laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 7 May 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by placing on record my gratitude and appreciation to all the hon members who have participated in the debate so far. By way of a general summation I think one could say that with a few exceptions, hon members conducted the debate on a very high level.

Consequently I want to proceed at once to reply to certain aspects that were raised by hon members, and then avail myself of this opportunity to make a few statements this afternoon in regard to further reform processes.

The first aspect I should like to deal with is the allegation that this department has grown to such proportions that a special tsardom—so it is being alleged—has come into existence. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that we should really try to develop a little perspective for a change, I think, in assessing the responsibility of this department. Naturally this department has a special role to play. In the first place the department has a specific role to play in regard to the total development process in this country, and attendant upon that, the devolution process of powers and functions to other levels of administration. It is also true in essence that this department and its ministry is in fact in a specific transitional stage or phase. Hon members will recall that up to and including 1 September last year, this department was purely, and almost exclusively an overall planning department.

It became necessary, however, to add certain functions pertaining to the implementation of specific strategies to the activities of this department. In any event, with a view to the transitional stage, other structures were established in advance, in order to fulfil specific functions. Prior to the rationalisation of the department—prior to 1 September 1985 that is—the personnel of the department numbered 1 014. With the allocation of other specific functions after 1 September the officials of the department rose in number to 1 637. The allocated officials were primarily regional office staff members.

This department has a very important role to play as a marshalling yard, if I may use that expression, from which institutions have to be created, reformed and changed and in which functions have to be reallocated to other levels of government or to other departments. For example the department has already indicated that several of its physical planning functions can be fulfilled better and more effectively on the second and even the lowest tier. An important and immediate step which I shall announce this afternoon is in connection with the rationalisation of the development bodies, specifically the 13 development boards that are involved in the needs of the Black communities.

When these plans, which I shall announce, have been implemented, 40 000 officials, for whom my department is ultimately responsible, will in the nature of things fall under other authorities. [Interjections.]

In the first place the hon member for Kuruman criticised the fact that the report of the department was distributed rather late. Let me say at once that I think that this department has a good record when it comes to bringing out reports in time, if it is taken into consideration that the department’s report covers the period 1 January to 31 December, if it is taken into consideration that a large proportion of the functions dealt with in the report only became the responsibility of this department after 1 September and if we also take into consideration that the report was made available four months and one week after the end of a calender year. If we take all those factors into consideration, I think they redound to the credit of the department and really do not deserve negative criticism.

If we also point out that the report not only provides an overview of what has already happened, but to a large extent, too, a preview of 1986, I think we ought to praise the department for the comprehensiveness of the report considering the limited time in which it was completed. I should like to have this placed on record. In this regard, finally, I just want to say that the final date for delivery of the report was in reality last Tuesday, 6 May 1986. Unfortunately it was not possible, owing to late delivery, to provide hon members with the reports the next day and since Thursday was a holiday, hon members were only able to receive the report on Friday.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to the question of provincial subsidies and he indicated that there has in fact been a reduction of some R1,6 million in the provincial subsidies. That is true and the reason for that is the transfer of the education departments to the Department of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Assembly. The hon member further referred to the difference in the reduction between the vote for the Natal Administration and that of the Transvaal. He will understand that this is explained by the numbers in the Departments of Education of the respective provinces.

No, percentagewise they should still be the same.

Unfortunately it does not work that way because it depends on the teacher-pupil ratio, and so on.

Every reform process and every structural adjustment to the State structures of this country naturally has an effect on many people and many communities. In particular, there can be no possibility of the successful or beneficial restructuring of institutions unless the right attitudes exist among all the population groups and people involved in these processes. That is why the emphasis of this fact by the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon member Mr Schoeman, who referred to intergroup relations, were among the important contributions to the debate.

I want to say at once that during the next few years nothing is going to be more important, than understanding, empathy and mutual communication in the implementation of a new urbanisation policy. The hon member Prof Olivier referred to this, and was quite correct when he said that no one would welcome undesirable squatter conditions in and around our cities. The hon member also expressed the fear that the control of squatting could be interpreted as a new form of influx control. My request is that we do not even make this suggestion, because there is no truth whatsoever in such an inference. The hon member Prof Olivier will take my word for this.

In connection with this matter the hon member for Springs—he apologised for his absence—identified the positive processes of urbanisation. In his speech he also mentioned that we should expect squatting and the informal establishment of people. I hasten to explain the concepts of squatting and of informal settlement. Squatting is the illegal occupation of land, and will not be allowed, while informal settlement means that people occupy housing according to their incomes. It will be allowed with a view to a gradual upgrading of the housing, which will be undertaken by the people themselves. Informal settlement will be upgraded from time to time, as people are able to afford it.

I want to tell the hon member for Newton Park straight away that in this connection there are important programmes for the upgrading of residential areas in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, as well as for the Eastern Cape as a whole. I consider this to be important work which has to be done in this connection.

†The hon member for Pinetown also referred to this matter. He will confirm that we have had correspondence about certain areas to be upgraded in the vicinity of his own constituency.

*The hon member for Stellenbosch made some observations about the involvement of the private sector in urbanisation. I want to tell him at once that not only do I agree with him, but the Urban Foundation, which represents the private sector, has already been approached and is working on the possible upgrading of Crossroads.

As for housing in future, there will of course be a far greater involvement on the part of private sector, specifically in respect of the provision of housing for its own employees. The new legislation pertaining to land title will make possible and stabilise its further involvement.

The hon member for Newton Park and other hon members from the Eastern Cape referred to the economic situation in that area. I want to say at once that the Government clearly comprehends the circumstances prevailing there at present. Hon members made representations for the transport rebate to be increased from 40% to 60%, and also for an increase of the tender preference from 4% to 5%. In this specific connection they referred to the question of the steel price. As regards the transportation subsidies and tender preferences, hon members will realise that this is an element of the concession package negotiated between the other states and South Africa. An adjustment in this specific connection is acceptable to the Government, but we shall have to negotiate it with the other states involved.

As regards the equalisation of the steel price between the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage and the East London areas, I want to say at once that the Government is favourably disposed to this as well and has decided in principle to accept it. However, the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry will still have to institute specific investigations in this connection, because it has certain other implications for the Eastern Cape. He will subsequently make a full announcement on the matter because he is the functional Minister involved in this.

One of the central themes of the arguments in this debate was the question of group affiliation versus free association. The hon members for Klip River and Mossel Bay also reacted effectively to standpoints adopted in this regard by the hon member Prof Olivier. The hon members for Helderkruin, Johannesburg West and Randfontein all addressed this crucial question of 1986.

According to the Government peaceful change envisages a system of power-sharing without domination of one group by another. There must be no illusion whatsoever that the Government, although like all parties it adopts the standpoint that reforms must take place and the status quo must be changed, intends in any way to be a party to a transfer of power, and even less a party to substituting for a system all of us say is not acceptable, one which is less acceptable. This must be very clearly understood, here and elsewhere.

The constitutional structures on the second and third tiers correctly received attention. I want to thank the hon member for Witbank for his thoughts in this connection, particularly in regard to third tier government.

I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg, who is not present at the moment, that the RSCs to which he is apparently opposed, is merely another onslaught on his little verkrampte heaven in which the needs of all the people have to be excluded from the system. [Interjections.] I have nothing further to say to him about the matter.

Furthermore, hon members referred to the possibility that certain of the provinces might have to be divided up into more units, and I want to say at once that the legislation on the provincial system will make provision for that, but the initiative will have to be taken by the provinces themselves.

I should now like to come to the Government’s standpoint in respect of provincial reform and the devolution of functions. The provincial system as we know it today will, as the Government has already announced, come to an end on 30 June 1986. As from 1 July this year a more streamlined provincial system which will be representative of all population communities and which will have new and rationalised functions, will come into operation.

After the State President’s announcement on 31 July 1982 of his intention to reform the provincial tier, the State President, during an Administrators’ Conference in 1982 in Durban, opened the door for negotiations on the particulars of provincial reform. The focus of constitutional reform between 1982 and 1984, however, addressed the adjustments to the central and the local government levels.

Since the end of 1984 the spotlight has fallen to an ever increasing extent on the second tier of government. Against this background wide-ranging and penetrating negotiations took place on various occasions between myself, other Government representatives, the Administrators and the leaders of the respective provincial councils, on the particulars of the provincial adjustment and reform.

On 30 April 1985 an agreement was reached with the representatives of the provinces to submit certain proposals on broad guidelines for the adjustment of the provincial system to the Government. On 6 May I consequently announced the general guidelines in the House of Assembly, after the Government had expressed its general consent to this adjustment. After a further series of penetrating talks and negotiations, resolutions have now been adopted on the particulars of the new provincial dispensation.

Before I deal with the main features of those resolutions as they will be embodied in legislation, however, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all four Administrators and the leaders of the respective provincial councils with whom I held talks, as well as the other MECs and MPCs.

During the negotiations it became increasingly clear that the direction which provincial reform was taking at present would necessitate the abolition of the provincial councils. Alternative options which were also considered during the talks were nominated or indirectly elected councils consisting of representatives of all communities resident within the boundaries of the provinces. These councils would then be able to act in an advisory capacity, or they could have full legislative powers and could take decisions by means of consensus among the majority of each group represented on such councils. The Government weighed up all these options and decided that a termination of the councils themselves would under the circumstances be the desirable step to take. At all times the understanding and co-operation I received from the Administrators, the MECs and the MPCs were of the very best.

In spite of the fact that the abolition of these councils would affect their own future and their personal interests they were at all times able—I should like to say this in public—to place the future of the country above their own personal interests. I say this with every conviction, because I myself worked with that system for a long time and it is in the nature of the things not easy to abolish systems which have served the country in their existing forms for 76 years. Parliament will therefore exercise overall political control over the provinces, since provincial councils will disappear with effect from 1 July this year as provincial legislatures.

In addition provision is being made in the proposed legislation for the continued carrying out of provincial government by an administrator and an executive committee appointed by the State President, and furthermore by the administration which exists at present in a province. [Interjections.]

The appointment of the administrator and the executive committee will be of a political nature and will have to take the particular characteristics and the population structure of each province into careful consideration. Furthermore a mechanism is being provided to subdivide the present provinces into new provinces within the existing provincial boundaries if this should be necessary.

The present provincial officials—I should like to emphasize that this means staff employed in accordance with the provisions of the provincial ordinances—are with effect from 1 July 1986 being transferred to the Public Service and appointed with protection of their salaries, pension privileges, accumulated leave, and so on. This will entail a change in the provincial personnel administration practices which will be worked out in consultation with the Commission for Administration.

The disappearance of a legislature on the provincial level will necessitate certain changes in the financial administration. Amendments in this regard to the Constitution and to the Exchequer and Audit Act will be proposed. The Provincial Secretary remains the chief officer, as well as the accounting officer, and will have to appear before committees of Parliament to give an account of his responsibilities, exactly like other heads of departments. Furthermore provincial revenue accounts will replace the provincial revenue fund.

†In order to facilitate co-operation between provincial administrations and self-governing territories, apart from Natal and kwaZulu, the Bill will also provide for the creation of similar joint executive bodies in these regions.

*To ensure that the new provincial authorities are to a great extent endowed with administrative independence, the Administrators will be granted general powers of proclamation over provincial matters, which proclamations will be tabled in Parliament.

A theme present throughout the Bill in question is the Government’s commitment to devolving more executive government functions to the provincial government level, whether in their own right or on behalf of a State President or a Minister, for decision-making and implementation as close as possible to the communities concerned in our country. This will also contribute to the attainment of the objective of smaller, yet highly specialised central Government Departments with primarily overall policy-determining and monitoring functions.

†The Bill will provide authority for powers and functions currently entrusted to a Minister to be assigned to an Administrator of a province. This is in line with the Government’s policy objective of attaining the maximum devolution of executive powers as far as possible. For this purpose there are also provisions enabling the Administrator to transfer powers and functions to third-tier government.

*The Government has already announced that the future provincial authorities will obtain new functions which will make them important executive organs of the government sector.

Investigations currently in progress into the details of this devolution make it impossible to disclose much more about this matter now, although I hope it will be possible to do so before the adjournment of this session.

As far as my own department is concerned, I want to make it clear at this early juncture that the implementation of functions that have to be dealt with by my department at present ought to be transferred to more appropriate bodies as soon as possible. For example there is no sound reason why most of the executive actions involved in the administration of legislation dealing with physical planning cannot be devolved to the provincial level or even lower, so that they can be implemented on the community level.

The proposed abolition of development boards—to which I shall refer in a moment—and the transfer of certain development functions in that connection to the provincial administrations as well as to local authorities and regional services councils entail that almost 40 000 employees of those bodies will no longer fall under the overall responsibility or control of my department. [Interjections.]

It is also the Government’s intention that all executive activities which my department is at present dealing with and which directly affect the interests of the Black communities, for example the administration of Black local authorities, housing and social and socio-economic development ought to fall under the direct control of Black political decision-making as soon as possible. At the same time it is being envisaged that these functions ought to be implemented on a lower tier of government.

In the new system there will be no impediment to members of these communities occupying positions in that system. Consequently there is no reason either why these functions cannot be devolved to the provincial level. Control over regional services councils and the remaining functions of development boards will also be located on this level.

Consequently I have received a directive from the Government to devolve all the executive functions under my control, which affect Black people directly, to the provincial level as soon as possible. Provincial administrations will therefore in future fulfil meaningful and comprehensive development functions for the entire public sector and will play an important role in the carrying out of all development programmes and projects that have to be undertaken.

This will leave my department with only the overall policy planning, development, co-ordinating and monitoring functions, as was originally the case, manned by a small group of people with a minimum of executive responsibilities.

†The proposed provincial dispensation, therefore, acknowledges that executive acts and administration can best find expression in a regional context which will advance the decentralisation of government and yet reaffirms Parliament’s sovereign policy-making role. Should it be enacted it will mean that a new era in provincial government will commence on 1 July this year.

*Mr Chairman, I should now like to make one final announcement in regard to development bodies. In 1985 various inquiries into the future of development bodies, such as development boards, divisional councils, the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas and the Natal Development and Services Board were instituted by the Council for the Co-Ordination of Local Government Affairs. The interested parties, including the staff associations and trade unions, were recognised and involved throughout in the enquiries into what should happen to the institutions and to the personnel. As will become apparent later, the Government, in the further stages, also intends to consult and involve the staff associations and trade unions directly in the question of how this should be done.

The associations and unions will therefore be able to make their input and proposals on behalf of their members, and will do so in regard to the practical application pertaining to the relocation of personnel. The Government is thoroughly aware of the expertise built up over decades by the employees of our own institutions. Precisely in order to retain this expertise, and to ensure continuity in the rendering of services, it is imperative that whatever happens to these institutions to which the employees are at present attached, the employees themselves ought to be treated equitably, fairly and above all humanely.

As regards the personnel, the premises will therefore be the following. In the first place to ensure continuity in the rendering of service, with as little disruption as possible of the personnel, and with as few interruptions as possible. In the second place to treat people, in their placement with other institutions, as individuals with unique preferences, aptitudes and abilities. In the third place to transfer the functions and the people performing the functions together, as far as possible, to a receiving body. In this way, for example, approximately 540 employees of the development boards dealing with labour regulations or regulation will be transferred to the Department of Manpower. There they will continue to do the same work—but for a new employer. In the same way a number of employees who dealt with influx control will be transferred to the Department of Home Affairs to work on immigration control from neighbouring states and to help with the issuing of uniform identity documents.

