The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that what he was going to say about the South West Africa question was not intended to stir up controversy about that problem in this House. I think this is to some extent true of what he ultimately said. However, it is most certainly not true of what the hon. member for Constantia said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged that he did not want to stir up controversy about this problem. Then the hon. member for Constantia came along, however, and put the South West question right in the middle of the political arena. He quoted it as one of the reasons why there should be a motion of no confidence in the Government. He presents the events in Geneva as a reason for having no confidence in the Government.

Time does not allow me to react fully today to all the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Constantia. However, I can assure him that in the days ahead, the days of election, we shall see to it that the voters of South Africa take cognizance of this spirit of abdication which the PFP is already displaying, with regard to South West Africa as well, and which is bound to follow in respect of South Africa, too, if their kind of style, language and intentions ever takes root in this country.

†I shall deal with only a few matters raised by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member made two statements regarding the bias of the General Assembly towards Swapo. I quote what he said (Hansard, 27 Januarie 1981)—

He implies that it was the fault of the DTA that there was a negative reaction. He does not like it. That is, of course, also the voice of Swapo. He then goes on to say—

He simply concludes that we should not bother too much about the General Assembly; that they are, as a matter of fact, not very important. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once served in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Does he not know that the General Assembly instructs the Secretariat and the various specialized agencies of that organization to favour Swapo with material, financial and propaganda support? How can he say, here in this House, that we should just forget about this when this is what is really at the heart of the breakdown in Geneva? It is the unequal treatment meted out to the internal parties of South West Africa.

[Inaudible.]

How often has the DTA been invited to address the Security Council? How often has Swapo been invited to do so? This is what it is all about. The hon. member should first make sure of his facts before supporting his hon. leader in speaking to a motion of no-confidence.

Allow me to refer briefly to the statement made by Mr. Mudge during the Geneva conference. In reading it I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia to tell me whether he agrees with this statement. This is what Mr. Mudge said—

Does the hon. member for Constantia agree with that?

I said much of that in my speech.

He said we must forget about this. The DTA is responsible for the breakdown. That is what the hon. member said. Mr. Mudge continued—

Will the hon. member settle for less?

I am happy with that.

You are happy with it? Thank you. Mr. Mudge continued—

He was referring to his claims. He says he defies any political leader worth his salt to say that in his, Mr. Mudge’s, position he would not regard them as reasonable. The hon. member now says he is happy. He is so happy that he uses this to propose a motion of no confidence in the Government. These are the facts, not my facts, Sir. The official Opposition opted and decided to introduce this matter. I am not finished with the hon. member. This is not the end of it.

Read my speech again.

The hon. member referred to what he called only two communist parties in Southern Africa and said they were both banned, and with that he tells us there is no threat. We are living in bliss and freedom, he said. There is no threat against this country or against South West Africa. We must not worry or be too much concerned about Swapo. It is not really a dangerous organization. Nujoma might soon lose his charisma or following. Then he would be followed by younger leaders who would be more able, more just and more democratic, although in a later part of his speech the hon. member tells us more about Africa and what he thinks about Africa. That is a dismal picture. He is right in that respect, but if he thinks he can persuade this House that the end result of the PFP’s policies will be different from the dismal results in Africa, he should think again. He should explain to the House how those policies will avoid that result. He says that he challenges the assumption that Swapo is communist-dominated. Sir, time does not allow me . . .

Read my speech again.

I have read it. I have quoted from it. Among the documentation found and which he says Kremlinologists are studying . . . Sir, we do not need Kremlinologists to tell us what Swapo is like. Swapo was born here in Cape Town. The Communist Party gave birth to it in Cape Town. Swapo is being fed by the communists, by the Soviet Union, not by us. It is being trained, financed, encouraged, directed, instructed and organized by the Soviet Union. I hope that is quite clear. If the hon. member for Constantia does not understand that, amongst the documentation which is used by Swapo he will find the following: “Dialectic and Historical Materialism”; “Marxist Philosophy in Relation to the Worker”; “Politico/economic Views of Marx and Engels”; “Marxist Theory on Class Struggle, Western Imperialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”; “A guide to Action: How to study Marxism and Leninism”; “Marxist and Leninist Theory on the Political Party”; “Discussion of the Structure and Disadvantages of the Capitalist System”; “How, When and Why the Communist Party was Established”; “The Leading Role of the Communist Party with, Reference to Revolution”; “Discussions of Social Revolution and Coups d’etat” and “The Nature of Revolution and the Momentum Behind it”. Yet the hon. member challenges the assumption that Swapo is communist-dominated.

Swapo in South West Africa.

I will now quote from original Swapo documentation. I have already listed Soviet documentation used by Swapo. Here for instance is the report of the leadership of Swapo on the negotiations and talks we had with the five Western powers. This illustrates the approach of Swapo towards this whole settlement process. This is what Swapo says—

The document continues—

This is the general approach of Swapo, and I maintain that it has remained unchanged.

This is a report of how Swapo in practice propagates that policy, the policy which, the hon. member for Constantia says, might just be quite friendly disposed towards us at some future stage when Nujoma has perhaps been replaced. This is the report of the special assassination mission sent to assassinate Chief Clemens Kapuuo, the Herero leader and former president of the DTA. This is how they reported it to their headquarters—

Note: “He was shot from a distance of five metres, from behind.”

There is a similar report of the assassination team who killed the Owambo leader, the dynamic young Minister of Owambo, Toivo Shiyagaya, and then there was a message from Swapo headquarters to the perpetrators of these heinous and barbaric deeds. This is the message of congratulation—

About whom, the hon. member for Constantia said, we must not worry too much should he accede to power in Windhoek, in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Why does the PFP not come down to earth? Why does that party never sit down and ask themselves what the facts of the situation are before they plunge into motions of no-confidence in the Government? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to let this matter lie here. This will be repeated from platform to platform throughout South Africa during the forthcoming elections. [Interjections.]

Regarding the hon. member for Constantia’s disparaging remarks concerning the internal parties of South West Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated that the democratic leaders of South West Africa would be in Cape Town on 5 and 6 February. Instead of the hon. member addressing his remarks to the House, I suggest that he makes an appointment with Mr. Mudge, who will be here on the aforementioned dates, and thereafter report to the House what Mr. Mudge told him. Maybe he will then no longer be in a position to support a motion of no-confidence.

What the hon. member and his party do not grasp is that the Government fully realizes that there can be dire consequences for South Africa should we be punished by sanctions from the UN. I have stated that often in public. I was even blamed for having said that. We said that because we wanted to make it clear to the world that the time had passed when this Government could be threatened by sanctions. If we are to be punished for insisting on fair treatment to the parties of a neighbouring State for whose security we are responsible; if we are to be punished for insisting that there must be equal treatment of those parties; that there must be a fair and free election and that a group of terrorists will not be allowed to come to power in South West Africa through intimidation and terror; and if the response of the United Nations and, for that matter, the Western World is that we ought to be punished for insisting on these norms, then let me say boldly today—and we are going to repeat it—that we in South Africa would rather endure that kind of punishment than become traitors to the principles in which we believe and the commitments we have made to a neighbouring country. We would rather endure that punishment because if we allow force to be the instrument for the assumption of power in Southern Africa, none of us, no modern Government in Southern Africa, has any future.

May I add that we are very disappointed and dissatisfied with Dr. Waldheim’s latest report to the Security Council. My reply was handed to him yesterday and it will be released today. I can only say that Dr. Waldheim deliberately omitted any mention of the internal parties of South West Africa; as far as he is concerned they still do not exist. I do not want to hear again that we are to blame for this. Here Dr. Waldheim had a golden opportunity to report objectively on the events at Geneva. He did not make use of this opportunity and, as far as I am concerned, we cannot proceed on that basis. It is for the United Nations to rectify the ills of the past and to prove its impartiality towards all the parties of South West Africa.

There is another matter on which I should like to make a few remarks. This concerns the remarks of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he asked: What are the homelands according to Marxist analysts? The Marxists—according to him—say that the homelands are simply reservoirs of surplus labour which can be tapped whenever there are fluctuations in the metropolitan economy. Maybe the Marxists do say that, but may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is aware of a letter written by the hon. member for Sandton to the New York Times of 8 January in which he said—

It seems to me that it is not the Marxists who say and claim this; it is the hon. member for Sandton who says it and he says it in the New York Times. He wrote a letter to the New York Times and I want to read a few quotations from this letter. He says—

He then gives the criteria. He says—

Then he goes on to attack the South African Government.

I did not. I attacked the policy.

No, you attacked South Africa. Just listen to this.

Rubbish! He gave his view of South Africa.

He says—

I challenge him to tell me whether in the referendum recently held in the Ciskei it was only Chief Minister Sebe who expressed himself in favour of independence. Was it only President Matanzima, only President Mphephu and only President Mangope? Why does he say this to an alien? This is a statement, a letter, an epistle. He manipulates the facts about South Africa. He is a manipulator of facts. [Interjections.] That is what that hon. member is. He writes to an alien agency in the USA, a newspaper known for its hostility towards South Africa and for its vilification of this country, and he slings mud at his own country, at Black leaders in this country and at this Government. He does this in the New York Times, but what has the New York Times to do with this problem? It is not for them to resolve this. [Interjections.]

Let us look at some of his other statements. He says the Black majority has had little say in the matter. Why must the Black majority have a say in the independence of Transkei, Ciskei, Venda, Gazankulu, Lebowa or Bophuthatswana? Must they also have had a say in the independence of Lesotho? Did they have a say in the independence of Swaziland or Botswana? No, they did not. The hon. member, however, makes a point of mentioning “the Black majority”. It is on their minds all the time. Let me quote—

Do you deny that?

Then he continues—

I say this is a lie. I say the hon. member must write another letter to the New York Times and tell them that he has told them a lie. This is a distorted picture of South Africa. Who in this Chamber can deny . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister in quoting from a letter of the hon. member for Sandton permitted to say that what it contains is a lie?

