announced that in terms of Rule 23 (4) he had referred the following draft Bill which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

announced—

1. (1) that the following draft Bill had been submitted to him:
   Rand Afrikaans University (Private) Amendment Bill, submitted by Dr P J Welgemoed;
2. (2) that the Bill was accompanied by a certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly; and
3. (3) 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, and had accordingly in terms of Standing Order 51 (3) referred the Bill to the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills.

Order! The hon the Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services has requested an opportunity to make a brief statement. I now afford him that opportunity.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity. I should like to make the following very brief announcement.

This morning the Cabinet granted the request of the Board of the SABC that television licence fees be increased by R12 from 1 October 1987, that is to say, from R60 to R72 per annum. [Interjections.] The tariff for concessionary licences remains unchanged at R24 per annum. [Interjections.]

A full press statement will be released immediately.

“Stem Nasionaal en betaal”! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I read the annual report of this department as well as the other documents made available to us with great interest. The course the debate has taken thus far has been interesting precisely because there has been a great deal of talk about money that is being made available for the purposes of this department’s function of providing the Black population with education.

It is true that apart from a few exceptions, it appeared that the sum of money that was being allocated now would serve as the norm by which we would have to measure the quality and accessibility of the education that is being made available. Everyone involved in education knows very well that money is only one of the norms, and then of course only as a condition for the provision of good services in education. I believe that what goes on in the classroom itself should also receive some attention. I believe it is necessary, when we pay attention to the functions of a department, and also in a Vote such as this one, one should consider how that money is being spent and what it is needed for. In addition one should consider whether that money is being utilised effectively.

As a former teacher I have had experience of teaching and know what goes on in a classroom, just as all the other hon members know. I can imagine that if I had had a different cultural environment during my childhood, I might also have picked up a stone and thrown it at the school. In fact, many of the things I learned were quite unnecessary to me at that stage. In the Transvaal, where I grew up, I did not even think it necessary to learn anything about the Cape! [Interjections.] That kind of knowledge becomes quite useful to one eventually, however. In saying this I do not want to advocate that in introducing a renewal, we should return to the old ways and simply do what the child is interested in, and merely satisfy his interests. On the contrary, with the wisdom of age, I believe that at a university, for example, mathematics and philosophy should be compulsory courses for all students. I also believe that Latin should be taught at high school and so on. I do not want to prejudice those people who draw up the curricula, however, because these are really just my personal preferences.

Nevertheless it is a fact that in a very dull kind of total curriculum, we can offer the child something that will stimulate his interest and make education meaningful to him. I found in this annual report that, with the limited means at its disposal, this department has introduced a renewal of which the other education departments should take cognisance. The advantage of this is that the children who ultimately have a share in this model at least in the final stages of their education, leave school with a marketable knowledge.

South African schools traditionally place the emphasis mainly on academic tuition, and this is also reflected in the tertiary sector in which there is a complete dominance of academic training over technical training. The White universities, for example, accommodate 31% of the available students who leave school, whereas the comparable figure in the developed countries is 18%. The ratio between university students and technikon students among the Whites is more or less 4,5:1 in favour of the universities, whereas in the developed countries it is actually 3:1 in favour of technikons.

Of course this situation is precisely the same—in fact, even worse—in Black education where I think there is only one technikon, but a whole number of universities. Of course, to a very great extent this culture is kept alive by the kind of tuition that is provided.

I should like to explain this career model briefly, even if I do not want to give a lecture on how it works. In the first phase, that is from substandard A or grade 1, the children begin with the formation stage, as it is called, where the emphasis is on the basic technical facets. Attention is really given to manual dexterity, to teach children to master certain basic techniques. This is the objective of this phase which continues up to std 5. Each of those children is provided with a package, for example a plastic bag which contains an instruction which has been properly explained, as well as the necessary materials with which to build a model. The different stages of this phase become more involved as the child progresses. These instructions are given not only by means of illustrations, but also by means of oral instructions.

The second phase, the exploration phase, includes std 6 and 7. Whether or not the children want to take part in this phase depends on their interest and ability, and they are not forced to take this subject after std 5. In this phase the children become familiar with real career activities or trades, as it were. What is important here, therefore, is to familiarise the child with what he could do with the acquired skills that are now at his disposal. A period is used to discuss the different facets of the building industry, for example, the work that electricians do, and so on. This course will be extended in due course to include things such as paramedics and agriculture inter alia.

In std 8 the child enters a phase of specialisation in which he is given accredited training— that is training which is recognised by the professional world—in a certain career or trade of his choosing. This means that he would be able to obtain a matriculation exemption certificate on completion of his school career. It also means that he would be able to go to a technikon, and it brings him to a point at which he can leave school with a marketable skill which will allow him to occupy a useful position in society. Having done this, at least he will feel his school education was not in vain and not only an academic education.

This kind of training has many advantages. In the first place it makes the whole education process a meaningful activity for the individual child. He feels he is doing something in which he not only sees a visible result, but in which the visible results show him to what extent he is succeeding. Naturally this means a great deal for the child’s self-image. In addition this kind of training has incidental advantages. These include, for example, his acquiring language proficiency and vocabulary, as well as familiarising him with a language other than his own. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Walmer will forgive me for not reacting to his speech at this stage.

I should like to refer briefly to the rapidly accelerating process of politicizing which is taking place in our Black schools and to some of the reasons for this. One of the reasons, of course, is that Bantu education, and the way in which it was implemented for decades, was rightly regarded as inferior education. Secondly, there is the fact that even after discussions with the authorities extending over many years, the students’ parents have not been able to obtain equal rights. The third reason is the fact that the NP Government has in fact banned or locked up virtually all Black leaders and political organisations and has been and is still actively frustrating all their activities. The result is that Black school students rightly feel that if no one else in their community is able to fight on their behalf for equal rights, they will have to shoulder this task themselves. The way in which this Government has been reacting to this since 1976 by using the security forces in our schools in order to frustrate the political aspirations of Black students is one of the main reasons for the politicizing of Black students and for the unrest in the schools today.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

A massive repression of the political aspirations of our Black school students has been and is still taking place right now here in Cape Town and elsewhere in South Africa.

The hon the Minister knows very well how sensitive and how delicate the school situation is at the moment. I believe he will therefore have to become involved personally in the way the security forces act against students and teachers at Black schools if he wants to normalise these schools and maintain the very brittle peace which exists in these schools at the moment.

Sir, allow me to illustrate this: Recently a group of 30 “kitskonstabels” entered the grounds of the I D Makize School in Guguletu after a few students, who were standing outside, had made some disparaging remarks about a group of “kitskonstabels” who were walking past the school. Without first making an attempt to see the principal of the school or any of the teachers or to act against the specific students who had made the comments, the 30 “kitskonstabels” merely charged into the school grounds and into the classrooms where the students were being taught. They attacked the entire school, the entire student population of that school, whether they were guilty or not.

These “kitskonstabels” used their shotguns and their batons to beat up students indiscriminately inside and outside their classrooms. They dragged at least one female student from a classroom and then beat her up outside. They used their boots to kick female students who had already been assaulted and who were lying on the ground. Then, when teachers at the school tried to intervene to restore calm and to try to protect students, they were threatened by the same policemen. They were accused of instigating anti-“kitskonstabel” sentiments.

Those are facts which have been verified repeatedly.

The result of this brutal, indefensible act of barbarism, as I call it, is that the student and teacher community are now even more politicised, and the community has now been pushed even further on the road towards justifying and condoning the use of counterviolence against the Government which uses such despicable methods against its young people.

These brutal actions against young Blacks are, I believe, kindling the flames of hatred and revenge in the hearts of hundreds of young Black South Africans, something which I do not believe the hon the Minister would like to see. [Interjections.] Unless the hon the Minister takes immediate action and succeeds in convincing his colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, to keep these provocative policemen off school grounds, more and more of these youngsters will do what Ashley Kriel from Cape Town did, namely to leave South Africa and go away to train as a guerrilla to come back to take revenge. That is the direct result of the sort of activity which is being allowed by the hon the Minister of Law and Order. The blame for this action does not primarily lie with this person; it lies with the Government and the system which purposefully brutalises peace-loving South Africans in this country of ours.

Mr Chairman, while preparing my speech on the subject of education in farming areas, and also while listening to the debate so far, a poem I remember from my school days, Horatius, by Lord Macaulay came to mind, especially his immortal words describing the circumstances when it dawned upon Horatius what a tremendous, almost inhuman task he had to perform, in that he had to defend the narrow entrance to the bridge over the Tiber against the oncoming foe while his fellow men were chopping down the bridge.

I quote as follows:

*This afternoon I cannot but refer to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and their officials as modern incarnations of Horatius. With my little experience, also as the director of a farm school for many years, I want to convey my special thanks and appreciation towards Dr Dirk Meyer, an old and valued friend from my youth, for the beautiful report he and his task group have produced. I want to offer him my sincere congratulations and assure him that …

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

Yes.

Mr Chairman, I was wondering whether the bridge referred to was over the Rubicon! [Interjections.]

These present-day incarnations of Horatius are not only guarding strongholds that are difficult to defend; they are also chopping down bridges—bridges to a past of an inferior dispensation, bridges to prejudice, politicisation and in some cases, even radicalisation. Various examples of this have already been mentioned today. The hon member for Lichtenburg referred to this on the one hand, and on the other also demonstrated it. The same applies for the hon member for Claremont.

On the other hand, these incarnations of Horatius are building bridges to a new dispensation of acceptance over the ruins, not only the ruins of schools that have been burnt down, but also the ruins of human relations that have been reduced to ashes.

In the meantime, while they are engaged in this process, wave upon wave of the enemy are still approaching the walls of the city. I want to refer hon members to some of these enemies.

Firstly, there is the high growth rate in the rural areas and in opposition to that also the greatest potential for depopulation. They have a parent body which is trapped in a low economic standard of living and which often lives under poor social conditions. Many of them are illiterate and are therefore not involved in the education of the children. They have children who are products of overcrowded houses in which there is a complete lack of a calm, stimulating atmosphere conducive to studying, children who often have to walk long distances and who receive little stimulation. In addition the lack of prospects in their existence often leads to early school-leaving.

At the same time these people have a teaching body which is often less experienced and less qualified, and the teachers also have to perform their task under difficult conditions. There is also a very large backlog in respect of the provision of education.

Thus the recommendations of this report were very timely because this important section of our education has reached the crossroads. To indicate the importance of this section, I want to provide hon members with certain information.

Of the 7 500 schools, 5 500 are in the rural areas. Almost 48% of junior school children are at these schools, as well as 12 000 teachers. More than 46 000 schoolchildren attend farm schools, and what is very important—the hon member for Delmas referred to this, too—is that there has as yet been little or no unrest worth mentioning at these schools. This is therefore the one consistent element of the educational task of this department that should come in for a great deal of attention.

I want to congratulate the task group on this realistic report which did not create unnecessary expectations. I want to give hon members an example, namely the ideal that children should not walk further than 5 km. I regard it as a step forward that the department is taking over the initiative and will be doing the geographic and demographic planning in order to come as close as possible to this ideal. They regard this as a long-term solution.

I also think it is a good thing for farmers to retain the choice of providing the facilities themselves and that this subsidy scheme is being extended to water, ablution facilities, electricity, sporting facilities and teachers’ dwellings.

I regard it as important that the department itself take over the provision of electricity. I also regard it as essential that in some cases the department be able to lease land and provide its own facilities. I greatly appreciate what my fellow farmers are doing, but I also accept that not all farmers are good managers, and at the moment I am a good example of that. I therefore support the idea that some farm schools be converted into public schools.

One of the most important recommendations was for groups of four to 10 farm schools to be placed under the overall control of a travelling principal. There have been various teachers on my farm, and many of them gradually fell into a rut; this would therefore provide the necessary discipline.

I regard as just as important the management and education development project which has already been launched by the department. This project works according to a transfer system and comprises 11 modules. In the first place inspectors are trained, and these inspectors in turn train group facilitators, who in turn train the principals. In addition we must take into account that the report also makes provision for secondary schools soon to be within the reach of all children in the rural areas because high schools are to be built in all the towns. It also provides for attention to be given in the future to hostel facilities because parents are being grossly exploited by the so-called boarding houses. I also regard it as very important that technical skills and agricultural subjects, too, will gradually be extended to farm schools, and that after hours, schools will to a large extent be used as community development centres.

If what I have mentioned can be done, it could drastically improve the quality of education in farm schools and, at the same time, the quality of the community life as a whole in the rural areas. Teachers will become more enthusiastic about their task, children will be more interested in going to school, and if the ministry achieves this, Rome can once again be saved.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to reply to this debate because virtually all the hon members in this House have adopted a positive approach to it. Even those bodies that criticised the Government recognised what was positive in the policy underlying this Vote and expressed their appreciation for it. Accordingly I, too, wish to reply to the debate as positively as possible.

I should like to begin with the main speaker of the Official Opposition, namely the hon member for Lichtenburg. As my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister has already said, this hon member made the basically correct statement that we in this country are faced with a serious communist onslaught and that the underminers have indeed achieved a considerable degree of success. However, as my hon colleague rightly said, this is nothing new; in fact, it is well-known.

Nevertheless I wish to emphasise that the hon member’s reference to the remarks made by Mr Curtiss Nkondo is something we could all use to good effect, and I wish to thank him for doing so. In his remarks this person showed that the attitude to the provision of education evinced by people like him and his supporters is one that will certainly not result in proper education, but rather in an inferior system of education. This is a narrow and limited view, as far as both the content of the syllabus and the maintenance of schools are concerned. It is said that the schools should be self-sufficient. As far as the control of education is concerned this, too, is a system that could not result in good education because it has to be based on so-called “collective decision making”. The person who by definition is still not able to take decisions because he needs education and still has to make progress in education is now to decide on educational affairs together with those who, by definition, have acquired insight and judgment—that is why they are providers of education. Surely this cannot succeed in any right-minded system. We would do well to make greater use of this speech to which the hon member referred.

I wish to emphasise what my hon colleague said, viz that it is specifically the NP Government which, by its firm action, has defeated and, indeed, shattered this well-organised onslaught on the security of South Africa that has been launched over the past year, also through the schools. This was not so easy, because it was a very well-planned onslaught with various facets and aspects which were dealt with here inter alia by the hon member for Lichtenburg.

I wish to convey my appreciation to everyone—as I did earlier in this debate—who co-operated both in the teaching context and in the Black communities, but also to the security forces, who—and I wish to emphasize this—made an indispensable contribution towards restoring stability and order in education.

However, the hon member for Lichtenburg suggested that the Government was weakkneed and did not take effective action. Does he really expect us to provide him during this debate, across the floor of the House, with the details of precisely what is being done, what steps are being taken and what dangerous aspects are being addressed and counteracted by the Government and the bodies whose task it is to maintain sound education?

If the hon member is so obsessed with the threat I sometimes wonder how seriously he and his colleagues regard this threat. This morning I was only able to lay hands on two examples to show how hon members of the Official Opposition in particular have tried to intimate recently that the Government’s statement that a threat is being posed to South Africa by the ANC in particular, is merely a blown-up, false statement made in order to protect the Government, as it were, against opposition criticism. It is they who are at one moment fanning the flames and warning against danger, and at the next, saying things are not really so bad; it is merely a case of the Government crying wolf. In Die Patriot of 20 March the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is quoted as saying:

We see, therefore, that the CP is not really concerned about the ANC and that they do not feel a real need for the Government to take effective action, because as soon as the matter is brought to the attention of the voters and the public, then suddenly, in order to score petty political points, they make out that there is no real threat and that it is all a bluff. [Interjections.]

It could be argued that at the time the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was perhaps not so well acquainted with the demands of politics, but let us see what a major figure, a powerful defence spokesman like the hon member for Overvaal, had to say. According to Die Burger of 10 April he said the following about the warnings issued by the Government that the ANC would concentrate on fomenting disorder, intimidation and sabotage in the country particularly during the election period:

[Interjections.]

Order!

Therefore the message is very clear. It is not a message that is really aimed at promoting the security of this country, but an effort to disparage and undermine the honest warnings issued to the voters by the Government with a view to minimising the consequences of the onslaught. They do this in order to score petty political points.

The hon member for Lichtenburg, too, has been guilty of this. In the April edition of the CP publication Kolskote there are several examples of this. He is quoted as having said, inter alia:

One asks oneself, therefore, how serious they are politically and what kind of statesmanship this is in the chambers of government of this country—because, after all, that is what we are seeking—that gives rise to this mentality of at one moment issuing warnings and saying that there is a threat and an onslaught which could even achieve success, and the next moment saying that one need not be concerned because it is only a trick on the part of the Government in order to mislead people.

Order! I do not wish to restrict interjections, but for about the past minute or so other hon members have really been speaking just as much as the hon the Minister himself. I cannot permit this. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in this regard I also wish to put a question to the hon member for Durban Central. Perhaps I should say the hon comrade for Durban Central. [Interjections.] According to a report in Die Burger this morning this hon member is supposed to have said at a meeting in Stellenbosch that in special cases, when the security of the country is threatened, the Defence Force can be employed, but that the Defence Force may not be used to protect a political system or ideology. What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that only external threats may be opposed by the Defence Force? Or would he also include under a political system the constitutional structure, the present constitutional order in the country? Does he deny, therefore, that the Defence Force can be used to protect that?

May I reply to you on this point?

Yes, please. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed. He is still speaking.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister. If, for example, the Defence Force were to be used to patrol a beach in Port Elizabeth owing to the possibility that people of other race groups might swim there, would that be a case in which a constitutional system was being protected, or would it merely amount to the protection of an ideology by the Defence Force?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member knows full well that the subject under discussion has nothing to do with what he has just asked me about. What is the subject under discussion? What exactly does he mean when he says that the security of the country may in fact be protected by the Defence Force? In the normal course the security of the country is a matter of protecting the integrity of a country against foreign threats. He says that the political system or ideology may not be protected by the Defence Force. I concede that a partypolitical organisation or its interests ought not to be protected by the Defence Force. A political system in the sense of a constitutional system forms part of the present dispensation in the country, and I believe that the Defence Force does have an important role to play in protecting it. I deplore the fact that this kind of denigration of the responsible utilisation of the Defence Force is resorted to by a person like the hon member for Durban Central, particularly in view of his position in his party.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also asked questions about the degree to which the Government is in earnest as regards matters such as the payment of examination fees by pupils, the postponement of examination dates and the payment of school funds. I should like to reply to this briefly by pointing out that as the hon member himself knows from his previous experience, school funds have always been paid voluntarily by pupils. They have never been a compulsory prerequisite for receiving education. This is something that is imposed by the community in the interests of the community and when pupils in a specific community neglect to pay their school funds it is only to their own detriment because it means that that school and that teaching community will then forfeit specific facilities and privileges which at other places are provided in addition to the services rendered by the State, with the aid of school funds.

As far as the payment of examination fees is concerned, the situation is that all examination fees for this year have already been received and all examination enrolments finalised with a view to the final public matriculation examination at the end of this year. No late enrolments whatsoever have been permitted. It is interesting that among full-time candidates in std 10 this year, 143 000 enrolments have already been received from the Black communities. The number of private candidates, including inter alia those who are engaged in further education as adults, is already 162 000. Therefore there is a total of more than 300 000 candidates, a matter to which the hon member for Stellenbosch also referred. I merely mention this here in passing. Registration and the payment of examination fees is therefore a requirement that is laid down and consistently applied.

The hon member also asked questions about the postponement of examination dates. I wish to reiterate here—it has been mentioned in previous debates, and I think that this is a very important matter—that in 1985, and particularly towards the end of that year, special circumstances occurred in certain areas whereby pupils were prevented against their will from carrying on with their education in the normal way. At that time, in view of representations addressed to us by parents and by responsible leaders in various communities, we decided to sanction the postponement of examination dates to allow those pupils who had been affected the opportunity to make up for lost time by way of special tuition and in that way have a better opportunity to pass the relevant examinations. It was a fair arrangement. Unfortunately in some areas it was also abused by the bodies in whose interests it had been made available, but it was a fair arrangement which in the vast majority of cases was responsibly used by the pupils.

Towards the end of 1986 the situation had changed and there was no reason to grant postponement of examinations because the children whose study had been interrupted, had suffered the interruption for a long period and there was little chance that in the extra time of a single month or a few weeks they would have been able to do enough to be successful in the examination. Last year, therefore, in view of those particular circumstances, we adhered to the examination date in question and made no adjustments. Therefore we are trying to act responsibly in view of the circumstances in each case and to take appropriate action.

The hon member also asked an important question concerning the standpoint of the department in regard to the so-called “SRCs”, the “Student Representative Councils”.

†Mr Chairman, I should like to emphasise here that the department accepts the principle of democratically elected student representative councils. This is an institution which one finds in the schools of all population groups. There are, generally speaking, two systems, viz the system of student councils or pupil councils, and the system of appointed prefects. These alternatives are also available in the schools of the Department of Education and Training. We have, however, laid down clear and specific guidelines, minimum requirements, with which such student councils have to comply before they are recognised.

In the first place they must be democratically elected. That means by secret ballot and not by the raising of hands in an open meeting where intimidation can take place, and also not by appointment from outside by people who influence the situation from the outside. Secondly, the student representative council will not be allowed to exercise any control or management over the school. It can be consulted by the principal, the staff and the school committee, but it has no management authority. Thirdly, they must limit themselves to matters of an educational nature and not get involved with other matters outside the school activities.

It has also been laid down that an SRC is not recognised and may not function in a school unless its constitution complying with these requirements has been formally approved by the regional director.

*In cases where this does not take place and where there are irregular SRCs, strict action is taken, they are not recognised and they are certainly not permitted to function in the school.