Fourthly the aim is to protect crucial conditions of service such as salaries, housing schemes, medical schemes, pension benefits and accumulated leave.

Fifthly the intention is to ensure that the personnel have security and certainty as soon as possible.

Finally the intention is to retain employees, rather than to cause them to leave the service.

The decisions of the Government in regard to the respective development bodies were taken after consideration of reports and recommendations, and are as follows: As far as the development boards are concerned, the boards which are at present under the control of the 13 development boards will be abolished with effect from 1 July 1986. I emphasise that it is the boards which will be abolished and not the institutions serving the boards. The 13 chairmen and approximately 78 board members of the respective boards therefore vacate their respective offices with effect from 1 July 1986.

With effect from 1 July 1986 the provincial Administrators and their Executive Committees are being placed in control of the administrative components, that is to say the employees, of the former development boards. To ensure continuity and that services are rendered, the administrative units are being retained and provisionally being added in their entirety to the respective provincial administrations under the authority of the Provincial Secretaries and the Administrators with their Executive Committees.

Although the employers will no longer exist, all employees of the former development boards will retain the crucial conditions of service which are now applicable to them and will for a transitional period of not more than six months continue to render their normal services in the posts they occupy at present, unless they are transferred.

During the transitional period from 1 July to 31 December this year, functions are being transferred and employees, with the help of the Commission for Administration, are being placed in positions with protection of their basic crucial conditions of service taking into consideration the conditions of service of the organisations to which these persons are being posted. Further internal transfers of personnel and adjustments to post structures may appear to be necessary to make the accommodation of new functions and personnel possible.

The respective trade unions to which employees belong may assist the employees during the transitional period of six months and look after their interests as far as their postings are concerned. During this period existing crucial conditions of service remain unchanged. If an employee is employed as a public servant, the Public Service Act of 1984 is applicable to him.

In order to eliminate any misunderstanding in regard to decision-making after 1 July, an agreement has already been reached with the respective Provincial Secretaries that they will, in consultation with the parties involved, determine at this early stage the channels of communication and authority to the Provincial Secretary and the Administrator which will apply after 1 July.

The Administrator and their Executive Committees, as constituted after 1 July 1986, will be able to make use of expert advisers to perform the new tasks entrusted to them.

The abolition of the boards and the addition of the development functions to provincial administrations confirms the fact that the provincial administrations will to an increasing extent be development-orientated, and through this step their developmental ability is being expanded. The development activities will not be limited to one population group only, but will be aimed at all communities in a specific province.

When are you going to ask for a mandate for that?

Since the provincial administrations are responsible for general affairs and the executive committee may consist of members of any population group, such a step makes it possible that Black political officebearers may also be involved in the decision-making. [Interjections.]

The Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas is being abolished with effect from 1 July 1986 and the chairman and board members relinquish their appointments. The Transvaal Administrator and Executive Committee are, with effect from 1 July 1986, being placed in control of the administrative component, the employees, of the former Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. The personnel will also be treated like the personnel of development boards. Since most of the activities of this board are directed at rendering services to the White communities, a portion of the administrative component will in due course be transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly when the own affairs aspects of local authorities are transferred from the provincial administrations to the Ministers’ Councils.

Provisionally the divisional councils of the Cape continue to exist until they are replaced by regional services councils. For the purposes of this interim period the staff members of divisional councils will, at their own request and also with effect from 1 July 1986, provisionally be added to the establishment of the Cape Provincial Administration in order to eliminate uncertainty concerning their work and their future. However, they will immediately be seconded back to the divisional councils concerned to continue their work uninterruptedly there until the divisional councils are replaced by regional services councils, on which date they will then be permanently transferred to the most appropriate body in order to discharge their relevant functions. [Interjections.]

The Natal Development and Services Board provisionally continues—with a few adjustments—to exist in its present form until its functions can be rationalised with those of regional services councils. The own affairs administrations will receive representation on the board. The regional services corporations continue to exist provisionally, except in the case where such corporation’s area of activities fall entirely within the boundaries of a regional services council.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has made a number of important announcements relating to second-tier government, as well as to the whole question of the development boards, the divisional councils and other matters. We will study his speech in great detail but I just want to make one or two preliminary comments on his announcements insofar as they affect second-tier or provincial government in South Africa.

I listened to the hon the Minister’s speech with a very deep sense of foreboding. In one fell swoop, however, he says: “Die wetgewende gesag gaan verwyder word.” [Interjections.]

Three hundred years of history!

That point alone fills me with the deepest sense of foreboding, but when I also hear that the second tier is going to be run under the authority delegated to various people by the central Government, then I say it is the beginning of the end of effective representative government in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what it is.

It goes even further by taking government away from the people in some of the fields they are most intimately concerned with. Education, township planning and housing have been integral parts of the provincial system. Those responsible for this function were directly elected, and an executive committee responsible for its budget has been answerable to an electorate. That is going to be scrapped. [Interjections.] This is empire building de luxe! [Interjections.]

His Royal Heunis!

The hon the Minister does not understand the difference between constitutional decentralisation and executive delegation. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot go on like this. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is reacting to a very important announcement by the hon the Minister and he should now be afforded the opportunity to make his speech in an orderly atmosphere. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

The people are going to lose those directly elected representatives who could call the executive to order and approve or disapprove the budget. These checks are not going to be there any more. Government is going to be taken further and further away from the people and placed more firmly in the hands of the bureaucrats and the executive in South Africa.

He says it is a broadening of democracy.

We in South Africa are shifting away from a parliamentary type of government—a government of elected responsibility—to an executive type of government run by a political cabal. That is not the direction in which we would like to see South Africa move.

It is an oligarchy!

We will reserve our judgment, but we see this move as the undermining of the parliamentary type of government in South Africa and the placing of more and more power in the hands of the central executive. We will come back to this in due course.

I want to continue in the serious vein in which the hon the Minister spoke on Friday. I was unable to be present, but I have read his Hansard very carefully. Particularly in a period of constitutional reform, there is always the risk of instability and violence. The hon the Minister made some very important statements in this connection, and to an extent I agree with some of his analyses, although I definitely disagree with some of his conclusions.

However, there is no doubt that a process of fundamental restructuring—if that is what is meant by reform—has within it the potential for of producing a degree of instability. That we have conceded. But equally the lack of real reform also creates instability. So, one has two different countervailing factors—a process of fundamental reform on the one hand, but equally the lack of fundamental reform on the other hand. The hon the Minister tends to console himself by saying that the instability and the violence which we are experiencing, are largely as a consequence of the reform process. Now, that may be the Government’s perception but it is undoubtedly not the perception of the Black people of this country. Their perception is not that there is instability or violence because there is reform; their perception is that it is because of either the slowness of reform or the lack of fundamental reform. Black people who participate in the violence and the instability are not fighting against reform. They are fighting against what is left of apartheid. They are fighting against the system of apartheid, not against the process of reform. So, while there is an element of truth in what the hon the Minister says, when one looks at the countervailing reasons for the present crisis in South Africa, one sees that they are not primarily because of reform. They are primarily because of the continuation of the policies and the principles of apartheid in South Africa.

The next point which the hon the Minister makes is that during this process when instability occurs the Police and Security Forces have to play a role to keep the ship of State on an even keel. We accept that as a general philosophy but, having said that, I must add that the Police and Security Forces can assist in maintaining law and order and in a sense in imposing authority, but they cannot impose on people a political or a constitutional system which those people reject. That is not the function of the Police and the Security Forces. They can attend to law and order but they cannot be used to try to impose on an unwilling people a political system or political structures which they reject. In a sense the hon the Minister accepted this by saying:

He said this twice.

To the extent that Security Forces are used to try to impose on people a system which they resent and reject, those Security Forces are not only unable to do this, but they themselves become part of the process of instability because they become identified with those very structures which the people are trying to get off their backs. This is what is happening in South Africa today. The instability and the violence in South Africa, I believe, are to a large extent due to the Government’s gross mismanagement of the reform process. The Government has repeatedly raised expectations and stimulated the urge for fundamental reform, and then it has left those expectations unfulfilled. This has given rise to tension, time and time again.

When one looks at the speed of reform, the process of statutory reform—changing the laws, the structures, the policies—one sees that it has fallen far behind the process of natural or organic reform which is taking place in our South African society. In the end, when the Government changes the law or introduces a structure it is the last step in a process which has already taken place. The Government is no longer initiating reform. The Government is responding almost unwillingly to the natural forces of change which are taking place in our society. Its belated, inadequate responses have stimulated the pressures and increased the violence in South Africa.

However, I think the hon the Minister takes himself seriously as a reformer. The impression he gives me is that he takes himself seriously as a reformer. However, I want to put it to the hon the Minister that in the constitutional field the Government’s type of reform is perceived by others to be merely the imposition of another form of apartheid in the place of the outdated form of apartheid. They see it as the introduction of apartheid structures, now known as own affairs, as part of the reform process. Every time the Government introduces an own affairs structure as part of its reform process, it debases the currency of reform. People see reform not as a process of getting rid of apartheid, but as a process of reintroducing apartheid under the guise of own affairs. The resentment of the process of reform of many people is not because of what they see happening in general affairs but because of what they see happening in regard to compulsory racially oriented structures in the field of own affairs. It is this mismanagement of the reform process—a laudable process in itself—which we believe has aggravated the instability in South Africa and has led to the violence that is taking place.

Structures imposed by the White minority, however reformist such structures may be seen to be in the eyes of the White minority, will always run the risk of being seen by other people to be the imposition of a minority will on the majority of the population. It is regrettable to all of us who believe in constitutional government in South Africa that because of this the Government is threatening the political legitimacy of the very institutions that it has created. They might have formal authority, but have they political legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the people in South Africa? This is the crisis we are facing now.

How can we put this matter right? The question of political legitimacy cannot be resolved by the Police or the Security Forces. It can only be resolved by fundamental political action. There was a time when one might have sought political legitimacy by restructuring constitutional structures from grassroots level upwards. That would have been desirable, but the Government has wasted precious years. It has wasted year after year, until the position is now that we will not get political legitimacy for structures created by this Parliament until this Parliament itself enjoys political legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the people. For this reason, whatever the hon the Minister does, I believe what has become a fundamental and cardinal point in the whole process of constitutional reform is the question of whether this Parliament is seen as being truly representative of all the people of South Africa. I would suggest to the hon the Minister that he stop his “lappieswerk”, his patch-work quilt operations such as he has announced again today. He must stop creating structure after structure until he has first consulted with Blacks and got the process of negotiation going and until there is a general agreement, not on the issue of the authority of this Parliament but on the issue of the political legitimacy of this Parliament. This is of absolutely critical importance in South Africa.

I know the hon the Minister said the other day that there would be no Lancaster House conferences for South Africa. We do not want Lancaster House conferences. We said so the other day. The problem has to be resolved by South Africans in South Africa and for South Africa.

At the same time, where there are people of goodwill outside of South Africa who may help to make a contribution in the process of promoting negotiations in South Africa, I do not believe that we should slam the door in their faces.

Have you read what I have said?

Yes, I did read it.

What I am saying, is that if people like the EPG can assist in the process of promoting negotiations I do not believe that we should just reject their offer to do so. I say this because I believe that what this Government is going to do in respect of the critical issues that will get real meaningful negotiations off the ground, inter alia the release of Mr Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of the ANC, will be of critical importance to this process of negotiation as well as to the history of South Africa in many years to come. For this reason we ask this Government to consider our proposals seriously. Like everyone else in this House, I also believe in the principles of constitutional government. We would like to see this country governed by a democratic government elected by the people of South Africa. I believe we have to move in that direction. We must realise that if we carry on with RSCs and with separate local authorities and new types of provincial structures without first seeing to it that the authority of this Parliament reflects the wishes and the will of the people of South Africa, then we run the risk that the very structures which we are going to create, will start amidst doubt as to their political legitimacy. We do not want that to happen. We believe it is important that this Parliament and the structures that flow from it, enjoy the genuine support of all those people in South Africa who would prefer to live in peace.

Mr Chairman, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition attempted saying a great deal in a very short time. I wish to respond very quickly to only three aspects as I cannot reply to everything.

Firstly, it surprises me that he made out a case here for provincial government as effective representative government. The hon member said we were abolishing an effective, representative government, but he knows as well as I that his statement is based on incorrect facts. What is even more peculiar about it is that he adopted the standpoint throughout that reforms regarding constitutional adjustments of structures should take place at the first tier as regards total negotiation before one could really establish legitimacy at a lower level in any system to be developed. The entire point of departure of centralising for the sake of further decentralisation in future as regards representation as well is therefore not wrong by definition.

The second point I wish to deal with is his response to security action in respect of which he indicated that the hon the Minister had actually adopted the standpoint that security action had to restore law and order. I could unfortunately not attend Friday’s debate and tendered my apologies to the hon the Minister. I read his speech, however, and the standpoint adopted by the hon the Minister emerges clearly that one has to act simultaneously with two arms—one a security action and the other reform—and that security action should be regarded as a method of supporting reform and making it possible to find a system which is broadly acceptable. I therefore do not understand the hon member’s attack.

The third aspect is his reaction to the hon the Minister’s standpoint that we are not looking at a Lancaster House type of solution in which outsiders negotiate and decide on our behalf and that the solution should be found in South Africa by South Africans. If the hon member had read it, he would have seen—as I discovered—that the hon the Minister actually said that this was something positive in the sense that outsiders and foreigners too—wherever they might be—capable of influencing people positively to participate in a negotiating process would be welcome. Consequently I cannot understand the hon member’s objections. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon the Minister that I was exceptionally impressed on reading his speech. I can identify myself with him entirely as regards his speech and I think the speech he made on Friday was one of the best he has ever made in this Chamber—if not one of the best ever made in the Chamber. [Interjections.]

I wish to link up with one train of thought in it. The hon the Minister spoke of common values and referred in particular to the fact that we in general and across a very wide front through all population groups were followers of the Christian faith. He remarked that this was one of the values we recognised above party-political divisions and which could work very positively.

I wish to tell hon members that it is my personal experience—many other hon members in this Committee will also testify to this—that one can really experience the community of Christians in interaction with them in spite of party-political divisions and that one cares for one’s fellows and for others. In that regard one can experience the fullness of the church in spite of alternative points of principle, strategies, party-political preferences and so on. There are many hon members in this Committee who can join me in bearing evidence to this.

It does not matter what one’s name is and who one is but this bond we retain as Christians in Christ is one matter which can carry us forward and I wish to associate myself very strongly with that. We care for one another and I think we care for others too. We frequently care for one another in a strange way because we cannot understand one another’s points of departure.

On various occasions I have had the privilege of attending broad discussions in which people of different political convictions meet one another as Christians. There one feels the need to support and actually to carry one’s political opponent—regardless of which party he belongs to—in the hope that the visions which he holds up on the basis of his values which are Christian values as well will prove true. One finds further that one experiences the same from his side toward oneself. It is almost a prayer that one should be right and successful in one’s strategy too—even if one’s strategy differs from his.

I think the truths regarding values we are seeking ahead form the crux of our investigation. Yet there is something lacking in these circumstances which is that we should come to one another with greater openness and that we should not only seek the commonality of values but also the commonality of strategies. What I mean by this is that this should result in negotiation; we should seek commonality in our strategies as well.

This brings me to a few points I should like to raise on Parliament and the parliamentary system. The hon the Minister said in his speech that all constitutional development had to be brought about by this Parliament as a vehicle for the broadening of democracy.

