant financial responsibilities which have to be met every month. Therefore it would be absolutely disgraceful if we were to allow people to come in from outside and to compete with these people and to deprive them of their jobs because they are able to offer their services at lower prices than the established labour force is able to do. Dr. Smit of the HSRC says the following—

†I believe that the Government possesses the attributes enumerated above and that we will eventually prove that we are willing and, more important, able to canalize and use this apparent negative tendency of uninhibited urbanization to build South Africa economically into the economic giant it deserves to be.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister should appreciate that the urbanization problem—the hon. member Mr. Hennie van der Walt mentioned it—is inevitably going to escalate in this country and this city of Cape Town will not escape it. Not only that, but the hon. the Deputy Minister and members of this House should remember that in terms of cities world-wide, our cities in this country are very small and that within the next 25 years our cities will become blacker and blacker and blacker. It is our responsibility to give these Blacks vested interests so that they have a commitment to run the ring of decent, modern cities that are properly maintained and properly run and in this regard they must have the same socio-economic interests that everybody else has.

I want to raise a number of specific matters. The first problem I want to mention relates particularly to the Wasbank area of Natal. There is an area in Northern Natal which is knows as Drogewal where a Chief NkaBinde is the representative of the people This small Black area is completely fenced in and if it were not for the fact that a former Senator, Senator Charles Henderson, was prepared to put a fence across his land to allow these people access to their property, they would not be able to get out. I believe that on the legal principle of via necessitas that area of Drogewal should get decent access by road which should be provided by the hon. the Minister’s department.

I also want to raise the question of an area known as “Stein Coal Spruit” in Natal and Steenkoolspruit elsewhere. The title deed description of this spruit is in fact “Stein Coal”. What happened in this area? In 1978 11 188 people were moved off substantial areas of land—each one comprising several hundred morgen—owned by Black people. The squatters or tenants or whatever one wants to call them have gone. They have been moved to one of those choice places called Ekuvukeni which is enough to make your stomach turn, not once, but many times, when you visit it.

Have you visited it?

Yes I have and I want to say that the road that leads there is so bad that it bumps you awake on your way there and on your way back. These farms have now been cleared of people and they are in fact once again becoming very good and pleasant rural areas. These farms are allegedly situated over coal deposits. The adjoining colliery at Platberg has drilled holes on those properties and one of the farms has a large coal dump on it. They sold the mineral rights to the old Natal Steam Coal Company. Recently a White farmer in the vicinity sold a coal dump from an old coal mine for a quarter of a million rand. In 1979 the department wrote to one of the owners to say that it had obtained expert advice on the mineral rights from which it appeared that the coal deposits were of such poor quality that they had practically no economic value. I believe—particularly in view of the views expressed by the hon. member for Klip River—that the department should investigate this again because it would appear from the advice of neighbouring White farmers and the fact that the Platberg colliery was prepared to drill holes and was prepared to pay the owners of this land to mine there until the Government started clearing the people off and slapped expropriation orders on them, that those coal deposits could be more valuable than at first estimated. The coal company was prepared to pay for those rights, and I believe that if the hon. the Minister was prepared to pay them a decent compensation for their mineral and coal rights, it would enable the land-owners to gain more than sufficient capital to develop their farms in accordance with proper farming techniques. I may say that I do not believe that those coal rights are not worth anything, neither do any of the local White people in the district, who know a lot about the coal rights in that area. I believe that the hon. the Minister should investigate this position because a gross injustice will be done if these people are not properly compensated.

Mr. Chairman, the same query arises in regard to two area in Northern Natal known as Hlatikulu and Thelapi, which are near these particular areas. There is an interesting report on the history of this area, and I am quite happy to let the hon. the Minister have a copy if it would assist him and his department. I believe that these people have a case for very substantial compensation on the basis of their coal rights, and a gross injustice would be done if they did not receive that.

Mr. Chairman, a theme of this debate this afternoon has been the question of orderly urbanization. I must say that I found it a most refreshing debate, because for once we in this House are debating what I believe are the real issues. The hon. member for Klip River and the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to these issues.