The hon member also raised the whole issue of so-called “people’s education”, which is being seized upon by militant elements in an effort to convert education into an instrument of revolution. He also referred to alternative structures in education. In this regard I also wish to give the assurance once again that any deviation in the content of education, and in particular anything with any militant or revolutionary flavour, neither is nor will be tolerated by the educational authorities in any circumstances, and action is being taken against the schools at which there have been clear indications that this form of alternative education or “people’s education” has taken place, while action is also being taken against teachers and headmasters and against outside agencies that made unlawful use of those facilities, in order to ensure that these irregularities and subversive activities will not continue. The department and the Government are fully aware that the revolutionary elements clearly spell out in their policy that they wish to make specific use of the school and the school grounds as an organising centre and as a springboard for revolutionary activities.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to the important basis of group-specific education or culture-specific education as a point of departure for education. That is the standpoint of his party, but it is that of this side of the Committee as well. However, there is one thing that we must never fail to bear in mind—we Afrikaners with our history have enough background and insight to understand it, although perhaps we do not always understand it—and that is that group specific education for a people cannot be determined by another people. Group specific education must be determined by the people itself for itself, and that is why it is important that we ensure for Black educationists a full say not only in the administration of their education but also in determining the content of their education. This means that it will be necessary to rectify matters where Blacks feel that existing syllabuses are too White-oriented, that in the past they were determined to too great an extent by the experiential world of White educational guidance and had merely been taken over from other departments. A proper balance will have to be struck, and the aspirations and endeavours of the various Black communities will also have to be duly expressed in the content of their education. In this regard I should like to make a statement about the importance of syllabus revision.

†The whole question of syllabus revision has become a very urgent and a very acute matter in the Department of Education and Training. It is a matter of urgent importance in South African education because of the insistence on the part of Black people on greater relevance in the syllabus content of the subjects they study at school, especially in such sensitive subjects as History, Literature and even Religious Studies.

It is well known that the proponents of so-called “people’s education” have also been calling and working for a rewriting of certain subject syllabuses so as to reflect more explicitly what they claim to be the experience and the aspirations of Black communities. There can be no doubt that the main goal of the so-called “people’s education” proponents is, as I have said, to politicise school subjects so as to turn them into an instrument for promoting dissatisfaction and consequently militant, radical and even revolutionary unrest and change.

Nevertheless we have to concede that some school syllabuses are, in fact, experienced by Black teachers and students to be irrelevant to their experience and background and strange in content. It is also a fact that the subject content has been defined and selected mainly by White educationists from the viewpoint, experience and values of the White community. It is also true that Black educationists have thus far had limited involvement in and responsibility for syllabus formulation and curriculum development with regard to the learning content of the programmes at their schools. This is, of course, an unsatisfactory situation and the Department of Education and Training is actively promoting a change in this situation in the direction of a general revision of syllabuses towards greater relevance for all communities and the greater involvement of educationists from all population groups in this process.

On the other hand it must be emphasised that at the same time there has been strong resistance on the part of Black educationists to any differentiation or variation in syllabuses for Black schools. This was out of fear that any differences in content would imply inferior or restricted ethnic education, under influence of the spectre of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what Bantu education, as it was formerly termed, intended to offer Black pupils. Consequently there has been a general insistence that syllabuses designed for White schools should be adopted unchanged for Black schools.

In practice this meant that the Committee of Education Heads of White education with the assistance of its expert subject committees laid down the core syllabuses for all schools in the country. Representatives of the Department of Education and Training had observer status on the Committee of Education Heads subject committees but the initiative and powers of decision remained with the Committee of Education Heads which is part of the White education system.

The Committee of Education Heads defined its core syllabuses for all school subjects at all levels and these syllabuses were then taken over and introduced virtually unchanged by the Department of Education and Training and in fact also by the autonomous education departments for the other population groups and for the self-governing territories. The policy is that education departments may add to such a core syllabus but may not omit any of its content. Departments may also determine their own methodology and didactical approach for implementing the syllabuses.

I should also add that in the case of syllabuses for stds 8, 9 and 10—the senior secondary phase—the final authority resides with the Committee of Education Heads and the Joint Matriculation Board insofar as these standards or classes are closely related to university entrance qualifications. The Joint Matriculation Board, of course, as is well known, is a multiracial body representative of the education departments and the universities of all South African population groups.

Although the Department of Education and Training accepted the Committee of Education Heads and Joint Matriculation Board core syllabuses virtually unchanged because of its sensitivity to the known resistance of Black educationists to any differentiation in syllabuses for Black schools, it did formally pass these core syllabuses for approval through the Department of Education and Training, our internal examination board acting on the advice of its departmental subject committees, on all of which Black educationists play a prominent part. Nevertheless, I repeat that syllabuses have originated largely from within White education.

This urgent need of introducing real participation by Black educationists in the formulation of their own school syllabuses I have discussed in depth with the Council for Education and Training. We have agreed that the best approach is to make use of the new structures under the hon the Minister of National Education for determining general policy applying to all education departments, inter alia, in respect of norms and standards for syllabuses, curricula, examinations and certification. In particular it is felt that the new National Certification Council, a body to be representative of all population groups, is the appropriate forum in which to thrash out, with the participation of subject experts from all groups, really representative and relevant core syllabuses. The hon the Minister of National Education has already responded positively to my request for setting on course a comprehensive process of revision of basic principles and core content of syllabuses in all subjects and at all levels. In such a revision all interested persons and bodies should be afforded opportunities to contribute their proposals or discussions.

Some of the principles by which the Department of Education and Training believes that all future syllabus revision should be guided are that syllabuses and curricula must meet the learning requirements of pupils in the light of the times and the society in which they live; syllabuses must be relevant to the career and job requirements of economic life after school—that is why the career-oriented model to which the hon member for Walmer referred a few minutes ago is so basically important; syllabuses must reflect and interpret the experiences, aspirations, values and ideals of the community to which the child belongs; in a multicultural society the syllabuses should make pupils aware and sensitive of the different aspirations and experiences of other communities and should contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of and sympathy for such other communities; in subjects such as History or Literature pupils should be made aware of the existence within the different communities of different perceptions and interpretations of experiences and events and the extent to which such differences are based on scientific study and scholarship; and all revision of syllabuses must strictly comply with sound educational, scientific and scholarly principles.

I believe that if we follow along these lines we will be able to ensure full participation for all concerned in the formulation of their syllabuses. We will also ensure a minimum common standard and we will ensure that the necessary knowledge of the various societies is built into the learning material presented to children across the board.

*Next, I should like to reply in more detail to contributions made to the debate by hon members and I wish to convey my most sincere thanks to the hon member for Delmas—I see he is not present—for his positive and constructive contribution. There are two points in particular that he raised which I should like to deal with briefly. In the first place he referred to the importance of the rural school, the farm school, as a centre for community development where various other things—not only education—such as social development, recreational development, church services and so on, can take place in conjunction with the school. I think that this is an extremely important point.

He also complained in passing that farmers received only R30 per annum as compensation for their services as the so-called managers of the schools. I want to make it very clear that this amount of R30 per annum is by no means remuneration, but is merely an amount intended to help cover the expenditure incurred in respect of, for example, stationery such as envelopes and stamps, in so far as he has incurred expense in this connection. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Mooi River dealt in a positive sense with the recommendations regarding farm schools and rural schools. He insisted on the urgent implementation of the recommendations and rightly objected to the “trash”, as he called it, that is being spread about the motives of farmers in setting up farm schools.

I would like to point out that it is the intention of my department to come to Parliament next year with legislation in order to protect beyond any doubt the right of children to continue with their education and not to have it interrupted for employment purposes. In this way the charges that are made from time to time that pressure is exerted by the owners of farms to force children out of school into a working situation can be properly countered. I must say that in practice we find that the farmers are generally extremely co-operative but in order to make sure that we have the authority to enforce this right to education for children of schoolgoing age the necessary legislative changes will be submitted next year.

*Sir, with reference to the remarks made by these hon members about farm schools I should like to refer to an appeal concerning Black farm education made in a television programme some evenings ago by Mrs Martha Moleko.

†Mrs Moleko is the principal of the Naas Du Plessis Farm School in the Brits district. She pointed out that they are at present very poorly housed. The Black community itself has raised R5 000 and they can only expect the department to provide a matching R5 000 which would not be sufficient to set up a school.

I would like to state here quite clearly that we have had this case investigated. We have learnt that the owner of the land is perfectly willing to grant the right to erect a school there on a long term lease basis. We shall also perhaps consider the possibility of purchasing part of the property and we are quite prepared to erect the necessary school buildings, teachers’ residences and other facilities to accommodate the plus/minus 300 pupils who are at present studying at that school.

Three classes are at present accommodated in the church hall and two classes in rooms that have been made available by the community.

My department has undertaken to negotiate with this principal and with the owner of the land so that we can make a clear example of this case that where there is a need that cannot be met by the farming community the Government is quite prepared to step in and to carry out its responsibility.

*I should also like to refer with gratitude to the very constructive contribution made by my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister. In addition I should like to thank the hon member for Stellenbosch for his contribution, in which he made special reference to the enormous scope of the examination system administered by the Department of Education and Training. He pointed out that the increase of 37% in examination activities taking place in this department this year is as much as the total examination activity of the majority of other education departments.

The hon member for Brentwood, with exceptional expertise derived from his background and experience, referred to the importance of the department’s management training programmes for headmasters, and the way in which this may be passed on from them to heads of departments and even the teachers in the classrooms.

The hon member for Nelspruit referred to the importance of the link between the parent community and the management of the schools. I want to give him the assurance that we accept the recommendation of the report on rural education that the parent community, which has no say there, should in fact also have a say, and that we shall be implementing this. There was also a task group recently, representative in particular of the Black parent community and the Black teaching community, that drew up a report aimed at improving the functioning of control boards and school committees as well as other school control bodies in which the parents ought to be given a more effective representation and say.

The hon member Dr Golden spoke about teacher training in particular. He referred with appreciation to two aspects in this regard that I should like to emphasize. One is the phenomenal part played by Vista University in enabling matriculated teachers to obtain university-level teaching qualifications by means of long-distance training. He also referred to the Alpha project whereby the teachers of the senior secondary classes are trained on an intensive basis with a view to making a significant impact in the short term on the unacceptably high failure rate for Black pupils in the std 10 examination.

The hon member for Kempton Park, in a very well-prepared and scientific presentation, indicated that one has to be realistic about the role that finance can play in the achievement of equal educational standards. She also showed considerable insight in her discussion of the value of the formula for the determining of teaching requirements, and I should like to express my sincere thanks to her for that as well.

I have already referred briefly to the treatment by the hon member for Walmer of the new career model for education in Black schools. This is one aspect in regard to which Black education is at least three to four years ahead of all the other education departments. While Black education has in so many respects had a leeway to make up in the majority of aspects of development, it is gratifying that the skilled leadership in this department adopted a practical approach to this need for an increased focus on career-oriented education, not only in the secondary school but from the first substandard, and that it is now the second year that this is being tested and introduced in practice, with the result that this year there are more than 200 000 children at grade level whose education is in terms of this career-oriented model of education.

The hon member for Smithfield also made an excellent contribution concerning rural education in which he linked up with other hon members, such as the hon members for Mooi River and Delmas, who also dealt with this matter.

I should like to express my sincere thanks to all the hon members on this side of the House for their contributions and for the support that they have consistently given me and the hon the Deputy Minister in the handling of education problems; this has also been the case in the areas which they represent.

†I am afraid my time is running out. If I cannot answer hon members’ questions in detail, I shall do so in writing. I would nonetheless like to deal very briefly with the points raised by the hon members of the PFP.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned several important points. My hon colleague dealt with his deploring the fact that Blacks are not yet participating in debates about their own education, and I would like to emphasise again that one of the main goals and one of the most urgent objectives of the Government’s programme of negotiated constitutional reform is to ensure that Black people, through their own leaders, will in executive respect and in legislative respect become able to take decisions with regard to their education—also for the area for which the Department of Education and Training is responsible.

I will also admit that there may be certain administrative inefficiencies which, however, are often caused by extremely difficult circumstances, such as the tremendous influx of pupils during this year, a fact to which I have also made some reference.

The hon member made a point in regard to which I would like to give him the assurance that he is wrong. He said that the department failed to realise the pressures under which principals and teachers operate. I would like to give him the assurance that my colleague, myself and the department are fully aware of these pressures. The situation, however, is not always such that one can simply give in to these pressures, but we have a very great understanding for the tremendous difficulties under which the people in the classroom situation have to operate. I can give him the assurance that we deal with that with the greatest understanding and empathy.

He also said that what is needed is more frankness and greater flexibility from the department. I believe that we can claim that in terms of reasonable questions which have been put to us and in terms of reasonable changes which have been asked of us, we have in fact shown that the department and the Government can be frank and flexible to a very large degree.

The hon member for Pinetown made a good contribution and raised a few very practical points. He raised the question of the increase in administrative costs by 42%. I want briefly to give two reasons for this increase. The one is that the decentralisation of the overcentralised old administrative system into seven regions—and we hope to expand this in the near future into perhaps nine or 10 regions— had considerable cost implications, because we had to provide the overhead expertise in each of these regions.

Secondly, we have lagged very far behind in providing the necessary back-up personnel, that is to say the management personnel and the top professional advisory and administrative personnel to back up the professional people in the workplace at both the regional and head office level. We have insufficient professional people but our deficiency in regard to management personnel has been even more serious and during the past year we made a special effort to provide that extra back-up for the professional people. The department would be pleased to furnish the hon member with further details in this regard.

The hon member referred to the formula as being based, or so he hoped, on expected pupil numbers. No formula can be based on expected pupil numbers; it can only be based on actual pupil numbers. This means that the formula is usually one or two years behind because it is based on historic numbers and this is a certain disadvantage under which we labour because we have a greater growth than the other departments. In fact, they are almost historically entrenched because some of their numbers are decreasing.

The hon member also asked whether the disparity between the provision of education in the Department of Education and Training and that in the national states had been sufficiently bridged, as it were, especially in Natal. I must say, we have made considerable progress this year but there is still a lot of bridging to be done. We acknowledge the urgent need for this to take place.

I should also like to deal briefly with the remarks which the hon member—perhaps I should say “comrade”!—for Greytown made with regard to the Indumisu College of Education. [Interjections.] He raised the case of certain students who were punished for participating in boycotts. I should just like to make two statements in this regard.

He objected especially to two aspects of the punishment. One of these was that the expulsion of the students was excessive in view of the nature of the transgression and the second was that the cancellation of their exam results was basically unfair. It has been brought to my attention that one of the students, Miss Gumede, has lodged an application with the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa for a review of the department’s decision to cancel her examination results, and I think therefore it would be inappropriate under these circumstances for me to discuss a matter which with regard to this student is sub judice.

As far as the seriousness of the offence is concerned, I should like to point out that two of the students appeared in court and that both were convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. In one case the sentence was suspended for five years and in the other, for two years. This, I suggest, does in fact show the seriousness of the matter. Moreover, the nine students who appeared before the Board of Control of the College of Education received a proper hearing. They presented their case and they were found guilty of incitement and of being involved in class boycotts as well as of intimidating other students. Viewed against this background, I do not consider that the action to expel these students could in any sense be considered excessive.

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

I think I have replied to the hon member’s question, Sir. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that particularly in the case of those students who were suspended because they had only lost about one period in class, as in the case of Miss Gumede, they contend that if the hon the Minister were prepared to reconsider the matter, they could withdraw the Supreme Court case and by so doing save considerable costs.

I do not believe that I can negotiate about a Supreme Court case at this juncture. I can only say that it is not a matter of what happened on that one specific day. There were also two raids—the hon member referred to this yesterday—carried out in the students’ rooms and there are other factors involved here, too, which play a part in this matter.

†Mr Chairman, I also want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon member for Durban North who dealt mainly with education in rural areas. He was very positive in his remarks; he spoke of a very honest report and of positive and encouraging recommendations. I would like to thank him for this attitude.

Unfortunately I cannot say this of the extremely negative and I would say irresponsible speech made by the hon member for Claremont. The role of the security forces at the schools has been absolutely essential in contributing towards the restoration of order and stability. There may be cases where members of the security forces acted against the arrangement made with the Department of Education. We have found consistently that when we brought this to the attention of the security authorities, matters were properly dealt with. We do not consider it normal for a unit of the security forces to enter school grounds or a school building, unless there is serious visible disruption, without first presenting themselves to the school authorities and acting in conjunction with them. This is the understanding, and it is an understanding that is generally well honoured and well adhered to.

I find it absolutely deplorable that the hon member for Claremont made these excessively inciting remarks with regard to the action of the Government and the action of the security forces in maintaining order or contributing towards maintaining order at the various schools. [Interjections.] If we have to work on this basis there will be complete chaos in all the schools. I would like to give the assurance that the parent communities have strongly insisted that, where necessary, we should make use of the security forces and the security authorities to restore order where it has been subverted.

I would like to conclude by again thanking all members for their contributions.

*Mr Chairman, as far as the Department of Development Aid is concerned I should like to begin, as I did in the case of the other department, by expressing my sincere gratitude to the Director-General and his staff.

The Director-General and staff of the Department of Development Aid have a wide range of responsibilities. They have to negotiate with the governments of six self-governing national states. They must also deal with the development of trust areas that have been earmarked for incorporation into the national states. In particular they are responsible for a vast training and motivating operation to make staff available and motivate them correctly for seconding to these governments, but also for helping the governments of the national states, through that staff and in other ways, to become self-reliant. This is done by means of training operations among the states’ own personnel. Consequently it is a kind of creative withdrawal by helping to train one’s substitute so that he can take one’s place.

I should also to thank the two Deputy Directors for their contribution. I should also like to welcome the newcomer among the two, Mr Seret Maree, who is unfortunately indisposed at the moment, very sincerely as the new Deputy Director. He came in the place of Mr Piet Kriel, who has in the meantime been appointed—I want to congratulate him on this—as commissioner general of the South African Government with the government of KwaNdebele.

At the same time I should also like to thank the other commissioners general—some of them are experienced persons with many years of service behind them—for their contribution. Although they are actually the responsibility of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, we work very closely together and I am exceptionally privileged to be able to have their assistance.

I should also like to refer here to the very valuable contribution I received from the former Deputy Minister. He helped me in a particularly skillful way, particularly in handling land matters, consolidation and agricultural development. This is a responsibility which I now have to deal with myself. Since I am not yet particularly well-versed in this subject, I think I would even be able to learn from the hon member for Lichtenburg in this respect, provided he keeps his head and does not become too excited.

At the outset I should like to make it very clear that it is the policy of the Government, also through the Department of Development Aid, to continue, as far as this can be implemented, to promote the geographic dividing up of political responsibility, as this has already been very successfully manifested in the case of the self-governing national states.

The policy is also to assist the self-governing states that wish to become independent and make it possible for them to accept independence. We do not force any self-governing national territory into independence, nor do we exert any pressure on them. It must be a voluntary decision coming from within that government and that ethnic community itself. The Government remains convinced that the policy of self-governing states within South Africa and the possibility for them of accepting independence, must continue to comprise an extremely important and fundamental contribution to the overall constitutional pattern in South Africa.

†A point of criticism that is often raised by the left wing of our spectrum of critics is that a great deal of the money that the Government spends on development aid for the self-governing states is used for a so-called “apartheid bureaucracy”. It is said that it is wasted on mere administration, on mere organizational and administrative measures to apply control. This is one of the points with which I would like to deal at some length in these introductory remarks.

This is one of the responsibilities of the Department of Development Aid which I think the department handles most meticulously, namely to ensure that the balance in the budget, in the administration of the department as well as in the administration of the self-governing states insofar as we can influence it, is such that the emphasis falls on development, on genuinely development-oriented and development-connected actions and expenditure, with pure administration reduced to the minimum.

However, good administration in any region of South Africa will be necessary whatever the overall political structure may be. It is therefore wrong to argue that all expenditure with regard to these self-governing states is unnecessary or is purely duplicating expenditure.

*I think it is also my responsibility to provide an overall survey of the department’s financial responsibilities, against the background of the great extent of the expenditure for which provision is made in the Development Aid Vote. The total expenditure for this year is calculated at a rounded-off amount of R3 billion. This represents an increase of 26%. In terms of actual additional money, it is a further R626 million.

If we consider the particulars of the budget, we note an apparent discrepancy between, on the one hand a considerable decrease in the funds provided in Programme 2 for the development of the trust areas, namely a decrease of 35,6% or rather R231 million, and on the other a large increase in Programme 3, which makes provision for the funds for granting assistance to the governments of the self-governing national states. The latter represents an increase of 62,25%, or an additional R778 million. Together with this, also for the self-governing national territories, there is an increase in the so-called statutory amount of 19,4%, which comes to an additional amount of R74 million. The statutory amount is the amount which is not formally voted by Parliament, but which is automatically paid over from year to year in terms of legislation.

I want to point out briefly the most important reasons for the decrease in the appropriation in Programme 2 for the trust areas, and on the other hand the increase in the appropriation in Programme 3 for the national states. The first factor in the reduction in Programme 2 is a reduction in the expenditure in this year’s consolidation programme, ie funds for the purchase of land and the settlement of people affected by this consolidation programme.

This is, we hope, a temporary reduction necessitated by the appeal made by the hon the Minister of Finance to effect savings in Government expenditure wherever in any way possible. Although we know that the implementation and finalisation of approved consolidation plans have been accorded a high priority, and land-owners justifiably insist that they be expedited, we felt that where we were able to make a choice, the development funds for the self-governing states should receive preference, and that consolidation should be curtailed a little this year. I hope that the appropriation for this purpose will speedily be brought up to a proper level next year. I should like to state here that a specific community to whom the assurance was given that their land for approved consolidation would be bought out, namely the people in the northern Marico Corridor area, have also been given the assurance that they will be accorded the priority that the appropriated funds for this year will still be used for this purpose. This was done through their spokesman, Mr Flip du Toit, who contacted me repeatedly. We shall begin to negotiate with those people as soon as possible to make the necessary purchases.