The debate on the relevance of Parliament—or the lack of it—flared up in highly emotional terms after two former colleagues left us; I am referring to Dr Slabbert and Dr Boraine. Their motives may certainly have been to cause the system to appear suspect but I think certain matters became clear after one had regarded the question objectively. I want to make a few brief comments in this regard.

Firstly, I think the two former members of Parliament questioned their own roles within the system; I think this is clear. They saw they could not fulfil a positive role within this system personally and that they could possibly do so elsewhere. I in no way question their right to play a role elsewhere but what I do question is the possibility whether they would really be capable of playing a positive role elsewhere.

Secondly, I think it is clear that Parliament itself is not a negotiating forum. It cannot be one on the basis of definition but it is certainly one of the participants in the negotiating process.

A third point which to my mind emerges from this is that extraparliamentary politics are not necessarily politics of violence. Inkatha conducts extraparliamentary politics as do organised trade and industry and other interest groups within the system, such as the SPCC or the NECC which certainly participate in discussion.

And the FAK.

Certainly the FAK too. All outside organisations form part of extraparliamentary politics and do not necessarily subscribe to violence.

What about the AWB?

The fourth point I want to make is that there are representatives within Parliament—an authority is formed by representatives within the system—who are actors in this play and have an obligation and a responsibility to play their part in a positive way in the development of the total drama.

In the fifth place, if we think within the framework of the Constitution—I argue that this is the case—we cannot but acknowledge that this Parliament also has to apply as the vehicle for carrying out the process.

There is a last thought which I wish to put forward in the time at my disposal. The hon the Minister spoke of the communality of values. I wish to emphasise that the diversity of values will also have to be accommodated in a future system. We shall have to develop a flexibility—I almost want to call it a tolerance—about it. Everyone is in search of security. This awareness of security is not found only among Whites as regards privileges or rights they have already acquired. There is also an awareness of security among Black people regarding the recognition of the human dignity of all as well as aspects of physical safety. This not only involves a material ability to be able to care for oneself, one’s family and one’s immediate vicinity and to continue being able to do so. Security also lies in the development of an ability as such and actually the utilisation of an opportunity of being able to care for oneself and those around one. It also lies in the fact that one will be protected against one’s own inability, that is to say when one is unable to fulfil this obligation of providing care.

I think it possible to regroup constitutionally. The future of South Africa indicates that the actors who have to decide this play find themselves in the same scene and that it can take place within a single concept of state—no matter how loosely or strictly one wishes to define it—and that openness of discussion is certainly possible. If we are prepared to participate in a peaceful process, I have hope for the future of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall be reacting to certain facets of the hon member for Randburg’s speech. I just want to say at the outset that I have some sympathy with some of the criticism expressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about the implementation of the proposed dispensation set out by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I find fault with it in the sense that whilst one is mindful of the dangers of a minority government for South Africa as a whole, thus far the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Government have not been able to tell us how one is going to prevent majority government over the various peoples and minority groups in the country. We have not received that answer yet. When mention is made of the majority in the country, the majority of the population who have to be represented in this Parliament, it means one Parliament if there is to be proportional representation. I do not see how it can be anything else. Then one immediately has a Black majority and a majority Government by the Black people. We have not yet obtained an answer to the question of how this could be prevented. We have not yet received this answer from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, nor from the NP.

That is just one remark I want to make immediately. I shall still be studying the hon the Minister’s speech a little more thoroughly, but there is one point I want to make at once. It does not seem to me as if the disappearance of the provincial councils and the appointment of executive bodies, entailing the centralisation of the ultimate legislative authority in Parliament, will give rise to decentralisation and devolution of power. It looks more like centralisation, with a more streamlined passing down of the decisions of the top tiers of administration to the lowest tiers of administration, right down to local authority level.

Let me just mention one example. We are now speaking about this executive committee of kwaNatal. My first question is: What is going to happen to the legislative assembly of kwaZulu? It is an elected body. Is that body, which looks after the interests of a specific people, and whose territory is now simply going to be included in kwaNatal as a whole, still going to exist as a legislative assembly, a representative body, or will it disappear, as the White members of the Natal Provincial Council are disappearing? Is that what will happen? [Interjections.] Perhaps.

That is a fair question. I shall reply to that.

Very well, thank you very much.

I should like to respond to a few points of departure which the hon the Minister wove into his speech and which I regard as being of basic and fundamental importance to his argument, both relating to the constitutional development and future reform. The hon the Minister made a few statements that I think one could partially agree with at face value, although I should—as present-day parlance would have it—like to address them.

In his argument the hon the Minister is speaking from a specific point of view. He spoke of a South African consciousness that was in the process of developing; the building up of communal values; a feeling of the common destiny of everyone in South Africa; what is going to affect one community, is going to affect the others too; no community can completely divorce itself from other communities and there is no question of permanent dissension and unrest. I concede that I have quoted this from my notes, but I think I have quoted reasonable well.

I think that I shall be permitted a few statements with a view to stating my own point of departure. There is, of course, no watertight isolation amongst the various peoples and communities in South Africa. Nor is there even any watertight isolation between Russia and America or between the European States, each with its own geographic area for the specific people concerned.

Secondly there is interdependence and there are mutual influences. There is the mutual granting of assistance, there is consultation, and those things cannot be undone. We do not live in a world where these things do not exist.

Thirdly there is such a thing as a Christian people’s or community’s Christian sense of responsibility towards other peoples and other communities. There are also many examples to prove the goodwill and affability existing between members of the respective peoples, specifically those transcending cultural or ethnic dividing lines and the boundaries of individual fatherlands. This cannot be disputed. I am one who says there is a great reservoir of goodwill and affability between the members of the respective peoples and communities.

I believe, however, that it will be correct to say that there are also other realities that have to be brought into the picture with a view to giving it balance or equilibrium. Let me then say that in my view it is wrong to imply that the fact that the peoples of South Africa are divided up—I am speaking of their being divided up because the word “split” has been given an unfavourable connotation embodying an element of harm or hostility—means a split coupled with hostility, or that this negates goodwill. I want to contend that one can have positive attitudes without the respective communities being forced to live under the same roof constitutionally, socially or educationally, or without their always necessarily having to get together so as to prove their goodwill.

I also want to contend that no cultural community or people can, without qualification, be optimally open to being influenced by others, be overrun or pervaded by foreign cultures or cultural assets, and continue to be itself and to maintain its own identity. I think this is a truth that no one can deny. My contention is that a culture—and therefore also a cultural community—is in certain respects both inclusive and exclusive. It is inclusive in so far as it can, in fact, take over aspects from other cultures and make them its own cultural assets. On the other hand a culture is exclusive in the sense that it keeps a watchful eye on the nature of what and the amount which it takes over and assimilates without sacrificing its own character. It therefore has the right to exclude, and the right of exclusion is not wrong, is not unchristian, but goes hand-in-hand with its identity and the preservation of that identity.

I also want to contend that in spite of points of contract or points of common interest, South Africa is an example of the conflict model of pluralism. I am now referring to an article written by Prof Ben Vosloo a few years ago in which he weighed up the various models of pluralism, one against the other, and in which he described South Africa as a conflict model—in contrast to a consensus model and a consociational model. He also said that South Africa—from the facts at our disposal, on the basis of the realities of which we speak—had such a diversity of racial characteristics, traditions and customs, religious convictions and religious practices and modes of religious experience, including its various social forms, that if one were to force those communities into a unitary community or State, one would be creating rising or mounting conflict instead of harmony. For that reason separate freedoms are the most preferable.

If disinvestment were to affect the Republic of South Africa adversely …

Do you perhaps have Prof Ben Vosloo’s article available here?

I shall make it available to the hon the Minister. I have previously quoted from it, although that was quite a bit earlier.

Thank you. I would appreciate it.

Mr Chairman, we are now speaking about the influence of a disaster or the effect of an event in one community on another. If disinvestment, for example, were to have an adverse effect on the Republic of South Africa—and it would— and also on Transkei, Lesotho and Zimbabwe, what then? What would then happen would be what the American ambassador in Zimbabwe conceded at a conference in Washington where he said that disinvestment in relation to South Africa would adversely affect Zimbabwe. That still does not mean, however, that the members of a unitary State should come together in a unitary State with the Republic of South Africa in an effort to counter the adverse affects of such action.

I want to contend, moreover, that if incidents of terrorism in Black communities hit both those communities and, at the same time, Amanzimtoti, Pretoria and the Northern Transvaal, it is still no reason why Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites should be scrambled together in a unitary State, in a unitary community, for the supposedly successful combating of the iniquities of terrorism.

The hon the Minister referred to the recognition of human dignity. I do not think one need dispute that point with him, but I do want to state that the recognition of someone’s human dignity surely does not mean that as a human being he belongs, feels at home or is acceptable in any cultural or ethnic community. I think we should get away …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! The hon member for Waterberg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

I think we should get away from the idea that the recognition of human dignity means the creation of a grey, racially mixed community, grey residential areas, mixed schools and mixed social and political structures. I do not think that one’s human dignity is necessarily given optimum expression within those structures. We must get away from the idea that all separation is discrimination that has an adverse affect on people. My contention is that not all separation is discrimination that adversely affects people. One does not need to create a multiracial community in order to allow an individual’s human dignity to come into its own.

On the other hand there is specifically no justice for a particular people or community if one forces it into a specific unitary structure, together with other peoples, by virtue of having impaired or done away with its means of political expression, as I contend has been done in the present reform dispensation. In the present reform dispensation the means for political expression of the Whites have been impaired or done away with.

One cannot do justice to a community if one subjects it to the numerical preponderance of another people or peoples and denies it an opportunity of ever again regaining its full-fledged self-determination.

What I am saying here has tremendous implications for future relations in South Africa. I am warning the Government not to continue, to an increasing extent, to truncate, impair or do away with the political self-determination of the Whites and have it eventually submerged by a system of Black majority government. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister referred to interdenominational meetings, and also to the mobilisation of Christians as a force of reconciliation in South Africa. That is also an idea with which the hon member for Randburg associated himself. The hon the Minister also says that Christ is the major harmonising influence. That is why we say that if everyone in South Africa could be fully alive to the Spirit of Christ, this country would be the ideal country. Nor must that cease to be our ideal.

Secondly we acknowledge—I think that what I am now saying here, I have already said from public platforms in the Pretoria City Hall and elsewhere—the unity of all those who believe in Christ. Whether they are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking Christians, or Bushmen Christians or Xhosa Christians or Tswana Christians or Zulu Christians or Shangaan Christians, we acknowledge them and say they are all members of the one body of Christ.

Thirdly the Spirit of Christ—I do not apologise for raising these matters, because I regard as fundamental to our point of departure—cannot be reconciled with the hostility between people and peoples. That hostility “which made a wall of partition”—I am quoting from what the Apostle wrote to the Ephesians—has therefore been done away with in principle. But people can also live without hostility on opposite sides of a country’s borders. I also want to say that we all have a responsibility to counter such hostility. All of us have a responsibility to love our neighbours and to strive for justice.

I do, however, want to add a few remarks to that. In connection with the hon the Minister’s approach to Christ as the major harmonising influence, let me say that in the first instance he must not forget that in speaking of Christ, in terms of our Creed, we are speaking of the second element of the Holy Trinity. We are then speaking of that person in the Holy Trinity that we cannot wrench out of context, whose activities, as far as reconliation is concerned, we cannot isolate from the operation of the Holy Trinity in, or its contribution to, the annals of human history, nature, the lives of peoples, etc. His work is not only that of a mediator in the process of redemption, but also that of a mediator in the process of creation. There is no question of a conflict between His creative work, maintaining the balance of nature and the human race and His work in the lives of peoples on the one hand and that of reconciler and mediator in the process of redemption on the other. There is no conflict there.

With all due respect, one cannot simply say, without qualification, that Christ is the major harmonising influence, because it cannot mean that his work of reconciliation must bring about the denationalisation of peoples or nations. [Interjections.] If I am saying something that is obvious, the hon the Minister is free to agree with it. It cannot mean harmonising by a process of disregarding one’s own culture, one’s ethnic identity, one’s ethnic consciousness, structures or boundaries. Otherwise Britain would have been acting in an unchristian manner when it allowed Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho to become independent and determined their borders. Or else, from a Christian point of view, the NP erred in allowing the four Black States to become independent and to be excised from the Republic of South Africa. It also created six self-governing Black States and is still making every effort to bring about the consolidation of the Black areas by setting land aside for those peoples.

We must get away from the idea that Christianity is in conflict with the existence of borders or with separation. Peace and reconciliation amongst peoples does not mean forcing all people into the same residential areas, schools, governing bodies, councils and parliaments. Nor does it mean that everyone should remain within the same territory. Christian unity does not mean scrambling people together in a unitary culture or one ethnic setup.

The Bible is very clear about the diversity of peoples. I do not want to tire hon members, but they are free to read what Moses said in Deutoronomy 32. There it is stated that God divided up the world among the nations, setting boundaries between them. The idea of various peoples, with boundaries between them, is not a strange idea.

The great Apostle of love, unity and reconciliation, said in his speech in Athens that God had made all the nations from one man and determined where they would five and how long they would live; He determined the boundaries of their habitations.

One can draw this argument right through to Revelation and right into the dispensation of the new Jerusalem and the new earth. In Revelation 21 verse 3 one reads: “… they will be his peoples”. In the new dispensation the wandering nations come into the light of the new Jerusalem. The idea of diversity is not a temporary or sinful idea, and hon members surely know this. [Interjections.]

I just want to quote briefly what one of the greatest theologians of all times, John Calvin, said:

The idea of separation is not an unchristian idea, although these days, at interdenominational meetings, it is presented in a way that seems to indicate that it is in conflict with love and Christian unity. I could quote the works of other, more recent theologians.

In conclusion I want to refer to the interdenominational meetings that the hon the Minister mentioned. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me that one definitely has some reservations about the resolutions adopted at certain interdenominational meetings. I do not think, for example, that the hon the Minister would agree with all the resolutions adopted at the conference in Pietermaritzburg last year.

Of course not.

Right, the hon the Minister does not agree. I do not think the hon the Minister would agree with the standpoint of Dr Nico Smith. I quote from a report about what he said the other day at a funeral gathering in Pretoria:

I do not think there is one of us who agrees with that.

I also think the hon the Minister would agree with me that we have specific reservations when the Federal Council of NG Churches avows that when it comes to the tension, the polarisation and the hostility in the country, we all share the blame. I am very sorry, but I do not simply, without qualification, accept the blame for hostility in the country. I therefore do not associate myself with that interdenominational body. Nor do I associate myself with the Federal Council of NG Churches when it encourages or requests the Government to accelerate the reform process, because the Government does not yet know where it is heading with this reform process. It does not yet know what future structures we are going to be saddled with. It has not yet told us that the Parliament in Cape Town is going to be a parliament in which the Black people will be represented, as are the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In not wanting to say anything about that, it is not telling us either in what other way they will be participating in decision-making up to the highest level. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have listened attentively to what the hon Leader of the CP said. In this Committee I want to say, without qualification, that I value Dr Treumicht as a person. The arguments I am now going to advance here, in response to what he said, are in no way aimed at him as a person. I am merely discussing the subject.

I listened attentively to his speech, and it worries me when we enter the political arena, climb on political platforms and start making use of the Church.

Did you listen to the hon the Minister?