*Mr. Chairman, we are now talking about orderly urbanization. What is happening in Natal? I only want to talk about Natal now. Most of the Blacks are moving away from the farms. If we had more time, we could have talked about these people. There are nearly 4 million of them. Where can they go to? If the policy of orderly urbanization is applied, it may afford them a way out, but in the main the Black man is trapped on a farm. At the moment he cannot go to the cities; where then, can he go? In Natal he moves to the squatter towns to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred, which in Natal are adjacent to White urban areas, in trust areas or in homeland areas. There they squat on “shack farms”, as they are known in Natal. Otherwise they go to the so-called Black spots, because there they can find accommodation or at least build a home of their own. The people in the homelands are moving to the metropolitan areas. The result is that we in Natal are in fact subsidizing the Witwatersrand. I believe that in this regard the hon. the Minister could make a suggestion to the hon. the Prime Minister’s office, namely that if he really wants to levy a tax on the metropolitan areas, he should tell those people that they must provide decent family housing to the people who go to work there. What is happening at the moment is that these people move to the cities and obtain work there. For the industrialists there, this is nice and cheap, because it is much cheaper to provide housing for one person than for his whole family. We in Natal, on our farms, but especially in the Black homeland areas, are then saddled with the families, and in fact, what this amounts to is subsidization of the metropolitan areas.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Black spots can be retained. They can be urbanization spots which, in my view, could be of great assistance. In this regard I wish to associate myself here with the hon. member for Klip River. I think he made a very interesting and constructive contribution. Some of these areas are not well situated for those purposes. For example, they are far removed from the industrial areas, but in his constituency and in the Ladysmith district there are places which are already owned by Blacks and which, as Black spots, are situated just as far from Ladysmith itself, with bus services, roads, etc. which can serve them. However, if such places are accepted as being permanent, money must be pumped into them. They must be properly planned. For example, a water supply and basic health services must be provided. Many of them can also be retained as agricultural areas. In this regard I wish to tell the hon. member for Klip River something. I happen to live in his constituency, and I want to say that we are going to have a problem in Northern Natal, because there are large Black spots there from which people do not want to move, while on the other hand the farmers’ association is exerting pressure for them to be removed. I want to suggest that if the department can come to light with sound development proposals and if the farmers’ associations, together with the leaders of those Black spots, can come together—and there are some competent, well-educated and articulate people who are leaders in those Black communities—and thrash out their problems, it would be a good thing. However, by merely moving people we shall be heading for confrontation in Natal. For this reason I want to ask this House to avoid that kind of solution. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one has no objection to a debate being conducted about orderly urbanization, because I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who does not realize that this is one of the greatest problems facing South Africa at present, and that it will become an even greater problem in the future. A great many figures have been quoted in this debate to show what the situation can and will be, but what I find very interesting are the figures given by Prof. Jan Lombard, Prof. Stadler and Prof. Steyn in Focus a while ago in substantiating the statement that Black urbanization is expected to accelerate over the next few decades. They are the following figures—

There is therefore a tremendous task awaiting us and future Governments in South Africa, which I am sure will be National Governments. They have a tremendous obligation and responsibility. That is why one finds it so surprising that we do not get more support from the Opposition for the idea of decentralization and deconcentration. One would think that the hon. members who know about this situation and who take cognizance of the figures would realize that the development in a place like Soweto, for example, cannot be accepted indefinitely. The same applies to many other White cities and areas. We in South Africa must learn from the experience of other countries in the world that already have high concentrations of people and today have problems with housing and transport as well as social problems. That is why the approach of deconcentration and decentralization is one on which, as the hon. the Prime Minister also had occasion to say, one would expect unanimity and support from the side of the official Opposition. It is gratifying at least, that someone like Chief Minister Buthelezi could say the following at Ulundi according to The Cape Times of 2 April—

Surely this is a matter on which there should not be any disagreement in this House. The hon. member who spoke before me said “the hon. the Minister must remember that our cities will become Blacker and Blacker.” Of course there is a great element of truth in what the hon. member said. This situation cannot be avoided, but can to a great extent at least be channelled in the right direction, and under these circumstances I do feel that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development should have the support of the Opposition.