Order! I think the hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw whatever you ask me to withdraw, specifically that, but then I will say this is . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have on several occasions said I would withdraw something because the Chair asked me to, whereupon the Chair ruled that I must withdraw it unreservedly. That has been the ruling and has to be obeyed also by that Minister.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is quoting from a letter written by the hon. member for Sandton to the New York Times, and the hon. the Minister has stated that what is contained in that letter is a lie. Surely the hon. the Minister is entitled to his views about what the hon. member for Sandton has said. It is a lie, Sir, what he has said.

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. the Minister has withdrawn the word. We are not dealing with a fact. We are dealing with what an hon. member has written or said. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

When the jackal squeals, you know the shot has gone home. [Interjections.] He is just wasting my time.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is that hon. member for Von Brandis in standing up to make a statement entitled to say “it is a lie what he has said”?

Order! No. The hon. member said that fact is a lie. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr. Speaker, that is a letter that I wrote. I deny that it is a lie, and I require your protection.

Order! The hon. member for Von Brandis made the point that the contents are not correct.

Mr. Speaker, he said: “It is a lie.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, why did he not tell the New York Times . . .

Order! The hon. member for Von Brandis must also withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw your attention . . .

Order! The hon. member is taking up the hon. the Minister’s time. I order him to withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, what word must I withdraw?

The word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, he is the author of epistles to a foreign, alien agency besmirching his country, slinging mud at South Africa, and that I will not withdraw. Why did he not tell the New York Times of the vast economic progress in this country? Why did he not tell them how Lesotho became independent? Why did he not tell them that Lesotho has more than 100 000 people working in South Africa, earning more than half the budget of Lesotho inside this country? Why did he not tell the USA to open its doors to the 63 million Blacks in Africa that have no work and to the 300 million who, from birth to death, must drink disease-infested water? Why does he not tell them of the R20 billion deficit in their trade balance, of the more than R20 billion debt that they cannot pay or of those African countries who no longer can even provide in their budgets for food production because they rely on famine to get donations to feed themselves? What is giving the African man the image of being the beggar of the world? Letters such as these and the African leaders themselves. The time has come for us to speak to each other straight from the shoulder, Black to White, White to Brown, Brown to Asian in this country. We cannot go on like this.

*Of course the Whites in this country have a legitimate fear of being governed by a situation in which the values and systems which they believe in will be destroyed. It is not only because they have White skins. It is because they have certain values. It is because we are now exporting grain to Africa and Africa is starving and is dying. Mr. Kodjo, Secretary-General of the OAU, said at the Lagos Conference—

Why does the hon. member not tell the New York Times about these events in Africa? Why does he go and say this about South Africa?

I do not support your racist policies.

Sir, if they do not want to play the game according to the rules, why do they not get out of politics?

You are being obnoxious.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton must contain himself.

Why do they not announce that they will not participate in elections in South Africa? They are spoilers and wreckers. They are a wrecking party. They are a cantankerous party. They have been sulking since the announcement of a general election. The only thing that they can do is sulk. They are cantankerous. [Interjections.] Let the NRP then take their place as the official Opposition. We can face their googly balls! But the PFP is now digging up the pitch. Not only do they not want to play, but they want no one to play. South Africa is a land of hope. It is lashed by international opinion. We are relatively isolated. But this is also a revered land, a land of floods and droughts, but also one of basic freedoms and hope . . .

What freedoms?

Order! The hon. member for Sandton will not be allowed to make any more interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to make remarks about handicapped people. One is usually born with one’s ears open and one’s mouth shut, but that hon. member was born with his mouth open and his ears shut.

It is quite untrue.

Sir, this is a country of hope, but it can only remain a country of hope as long as we tolerate the basic values and norms of each other.

*Great problems await us, of which we are all aware. This side of the House does not underestimate the enormous problems concerning the Black people in the cities, or the Coloured and Asian situation. We are working on it. We are building, but while we are building they are stealing the bricks. That is what that party is doing. While we are building to bring about peace and happiness and to bring people together in a realistic way to negotiate about their future, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition declares abroad that he is disappointed in the voters of Simonstown because they are not sufficiently educated to know what is at stake. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs are a mixture of serious analysis of international affairs in the interests of the country and party political rhetoric in the interests of the NP. I believe that the disgraceful performance of the hon. the Minister here this afternoon fully justifies the motion of no confidence proposed by this side of the House. The hon. the Minister is playing party politics, and I believe that, one of these days, when he is so immersed, so puffed up, so pleased with himself in trying to score debating points off his political opponent, he is going to be the cause of international disaster for South Africa. He is a disgrace, and we say to him that he should take himself under control. He should realize that he has perhaps one of the most sensitive portfolios in South Africa, and that he should not always use occasions in this House and elsewhere to try to play cheap party politics with international affairs.

I should like to deal with another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s portfolio. He is also in charge of the SABC and of Information. An election has been announced, and perhaps that explains the disgraceful performance of the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I want to put the following to the hon. the Minister: As the man under whom the SABC falls, are the SABC and the S.A. Information Service going to show the impartiality during the next three months, during the election, which he expects the UN to show when it comes to elections? Is it going to show that impartiality, or is it going to continue during these three months to be used as a party political propaganda machine for the Nationalist Government? Is that what is going to happen? Is the Opposition going to be treated fairly during the election period? Will the Opposition have equal time with the Government on television during the election period?

Why equal?

Are we going to have an endless parade of Cabinet Ministers on television?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I have no time for questions. Are we going to have one Cabinet Minister after the other on television? Are we going to have the interminable Cliff Saunders-type shows with slanted questions in order to try to influence the people of South Africa? Are we going to have to listen to SABC editorials which are nothing more than NP propaganda? We are going to have a general election. Is there going to be impartiality? Is the impartiality he expects of others going to be shown by the SABC? [Interjections.]

What about the Information Services within South Africa?

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

No, I shall not answer any questions. I have limited time.

Why do you not tell us whether you agree with what the hon. member for Sandton wrote to the New York Times!

Are we going to have the Information Services putting out glossy pro-Government propaganda pamphlets such as have already appeared in South Africa during election periods? Is he going to use taxpayers’ money through the Information Services of South Africa in order to try to rig the election in favour of the NP? I think of pamphlets like that which appeared in 1958 about a policy which in fact was an NP policy which was never accepted by the House. In the pamphlet on District Six faked photographs were used of six years earlier in order to try to justify the situation there. Then there is the document that appeared more recently, also in the newspapers in South Africa, without the Information Service having the guts to say that this was Government propaganda. We want to know whether, if the hon. the Minister expects impartiality in elections, we are going to have impartiality on the part of the Information Services and the SABC. We demand this and we expect the Government to say: “Yes, there will be absolute impartiality and the Opposition will get fair and equal treatment together with the Government.”

The hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that there is to be a snap general election completely vindicates the charges brought against him by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister tried to explain the election in terms of by-elections, vacancies and redelimitation, but the real reason for the election is that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to hide from the people of South Africa the fact that the Government is unable to fulfil the expectations which have been aroused by the Prime Minister himself.

The people can decide.

There are people who do not have a vote in the forthcoming election. [Interjections.] That hon. member does not mind that. I am referring to unfulfilled expectations cutting across the colour line. If one is going to raise the hopes and expectations of 27 million people and then run away from them and run away from verligte initiatives, one is increasing the tension and polarization in South Africa. At the very time when Black, White and Brown South Africans, having listened to the Government, are saying to the Prime Minister “Come on, deliver the goods”, the Prime Minister runs away and hides behind the hustings of a general election. It is amazing how the hon. the Prime Minister actually looks quite promising when Parliament is not in session. As soon as he is locked into his caucus here, however, he becomes “tjoepstil”; then there is no movement. Last year he managed to endure five months, but this year he can only endure three weeks of being locked into the NP caucus.

There are a number of matters which I should like to deal with. I want to start off by dealing with a particular one which is a typical example of the bungling and indecisiveness of the Government that is being felt by many sections of the community. I want the House and the people of South Africa to look at the absolute mess that was created and the hardship that was caused by the Government’s ham-handed handling of the phasing out of rent control and its stubborn determination to carry on with the amendment to the Sectional Titles Act. In spite of the warnings and the protests from the Opposition, the Government went on i with it. That Government action unleased an orgy of property speculation such as one has not seen in the South African property market for some time. It resulted in tens of thousands of tenants of the flats in our cities, many of them elderly retired people, pensioners and others, having to live under the constant threat of eviction at a time when alternative accommodation was either not available at all or was not available at prices they could afford.

It caused many thousands of people to be faced with economic hardship because of the inflated prices which were being asked for units under sectional title and the consequential impact of fewer letting units causing a rise in rentals. On 21 November 1980 the new hon. Minister attempted to save the Government’s bacon by making a statement which cooled off the orgy of sectional title speculation. It gave a degree of security to many people who were facing eviction. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that what he said the other day cannot undo the damage that has already been done. It cannot compensate thousands of people for the months of insecurity they have suffered. It cannot compensate those aged people who lived for many, many months last year, and even now, are living in a state of despair through not knowing what is going to happen to the accommodation in which they live. Even then the new hon. Minister—and I suppose some credit must go to him—did not spell out clearly what the Government’s intentions were. By not spelling out the Government’s intentions clearly he created new areas of uncertainty among many people who were in the process of buying units in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. Two months or more have passed since he made his statement. It is almost two months to the day but the law relating to the eviction of tenants is going to come into effect and, until today when he introduced a Bill, no draft Bill has been available to the public on an issue which affects the pockets, purses and security of thousands upon thousands of people in the cities of South Africa. He was reported as saying only two weeks ago “No draft Bill will be available for general comment before it came before Parliament owing to the urgency of the matter.” Is this the way to govern? Is this the way to legislate? Is this the way in which one deals with the rights and interests of people? People are still asking the hon. the Minister and the Government from what date these restrictions he announced are going to apply. I hope this will be clear from the draft legislation. What about people who bought flats in terms of the Sectional Titles Act in all good faith and now find that they are not going to be able to take possession? What is going to happen to the deposits that have already been paid by thousands and thousands of people? [Interjections.] What is more, people, mostly older people, pensioners and others, who are living in flats that were built before 21 October 1949 and that are still rent controlled, want to know how long the sword of Damocles in the form of de-control and the threat of eviction is going to hang over them.