A second factor in the reduction of the appropriation for Programme 2 is the fact that the constitutional power to govern and to decide on towns and township development and all land matters previously exercised by the department and the Trust has in the case of Gazankulu, Lebowa, KwaZulu and Ka-Ngwane, been transferred to the governments of these self-governing territories, and the funds for this purpose are no longer being included in Programme 2, but in Programme 3 under both the additional funds as well as the statutory allocation. This results in a decrease of R108 million under Programme 2.

As a result of the events in KwaNdebele there was a cancellation of the independence projects that had already been approved in principle and for which provision had been made in the previous financial year. This brought about a decrease of R30,9 million during this financial year.

I also want to point out that in Programme 2 a reduction of R50 million was brought about in the parliamentary appropriation which was supplemented by a balance that was available in the account of the Development Trust and, with the approval of the Treasury, is being utilised for this purpose. As a result it was possible for this R50 million, which was a saving in that it could be augmented from the Trust balance, to be made available additionally in Programme 3 to meet the needs of the governments of the self-governing states.

The reasons for the increases in the amounts available in Programme 3 for the self-governing territories is attributable to such factors as the carry-over costs of considerable salary increases in the previous year and, as I have already mentioned, the reverse side of the transfer of the funds from the function of town affairs and land affairs, which are now being transferred to the self-governing territories, since these funds are now being provided by Programme 3. There was also the increase in social pensions of R59 million, and an improved education dispensation for which an additional amount of R288 million was specifically voted. A strenuous attempt was made, with the help of the willing support of the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of National Education to effect a real increase, by means of these additional funds, in the available funds for education services in the national states.

We also had to provide Lebowa with R60 million to finance certain overdrafts in previous years. Then, as I have already mentioned, it was possible to transfer, from Programme 2 to Programme 3, the R50 million which could be augmented by the balance from the Trust fund.

Consequently there was considerable growth in the appropriation in Programme 3—a growth of 62%. However, if one considers all the specific purposes for which funds were added, one sees that the actual appropriation, in comparison with last year, for the existing services is not as much as one would have liked. We must therefore realise that in spite of a 26% increase in the total budget of the department, and a 62% increase in the budget of Programme 3—for the self-governing national states—sufficient funds have not yet been made available to continue the basic existing development services in a proper way, and one would have liked to have made more funds available for this purpose. This gives an indication of the real development needs in these areas, to which we must really give earnest consideration.

As regards the impression—in my opinion a false impression—that major spending and even—so certain critics say—a wastage of money on the so-called apartheid bureaucracy—on the management and administration of apartheid—is taking place, I should like to state a few facts in order to refute this impression. When we take note of the cost of administrative and other current expenditure in the budget of the department which cannot be considered to be directly linked to development, it appears that it amounts to a total of R52,2 million. From this I exclude administrative costs in the budgets of the national states. This means that the direct administrative expenditure represents only 1,7% of the entire budget.

In the second place if we take note of the seconded staff—in the debate on this Vote in a previous year it was said that if the administration was so minimal, we should in fact include the costs of seconded staff because this was simply related to the administration and the bureaucracy—it appears that the costs in regard to technical, administrative and other seconded staff amounts to R87,6 million. When we analyse this amount, however, it appears that it is predominantly concerned with staff in professional, development-oriented spheres, for example R34 million for education, R23 million for health, R4 million for police and justice, services which simply have to be provided in each area, R1,3 million for agriculture and environmental affairs, and then R24 million for staff from the Department of Development Aid, some of whom are quite senior administrative and managerial staff, but also quite a number of professional staff for works departments and for agricultural development. It is therefore clearly apparent that the seconded staff are also predominantly professional, development-oriented people.

The third aspect I want to mention is that the national states, in their own budgets, also display a predominantly development-oriented focus, rather than a merely administrative or bureaucratic expenditure pattern. I analysed last year’s approved budgets of the self-governing territories—of the national states—which amounted to á total of R2 280 million. Percentage-wise 27,3% was spent on health, welfare and pensions. Consequently this is a completely development and welfare-oriented service for these people. Furthermore, 30,2% was spent on education and culture—also a development service—18,7% on works, particularly for development of infrastructure and for township development, while 5,6% was spent on agriculture and forestry. In my opinion this is far too little, but these are how matters stand now. The remainder—18,2%—would then include ordinary administrative work, but also work such as police, justice, the law courts and the economic administration of the country.

It is clear, therefore, that in the budgets of the national states themselves there is a responsible emphasis of development-oriented spending.

There is also another important fact which is sometimes overlooked. I want to mention this in the fourth place. The national states themselves also generate a considerable amount of own revenue to supplement the parliamentary appropriation for the financing of their budgets. In their budgets they not only rely on the parliamentary appropriation, but are at present generating an average of 26,4% per national state of their required finance from their own revenue. Of the total estimated budgets of R3 239 million this year, R853 million will be provided from their own revenue and from loans raised by the national states themselves. It varies from an amount of R43 million in the case of KwaNdebele to as much as R377 million in the case of KwaZulu.

However, it is not only their own revenue which is indicated in the estimates. Apart from the funds that are budgeted for, a system of community contributions is maintained in most national states as well. This is a system by means of which separate communities—traditional as well as more or less modern urban communities—have to pay levies for specific development services, such as education in particular, the building of clinics and so on. There are also a number of the national states which annually collect as much as R20 million in levies from the communities to build extra classrooms for schools or to employ more teachers. This system is supplementary to the funds that are appropriated in the central State budget. It also demonstrates that those people are prepared to make a material contribution themselves.

I want to mention a fifth factor which is very important to ensure that responsible spending of the funds takes place, namely the role played by the Development Bank of Southern Africa to an increasing extent, because the Development Bank is as far as possible taking over the capital financing of development in the national states as regards projects that are the proper responsibility of this bank. That is why the project aid under Programme 3 in the department’s budget, which amounts to R15 million, is being phased out because it is something which is now the responsibility of the Development Bank. In the additional amount appropriated under programme 3 for the national states they are then provided with financial assistance to service the loans they raise from the Bank in respect of interest and redemption and also in regard to their own contribution they have to make because they can seldom succeed in financing the entire capital costs of the entire project through the Development Bank.

I obtained the latest figures of the Development Bank in regard to the extent of the loans they have already made available to the self-governing national states. These include projects that have already been implemented, as well as projects in the process of approval. No less than 229 projects, of which the vast majority consist of agricultural development and infrastructural development, and which amount to R1 287 million, are already been financed in the national states by means of Development Bank loans.

We also hold an annual conference at which the responsible Ministers of the national states and the top management of their development corporations meet with the top management and the governors of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and myself in order to hold discussions for bringing about a better understanding, smoother procedures and co-ordination of the financing of loans.

In conclusion I want to mention that in order to ensure the financial effectiveness of the governments of the national states and sound budgetary control, we have obtained their consent to annual conferences being held in future between the Ministers of Finance of the national states and myself and the hon the Minister of Finance or his deputies to discuss problems of common interest in respect of budgetary matters, financial policy and economic development with one another.

Joint conferences of this kind with the Ministers of the national states are already taking place successfully in the sphere of education, in the sphere of health under the direction of my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, and have also been held in respect of agricultural development with the Ministers of Agriculture. In this way we are in fact developing a multilateral system in miniature between the South African Government, represented by the Department of Development Aid, and the self-governing territories. This is comparable with the multilateral system we have developed with the independent states, the TBVC countries, outside South Africa.

I trust that with these observations I have been able to contribute, in a factual way and with clear particulars, to indicate that the funds that are being chanelled by the Department of Development Aid to the self-governing national states are being spent in a responsible way, that they are development-oriented and that it is a misrepresentation to profess that that spending is merely a waste of money on a bureaucracy which has to maintain so-called apartheid.

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

In the survey the hon the Minister has just given here he said that the establishment and creation of states for the various peoples formed an important part of the Government’s policy. In other words it is not the only part. I want to tell the hon the Minister that this part which has been added since they became liberal, this part pertaining to an umbrella government and power-sharing and integration, is the part which threatens to destroy the successful part, namely the establishment of states for peoples. That is the difference between this side and that side of the House.

The CP is of the opinion that the only basis for a successful constitutional dispensation and successful constitutional relations in South Africa is the establishment of states for the various peoples. It is the only basis; there is no other. [Interjections.] That is why the CP is anxious to see to it that this matter which is being discussed today, namely the development of the various states in South Africa should be successful. We are also prepared to make sacrifices and contribute to its success.

The CP’s standpoint is that the assistance which must be rendered to these states should in the first place be within the means of South Africa and that we should not exceed our means. Secondly, it must be implemented effectively and serve the purpose for which it is being budgeted. Thirdly, it must lead to greater self sufficiency, greater independence and greater autonomy on the part of the Black peoples.

If we look at this Budget now, this Parliament and this Committee is being requested to approve an amount of R3 billion. It is an increase of R626 million. If we really want to know what is being done with these funds, how they are being spent and whether they are being used effectively, it should be possible for us to study the budgets of the self-governing states. As a result of the dispensation as it operates today we here in Parliament are not in a position to make a study of how this money is being spent, whether it is being used effectively and whether it serves the purpose for which it was budgeted.

That is why I want to say that the hon the Minister of Finance gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that a 5% misappropriation had occurred in the independent states of funds which had been budgeted by this Parliament. It is not good enough that we vote money here and then have to hear that a 5% misappropriation had taken place. The voters of South Africa who contribute most of those funds are in a situation in which they have become 20% poorer and are simply not able to afford 5% of the money voted here being misappropriated.

That is why I want to ask the hon the Minister what the position is in the self-governing states. They are not yet independent and he cannot say, as the hon the Minister of Finance does, that it is difficult to appoint a custodian to see what they are doing with the money. These states are not independent yet and I think we as Parliament can insist that the hon the Minister tell us how the money is being spent. We also want to ensure that no misappropriation occurs as far as these funds are concerned. That is why I ask the hon the Minister what control measures there are and whether any misappropriation is taking place in these states.

The French Government is still rendering assistance to its former colonies but they have watertight methods of making misappropriation impossible in that assistance is offered on a project basis according to which payments are made to those bodies who render services as a project progresses. Merely taking money and giving it to a government when it says that there is a deficit on its budget is in my opinion not good enough. I think the assistance which the South African Parliament approves must occur on a project basis and be primarily directed at development. I think the hon member for Barberton is going to refer to that. Here, too, an ever increasing percentage of the funds which we approve here are being used for social services and increasingly less for the creation of infrastructure.

Furthermore I want to say that the dismantling of this department and its reduction to what it is at present have been conducive to ineffectiveness. The Director-General of this department gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that the individual contributions of the national states as a percentage of their budget was increasing, and that is a welcome phenomenon. The hon the Minister has just said that it is 26%. Despite the misappropriation I have a very strong suspicion that the individual contribution of the independent states—I have not verified it but I think it is correct—is higher than 26%.

It is a very significant phenomenon that the individual contributions of the national states are increasing. I am therefore saying that ineffectiveness has become apparent since the dismantling of this department, because outside the national states where the administration of Black affairs is now occurring on an integrated basis, as the hon the Minister would like to have in future for the whole of South Africa, services fees cannot even be collected, while individual contributions are increasing in the national states where the Black people themselves are governing. That is indisputable proof that partition is a solution and that it is in fact already beginning to work in South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP are running away from partition which works and are now engaged in something which does not work.

The transfer of the development boards to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and from there to the provinces is pure chaos. No one knows precisely what is happening. Those people were sitting there for months before they knew what their job was and now no one knows what is happening. [Interjections.] The ineffectiveness and the laxness which has developed as a result of the dismantling of that department has had a ripple effect and the hon the Minister must take care that that ripple effect does not also affect him, the trust areas and the Black states.

There are simply too many rumours circulating about irregularities at Botshabelo. I am not a person who pays any heed to rumours, but the matter has now gone too far. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon the Minister how the management system works which is being applied in Botshabelo. When last was an external audit held?

Never!

I request the hon the Minister to ask the Auditor General to audit the books of that town without delay. I also want to know from the hon the Minister whether it is true that it is intended to transfer Botshabelo to the government of QwaQwa and that the government of QwaQwa is hesitant to accept the transfer. It is completely contradictory to the attitude of Black governments, of accepting land and their own people.

The hon the Minister referred to the fact that the appropriation in Programme 2 had decreased by R31 million and that the appropriation for Programme 3 had increased by R778 million. The hon the Minister attributed it to the fact that the amount which was appropriated for land purchases was less—it would be increased again at a later stage—but also that certain functions of the trust had been transferred to Black governments. That is also a very significant phenomenon. Although the NP has announced a National Council and a central government for South Africa, these people are not asking the Government for the trust to retain the functions it presently performs because a joint government is going to be introduced but they would very much like the functions to be transferred to and accepted by them. [Interjections.]

While the Government is announcing this new constitution policy, KwaNdebele is once again asking for independence, and I hope that this Government will not, in its ineptitudes, jeopardise this matter again, as happened on the previous occasion. The other self-governing states which do not want to become independent yet are asking for greater autonomy. This is not an indication that they want to move in the direction of an integrated government. It is an indication that they want to move in the direction of greater self-government, independence and partition.

I now want to know a few important things from the hon the Minister. Surely he speaks to these Black leaders and their cabinets, and he ought to know what their standpoints are. I want to ask him how many of these governments of the self-governing states have told him that while a new constitutional dispensation is being planned there are certain powers which they now have and which they would very much like to forego and which they want to share with all the people in South Africa in future. What powers have the self-governing states asked him to take away from them? When we consider the annual report of the department we see that there are matters which now fall under the control of those governments and which lend themselves very well to being taken away from them and being included in this new dispensation of the Government under the central Government. There are matters such as internal affairs which are being managed by the Black governments, matters which ought in fact to be a general affair. Did they approach the Minister and ask him to remove justice from their control and place it under the general government which the NP envisages for the future? Did they come and ask him for economic affairs or police to fall under general affairs and be taken away from them?

Why do you argue with us about something which you know …

I am proving to the hon the Minister that he is engaged in something that is going to ruin South Africa. He said this National Council was going to become an interim government. [Interjections.] He said, and I want to point out to him that he is bungling. He is letting the Black governments down, and he is their Minister. [Interjections.] It has not been demonstrated in practice that what he is proclaiming and asking for is what they want.

You did not see your way clear to doing the work.

It has been demonstrated in practice that that is not what they want.

There are various states with concerns which are common to both of them because they have adjoining borders. For example there are Lebowa and Gazankulu—they share a common border in more than one place— Lebowa and KwaNdebele, KwaZulu and KaNgwane, KaNgwane and Gazankulu and various other states. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether these states have already come to him with proposals and asked that structures be created locally, where such common concerns occur, in order to introduce power-sharing and to control these matters on a common basis. Is he able to mention one such example where the people asked him that? How many of these Black governments are in favour of regional services councils, or is it only Chief Buthelezi, Nkosi Buthelezi, who is so vehemently opposed to them? How many Black leaders have indicated that they are in favour of this National Council and are prepared to serve on it? If they have so indicated to the hon the Minister why is nothing being said about it?

The hon Minister said this National Council was not only a negotiating body but an interim state administration body. I now want to ask him whether it reflects his own standpoint alone—the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs of course has his own private standpoints—or whether it is the Government’s standpoint. If it is his or the Government’s—it does not matter whose it is—I want to know why it was done. Was it done in order to inveigle Nkosi Buthelezi into serve on the National Council because that was one of the conditions he laid down? Did the Government manage to get him so far as to agree to serve on the council or did they first have to comply with other conditions which he laid down before he would be prepared to serve on the council?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg once again assailed us with the partition idea here this afternoon. In this regard he must reply to a few questions for our benefit. He maintains that the partition model is such a success, the very model they are becoming carried away with at the moment. He must tell us whether they are prepared to give the Blacks more land so that they are viable units, as his leader spelt out, and how much more land they are prepared to give. They must also say where they are going to find the money, because with the area the national states occupy at the moment, partition is not viable or feasible. [Interjections.] They must therefore give us an answer on the amount of land and tell us whether they are going to, and are able to, implement forced removals in order to make partition work. Thirdly, they must say whether they are going to force these states to accept independence—I am not including KwaNdebele—states which are at the moment indicating that they are not interested in independence. They must furnish us with answers to those questions at their leisure.

If we want to continue living in peace in this country we must consider the minimum needs of the Blacks which are emerging very clearly. The first need and the Blacks’ most important requirement is education for their children just as it is yours and mine, Sir. For them it is the most important priority. I want to thank the hon Minister and his hon Deputy Minister as well as the Director-General for their dedication in making provision for these needs.

The second matter which is very important to the Blacks is the question of property rights on a piece of land, a place in the sun in South Africa. I am not speaking about surface areas. I am speaking about a plot of land where people can live permanently and can establish themselves.

The greatest unrest among Blacks is caused by the sword of forced removals hanging over their heads. This afternoon I want to tell you that forced removals is simply not viable among the Blacks. Any relocation which we can bring about in South Africa …

Now you are making the Progs very happy!

… we can bring about by means of negotiations aimed at improving the living conditions of Blacks to such an extent that they move.

Does that include the squatters? [Interjections.]

The improvement in the living conditions … [Interjections.]

Order!

The improvement of the living conditions of Blacks is a high priority. If we want to have peace and want to ward off the revolutionary onslaught we must give attention to this matter. I want to thank this department, its hon Minister and the Director-General and his officials for the dedicated efforts in fighting in the frontline here for South Africa. I said that it was reasonable that the Blacks ask for a piece of land somewhere in South Africa or in the national states which can be theirs, on which they can live permanently. For that reason I want to tell the hon the Minister that the leaders of the national states must be persuaded to consider the granting of property rights to their subjects otherwise people will leave their areas in droves. [Interjections.]

The second demand of the Blacks which is not unreasonable is that they must have accommodation. They must be able to have a roof over their heads.

Thirdly they would very much like to have employment. They want to sell their labour in order to pay for the services. I want to assure you that if it is within their power they will do so.

Removals cause friction and re-settlement is not viable, is not possible and causes tremendous friction among population groups. Large-scale forced removals are not viable. Normally any person, Black or White, would like to stay where he was born.

You are sitting in the wrong benches.

I should like to stay where I was born. That hon member who bolted so quickly, if he were just to keep quiet and bolt a little further instead of talking, we could carry on.

You have bolting on the brain. [Interjections.]

Order!

Any person would like to live in the area where he was born. It is a fact that if you want to force any White who would prefer to stay on the smallest platteland village to move to Johannesburg, he will not go. He does not want to move with his chickens. People from Johannesburg do not want to go to the rural areas. The same applies to Blacks.

We must take note that we imagine that a tremendous outflow of Blacks to the metropolitan areas is going to take place. That is not true. For example in northern Natal I experienced that there is an area in which Blacks have become too numerous because of the labour system and the labour farms, because of purchases and the phasing out of that system. If I may mention a good example to you I should like to mention the Louwsburg district in which 40 000 Blacks and 1 000 Whites are living. It is therefore a ratio of 40 to 1. That is the case in many places in this country. It is a reality, however.

We have negotiated with Blacks in Louwsburg and told them that it is a reality that people will have no urbanise or that urban development will have to take place because not everyone can remain on the farms. Because one has always lived on a farm does not give one the right of permanency. The people acknowledge that. These people say they will move although they are not prepared to leave the district. They say provision must be made for them for urban development within that district. That is all. I think that we must take these things which have already been negotiated and implement them. I think we will find that in most districts in South Africa, as well as in the national states and on the trust lands—even in the Morgenzon district—the people who live there. Whites have been urbanised. Blacks have not been urbanised to the same extent. Thirty two per cent of the Blacks have already been urbanised. I am of the opinion, however, that Blacks are not willing to go to the metropolitan areas to raise their children in the circumstances which prevail there. Blacks have made it clear that they want to stay where they have always been and would rather commute to work than raise their children in urban areas.

In this regard I think the most important thing in South Africa is making land available upon which people can live outside the urban areas in South Africa as well as in the national states and in the trust areas. We must, however, take extreme care not to disturb the equilibrium. If people leave a certain area in droves and go to another as a result of the phenomenon of supply and demand, the balance in this regard can easily be disrupted. I consequently believe that one of our most important tasks in South Africa is making land available in every district in South Africa so that the Blacks will be able to establish themselves anywhere in the country, especially now that the process of land consolidation is coming to an end. A free flow of people must be allowed—after all influx control has been abolished—so that people can acquire their own piece of land upon which they can build their own homes. If Blacks, as is the case with Whites, are transferred by their employers they must be able to acquire suitable housing and be able to move from one district or town to another. That also includes the acquisition of loans for the building of houses. This is the recipe for peace in South Africa. We must address the realities. We must take note of what is reasonable. In this sense we must accommodate the reasonable wishes of the Blacks.

The partition model, which amounts to the removal of Blacks, is definitely not a viable one. The department responsible is nevertheless geared to helping the governments in the self-governing states to improve the quality of life of their inhabitants in all spheres of life. In South Africa therefore we must also concentrate on the quality of life of all our people in every district; not only on that of the Whites. We shall have to ensure that we improve the quality of life of all inhabitants of every district in the country, regardless of race or colour; otherwise we shall never have peace in this country.

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

Order! Unfortunately that privilege has already been used.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I am sure if you consult the secretariat you will find it is still available. [Interjections.]