In this debate I have thus far seen more realism on the side of the official Opposition than in the past. In the past we were treated to a repetition of the argument that we must not fragment South Africa. The only hon. members who again maintained that we should not create separate nations were the hon. member prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Green Point. They still cannot understand why we must think of creating separate nations in South Africa. I wonder which country those two hon. members are living in. For decades we have been creating a certain pattern in South Africa, namely the creation of separate independent States, and we are following this pattern precisely in order to avoid a situation in which one nation can be dominated by another. In our opinion, Black domination is just as undesirable as White domination. Apparently those hon. members would like to return to a time when it was accepted that everyone in South Africa could be thrown into one political cauldron and that this would lead to peace and prosperity. The sooner the hon. gentlemen get away from that idea and accept that the creation of separate States is here to stay, and the sooner they realize that they should rather help us to make a success of this, the sooner race relations in South Africa will improve. However, I assure them that we shall achieve these goals in spite of their behaviour, because their party will never come into power in any case. [Interjections.] The official Opposition will not be able to apply their policy in South Africa. After all, in The Cape Times of 10 February 1981, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said—

If the official Opposition “still have a role to play, but they can never win an election in South Africa”, they must change their strategy completely. At one stage today I gained the impression that the hon. member for Houghton was in fact gradually changing her attitude, but I was wrong. [Interjections.]

In the past we were constantly told that because there is economic integration and interdependence, there must be political integration as well. In addition it was said that influx control must be abolished. These were the arguments usually raised by the hon. members on that side of the House. Thus far they have not said much about this, however, and I am glad. They regularly say that the Group Areas Act must be abolished and all facilities in South Africa must be shared. However, we have had very little of the Prog approach in this debate. If this indicates a change in the strategy or approach of the official Opposition, we welcome it, but this would not seem to be the case. We are glad that those hon. members raised the housing problem. No one has any objection to that, because it is a tremendous problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Kuilen must not take it amiss of me if I do not react in detail to his comments, for on certain matters we are not opposed to each other. It is enjoyable to speak after an hon. member who is not an Opposition member.

I should like to say a few words about the housing problem; the township development and the urbanization of Black people. I think we must accept that the process of urbanization of Black people in South Africa has not been completed, but that we have now reached the stage where the urbanization process is accelerating, in comparison with the situation up to now. When I speak of urbanization, I do not only mean the urbanization of Black people within the White area, but also the urbanization of Black people within the national States and the independent States.

That is where the solution lies.

I think we as the White Parliament exercised a tremendous influence over the Black people within the national States and the independent States, to regulate and expedite the urbanization process of the Black people. It is not only a question of obtaining land for relevant agricultural development, but also of using the total saving associated with urbanization to the advantage of the people concerned. It is absolutely essential that this structuring should also take place within the Black States.

On one aspect of the urbanization process I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member for Umbilo said. Bearing in mind the amount of housing we need, we must consider informal assistance. We must not be indifferent to this situation. We cannot make formal assistance available to the Black people throughout the RSA. That is absolutely impossible. We do not have that kind of money, the country does not have that kind of money, and we cannot expect that kind of money to be spent while people are quite satisfied to serve their own interests on a self-help basis. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion in South Africa on this approach any more, but at the same time I must say that we cannot adopt this approach and then simply accept a laissez-faire attitude in connection with housing. When I speak of a laissez-faire situation, I am referring to the possibility of squatting, which causes us tremendous socio-economic problems. When we have reached consensus and are able to work together to deal with the housing situation in an informal way, we must also reach a consensus and co-operate to prevent squatting. It is absolutely essential that we achieve this goal.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development has kept up with its work on the final reports for consolidation and intends to submit them to the Cabinet by June or July. Personally I do not know what the Cabinet is going to do with those reports, but I shall be extremely glad once I have got rid of them and handed them over to the Cabinet. Then the Cabinet can deal with this matter further. However, I think it is essential that we tell each other that we should like to have this matter finalized.

These are not the only matters the commission wants to complete. It has also been decided that, together with the final consolidation proposals, the commission will also make proposals with regard to the financing of development and consolidation within the Black States and the entire consolidation programme. We must give an indication of what this will cost us and we draw up a programme so that we shall know exactly how we are to deal with these matters. Having said this I want to make an appeal in this House this evening—and this applies to all political parties in South Africa. We must not differ in the party-political field on this aspect. The fact of the matter is that we cannot undertake the planning and development of the Black States properly if we do not know where the boundaries are. We must therefore complete consolidation. We cannot in any way reassure Whites and Blacks in this country if we cannot draw up a programme. That is why I want to ask that this department, or whichever department is going to be involved—I shall speak about coordination of development in a moment—be provided with a specific fund so that we shall know we have R500 million or R600 million annually with which we can undertake this matter. In this way we will be able to undertake and deal with the programme. All the parties in the House of Assembly must help us to bring about this situation.