I call on the hon. the Minister to give the people of South Africa a categorical assurance that he will stop any further phasing out of rent control until a commission of inquiry on which all interested parties, including the tenants, will serve to satisfy him that there will be guaranteed security of tenure for older people and others who qualify for assistance under the Housing Act. Secondly, he should see to it that there is adequate alternate accommodation available within the communities, available at rentals which people can afford. Thirdly, he should see to it that tenants are not going to be harassed, pressurized and exploited any more as a result of any further lifting of rent control.

The question of housing goes further than the confusion and the cost caused by the Government’s handling of the sectional titles issue and the phasing out of rent control. What the Government has to do is to see that there is adequate housing available for all sections of the people at prices which they can afford. I believe there are very many people in the cities today who are in a desperate position. I can tell the hon. the Minister that my telephone rings day after day as a result of people wanting assistance or advice. Interest rates are rising. Municipal rates are going up. During the last quarter of last year building costs rose by a staggering 30%, and according to the latest review of the Bureau of Economic Research at Stellenbosch building costs are going to rise even more during 1981. Rentals have been pushed up as a result of a reduction in the number of letting units. I ask the Government: What it is going to do to help these people? What is the Government going to do about the problems which they are creating? I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister that the older people of Green Point and Sea Point are tired of being told that they can move to Epping, Ysterplaats or even Parow. They want to live, and deserve to live, in the community in which they belong. They deserve to live there and that is where their accommodation has to be found.

What is the Government doing? We will tell them what they should be doing. They should be making it possible for older and less affluent people to buy and own their own flats. Why should flats only be available to the affluent person in South Africa? What is the Government doing to make it possible for the older and less affluent people to own their own flats and properties? I believe that if the Government has an obligation to assist people under the Housing Act, it should be considering the subsidization of rentals for those people who are not using Government accommodation, but who are having to pay high prices in non-Govenment, in private accommodation. It should be ensuring that there is greater security for those older and less affluent people who are not fortunate enough to be living in rent-controlled accommodation. The hon. the Minister knows that only a small proportion of the people who qualify for assistance under the Housing Act are fortunate enough to be living in rent-controlled accommodation. Yet for that sector of the community there is no protection and no security whatsoever.

I believe the time has come for this Government, especially with rising mortgage bond interest rates, to give the home-owner, the young married couple starting out in life, some relief, possibly by way of tax rebates, from the financial burden of mortgage bond interest repayments. It is no use saying that we are lifting rent control and that the private sector is going to move in. The hon. the Minister knows that it is not possible in the densely populated urban areas of South Africa for the private sector to build flats and to let them at rentals which the ordinary average city-dweller can afford. He knows that. So he cannot simply say that the private sector must move in. If he wants the private sector to help him solve the accommodation problem which he has created, he must give incentives to the private sector by way of low interest loans or tax concessions or depreciation allowances. This Government will have to do something because I believe that in the year ahead, because of the Government’s bungling, because of the staggering increase in the cost of building, we shall be rapidly moving into a housing crisis in the cities of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, we are moving into a housing crisis in the cities of South Africa.

But they do not care.

I should like to move away from that, however, because the gravamen of the attack of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and of this side of the House on the hon. the Prime Minister is that South Africa is undergoing a process of fundamental change and yet the problems of South Africa are intensified by apartheid and by discrimination; but more than that, by the Government’s inability to respond to the process of change in South Africa in a coherent, co-ordinated and confident way. One has only to look at it. Hardly a law has been placed on the Statute Book to get rid of discrimination. What has happened? During the last Parliamentary session we were told to wait for this session. We saw the hon. the Prime Minister go to his party congresses saying that there were some 800 laws which were likely to be examined with a view to repealing them. What has happened? No, what is happening in this country is that apartheid is still founded in the principle and the structure of the legal system in this country. It is rooted in our laws and all the Government does by way of exceptions and exemptions, is grope in the other direction. The Government has developed a split personality. On the one hand it says we are going to get rid of discrimination. They say that they want to get rid of apartheid and hurtful discrimination. Yet, on the other hand, it sticks to the principles of its laws. It is afraid to remove them. That contradiction, that split personality, is built right into the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan.

Oh, nonsense! You do not understand it at all.

One need only refer, for example, to point no. 2 of the twelvepoint plan, where it says—

Point no. 11 says—

On the one hand it says we should have vertical differentiation as often as we can and on the other hand it says we should get rid of discrimination if it causes ill-feeling.

Allow me to give a few illustrations, illustrations from a very bulky file, of what has been happening around us. Let us take the constituency of Oudtshoorn, that of the hon. the new Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. In the Cango Caves, in order to get rid of discrimination, the apartheid signs at the restaurant are taken down. In order to apply vertical differentiation they keep apartheid working. In order to get rid of discrimination they apologize to Mr. Lofty Adams and they sack an official, but in order to maintain vertical differentiation they have separate parking areas and separate visits to the Caves and they blast a hole through the mountainside in order to create a separate entrance for the Coloured people who come to visit the Caves. [Interjections.] While on the one hand they get rid of discrimination they maintain vertical differentiation. In Durban there are apparently rules that Blacks can walk on White beaches, because that is a way of getting rid of discrimination, but they cannot swim in the sea because it is necessary to maintain vertical differentiation.

We had the case just recently of an Indian star, an Indian performer, who could live at a five star hotel because they wanted to get rid of discrimination, but he could not play the piano because they wanted to maintain vertical differentiation. Then they found that he could play the piano because they wanted to get rid of discrimination, but he could not sing on the stage because they wanted to maintain vertical differentiation. Mr. Speaker, one could go through all these examples. You can integrate the Navy and the Navy dormitories at Simonstown to get rid of discrimination, but when those same Navy people go to Kalk Bay beach, the Coloured Navy men are kicked off the beach because they want to maintain vertical differentiation. Municipal sports facilities in the Cape are going to be opened on a club basis because they want to get rid of discrimination, but if the same two people go to play tennis at Green Point on a non-club basis, they will be prosecuted, and do you know why, Sir? It is because they want to maintain vertical differentiation. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a farce. It is becoming a confusion to Whites, but what is perhaps much more important than that is that it is becoming an increasing offence and irritation and anger to Blacks and Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the Government says it places great emphasis on stability and on law and order. Correct; stability is undoubtedly an important ingredient in orderly development, but orderly development is also an important ingredient for stability. If the Prime Minister were here, I would remind him of certain words—

That was the Prime Minister, speaking to the businessmen. Mr. Speaker, a system in which freedom is dead is meaningless. Are South Africans more free today than they were five years ago or ten years ago or twenty years ago? Do hon. members realize that for three months last year there was a total ban on meetings, including orderly political parties holding meetings at byelections in South Africa? Is that how we measure our freedom—by arbitrary decisions under the Riotous Assemblies Act, so that the NP, the PFP and the NRP are covered by a blanket ban? Is that how freedom operates in South Africa? Is there more freedom of speech in South Africa? Is there more freedom of association? Is the Press of South Africa more free than it was before? Are radio and television more free than they were before? Are the Coloured people, who once had a vote for this Parliament, who once could vote and participate in the provincial council, the divisional councils, and the city councils, and now have no vote whatsoever, more free than they were before? Are those people who have been deprived of their homes in District Six, in South End and Pageview more free than they were before? Are the Blacks, living under the harassment of the pass laws in South Africa, only to have their freedom if they renounce South African citizenship in favour of the citizenship of an economically impoverished and non-viable homeland?

No, Sir; this Government’s policy is not only creating ideological, emotional and philosophical confusion amongst the White people of South Africa; this Government is failing to give people a lead. But, Sir, what is much worse is that this Government itself is playing into the hands of those people who it says are the enemies of South Africa, because this Government itself is polarizing the people of South Africa against themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as the hon. member for Durban Central, whose speech I want to react to today, really said nothing about those aspects which are my responsibility which I could not have guessed and anticipated in advance. Consequently they did not surprise me with anything in any respect. All that really happened today is that the hon. member for Sea Point laid it on very thick. Of course, one can see how tense he is about the election that is at hand. That stuck out a mile. His whole speech was an election speech. He kicked up a terrible fuss and made a few wild statements that came nowhere near the truth.

For example?

For example, he intimated that the hon. the Prime Minister had ostensibly said that there were 800 laws which were to be repealed and which concerned apartheid.

No, which would be examined.

Very well, which would be examined.

Those laws ostensibly concerned obsolete apartheid and would have to be repealed. Surely it is nonsense to make such a statement in this House. Surely the hon. member knows there is a continuous evaluation of legislation which has fallen into disuse over the years. Some of them may indeed deal with apartheid, but probably they would be very much in the minority. Most of the laws which will be deleted from the Statute Book are those laws which have become obsolete. Why does he imply that this Government made a promise to examine a lot of apartheid legislation and to delete it from the Statute Book?

In the brief time in which he spoke the hon. member asked more questions than I could reply to in hours, let alone half an hour. Consequently I shall be unable to reply to all the aspects he broached; I shall confine myself for the most part to matters pertaining to my department and in due course he will receive replies from other hon. members concerning the other aspects he raised.

He also said that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information should really ensure that the Opposition be allocated sufficient time on television at election time. Hon. members should rather ask the hon. the Minister to be biassed and to ensure that more time be made available to them than they are entitled to, for if time were allocated to them on television and radio in accordance with the number that the handful of them represent, they would use up the allocated time in one speech.