I should remark, Sir, that the hon the Minister’s remarks at the beginning of this debate regarding independence were very interesting and I shall address myself to those remarks during the course of my speech. I am sure he was also interested to hear that the attack regarding financing came not from the left, as he had anticipated, but from the right. I have no doubt he will deal with that when he replies to this debate.

Sir, during the course of the recess I held discussions with a number of Chief Ministers of the self-governing states, and I must advise this hon Minister that a degree of confusion exists regarding the formula for calculating the amounts under Programme 3—“Assistance to the governments of self-governing national states”. I hope the hon the Minister will enlighten this House in relation to how those amounts are arrived at, since there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the manner in which the final figures are determined. Budgets apparently submitted by the national states appear to be summarily altered or reduced. It might be a project in good relations and communications to negotiate these amendments with the national states concerned. I would suggest it is a matter of sound management to arrive at a consensus in this regard.

Another problem I encountered concerns the areas of responsibility between this hon Minister and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Now, I am aware that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Planning was previously known as the Minister of Everything but it is now generally accepted that with his narrow 39 vote win in Helderberg, he has become somewhat chastened.

Some of the Chief Ministers are in the dark as to whose responsibility certain matters are, and although it may be the intention of the Government deliberately to confuse those individuals, I would suggest that it would be an exercise in good public relations to issue one of those little booklets that this hon Minister’s department is fond of issuing so frequently, which should be designed to enlighten not only the cabinet ministers of the national states and their citizens but the general public as well as to the functions and duties of the respective departments, ie where the lines of responsibility lie and where they overlap.

The second question I wish to raise is the issue of the Hermansberg Mission and the farm that they wish to dispose of at Holgat near Coligny in the Western Transvaal. I am advised that a trust was set up to purchase the farm to accommodate the Magopa and Rooigrond people who had been forcibly removed from the land which they had occupied for decades. It was intended that the Holgat land would be an alternative to people returning to Magopa with possible violent results. It was also intended that the farm would be developed along progressive cooperative lines, and workshops discussing this have been in progress for some time. I am now advised that during the middle of July the department expropriated the land and that urgent letters have been sent, without success, to the Ministry asking for this decision to be reversed.

I am also advised that there is a mission school on the farm and that this apparently is going to be converted into an agricultural training college. However, the 100 ha that the school occupies on the farm was not to be sold to the trust which was to purchase the remaining approximately 3 000 ha. On the fact of it, it seems as though the department is deliberately blocking the project.

The Government has behaved in a really sordid manner towards the people of Magopa over the years, and one can only assume that because they won an action in the Supreme Court, the Government is punishing them by not allowing them to settle on the land of their choice and is hounding them to become citizens of Bophuthatswana, a citizenship they do not desire and refuse to accept.

This is a very serious matter and I hope that the Minister when he replies will explain the reasons for the expropriation and what he intends doing about it. What is happening at Holgat is the consequence of the policy of the CP—the policy of disaster.

The third matter I wish to raise concerns KwaNdebele. A lot has been said about KwaNdebele here, and a very serious situation indeed exists there. During the recess I also paid an extensive visit to KwaNdebele in the company of my colleague the hon member for Bryanston and was appalled at the conditions I found existing in that area.

I would like to recommend to the hon the Minister that he reads a recent publication of the SAIRR entitled: Satellite in Revolt— KwaNdebele: An Economic and Political Profile. It is written by Colleen McCaul, and is a comprehensive and extensive survey into what is going on in that area.

We all know that KwaNdebele is nothing more than a clutch of farms to the east of Pretoria designed to provide a reservoir of labour for Pretoria and the East Rand. While there, we commenced our visit by touring Ekangala and Ekandustria. I was amazed at the construction work that has taken place in these two areas. Rows upon rows of empty houses and empty factories clutter up the countryside and an extensive network of tarred roads crisscrosses both townships. When one takes into account the situation in the Black townships around our cities, I wonder how one can justify spending vast amounts of money in providing these extensive facilities in what is nothing more than a ghost town.

I am advised that wages in the factories that have been established there are of the order of R35 a week, whilst rentals in the township are in excess of R100 a month. In addition to this there is an electricity bill which has to be paid by every household and which is also of the order of R100 a month. No wonder, therefore, that thousands of people depart from Ekangala each morning in a vast number of buses and taxis to seek employment in towns anything up to 100 km away.

Buses travel backwards and forwards daily, transporting commuters many hundreds of kilometres each week in scenes reminiscent of flashes from the movie Dr Zhivago. I saw with my own eyes many buses travelling back to KwaNdebele late at night along the motorway to the north, laden with migratory workers returning to what can only be termed the South African Siberia. [Interjections.]

People were moved to Ekangala some years ago under false pretences as this area has now been incorporated into KwaNdebele. The spectre of independence hangs over their heads, and could mean the loss of their South African citizenship.

I am most distressed by the situation that exists in KwaNdebele and although I am aware that the matter of independence for this national state is not the responsibility of this particular Minister, he does have a budgetary responsibility to promote the development of this national unit towards self-determination and I therefore believe he has to accept responsibility for the situation that exists in KwaNdebele at the present time.

The KwaNdebele homeland is in a state of virtual civil war. It would appear that the overwhelming majority of those citizens opposed to independence are being ruled by an individual, namely Mr George Mahlangu, whom one gentleman I spoke to described as an Idi Amin.

It has been reported that the Mhbokoto has been disbanded but I discovered considerable evidence during my visit that there appears to be a reign of terror by this organisation throughout KwaNdebele.

One young man I interviewed explained in graphic detail how he had been taken to Vaalbank by a group of vigilantes and threatened that if he did not support Mhbokoto, he would die. When he refused he was taken into a schoolroom from which the furniture had been removed. Soapy water was thrown onto the slippery cement floor and he was beaten by the vigilantes with pick handles and sjamboks within an inch of his life. I saw the scars on his body and his mother explained to me that after he had been released by the Mhbokoto she had taken him to hospital where he shook uncontrollably for two days.

Not only is the Mhbokoto active in this way but the current Chief Minister, Mr George Mahlangu, has been holding a series of meetings following which he will no doubt convey to the South African Government the message that the people of KwaNdebele are in favour of independence.

He held a meeting with taxi drivers. He has held a separate meeting with businessmen and a further separate meeting with teachers and civil servants, and he was to have held a festival day for sportsmen and choirs last Friday, 24 July, at the KwaMahlanga Stadium where there was to have been choir singing, soccer matches, parades, free refreshments and free entertainment.

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

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, and I thank the hon Whip for his courtesy. [Interjections.] Somebody here does not know the rules! [Interjections.]

At each of these meetings the Chief Minister addresses those present, and because taxi drivers do not wish to lose their taxi licences, businessmen do not wish to lose their trading licences and teachers and civil servants do not wish to lose their jobs, when he asks whether anyone is opposed to independence, it is obvious that not one single person responds in the affirmative. It will be seen, therefore, that what he is attempting to do cannot be a fair reflection of the will of the people of KwaNdebele with regard to independence, particularly when one takes into account that at each of these meetings there has apparently been an enormous police presence, which further adds to the intimidation.

An additional complicating factor is that Prince James Mahlangu has been restricted from holding any meetings or from criticising the concept of independence. How is it possible that the person who is generally regarded as the natural leader of the majority of the Ndebeles is not allowed to put his point of view, particularly when sources close to Prince James advise me that Brigadier Lerm recommended to him that they should accept independence? How is it that a civil servant of Brig Lerm’s standing can become embroiled in a sensitive political matter of this nature?

How is it possible that the KwaNdebele police are able to arrest Mr Cornelius Mahlangu outside the offices of the British Consulate in Johannesburg?

How is it possible that the KwaNdebele Government has dismissed the Secretary for Justice, Mr Buys; has had the former Commissioner-General, Mr Gerrie van der Merwe, removed from office; arranged for Brigadier Van Niekerk, the former Commissioner of Police, to be removed from KwaNdebele; arranged for Brigadier Moller, who was apparently responsible for the security situation to the State President himself, and for former Commissioner-General Mr Mills, to be removed from their positions? The amount that we are asked to vote today will include an amount to maintain the KwaNdebele Government and I think the hon the Minister owes us an explanation.

I discussed the question of independence with as many people as I possibly could. People who felt free to speak their minds because we were alone expressed their opposition to the concept, while others who were within earshot of other individuals refused to express an opinion.

Why does the South African Government allow this situation to continue in KwaNdebele? There is no way that a free and democratic test of the wishes of the people with regard to independence is possible under present conditions. Independence for KwaNdebele is the policy of partition, and the policy of the CP, and it is the policy of disaster. [Interjections.]

The whole concept of independence should be put on the back burner for some considerable time and the situation in that area be allowed to return to normal. A state of siege exists; people are being brainwashed and intimidated, and there is no way that there can be a free election or a free choice with the current state of emergency and the reign of terror that exists.

Mr Chairman, we have grown accustomed to hearing the hon member for Johannesburg North exaggerate problems to such an extent that it is unbelievable that he can believe himself. [Interjections.]

Do you know where KwaNdebele is?

He raised two issues in regard to specific budget figures and to Cabinet responsibilities to which I am sure the hon the Minister will reply.

The other point which he raised was I think to create the impression that the Government acts inhumanely and deliberately to frustrate people as far as Holgat and Rooigrond are concerned. [Interjections.] I also think that that is not fair. I think that this Government and the department are always prepared to listen to representations by people, and if this hon member would like to make representations to the Government I am sure they would sympathetically consider whatever he has to say. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, what is very interesting, is that this hon member went so far this afternoon as to refer to Mr George Mahlangu as the Idi Amin of South Africa. [Interjections.] He said he heard that. Somebody told him so. However, he is prepared to repeat it in the highest body of authority in South Africa.

Disgraceful!

I think that is really irresponsible. [Interjections.] I want to say this to him, Sir: That is the party that always gave as an example of what should happen in South Africa what was happening in Zimbabwe. I want to ask the hon member whether he is satisfied with what is happening in Zimbabwe today …

Who said that?

…or would he say … Ask the hon member for Greytown. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say to that hon member that I do not think that it is in the interests of good relations in South Africa or in the interests of good government in the self-governing areas to come into the highest body of authority and to make accusations which I do not believe he can substantiate.

Disgraceful!

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss another matter this afternoon. Despite the attempts by the hon member for Lichtenburg this afternoon to sow suspicion regarding mismanagement and misapplication of funds in the self-governing states, I want to state that the attempts of this Government and this Ministry to bring about development in the less developed Black areas of South Africa are praiseworthy.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Johannesburg North asked whether I knew where KwaNdebele was. I know KwaNdebele better than he could ever imagine knowing it. [Interjections.] We as members of the commission travel around in this country and in each of these self-governing areas.

Visits are being arranged, and I want to tell the House that the projects we visited, and which those hon members may also visit if they want to, compare very well with, and are even better than, many projects I have seen in similar areas throughout the world. [Interjections.] Despite the negative attitude of the opposition, we want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the efforts they are making. Macroeconomic development regarding industrial and agricultural development is taking place in these areas for all to see.

Without detracting from the fine work being done there, I want to plead today for a comprehensive development strategy as far as these less developed self-governing areas in South Africa are concerned. This department has two functions, namely education and development aid. We listened yesterday to the debate on education with great compassion, and the hon member for Stellenbosch stressed the importance of education. Today, however, we are discussing the other arm, namely development aid. This name is a particularly good description of the task entrusted to the department.

The question is whether consensus has been reached by all the institutions involved regarding what we want to achieve with development aid. Are we succeeding in resolving the development dilemma of Africa south of the Sahara here in South Africa by means of development aid in our own self-governing areas?

With a Third World component of 70% in our population structure we cannot simply escape the trends of Africa. I am now referring to the rapid population growth, food shortage, lack of sufficient job opportunities, the backlog in education, lack of adequate health services, and low productivity. These are all symptoms of a less developed Africa which is predominantly Third World in composition. I want to repeat that South Africa, seen against the background of Africa, has much for which to be grateful. It is for this very reason that we should do everything in our power, to overcome in South Africa the development dilemma of Africa by means of development aid.

The department’s annual report for 1985-86 is filled with success stories. There has been development regarding works, agriculture, and towns and land affairs. Management services were effective, as in the case of personnel management, training and procurement services. There were planning services such as ethnological and social services, town and regional planning, liaison services and development corporations. There were also special job creation programmes. Each of these is a success story in itself and an attempt to overcome the development dilemma in South Africa.

The fact remains that we have to achieve two basic objectives. Firstly, as far as possible we have to activate every person in the self-governing areas economically. Secondly, we have to establish the principle of capitalism among those people. A few questions now arise. Are we making sufficient progress with all our efforts, all our intentions, and all the successes we know about? Are we coordinating our activities sufficiently? Is our organisation effective? Do we understand the development concepts with which we are dealing? Do all those involved grasp development aid as a mechanism? Is the policy regarding development aid described clearly enough? Furthermore, and this is important: Do we understand the development dilemma in Africa as it is being enacted to the north of us?

Another question is whether we are succeeding with reform in Black communities, for example, regarding the principle of private property ownership in agriculture. This is undoubtedly the basis for agriculture which, as the primary sector, is followed by industrial development as the secondary sector and, lastly, by the tertiary sector.

The old story of the haves and have-nots is also very clearly illustrated in South Africa. We know, too, that the concept of the haves and have-nots in South Africa is unfortunately still charged with a colour connotation. Figures show that 70% of the world’s population belong to the less-developed sector and have to be content with only 17% of the world’s revenue. In contrast, the remaining 30% who are more developed receive 83% of the world’s revenue. In South Africa the 18% who are White receive 70% of the total revenue, whereas the Blacks who form 68% of our population earn 20% of the revenue.

All I want to plead with the hon the Minister for this afternoon …

The redistribution of wealth!

I did not hear what the member said.

The redistribution of wealth.

No one is pleading for the redistribution of wealth.

I simply want to say that if we do not succeed in giving every person in this country a decent income and in making every person in this country a capitalist, those hon members are going to suffer with us in this country in the future. [Interjections.]

order!

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he would consider issuing a White Paper concerning the whole problem of development aid. In this country we have White Papers on the economic development programmes, national policy, agriculture, urbanisation strategy, population policy, industrial development, and regional development. I should now like to plead for a White Paper in connection with development aid as a concept and as a philosophy to facilitate our task so that we can apply this on a co-ordinated basis in South Africa. I am asking the hon the Minister to consider and give attention to this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein rightly asked a few questions here. He asked whether there was really consensus to resolve the development dilemma, also in South Africa. I believe that this question was actually being put to the Government itself. He asked whether we had understanding of the development aid, also in South Africa, and at the end of his speech he even asked the hon the Minister to issue a White Paper to provide more clarity on the matter. I think this is very relevant, as I shall indicate during the course of my speech.

By way of introduction the hon the Minister gave us a general review of the department’s task. It is very clear that at the moment the Department of Development Aid’s sphere of activity is in and around the self-governing areas. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Lichtenburg by saying that the question now is whether it is still the Government’s policy to partition South Africa even further as far as these Black peoples, which are its responsibility, are concerned.

But I said so at the beginning. [Interjections.]

It is an important question. [Interjections.]

Order!

Against this background of the Government’s policy, as explained in the White Paper on urbanisation in which the Government declared that it would not stand in the way of communities that wanted to develop to full independence, one must accept that in this respect the Government is following a so-called “yes-but” or perhaps a “yes-no” policy. “Yes” for communities or peoples which will insist firmly on full self-determination. On the other hand, this is not really being encouraged; on the contrary, what is happening is that the benefits and the attraction of a central co-ordinating, one-nation, state authority is being propagated instead, with the redistribution of the general South African prosperity and the benefits this entails for the so-called backward communities, as the most important attraction. This is the incentive. I want to maintain that the Government is no longer in earnest about leading these peoples to independence. [Interjections.]

We must accept, therefore, that the idea of general citizenship of one undivided South Africa is the Government’s preferred standpoint. Nevertheless, at the same time this Government is saying no to the Afrikaner people which is being forced and driven by Afrikaner nationalism to demand self-determination, full independence and freedom for itself. [Interjections.] At the same time this Government is saying no to a Griqua people of which one of the leaders has come to talk to this side of the House, saying it is also their ideal to provide freedom and self-determination of their own for their people. [Interjections.]

Order!

If it is true that there are different nationalities (yolksnasionalismes) in South Africa, it is impossible to give full development and expression to those nationalities in an undivided South Africa.

My question now is why the Government is still spending time and money on purchasing land in order to consolidate and develop the territories of the self-governing states. Last year the hon the Deputy Minister said the last money for consolidation was being budgeted. He quoted the State President and said he would give the assurance that consolidation would be concluded. It is true that only R58,5 million has been budgeted this year, but the consolidation has not been finalised; the process is continuing.

We are asking the Government where it is going with the different peoples of South Africa. It is indeed feeling its way in the dark, which can only lead to chaos for South Africa.

Feeling its way like a fool.

On the one hand this department is budgeting billions of rands as set out in the various programmes. On the other, however, it is striving for a national council to accommodate everyone in one constitutional dispensation. The attempt to join communities together and the attempt to bring about a broad state nationalism in a deeply divided South Africa, will of necessity lead to a protracted internecine power struggle. I think the hon the Minister can avail himself of the opportunity to spell out to us this afternoon his view of what these self-governing states’ participation will be in a council of state which will have to have legislative as well as executive authority in this greater South Africa.

In contrast with this we have the CP’s ethnic policy. This is a policy which was succeeding in South Africa and which brought economic prosperity and stability to this country until this Government was persuaded by international liberalism to abandon the policy of separate development. There are a number of examples in the Northern Transvaal where Black towns are no longer situated next to White towns. Our policy involves the creation of a state for each people which so chooses, and does not force them into this as has been suggested. The choice is theirs. They will have a state in which full sovereignty can be achieved with a government of their own and a full right of self-determination. [Interjections.]

Where is the Minister’s Coloured homeland?

Order!

We on this side of the House, as the representatives of the White voters of South Africa, are going to demand this for our people just as we are prepared to grant it to every other people on the subcontinent of Africa on which we live.

Southland.

The hon member said Southland. I am surprised that they are not asking where it will be, as they usually do. [Interjections.]

We say that for nearly 40 years the Government has been drawing boundaries for the self-governing states. This is not final yet. The boundaries between states are drawn by history, but—and this is important—they will never be drawn if the principle of the matter is not accepted now. It is a principle which is accepted more and more by the White electorate. Just look after the results of the recent election. More than half a million White voters already accept this principle.

Take a look at the next election.

The time will come when the majority of White voters will accept it; in fact, I maintain that the majority of the Afrikaner people already accepts this principle. [Interjections.]

The task of this hon Minister’s department in respect of development aid has narrowed completely to a function solely within the self-governing territories. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Lichtenburg and say that we are very concerned about the financial aspect involved. I maintain that the hon the Minister is not giving a proper account in this House of the R3 billion—an increase of R66,8 million. Let me give a few examples. When we put a question about certain buildings which were built in a self-governing state, the hon the Minister’s reply was:

We have had a number of similar examples.

I want to give a second example. There was the Dekker Commission that investigated the alleged misappropriation of funds at the Lebowa Development Corporation. They pointed out such cases, in fact. These days the annual report of the LDC is no longer tabled here. There is not much time, but I want to quote only one aspect which is recommended and which was accepted by the Government. It is the recommendation about the Packsure Pietersburg company—

That was last year. I now want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us the factual situation in connection with this company, Packsure Pietersburg. What is the present situation, because according to my information R1,9 million is involved in this undertaking? We should like to know, for example, what has become of the arrear loan amounts of four Ministers, three Members of Parliament, one Minister’s wife, and one Minister’s driver, loans that amounted to R162 000. [Interjections.] We should like to know whether or not those loans have been redeemed.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon member for Pietersburg an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I want to give a third example. I should like to put a specific question to the hon the Minister. It concerns the four water condensation machines which were in operation in Lebowa, according to the hon the Minister in reply to a question on 17 February last year. The hon the Minister said at the time that approximately 2 000 litres of water per day was being supplied, depending on the moisture content of the air. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether or not these four water condensation machines are still in operation, and if so, where they are in operation, and what the present unit cost is per litre of water.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the sooner more clarity and information is given in this House about the financial aspects of what is going on in those areas, the fewer misgivings and the less uneasiness there will be about misappropriation in self-governing areas.

The administration of the affairs of Blacks outside the national states now falls under general affairs of second-third-tier government. We say that where large numbers of the citizens of these self-governing areas are still outside the areas of jurisdiction of the self-governing states, it should be made possible for those governments, with the assistance of the hon the Minister’s department, to render services to such citizens, such as education services and so on. This also means, however, that they cannot exercise any political rights outside their states. They will have to do so in their own states. Nor can they get trade union rights in our country. Trade union rights must be exercised in their own states. Political pressure by trade unions can then be exerted only within the context of one’s own state.

Black entrepreneurs will have to be encouraged and assisted in establishing and developing business undertakings in their own fatherlands to the benefit of their own economies, whereas border industries will have to be encouraged on a much bigger scale than is the case at present, to exploit and develop job opportunities within commuting distance to the maximum degree.

Let me say this in conclusion. Every campaign and every undertaking and plan of this department of the hon the Minister must be directed at bringing about the maximum degree of physical planning of peoples in South Africa, inter alia by labour zoning, to establish the maximum degree of homogeneous communities in the multinational situation of South Africa. It goes without saying, therefore, that no right of land ownership can be granted to citizens of these self-governing states outside their respective states. In the same way the government of each self-governing state has the fullest right to determine who can get right of ownership within its territory and who cannot.

This side of the House will continue to develop this ethnic planning process enthusiastically and energetically, a process which brought the earlier NP a long way, because it is the only sensible alternative to the chaos of integration.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg says the CP wants to create a separate state, with full sovereignty for all the people of South Africa. Do I understand the hon member correctly? Is that what he means? In that case, the hon members of the CP are in no way prepared to discuss power-sharing. Not at all. However, they express their concern over the misapplication of funds in the self-governing areas and in the TBVC countries.