I listened very attentively to what the hon the Minister said. [Interjections.] I have no problem with what the hon the Minister said as a profession of faith, but what I want to say is that one should leave it at that. [Interjections.] In this country every man—including a politician— has the right to say what he believes in. But one errs if one starts using one’s creed and the interpretation of the Scriptures to fit in with one’s political standpoint—this could apply to me or to anyone else. [Interjections.] In this country we should not politicise Christianity. In this country we should do a bit of Christianising of our politics. I say this with great seriousness, because I mean it. [Interjections.] I am seriously concerned about how we quote Biblical texts to fit in with our political standpoints. I am not levelling any accusations at any hon member in this Committee; I am merely making a general statement. [Interjections.]

The hon Leader of the CP said he had problems with people who encouraged the Government to accelerate the reform process, because he says that process does not have any sense of direction. Merely on the basis of the ethics underlying the faith of the majority of hon members in this Committee, justice is a fundamental aspect of reform. It is quite simply a question of human justice in accordance with the convictions of every hon member in this Committee. That is why I am saying that every bit of reform that is instituted for the sake of justice is in the interests of everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the CP have a great many problems with the concept of powersharing, and they tell us we have changed a great deal. That is quite true. We started off thinking that power-sharing would mean the destruction of the Whites in South Africa, but today we have reached a point at which we in the NP can openly say that if we are not prepared to share power in this country, our country will be destroyed. [Interjections.] This is precisely the opposite viewpoint to that which we held at that stage, and we are saying so to the electorate. In the final analysis it is their democratic right to say whether they agree with us or not.

Then hold an election! [Interjections.]

There is an over-abundance of prejudice in the politics practised by many people in South Africa, and a complete lack of trust. I told a voter in my constituency one day that I gained the impression that every so often the CP was more enthusiastic about its total lack of a policy than many of our people were about the plan—even though the particulars have not yet been worked out—that we have for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let me tell hon members of the CP that we are not prepared to turn our principles into mere fabrications. Our principles embody the fact that we have a right and a say in this country and that our children must make it safely through the night. We say that to bring about stability in this country, powersharing is the political answer. [Interjections.] We intend to guide our voters; not one of us on this side of the House intends to mislead them. There is no future for a government that misleads its people; there is no future for a political party that fails to see the realities and tries to steer its people on a wrong course.

Is that why you lost Sasolburg?

Let me tell the hon member for Jeppe that I think the time has come for us to relinquish our prejudices and move forward with our ideals, because for far too long we have based our politics in this country on prejudice.

Now you are hoisting the white flag.

The hon member for Kuruman is so concerned about surrendering. I readily concede that he and his party have no intention of bringing about confrontation in South Africa, but the inevitable reality of their standpoint is such that confrontation must result. If one tells fellow South Africans that one is pushing them aside, one is leaving those people no other choice but an aggressive reaction.

But that is not our policy!

The CP thinks it can accommodate Coloureds’ and Indians’ desire for freedom with its policy of independent homelands, but it is actually inhibiting freedom. It is trying to confine freedom to its conception of where it belongs. If one thinks, in this country, that one can limit freedom and thereby achieve peace one is, as a politician, living in a terrible dream world.

You have no mandate to oppose it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik need not worry about our mandate at all. [Interjections.] I am sorry that we have so little time to discuss this matter.

You have altogether too much.

I want to say again that I think that we are not doing justice to a debate on this important Vote in speeches that are less than 10 minutes long. I want to lodge a serious plea for a thorough examination of this issue. [Interjections.]

I should just like to raise a point concerning the development of more land for Blacks in urban areas. Several decisions taken by the Government call for far-reaching reassessments on land.

Today I want to lodge a plea for the dramatic redistribution of land in South Africa. We must first look at various decisions taken by the Government. Free trading areas have been permitted, and the right of Black people to own land as South African citizens has been acknowledged. The Government has decided that influx control should be abolished, that the consolidation era has passed and that we should actively strive to achieve urbanisation. It has been decided that we want to get rid of discrimination and that we should put an end to removals. The emphasis should no longer be on transport subsidies, because people should be able to live near their place of work. Decisions have been taken about small business undertakings and the informal sector. The deprived areas are going to be uplifted and people’s living environments are going to be made pleasant for them. The Government has decided to establish regional services councils, Black local authorities and urban infrastructures. Ordered squatting is going to be permitted and industrial areas are going to be opened. [Interjections.]

Each of these decisions requires a dramatic new dispensation when it comes to the occupation and utilisation of land by the respective groups in South Africa.

What is wrong with one man, one vote?

The Government has committed itself to group interests. This means that each group should have adequate or sufficient land on which it can realise its full potential as a group, and its members can fully realise their individual potential. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that wherever there is a large city or rural town in South Africa, the Black and Coloured residential areas are a conspicuous eyesore, a poor adjunct of a rich, prosperous White community. From any quarter that is untenable.

The dialogue began when Jan van Riebeeck parcelled out the land here and Harry the Strandloper indicated his dissatisfaction at the portion allotted to them. From that moment land in South Africa has featured as a point of dispute. It is of vital importance to political harmony, economic development and social stability for the Government not only to take a look at the dramatic redistribution of land, but also put its administrative machinery into gear so that the practical allocation of more land in the respective regions of our country can start taking place very rapidly.

The regional planning efforts of the department have, here and there, followed the existing pattern. In a area such as the PWD area the existing Black, Coloured and Indian residential areas are, to a very large extent, regarded as a basic pattern. Because I know that the hon the Minister and the members of his department are people who are serious about this matter and can get things done, I should like to lodge a plea for the question of the re-allocation of the land to be a high priority in South Africa. Land is essential to development and that is why we have to allocate sufficient land to everyone.

Mr Chairman, it is always very interesting to listen to a convert really proselytising his cause. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about it that the hon member for Innesdal is really a convinced convert. That is why I love following him because he is in fact talking much the same language as I do. [Interjections.]

However, now that the NP are so enthusiastic about their conversion, it clearly indicates that they accept the fact that for the past 38 years they have been wrecking the country economically, politically and internationally. So, such being the case, they have realised that they have to change back and this is why they have all become converts to a form of democracy as they see it. I have some grave doubts, however, as to whether we are going to achieve this change with the present hon Minister’s attitude towards change and towards people who ask him questions. [Interjections.]

I asked a number of questions last year, and I was not answered because I was told that I was hostile and crude. This year I asked a number of questions, most of which have not been answered, and I was very polite—for me!

The same here.

I really cannot understand how the hon the Minister expects to get the co-operation of people in South Africa if he will not give answers to valid questions.

I have not forgotten. I will have another chance to answer you.

I am aware of that, but this afternoon the hon the Minister gave answers in regard to the future of second-tier government, and I would naturally have assumed that—as all my questions were related to second-tier government—the answers would have come forward then. I believe that this hon Minister, as I have said before, is an extremely hard-working Minister but I believe he is too devious. He goes all the way around to do something, whereas anybody else would go straight for it. I want to quote an example to make my meaning clear. The central business district situation could have been resolved overnight by making a declaration that CBDs were a local affair for local authorities to decide. [Interjections.] It could have been done as easily as that, but he has created the most comprehensive and difficult system imaginable, with dozens of officials working on plans and maps to sort it out and it is likely that this will carry on for years before this matter is finished and keep on dragging up apartheid for the whole world to see. This is the trouble. It could have been taken out of the Government’s hands, and the Government could have been as pure white as an angel in regard to the apartheid system in CBDs if only it had been done the short way. However, he takes the long way round. [Interjections.]

As far as the provincial system is concerned—I must come back to that again—we are now going to have a system where Exco are appointed by the State President. That was a question I asked. The Administrators will, of course, also be appointed by the State President as they always have been. However, the difference is that the Administrators did not have the executive authority which they are going to have under the new system. Furthermore, they will not have people chosen by the public to make sure that even if they have that power, they do not abuse the situation. Now, this is what we are arguing about, and this is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was arguing about. We think this is a gauleiter system which is imported directly from somewhere else. It does not belong to any democratic institution that any of us has ever heard of, except possibly in the convoluted mind of the hon the Minister. As far as we are concerned, we believe that this is an affront, not only to us in this House but to the public of South Africa as a whole. Not one single segment of the population has accepted the principle of virtual provincial dictators and appointed provincial executives. Not one section of the public has accepted it, and not one opposition party has done so. It is because of this that I feel that I have every justification for being a little hostile about this matter. The hon Minister does not answer my questions, and when one does get an answer at all, the answer, one is given only half answers the question.

He does not even listen to you!

Well, he may or may not do. [Interjections.] It will not really make any difference, but if he had listened to me years ago, we would have had a much better system operational today. [Interjections.]

The point is, however, that the system of provincial administration which has run successfully for a long time, is going to be ended in a matter of some six or seven weeks, and the system which is going to replace it, still cannot be outlined clearly. It is still not clear as to what is going to replace the provincial administration system.

As a consequence of statements made, and the new system more or less being made known, we almost have a situation of hiatus developing in the running of hospital services and local government. These systems are not running properly. I still believe there are likely to be problems in respect of education which have not been sorted out yet. The situation of the various school committees etc has not yet been finalised. In spite of the mess the system is in at present because nothing has been finalised, this hon Minister has decided to get rid of the provincial council system, instead of swallowing his pride and admitting that we are not ready for it and keeping the present system running for another six months or even a year, until such time as we have all these details sorted out. I believe it is an affront to the democratic system and the public and the people of South Africa to allow this situation to prevail. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as usual the hon member for Umbilo is a little worried about the system of provincial administrations because the NRP just happens to control the Provincial Council in Natal. I understand the hon member’s sentiments in this regard. I think he may have reason to feel a little unhappy about the situation.

Previous speakers, for example the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Waterberg, also referred to the hon the Minister’s statement on second-tier government. The provincial government as it was originally planned and as it is today, are definitely not the same. Reference has been made to powers and rights and elected representatives that are now going to be eliminated. The provincial government as it functions at present also has limited powers. It receives its funds according to a formula by means of a subsidy. Its ordinances are subject to the approval of the central government. Consequently it is clear that it had limited powers in any case.

I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to those members of the provincial councils—those authorities who rendered particular services to the country for more than 70 years. My colleagues and former colleagues who served on those councils, will always think back with fond memories to the provincial government. But circumstances have changed and we must learn to adjust to them.

I did not prepare myself to quote a text from the Bible to support my statements here or to prove that my political approach is correct. I leave that to the theologists who are probably better qualified to do this. But it is noticeable that theologists also, with all due respect, sometimes adapt those verses from the Bible to suit their political ideology or approach. I feel we should not misuse the Bible to support certain political statements.

You play tennis better! [Interjections.]

Thank you very much for the compliment, Koos.

The annual report of the department of the hon the Minister gives an indication of the comprehensive task being performed. It is a demanding task to bring about constitutional reform. With such a variety of interested organisations, the process requires expertise, perseverance and a great deal of patience. I think that the hon the Minister must also have a great deal of patience in this House sometimes.

The processes through which a new dispensation is entered, are sometimes a problem for those persons who are not intimately involved in them. But it is true that persons who approach these steps in a balanced manner, still keep perspective, even if they must follow a new and strange path in some respects.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to refer briefly to a few perceptions with regard to the third tier of government, and the towns and cities of the respective ethnic groups. One is justified in maintaining that the particular attention and thorough investigations into local authorities are unprecedented in the history of South Africa. This level of administration deserves our interests, and the consequent understanding for the problems determined in this way are to be welcomed.

For various reasons the quality of the towns differ. The hon member for Innesdal also referred to this. The quality of the towns of the respective population groups differ, and this is also one of the reasons why the radicals chose this sphere for their activities, namely the Black towns. This results in considerable hardships for the peaceful inhabitants of those towns. Particularly when we are dealing with the third tier of government, these events are also an indication to us of the conditions prevailing there. The disadvantage at which Black towns are requires particular attention in order to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants.

By the way it can be mentioned that the leaders of the large business groups who have come out strongly in favour of parity with regard to the respective population groups, can play a big role in this connection. As the hon the Minister said, it is true that the Urban Foundation and other organisations are striving for this. But I think that the extent of the assistance from that quarter is not yet meaningful. For decades the State has been subsidising the workers of those organisations in many ways.

The central business districts will afford people of colour the opportunity to utilise the trade potential in White towns. But it remains important for small business development to be continued purposefully in Black towns. Obviously the central business districts will, from an economic point of view, afford that opportunity, but it requires particular capital and business sense to enter a competitive White business area. The development of small businesses in Black townships must not be neglected with a view to the development of the central business districts.

For the above-mentioned reasons it may be found that only a limited number of businessmen of colour will establish themselves in the central business areas. It is consequently desirable for the further development of small businesses in Black townships to be promoted purposefully.

The greatest number of people of all population groups live in urban areas. Judicious administration and development in these areas can play a significant role in the consolidation of a happy and peaceful society.

In the past reference was frequently made to the monetary problems of the local authorities. It is true that most local authorities in this country are bowed down by a shortage of funds. This is particularly true of the towns of the coloured groups. There are good reasons for this. From history it appears that these towns did not develop like White towns where industrial areas or large business complexes developed. These people turned to the White towns for a livelihood where developing industrial areas or other jobs were available. Their own towns did not develop in a well-balanced way. Thorough attention will have to be given to the improvement of conditions there.

The autonomous councils which come into existence, will be able to do a great deal. At present many difficulties are being experienced, particularly in view of the intimidation which is the order of the day in the Black areas. In order to allow those towns to come into their own and to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the towns, extraordinary steps will have to be taken. It requires extraordinary steps to rectify extraordinary circumstances. The department of the hon the Minister is the responsible department in this regard. We must not only theorise, but will have to take practical steps to improve conditions. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in his opening remarks the hon member for Welkom responded to the speech made by the hon member for Umbilo by saying that he could understand that the hon member for Umbilo was perhaps unhappy about the disappearance of the provincial system and that he had a sentimental attachment to it. He then went on to say that, in any event, the provincial councils had very limited authority and power, and dismissed the matter more or less on that basis.

I want to deal with the statement which the hon the Minister made this afternoon relating to the disappearance of the provincial system as we have known it. The provincial system has had a very long and chequered career in the history of South Africa. In practical terms, I suppose it can be traced back to the debates which took place at the time of the National Convention between those who favoured a unitary system of government and those who favoured a federal system for the new Union which they were about to create. Certainly, there was a great deal of feeling at that stage on all sides with regard to the need to preserve some sort of provincial autonomy. I believe there was a deep consciousness of the diversity which existed among the states concerned arising perhaps out of accidents of history, perhaps out of the different historical backgrounds, the different loyalties and languages, disparities in wealth and potential wealth between those participating and other matters.

However, when one reads again about the events which took place at that time, it does seem that the overriding consideration became that of trying to forge a constitutional framework for South Africa which would hold out most hope of achieving the greatest degree of unity. When I say unity, I mean White unity because that was the main preoccupation at the time. In those circumstances, in their wisdom, the members of the National Convention opted for a unitary system of government with the considerable centralisation of power which that implied.

Provision was nonetheless made—perhaps because of the reality of the situation or perhaps as compensation or as a sop to those who had favoured the federal constitution, or for both reasons—for limited second-tier government at provincial level. Although the powers, as the hon member for Welkom has said, may have been limited and though they may have been truncated through the years the provincial system has stood out as a symbol of a degree of desentralisation in South Africa for non-Blacks at least and has provided a rallying point to identify and cater for some of the diversity which is a reality of life in South Africa.