What the hon. members for Sea Point and Durban Point had to say in the course of their speeches on community development, etc., I could actually summarize in a few words: “I told you so—we predicted it last year”. In the first place, I want to turn to the matter about which the hon. member for Sea Point kicked up such a fuss, viz. the question of sectional titles. First of all I want to point out that I shall not go into all the details today as he desires, for there are, after all, a few positive things I want to say as well. There is a piece of legislation on the Order Paper that we shall be discussing shortly and on that occasion we shall be in a position to go into detail on all aspects and to reply to all the hon. members’ questions.

But the section in question was amended last year.

Yes, the section in question was amended last year, but the amendment has not yet come into effect. What did the former Minister of Justice do last year? He came to this House with legislation aimed at bringing the legislation on sectional titles into line with the rents legislation in so far as it relates to the occupation of property. The intention was to give to the person who wishes to purchase a flat in terms of the sectional titles legislation, the same right to take occupation as that enjoyed by a person who wishes to purchase an ordinary dwelling house. What is wrong with that? What would be wrong with something like that under normal circumstances? The fact is that last year, and prior to that, it was not possible to exploit this situation. That is where the major difference comes in. Under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with the sectional titles legislation. All hon. members were in favour of it. Under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with piloting an amendment through as the hon. the Minister did last year when the legislation still fell under the Department of Justice. But circumstances have changed, as was said here by the hon. member for Durban Central. They have changed drastically and under these drastically changed circumstances it is possible to exploit the situation. This is where the problem arose.

The hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Sea Point said that the hon. the Minister had been so “stubborn” and obstinate last year that he had not wanted to listen to them. Surely that is not true. The hon. the Minister sat here, listened to the arguments of the hon. members opposite and accepted the sound advice of his supporters on this side of the House. He changed the Act by amending the legislation. Surely hon. members know this. He amended the legislation on the basis of the discussion which took place here. He was far from “stubborn”. He was far from being “stubborn”. He acted on advice by adopting the amendment, for two reasons: Firstly, to afford everyone the opportunity for one year of putting his situation in order and ironing out his affairs. He also afforded each of us an opportunity of evaluating the whole climate in respect of sectional title sales in the years ahead. Months still remain. When a change of that nature is made in the sectional titles legislation, it is no mistake. In due course, when circumstances again become normal in the building industry, we shall proceed with the legislation. However, what happened was that the situation, as the hon. member for Durban Central said, changed dramatically and some unscrupulous speculators climbed in recklessly and abused the normal free market mechanism, which the hon. members of the Opposition are very concerned about when it suits them. In this case, however, they are not concerned about the free market mechanism.

We warned that this would happen.

There was a rush to sell flats under sectional titles, legally and illegally, and flats were sold up to five or six times, each time at a higher profit. That is what happened. However, I did not sit back and do nothing. The moment I became responsible for this department, I approached the Cabinet with the advice which the department had obtained for me throughout the country and told the Cabinet that I had to do what was necessary to restore order, stability and balance in the industry and to follow this up with legislation. And that is what I did. The hon. member for Sea Point said that I had succeeded in doing so. Without legislation one could not achieve everything, but I came forward with the legislation at the earliest opportunity. I want to leave the matter at that. Hon. members cannot fish in these waters, for they are not troubled waters.

Now I come to the question of rent control. I want to make it very clear to hon. members today that it is not possible for us to provide houses for everyone in this country. That is financially and physically beyond the means of any Government, not only of any South African government, but also of any Government of democratic or non-democratic pattern anywhere in this world.

Therefore it is essential for us to receive the support of the private sector, and the hon. member for Sea Point knows this as well as I do, for he is the person who represents those people. Consequently it is the duty and task of myself and the Government to do everything possible to remove stumbling blocks and obstacles and not to dampen the enthusiasm and enterprise of the private sector in respect of the provision of housing. In fact, we must act not only negatively, but also positively, and assist the private sector. We must facilitate matters for them. I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point that financial and other encouragement—if possible—should be afforded the private sector to provide housing. That is why there is an Advisory Committee for Housing Affairs which is giving constant attention to the matter, but this is really a matter which rests with the hon. the Minister of Finance, who holds the pursestrings of this country. Sir, the property developers constantly cast it in my and my predecessor’s teeth that rent control was the stumbling block which prevented the private sector from doing more for the provision of housing. This is something we have heard like a refrain from these people over the years. Whether or not there is any truth in it, everyone must evaluate for himself. However, there was a Government commission of inquiry, the Fouche Commission, which said in no uncertain terms that this was indeed a stumbling block in the path of the private sector. That is why the Government accepted that something had to be done about rent control, and that is why it is my duty to perform my task.

The commission was wrong.

The hon. member cannot say that the commission was wrong.

The commission interpreted matters incorrectly.

What is more, it is not only the Fouché Commission which says so, nor is it only the private sector which says so. The fact is that at the end of last year the Economic Advisory Board of the hon. the Prime Minister, people who are more than merely a group of home-owners or public servants, recommended to the Government in no uncertain terms that rent control ought to be phased out as it was a stumbling block to the private sector. [Interjections.] The hon. members should take these facts into account and realize that I am faced with these two things and that I must do the best in the interests of South Africa.

We accept that.

Nor is there any point in the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Sea Point coming to me and saying that the private sector had not done its share, “did not deliver the goods”. I can agree with hon. members to some extent, but there is another side to the picture as well. Those people say that it was only fairly recently that the building industry emerged from a deep recession which hit the building industry harder than any other industry. In fact, the Government had to obtain R250 million from a consortium of banks for non-White low-cost housing specifically to keep the building industry going, otherwise they would have had it. Hundreds of artisans left the building industry and are not returning. When the new revival in the economy suddenly occurred, they were not prepared for the market. They are asking for more time, but the most important thing, surely the thing which any baboon will be able to understand . . .

Even Pen!

… is that no private person or business-undertaking will continue to build houses on a large scale at a time when there is no demand for housing. Surely only a fool would do such things if he was out to make money. How do hon. members expect me to have demanded from the private sector that they should build houses at a time when there was a surplus of White housing throughout South Africa? [Interjections.] We really should be reasonable. Taking into account all these things, the Government has decided to phase out rent control to a certain point. It is wrong of hon. members opposite to level the accusation that we acted irresponsibly. It is now being implied here that we proceeded with the phasing out of rent control while there was an acute shortage of housing, and that we did not provide adequate housing before we introduced the phasing out of rent control. That is a false impression that is being created here. Surely hon. members are aware of the facts. Surely hon. members are very well aware that rent control up to and including 1954 was phased out by last year. Hon. members know that houses built over the past 25 or 26 years were at this time last year no longer under rent control, barring those houses which the Government continued to subject to rent control.

Surely hon. members also know that rent control applies principally to the Whites in this country. Surely hon. members also know that the situation in respect of White housing has changed radically in this country over the past 12 months. They know this, after all. Surely they know that there was a deep recession and an outflow of emigrants from this country. In each major centre in this country there was a housing surplus. More than 10 000 flats stood vacant in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Hillbrow knows this. That hon. member and other hon. members know that the situation was such that those dwelling units were occupied by non-Whites. Hundreds of those units were occupied by non-Whites. Some of them are vacant even today. However, what is happening in these circumstances?

Whereas the hon. member for Hillbrow, just like the hon. member for Sea Point, referred to a crisis in respect of housing, the hon. member for Hillbrow went even further. He made a statement to the newspapers and said that there was a crisis in respect of White housing, on the Witwatersrand in particular, which was worse than that which prevailed after the Second World War. One would swear that man returned from Jerusalem just the other day. [Interjections.] He does not know what is going on here. Did the hon. member see what the position was after the Second World War? But if he is still a stranger in Jerusalem, I want to ask him something else. A week before he made these absurd statements in the newspaper, viz. that there was a housing crisis on the Witwatersrand worse than that which prevailed after the Second World War, that same hon. member wrote me a letter and requested me to grant my permission for a block of flats in his constituency to be made available for renting to Coloureds and Indians. I refused it. What is more, I went to examine those flats. What did I find there? All but three of those flats are full of pensioners and poor people. [Interjections.] I took photographs of the flats and took the officials of my department along as witnesses. Is it not disgraceful that a person’s politics can be so opportunistic as that of the hon. member for Hillbrow? He spreads a rumour that there is a housing crisis for Whites, but meanwhile he wants to cast pensioners and poor people out into the streets to provide accommodation for Coloureds in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The hon. member can speak in the course of the debate. I have the letter and photographs here. I cannot reply to a question, for I have only ten minutes left.

My department and I are not stupid. We know better than anyone else in this country what the housing situation is, nor do I want to say here today that we are not facing a great deal of difficulty in future in respect of White housing. We are prepared for it. During the past year the economic climate changed phenomenally. Instead of our having an outflow of emigrants, we had more than 10 000 extra immigrants in this country during the first ten months of last year, people who for the most part settled in the PWV area.

It is also true, owing to the ease with which financial institutions and building societies were able to grant loans to people, that more people who had never owned houses before wanted to have their own houses. We must also expect that owing to the strong demand for skilled artisans and the professional staff required in our industrial revival, as well as the instability of political circumstances to the north of us, the flow of immigrants will continue. We are mindful of the fact that there are problems ahead for us in this regard. However, hon. members should bear in mind that one can provide many things on demand, but a housing shortage can arise within weeks or months. However, with all the money and means at one’s disposal one cannot build a house within six, seven or eight months. Hon. members must please bear this in mind.