What do these things have to do with each other?

They have a great deal to do with each other. This afternoon the hon member for Lichtenburg expressed his appreciation regarding the fact that the portion of their expenditure that the TBVC countries contribute is steadily increasing and that their revenue is steadily increasing. However, the RSA is responsible for a large portion of their revenue and we shall in all probability remain responsible for it for a long time.

But surely that is partition!

Even if the hon members of the Official Opposition were to come into power, they would be obliged to meet the financial requirements of the self-governing states and the TBVC countries, and to render assistance in that regard.

But surely that is power-sharing! [Interjections.]

In other words, the hon members of the Official Opposition would not, then, talk about sovereign independent states while they would use funds on a project basis, as the hon member for Lichtenburg puts it. They want to remain the guardians of these self-governing states ad infinitum. [Interjections.] They do not want to allocate funds to them. On the one hand hon members say they want to create sovereign independent states, and on the other …

I want to ask the hon member whether he regards France as a guardian of his previous colonies because he is offering them assistance on a project basis? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg should remember that I asked at the outset whether they wanted to grant sovereign independence. In other words, the hon members want to leave it to them to make decisions completely on their own. [Interjections.] However, when the hon members appropriate funds, they still want to monitor the spending of those funds. They are concerned about how the funds will be used, they want to report on this in Parliament, and they want to appropriate funds on a project basis only. [Interjections.] We are not talking about partition or about sovereign independent states here. The hon members still want to remain the guardians of those states. They want to retain a position of “baasskap” over these states.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue in the Committee. The hon member for Umfolozi is speaking and I can allow only him to speak.

Mr Chairman, it is common knowledge that the State cannot meet all the needs of the self-governing states. This applies to various departments, too. It is therefore necessary for the self-governing states, too, to go through the painful process of cutting the coat according to their cloth.

I took the trouble to ascertain the total financial needs of the national states for the coming financial year. In their draft budgets the national states requested R3,7 billion, the amount they require to cover their estimated expenditure. Additional functions such as township development have in the meantime been transferred to Gazankulu, KwaZulu and Lebowa, and R98,7 million has been made available to them for this purpose. The total amounted requested by the self-governing areas can therefore be put at R3,828 billion, which means that a cutback of approximately R588 million—15%—has to be achieved by the six areas.

It is interesting to look at how the total amount is divided among the various national states. Of the total amount Gazankulu receives approximately 13%; KaNgwane, 6%; KwaNdebele, 6%, KwaZulu, 42%; Lebowa, 26%; and Qwaqwa, 7%. The total budget is made up as follows: there is a statutory allocation of 14% and an additional amount of 59%, while the revenue of the self-governing areas is 23% and loans amount to approximately 4%.

The total budget of R3,2 billion for 1987-88 represents an increase of R532,672 million on the budget for the previous financial year.

When are you going to answer Ferdie’s question?

He does not answer stupid questions.

However, this includes R59,4 million for the improvement of social pensions and allowances, and R288 million, by which the provision of education has increased as a result of the formula. This means the effective increase can be put at R185 million, which is approximately 7,1%.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the various chief ministers and their governments, the seconded and other officials and our commissioners general and their staff for the selfless work they are doing in the interests of not only the national states, but also our country as a whole. We should like to thank the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, the hon the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and the entire staff, who mobilise resources and expertise at government level for use as development support to the developing areas.

The importance of the governments of the self-governing areas as well as the task of the Department of Development Aid cannot be stressed enough. The great differences in the levels of development of the various communities in the RSA are a reality. One community cannot exist or develop without the other.

Our Government is doing everything in its power to promote development and upliftment work in order to raise everyone’s standard of living. The radicals who create unrest and damage and destroy property, and the intimidators who from time to time prevent peaceful people from doing their work, make the task of upliftment more difficult. The outside world, with countries instituting sanctions against us and others threatening sanctions, creates an unfavourable climate for placing developing communities on an upward path of development.

The Department of Development Aid is at present the only Government department created exclusively with experts who work with the total development of developing areas in the RSA. In the execution of its task, the department has to liaise and communicate to an increasing extent with local communities and involve them in planning and development activities to ensure that development takes place in the area of greatest need. Furthermore action must be taken to remove stumbling blocks from the communities’ path to improvement.

New techniques and methods to be applied to the unique problems of developing communities have to be researched and developed on an ongoing basis. I want to stress here particularly the importance of urbanisation.

It is not possible for everyone in our national states to continue practising subsistence farming. It is important for the idea to take hold that people have to be settled in villages and that the number of people involved in farming will have to be reduced. More effective soil conservation practices will also have to be undertaken. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to deal to any extent with the speech of the hon member for Umfolozi, but I want to make it clear that I too share the concern regarding the monitoring and the control of funds that are made available to self-governing and independent states.

I wonder if this House realises what the reaction of the public outside is to the costs of the present political philosophy of the Government. This has been expounded on many occasions, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the economy of this country is being severely taxed as a result of what are now becoming almost impractical policies.

That is a false perception. [Interjections.]

I would like one question answered by the hon the Minister. Does the Government still regard the status of the self-governing states as the first step towards those states becoming independent? That is what we would like to know. [Interjections.] We want to receive clear answers to these points, because there are certain principles involved in this particular matter.

The one point that I feel needs to be clarified—I say this with great respect, bearing in mind the efforts of the Department of Development Aid and the excellent work that is being done in many areas—is that we have to be assured that there is no attempt behind the scenes to buy off these self-governing states to take their independence. I make the point clearly because there must not be any attempt to sell to them in any form encouragement to take independence.

What are you insinuating? [Interjections.]

Regrettably time does not afford me the opportunity to go into that, but I will at some other opportunity clarify that position more. [Interjections.]

In the first place I wish to deal with the role of the South Africa Development Trust Corporation, the STK. I am conscious of the fact that this organisation must give greater consideration to the planning and development of areas that fall under the control of the South Africa Development Trust before these areas are handed over to respective self-governing states. Allow me to say clearly that I am aware of the contribution that the STK is making to the development of the self-governing states.

However, I want to refer specifically to the preparation that needs to be taken into consideration from the point where land is purchased from the farmer to the time that it is handed over to a self-governing state. There are certain observations I wish to make and I would urge the Government to bear these in mind before any hand-over is made. I am particularly concerned about the manner in which land that has been transferred in the past has been treated by the recipients.

It is quite clear to me that one of the first essentials is that the concept of land ownership must be established and accepted by the recipient government. Secondly, areas must be planned before hand-over to ensure correct land utilisation. Settlement areas must therefore be defined clearly as areas that are suitable for settlement purposes and to which infrastructural systems can be fed. Equally, land suitable for agricultural purposes must be developed and planned in accordance with ecological factors. There must also be planning on the basis of encouraging the free enterprise system whereby successful operators may expand their undertakings and whereby those that are not so successful will give way to those that are more accomplished.

One must also realise that the rural Black is largely an agriculturist. One of the deficiencies in our present system is that too many people—I refer particularly to the Black people—have no direct stake in the land. What better way is there of rectifying this anomaly than by providing this opportunity to satisfy this important need of so many of the Black rural people?

I think that one of the first essentials in regard to the planning of areas before they are handed over to the respective states is the setting aside and the defining of conservation areas. These areas must be considered sacred and a commitment must be made to preserve them as such for all time.

I would like to deal very briefly with the Mpendle area and I would point out at the start that this area that falls under the STK incorporates some 22 000 hectares. This area was originally bought for the purposes of compensatory land. I feel that a clear indication must be given by the Government as to what its attitude is towards this area now that the question of forced removals is no longer applicable. That particular region affords an ideal opportunity of expanding the scope of Black agriculture. I would like to suggest, as we are faced with the position that there is this vast area of land available with no people to take it over, that consideration be given to the immediate division of this area into small economic units. Training facilities should also be established in order to make it possible for those who are interested in farming, to learn about the problems of agriculture and to adapt themselves to the particular environment in which they may later conduct their agricultural operations. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would first like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for the very kind things he said about the Department of Development Aid and the tremendous job they are doing. However, I want to go on to say to him that he reminds me of a tightrope-walker. On the one hand he has constantly to pat the Government on the back for doing something that is right and on the other hand …

Only when it is right.

… he has to make sure that he criticises the Government as well because he has got to be seen as part of the opposition.

I would rather do that than pat them on the back all the time.

Quite frankly, he must look around at his options now because his future in the party he belongs to is a thing of the past.

Between the Republics of Transkei and Ciskei lies a strategic part of the Republic of South Africa which is usually referred to as the Corridor. Its existence has been brought about by the establishment of two independent states, that of Transkei and Ciskei.

The boundaries of Transkei to the east of the Corridor have been finalised. On the west the lines have been drawn and subject to minor adjustments the boundary of Ciskei will shortly be finalised.

It is essential for the prosperity of all three component countries that these boundaries are in fact finalised as soon as possible. With the implementation of the Act of 1913, the Natives Land Act as it was then known, and the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, certain trust lands were established and acquired by South Africa for the South African Development Trust to accommodate concentrations of Black people within what later became and is today known as the Corridor.

Originally these lands were administered by the South African Government through commissioners, local chiefs and headmen. With the independence of Ciskei in 1981 the desire on the part of Ciskei and the Government of the RSA was that these Black people should be accommodated in Ciskei. However, the logistics of such a move were impractical. Furthermore, the SA Cabinet in its wisdom established the principle that so-called forced removals were undesirable, disruptive and non-productive. While the idea of the so-called Black spots becoming part of Ciskei was actually mooted, it was clearly announced by the hon the Minister on 13 May 1986 in Parliament and repeated on 22 July 1987 at Kidd’s Beach that the areas of Mooiplaas, Kwelera, Mgwali, Heckel, Wartburg, Goshen and Lesseyton, and others lying within the Corridor would remain and be developed as part of the RSA. The Governments of the RSA and Ciskei are presently finalising the consolidation of Ciskei in a “package deal” in which compensatory ground on a hectare for hectare basis will be provided for Ciskei in place of the 10 000 hectares of land which lie within the borders of the Corridor.

Insofar as adjustments to the boundaries between Ciskei and the RSA are concerned, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister for his interest and the trouble he took recently to visit Kidd’s Beach and Chalumna in order to acquaint himself personally with the position and to hear the representations of those White people whose interests are directly affected by boundary proposals. I pay tribute to his openheartedness and his attentive attitude. I believe that while the interests and requests of our independent Black states are important to us as a whole in South Africa, the interests of our own White South Africans affected by consolidation are equally important. This side of the House will therefore ensure always that the maximum consultation takes place with representatives of organised agriculture and all interested parties before complete finality is reached.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, I wish to turn to the steps this Government is actually taking and the course it wishes to follow, following the decision to retain these trust lands to which I have previously referred.

It is no secret that the present conditions existing in these areas leave much to be desired. Therefore, the Department of Development Aid is taking immediate action to rectify the matter. A regional office for the Department of Development Aid has been opened in East London with effect from 1 April 1987 so that the whole matter can receive the Government’s attention at much closer quarters. This office will serve the department in three respects. Firstly, it will improve the administration of the areas; secondly, civil engineering will be used to upgrade facilities in the areas; and thirdly, agriculture in the areas will be examined.

In regard to administration, the department is establishing communication with the residents through informal liaison committees in all the areas. Through these committees the department is identifying, and has in fact identified, essential services and facilities which must be provided as a matter of urgency. The Government intends to arrange for the establishment of a viable local government authority in each area. The actual form of that authority is the responsibility of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, but consultations will take place, and it is the NP’s desire and wish that the people themselves should properly elect the local representatives to such local authorities who will be able to take on the responsibility of local government.

In the field of civil engineering the regional office has already established that the essential facilities of domestic water supply, clinics, health facilities, educational requirements etc will require a minimum capital expenditure of R12 million. This year, owing to a shortage of funds, we are able to budget for R3,5 million of the total amount. Inter alia, we intend to provide, for example, 30 fully equipped boreholes by 31 March 1988 to supply fresh drinking water to these areas.

In regard to agriculture the department has appointed consultants who are presently identifying those areas in the trust lands where agriculture can be established on a viable scale. The idea is not to establish massive irrigation schemes but community gardens where the intensive production of vegetables and cash crops as well as livestock production can take place. The effective and proper utilisation of trust land is of paramount importance in this regard.

The lack of facilities and work opportunities, the burgeoning population and the lack of effective administration due to unrest created a problem for border farmers whose properties adjoin these lands. There is no doubt that the new steps being taken by the Government will improve the position considerably. A further step requested by adjoining South African farmers, and agreed to by the Government, is the erection” of boundary fences built to international standards to ensure the control of livestock movement and to reduce the incidence of stock theft and trespassing. The Kei Road Farmers’ Association has requested that it be consulted about the boundary area between Peelton and Gasela.

It is clear that the Government intends to create a new pattern of progress, upliftment and improvement of lifestyle for the many Black South Africans living within these areas. At the same time the future of the adjoining farming communities will be more secure.

May I in closing, Mr Chairman, refer back to the question of forced removals and give a word of advice to the hon members of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein revealed to this House on 16 June this year that according to the hon member for Ermelo the Official Opposition estimates that approximately 20% of the Black population in South Africa will have to be moved out of this new state which they intend to establish. That is approximately 5 million people. How can the CP and its supporters hope to move 5 million Blacks out of Southland?

They seek a White state in Africa. They have been left behind by history. They are out of touch with the realities of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member permitted in terms of the rules to read his speech? [Interjections.]

They are on cloud nine. They have a pie-in-the-sky policy. Their policy is in fact preposterous. I would like to suggest that in Africa there is only one place of which I am aware that has remained white in spite of the black politics around it and that is the top of Kilimanjaro. I suggest that they start a second new Great Trek, move over there and leave this Government to carry on meeting the challenges in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with my colleague the hon member for King William’s Town. He closed on a very positive note and I should like to take it from there.

He is just as cute as his brother.

I should like to view the future of South Africa positively and in particular examine the role played by the South African Development Trust Corporation in assisting in the development of these people. It is tragic that we have spent the entire evening talking about development aid here and that little attention has been paid from the Opposition side to the real development of our Black fellow-citizens of this country.

The Department of Development Aid has a very important partner in the STC—an auxiliary and development arm. If we look at the overall objectives of the STC, which operates under the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, 1968, it is very clear to me that they carry out research and planning in the first place, planning of an integrated development strategy for each of these regions. They do this not only for these trust areas but also for self-governing states.

They supply professional and technical assistance to these areas and create the institutional substructure and infrastructure which is so essential for their development.

In addition to this they create systems which are conducive to the fulfilment of the pursuit of independence in communities. I think this is what we are seeking. We want to give these people something to strive for. As previous speakers have said here this evening—the hon member for Turffontein among them— we are seeking ideals for these people so that they will have something to reach towards. This is the STC goal in working for these people. They not only assist in developing agriculture, but also mining, industry and commerce as well as transport in these states. They are helping in creating this substructure in particular.

It is actually far more important to me to examine the substance of STC philosophy. I think the clearest illustration of this is the development of the Mjindi project on the Makatini Flats. So far these people have succeeded in establishing 93 farmers on ten hectare units, where ten farmers on one hectare units have achieved the highest rice production in the world and where 56 small farmers—let us call them self-sufficient farmers—have been established. They produce sufficient vegetables for themselves on 0,065 ha of land and have enough over to market.

I think this is what we are striving for if we are genuinely talking about development and development aid in this country. This development, especially on the Makatini Flats, has taken place from a core unit which was established with the express view of being decreased still further in future and supplying more land to the growing number of farmers settling in that area. The need for training and counselling spelt out here tonight is the basic point of departure. We then progress from that point and no longer furnish free services to these people; they are leased to them. This entire affair is run on a business footing.

In addition they are supplied with finance and the STC has recently taken over this function of the Department of Development Aid in particular.

One cannot only produce one’s products; one also has to market them. Through the marketing action of the STC and even the processing and packing of products, a market is being created for their products and a vigorous livelihood provided for them.

To me the cardinal point in this entire philosophy is the development of the person. We see day-care centres there where infants are tended; there are schools to satisfy the requirements of these people. There are also health services and clinics and all these services and more are made possible by the STC.

There is scope for the processing and manufacture of products as well as for people to develop skills. There is a housewives’ club where these people learn to make clothes at home and to cook; this is providing training. The philosophy of the STC is therefore not only to provide services but also to assist people in putting them to good use. That is true development aid.

This entire project—these 2 000 people working there plus their dependants—are actually controlled by ten Whites but the administration and the computers in the offices are all operated by Black persons. They have been trained there and assisted by our people.

In speaking of “our people”, I believe it is very important for us to take note that this work is being done by South Africans and that a very positive reaction is received from the Black people who settle there. When one asks such a person: “Are these all your children working for you here?” he smiles because these are people from neighbouring areas seeking work and there is great satisfaction and happiness among those people. I want to add that, although it is just south of Mozambique, I did not see one of those Whites carrying a single firearm.

I think we should also examine Botshabelo as a further example of the STC’s development actions where a strong entrepreneurship is being created in the shape of businessmen. A new middle class of business undertaking is developing there, by means of which we shall also obtain a greater contribution to the economy of this country from these people. If we complain so bitterly that only Whites pay tax, will these people not ultimately also do so? This is the direction in which we have to train those people.

I wish to conclude by looking at the result of employment opportunities created at R4 500 each. This sounds economical to me. A total of R9 million was invested, but 2 000 people have employment opportunities. What is more, in excess of half of this total investment is being converted into an agricultural turnover on the Makatini Flats, which results in an income of R5,5 million for those people. This instils a sense of ownership and pride in them. It proves that agriculture has an important development role to play in a Third World situation. As the hon member for Turffontein said, this primarily provides raw materials for processing which are developed further in secondary processes.

This is an example to us of orderly settlement because these people are not utilising high-potential agricultural land for the establishment of towns. They are utilising wasteland where their township establishment and community development takes place. They also operate their agricultural industry from there and that is also where one can bring about community development significantly at a much lower cost.

My plea tonight is that the STC should be enabled to do more such development work, that funds be made available and that they be enabled particularly to provide aftercare. It is certainly important that our people are not left dangling in midair but that there is a continuous follow-up and aftercare. We must help people in this country to help themselves. We shall have to teach them to angle instead of providing them with fish every day. We shall also have to teach them how to develop other potential in those areas which are soon to be transferred, as the hon member for Mooi River requested, after they have been developed sensibly. I think these are matters we should note.

In conclusion, my sincere thanks from this side of the House to the directorate and officials of the STC who do their planning in Pretoria with devotion, but execute it meaningfully in the spheres where these people require real development. I greatly appreciate what I saw there, which is that people in conditions of isolation make every sacrifice for other people in this country which has to be developed. We salute them.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by putting a pertinent question to the hon the Minister on the position of the Mozambican refugees in Qwaqwa.

Qwaqwa?

Not in Qwaqwa—in Gazankulu. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am pleased that my slip of the tongue could draw the hon the Minister’s attention to this. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon the Minister that as regards my constituency I am concerned about the control of these refugees. There is supposed to be a document in terms of which they are controlled—I think it is a yellow one—but I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he has ascertained the nature of the control in any way. I also want to know of him whether he has any idea whatever of the numbers already present in Gazankulu. I want to know whether he is aware that some of them are already filtering onto neighbouring farms to look for work there; that they are prepared to work and prepared to drive out local Blacks by accepting lower wages. If the farmers or employers—the potential employers—were to engage them, those people would be guilty of an offense. Does the hon the Minister know this? I want to know of him whether he has made arrangements regarding a possible repatriation of those refugees and whether he has any means of exercising control over their repatriation or over statistics regarding the numbers repatriated, compared with those who have entered the area. I merely want to ask what precautions he is taking that it will not be said of these people one day that we require more land for them because they are here anyway.

I also wish to request the hon the Minister not to tell me this is a Gazankulu matter; he must not hide behind that … [Interjections.] … because this Parliament votes money, inter alia for those people …

Order!

Sir, those people have just come out of the dining room. It is Wednesday evening and they are suffering from a typical Wednesday evening syndrome. [Interjections.]

Order!

It has been absolutely amazing to listen to this debate this evening. The question arises not only on what the Government’s policy is but what its plans are on policy concerning this portfolio. Does partition still exist? The hon the Minister of Finance said in his reply to the Second Reading debate of the Vote that the Government’s policy still resembled separate development. Earlier this evening I think this Minister gave a similar reply on this matter by way of an interjection. [Interjections.] Not one of us listens to that hon Minister; that is always his problem.

I was amazed to listen to this debate, especially to the first NP speaker, the Chairman of the Commission for … I do not know the name of the Commission nowadays because things change so quickly in this country these days. One can no longer keep up. I am referring to the hon member for Vryheid; I think he is the Chairman of the Commission for Development Aid. He is a man who should know what he is talking about. He wanted to know whether the CP would take more land for partition if it should come to power. I want to tell the hon member and all his colleagues that at present one of the Government’s methods of debating is to discuss the CP and its methods in order to throw up a smoke screen around its own incompetence.

Yes, it is the old story.

We are prepared to discuss the policy of our party anywhere and at any time. Nevertheless I wish to say to the hon the Minister that this debate deals with the Vote of the hon the Minister of Development Aid, and we are discussing it. I shall explain our standpoint on land to him. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall reply to his question of whether we are going to take more land. This is what is stated in our policy. I shall quote paragraph 2.3.9 of our policy to the hon member:

That is our reply. [Interjections.] That is our stance on this.