As the years have passed I believe it has become more and more apparent that what is needed is a greater and not a lesser recognition of that diversity, which is part of the reality of South African life. What is needed is a strengthening and not a weakening of second-tier government in South Africa. Moreover, what is needed is an extension and not an abolition of direct representation in the operation of second-tier government.

In the light of these thoughts I think it is necessary to look critically at what the hon the Minister and the Government are proposing at the present time, both in regard to third and second-tier government in South Africa. Once again the Government seems to be totally obsessed with group considerations and group representations when one looks at the proposals which it has in mind for both second-tier and third-tier government in South Africa. When one looks at the third-tier government proposals, the regional services councils—which are to consist of representatives of various local government bodies in the area of jurisdiction of any particular council, as determined by the hon the Minister—one realises that the various local bodies are in effect bodies constituted, as we know, on a group or a racial basis, and the primary functions of those bodies will be to provide certain hard services as set out in the schedule to the Regional Services Councils Act. The council cannot therefore be entrusted with other kinds of functions or activities, for example, dealing with political or social issues affecting the population of the area, and the council will not have any real legislative power. So much for the regional services councils.

When one then looks at the operation of the tricameral system, as it deals with the whole concept of own affairs, the basis seems to have the following implications, among others, for the proposed regional setup. The various own affairs matters in any given region will fall under the legislative jurisdiction of the three separate Houses and under the administrative control of the separate Ministers’ Councils and their administrations. Again we have the question of group being pre-eminent in Government thinking.

We know that some of the areas of responsibility which are set out in the Schedule to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act relating to own affairs, may deal with matters such as social welfare, education at all levels, arts, culture, recreation, health matters, agriculture and so forth. These are limited on the basis of own affairs. Now we have been told that at provincial level the place of the provincial council, as we know it, will be taken by a nominated executive— perhaps it may be multiracial—and these nominated executives will have no legislative power whatsoever. They will be executive bodies performing functions on behalf of the central Government on a decentralised basis, and the executives will be accountable only to the Government and certainly not to the people in the provinces concerned by way of direct representation.

That is the major defect in the announcement made by the hon the Minister this afternoon. The total accountability insofar as those executives are concerned will be to the Government and will not be to the people of the provinces concerned. When one looks at this, one sees that there are so many anomalies which will arrive in this situation. It is a bad system per se because it removes responsibility to the people in the areas in which these executives are going to operate. Their accountability is to the central Government and not to the people in the areas in which they operate.

There is another anomaly. I would like to ask the hon the Minister how the system is going to operate in conjunction with the system of government already operating in the existing national states. This will be an interesting situation. In a province or a region which contains what we would term White South Africa in terms of national states one will have a totally lopsided situation as between the powers of the national states and the powers and the methods of operation of second-tier government as it affects Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

On the one hand you will have a powerful national state with a legislature having substantial powers to legislate on a fairly wide range of topics—and the hon the Minister and the Government have talked about giving them extended powers—including the right to amend or repeal any Act of Parliament in respect of those topics and the power which it has as applied to their laws. They will have extensive powers, Sir. They will also have an executive with extensive functions in respect of these matters falling within the jurisdiction of the national state government and controlling a budget of some hundreds of millions of rand.

That is what we will have on the one hand, Sir. Right next to that, on the other hand, one will have a situation—as far as the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned—in which there will not be any comparable legislative institution to deal legislatively with matters which may well be in the same region, because these matters will be dealt with by the tricameral Parliament, when the matters are general affairs, and by the various Houses separately in respect of own affairs. On the executive level there will be this non-elected, nominated administrative body, which will perform, as an instrument of the central Government, such decentralised functions as may be allocated to it. It is, I submit, Sir, a completely lopsided situation, in which one is going to have a variety of types of functions enjoyed by one administration—one regional authority—as against administrative powers exercised by another regional authority. This is a situation which needs some clarification on the part of the hon the Minister.

Having said that, Sir, I want to come to another matter which is related to the matter with which I have dealt. That is the question of what the Government’s intentions are regarding the extension of powers of the existing national states. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, in a recent speech at Gazankulu, said something to which I referred during the debate on his Vote here in the House last week. He suggested then that it was a matter which was rather the responsibility of this hon Minister. The former hon Minister is quoted as saying in the speech to which I have referred, and I quote:

He then went on to say:

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

That speech by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid merely reinforced statements which this hon Minister made when he opened the Gazankulu Assembly in March of this year. On that occasion he referred to an announcement the State President had made earlier, in which he had said, and I quote:

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid went on to say:

This is what he held out to the Gazankulu Assembly. He then went on to say that talks were already being held in this regard with the Chief Ministers of national states. Now, Sir, I want to ask this hon Minister, firstly, to give some indication of what extended powers the Government intends to give to the national states and, secondly, to relate those intentions to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, when he said:

Does this hon Minister agree with that? I believe he does, Sir. If he does, Sir, he must indicate to us what is meant by group autonomy or group existence in that context. Does he mean racial or ethnic groups? And if he means racial or ethnic groups, I should tell him, Sir, that he is now once again forcing South Africa into a situation of compartmentalisation because of his whole extension of powers to the national states, by way of which he is creating a situation in which they might, as he says, even accomplish something quite near to independence on this basis. If that is his concept, Sir, he is basing it purely on a group basis once again.

No one will argue with a strengthening of regional autonomy per se in areas such as the homeland areas. No one will argue with that, Sir, if that means the decentralisation of administrative powers to provide better regional government in certain parts of South Africa. If it means, however, providing regional autonomy to reinforce ethnic compartmentalisation on a compulsory predetermined basis, I believe the hon the Minister must accept that it is doomed to failure because it has been rejected time and time again by people throughout South Africa, and particularly by the overwhelming majority of the Black people. The serious problems which exist around South Africa today—the division, the unrest, the strife— stem very largely from the Government’s preoccupation with racial compartmentalisation and enforced ethnicity over a period.

Last week, in support of this contention, I quoted extracts from a speech made recently by the Chief Minister of Gazankulu when he addressed the President’s Council. He said:

The Chief Minister went on to say:

Again, one looks with great concern and anxiety at any situation of constitutional development in this country, whether it be at national state level, at local government level or, in fact, at any level, which is going to have as its base the group and the ethnic content of the society around it; because if that is the proposed system, there is abundant evidence that it cannot succeed and that it can only aggravate the situation and the racial problems which we are saddled with in South Africa at the moment. When one considers what the real needs are in South Africa, one must conclude that what is necessary for us is to ensure that our constitutional development is based on a recognition of the real facts of our situation. Certainly, one can have regard to historical differences and for differences in customs and traditions, but to use those differences as a basis for political development can only lead to disaster. I hope, therefore, that the hon the Minister, when next he replies to the debate, will deal with the question of the additional powers he intends giving to the national states and that he will outline what the basis of their constitutional development will be and what his attitude will be to their development outside of simply a group or ethnic department.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea dealt mainly with the announcement made by the hon the Minister in regard to second-tier government. I would like to say that we will have ample opportunity—once we on this side of the Committee have had an opportunity to look into what the hon the Minister has announced—to hold a decent debate on the legislation once it has been submitted.

I should like to make just one remark about the hon member for Berea. The problem with the Official Opposition is that they are not prepared to look at South Africa in its existing composition. I want to say to them that whatever we may want to do in this country, we cannot debate away the existence of, for instance, the TBVC countries—four sovereign, independent Black states within the boundaries of South Africa. We cannot argue away the existence of six self-governing states in South Africa. Those are the realities, and whether or not one wants to argue about ethnicity or non-ethnicity, those are the facts of South Africa, and we cannot argue them away. [Interjections.]

We are living in very interesting times in South Africa. We have had the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, on the one hand, condemning the Government for not implementing real reform. I should like to ask this Committee to consider whether that is really true.

Yes.

Where have the PFP been over the past few months in South African politics? [Interjections.] We are sitting in one Chamber of a new tricameral Parliament. Is that not reform? [Interjections.] Two population groups who, prior to the introduction of the new Constitution, had no political rights, are today participating on an equal level with the White people in South Africa. Where have the hon members of the PFP been? They were always the ones who argued against section 16 of the Immorality Act and against the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Now those Acts are gone. [Interjections.] The acceptance by the Government of, for instance, the permanence of the urban Blacks, the normalisation of property rights for Black people, the reintroduction of common citizenship for those people who belong to the TBVC countries but who live outside of them, the removal of influx control, the uniform identity document and the removal of the old “dompas” system, and the invitation to Black people to negotiate a political constitution for South Africa and thus to have participation at the highest level are surely all reform measures. It appears to me as if the PFP will only accept it as being real reform when the White man capitulates in South Africa and hands over power to the Blacks so that White power becomes Black power. It is an absolute tragedy that while the NP is busy with orderly reform in South Africa there are PFP members in Parliament who can only attend memorial services for officials of the South African Communist Party. [Interjections.] That is all they can do and their sole contribution.

That is not true and you know it.

They have lost their platform; they are waiting at the bus stop but the bus is long gone.

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central must withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words “and you know it.”

The CP, whom we have to contend with on the other hand, is even more interesting. This afternoon we listened to the hon member for Waterberg and, typically of the hon the leader of the CP, he once again put up his own Aunt Sally and shot it down himself. As is his habit, he made his own deductions about the hon the Minister’s statements again this afternoon and, in all fairness, instead of arguing about the hon the Minister’s statements, he argued around his own deductions regarding the hon the Minister’s statements. [Interjections.] He made the absolute deduction, for example, that we are going to have proportional representation by Blacks which will lead to Black majority rule.

Is that not true?

Surely that is not a fair deduction. To any std 6 child, the word “power-sharing” implies the sharing of power and not the handing over of power. [Interjections.] We have a tricameral Parliament with its own representatives elected by voters on separate voters’ lists.

We shall set the AWB upon you.

Surely that is a model of power-sharing in South Africa. Now the hon members come and simply make a deduction before the Government has even completed its negotiation process with Blacks. Not a single motion in respect of political participation by Blacks on the national level has been tabled, but the hon members of the CP already believe the Government has accepted proportional representation which will lead to Black majority rule.

What is your policy?

I think the CP is unfair.

The CP also leaves the following question unanswered. Are the CP going to withdraw from the rest of South Africa with the AWB and are they going to make parts of the Transvaal, the Free State and Northern Natal their home? The hon member must reply to the question. [Interjections.]

Order! There are ways to reply to questions of that nature. According to the speakers’ list, an hon member of the CP will take part in the debate as the next speaker and then he can reply to the question. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

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

No, Sir, my time has almost expired.

I want to ask the hon members of the CP whether they are going to strive for an exclusively White state which they are presenting to the White voters of South Africa. Are they going to make the PWV area, for example, an exclusively White area? Are they going to deprive Blacks of all their rights outside the independent Black states and the self-governing states, for example the right to live where they are living in South Africa? These are the questions the hon members must answer.

I want to plead with the hon the Minister this afternoon for the normalisation of groups’ own community lives, as well as those of South Africa’s Black communities, in the process of urbanisation. It is a great comfort to us to read the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation, because we see the Government is really in earnest to make provision for this situation. I think the Government should receive credit for its realism in respect of this situation. We on this side of the Committee support the Government in its recognition of Blacks outside the homeland context; its recognition of urbanisation and the positive way in which it is addressing that problem in South Africa; its recognition that Blacks must get right of ownership in the places where they live from the cradle to the grave; its recognition that orderly planning of additional residential areas also for Blacks is the only real answer.

Where is Derby-Lewis?

Derby-Lewis does not even have the courage of his convictions. There is a chance for him to stand in Johannesburg, but he will not, because he is scared of losing. [Interjections.] We are ready for him; let him stand.

In this way the normalisation process can take place positively in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe the primary matter is normalisation and this is stated in the White Paper too, on page 8, under point 4.3.11. I quote:

It is then qualified:

I should like to speak about this specific point today. I do not want to disparage the people of colour or reproach the White community in South Africa, but people of colour in this country are conditioned to begging for charity from the Whites in South Africa.

You are a racist!

It happens that Blacks in South Africa who are wealthy and can afford to provide their own housing, simply get onto a waiting list according to the normal process and go and live in subeconomic or economic housing. I think this is a matter which should be rectified as soon as possible.

There is only one solution to this, and that is that we must obtain land. We must identify land where the normal process of urbanisation can take place. Township development must take place there. They must negotiate loans and supply their own housing. One finds that the Government addresses this issue very clearly in the White Paper. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not blame you for forgetting my constituency, because for various reasons it has been a long time since I made a speech.

The hon member for Turffontein will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because in his introductory remarks he admitted that as Nationalists they had unfortunately not had enough of a say in this afternoon’s policy statements. I want to dispose of him by saying: “An eagle does not catch flies”. [Interjections.]

I have here in my hand a letter which I received from an hon member on that side of the House. I myself was an hon member of that party for many years. I should like to read out the letter which was addressed to me:

It is signed by “a crowd of old friends”. Come now!

I am delighted that the writer of the letter thinks of me as an old war-horse. I want to tell the Committee that this old war-horse has smelt gunpowder; its ears are pricked and its mane is bristling. [Interjections.] I am inviting my colleagues on this side of the House, and my friends outside, to saddle up, insert the bit and dig in the spurs. As a war-horse I will take them with me until I fall. If I did fall, I would try to fall at the bottom so that I could break their fall. [Interjections.] That is my attitude and how I feel as regards the time of crisis we as a people are experiencing today. [Interjections.]

In the introductory speech to the discussion of his Vote the hon the Minister gave the assurance that the Government would continue with the reform process, and that he would not allow himself to be prescribed to by powers and forces from outside. But what worries me if that after this afternoon it no longer looks like a reform process to me. It seems to me as if this Government, by resorting to ruling by means of regulations and appointments, is heading towards the malformation of the life of the people and also of communities.

I want to give another reason for my great concern. What we heard here today, were like injections which were a stimulus for the process of integration, and this could possibly lead to the destruction of not only one people—our people—but of 12 other peoples too.

If an ordinary hon member of the NP caucus does not even know what is going on, the implications are dangerous. If we do not come to our senses in time, the reform process which has been set in motion in this country, can lead to a Chernobyl for us and for all the other peoples. I want to warn hon members against this. [Interjections.] It is being maintained that this reform process is promoting liberation, and assurances are being given that minority rights will be protected and that the administration of this system will take place in a fair way. The reverse is actually true. Unfortunately this is also involving religion, and I shudder to think of this. It is dangerous, and we must leave such things alone.

I want to say something about the cultural process as far as it concerns every individual and every population group in this country. The hon member for Standerton said that there were 900 definitions of culture. My hon leader referred to this, and I should like to associate myself with him and say that I agree that cultural life is the process through which a person becomes what he is. It is nothing else. Cultural life means in a greater sense to become what one is, in the milieu of one’s historic background and cultural tradition, and not to become something else through integration or to suggest that one is something else.

This old war-horse knows that there are many Blacks in this country—the leaders and their peoples—who have still retained something of character, tradition and respect for what is their own, and I want to tell all hon members that reform will not make them change their minds. Regarding this standard identity document which the Government intends to issue, some of them said to me: “No, Master. They want to steal our children. We will not know where our children have died—in Taipei or in Uitenhage or in Koekenaap. We do not want that.”

Now an open invitation has been addressed here to the descendants and children of Black people in this country who think like this: “Everyone is welcome!” Urban populations are going to be regrouped within the cities and on the outskirts. There are going to be grey areas, in which people will live integrated. They will be able to build their own houses where they wish, and will be able to go wherever they wish. [Interjections.]