The situation is such that, owing to this knowledge at our disposal, the Government has decided not to proceed with the phasing out of rent control. The Government has decided that it will not continue with further phases of the phasing out process before it is satisfied that circumstances have changed and are not capable of being exploited. There are difficult problems at present. There is not a shortage of White housing everywhere. But there are difficult circumstances. In Pretoria in particular the situation is acute, but the Government has permitted me to take special measures to deal with the situation in Pretoria. It has permitted me to build a thousand flats there of the Schubart Park type for that group of people in particular who fall just beyond the limit set by the National Housing Commission for people to qualify for State aid, as it is that group in Pretoria in particular which is having a hard time of it. As I said, the Government has by way of exception permitted me to build another thousand flats for this group in Pretoria.

What about Durban?

If there is an equally great need there, the hon. member may discuss it with me later. He must just not waste my time now.

The Government has a proud record in respect of the provision of housing. From 1 January 1975 to 30 September 1980, 186 500 dwelling units were built with State funds in South Africa for the sum of R1 454 million. Of those houses, approximately 50 000 were for Blacks, 87 000 for Coloureds, 21 000 for Indians and 28 000 for Whites. Over the past five to six years we have built more houses with State funds than during any other period in the history of our country. How can hon. members say that we acted irresponsibly and have not done what was required? What is more, the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House yesterday that nowhere in the wide world was more money being spent on State housing in relation to means than in South Africa. When it comes to housing for our poorer people, our less prosperous people, elderly White people and social pensioners, there is no country in this world which can compete with us. Accordingly we have nothing on our conscience.

I want to point out that during the past year we have also done a great deal to accommodate our lowly-paid workers in particular. My predecessor instituted relief measures in respect of leasing units. He introduced a differentiated interest rate. At the same time he set the repayments at an amount which has enabled some of the poorest people in South Africa to afford a house today. On the recommendation of the National Housing Commission I myself increased the income limit for people who qualify for Government aid. At the same time I increased the maximum cost limit for Government financed leasing and selling schemes. This applies to the maximum limit for individual building and purchasing loans as well. We have done a great deal to make it possible for the less prosperous in this country to be able to obtain housing.

I want to make it very clear that it is a high priority with the Government to provide housing for all sections of the population in this country. Having said that, I must also emphasize that there are limits to our financial means and to the funds which are made available for this purpose. Then I want to state very categorically that no Government—not this Government nor any other Government—will ever be in a position to make houses available on demand to all the people in the country. People have a choice, as the hon. member for Sea Point said. One also has waiting lists for old people. The people in Parow do not want to go and stay in Sea Point when they retire, nor do the people of Sea Point want to retire in Parow. The fact remains that we shall never be in a position to provide Government housing on demand to everyone in this country.

We have a proud record. In recent years we have made tremendous progress in clearing up slums and squatting. Over the past five years we have provided accommodation for 20 000 squatters and during the past two to three years we have reduced the backlog in Coloured and Indian housing by 20 000 dwelling units. We have achieved this over and above the normal provision of housing. Surely this is something to be proud of. However, everything depends on economic circumstances as well. If hon. members of the Opposition were to help us to contribute to South Africa’s growth as is the case at present, if they do not act as a drag, and if we are able to obtain adequate funds, depending on the economic conditions in South Africa—it is the case today that owing to the building costs we are able to build 20% fewer houses with the funds at our disposal—then I see a bright light at the end of the tunnel in five to six years’ time. At present we have 108 000 dwelling units in the pipeline for all races and we have further approved projects comprising 35 000 units which will be undertaken as soon as the funds are available. We have already done wonders in South Africa. We have changed the face of South Africa since the Second World War, when critical conditions, which were really outrageous, prevailed, just as we are today creating a new South Africa by constitutional means.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services spoke about two matters which are very interesting and they are sectional titles and the abolition of rent control. I want to tell him here and now that he can gesticulate as much as he likes, he can raise or lower his voice, he can drop his notes, he can make mis-statements but he will never get away from the fact that elderly people who have been affected by the Sectional Titles Act and who live in old buildings and who are losing their places of accommodation because of the abolition of rent control are not going to vote for his party in the coming general election. [Interjections.] He can do what he likes but in no way can he rectify the position of the old people who live in South Africa today. [Interjections.]

As I was about to say when I was so rudely interrupted in 1977 . . . [Interjections.] . . . I am very proud to represent the NRP here today. We in these benches welcome the announcement of a general election because in 1977 we were hardly given a reasonable chance to present to the electorate just exactly what we believed in. However, in 1981 we are going to do this and I believe we are going to come back to this House proportionately in greater numbers than any other party in this House. I want to tell hon. members on the other side of the House that they must watch out because they are going to find represented in this House a party that has never been represented here before, unless they really start doing something and take positive steps to implement the changes the hon. the Prime Minister has recommended over the past year. However, I do not want to deal with matters which are of interest from a general election point of view.

I want to talk about a matter which I believe will be of interest to hon. members in the House who come from rural areas and who represent the thousands and thousands of people who are being affected now, and who have been affected over the past years, by the so-called consolidation programme of the Government. Of course, a consolidation programme is a complete misnomer because if one looks at the definition of the word “consolidate” one will find in the dictionary that when applied to territorial limits it means in effect “to combine something into one whole”. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, who is not present in the House this afternoon, and to the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, who is here this afternoon, we realize that it is beyond the power of any human being to combine into one whole many of the homelands that have been designated by the Government. In point of fact, what his commission is really doing is to finalize the boundaries of the homelands. I believe his commission should be called the Commission for the Finalization of Boundaries.

If one looks at the history of this consolidation effort, one finds that it is a very sorry one. Some 20 years ago the Official Opposition, which was then the United Party, called upon the Government—and this is recorded in Hansard—to act speedily to define immediately the boundaries of the homelands which this Government had proposed would, in the course of time, become independent. Over 20 years, however, where have we come? We still have not finally defined the boundaries of the homelands. There has been uncertainty among these poor people who have lived constantly with the fear that they might be deprived of their properties or that they might be considered as expatriates. There are thousands of these people who are living adjacent to homelands throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. One only has to look at the map of the Transvaal to see exactly how many people alongside the boundaries of those homelands are resident in those areas and who would be affected. This is not a matter to be treated lightly. It is not a matter to be cast summarily to one side and to be ridden over rough-shod. If someone is faced with forced deprivation of his own property or, alternatively, with becoming an expatriate at the stroke of a pen, it is a matter of deep concern, not only for those people but also for those who believe that the people of South Africa should be cared for. It certainly creates stultification. It stops development, and there is no doubt about it that the facts have proved that development in the areas surrounding the homelands, owing to the fact that there has been no finalization of the boundaries, has been stultified. There has been little development. People have moved away. Farms have been left undeveloped simply because of the fact that the people have never known exactly where they stand.

This Government accepted a commitment to the 1936 Act and now it is suggesting that it may even exceed the quota that was laid down in terms of that Act. For years, however, there has been this air of uncertainty about what is going to happen to those people. People in the border areas have been asking me what is going to happen to them. Are they going to be absorbed into a homeland or are they going to remain in South Africa? This has been going on for over 20 years, and then at last, in May 1975, we reached a stage when we believed that finality had been reached. I should just like to quote for the edification of this House what was said in 1975 by the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. M. C. Botha (Hansard, Vol. 56, col. 5925)—

In other words, we had reached the end of the road. This is what had been aimed at and at last, in 1975, it was agreed that sufficient ground would now be given. There is one little point, however, which one sometimes misses. That is that that was hardly the final consolidation because later on the then Minister said that the Government was holding certain areas in reserve, a small surface area in each province. The surface areas which were to be held in reserve for each province were as follows: The Transvaal, 22 000 ha; Natal, 21 000 ha; the Cape Province, 18 000 ha; and the Orange Free State, 100 ha. That apparently was the position in 1975, and to all intents and purposes the boundaries were fixed, plus this small floating reserve, as the then Minister called it. But then the NP and the Government woke up to the realities of what was happening in connection with the Black national States. In 1978 the hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in the no-confidence debate, stated that a new approach entirely should be adopted in respect of the position of the homeland boundaries. He said that the boundary situation should be based on economics. This, to me, makes a fair amount of sense, as it is apparent that the economic development of the national states is foundering and definitely needs stimulation. What he emphasized then, Sir, was that decisions to be made in respect of boundaries should be made speedily. I should like to read what he said, because I want to emphasize the importance that was attached to speed. It was some two years ago that this statement was made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and what has happened over these last two years? This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said then (Hansard, 1979, Vol. 79, col. 241)—

1. (i) The basis on which this investigation will rest is that the land purchases and exchanges in terms of the Trust and Land Act of 1936, and as embodied in the 1975 proposals of Parliament, must be speeded up and implemented as soon as possible.

Later he said (col. 243)—

So, Sir, the emphasis all along the line was on the necessity for speed, and obviously the speed that was desired was in part necessary by virtue of the fact that the people living in that area had uncertainty hanging over their heads. They had a sword of Damocles hanging over them all the time. Yesterday we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that no final decision would be made without exhaustive enquiries. This is what he said—

It would be done later, he said, after the matter had been examined by a Cabinet committee and it had been submitted to this House. There is therefore a sense of insecurity again being created in the minds of people. Let us, however, look at what the Van der Walt Commission has done over the past few years. It has announced certain details in respect of the Ciskei, and in respect of the Ciskei only have the announcements been made. These details were announced on 31 October 1980, and naturally created a complete uproar. And why, Mr. Speaker? They created an uproar because of the way in which the report was framed in the Press. It appeared that the recommendations were in fact a fait accompli, and that nothing more could be done about it, and that this was the end of the matter, unless one read the small print where it said that the Commission would take further steps to investigate the feelings of the people in that particular area. That Commission had a sub-committee sitting in that area. The sub-committee consisted of some 16 members, over a broad spectrum, who were all supposed to be experts in their particular field. The sub-committee presumably made its recommendations to the Van der Walt Commission, and the Van der Walt Commission then made recommendations to the Cabinet. Then, suddenly, we found that the cart was being put before the horse, because neither the sub-committee nor the Commission had ever tested the feelings of the people in the areas which they were declaring it would be necessary to hand over to the Ciskeian Government. I cannot understand how anybody can have faith in giving evidence to a commission after that same commission has already made its recommendations. They must believe that they are talking to people who have already made up their minds and that whatever they may have to say to that commission now will simply be so much water off the duck’s back. Then, certainly, as far as I can see, the recommendations of the Commission seemed hardly to comply with the Government’s declared intention to take economic factors into consideration when adjusting the land boundaries. Take for instance the area called the Water Down-Klipplaat-Hogsback area. I am looking now at the hon. member for King William’s Town, because he comes from that area. He knows that area well. He was the chairman of the Divisional Council of that particular area, and he will agree with me that in this particular area, the piece of ground along the Klipplaat River that is proposed to be added to the Ciskei contains one of the most highly developed and technically developed farming areas in the Border. It is the sponge of the Klipplaat River all along that area there. It consists of 85% of the catchment area of the Klipplaat River which drains into the Waterdown Dam. The Waterdown Dam is a magnificent dam. Sir, as you know, this dam supplies the Queenstown area with much of its water. It is also used for extensive irrigation purposes below the dam itself. It is absolutely essential that this dam should be kept free of silt.