Order! Would hon members give the hon member for Soutpansberg a fair chance to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Vryheid said here that forced removals were not feasible. I do not know but I think it symptomatic of the NP to throw up their hands when they are confronted with the problem and then to say it is not feasible; combating inflation is not feasible, and by the same token nothing is.

I want to ask the hon member for Vryheid whether he is aware of what was written about South Africa in the New York Times of Sunday, 23 November, 1986. I want to quote it to draw the attention of the hon member and his Government to the type of news about South Africa which foreign journalists, whom the Government allows to operate in this country, send to their papers. This report states:

The report appears under the headlines “Uprooting of Blacks Resumes in South Africa” and “South Africa apparently reviving its policy on forced removals of Blacks”. I obtained this information from a friend in the USA who wrote to me saying that this was the kind of news that was being sent abroad by foreign correspondents. He asked why the Government did not place an embargo on the whole lot in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what is written on what is occupying the Government.

The hon member for Vryheid said forced removals were not feasible. Does he have the same to say about illegal squatters? What does the Government intend doing about illegal squatters while squatter camps are mushrooming throughout South Africa? Will the Government simply leave it at that? Is it also not feasible to move them? I now ask the hon the Minister what they intend doing about this.

I now get to a statement made by the hon member himself which is directly connected with this. The hon member said it was our most important task to find land on which to settle Blacks in every district. That is what the hon member said. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he endorses the hon member’s statement. Now the hon the Minister is not saying a word. [Interjections.]

I shall reply to that.

Will you reply to me? I would be glad if the hon the Minister would give me an answer in this regard.

The hon member was actually saying we should revive the Black spots which existed earlier in South Africa. He was actually saying that the work built up over 20 to 30 years should be destroyed. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to the hon member for Umfolozi. He asked whether the CP was opposed to power-sharing and then came up with the absurdity that because South Africa would have to assist these countries financially after independence and we would want to monitor the expenditure of money, they could not be sovereign. What an absolutely absurd statement to make! I want to ask the hon the Minister—he was a professor, after all—whether he does not wish to give that hon member a little tuition on such statements. [Interjections.]

One lends a man money and tells him in so doing that one is giving him money to develop himself. One does not compel him to do this or that but one informs him that one is attaching a specific condition to the way in which he spends that money. One tells him one wishes to help him to help himself and then one states one’s conditions.

This is what we are saying to the Black people of South Africa now. The NP is maligning us among you, but we want to tell the Black peoples of South Africa that we shall help them to develop in such a manner that they can help themselves until they ultimately attain full self-determination. [Interjections.]

With whose money?

We shall assist them to reach full self-determination and also financial independence.

With White money?

We shall help them with South African money in that way. [Interjections.] Nevertheless we shall not do it in such a way that they are perpetually forced to seek aid but in a manner which will enable them ultimately to help themselves completely.

Mr Chairman, …

AWB!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg’s fear of the AWB is so extreme that he starts shaking whenever I rise. [Interjections.] He had better just look about him and see how many AWB members are sitting around him. He will then have cause to be nervous because what they stand for is just as mortally dangerous to South Africa as what the ANC stands for. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to the hon member for Soutpansberg who quoted from his party’s programme of principles and told us its policy was that they would have finished with further purchases of land and further consolidation after the 1936 quota of the promises of land had been honoured. I want to tell the hon member he is ignorant of his party’s policy. He does not know what his leader recently said in an important policy speech in this House.

What was your majority in Sasolburg?

My majority was nearly 2 700. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the debate to continue in this manner. Hon members will compel me to take stronger steps if they will not heed my requests to give the member who is speaking a fair chance to complete his speech. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

I do not know what the hon member for Soutpansberg has been doing since the programme of principles of the radical rightist Opposition was written and since 18 June 1987 when his leader made this important policy speech in the House but he is completely out of step with what is happening in that party. I shall quote from column 1759 of this year’s Hansard. It deals with further purchases and consolidation of land for homelands. Just listen to what the hon leader of the radical rightist Opposition…

You are a leftist radical!

Order! The hon member at the back may not make any further interjections. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said this about the process of consolidation and land purchases:

Note that the hon leader did not state candidly that his party’s policy was to purchase further land for the consolidation and creation of own homelands. He put it in a cunning (skelm) manner that, if this side of the House …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member permitted to say that another hon member has made a statement in a cunning manner?

Order! Unfortunately I was conferring with the Secretary. Would the hon member for Sasolburg repeat what he said?

I said that the hon leader of the radical rightist Opposition cunningly did not state that his party stood for the further purchase of land.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw the word “cunning”.

I withdraw the word “cunning”. [Interjections.]

The hon leader of the radical rightist Opposition stated his party’s policy in an incomprehensible way and said that, if we on this side of the House were to proceed beyond the 1936 quota of land purchases, his party would support this fully. This evening the hon member for Soutpansberg told us, however, that once the 1936 quota had been disposed of, that would be the end of it; they would have finished with it. I tell him he is unaware of what is happening in his party. I also say to him that there are other members of his party who are equally unaware of his party’s policy on land purchases.

I shall quote from a letter written by the radical rightist party’s defeated candidate for Graaff-Reinet, a certain Mr Roché van Heerden. It is a letter he wrote to the Karoonuus of Thursday, 23 July. He wrote in English:

Nor is that all; hon members should listen to the following:

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

Order! If a member asks whether he may put a question—as he is entitled to do—he addresses the request through the chairman and then it is not for other hon members to react to it. It is only the hon member who is speaking who may indicate whether he is prepared to reply to a question and not a chorus of hon members. Is the hon member for Sasolburg prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am not at all prepared to reply during a Committee Stage in which I am allowed only 10 minutes to a question from this lecturing hon member for Losberg. [Interjections.] He is the hon member who writes constitutions for new churches, new parties, Afrikaner states and so. Perhaps he had better rise to his feet and explain his party’s policy to us on further land-purchases. [Interjections.]

Permit me to tell the House, however, what the NP policy in this regard is. From 1936 to 31 December 1986—that is to say 50 years— roughly 6,7 million ha were purchased for an amount of R1,2 billion for the consolidation of the self-governing and independent national states. This means an amount of R182 per ha on average over the past 50 years. This exceeds what was promised in 1936 by 665 000 ha or 10%. The target date for the conclusion of the consolidation process fixed by the State President was 31 March 1987 but, because of the enormous amounts of money involved, about 347 000 ha remain which have to be purchased at an estimated R405 million in respect of Quaqua, KaNgwane and KwaZulu. This means an amount of R1 167 per ha. This is what it costs to purchase one ha at prevailing agricultural prices—and hon members should bear in mind that we have already purchased 6,7 million ha which have already cost us R1,2 billion. The NP standpoint is that we shall have honoured the 1976 Government commitment once we have bought the approximate 347 000 ha for Quaqua, KaNgwane and KwaZulu. After that no further White agricultural land will be purchased for purposes of Black agriculture.

We know that an urbanisation process is taking place in South Africa and that even more agricultural land will be demanded for the urbanisation of all the population groups within South Africa and also within the self-governing and independent national states. Nevertheless there is no question that we shall proceed with this process of the redivision of land in South Africa in order to bring about partition. It is the NP standpoint that the process has practically been concluded.

But that is a partition policy.

You suffer from a partition syndrome.

Let both the White voters and the Black people of South Africa know this. We shall have to seek the further constitutional development of South Africa by other means. That is why we have said on the subject of partition by means of the redivision of land that we have gone as far as we can and according to our 1936 promise.

The Official Opposition, however, refuses utterly to state its standpoint on this clearly. Its members’ standpoints are totally divergent. The hon member for Lichtenburg indicated that the hon member for Barberton was still going to speak this evening. Would he be so good as to tell us what that party’s actual standpoint is on this.

Mr Chairman, I am very fascinated listening to this sort of “broedertwis” between the CP and the NP.

You are right in the middle!

There we have the CP on the one hand standing for a policy of partition and the NP falling over their own feet to say they still stand for it while, nevertheless, realising finally that the truth of the matter is that they have to come to grips with the realities of urbanisation in South Africa and that they have to make land available for squatters who are moving into to the cities and towns. They finally realise that they have to develop a kind of realism. Even the hon the Minister is falling over his own feet to assure us that consolidation will go ahead; that the Government is still going to accomplish that. I must say, however, I do not believe it any longer. I believe they realise now that they cannot follow that policy any longer, and that if they were going to follow sensible policies it was necessary for them to move away from the whole idea of partition which, in theory, can mean all sorts of things, but in reality is impossible to accomplish because we in South Africa have to realise that we are one country and that we will continue to be one country; we have no alternatives.

Listening to the point made by the hon member for Soutpansberg who talked about the squatters’ camps springing up like toadstools all over the place, I believe this Government is fast coming to the realisation that there is nothing at all it can do about this. It is coming to realise that this is a fact of life, and that as the Black man comes into town he has to be accommodated and that space has to be found for him in which he can live.

Sir, I want to follow on part of the speech made by the hon member for Johannesburg North concerning the visit to KwaNdebele, when we visited the industrial estate of Ekandustria in KwaNdebele. I should like to ask the hon the Minister for some enlightenment in relation to how projects of this nature are financed. The hon member for Johannesburg North described Ekandustria as a ghosttown, and that is exactly what it is. It comprises a series of expensive factories, which must have cost several million rand, and they all stand empty today. One drives along those well-tarred streets and through that well-designed township and one sees only a few factories employing a minimal number of people and a good many factory buildings standing absolutely empty—not one of them occupied. Obviously, Sir, one also notices unused railway lines, and railway lines do not come cheaply. They must have cost a lot of money but they are not used.

I want to know from the hon the Minister on whose specific bits of wishful thinking and on whose authority the money was spent to build that project. I do not know whether that was carried out under the auspices of the Decentralisation Board. It might well be. Is it perhaps financed by this hon Minister’s department? I do not know, Sir. Is it perhaps carried out by the KwaNdebele government itself? I must say, however, that in the final analysis, through some Ministry or other, money is made available through the central Exchequer. That money comes from the South African Government. And whether it is the responsibility of this hon Minister or not, it is still this Government that has to decide the priorities of spending in South Africa.

I would suggest to hon members that logically this sort of development would fall under the Department of Development Aid. I want, however, to put a point of view to the hon the Minister. At a time when money is so urgently required for programmes, why have we invested in a white elephant such as this? Nobody in this House is against a policy of decentralisation. Nobody is against encouraging decentralisation or against developing areas such as this one. I am sure, however, that as long as such a policy is intelligently conceived and carried out we would not oppose it. The fact of the matter is, however, that this project so far has misfired. It has misfired completely.

Perhaps in the fullness of time—I really do not know—those factories will be put to use. Hopefully, more and more job opportunities will be created. Was it really necessary, however, to spend this capital at this time? Was it really necessary to do that now in anticipation of a long-term hope? I believe there are far more pressing needs in South Africa at the present time. Expenditure of this nature, when capital is tied up in pie-in-the-sky dreams, is the reason why we have inflation in this country. When one has limited capital resources one has to spend those capital resources intelligently.

I do not believe that it was spent intelligently in this instance and the proof of the pudding is that those factories are standing empty today, that the railway lines are unused and hardly anybody is seen in the streets of that industrial estate.

There is another example. We need only to cross the street from Ekandustria to the residential area Ekangala. Here we find a brand new, recently opened shopping centre with virtually nobody using it. It is probably one of those wonderful projects that the hon member for Turffontein looked at and said how wonderful and marvellous it was. It looks super, it looks tremendous, it looks beautiful, but where are the people?

Deserted!

I want to ask the hon the Minister who financed this shopping centre. Was it really desperately required by the community concerned? If it was, none of them are there. One only has to look at the crying and urgent needs of so many of the inhabitants of KwaNdebele to realize that this shopping centre should have been very low on the list of priorities and that there are far more urgent matters to attend to.

I believe that one should look at the whole situation in KwaNdebele in terms of urgent priorities. I would reinforce the viewpoint expressed by the hon member for Johannesburg North and I would say to the hon the Minister, I would urge the hon the Minister, I would plead with the hon the Minister, to put in abeyance—it is not totally his department, but I am sure he has considerable influence—the whole question of independence for KwaNdebele at this time. I believe that the situation is so inflamed that there is absolutely no possibility of getting the right answer from any meetings and any expressions of opinion under duress that are put forward at the present time.

I know that this hon Minister is a reasonable man; I believe that the Government is sincere in its statements that it is not going to force independence on the people of KwaNdebele. I should like to hear the reaction of the hon the Minister to this whole bedevilled question on the basis that I do not believe it is possible to get the right answer from the people at the present time because of the situation.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Bryanston will forgive me if I do not react in detail to what he said. I get the impression that KwaNdebele is becoming an obsession with the PFP. In the debate thus far they have repeatedly referred to KwaNdebele as if it were the only self-governing state in which this department should grant assistance and whose changes of fortune this Government should look to. Let me tell the hon member that the NP will continue to grant assistance to these people in an intelligent fashion by the implementation of aid and development programmes and also by ensuring stability in the region.

I am also under the impression that the hon member did not really listen carefully to the contributions made by the Government side before he rose to speak. The hon member for Cradock very clearly indicated the configuration of this department’s success story, but that has been completely ignored. One gains the inescapable impression that hon members of the PFP are merely, in some way or other, bent on claiming that our aid programmes are inferior. Let me tell them that that is not true at all.

In the course of my speech I shall try to indicate what exactly the Government’s plan is in the establishment of commercial agriculturists, something which in itself creates employment. Permit me however, before coming to that point, to tell the hon the Minister that it is a privilege for me, as an ex-student of the institution of which he was the rector, to be able to participate in this debate on his Vote. It is a wonderful privilege for me to be able to participate under the auspices of such a man.

We know that over the years agriculture has been a cornerstone in the development process of the self-governing national states, and 65% of the economically active people in these areas are involved in the agricultural sector. What is also apparent from the debate is the fact that the settlement of these people in the agricultural sector, or in agriculture itself in the national states, is not always successfully accomplished. [Interjections.]

How many farmers are there in your constituency? [Interjections.]

There are certain factors that give rise to agriculture not quite getting off the ground. One of these is the system of communal land ownership. Communal land ownership in itself is an inhibiting factor, because there is no incentive for these people to improve production. With the perception that livestock are an indication of a man’s wealth, the quality of the livestock is not the issue, merely the numbers actually owned. If one looks at the resale figures for this livestock, the fact that 6% of the livestock sold in the national states are breeding stock, as against 25% in the states of the Republic of South Africa, it is apparent that some incentive is necessary there.

I have indicated that as a result of the need for incentives—this department is trying to incorporate this into its programmes—things are not really getting off the ground in the national states. There is also a shortage of capital. If one bears in mind that 6% of the sums appropriated by the national states are for the development of agriculture, it is apparent that there is a vacuum that must somehow be filled, because these people’s stomachs must be filled and job opportunities have to be created for them.

So to overcome the perception of agriculture in the national states as possibly being a precarious industry, the Department of Development Aid’s aim is to eliminate these obstacles I have briefly touched upon. To be more specific, the way in which commercial agriculturists are to be established in these areas is by purchasing the trust land in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, and to settle Black agriculturists there.

Here two types of land are involved, the first being compensatory land. The department’s point of departure here is development and the creation of the necessary infrastructure so that the agriculturist himself will move back to that land, thereby obviating forced removals in that regard.

In contrast there is the quota land, which is very carefully planned and fully developed, and on that land commercial agriculturists are being established, a move which creates job opportunities and helps to establish a stable agricultural class there. Stability is of the utmost importance, in these areas too.

The planning of this overall project is taking place on a bilateral basis. This is therefore not a paternalistic attitude on the part of this Government, an attitude in terms of which we act in a prescriptive manner, but a system which is being established in co-operation and after negotiation with the national states.

In the whole planning process, all the production factors are taken into account. It is also this Government’s policy that if land is purchased in terms of the 1936 Act, optimal production should be maintained. In that connection it is gratifying to note that the criterion is that it should continue to make a contribution to the economy of South Africa and its gross domestic product. According to the resettlement programme, agriculturists from the self-governing areas are, in collaboration with these other states, designated and appointed with a view to ultimately getting production off the ground.

Intensive economic studies are being undertaken. I asked the department about the nature of these studies, and I have examples of some of them here. These are impressive studies which are being carried out, and perhaps the hon member for Mooi River could just pay a visit to the department and have a look at some of these wonderful studies. They are drawn up on a completely scientific basis, and therefore one cannot but think that they will be successful. There has already been some success with these wonderful studies. I wish to contend that if many more agriculturists in South Africa had such wonderful studies at their disposal, studies which are so scientifically structured, we could possibly increase our production greatly in the future.

This is a comprehensive, scientifically based report, and before it is implemented, discussions will again be held with the relevant state and it will be approved before the actual implementation takes place. I have indicated that our approach is not paternalistic, but one of co-operation and consultation. For that reason too, when we come to the selection of the farmers or agriculturists who are going to be settled there, for ultimate inclusion in a commercial enterprise, the quality of these people is examined at several levels. They must have experience in the agricultural industry, and their trainability as agriculturists is a very important characteristic. Nor are they simply appointed, given a piece of land and told to start farming. The process is linked to a trial period, and if the farmer appears to be successful during that period he can negotiate a long-term lease or purchase the land.

The scheme is put into practice in five phases, and one realises that the point of departure here is one of saving money and obtaining optimal production from the expenditure incurred. The first phase is that of creating the basic infrastructure, because once that has been established and the farmer has been selected and settled there so that he can begin farming, with his co-operation one can begin developing the other infrastructure and ultimately get him on his feet so that he can begin furnishing the optimal production.

As far as this agriculturist is concerned, there are also the financial implications. He contributes 30% to 50% of the costs involved in establishing him there. He is made jointly responsible, and success also depends on him. He therefore has an interest in the land, and as far as we are concerned it is very important that one should have an interest in and a love for the land on which one farms and with which one works.

The rent for a specific piece of land is determined on the basis of the cost involved in its development over a specific period. In the light of this it is important to furnish training in this area, because one of the selection criteria is that the farmer should be trainable.

The CP does not qualify.

The key to success in this area is the continual training of farmers and the establishment of an after-care service. In this regard it is gratifying to know that there are private and semi-private bodies assisting the South African Government in sustaining that training process and also providing the after-care service.

There have been several achievements. In 1980 the planning of this system commenced. In 1982 it was implemented for the first time, and if we look at the statistics today, it is apparent that 1 745 commercial agriculturists have already been settled in the self-governing states. In the past 18 months, 124 agriculturalists have been settled there. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Pretoria Central on a very substantial, well-prepared contribution. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg put a question to me about the squatting or Black spots in certain districts. Perhaps the hon member misunderstood me, because what I did say to him was that in every district in South Africa unplanned squatting has taken place owing to a lack of accommodation for Black people.

The fact of the matter is that in every Black town in South Africa there are insufficient residential facilities for Black people in the district. [Interjections.] There result has been that everywhere—in the bush, on mission farms or in other Black spots—people have become scattered owing to a lack of space for their settlement. I said that that need would have to be addressed so that the people could be accommodated in accordance with a planned scheme so as to eliminate unplanned squatting. What I did say was that the co-operation of people who are poorly situated at present was necessary to settle them in better situated spots and in better living conditions in that area.

I found the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech quite confusing because he said that assistance would be granted to the self-governing states within the means of the RSA. He also spoke of misappropriation and inefficiency which, if they do exist, are not sanctioned by any one of us. When speaking of the Black leaders, however, he also spoke of communists.

Man, you are talking nonsense!

No, that is correct. The hon member should go and read what he said.

There is another very important aspect, and this has to do with relationships in South Africa. I want to try to prevent us—or a certain party—from classifying all Black people as either hostile or communist-orientated.

Who does that?

The situation at present is that there are 10 million Black people in White South Africa, in spite of influx control. At present there are seven million inhabitants in the six national or self-governing states. They occupy a surface area of 6,5 million hectares of land. That is the factual situation. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, let the hon member resume his seat; I shall continue.

What I am trying to say is that at present there is a small portion of land divided up amongst the large number of Black people of the six different peoples. From what I have gleaned from the hon members of the CP, they will not move the people or force them to go back to the self-governing states. I take it they will not prevent them from entering White South Africa either. [Interjections.] Already there are 10 million Blacks here, but they will not prevent others from coming in. The CP, however, will give no political rights to those people. Nor will they grant the 10 million people, their descendants or the people who might still come from the national states, any proprietary rights either.

This will consequently lead to a situation in South Africa which is going to get those hon members into difficulties because of their policy. This is so because there is a balance in South Africa with regard to development taking place inside and outside White South Africa. As I understand CP policy, there would be limited development and expenditure in the national or self-governing states. The self-governing states would then be poor, and outside those areas, in White South Africa, there would be better living conditions and more job opportunities. The seven million people now in the self-governing states would then stream into our areas, resulting in the number of Blacks in White South Africa increasing to 15 or 20 million.

That situation could ultimately arise owing to a refusal to incur expenditure in the self-governing states. There would be an outflow and therefore no inhabitants in the six national states on which the CP is going to impose independence. The poverty-stricken areas would then be devoid of people, whilst there are many people in the affluent areas. For all practical purposes, all the Black people would therefore land up in White South Africa, and without proprietary or political rights either. They would come to this area as a result of living conditions. Let me issue a warning that that would be the result of the CP’s policy.

I want to ask the hon members of the CP how they are going to control or prevent the influx I have just predicted.

Send them to Dakar!

To whom will the Black people’s plots and houses belong, those 10 million who are here at present and are not going to obtain any proprietary rights? Who is going to build the houses and who is going to collect the rent in terms of CP policy? The people are not going to disappear; they are still going to be there, although they will not have any proprietary rights or be occupying their own homes.