Do hon members know what this implies? We talked here about points of friction. This can mean that at 11h00 there will be 80 non-Whites at Pres Kruger’s statue. No one is allowed to ask one of those Blacks for his pass. No one may do this or that to him. He can go where he wishes, when he wishes! At 11h00 he will choose his target, and I will walk past him unknowingly. Later on he will decide at what time he will return. And it will not be 14h00 or 15h00; it may be 03h00 or 04h00 the next day.

As far as I am concerned, judging by the standpoint he adopted this afternoon, the hon the Minister is the most undemocratic member of this Government. [Interjections.] I want to confirm this. He owes me two letters; one since 22 November of last year and the other since February 1985. I have been waiting for almost 16 months now for the first one and six months for the second. He did not have the common decency to reply to my letters. I sent him a letter containing a petition opposing the proposed establishment of a Coloured town. The interests of 13 000 residents of Midrand are involved in this. An amount of R310 million is at stake. By this afternoon this asset had already been halved. It has been built up over the years by 13 000 inhabitants.

I have negotiated with six Ministers—I have their names here, the late Dr Verwoerd, M C Botha, Jannie Loots, Hendrik Schoeman and Daan Nel—in the interests of these inhabitants regarding the establishment of non-White residential areas in my constituency. For 20 years I negotiated—the hon member for Randburg is my witness— on the proposed establishment of a non-White residential area north-west of Randburg, on the possible erection of two holiday resorts for Asians and on the incorporation of Erasmia in Laudium. By means of consensus, in decency towards each other, and by replying to letters we solved all those problems in the interests of that community. But we consulted each other, and we knew what the minimum code of ethics was for this place.

I want to object in the strongest possible language and appeal to the hon the Minister to reconsider this decision of his, and to put right what is wrong, and there will be no hard feelings. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with all due respect I want to tell the hon member for North Rand that I really have a problem in entering a discussion with him on what he tried to tell us this afternoon. [Interjections.] I only want to refer to one remark of his, namely that the announcement made here by the hon the Minister this afternoon, was an injection for integration. I really do not know how he made this tally with the hon the Minister’s announcement.

I should like to talk about the Commission for Co-operation and Development and its task in future. First I want to look back on the Commission’s activities. Hon members will know that a number of years ago the State President, while he was still the Prime Minister, set a target date for the completion of the consolidation process, namely 31 March 1987. In the number of years which have passed we as a Government and as a Commission have made excellent progress in completing this task. Since we met last year, final announcements have been made by the Government on the consolidation of the following states: Bophuthatswana, Lebowa, Gazankulu, kwaNdebele, Ciskei and Venda. In addition preliminary proposals have been made by the Commission on kwaZulu and Transkei.

As far as kwaZulu is concerned, we have already heard evidence, and the Commission is in the process of evaluating it. We shall also have to undertake follow-up investigations in Natal. As far as Transkei is concerned, the Commission is starting to hear evidence from interested parties in the Eastern Cape from next Monday, 19 May. As far as the only two remaining national states are concerned, namely Qwaqwa and KaNgwane, the preliminary proposals of the Commission are almost ready and should be announced in the foreseeable future. By this I mean that the Government and the Commission can look back with satisfaction on a task which was completed over many years with great success.

The hon member for Berea wrongly discussed the Commission’s proposals in connection with the consolidation of kwaZulu in the debate on the Education and Development Aid Vote. I should like to devote a few moments to his speech. The hon member said the following:

I then said by way of interjection that this was not true. I want to give him one example. If he has contact with the Natal Agricultural Union he will know that this is correct, namely that the Natal Agricultural Union did not unanimously reject the consolidation proposals for kwaZulu. The hon member for Berea need only have attended the meetings and heard the evidence to hear how one farmers’ association after the other which appeared before the Commission supported our proposals. That is why I told the hon member that it was very irresponsible to make such a statement, which was not correct in any case. [Interjections.]

But the Commission is in any case able to take criticism from hon members, like the hon member for Berea and the hon member for Umbilo. Last year the hon member for Umbilo said in the Press that the Commission should be dissolved because it was no longer serving any purpose and it was making bad proposals. What nonsense is that? Does the hon member want to tell me that he and his party are opposed to land being added to kwaZulu, whether or not it is quota land? He must go and speak to the government of kwaZulu and ask them what their land demands for their own national state are. If they say that land must be added to kwaZulu, those hon members must tell us who must deal with this if the Commission must not do so but must be dissolved instead. [Interjections.] No, to use these kind of stories to gain votes against the Commission, gets us nowhere and does not serve the interests of the South African community, and particularly not those of the Blacks.

What was the Commission’s experience in the hearing of evidence in Natal? I should like it placed on record here that the Commission made an absolute break-through. For the first time people of colour—Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—appeared before the Commission in large numbers and gave evidence. Individual landowners, tribal chiefs with their councils, Black farmers’ associations, Black local organisations, members of the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu, members of Inkatha, and even members of the branches of the UDF appeared before us. What is important is that the Commission got extremely valuable evidence from these separate bodies and interested parties.

I said that as far as the consolidation process in general was concerned the Commission’s task was virtually completed. The question arises whether the Commission still has a right to exist. If we look at the Act through which the Commission came into existence, we find that the Act provides that the Commission must advise the interested Minister and the Government on all matters affecting Black people. Consequently its functions are very wide. In view of the constitutional development during the past few months and years, new and exciting tasks are awaiting the Commission. The constitutional development, and the role of the Blacks in it, can give completely new dimensions to the Commission’s task. I shall mention a few of these.

Several hon members on this side of the House have already pointed out during this debate that there is an urgent need for land for the urbanised Blacks, and that this must be identified. The Commission can be used to assist in this. In a more general sense the Commission can be used to assist in this. In a more general sense the Commission can act as a liaison body between the respective communities in the new constitutional setup, and in this way play an extremely valuable role, a role which we have already identified for ourselves, but which we have not been able to give attention to yet because of other tasks. What is more, the Commission can also be used very fruitfully as an instrument of negotiation in this situation. [Interjections.]

We also identified another need in our liaison with Black people—and we talked to many government people of the national states, their chief ministers and cabinet members as well as the ordinary Black people as they come to give evidence before us. This is that a great deficiency exists because the ordinary Black man—whether he is a member of a tribe or a captain or a land-owner—would very much like to have a political address of this Government near him. I also think that the Commission can serve as an excellent address for these Black people to which they can come and state their needs.

On occasion, or according to a fixed programme, the Commission can even hold sittings at strategic places in the country at which any Black man with any problem which should be brought to the attention of the Government, can feel free to appear before the Commission and put his case to us. That is why, far from having completed its task and played out its role, my colleagues on the Commission and I believe that a very exciting task awaits us if we get further orders in this connection.

In conclusion I just want to say that since 1 September of last year we have become the political responsibility of the hon the Minister and that we want to attest to the very pleasant spirit of co-operation we have with him and say how much we appreciate it. It is a privilege for us to advise him as colleagues and as commissioners.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo has spoken mainly about the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I do not intend to follow him on that subject as such, other than to say that I think the argument he used in criticising the hon member for Berea was in fact self-defeating. The hon member for Berea said that most major organisations had rejected the kwaZulu consolidation proposals, and the hon member for Ermelo merely proceeded to give one example, that of the agricultural union, some members of which approved of the proposals. That certainly did not contradict the point made by the hon member for Berea.

This afternoon I wish in the first instance to ask the hon the Minister to provide greater clarity on certain matters relating to the scrapping of the pass laws when he speaks again in the course of this debate. Here in the Western Cape we have what is possibly a unique situation in that most of the Blacks in the Cape Peninsula are Transkei or Ciskei citizens. I presume that in terms of the announcements that have been made, they will be granted dual citizenship. The first thing I should like to ask the hon the Minister, however, is how residence for citizenship and/or influx control purposes is to be determined. What proof will be needed for this to be established?

The hon the Minister is aware that only approximately 210 000 of the estimated 400 000 to 500 000 Blacks in the Cape Peninsula are registered as legal in a formal sense at present. I should therefore like him to give us some clarity as to what the position is as regards the others, because it is obviously giving rise to a certain amount of concern here in the Cape Peninsula.

In the case of those who are approved, there is also the question as to what the position is regarding their spouses, children or other dependants who may not live in the Peninsula at present. Will those persons be allowed to come to Cape Town so that they can live together as families? I certainly hope so.

My final request in this regard is for a little clarity in respect of those persons with section 10(l)(a) rights, the so-called “bomers” who may even be living in the independent homelands at present. Under the existing law the situation is that they are entitled to come back if they want to if they have those rights. However, once that Act disappears, what will the position of those people be? Do they stand to lose those rights?

The second aspect to which I wish to refer this afternoon also relates to the Western Cape. It has to do with the backlog in housing. I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Stellenbosch on Friday. He referred to the fact that in the Cape Peninsula more than 350 000 people live in unconventional forms of housing. He went on to say, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

I think that sums it up rather well.

Let us look at the situation in the Cape Peninsula. Between 1974, the year in which Black affairs was handed over to the administration boards, and 1980, no new houses were built or allowed to be built for Black people in the Cape Peninsula. In Langa 880 houses were converted from single quarters in 1980. Over this period the Black population increased by tens of thousands and the squatter crisis was precipitated.

Since then a limited number of houses, including the 5 000 core houses at Khayelitsha, have been built. However, in a period of 18 months alone, in 1983 and 1984, 15 000 squatter shelters were demolished—far more than the houses which were built. All this happened while the population increase amounted to hundreds of thousands.

This, of course, gave rise to an acute backlog. The Government is in arrears in this respect. Priority must be given, including the development of serviced sites, but not only to that. The promise was that 11 000 houses would be built in Khayelitsha by the end of the year but the total number built will in fact only be 5 090. The Government must accept that it has a debt to pay to the Black people of the Cape Peninsula. By deliberately preventing houses from being built, a massive backlog has built up, aggravating a variety of social, economic and political problems. It is not enough to treat the Western Cape on an equal footing from now on. Priority must be given to the elimination of the abnormal backlog. It is the least the Government can do to help alleviate the suffering caused by its policy of Coloured labour preference in this area.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens directed a few specific questions to the hon the Minister. I do not deem it necessary, therefore, to react to that.

There are one or two matters which I should like to raise with regard to the question of Black urban development. The extent of the housing demands for urban Blacks is often illustrated by measuring it according to Soweto as it were. There is speculation as to how many cities the size of Soweto will have to be built during the next two to three decades. As matters are at present, this will be the responsibility of this hon Minister and his department.

In the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation which was issued recently, specific attention is drawn to that task and challenge of this department. Paragraph 4.3.6 of the White Paper puts it as follows:

This task and responsibility of the department contain many important implications, two of which I should like to identify and illuminate in particular on this occasion. One of these has to do with the acquisition of the necessary land, the procedure which has to be followed in doing so, the determination of remuneration for it and also the rights of the owners from whom it is acquired.

The other aspect concerns the consequences for the owners of adjacent land, which actually becomes border property in the process, and more specifically the owners, who become what one can almost call border farmers in the process.

By the very nature of things and because of the size of the land which is required for large-scale township development near the metropolitan areas, without exception it is agricultural land which has to be obtained. Consequently it will always be agricultural land or the farms of farmers which will be affected by such border situations.

Time permitting, I should like to come back to the question of expropriation, but first I want to deal with the second aspect, viz the position of these owners who now become border farmers. I think those who find themselves in that position really require our attention and also justify consideration. I want to emphasise that it is an important matter in the regional context, and, at least as far as the Eastern Cape is concerned, it is very relevant and of fundamental importance.

What the owners in that unenviable position have to endure must be seen before one can really realise and believe it. It is difficult to exaggerate it. In the case of livestock farmers especially, there is conclusive evidence and proof that it has become literally impossible for some of them to proceed normally with their farming. They are virtually obliged to sell their remaining livestock as soon as possible at the best available prices.

What such owners have to endure, I should like to explain, is not the normal phenomenon of livestock theft. It would be much more correct to describe it as blatant livestock robbery. The farmers become the prey of open instigators—and among them there are hardened criminal elements—who openly demonstrate their defiance of authority, and do so by means of unprecedented plundering and acts of terror which are directed against property, against improvements, against livestock and even against the employees of the owners concerned.

The farmer is simply obliged to withdraw all livestock from the farm if he wants to keep any of it. Even then it is not the end of his ordeal. It often happens that some of the evil-doers go on to plunder and damage improvements on the property, for example improvements such as barns, kraals, fences and the like. That it is nothing but sheer vandalism. Nothing is spared. Wire fences are cut, and the evil-doers have no scruples even about striking in broad daylight. Often they take action against shepherds. They are threatened, and if they want to prevent these people from proceeding with their deeds, they are threatened that their own animals will be slaughtered. The plundering takes place in a defiant manner, and it is not at all unusual for the owners’ employees literally to be commandeered to convey the plundered livestock and goods to the plunderers’ areas using their own donkey carts and draught-animals.

Although these incidents are reported to the police, the police seldom if ever succeed in arresting and prosecuting the ringleaders. Besides criminal charges to the police this situation is also the topic of constant representations to the development board, the RDAC and to agricultural unions. I can attest that these bodies understand and have sympathy with these farmers. Not only do they acquaint themselves with the facts, but they also accept that they are true. They identify themselves with the plight of the farmers concerned and they do what they can to influence the authorities to procure adequate compensation from the State. They are urging the authorities to take action to protect the interests of such farmers, and also for steps to prevent such criminality. Everyone concedes that the only reasonable basis upon which the owners should be compensated, is for the Government to buy out their properties at a price equal to their fair market value.

Mr Chairman, with the support of and upon the recommendation of the RDAC and the agricultural union the development board did decide in one specific case, after careful consideration, that the owner could not continue his farming activities because of the prevailing circumstances and that matters would become even more difficult for him as soon as an expansion of the Black residential area really took place. In consequence of a request by the agricultural union it was decided that security fences be erected on the borders, and even that those fences be electrified. Furthermore it was decided that buffer strips be made smaller in order to make the more effective utilisation of the available land possible; also that an inquiry be instituted and that consideration be given to the purchase of the specific properties by the State.

In addition, the development board decided that, because one must expect more such cases to occur in future, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning should be approached with the request that steps be taken to rectify the matter. The suggestion was in fact that an interdepartmental committee should consider the matter together to lay down a policy according to which action can be taken in similar cases in future.

It is clear, Mr Chairman, that we are not dealing with farmers who are complaining without justification and making unreasonable demands. Their claims are confirmed by these respected bodies—responsible bodies, which act independently and are able to assess objectively. It is a matter of deadly earnest and great relevance for those concerned and for the whole community as such. I should like to assume that this matter is still receiving the necessary attention of the department, and that the relevant file is on the desk of either the hon the Minister or his Director-General. I sincerely hope that as a matter of principle it will enjoy the serious attention which indeed it deserves.

In the short time still available to me, I should like to come back to the other aspect I referred to. That is the question of sufficient compensation in cases where property is expropriated for the necessary township development. I maintain that in such cases reasonable and sufficient compensation must be paid to the owners of such properties. Naturally this is a complicated topic, and I contend that I wish the department and the hon the Minister will in fact be able to do something to ensure that there are fewer arbitration disputes of this nature. After all, arbitration is always an extremely expensive and time-consuming process. It is also not unusual to find that the costs involved in such an arbitration dispute are often more than the compensation which is eventually awarded for the property. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, since the matter I want to speak about is the subject of a correspondence between me and the hon the Minister at present, and he has declared himself prepared to take another look at certain matters, in the ten minutes at my disposal I am merely going to bring certain facts to his attention, as well as certain disadvantageous aspects which will affect people on the Far East Rand should the already approved guide plan be implemented as is. That is all I shall be dealing with.