The farmers who are third and fourth generation farmers living on the land in that magnificent farming country are fully aware of the need to conduct farming operations on a strictly economic basis and on a strictly conservation basis. In point of fact the water that drains into the Waterdown Dam is clear. There are 18 farms involved. These farms, however, are through a historical development unfortunately plagued with a deadly weed called nassella tussock which needs constant attention and has been receiving the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for years and years now. It is one of the most dangerous weeds that can develop in a farming area. However, the owners of these farms have taken strict conservation measures to protect their land. This is a matter of continuing activity because the seed of the nassella tussock can still germinate after a period of 20 years. It therefore has to be watched very, very carefully. The production in this area is exceptionally high. Figures that were given to me were to the effect that on these particular farms up to R48 per hectare per annum had been produced under extensive farming conditions and not intensive farming conditions.

Why should this area now be tagged on to the Ciskei? It does not provide a better boundary geographically. In fact, the present boundary with the Ciskei in that area is an escarpment. That escarpment is a perfect boundary between the embryo-independent State of the Ciskei and South Africa. The Klipplaat River which is now proposed to be the boundary, is only a small stream which eventually develops into a fairly strong river, but much of it is vlei area. To define the boundary along this vlei area of the river is therefore almost impossible.

This area also forms part of a snow-hazard area. During the winter the farmers have constantly to be on the alert to protect their stock. The Ciskeian farmers, with respect, I do not believe will be prepared to inhabit this cold area. I do not think that in the Ciskei there are any other areas similar to this which the Ciskeians are prepared to inhabit.

Finally, this area certainly cannot be of exceptional economic benefit to the Ciskei. It appears to us to be solely an attempt to add more land to the Ciskei and it should be borne in mind that it has been agreed by the Government in the past—the hon. member knows that it has been agreed—that the mere addition of land is no solution to the problem of the economic development of the national states. It appears to us to be completely meaningless and pointless to add this highly productive area to the Ciskei when on the basis of an economic constellation of States as proposed by the Government and supported by this party, both the Ciskei and the Republic of South Africa would benefit by observing the status quo.

There is also the question of the amount of compensation that has to be paid for this land. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt— rather a mouthful!—stated in his statement to the Press that the amount of money involved in the Ciskei changes is estimated to be R109 million. I am referring to the new changes quite apart from the other R80 million for the purchases in terms of the 1975 proposals which have not yet been made. The hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech yesterday that all extra land that would be provided under this new dispensation that the hon. the Prime Minister had suggested would be on the condition that it would be under private ownership. This is what he said in his speech—

Presumably he was referring to private ownership by Whites. If this is so I can tell him here and now that Chief Minister Sebe has stated emphatically and categorically that rural land given to the Ciskei will not be owned by Whites. If, however, it is Blacks who will own the land then, of course, money will have to be provided to allow those Blacks to own these properties. That money has to come from somewhere and, undoubtedly, it will come out of the coffers of the S.A. Government. But we say that they should rather take this money and use it to establish an infrastructure within the homeland itself. Infrastructure is needed in the urban areas. Infrastructure is also needed in the farming areas, such as the building of dams and other devices to encourage the agricultural potential of these areas. Above all, we propose that this money should be used for the establishment of agricultural training colleges where, presumably, the Chief Ministers of these homelands will be able to encourage their people to be trained as farmers so that, once they are trained, they will be able to take over and own farms. We believe that no farms that are as fully developed as these farms should be handed over to any person who wishes to own the land on a private ownership basis without that person having a proven ability to farm economically and ably. It will take some years for this to be done. Let us rather devote these funds towards that goal. Our complaint to the Government is firstly, the tardiness with which this whole matter has been handled— it is two years now since the Van der Walt Commission was appointed—and secondly, the tremendously muddled thinking of the Government.

I want to turn now to the Hogsback area. Hon. members will know this area well. It is a most delightful area made up of some 151 properties and small holdings valued at R10 million. The area is fully serviced with police stations etc. It is a small gem of South Africa. It is mainly populated by retired people and it holds a strategic position in South Africa. The effect of incorporation in the Ciskei will certainly be the end of the retired man. He will not be prepared to stay there. It is mainly the elderly who inhabit this area. Then there will also be an increase in unemployment as a result of the depopulation of this particular little town. Such incorporation will certainly also be a danger to the source of the Klipplaat and Chumie Rivers.

There are two matters of grave concern with regard to Hogsback. The first was that again the residents’ views were not traversed before the decision was made to hand Hogsback over to the Ciskei. It is beyond our comprehension that this could possibly have been done. Secondly, there were the undertakings given by the Government in regard to the Hogsback area. I should like to quote some of these. One is contained in a letter dated 20 March 1974 from the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development which states—

Another letter, dated 23 August 1974, from the Administrative Secretary of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development states—

Then, in 1979, the following was said by the Chief Commissioner of the Eastern Cape. I quote—

[Interjections.] In the face of these undertakings, how can the people living in the vulnerable areas surrounding these emergent homelands place any faith in this Government if this is the history of what has happened? The situation in regard to Port St. Johns is exactly the same. How can people have confidence in a Government that acts in this way? [Interjections.]

Now I should like to come to the question of King William’s Town very quickly. King William’s Town has been proposed for incorporation in the Ciskei. Here again, the proposals to incorporate King William’s Town into the Ciskei were not put before the people who live there or before the important bodies in King William’s Town such as the Sakekamer, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries, the Town Council. These bodies and the people themselves were not asked for their views. This can only lead to the conclusion that the Government has little concern for the people when it comes to a matter of ideology. [Interjections.] I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister—but perhaps the hon. member Mr. van der Walt will be able to tell me— whether the offer of King William’s Town was made as bait to Chief Minister Sebe to encourage him to lead his people to independence.

The answer is “no”.

I say this because the timing of the announcement was such that Chief Sebe was considering the Quail Commission’s report at the time and was talking about certain preconditions before he would consider independence. In fact, the hon. the Minister—who is unfortunately not here—in a Press release just before the proposals of the Van der Walt Commission were made known, stated that he wished the Van der Walt recommendation in regard to the Ciskei to be made known and to be dealt with with all due speed because of the pending independence of the Ciskei. [Interjections.] With respect, we do not believe that the hon. the Minister could have done this, but many people are asking this question, and we want from him, from one of his deputies or from one of the other Government spokesmen on that side, the assurance that that was definitely not so.

But I have told you so.

King William’s Town cannot be compared with Mafeking. Many people are saying: Well, look at Mafeking. We handed Mafeking over and King William’s Town is in exactly the same position. The Mafeking situation is completely different because in Mafeking the major factor affecting the people’s decision to accept Mafeking’s incorporation into Bophuthatswana was the fact that economically the town was dwindling, and it was dwindling because of the fact that next door to it there was a town, inside Bophuthatswana, in which the 4% sales tax was not being applied.

Harland, you are weaker than the windmill today.

As a result of that, the people in Mafeking were going to the neighbouring town to purchase there. I am quite sure that hon. member would also have liked to purchase there. It is funny that this is so because in a statement the hon. the Minister made in this House he said that the independent governments were lucky enough to be able to reap the benefits of customs dues and general sales tax. He said that in 1979, just about at the time when Bophuthatswana cut out general sales tax and the people in Mafeking were suffering as a result of that move. Our approach to the matter is that there is simply no need for the incorporation of King William’s Town into the Ciskei, on economic or on any other grounds. The Ciskei has its own headquarters at Zwelitsha which can be developed, and is developing, and any compensatory money that the Government would have to pay to the King William’s Town people for absorbing them into the Ciskei could be quite satisfactorily utilized to develop further infrastructure in the neighbouring town of Zwelitsha.

I want to leave one last question with hon. members here. I wonder if they realize that it may be possible that Pietersburg or Potgietersrus, which borders on Lebowa, could be included in Lebowa, or Groblersdal— Lebowa or South Ndebele, or Louis Trichardt in Venda or Barberton in Kangwani . . . [Time expired.]

Order! The hon. member for East London North referred to an hon. member as “Mr. Van der Walt”. I want to say, for the guidance of hon. members that I should like them, when addressing the members nominated or elected in terms of section 40(1)(b) or 40(1)(c) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, to refer to such members as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, the hon. member Mr. Steyl, or whatever the hon. member’s surname may be.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to welcome the hon. member for East London North back to this House after his short sojourn in the wilderness. When he was in this House previously, the hon. member made sound contributions to the debates and I trust that he will continue to do so in the future. There are a few rays of light visible at the moment. One is the fact that he regained a seat—perhaps that is in fact negative—from the PFP and that the voters of East London North, in their choice between the PFP and another party, showed that the PFP was not acceptable as the official Opposition. I also want to air another idea with reference to the speech by the hon. member for East London North. In my opinion the positive idea which came out in the course of his speech was the fact that his party, in any event, accepts the fact of the existence of the national States and the fact that the voters of the Ciskeian national State have voted for independence; and if they accept that, then, in our political thinking and in the implementation of a specific political policy, we have progressed a very long way, because the aspect in regard to which we have made progress is the acceptance of the principle of self-determination, even of independence, for the various Black population groups in South Africa. When we have accepted that, we have progressed a very long way and the Opposition is keeping company with the NP for a very important part of the path of South Africa.