They also spoke about consolidation. The hon member for Sasolburg spelt out very clearly what our policy was. Confusion exists about CP policy in regard to the size of the land available for Black people after consolidation has been completed. We have stated very clearly that at present the need does not exist for further urban areas to be added to the national states. What we have pointed out, however, is that the need for settlement or urbanisation, which at present is 32% and is going to increase to 80% or 90%, will have to be accommodated, and the land will have to be found to make this possible. That is the reality that we, or whoever is involved, will have to face up to. They talk about the all linked areas.

Do you believe in partition?

They are going to consolidate, but they are not going to purchase any additional land. The intermediate spots are going to be exchanged.

There is something that bothers me about this. Because the Black areas are fairly densely populated or overpopulated, how is the exchange going to take place and how were the people going to be moved when such an exchange takes place? There are large numbers of people settled there.

There is another question that has to be answered. We and other members of the public at large do not understand their comments about the AWB’s overall partition or a Boer state in which there will be no Black people, for example Morgenzon, where a start is going to be made on this project, and then the CP’s partial partition, allowing those people access, as has been explained, but without having them obtain certain rights.

Another aspect I want to raise here is the effect the past few years have had on the self-governing states, and here I am referring to the effect of the drought. White agriculture has faced a crisis as a result of the drought.

That is not true.

Have any of us thought of the crisis that the past few years of drought have caused in the Black states? Those national states consist largely of rural settlements, and that justifies the increase in funds that have to be made available to combat this crisis that exists there.

I have said that the area inhabited by these people is a limited one. If one takes a brief look into the future, it is clear that there will be no land left if there is a population increase in the national states or the self-governing states and we force the people into those states in terms of AWB policy. If they have to find their salvation there, in that restricted area, there can be no question of any agriculture in those areas.

Mr Chairman, it was a privilege for me to listen today, for the second time, to the hon member for Vryheid …

That is twice too many. [Interjections.]

I must say it was extremely difficult to understand exactly what the hon member’s argument was, because it sounded fairly disjointed. Not only was it disjointed, but when he came to his view of CP policy, I could not help thinking that he and I did not live in the same area.

Let me, however, come back to his first speech. In that speech he put it to us that the CP’s policy was one of partition, adding—if I understood him correctly—that the present land allocated to the national states was insufficient for the implementation of the policy of partition. The hon member should tell me if I heard him incorrectly.

He says yes.

He says yes. That, however, is the same party …

I said for overall partition.

Then that is the same party which states that their standpoint is that the national states are now free to opt for independence. [Interjections.]

Where is the honesty? The hon member says that option is open to each of the national states. They can all accept independence if they wish. In the same breath, however, he says that the land allocated to those national states is insufficient for viable partition. [Interjections.] Then the NP must tell us what it wants. [Interjections.] Does the NP foresee a Southern African state set-up in which there is an independent Zululand with an independent Zulu people, but with half of that people living outside Zululand in a racially mixed South Africa? Do they envisage a Southern land with an independent Lebowa, but with more than half their fellow-citizens outside that state and having different citizenship and nationality? [Interjections.] Is that the NP’s policy?

Stop asking questions and start stating your views. [Interjections.]

It just happens to be the hon the Minister’s vote which is under discussion, and I have always thought—I am now speaking to the hon the Leader of the House—that the opposition had every right to put a question to a Minister every so often. [Interjections.] I know it is bothersome at times.

Let me just come back to my point; unfortunately my time is very limited. I regard this department as an extremely important one for the successful implementation of the process of granting independence to the Black peoples of South Africa that have not yet achieved independent status and making them self-sufficient. In his introductory address the hon the Minister explained to us why there was a decrease in programme 2 and an increase in programme 3, and I accept that, but I find it very regrettable that it has been necessary for the amount of money voted for the purchasing of land for the final consolidation of the homelands—this is now repeatedly being postponed—to be reduced drastically once more during this financial year.

In the explanatory memorandum supplied to us it is stated that the decrease is chiefly the result of a reduced amount requested for the purchasing of land. I do not think that is quite true. The Director-General of the department gave evidence, and when he was asked whether he was satisfied at having a reduced amount allocated to him, he said that they wanted more. So the explanation given here is simply not correct.

We must also note that the amount voted in this Budget for the extension of the physical infrastructure in the national states has also been drastically reduced. Although it was R104 million last year, this year it has been reduced to an amount of only R54 million.

In several speeches in the committee stage here today reference has been made to the importance of agriculture and the development of agriculture in the national states. I do not want to deny or detract from that, but surely it is common cause that the major portion of the land constituting the national states is not primarily agricultural land. It is true, moreover, that the Black man—I am now specifically talking about the men and not the women—have historically never been agriculturists. They have been livestock farmers and hunters, and to a large extent that is still the case today.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

Oh, come on! We deal with those people every day and know what the potential of agricultural development in the national states is. It has to be done, and I do want to advocate it. The development of agriculture as a solution to the question of sufficient labour for the Black people in those national states is not, in my view, the answer. In contrast, however, experience has taught us, has it not, that Black people are preeminently good factory workers.

I thought they were not workers!

Who said that?

Arrie!

I think that by way of decentralisation and industrialisation we can bring work to the Black people in their homelands. I think the time has come for us to stop subsidising White industrialists in the White urban areas with relatively cheap Black labour by subsidising Black labour in the cities …

Arrie, listen to what he is saying!

… by way of subsidised Black housing, Black transport and so on in South Africa’s urban complexes.

Keppies, do you understand that?

The time has come to have that process reversed. If there has to be subsidisation, it must be given to the industrialist who is prepared to establish his development projects, not on the borders of the homelands, but inside the Black homelands themselves.

This evening the hon member for Vryheid made the ridiculous assertion that it was the CP’s view that the Black homelands should simply remain impoverished and that only the White-controlled part of Southern Africa was developing and coming into its own. Where does he get that nonsense from?

He sucks it out of his thumb.

For years now we have been advocating the increased productive employment of money, specifically for the development of the Black national states, not only in the interests of those national states … [Interjections] … but also in the interests of White South Africa.

Ferdie does not agree with you. [Interjections.]

So the Government need not fear …

The rest of your caucus does not agree with you.

We agree!

… that we would object if it productively employed the money for the development of those Black national states. This does not, however, prevent us from focussing on the misspending of money when it does occur. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton would probably accept the fact that since he said that it is necessary for them to put a question to a Minister every so often, we should also have the opportunity, since they are now the Official Opposition and alternative government, of obtaining clarity from them on the question of policy.

The CP has developed a strategy for creating a smokescreen by means of vague, emotional clichés, in order to conceal their inability to take the realities of South African politics into account.

In the Second Reading debate of this Appropriation Bill I myself raised certain of the policy issues and points of departure of certain CP members, and the closest we came to an answer was one we obtained from the hon member for Ermelo. In reading over his speech I discovered that he had said that he wanted to reply, but that because I was not present—as if I am all that important; there is a whole Parliament here—he did not do so.

I see the hon member for Carletonville having a good chuckle over there. When I was reading the speech in order to see what their policy was, I noticed that he had said, amongst other things, that I had neglected to mention to this House that I was a member of the Blikfakkelkommando. I just want to put matters straight. In the days of the Blikfakkelkommando I was still a primary school pupil. [Interjections.]

Since this Vote deals with the socioeconomic, social, political and agricultural development of our self-governing Black areas, I again want to discuss certain aspects of CP policy with CP members this evening, because it is quite confusing if one compares what we have listened to this evening with utterances made previously by those hon members. I want to repeat one of the hon member for Ermelo’s statements. In an interview of his in The Argus of 15 June he said the following:

On a previous occasion I asked these new exponents of the CP, the hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Bethal, in particular—and the question has yet to be answered—whether this definite plan they do not want to divulge now, was contained in that document of which they and Dr W J G Lubbe are the co-authors, ie “Witman waar is jou tuisland?” whether they still adhered to those standpoints and whether we could also regard those standpoints as CP standpoints. [Interjections.]

That hon member for Ermelo is the very one who accepts responsibility for the change in CP policy since its establishment when, at their congress on 29 April 1984, they adopted a resolution to the effect that the policy of the CP was “emancipation through partition”. It was decided that the CP should reject “separate development” because it was NP policy. [Interjections.] “Separate development”, they said at their congress, should be rejected because it was NP policy, and “partition” should be established as the point of departure. That view, according to congress reports, was wholeheartedly endorsed by the hon member for Brakpan, and according to the hon member for Brakpan this shift in emphasis had become necessary because the CP had to propagate a “White homeland”.

That is why I am asking again this evening— since the CP is talking about partition, a White fatherland and own fatherlands for the other peoples of South Africa—whether their standpoint, as formulated in that document of the hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Bethal, is that there should be majority occupation in this White homeland; whether the White homeland would be smaller and consolidated and occupied by Whites for the most part; whether the rest of South Africa would be declared a grey area, initially under White control, but later left to the control of others; whether separate development should be reversed so that the Black people are no longer permitted to go to their homelands, whilst Whites are permitted to do so; whether the Western Cape is destined for Coloured rights and Natal—the area around Durban—for Indian rights and whether the Eastern Cape, specifically East London, cannot really remain part of the White fatherland; and lastly whether the Whites—listen carefully to this statement— should have an insurance policy to move to a conservative area destined for Afrikaners if they can no longer stick it out in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Those are all standpoints of the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal, of Prof Herklaas Booysen, who is a prominent member of the CP, and of Dr W J G Lubbe. Hon members may examine that list if they so wish; I think that three quarters of the authors referred to are CP members today. [Interjections.] There is, however, a very interesting aspect involved here. Let us look at the question of land.

André, you are a bird of passage! [Interjections.]

That hon member may call me whatever he likes, but he will clearly have to explain the policy he advocates to South Africa. [Interjections.] It was interesting that the hon member for Soutpansberg quoted this evening from the CP’s programme of principles. He very quickly asked to have the booklet returned, because he said Hansard wanted it, but fortunately I quickly wrote the words down. It contains the following passage.

That is a foolish insinuation! [Interjections.]

I am not foolish. Ask the hon member; he asked to have the booklet returned. [Interjections.] It contains the following passage:

I take it that that is the CP’s view, but I also remember something the hon member for Pietersburg once said. He said that every White farmer in South Africa should question the title deed to his land because no one knew where the borders were. I am asking those hon members—and they must tell us—how these standpoints accord with those of the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal. What about the Western Cape? What about Natal—the area around Durban? What about East London in the Eastern Cape?

Lastly—and with these words I shall conclude my speech—I want to ask whether the hon leader has forgotten the statement he made in an interview with Leadership SA when Mr Murray asked him, in 1984:

Just listen to this, Sir:

[Interjections.] I am now asking these hon members to explain to us how this view held by Dr Treurnicht accords with the standpoint contained in the Programme of Principles embodying their policy.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to react to so positive a speech and contribution as that of the hon member for Turffontein and not to have to devote time to pipe-dreams, of which we have had quite a few here this evening. [Interjections.]

Order! I have only given the hon member for North Rand the floor.

As an ex-official of the Department of Development Aid, it is a singular pleasure for me to enter this debate this evening and pay tribute to the overall corps of departmental officials who have, over many years, not only served the department, but also the country, with loyalty and dedication.

On this occasion I specifically want to speak about officials assigned to the self-governing areas, and also about the training in such areas, and it is for that reason I should like to single out these officials. It is true that it is frequently accepted that these officials do not make any specific personal sacrifices during the periods in which they are assigned to those states. Such an assumption, however, is incorrect. These officials are taken out of their normal surroundings and frequently have to make great personal sacrifices when performing their services. In this regard reference need only be made to their schoolgoing children who frequently, in fact in the majority of cases, have to go to boarding-school, something which entails additional financial expense for the parents. This also disrupts normal family life. I should like to express my particular thanks and appreciation to these officials, and also to their wives for their magnaminous support and encouragement at all times in the singular task they perform in those areas.

As a development-orientated department, the Department of Development Aid accepts, as a basic point of departure, the fact that the proper development of human resources is a prerequisite for successful development, and it is for that reason that the department, as part of its development-orientated aid campaign, is also geared to granting assistance to self-governing areas in the development of their own staff.

There is a two-pronged objective in the development of the staff of the self-governing areas. Firstly an attempt must be made to enable the staff complements of the various areas themselves to make an ever-increasing contribution to the development of their own respective areas. Secondly, and in conjunction with the first aspect, an attempt is made to withdraw the officials assigned to those areas as soon as their own officials are sufficiently well-trained to take over the tasks themselves. Various methods are adopted for the achievement of the above-mentioned objectives.

Firstly, all staff seconded to self-governing areas are expressly instructed to ensure that suitable Black staff receive the necessary training to qualify them, in time, to take over the tasks imposed. In this connection the term “creative self-withdrawal” has been used by the department for many years now.

A second method which is used is that of granting assistance to government services with the creation of their own training components, the eventual aim being their own self-sufficiency in the sphere of training.

Thirdly there is constant liaison with the government services on training matters, and this is done by training advisers in the employ of the department. Amongst other things, the government service commissions of the areas are also regularly helped to ascertain the training needs of their government services.

Lastly the department is also able to present courses and seminars on more than 100 subjects in both the functional and management and governmental spheres. These courses have been designed over the years in accordance with the needs identified by government services working in conjunction with the department. The courses are also presented, at the request of the government services, to their officials wherever and whenever the need arises.

I should like to refer briefly to the various spheres in which training is provided. Financial training is chiefly of a functional nature and is aimed at increasing the competence of officials in the sphere of financial administration. Owing to the necessity of having a financial background—and this also applies to officials in the management sphere—courses are also offered to them.

Agricultural development in the self-governing areas has a particularly high priority. The training in this sphere is chiefly aimed at increasing the knowledge and skills of agricultural information officers and other field staff.

With a view to increasing the management skills of middle-level and high-level management groups, management training places special emphasis on this. The national states themselves have largely accepted responsibility for such courses for the junior management groups.

Training in government is supplied to encumbants at the local authority level, traditional authorities, and also members of legislative assemblies and cabinets.

Work-training, which is chiefly functional in nature, involves many categories of workers, for example motor vehicle drivers, maintenance staff and operators.

With a view to qualifying clerical staff, for example registration clerks, secretarial staff, typists and so on, general administrative and functional training is provided. The training of training officers and instructors can also be placed in this category.

Technical and vocational training is also provided to make self-governing areas self-sufficient in these spheres. Statistics can be misleading, and frequently are not interesting to read or listen to. To give an indication, however, of what measure of success the department has achieved in regard to training, I really would like to draw a comparison under the headings I shall mention, between the number of officials trained during the period 1981-82 and those during the period 1985-86. In the section Finance 734 officers were trained during the period 1981-82, as against 314 in 1985-86. In the section Agriculture 308 officers were trained, as against 247. In the section Management—Authorities the figure was 853, as against 256. In the section Works the figures were 315, as against 470. In the section Technical—Trades there were 92 and 158 who were trained. In the section General—Administrative there were 919 officers and 1 057 who were trained. The total for 1981-82 was therefore 3 221, as against 2 502 for 1985-86. Hon members will note that there was, relatively speaking, a considerable decrease. This can, however, chiefly be ascribed to the fact that all government services themselves are increasingly supplying training to their own officials, and that in itself is, of course, a positive development.

The successful training of their own officials has already led to the withdrawal of the following numbers of Whites and the consequent filling of their posts by their own citizens during the period 1981-86: From Qwaqwa nine Whites were withdrawn, from KwaNdebele five were withdrawn, from KaNgwane 22, from Gazankulu 36, from Lebowa 147 and from KwaZulu 78. What is very interesting about the role of these designated officials is the attitude adopted by the government services towards them. I want to state, without any fear of contradiction, that there is great appreciation for the White corps of officials. This appreciation becomes clearly apparent in cases where White officials, for example as a result of promotion, have to be withdrawn from certain areas, and government services then specifically request that their services be retained. Also in the less positive cases, when it becomes necessary to replace officials for other reasons, it is very significant how quickly the relevant self-governing areas ask for the further allocation of White officials. That is clear proof of how popular these allocated officials are.

As a result of the success already achieved with development, the multi-ethnic concept has already been given substance, in practice, with the establishment of four independent states which are largely self-sufficient as far as their own staff contingent is concerned. The department is still prepared, with great zeal and dedication, to tackle the task imposed upon it and help other self-governing areas, if they so wish, to move towards full independence.

It is a special privilege for me to wish both the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and Mr Gilles van de Wall, the Director-General of the department, and his team everything of the best with their mammoth task and to promise them the wholehearted support of this side of the House.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, following up on the previous speaker, I should like to say that I listened to him with special pleasure. In the time when he was an official he was closely connected with my area of responsibility, and I am very pleased about the informative survey he gave this House the training function of the Department of Development Aid.

I think that two fundamental questions emerged in this debate. The first was the constitutional approach of the Government to the self-governing areas. The second was the financial control over the funds made available to self-governing areas.

When it comes to the constitutional situation, one cannot but refer with satisfaction to the excellent way in which the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member for Sasolburg exposed the completely self-contradictory and confused thinking that exists within the CP between what some hon members say, what is stated in their policy documents and what their hon leader says. This confusion revolved around the issue of whether a limit should be imposed on how far to go with consolidation or whether consolidation would in fact be taken further. I want to congratulate the two hon members and express my appreciation for the extremely effective way in which they exposed the confused thinking of the CP. [Interjections.] One wonders how it is possible that such a party, consisting of people who are after all developed, rational people, can speak in such a confused way. There is only one reason for that and that is that they are not really in earnest with their policy. It is a policy in which they themselves do not believe. It is merely a sauce with which they cover their actual approach of power for the Whites. The HNP policy, which they swallowed whole, together with the rest of the HNP policy which they have been swallowing since 1981, is merely being covered with a little sauce. [Interjections.] If that party were really in earnest with its policy it would surely not allow such confused thinking on such a fundamental matter.

I should like to give a brief summary of some of the points I have already made, so that they may be placed on record. Firstly the Government and the NP adheres to the preservation of the division-of-power component of its policy which finds expression in detached, geographically separate political systems for the various self-governing territories and for the independent territories. It is a policy built up and implemented by means of agreement, one which was carried through successfully and which is still successful even if—like any other government system of course—it is not perfect. The Government will continue to adhere to that policy.

In the second place the Government is also prepared to give these self-governing territories which are part of the RSA additional powers to enhance their autonomy. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has announced on numerous occasions that he is negotiating with the governments of the self-governing territories to effect amended legislation in the place of the existing National States Constitution Act, 1971. This legislation will make provision for quite a number of additional powers and for greater autonomy for those self-governing territories. This demonstrates the extent of the Government’s commitment in respect of this matter.

Furthermore, it is also the declared policy of the Government, as was repeatedly made clear by the hon the State President and by my colleague as well as the governing party during the recent election—and which the voters also accepted overwhelmingly—that we will not stand in the way of the self-governing territories that wish to accept independence.

The Government also made it clear that it was prepared to pass legislation—in fact it has already done so to a great extent—making it possible for the national states to negotiate with other self-governing states or with provincial authorities to enter into co-operation agreements with those authorities. Consequently provision has been made for the promotion of autonomy within specific territories, but also for the sensible promotion of opportunities, which they can accept of their own accord, to co-operate with other autonomous State institutions without surrendering their own autonomy.

It was also asked what the position of the national states would be within the envisaged National Statutory Council. There, too, our position was made clear that provision would be made on the National Statutory Council— the hon the State President and the responsible Minister are negotiating on this matter with responsible Black leaders—for the representatives and leaders of the self-governing territories representing the peoples of those territories to be incorporated into such a National Statutory Council. There they will participate in two important activities, viz negotiation on constitutional reform and providing those bodies that have the authority, constitutionally, to exercise executive and legislative power over general affairs with advice on a consensus basis.

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

No, Sir, I am in fact replying to questions at the moment.

Although there will therefore be an opportunity for the leaders of the self-governing states to participate on such a National Statutory Council in the constitutional development of the country, they will also be afforded an opportunity—if this is acceptable to the participants on such a council—to provide the existing constitutional bodies with advice in connection with the executive and legislative functions those bodies must exercise in terms of the Constitution.

Additionally we also make it very clear—the debates have repeatedly revolved around this issue to such an extent that they sound almost like a frantic bee trapped in a reed—that it is simply not practical to use the division-of-power model division of power in accordance with own geographic territories, with autonomy within each territory, to solve the overall problem of political rights for the various communities in South Africa. In spite of everything that has already been said, this does not offer a solution to the accommodation of political rights for the Coloured population, the Indian population and the permanently established Black people outside the self-governing territories, and the voters demonstrated very clearly that they agree with this. It can only offer a solution if we follow the recipe of the hon member for Lichtenburg that 70% of the Black people should be relocated in the national states, or if we follow the recipe stated by the former chief secretary of the CP during the election, namely of ensuring that there is a majority occupation by Whites of the remaining territory, which would entail an even more drastic relocation, in numerical terms, of the population.

That is why it is in fact a mockery of reality when the hon member for Pietersburg says that the ethnic policy (volkerebeleid) of the CP will bring stability and prosperity. How can one achieve stability and prosperity by means of a policy of massive relocations of the population—if this is what they really mean—in order to find a solution for the creation of political rights for the Black people outside the self-governing territories, the Coloureds and the Asians?

As far as this is concerned, I think I adopted a clear standpoint in respect of the questions the hon members raised in this regard. The same applies to hon members of the PFP who said that any form of partition should be rejected out of hand. We cannot agree with that standpoint. Furthermore, hon members, particularly the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Barberton as well emphasised the importance—I did get the impression that they were not opposed to the provision as such of financial assistance to the self-governing territories—of proper financial control being exercised by this Parliament over such financial assistance. However, these hon members must please tell us where they want to stand constitutionally. After all, when one grants autonomy to a territory within the boundaries of this State, as we did in the past to the provinces and the self-governing territories, and when this Parliament then votes funds for those territories and constitutional provision is made for the citizens or inhabitants of those territories to elect their own legislative and executive bodies—I am referring here to the old provincial system—surely one accepts that the political responsibility for the proper expenditure of those funds is vested in those territories.