Hear, hear!

I am glad the CP agrees. I am not worried about them. I am worried about the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He must help us in this process.

You should also be concerned about the Minister.

The basic acceptance of the standpoints and the programme in respect of regional economic development makes it equally acceptable for that party to help us have those standpoints adopted. Once we have got that far it will also help us to obtain those funds.

If we consider the situation there is one thing we must guard against; we must not allow the situation to develop within the Black States, in Black residential areas in the RSA or in White South Africa that the tendency in Africa, and particularly the Third World tendency of Africa, takes over and forces the First World tendency towards a sort of happy medium. We cannot afford this—I am not saying this because we want to be selfish. However, if this situation arises, we are going to cause the tremendous problem of unemployment among the Black people to become acute.

It is not possible to deal with these matters if one does not have a programme according to which one can work. When we put it like that, I know that the people who usually work with budgets, the financiers, will say that this is not a good way of drawing up a budget with a specific amount of money earmarked for use for a specific aim. However, I think there are examples in South Africa of specific amounts of money earmarked for a specific aim. Allow me to furnish an example. We have always had a levy on the fuel conveyed by pipeline in order to pay the costs of that pipeline. This is a specific levy which was imposed and we introduced it in our budget. When we discuss expenditure of these funds on the development of Blacks inside and outside the Black States, all the people of South Africa must stop saying that the NP Government only does things for the Blacks. This is not true. The Government is in fact doing these things for everyone in South Africa, and not only for the Black people in South Africa. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will agree with me in this respect. He cannot disagree with me. However, hon. members in this House must help the Government to break down and destroy this illusion, this caricature of the NP and of the Government, a chimera created by so many people, otherwise we have no chance to get into our stride with this major task we must in reality carry out in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Pietersburg addressed a plea to the hon. the Minister here, requesting that certain pieces of land which were earmarked for rezoning into White land in 1975, should now be finally rezoned.

In the Kuruman area as well there are two such pieces of land; one piece of land to the south of the tarred road between Kuruman and Vryburg, and the other to the south of the tarred road between Kuruman and Hotazel. In the 1975 consolidation legislation both those pieces of land were earmarked for rezoning as White areas. This is specified in the Act. These are parts of Bophuthatswana that have to be returned to the Republic of South Africa. At that stage the piece of land to the south of the tarred road between Kuruman and Hotazel was completely unoccupied. At the time not a single Black person was living on that land. Today a large number of Black people are living on that land.

Who was the MP?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodeplaat can make as much noise as he likes on the opposite side. They are also welcome to make the allegation that no objection to the occupation of that land by Black people was ever lodged. However, I can prove that year after year since that time I devoted myself with zeal to this matter. I did so while I was still sitting on the Government side. I made it my task to ensure that this land was given to the Whites, who, over the years, had to cede 633 000 morgen of land to Bophuthatswana. Year after year I had talks and wrote letters in regard to this matter. I pleaded incessantly for this to be done, but was unable to succeed in any respect. Since I am now sitting in the Opposition benches, I wish to address a plea to the hon. the Minister once again this evening and request him to help us to acquire that land now, after seven years.

Bophuthatswana has not been independent for seven years.

In any event, it has been seven years since the legislation pertaining to consolidation was passed. [Interjections.]

I wish to congratulate the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt on the very constructive speech which he made here. I want to give him the assurance that we in this party will support him …

For how long?

As long as he remains on the right road.

The hon. member for Turffontein reacted earlier to an interjection made here by the hon. member for Barberton by referring to the hon. Sea lion from Barberton. All I can say is that he reminds me of the old song about the tykes (brakke) from Turffontein. [Interjections.]