What about the detribalized Blacks?

The hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, will undoubtedly react in more detail to the speech by the hon. member for East London North. For my part I should just like to make a few remarks. He advocated expediting the determining of the borders of the national State. I can assure the hon. member—and I think I can give the assurance from this House to many of our White voters who are concerned with the determining of the borders of this national State as well—that we regard it as a very important matter, that we shall not keep the people involved on a string but wish to eliminate any uncertainty as quickly as possible. However I think everyone will realize that we are dealing here with a matter of great magnitude, that we are writing history in South Africa and that we must write it in such a way that not only the present generation, but posterity, too, may be satisfied with the borders we demarcate, and that this will be the case not only on the White side but also on the part of the citizens of the national States. The hon. the Prime Minister laid down very clear guidelines. He said very clearly that we should give priority, inter alia, to the economic development and the agricultural development within the national States. We must give very earnest attention to that. These countries must be a proud home for their citizens. Accordingly our plans in this regard are development oriented so that they can be utilized to the maximum advantage of the people of those States.

I also wish to say that when we intimated that we were prepared to have another look at the proposal of 1936, it was our point of departure, and that was how the hon. the Prime Minister put it—I think it was two to three years ago—that that was not to say that we were going to grant more land, but that we were going to reconsider the allocation of land on the basis of the question whether the consolidation of the national States was consonant with our striving for freedom and the striving for freedom of various Black peoples. That is important, and against that background we are prepared to re-examine this matter.

There is just one more remark I want to add. After that I should like to go on to other matters because I believe that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt will want to dwell on the matter in detail. His commission disposed very expeditiously and, in my opinion, very capably, of an enormous quantity of work, and has submitted its proposals to the Cabinet. The Cabinet in turn has referred them to a special committee. It goes without saying, of course, that these matters cannot be disposed of overnight. First the process of consultation is initiated and after the process of consultation, the matter has to be referred to the Government again, and the Government has then to submit the matter to this House. Accordingly it cannot be done right away.

I should now like to say a few words about the department which I have the privilege of helping to administer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred in passing to a matter which also affects the work of the commission. The angle from which he approached it and on which I want to base my remarks was the free movement of labour in the country. If that is one’s point of departure, then one immediately spotlights the question as to how the various posts in the administration of the country are to be manned. In announcing the rationalization plan for the Public Service, the hon. the Prime Minister in my opinion took a very important and positive step, and I think that the country acclaims and appreciates the fact that the question of effective State administration is being examined. We have made a start in this regard and have already reaped the first fruits. These guidelines for the administration of the State are based on the approach that the service requirements of the public are decisive, and the necessity to gear the State machinery to this approach. This means that one is geared to the maintenance of law and order. It means, too, the reorganization of the central authority functions in fewer departments. In this, too, we have succeeded and we are putting this into operation systematically. It also means the division of functions. It means the perusal of legislation which is outdated and needs to be repealed. We are carrying this out. Just in passing, hon. members are under the impression that the 800 Acts to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred all relate to the removal of discrimination. Those people have discrimination on the brain to such an extent that when there is talk of discrimination they assume without further ado that 800 Acts relate to that, whereas that is by no means the case. But Acts that are antiquated and Acts which, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, are unnecessarily discriminatory or prejudicial will be re-examined and eliminated.

We are also dealing with revision of the Public Service staff system with a view to ensuring the acquisition, retention, and more effective utilization of the available staff, the elimination of overlapping in the Public Service and better co-ordinated government action so that the public need not be sent from pillar to post, from this department to that, before getting something elementary done. We are looking into this and I think it is right that we should do so. Then, of course, we are also concerned with the conservation of scarce manpower.

I should also like to refer in particular to the rationalization measures relating to provincial administrations. I do this because we are dealing with this at the moment and because I think it is right that the country should take cognizance of it. At the beginning of December last year the hon. the Prime Minister issued a brief Press statement concerning the continuation of the rationalization programme. In that statement it is indicated that rationalization which had begun with the central executive bodies was now being extended to the public sector as a whole. That is what we are now engaged in. This is simply a logical and necessary step following the central organizing of the essential functions of the government.

Secondly, as far as further rationalization investigations are concerned, we shall look beyond the existing governmental level and structures, to functions as such. The aim will be to place every important governmental function, irrespective of where or by whom it is carried out, on a basis of maximum efficiency. I think that this task with which the commission is engaged is a sound and praiseworthy one. The stage has now been reached at which the provincial administrations in particular should be actively involved in the rationalization process. We must do this because there are certain functions that come within our ambit.

The necessary consultation between the provincial administrations and the Commission for Administration has already begun, and we are grateful for that. I can also say with gratitude that the reaction on the part of our provincial administrations in this connection is favourable, sympathetic and co-operative.

I should like to stress that the measures to bring about administrative renewal are being tackled systematically and objectively. No investigations are tackled with preconceived ideas as to how the governmental system ought necessarily to operate, and the point of view of every interested office-holder is obtained and duly taken into account.

Furthermore, due to the importance of effective arrangements with regard to top management in the execution of superior functions, attention has already been given, in the form of interim rationalization measures, to the administrative top structure of the provinces. At this point I take pleasure in announcing that on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration, the Government has approved specific adjustments. All four posts of provincial secretary have been upgraded with effect from 1 January 1981 to the level of director-general of the central Government departments. The occupants of these posts of provincial secretary will, as in the case of directors-general, bear full financial accountability for their areas of jurisdiction. Moreover, on the basis of careful work analysis and appreciation it has been decided to introduce differentiated grades for the top posts of provincial departments. The posts of director of education and hospital services of each of the provinces is with effect from 1 January 1981 being made equal to the post of deputy director-general of the central Government departments. The grading of other directorship posts remains unchanged. Suffice it to say that attention is being given to the filling of the upgraded posts in terms of the principles and procedures as contained in the Public Service Act of 1957. The Government is satisfied that as a result of the changes being made, a more rational grading pattern is being effected and that effective administration will be furthered thereby.

I now wish to refer to a matter about which a great deal has been written in the Press recently and concerning which people have asked questions, viz. the issue of the employment of non-Whites in the Public Service. I should like to make a few remarks in this connection. In the first place I want to say that there is already ample opportunity for non-Whites in the Public Service.

I wish to quote a few statistics to hon. members. Fully 48%—i.e. approximately 85 000 posts—of the total permanent establishment of the Public Service is specifically identified for the employment of non-Whites. One could virtually say that this amounts to job reservation for that group of people in our country. The Police and the Defence Force are not included here. In the second place, if the Public Services of the national States are included, the total provision of posts for non-Whites in the Public Service amounts to 191 000. That is a considerable number.

Apart from that, the departments and the provincial administrations employ large numbers of non-Whites, those who are not included in the permanent establishment of the Public Service. Therefore that makes the number even larger. A significant number of the identified posts are still vacant. I am referring to those posts which are specifically singled out for occupation by non-Whites. If there are capable non-Whites able to fill those posts, Whites are not considered for them. It is to those posts that I refer when I say that a significant number are still vacant. Therefore there is opportunity for further employment of non-Whites holding the required qualifications, viz. in posts specifically reserved for them. This is a positive image of the policy of employment of non-Whites, in the Public Service as well. In addition we should just bear in mind that if we continue to follow the policy of the rendering of service to their own people by members of a specific national group; even if we were only to implement that, even though hon. members did not agree with it—still more employment opportunities for qualified non-Whites would come into being. At the moment many Whites have to render services to non-Whites due to the shortage of qualified non-Whites eligible for those reserved posts.

Allow me just to quote a few additional statistics. I now refer to vacancies for Coloureds and Indians in certain departments. In the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions there are 3 411 posts, of which 1 296 are vacant. That is to say that 28% of the posts reserved for non-Whites—for Coloureds—are vacant. Then there are other posts which are occupied by Whites. As far as the Indians are concerned, there are 1 074 posts of which 272—approximately 25%— are vacant. These are posts for non-Whites which it was not possible to fill from their own ranks.

As regards Internal Affairs, the position is that for Coloureds there are 27 613 teaching posts of which 1 567 are vacant, whereas a further 1 632 posts are occupied by Whites because Coloureds are not available to fill them. What this amounts to is that 11,5% of the teaching posts for Coloureds are still waiting to be filled by them. For Indians there are 8 682 teaching posts, of which 1 047 are either vacant or occupied by Whites. This amounts to 12% of the total number of posts.

If people were to say that more non-Whites should be appointed, our reply would be that even for those posts which are vacant for them we do not have a sufficient number of non-Whites.

Do you not think that is an indictment of your training policy over the years? [Interjections.]

What I mean to say by this is that there are many opportunities for non-Whites in the Public Service, opportunities in posts specifically reserved for them. There is a great demand for qualified non-Whites in the Public Service. On the basis of service to their own communities there are still more opportunities for non-Whites in the Public Service.