We have never disputed that after this Parhament has voted funds for the provinces it would from then on be the executive committees of the provincial councils that would accept responsibility for the political control over the spending of that money. No one has ever disputed that. In the same way no one has so far disputed the practice that when one has voted funds in this Parliament for autonomous, self-governing Black states within the boundaries of this country, they, too, must then accept the political responsibility for dealing with those funds.

Is the helper who lends assistance not allowed to impose any conditions on those to whom he is lending assistance?

Then it is a different system. Then it is no longer a system like the one we had, in which we granted autonomy to specific territories, as we did to the provinces and to the self-governing territories. Then one is coming forward with an entirely new system.

However, I accept that owing to the course of development which these self-governing territories must go through, there must be a measure of assistance and sensible co-operative control. Consequently I want to make it clear—I think it was the hon member for Lichtenburg who put a question in this connection to me earlier—that the Auditor General is responsible for the auditing of the way in which the finances of the self-governing territories have been handled. If any irregularities should therefore occur, the people involved are prosecuted. However, It is not only the Auditor-General who is involved in this matter. At the request of the self-governing territories—because there is a sound co-operative relationship—work inspection teams of the Department of Development Aid are being made available to give attention to the effective handling of funds in those self-governing territories.

I can point out that cases of irregularities have occurred, which have been reported to the governments concerned. In the case of such irregularities, steps have also been taken. The necessary legal steps had been taken in cases in which irregularities were disclosed. In fact, whenever a suspicion arose in connection with a possible irregularity, there has never been any problem because the self-governing territories were not prepared to call upon the expertise of the Department of Development Aid or of other Government departments in South Africa to deal with the cases in question.

Two hon members also raised the question of project aid. Project aid is of course a very important form of rendering controlled assistance. As I explained in my introductory speech, the Development Bank of Southern Africa is in fact taking over, by means of project aid, a large proportion of the responsibilities that were formally made available to these national states by way of budgetary aid. In the case of project aid there is also prior selection. There is an ongoing monitoring of implementation, as well as selection afterwards. This constitutes considerable advantages for the exercise of control.

Of course project aid is not the complete answer. I have a report from the Director-General in which he reports to me on his experiences during the past few months, when he paid a visit, together with other officials, to development organisations abroad—in Europe and in America. The French, who were held up here as an example of project aid, the West Germans and the World Bank, all three intimated that they had carefully re-examined their earlier fascination with project aid as the complete answer to controlled and proper aid to developing territories. The problem with project aid is that insufficient internal expertise is built up within the state concerned to make overall provision for the planning, control and maintenance of projects. That is why we believe that a proper equilibrium should be maintained between budgetary aid, which helps the overall state machinery to develop, and, on the other hand, project aid, which is linked to specific projects. When one concentrates solely on project aid, justice is not going to be done to the development of internal managerial ability—as well as development managerial ability—in the states in question.

Therefore I want to make it clear that I believe that in practice, thanks to the sound understanding which exists between the governments of the self-governing territories and the Department of Development Aid, thanks to the role the Development Bank is playing, and thanks to regular talks and assistance made available by our department by way of works inspectors, there is sound control in this case.

Then, too, I want to come directly to the alleged irregularities at Botshabelo, in regard to which the hon member for Lichtenburg put questions. Yes, firstly an investigation was instituted into accusations—unfortunately I have to say this—that White building contractors misled Black people in a grossly irresponsible way and defrauded them of funds. Those cases were investigated.

Why is it unfortunate?

It is an unfortunate fact if any person acts in a dishonest way, and particularly if it is a White person, it is even more unfortunate. [Interjections.]

Do you have a guilty conscience?

No, why? [Interjections.] Those activities were investigated. The necessary criminal proceedings were instituted, and the Department of Development Aid, in the case of Black people who lost their money in this process, made it possible for them, by means of housing loans, to get their housing projects going again in a proper manner.

In the second place accusations were also made to the effect that alleged irregularities had occurred among officials. These were properly investigated, and no case was found in which steps had to be taken. Furthermore I want to add that if the hon member, as regards the administration of Botshabelo, were to refer to the effectiveness of the form of local government there, I must concede that he is right. The development of Botshabelo was so extremely rapid that it was not possible to establish an elected, effective and developed local government from among the members of the community there. The development was then undertaken by the Department of Development Aid, with the assistance of the STC. So far it has not been a matter which has really made satisfactory progress, viz the development of an elected, effective a separate local government and a local government administration. We are working on it at present.

They are appointed people.

Why is the hon member being derogatory about that now? At Botshabelo we settled a half million people in less than five years’ time in a reasonably orderly way. Why is the hon member being derogatory about that. Cannot we share a feeling of pride in the successful achievements of our officials?

Please do not drag the officials into this.

This acrimonious negativeness, stemming from bitter frustration, is something which really goes against the grain.

We are now in the process of developing a proper local government administration in the case of Botshabelo, and this forms part of the increase in administrative expenditure in the budget of the department and we are also, in consultation with the inhabitants, establishing a suitable form of local government. We hope that it will be a form of local government which will be effective and representative, particularly in such a new community, the members of which came from far afield.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also asked whether any of the national states wanted to relinguish their rights. I want to tell him unequivocally that not of them want to do so. Secondly he asked whether any of them were prepared to apply power-sharing with any of the states with which they shared boundaries. In that case I can tell him that they did not want to do that either. What they are eager to have—they asked for this and they are also being provided—is opportunities for cooperative agreements with adjoining states and with provincial governments.

As regards questions concerning the regional services councils and participation in the National Council, I am not able to furnish any replies since it is a matter which is being dealt with by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. There is no doubt that the self-governing territories wish to retain their autonomy. We have never disputed that. Many of them are eager to acquire additional powers. Nor do we intend standing in the way of those who wish to develop towards further independence.

In his observations the hon member for Pietersburg said that the ethnic policy of the CP brought stability and prosperity. I have already referred to this. He then went further and if I interpreted what I heard correctly, he said that the CP foresaw a state for each people who chose to have one. Those were the hon member’s words. The hon member is with the NP again. This is not a system of own states that must simply take place …

What NP? Is it the NP of 10 years ago?

… but one which depends on the choice made by the peoples themselves. Those who do not choose to have it that way of course remain part of South Africa.

Order! There are too many hon members are making a noise here. The hon member may proceed.

We should like to know what the implications are for the partition policy of the CP of the remark made by the hon member for Pietersburg that provision was being made for a state for every people who chose to have one. What happens to those who do not so choose?

Go and read Gerrit Viljoen’s paper which he read before Sabra. [Interjections.]

I think I have replied in principle to the hon member for Pietersburg on the control over financial spending in the national states. [Interjections.]

As regards the Dekker Report on alleged irregularities in the Lebowa Development Corporation, I want to remind the hon member that the investigation was jointly requested by the Chief Minister of Lebowa— under whom the Corporation fell at the time of the demand as a matter under his autonomous authority—and by me on the basis of the fact that some of the alleged acts occurred in a time when the corporation still fell under the old Department of Co-operation and Development. That report was brought out and the implementation of its recommendations is a responsibility of the Chief Minister of Lebowa. I shall consult him and obtain the necessary information so as the keep the hon member for Pietersburg informed in this regard.

The hon member for Soutpansberg put questions in regard to the Mozambican fugitives. They are foreigners and illegal immigrants. The responsibility for dealing with that matter belongs to the Department of Home Affairs, which together with the Department of Manpower and the security forces, have a working team which deals with this entire matter not only in Gazankulu— and that is the country the hon member forgot about—but also in KaNgwane. I can therefore give him the assurance that this matter, which is being monitored very carefully from a security as well as a health point of view, is under the full control of the three departments involved. We are receiving the best co-operation of the chief ministers of both national states and their governments.

In the discussion revolving around the policy and plan of the Government the hon member for Soutpansberg referred here to an article in the New York Times; apparently this is his new gospel. He then said that one of his friends—I take it is one of his kindred spirits—had told him: “ Why do you not ban all these foreign journalists?” From the way in which he quoted it, I deduced that it was his policy and the policy of his party that we should ban all these foreign journalists in South Africa. I should like to ascertain whether that is their idea.

I quoted it …

He did not ask why we did not ban people who misbehaved and who were guilty of irresponsible actions—my colleague the hon Minister of Home Affairs does this frequently—but he quoted the statement in general here and asked why they did not ban all these foreign journalists. [Interjections.] Hon members must state their policy clearly and comprehensibly so that it is not necessary for it to be qualified afterwards in a kind of somnambulistic speech. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton raised a few matters in a relevant and concise way, and I shall gladly reply to them. I always find it pleasant to listen to the hon member, because he says what he wants to say and one knows what he means. He said that the hon member for Vryheid had supposedly alleged that the land provided for national states was insufficient for partition. That was not what he hon member said and I want to make it clear, in support of that hon member’s interjection, that he had made it clear that the existing land that had either been earmarked for consolidation or that still had to be included, was inadequate to implement the policy of total partition which the CP advocated.

You support his interjection but not his speech.

The implication is that if that party wants to implement its policy it will have to provide additional land on a large scale. Apparently the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition implied this in his Leadership interview. I am stating a very clear and simple refutation of this version which the hon member for Barberton thought he could exploit.

The hon member for Barberton also took umbrage at a word we had used. According to the memorandum we had “requested” a reduced amount for consolidation. I want to concede that the hon member is entirely correct that we did not request a reduced amount from the hon the Minister of Finance. We asked for a great deal more, but the word “requested” in that document is parliamentary language. That amount is what the department requests from Parliament in the estimates. After all it is the word which is used in this connection. It is not misleading, and in any case, we would be creating a naive impression of ourselves if we were to pretend that we were merely requesting from the hon the Minister of Finance this amount we received.

How much pressure did you apply?

The hon member also referred to the reduction of the amount provided for physical infrastructure, but in the memorandum on the Vote we in fact pointed out that that amount had been reduced by an amount which had previously been allocated for the implementation of the towns function. That towns function has now been transferred to Programme 3, and provision is now being made for it there. The further reduction of physical infrastructure took place as a result of the cancellation of specific independence projects in the case of KwaNdebele.

I agree wholeheartedly with the concluding remarks of the hon member, in which he advocated greater industrial development within the national states and less subsidisation of transport and housing in the urban areas. We shall have those words of his placed on record, and we shall remember for a long time that the CP is in favour of our giving employers in the urban areas reduced subsidies for transportation and housing.

Yes! [Interjections.]

We welcome it. It is a positive standpoint.

We also welcome his standpoint that we should preferably give further decentralisation benefits to industrialists within the homelands. We are therefore in full agreement on this point, and I also want to say that the STC is hard at work promoting industrial settlement, particularly in Botshabelo. The Development Bank of Southern Africa, which has already granted loans to the value of more than R1 200 million, is granting those loans for industrial development within the self-governing territories in the national states. In this respect we are therefore in full agreement with one another, and I am very grateful for that.

As regards the members of the CP …

†The hon member for Johannesburg North…

You made a mistake when you said CP when you meant PFP, in exactly the same way as I said Qwaqwa when I meant Gazankulu.

The hon member cannot get his mistake out of his mind. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North asked that more clarity should be brought about with regard to the calculation of the various sums provided for the various national states in programme 3 of the Development Aid Vote.

I think this is a reasonable request and we are in fact at present working together with the national states and the Department of Finance to determine so-called norms and standards, such as have already been determined in the case of the independent states, to measure in an objective way the needs with regard to the various disciplines for which this money is to be provided. At present the practice is that each national state submits its budget. We consolidate those budgets after negotiation with them to make sure that each item in a budget is well motivated, and we present it to the Treasury. The Treasury gives us the ceiling guideline which is always much less than we ask for. Then we have to share out the available money to the various national states keeping in mind the priority and the urgency of certain projects and then further dividing the money pro rata among them. It is not a completely satisfactory situation and it should be much improved once we have formulated these norms and standards such as have already been achieved in the case of the assistance programmes for the independent states.

With regard to the question about the farm Holgat I want to say that the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs has expropriated the farm for two reasons. Firstly because the Department of Education and Training requires that farm for the development of an agricultural high school or an agricultural college, and we consider it to be necessary to have that facility as a whole for this purpose.

What about the 3 000 hectares?

Secondly we do not find acceptable the concept of the trust which is trying to purchase this farm of reintroducing a Black settlement area in that vicinity. This would be contrary to the policy that has been carried out in the past. With regard to the case of the Magopa people I would like to make it quite clear that proper negotiations took place and a settlement of the Magopa people in the Pachsdraai area within Bophuthatswana has been brought about to the great satisfaction of the majority of those people. It is true that there is a minority who did not accept it and who at present are settled in the Bethanie area. We have indicated our willingness to identify alternative settlement areas for them and we are continuing in this regard, but we are not prepared to accept the return of that dissatisfied minority to the Holgat area.

The remarks that the hon member for Johannesburg North made with regard to KwaNdebele I find deplorable, irresponsible and in many ways mean. To call that place a South African Siberia, I think is unfair. It is offensive. To speak of almost a civil war existing there, is highly irresponsible.

It is true.

To refer to the Chief Minister as an Idi Amin, I think is insulting. It just shows the kind of mentality the hon members of that party really harbour with regard to Black leaders of the status of a man like Chief Minister Mahlangu. The Chief Minister of KwaNdebele is a well-educated, responsible person who has impressed us in the negotiations that we have had with him in the very short period that he has been in this office.

I would like to emphasise again the very responsible way in which the hon State President required of the government of KwaNdebele, with a view to the possible granting of independence, that they must first convince him that there is a broad basis of support for such independence and that such independence can be introduced in a way that will ensure the continued stability of life in KwaNdebele.

Reference has been made by the hon member and also his colleague from Bryanston to the so-called ghost towns of Ekangala and Ekandustria. Ekandustria is the industrial township in that area. The development of the past of Ekandustria within KwaNdebele north of the KwaNdebele-RSA border has been undertaken by die KwaNdebele National Development Corporation. All the sites that have been developed in that area have been taken up.

By whom?

By industries. Industries from South Africa, Taiwan, Hong Kong and from other places abroad. They have been taken up but the industries have not all settled there as yet because some of these sites have just been completed. There has been a considerable expansion in facilities. In fact they are at present working with funds specially made available for them to provide as soon as possible for a waiting list of more than, I think, 19 applicants for further allocation of facilities. However, it is true that the facilities developed south of the border, the facilities within the RSA, have not been so popular. It is very interesting that the facilities inside KwaNdebele are the attractive facilities. That is where the people move to because they feel there is a stability, it ensures …

Financial inducements.

There are also financial inducements, sure. That is what we want. We want to have development inside these areas.

In the case of Ekangala, the township there, I am afraid I cannot give much detail about its development because it falls under the provincial administration. It is not part of the Trust area. However, what I can say is that I am convinced that the moment Ekangala is incorporated into KwaNdebele—as is the declared policy of the Government—there will be an influx of people into that area. The whole of KwaNdebele has been an area of influx. People have gone there to settle there. They have gone there in far larger numbers than either the central Government or KwaNdebele could at times properly accommodate. They were often ahead of developments. Though perhaps the level of sophistication of some of the houses in Ekangala may be out of the reach of the pockets of some of the people who are settling there—at least their pockets at this stage—I am quite sure that the moment this incorporation has taken place there will also be an increased development in Ekangala.

There speaks Dr Verwoerd!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River made a fine contribution here, for which want to thank him. He also referred to the importance of trust land purchased for consolidation first being properly planned by the Department of Development Aid and by the STC for agriculture before being transferred to the national states so that it is ready for settlement by individual farmers. This is in fact the policy.

†This is our policy, and I would like to invite the hon member, who is a knowledgeable person in these matters, to visit the department so that he can see how the planning is done and be shown some of the projects for which planning with regard to the settlement of individual commercial farmers has been worked out. Maybe he recalls that in the course of the recess there was a news item reporting that the Director-General of the Department of Development Aid had handed over a document consisting of a number of volumes in which the planning for the settlement of farmers on a few thousand sites earmarked for individual commercial farmers in KwaNdebele was set out. The hon member for Mooi River may also take note when he visits the department that we would be pleased to show him the joint planning with regard to agricultural settlement in areas earmarked for incorporation into Lebowa that has been arrived at by a joint interministerial committee of Lebowa and this department.

This also applies to the Mpendle area in Natal. Although the final decision on the destiny of this area depends on the final decision with regard to the Kwazulu consolidation proposals, the department is planning this area with a view to the settlement of individual commercial farmers from the Black community there and their eventual incorporation into KwaZulu. We also seek the co-operation of the KwaZulu Government so that, should this area become part of their territory, they will already have been well informed and involved in the planning going on.

*Then, finally, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to my colleagues on this side of the Committee for their contributions. Before I do so, I should like to refer in particular to the hon member for Vryheid, who is also Chairman of the Commission for Cooperation and Development, and thank him for the work he has done as chairman of that commission, not only in connection with consolidation, but also in connection with many matters promoting sound relations with the Black communities. We are indeed greatly indebted to him. He is a person who has a special knack, in conversation with Black people, to inspire trust in them. He speaks their language and he understands them. He lived with them for a long time, and I have been particularly impressed by the success he has achieved on the negotiating level.

On several occasions reference was made to the SDC, the development corporation of the Development Trust. Here, too, I should like to thank those involved. The hon member for Cradock in particular discussed the SDC. I should like to say thank you very much to the managing director, Dr Koos van Marie, and the chairman of the board of directors, Dr Kerneels Human, for the excellent work this corporation is doing in the development of all the matters I do not want to repeat, but which the hon member for Cradock elucidated here with great skill and enthusiasm.

The hon member for Vryheid raised an important point here, to which I should like to react briefly. Let me first say in advance that it is the policy of this Government that it has abandoned forced resettlement, except in cases of illegal squatting. There are certain cases of persons who are present in a formally illegal way and have established themselves as squatters and who have for generations been living on so-called labour farms in specific areas. It is very difficult to get them to co-operate in being resetted elsewhere. In respect of these so-called redundant workers or illegal farm occupants who have for generations been living on certain farms, the hon member for Vryheid has developed a successful idea and received general support for it from both the farmers as well as the communities concerned. They are in fact willing to co-operate in being settled in an orderly and concentrated way at a specific point within the area in which they have already been living for such a long time, rather than being relocated on a large scale to an area they do not know at all and in which they do not feel at home.

I think that this adapted form resettling illegal occupants has a great deal of merit. I know that the hon member, as Chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, is investigating the matter together with his commission. I shall follow their proposals with great interest.

The hon member for Turffontein made two very important contributions. I want to tell him that I find his idea that we should give attention to a possible development strategy, with even perhaps a possible White Paper, very attractive. When we say that it does not mean that we do not know what we want to do; we know very well what we want to do, but it is a good thing for any manager occasionally to take a critical look at his own work and formulate a fresh strategy for himself which he can then apply in future.

Both the hon member for Turffontein as well as the hon member for Vryheid emphasised the great importance of individual property ownership for Black commercial farmers who are being established in agriculture. I want to say that I am in full agreement with that, and this is also one of the conditions we impose on the self-governing territories when new areas are incorporated into their territories.

I have already expressed my thanks to the hon member for Umfolozi for the neat way in which he exposed the internal confused thinking of the CP. He also analysed the financial aspects very neatly, and pointed out what economies had been effected between the desirable requested budget and what was ultimately made available.

†The hon member for King William’s Town is extremely knowledgeable about the complicated situation obtaining in the so-called Corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei, and he gave a clear exposition of what is taking place there. I would like to emphasise that I welcome his positive remarks with regard to the work of the regional office of the department, although I must add that several other Government departments also co-operate with the regional office to restore a reasonable state of development and standard of life in the eight or so Black settled areas in the Corridor which had originally been earmarked for incorporation into the Ciskei, but which it has now been decided should remain part of the RSA. They have been neglected over a number of years because of the uncertainty about their future. This was mentioned last year in the debate by hon members. Now that their future is settled the department and the other departments co-operating with it are doing an excellent job in restoring the quality of services, both infrastructural and also educational and health services, in that area.

*I have already referred to the neat contribution made by the hon member for Cradock. He is a knowledgeable person who spoke enthusiastically about the role of the STC, which he illustrated very neatly on the basis of the settlements on the Makatini Flats and the development of business and industrial areas in Botshabelo. I think a fact which we would do well to repeat more often is that there are few places in which development organisations have succeeded in creating employment opportunities in the industrial area at an average cost for the State of R4 500 per person. This is a magnificent achievement, and we are very proud of what the STC has achieved in this connection.

I have already acknowledged my indebtedness to the hon member for Sasolburg for the neat way in which he also contributed to exposing the confused thinking of the CP. He made a very important contribution, and I think hon members will be able to utilise his contribution very usefully in the political debate which lies ahead.

The hon member for Pretoria Central also made his contribution in connection with the problems concerning the settlement of Black agriculturists. Inter alia he emphasised an important point here, viz that the settlement, the training and the after-care which the department undertakes in respect of Black agriculturists, is not only done by officials, but is also done by private agricultural development and farming development bodies, which serves as a good example of the privatisation of the services of the State.

Last but not least I should once again like to thank my former official, the hon member for North Rand, for having emphasised how much South Africa and the self-governing territories owe to the officials who have been seconded to the national states and to those officials who in particular are responsible for training people in those national states so that the ideal of so-called creative self-withdrawal of the White officials in future can continue to be realised in future.

I believe that I have with this dealt with all the contributions made by hon members, for which I once again want to thank them very sincerely.

Votes agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.