I wish to emphasize that we shall give strong support to the ideas expressed by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, namely that there should be a development plan for the national States, and that a fund should also be available for the development of those States. I believe that the greatest task of this Government is the creation of employment opportunities and the development of the Black States, in order to establish the Black people as effectively as possible in their own fatherlands. Employment opportunities should be created for them within their fatherlands, so that they can live with their families in their own homes in their own fatherlands. This is the greatest task of this Government, and we in the CP shall support Mr. Van der Walt most strongly in his pleas for this to be accomplished.

During the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister last year I pleaded for the next Iscor to be established in Bophuthatswana. Instead of thousands of Black people having to be brought daily across the borders into the White area, possibly even as far as Saldanha Bay, to work there, development of this nature should rather take place within the national States, so that Whites, even those from the Kuruman district, are able to work in Bophuthatswana instead of the other way round.

Are you really serious?

Do you really want that?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodeplaat is so accustomed to working with the HNP that he is inclined to think that we are on the same road. I want to put it to him that we are in favour of large-scale development within and around the Black fatherlands in order to create employment opportunities for those people there, rather than to allow the Black people to stream to the White urban areas in their thousands.

Yes, that is quite correct.

The policy of the CP in these matters is that the maximum economic development must serve as a basis for the maximum establishment of citizens within their own States. A balance must also be struck between the development of the national States and the development of their citizens within the White area. Influx control must be applied effectively.

That is correct.

Since I am dealing with this subject, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vasco on his appointment to the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

What about Louis Nel? Do you congratulate him as well?

No, we sympathize with the Government as far as that appointment is concerned. [Interjections.]

In the Cape we have helped to lead three nations to independence: The Xhosa of Transkei, the Xhosa of the Ciskei and the people of Bophuthatswana, a large part of which is situated within the Cape Province. I am grateful to observe that two hon. members who represent constituencies in the Cape Peninsula have been appointed to the commission, viz. the hon. members for Vasco and Bellville. The hon. member for Newtown Park is not here this evening. I think he went to try to stop the influx of the conservatives to Port Elizabeth.

He is in hospital.

I apologize; I was not aware that the hon. member was in hospital. What I said, was nevertheless said in an amiable spirit. In his absence we wish the hon. member good fortune and hope that he will soon recover.

This evening the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation quoted figures which I found disturbing. He said that there were 28 000 Blacks in the Cape Peninsula, who were here illegally. I know that, a few years ago, the hon. member for Tygervallei and the former member for False Bay launched a major campaign against the influx of Blacks to the Cape Peninsula. I agree with the hon. the Minister that they are depriving the Coloured people and those Blacks who are legally here of their employment. I should like to quote what Mr. F. H. Botha of 20 Manatoka Road, Thornton, has to say. I think he was formerly the Chief Commissioner for Co-operation and Development in this area. He said—

I think those avalanches have already occurred. I am grateful to hear that the hon. the Deputy Minister adopted a strong standpoint against influx into this area, but I am afraid that the avalanche has already occurred. A large number of the 28 000 Blacks who are illegally here, find themselves in Crossroads. As long ago as 1979, representations were made for these people to be resettled in their own fatherland, and now I wish to ask the hon. the Minister how many of them were resettled in their own father-land.

None.

But surely I said in a reply to a question yesterday that the number exceeded 2 000.

Mr. Botha writes as follows in his letter—he writes with great conviction, and it seems to me he is very concerned about the situation in the Cape Peninsula—

He also writes—

Here he is of course referring to the official Opposition—

Then he says, and he knows the situation in the Cape Peninsula very well—

This is what I should like to say to the hon. the Minister—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister not only to try to stop the influx to the city, but also to try to reverse it in order to allow development to take place within the Black father-lands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this late hour this evening I should very much like to make a few observations in regard to a constellation in Southern Africa and I should also like to express a few ideas on the envisaged confederation. In the short time at my disposal I wish to focus on the progress which has been made in this connection and I also wish to refer to certain matters, certain realities which we must face up to and which we cannot escape.

I wish to begin by stating that in regard to the wellbeing of Southern Africa there are a few unacceptable situations, aspects and facts. They are unacceptable if we wish to achieve our ultimate goal, viz. a constellation which will lead to a confederation. The point I want to make is that it is unacceptable—and the Government is working hard on this with its programme and its policy—that a White minority should be in control of the political power in South Africa. Furthermore, it is unacceptable that a White minority should be in control of the overall ecnomy in South Africa. In our situation it is also unacceptable that there should be disproportionate urban and rural development. It is completely unacceptable that large-scale migration from the national States and semi-independent States to the metropolitan areas should continue.