Mr Chairman, I am here today to make a plea, yes, to make a plea, for my people, your people, our people.

Hear, hear!

I am hear to plead on behalf of those above whose heads there is a dark cloud at present as a result of the approval of the guide plan for the East Rand and the Far East Rand. Those people have dedicated their whole lives to building up South Africa. Husbands and wives worked. Most of them worked incredibly hard. Some of their children have left home already. Other people’s children are still young, and in this difficult time they are trying to raise those children and to make provision for their training. Parents are making provision for these children to be able to find a place in the sun in South Africa in the difficult times which lie ahead. Most of these people have homes of their own. Many bought houses in better days. Others again bought or built houses in less prosperous days. One thing most of them have in common, however, is a home of their own in which hopefully they will live to the end of their days. Perhaps that is their only investment.

Their homes are well-situated in a select, neat urban area; in fact, one of the neatest and most attractive urban areas in the whole of the East Rand. They are well-situated near shopping centres, near the hospital and also near their churches—near all those amenities provided by the Government.

Most of them do not have cash, because they saved to invest in their homes. Many have a pension scheme because they want to be as independent as possible in their old age. Others are not as lucky due to certain circumstances.

Should the value of their properties decrease, then it would be extremely difficult for them to acquire similar property elsewhere. Surely that is very clear!

These people live in Dunnottar, Sharon Park and also on Sonnestraal smallholdings outside Dunnottar. The people who live in these areas are good, decent people. They are mainly Afrikaans and English-speaking. They are of our flesh and blood. They are members of well-known churches in South Africa, and among those who are interested in politics, there members of not only one political party, but of all the political parties represented in this House of Assembly.

They no longer have these formerly wonderful prospects, because as each of us can see, the annual report of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning contains the disturbing information that the guide plan which affects them most profoundly, has now been approved! I can hardly add to what I said in this House on 8 May 1985. I refer to Hansard: House of Assembly, 8 May 1985, cols 5086—5090, as well as to the incomplete section of my speech which I sent to the hon the Minister. It dealt, in fact, with the problems in Sonnestraal. In that speech I also referred to what the State President had said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1985, col 324):

I am now also referring to the hon the Minister’s letter to me, dated 13 March 1986, in which he informed me that the guide plan had been approved and that provision had been made for a buffer zone—in some places up to one kilometre wide. That will of little use; in fact, it will be of no use at all!

On 17 March I wrote to the hon the Minister and expressed my regret. I also asked for a map to be sent to me in which the boundary lines would be clearly marked.

On 24 March the hon the Minister did me the courtesy of writing to me to tell me that I would soon receive another letter.

On 7 April 1986 I wrote another letter to the hon the Minister about the offer of the land—it is land comprising 467 ha—which a certain farmer sent to him together with a memorandum. It is situated on the opposite side of the affected towns. In the letter I asked for the offer please to be considered at the expense of the land close to Dunnottar and Sharon Park which had been approved for a future Black town.

On 21 April I received a letter from the hon the Minister—for which I am very grateful—in which he informed me that the matter was receiving his attention. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that the people in my constituency—as I said, there are members of all the political parties among them— are very grateful that he has declared himself prepared to review this matter.

I also want to bring a few new facts to the attention of the hon the Minister. According to estimates by those who know the area well, the close proximity of the future Black town may cause the value of properties to decline in future years by between R225 million and R250 million. That is the value of houses and buildings in that area which may be affected, if this scheme should go through.

That specific farmer, who made an offer to the hon the Minister for that land, has enormous input costs but no harvesting expenses, because the residents of the present Black towns in the immediate vicinity are reaping where they have not sown. Not only are his farm products carried off by the residents of the presently existing Black towns in the immediate vicinity, but they are carted off in cars and bakkies. That farmer and I recently went to investigate the situation there and I am convinced of what I am telling hon members. These are things which really happen. He is no longer harvesting and his land is worth nothing to him any more, although it is of the best agricultural land in South Africa. Whatever he may ask for his land cannot be even a large portion of 1% of what the people in Dunnottar, Sharon Park and Sonnestraal smallholdings will have to forfeit on the value of their properties.

In all humility I want to direct request to the hon the Minister because the matter is in his hands. Firstly, I ask that the land of the farmer concerned be bought. Secondly, I request that if other farmers’ land borders on his, their farms be bought too, but that farm or farms will serve only as a buffer zone. Thirdly I ask for the smallholdings at Sonnestraal all to be bought out. At the moment the decision is that the smallholdings will only be bought out up to smallholding 13.

The progress that is being made in this connection is pathetic. Last year there was a joint meeting with the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid and many great promises were made to those people. Again I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister that nothing has happened in this regard.

My fourth request is that the buffer zone between Dunnottar, Sharon Park and Selcourt, which is going to be affected in future—Selcourt is not in my constituency; it is in the Springs constituency—be augmented by at least 467 ha. That is the size of the land that farmer is offering the Government.

I should like to put it to the hon the Minister that I am standing here today to plead for the Whites who have to pay the price in numerous spheres. Firstly, the value of their property, which they paid for with blood-money, is declining. Secondly, there is the constant danger of a very large Black town on their borders, larger in hectares than the present Soweto. It is obvious, on the basis of what is happening in our country, that there can never be complete peace if there is only up to one kilometre between them and a Black town.

I am not pleading only for the Whites, but also for the Blacks whom the hon the Minister’s department wants to place there. I plead for them, because there will be constant large-scale unemployment. Years ago there was unemployment and at the moment there is tremendous unemployment. Every labour bureau in that area will tell us that the unemployment figure is terribly high there. Due to the tremendous problem of unemployment, a new problem is created by a Black town of this kind because a hungry stomach seeks revolution. Unemployment causes many other unpleasant things and it is anything but conducive to good human relations to proceed with expansion, except among the Black towns mentioned.

I plead, from the bottom of my heart, for those people and I leave it in the hands of the hon the Minister, in the hope that he will give serious attention to the matter, because at present the future of those people is in his hands only. I plead with the hon the Minister, but I also want to thank him for corresponding with me about the matter and being prepared to take another look at it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Nigel because, as becomes a good MP, he pleaded for the voters in his constituency, and as a loyal opposition member he thanked the hon the Minister for good correspondence. I want to advise him to continue the correspondence because I can assure him from my own experience in that regard, that miracles will happen. [Interjections.]

What the hon member for Nigel said is true. Where Whites farm next to Black areas, theft occurs sometimes and farmers struggle in those circumstances. It is equally true, however—and I can attest to that too— that Whites who farm next to Black areas make a great deal of money. Their market is right on their doorstep. There are large sections in my constituency in which farmers do not have to go to the markets of the PWV area, but can sell their vegetables and other products directly from their back porch or over the fence and make a lot of money in that way. The hon member for North Rand, one of my good voters in Brits, who made a good speech a moment ago, can also attest that he and his son make good money on the border of a Black area at De Wildt near Brits. [Interjections.]

I come back to the topic I want to deal with this afternoon, viz the enormous progress which has been made recently and is still being made in respect of the Black towns, whether because of the development of their infrastructure or by their expansion. This is not only in the South African development trust areas, but also in the self-governing states. I realise the self-governing states do not quite fall under the subject of the hon the Minister’s Vote, but to detach it for the purpose of my speech this afternoon, is not so easy.

I want to make the point that one never hears about great successes, but when a problem situation arises here and there, it is proclaimed from the housetops to be heard by the farthest countries on this globe.

In the first place this afternoon, I want to thank the two departments who are intensely involved in the development of Black towns, not only in the RDAC areas, but also in the self-governing states. When I thank them this afternoon, I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister, who made a few important announcements in the discussion of his Vote on Friday and today.

Since I do not know whether I shall have another opportunity soon, I want to refer to the provincial council system, which is being phased out. To begin with, I want to pay tribute to my MPC for Brits. For eight years he worked faithfully by my side and with me did everything he could for all the people whom we are responsible for in our district. All credit also goes to all the MPCs in the Transvaal, with whom we co-operated very closely. We are proud of them and they will always remain our colleagues. [Interjections.]

In saying these things, I cannot but refer to the two departments which have already been referred to today, as far as the new structuring of the development boards is concerned. I shall never forget the names of men like Jan Smit, Coen Kotzé, Noël Viljoen, Willie van Niekerk and many others, no matter where they were, for what they did for the establishment and development of towns in trust areas as well as in the self-governing states. We co-operated very closely with them, and their names will be noted in the history books of our country.

No in-depth discussion will ever be possible about the development of Black towns in South Africa again, unless one refers to the report tabled by the President’s Council a few weeks ago. I think it is one of the most important documents we have ever had. I want to make the statement today that the eventual Battle of South Africa—the one South Africa is going to win or lose—is going to be fought in the urban areas of South Africa. The information and guidelines indicated in the President’s Council’s report, are going to constitute one of the beacons helping us to walk the road comfortably, deliberately and with a very clear purpose. I also want to convey the gratitude of this Committee to them.

It is immensely important that we speak about this this afternoon. In the past 15 years the population growth in the urban areas of the self-governing states has increased by 15%. It has increased much more in the towns on South African development land, and I am not even mentioning the towns around the large metropolitan areas in South Africa. I think miracles have been performed with the relatively little money available to us for urban development today. I am referring in particular to what has been done during the past year. I want to express special thanks when I look at my own area near Brits, where we are involved in the peaceful resettlement of a Black community in the new townships of Lethlabile. If I say we are involved, I do not mean only the Whites, but that the whole community is involved. This includes the Black township management board, the development board, the town council and the Blacks without property. They are people who have to sleep in motor cars and under trees and now have to find their accommodation somewhere in the district. A fantastic community is developing very quickly in an orderly fashion. We want to express our gratitude to the hon the Minister, who decided that we could proceed with this operation. We also want to express our appreciation for the R12 million which is being voted this year to permit a tremendous acceleration of the operation.

With reference to the old location, I merely want to say we have had no problems. The Black township management board, the management committee of my own town council, the Development Board, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Development Aid all co-operated as one large team until the hon member for Houghton came and meddled in our affairs and liaised with certain outside bodies in order to initiate a campaign inside that location. A so-called “action committee”, which maintains that they represent the majority of the inhabitants, was then established.

I should like to support my assertion. Three or four weeks ago I had a conversation with all seven members of the “action committee”. I asked them inter alia what their history was, where they came from and whom they represented. On 1 December 1985 the hon the Minister had authorised the relocation, and they said they had been elected on 8 December. When I asked them how many people had attended the meeting at which they were elected, they said 700 people had gathered in the Roman Catholic church hall. When I asked how many people lived in the Brits location, they gave the figure of 16 000. I then asked the chairman of the management committee, who was with me during the discussion, to calculate what percentage 700 is of 16 000. If I remember correctly, it is roughly 12%. Then those people understood that they were proving that they did not represent the majority of the people.

I think the situation I described here applies to the majority of Black cities and towns in South Africa where there are problems. Small minority groups intimidate the population and kick up a big rumpus. They pretend to represent the masses, when in fact they do not. That is why I say that all of us, Blacks as well, are pleased and grateful about the resettlement.

Finally I should like to express my thanks, not only on behalf of the builders who are involved in the construction of houses in these towns, but also on behalf of the owners.

You can thank Kallie too!

I take no notice of what the hon member for Kuruman says. No one in this Committee or in the general public takes him seriously at all.

Kallie takes you seriously. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are so scared of Brits that they had to marshal all the AWBs from all over the country and send them to me to try to intimidate us in some way, but despite that they did not manage to do so …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

No, the hon member for Brits may not reply to a question now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits should not criticise anyone who speaks from the base of a very small majority. Certain hon colleagues of his fall within that category. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member’s comments regarding the President’s Council’s reports on the issue of housing in South Africa. I wish to speak about urbanisation, and I would like to refer to the hon the Minister’s White Paper on that subject.

We in the PFP welcome the White Paper and believe, considering the history of this Government, that it represents a very bold step on the part of the hon the Minister. There is a far more realistic approach to many of the problems that have arisen from the policies which have been followed in the past.

Firstly, the White Paper shows that the need for more realistic housing standards and for more land has been recognised. The hon member for Turffontein, among others, mentioned that this afternoon. There is a fresh look at the whole transportation problem and the question of reducing commuting time and commuting costs. Above all, there is an acceptance of the need for urbanisation. We welcome all of this, because it is certainly a fresh approach. If this is imaginatively and vigorously implemented we think the urbanisation policy can provide a vehicle for the growth which this country is going to need in the years ahead.

What I should like to refer to now are a few of the implications of the White Paper as well as a few problem areas. The first problem area I want to mention is one which was covered briefly by my hon leader this afternoon, and that is that the policy is still going to be implemented within the framework of own affairs. Now, there is plenty of evidence in the White Paper that this is the case, for example section 4.2.3 in terms of which the Government commits itself to “a demografic dispensation in individual and group context”. This concept is emphasised at many other points throughout the White Paper, for instance in section 4.3.5 and section 5.3.1.7. It is our feeling in this party that the Group Areas Act is one of the holy cows that this Government has to get rid of, otherwise there will be many very necessary and very important reforms which are not going to get the wholehearted support that they actually deserve from the different communities.

The second issue I should like to deal with is the question which many people and groups are asking, and that is to what extent the urbanisation process is going to be controlled on ideological grounds. I shall give hon members a few examples from the White Paper itself, because there are many indications that this can be done if the Government wants to do it. Section 6.6.1.2, for example, states that “the present practice of creating a shortage of industrial land within the metropolitan core areas should continue”. Section 6.6.2 states that financial incentives and déconcentration points must remain. In section 4.4.3.3 the prevention of “excessive population concentration” is emphasised. There is no urban area in South Africa, compared to overseas standards, where we have excessive population concentration. The White Paper does not, however, lay enough emphasis on our rural areas where we do in fact have excessive overconcentration of population, environmental degradation, poverty etcetera.

Finally, in section 9.5, the Margo Commission is asked to give attention to a differentiated tax system with a view to effecting an improved distribution of population concentrations. I am sure the hon the Minister will agree with me that there is provision in the White Paper to implement urbanisation in terms of own affairs ideology if the hon the Minister wants to do so. The views of this party on decentralisation and deconcentration are very well known. We are not against it, but if it is done on ideological grounds, we think it represents a drain on the economy and a massive cost which we cannot afford.

Thirdly, I would like to deal with the question of land acquisition and identification. We welcome the emphasis that has been placed on this. Section 6.18 mentions the possibility of consolidating the various Acts involved in acquiring land and expropriating land. We believe this would be a wise step. All these matters could then fall under the umbrella of one department and much of the red tape could be eliminated and the long delays avoided.

Sections 9.2 and 9.3 state that land acquisition and the provision of infrastructure should enjoy high priority. This is going to cost a massive amount. There are some authorities in South Africa who believe that the Government could right now increase our deficit before borrowing to about 3%, especially in the present economic climate. This would put a lot of money, some R3,5 billion, in the Government’s hands and a lot of this could be used for land acquisition and the provision of infrastructure without necessarily overheating the economy.