What we cannot afford—and the Government is working very hard on this—is that there should be a growing feeling of discontent among the largest sector of the Black population outside the national States because they have no economic, social or development prospects for their future. I am saying these things because we in South Africa have to contend with tremendous forces which are being harnessed against us. It is a fact that unprecedented international pressure is being exerted on South Africa. Moreover, it is a fact that the whole of Africa, by means of all the instruments which they have at their disposal, such as the OAU and membership of the UN and all its satellites, is trying to maintain the pressure on South Africa at as high a level as possible. We must also bear in mind that, as far as the major world powers are concerned, South Africa is a kind of sponge in the struggle between East and West which these powers are trying to wring out as quickly as they can.

Certain moves are being made of which we must take cognizance. We must face up to the realities. Moreover, we must take cognizance of the fact—and this is consequently the policy of this Government—that blatant racism, or “vertical White imperialism”, as an hon. member called it in the past, is just no longer acceptable, not only in the rest of the world, but in South Africa, too. In other words, imperialism, colonialism and everything remotely resembling these things, is like quicksand from which we shall not be able to escape once we find ourselves in it.

On the basis of these few introductory statements, I wish to arrive at the conclusion that exclusive White domination over a Black majority, in whatever form, is unacceptable and the Government is working on a policy which will make such a situation totally impossible.

Next I wish to make a few statements which may perhaps be commonplace, but of which we must nevertheless take cognizance when we discuss our objectives in regard to a constellation of States and a confederation. In the first place the success of Western civilization was built on two pillars. The one was that of democracy and the other the free market mechanism. We know that the alternative is communism, which rejects both these concepts. Wherever we go, we must convey this message with everything as strongly as we can. We are engaged in a conflict with the Marxist dogma because the Marxist dogma in essence is engaged in a conflict with the free market economy and with democracy. We consider ourselves to be part of the free Western world because we are trying to implement these two principles to which I have just referred. From this flows the ideal of the Government to cause the same concepts of a free market economy and of a democracy to be realized within a specific order and framework in Southern Africa. This means that there must be steadily improving relations with all the States around South Africa in order to achieve these objectives, because our common enemy in Southern Africa continues to be Marxism. The objective is to maintain stability in Southern Africa, and if we succeed and we devote ourselves with determination to this ideal, we can solve the elementary problems of Southern Africa. But in order to achieve this, we need all the strength, support and energies of all the participating States. Against this background the objective is the establishment of a constellation—I do not wish to spell out again what it is; it has been referred to repeatedly in this debate—which will ultimately lead to a confederation.

The method chosen by the hon. the Prime Minister to set these things in motion, was the Carlton conference and the Good Hope conference, with the object of getting the Government and the private sector to co-operate on this ideal, because the Government, economically speaking, is not capable of realizing this objective on its own.

We are faced with numerous challenges in Southern Africa, but we can accomplish our ideals very easily if only we have the right attitude and approach. If the right attitude prevails among the participating States, we shall be able to utilize the means, skills and infrastructures we have at our disposal, the agreements which have been entered into and the secretariats which have been created, to achieve our ideals, and we have already made a great deal of progress towards this goal.