The magnitude of the problem of acquiring land can only be appreciated when we look at some of the existing population projections. White, Coloured and Indian groups are at present very highly urbanised. Blacks, however, are only 37% urbanised at the moment, with some 7 million Blacks in urban areas. The hon the Minister will know that there are a whole range of different projections regarding the percentage of urbanised Blacks as well as the projected population figures for the year 2000. However, a figure in the region of some 20 million Blacks in the year 2000 seems reasonable, and we should plan for something like that. This means, quite simply, that we are going to have to find more than twice the amount of land that we already have and when we consider the fact that many of our townships are already crowded and that there is a shortage of some 260 000 houses, we can appreciate the enormity and the urgency of the task before us.

The next question I should like to raise relates to the implementation of this policy. Obviously it will require the co-operation of the Black councils, but these Black councils enjoy very little credibility at the moment. They are also experiencing problems due to lack of finance and lack of land.

The White Paper also emphasises the involvement of the private sector and emphasises methods to mobilise and to canalise funds into urbanisation. We believe it is up to the Government to create the conditions for the private sector to become involved, and this mainly involves identifying the land and making freehold ownership possible. As far as implementation is concerned—and I am sure the hon the Minister will agree—it will require the co-operation and the co-ordination of all three groups. Moreover, it will also require the enthusiasm of all three of those groups to work for the success of urbanisation, because it can bring so much benefit to our country. It is our great concern that it will not receive the wholehearted co-operation of the Black community and of business unless we can finally eliminate the “new apartheid” or own affairs concept from our political structure in this country. Unless we can do that, as the leader of my party said earlier today, we are not going to obtain the co-operation of many groups for the reform which we so badly need.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South will pardon me if I do not react to his speech; I wish to raise quite a different matter.

I should like to refer to the magnitude of the problems in Black areas, and to the role which the Black regional welfare councils can play in a social upgrading programme. The search for constitutional structures and the answers which have to be found in this regard, have already been the subject of much debate in this Committee, but in my opinion there is one matter which must be very clearly emphasised, and that is that even if we were to find suitable constitutional structures on the third to the highest tier of government, we would still need competent people to serve in these structures.

One of the problems with which we are struggling at present in the Black community is the social problem which causes people to have functioning problems. The basic philosophy of the National Welfare Act, Act No 100 of 1978, is aimed at encouraging an increased involvement by the community in development of welfare services. The premise is therefore that services for the community must be brought into existence by the community because it is one of the most effective means of causing people to develop and to give them a share in the development of their own people.

It has been proved that the structures which function most effectively today are those in which people who know the needs in their own communities, who have their fingers on the pulse of those communities, and who can identify and proceed with the planning of those services needed by the community, are serving. But it is a problem to identify effective leaders and to train these people so that they can in fact render this service. The potential leader is not always available and discernible. For that reason I wish to express my appreciation this afternoon to Miss Fourie, the chief professional officer. She is responsible for constituting the nine Black regional welfare councils that are functioning at present. It is no easy task to constitute these councils and to cause them to function. In spite of the unrest and the extensive disruption in the community, they are functioning normally. I think it is very important that we express our appreciation to people who, behind the scenes, are quietly involved in performing a great task in this country.

If we take a look at the annual reports of the respective regional welfare councils, however, we see that a wide spectrum of services have already been developed. If we go through these annual reports we can bear testimony to what good work is being done. Of the 190 welfare committees which have already developed from these regional welfare councils, there are a few which have already been registered and have developed into independent welfare organisations. This is an indication of the development and the real progress of these organisations.

Some of these councils make use of a programme of objectives and they have set themselves a five-year plan of development. However, there is a matter which catches the eye when one is reading through these reports and which I find a little disconcerting, namely the extent to which a Western welfare model is reproduced and developed and utilised by welfare organisations and service institutions designed for the needs of specific clients.

I think that it has become necessary that we help to identify the task of these welfare organisations more clearly for themselves. More thorough research on the real needs in these communities has become necessary. A more precise analysis of the ways in which the family deals with social issues within the problem areas of the family and community which in fact arise from the disintegration of family structures, is the matter which should be addressed and identified by these councils rather than merely attempting to establish welfare organisations and service institutions.

What is important here is the identification of the graver problems which are sometimes caused by influx control measures. I am thinking for example of the working hours of mothers—this has in fact caused children to be left to their own devices—and the fact that fathers were absent from the family situation and that the authority of these fathers was never present. Problems of this kind should be thoroughly researched so that active aid programmes can be developed for them.

A further problem, I think, is the idleness which occurs as a result of a lack of employment opportunities, which could also be effectively addressed by these councils. Another problem is the shortage of community institutions which should in fact give attention to the very important interaction which should take place between the community institutions and the family, and which should support the family in these functions. In the Black communities there is a lack of this type of institution which should support the family in the functions it has to perform.

In order to make all these things possible we have training programmes which must be introduced for the members of these councils. It is necessary that the councils develop a broader and deeper perspective of the problems to which they must give attention. In my opinion it has also become necessary for community developers to be trained. They should work for these councils on a full-time basis, unlike the case in White councils at present. A full-time professional team has become necessary, a working team which is available and which can strive actively to achieve the goals of these councils.

It is a matter of high priority that executive officials be made available to these councils. It is also necessary that we think about greater streamlining to ensure that decisions made by the councils are carried out. It is unnecessary to adopt a long procedure so that these very matters may receive attention. If effectiveness is our watchword, we should also train all officials, who have been entrusted with these responsibilities, in the methods necessary for launching practical aid programmes. It is unnecessary for the nature of the needs to be discussed for four to five months in one council session after another. I think it is essential that the officials develop the skills required for compiling practical programmes. That is why we appreciate the fact that people are being involved in these councils, expert women and people from the White community, who make it possible to make a contribution here as well. In order to give effective attention to this matter, it has become essential that we give very thorough attention to the training of these officials.

Finally I wish to make the observation that the regional welfare councils have the potential to render an exceptional service within their communities. But it has become necessary to re-examine the inherent possibilities of the councils. It does require a somewhat larger allocation of money, and perhaps a slightly more innovative approach to the way in which Black regional welfare councils can be effectively utilised in the Black community.

Mr Chairman, I should like to assure the hon member Dr Venter that it is far more pleasing to the ear and the eye to listen to her than to many other hon members. [Interjections.] I think that is saying a great deal.

This afternoon I should like to turn to the hon the Minister for one specific matter only. I ask the hon the Minister to confine his attention to this matter one matter only as far as my contribution to this debate is concerned. I have no doubt that he will provide me with a reply. A week ago yesterday a large number of my voters read with shock and amazement in an English-language newspaper that a large Black city was possibly going to develop on their doorstep and adjoining their borders. According to the article the Black mayor of the Black town of Katlehong, and that of Tokoza, applied for 1 500 ha of White land which is situated near those Black towns, with only a Coloured town in between.

These 1 500 ha are surrounded by a few hundred plots which are occupied by Whites. There are 400 schoolgoing White children residing on these plots. As my colleague the hon member for Nigel said so effectively this afternoon, and I should like to affirm, it is land which most of the people there acquired over the years with sweat and labour. It was inherited land only for a few. Then the Black mayor came forward and said the following…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon Whips, when an hon member is addressing the Committee … [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member knows it is general practice that consultations take place between the hon Whips and the hon the Minister. The hon member for Meyerton may proceed.

I wish to tell the hon the Minister that my voters who are involved in this and I wish to register our strongest protest at the way in which the mayor of Katlehong laid claim to these 1 500 ha of land. These were the words he used:

Not tomorrow, but yesterday! [Interjections.] That is the land of my people which they sweated and worked hard to acquire, and as I have already said, acquired in a few cases by means of inheritance. Now this hon mayor comes forward and says this land should not become theirs tomorrow, but that should already have been theirs yesterday.

But surely Albert also says so!

This afternoon I should like to say this to the hon the Minister. I am not a member of his party, the governing party.

Thank goodness for that!

But there is one thing about which the hon the Minister will definitely agree with me. There is a strong, close bond which binds the two of us together. It is a bond which is far stronger than party political bonds. When I say what I am about to say, I do it not to stir up racial feelings, but I state it as a fact. The bond which binds the hon the Minister and myself together is a White bond.

I hope the hon Minister will take exception to this Black mayor’s statement that that land should not be theirs tomorrow but that it should have been theirs yesterday already. The hon the Minister must tell him that that is not the way one does things in South Africa, and that is not the way in which the mayor should negotiate in the future if he wants to be successful. I believe that the hon the Minister will do it.

Although I am not a member of the governing party, it hurts me as a fellow-White that this mayor should address a White Minister in this way. On behalf of those few hundred voters of mine I wish to express the hope that the hon the Minister will give us an indication this afternoon, tomorrow or whenever it suits him, but as soon as possible, of his standpoint on this matter. I shall let the hon the Minister have the newspaper report from which I quoted, so that it is quite clear to him.

I wish to tell the hon the Minister—and I am not saying it reproachfully—that a great deal of concern and doubt is prevailing among White in South Africa. It is precisely when the Government does not take a firm stand on this type of statement and claim that the concern among the Whites increases, so much so that a pro-Government newspaper published a report this morning about an opinion poll which was recently conducted among White voters about how they felt about their future in South Africa— this is not a CP—or a HNP newspaper; it is The Citizen which published this report—in which it was stated that more than half the White voters in South Africa felt extremely uncertain about their future in this country. [Interjections.]

As far as this matter in my constituency is concerned—I shall not discuss any other matters this afternoon; I shall confine myself to this issue—I wish to ask the hon the Minister to clear up this matter for these few hundred voters, who are entitled to be where they are, and to tell them that they are entitled to stay there, both now and in the future.

Mr Chairman, I shall be grateful if the hon member would let me have the relevant newspapers; I shall then react to his requests in this connection tomorrow.

†The hon member for Umbilo was perturbed because I did not react to certain questions which he had raised. I indicated to him that I would have other opportunities to speak and that I would deal with the questions which he had put to me. I hope that his hon leader will convey the answers to him.

The hon member asked, firstly, how many MECs had been appointed and from what race groups. The reply is quite obvious. No appointments have as yet been made, and the hon member will understand that, as the Bill has not even been passed through this Parliament, it is impossible to make appointments. The Bill must first be passed by Parliament and then it must be promulgated.

The second question the hon member put to me was whether there would be four or one of the envisaged parliamentary standing committees for the provinces, and whether the Act makes provision for this. I gave the answer to this question earlier this afternoon, but I would like to repeat it: There will be one committee which will have to be established in terms of the parliamentary standing rules.

The third question the hon member raised was whether the Administrator’s powers will be absolute. The answer is that this will not be the case. He will act mainly in consultation with his fellow members of the executive committee in terms of enabling legislation, and will naturally also be bound by this rule. All proclamations issued by the Administrator will be tabled in Parliament.

Question four was whether the Act will give effect to the proposed advisory councils. I have already explained that the answer to this question is in the negative. During the process of negotiation with the provincial authorities serious doubts were expressed as to the utility of such bodies at this stage.

There was no meeting of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs during November and December 1985 as anticipated, because no Bills were ready at the time. In his fifth question the hon member for Umbilo wanted to know why this was the case. My department and I had to follow a comprehensive programme of negotiations with the provincial authorities which took longer than was anticipated. May I just explain something in this regard. Hon members will understand that legislation introduced in this House pertaining to constitutional reform is preceded by a long process of negotiation. In fact, the State President made his statement on the guidelines for second-tier government in 1982. Since then a prolonged process of negotiation has been taking place which obviously, as the hon member will understand, is necessary. After all, we are dealing with systems which have served this country for 76 years.

*In this specific connection the hon member for Parow referred to the question of the provincial system and expressed certain sentiments in that regard. I really want to thank him for that speech, but I should also like to say that the hon member was once part of the Executive Committee of the Cape Province and that he was also involved in lengthy processes of negotiation and inquiry. He will therefore be able to confirm the standpoints and sentiments I am expressing. The fact of the matter is that I myself functioned in that system for a long time, both as an ordinary member and as a member of the Executive Committee, and there are few people who can tell me anything about the work done by those two bodies. I also have great appreciation for all those who functioned within these two bodies and I hope I shall find an appropriate opportunity to bid farewell to those people when the specific time arrives to do so.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister when it is anticipated that this legislation will come before Parliament? Will it be before 20 June or will it be in the second part of the session?

I think the answer to that question is obvious. If the present councils are to be phased out at the end of June, then quite obviously the legislation will be put before Parliament during the current part of the session.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? Can he tell us at this stage what functions will be left for the provincial executive to perform?

With due respect, I discussed the question of functions and new functions at length when I made the statement this afternoon. I also indicated … [Interjections.] With due respect, if the hon member wants the courtesy of a reply, then I believe his leader should behave himself. [Interjections.] I explained the new functions at length today.

[Inaudible.]

No, I dealt at length with the termination of development boards.

No one understands you!

I explained that many of the functions of my own department in relation to physical planning and to the work that my department does in respect of the Black communities’ housing and social welfare, are functions that could be allocated to the provincial system.

I also explained at length this afternoon that the officials working for the development boards were to be transferred temporarily for an intervening period to the provincial Administrations. I also said that they would take control of general affairs in regional councils and in local government.

What about hospitals?

I have explained that in regard to hospitals certain investigations are being conducted by a project team of the Commission for Administration and my own department. A report has been submitted to the Government, and a decision has yet to be taken on that.

And horseracing?

Sir, the hon member is now asking me questions about all these issues but I can assure him that I shall discuss them in detail with him. As far as I know, horseracing is a general affair and, therefore, there is no reason why the provinces should not control horseracing.

I think horseracing is a useless affair.

I think so too, Sir. [Interjections.]

†I want to come now to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In the few moments before we adjourn, I want to suggest, after he has read my speech, that he reads that of the hon member Prof Olivier as well. [Interjections.] I am very serious in my suggestion, since it is very clear to me that the sentiments expressed by the hon member Prof Olivier, and the accents contained in his speech, are in total conflict with the approach displayed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

When I reacted to the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech on Friday, I congratulated him on his balanced approached to the political issues. At that stage I also assumed—I expressed the hope that the assumption was correct—that since he was the first speaker of the Official Opposition to take part in the debate on my Vote, his sentiments, accents and standpoints were those of the entire party. [Interjections.]

In the first place it is very clear that those standpoints were not endorsed by the hon member for Pinetown, who spoke after the hon member Prof Olivier. In the same way the speech of the hon member Prof Olivier and that of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition differed very clearly in respect of approach as well as content. The fact of the matter is—I am quoting the hon member Prof Olivier from memory—he said he was one of the people who had become sick and tired of the accusation that true reform was not taking place. [Interjections.] If one were to look at what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in respect of reform this afternoon and noted the derogatory terms in which he spoke, it would be very clear to one that he will have to have a discussion with the hon member Prof Olivier.

Hon members will therefore see that we have an exact repetition of what took place in this House before. We have an exact repetition of the divisiveness in the actions and statements of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] With all due respect, I want to tell the hon member for Sea Point …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister should refer to the hon member as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition; not as the hon member for Sea Point. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not mean it to be an insult, and I apologise to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. There are no problems in that respect.

The fact remains that at the very least the spirit, substance and tenor of the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech aroused in me and other hon members who do not agree with him the hope that there was a basis for consensus among the various parties in the Committee. [Interjections.] In addition, it at least aroused in me the hope that a message could go out to the country from this Chamber that we were trying to see eye to eye when it came to the critical problems of South Africa, but this was not the impression I received from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.