I want to conclude by saying that there are various aspects which we must bear in mind. Firstly I want to say that the creation of separate States, in the case of the Black National States, remains a priority of the Government. A second reality which we have to face up to, is that of a confederation in which joint determination must become a political reality. The third aspect is the question of a confederal Council of States which conveys resolutions to the constituent State Governments. We must face up to these realities. An economic reality from which there is no escape is the question of the interdependence of the various economies and the massive training programme which is required to keep the economy growing at a rate of 4% or 5% per annum, with a growth rate in the labour market which may not fall below 3% per annum. The economic and political implications of joint determination are becoming just as important to us in South Africa as self-determination. If we bear these few aspects in mind, I think we shall succeed in our great ideal.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the spirit in which this debate has been conducted so far. The debate has been described by the hon. members opposite, by the NRP, for example, as “an interesting debate”. They speak of “an air of realism in the Department of Co-operation and Development”. I greatly appreciated the words of the hon. member for Umbilo, who summed up the situation in this way. On the PFP side, it was said that the theme of orderly urbanization was “most refreshing”. This we heard from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member Prof. Olivier saw the debate as being indicative of a new spirit which had emerged in this House, and also said that the discussion was one of realism. I greatly appreciated that, coming as it did from the official Opposition. “There are signs of a greater realism than in previous debates,” the hon. member for De Kuilen said. Accordingly, positive proposals have been made by all sides in this House today, and we shall give them all the attention they deserve. I am grateful for this spirit, especially because matters were different last year. I still remember last year’s debates and I still remember that I personally felt deeply unhappy about the acrimonious spirit which prevailed then, especially during the discussion of this Vote, and not only during the discussion of this Vote, but in the House in general. I still remember that towards the end of the second session last year, an hon. member of the official Opposition made the appeal that when we parted at the end of the session, we should come to our senses during the Christmas season and should come back in a different frame of mind, etc. As an older member of this House I should like to mention this; one is grateful for it. I hope the spirit of the debate will remain at this level.

Now I wish to make a few general remarks. I have always regarded Arnold Toynbee as one of the great historians of this century. He was 80 years old when, after mature reflection, he wrote in an excellent article on what is now Zimbabwe and on Southern Africa—

He was referring to the Third World and the First World, the problems involved in this matter, which have also been strongly emphasized by this side of the House today, and this was the conclusion to which he came. If there is any element of truth in Toynbee’s analysis, it behoves us in this highest Chamber to promote this kind of spirit, for which the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt in particular made a very fine and eloquent plea here today. Surely there are matters, especially when we are dealing with this whole question of White/Black relations, where we should reach across the dividing lines of politics and try to take one another by the hand and to find solutions to the most complicated human problems to be found anywhere in the world today, for South Africa is a microcosm of the whole world situation. Hon. members have only to read Toynbee and others to realize this for themselves. I do not want to deal with this now. I shall come back to it tomorrow. For that reason, however, there is no room here for general statements about hatred, racism and unchristian conduct. I do not believe that there is a single hon. member who is motivated by feelings of that nature, and I believe that such allegations should not be made in this House. One hon. member in particular was guilty of making allegations of this nature, and I shall take him to task tomorrow. I should like to convince him that we must be careful in these matters in South Africa. I do not wish to sermonize; that I leave to the clergy. Since I was appointed to this post, however, I have always regarded it as an extremely responsible task, and I have always approached it in that spirit. I hope that is clear. In my first speech after being appointed to this post I said that it would be my endeavour to build up good relations between White and Black and between Black and White in South Africa to the best of my humble ability, to bring about a better understanding and, if possible, co-operation between White and Black.

I have much to be grateful for, and not only what I have experienced in this House today. Hon. members will agree with me, after all, that in spite of a great deal of pressure and many enemies, there is at present a better relationship between White and Black and between Black and White in South Africa. There is also an understanding for one another’s diversity. After all, there is a diversity of peoples in our country, and that is precisely why South Africa is such a rich country. Therefore this diversity must not be denounced as racist, for in it lies immeasurable strength. Anyone who denies that diversity in desire, thought or word is not being realistic. However, the man who calls it racist and who tries to exploit it in all kinds of base and sordid ways is not only being unrealistic, but absolutely unreasonable as well, and does not deserve a seat in this highest Chamber in the country. If we want to have greater understanding for one another and if we really wish to strive for better relations, surely we must begin with ourselves, in our own homes and in this House, for what is said here is recorded in Hansard, after all, and is spread throughout the country.

I have always believed that the one key which has to serve as the solution to our complicated problems, and which will ensure a future for our children and those of all the peoples in this country, lies in our attitude. Life has taught me that through co-operation, solutions can be found to the most intractable problems. Without co-operation and understanding it is not possible to solve the simplest problems.

I often talk to the Black people, and whether I am talking to the younger or to the older generation, I almost always make the same appeal to them. I say to them, among other things, that they do not know the White people, and that that is one of the problems. In this connection the Black people actually have a very commendable approach. To them, a stranger is a friend they do not know. The same ought to apply to the Blacks and the Whites. We are strangers to many of them, while in reality we are friends they do not know. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that there are many Black people whom we do not know, who are strangers to us, while in actual fact they are friends we do not know.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.