I want to add to that that there are facets of the Public Service in which the promotion of people is closely bound up with the constitutional and political system. If one’s policy for the country is a PFP policy, a policy of an open community, of an absolutely free movement of labour, of power sharing, of social integration, of political integration or even of educational integration, then it goes without saying that one’s recipe is very simple. It is administrative integration. However, if one’s policy is the realistic policy for South Africa, namely that one takes the multinationalism in South Africa into account, if one’s policy is about the rights of self-determination for the separate peoples, if it is not merely a dead letter on paper, if it is not simply something that one propagates in so-called conservative constituencies for the sake of votes, but is consistent in the acceptance of the principle of the right of self-determination of communities, then one cannot advocate an open community, nor can one simply stand for administrative integration in this country. If one’s standpoint is one of division or separation of power, if one’s standpoint, like the 12-point plan announced by the Prime Minister, is based on the principles of the NP, namely individual community life, then it goes without saying that this will be reflected in one’s administration. If one has multinationalism or a plurality of peoples in a country and one forces them all together into the same social, educational, political and administrative pattern, then one creates problems. In a moment, if I have time, I shall indicate that the Leader of the Opposition is faced with that same reality, and that in his book he recognizes that that problem does exist. We for our part are not prepared to experiment with something which has not succeeded anywhere else under comparable circumstances. If we take this point further, we find that according to his view of an absolutely free market mechanism, the Leader of the Opposition wants to force us to make land available to everyone everywhere without reservation to enable them to purchase it. Separate development must be dismantled. Group areas are to be abolished, and absolutely free movement of labour must be permitted. I maintain that the hon. Leader has not thought carefully enough about the implications of this, because at various places in his book South Africa’s Options which he co-authored with Prof. Welsh, I think that he will have to qualify these statements of his very drastically, as indeed he does.

Sir, when I speak about the free market mechanism, I am not discussing a subject on which I am an authority, but I do think I can make a few remarks in this regard. From the point of view of an absolutely free market mechanism he now asks whether land is going to be made freely available to everyone. He asks whether separate development is to be dismantled, whether the group areas are to be abandoned and whether there is to be free movement of labour. Sir, one gains the impression that these people make of certain ideas an absolute obsession, an absolute obsession because certain concepts are the hallmark of liberalism, the hallmark of an open community, the hallmark of powersharing everywhere in the world. If one introduces that terminology here and recognizes the problems in South Africa, then one will get into a fix, as the Opposition have indeed done. Sir, we are in favour of the free market mechanism, but we have never advocated an unqualified free market system. We have never made an absolute of the free market system. We have never bowed unconditionally before economic laws. We know how difficult it is to bend an economic law ideologically. That we know ourselves. But, Sir, we have never yet made the unqualified statement that economic laws are the Alpha and the Omega, that they are the be-all and the end-all as regards all matters in the country, as if there were no such thing as moral laws, as if there were no such thing as cultural laws, social and political interests or other laws in a country. Any political policy for South Africa, or Southern Africa should not recognize the economic realities alone. It should also take into account the overall cultural, social, educational, political, administrative and religious realities within such a broad population, and not only take them into account; it must also be able to furnish a reply to the question: Who governs, and who protects the rights of these different communities?

After all, Sir, we do not have a homogeneous population in South Africa. Surely we know that. The Opposition, in fact all parties, recognize that in South Africa. Now, what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to say? On page 74 of his book he himself recognizes the following—

That is quite obvious. Then he goes on to say—

I believe that in Afrikaans that is a “lug-spieëling”—

By saying that, the Leader of the Opposition, and, I think, the Opposition too, recognize that one cannot simply wish away group identity. He goes on to say, on page 35—

That is a realistic view, and I am pleased to credit him with this realistic view, and it is this South Africa he refers to as “a deeply divided society”, and he states that people are engaged in a power struggle if one forces them into the same social and political system. Now let me read a little further— and perhaps his pen ran away with him here or perhaps his memory failed him. On page 133 he states—

Now hon. members must realize that if the Opposition’s political system is to work properly for it, viz. if its federal system, its consensus or its consociation is capable of working, one must not come and tamper, one must not come along with appeals to ethnicity, to nationhood and so on. That is the dilemma the Opposition is faced with. On the one hand it is struggling with the realities, and on the other it is advocating something which in fact is a negation of the realities in South Africa. It results in them blowing hot and cold. That is why even the Black leaders no longer regard the PFP as relevant and also why the White voters are less and less inclined to regard that party as relevant. It is transparent; it is an insult to any nationally aware and any politically aware nation in South Africa to tell it—

I think the Chief Minister of kwaZulu would say to him: “But surely you are being ridiculous.” My people and the people to whom the hon. Leader of the Opposition belongs will say of him: “What is wrong with him now?” Does he really want to tell me and tell South Africa, with this deeply divided community, as he himself recognizes, that it is reasonable to appeal to people’s ethnicity, and in the same breath say: “No, man, you must not appeal to it when it comes to the political sphere?” The facts of the matter and of the realities in South Africa are that there are claims here to self-determination. I know that this is a language which is used on both sides of the House. We all speak about self-determination. On page 113 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says—

We know that. But then he goes on to say—

He speaks about “cultural self-determination”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a student not only of sociology but also of politics, will realize that when one speaks about culture, about cultural self-determination, then he and all of us know that culture is not merely a debating society. Culture has to do with virtually all manners of expression of human life. Culture includes the politics of the individual and the politics of a community. When, therefore, he says: “We accept completely the right to cultural self-determination,” he really has no alternative but also to recognize per definition and as a logical consequence of his standpoint, political self-determination. In fact it goes without saying. That is the logic of his standpoint.

But now he says on page 151—

I read that page over and over just to make sure that I was reading the hon. author correctly, but I did not seem to be misunderstanding him. He states—

What page?

Page 151. Later he says “universal suffrage” and “majority rule” are not the same. But when he explains the difference between the two, I cannot quite understand what exactly he wants to say. To support this standpoint he says—

Sir, we are not opposed to franchise. We are not opposed to the vote for any Black nation or the Brown people or the Asians. We are not opposed to that. But according to this—I do not know whether this is an afterthought or whether there has been calmer consideration of the matter in the interim—it says here “a common voters’ roll”. Either this is repudiated in terms of practical, viable politics, or they secretly stand by it and it is stated on black and white that it is in fact true. Our standpoint is not one of a common voters’ roll. We create the opportunity for people to be able to vote, but we have separation of power. We have divisions between the various ethnic groups. We identify peoples, groups, language groups and others, and we are very much aware of the third reality in South Africa, and that is resistance to domination.

Mr. Speaker, given the Government’s limited acceptance of the free market mechanism, is it not a contradiction that a White licensee or a non-White liquor licensee should be permitted to sell liquor to any population group?

The point still remains the same. The difference is that one can make certain services available, but the final question is always—the question which we on this side of the House and also hon. members on the other side of the House have to thrash out—the crux in the politics of South Africa—is: who controls, who governs, who has the final say? It relates to that situation in which a specific service is made available, where certain facilities are made available, where one says that people can use a certain facility. The final question is always: Who is in control there? But ultimately, if one has a conflict of interests, there has to be a body which can say with authority: This is the position. This right is being given effect to here.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that can be said for the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics is that he maintains a consistency and does not easily change his spots. I cannot say that he is always logical in his arguments, but certainly he has shown once again this afternoon a number of examples of his adherence to the rigid ideology which obviously dictates his political thinking. Some of the illogicalities can be dealt with at a later stage in this debate, but one point is that the hon. the Minister criticised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for saying that ethnic and/or racial differences should minimized in South Africa. He found in this a point of criticism. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is not this what we are supposed to be doing in regard to White South Africa? Are both sides of this House committed to trying to minimize racial differences between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country? Time and again one hears claims from that side of the House that they believe that these differences should be minimized and that they believe that we should look for unity between the two White groups. Is that then a subject for criticism? Why then should he criticize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for saying that the ethnic and racial differences as between Black and White should be minimized as far as possible in South Africa? Surely if we are looking to the interests of South Africa, to its 25 million people, we should be looking in every possible way for areas in which differences between people can be minimized, instead of which it is the policy of this Government to accentuate those differences and to make the people constantly aware of the differences which exist. I believe in that sort of approach to which the hon. the Minister is so deeply and obviously sincerely committed, lie many problems and a great deal of trouble for South Africa.

I was interested in the hon. the Minister’s lyrical praise of the homelands policy in the earlier part of his speech. He said that he believed that the homelands should become the “trotse tuiste” for people. They should not be lightly created, but great care should be taken when we are deciding on the boundaries of the homeland areas. He also said that he believed that in doing that in terms of the policy of consolidation and according to the policy of selecting the boundaries of these areas, there would have to be due regard for what he termed the “vryheidstrewe” of the Whites and the “vryheidstrewe” of the Blacks, which would have to be taken into account. However, what he did not tell us was what would happen if a conflict should arise between those two “vryheidstrewes”, between the Whites and the Blacks. This is very much the danger that is inherent in the whole consolidation homelands concept, because when one is dealing with matters of this kind the chances of a conflict are very high indeed. This is one of the reasons why one views with a great deal of alarm some of the things the Government is doing in this sphere.

I now want to comment on some of the remarks made in this debate during the past three days. It is evident from Government speeches—and certainly from the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement of an early general election before any legislative reforms have been brought about—that the Government is involved in a game of playing for time when there is very little time indeed for South Africa to have meaningful changes brought about.

Let us look at Government speakers in this debate relating to South Africa’s position vis-à-vis the rest of the civilized world. They seem to fall into two camps. There is that section that seems to say there is a total onslaught against South Africa, that we are on our own and that we have to stand on our own, and another section that claims the international situation has improved and South Africa finds itself in a much better position. They must make up their minds. There have been speakers who have indicated—or have said that they believe—that the international climate is better for South Africa at the present time, and their view would seem to be that if given time, either the rest of the world would come round to seeing that separate development is right in South Africa, or perhaps the rest of the world would become so involved with other international priorities that it would simply ignore what is taking place in the Southern African region. If this is their diagnosis, it is a very wrong diagnosis indeed. Certainly the forbearance of the West has, I believe, been stretched further in regard to South Africa, in the hope that there will be meaningful change in this country. Certainly political changes in the United States and the United Kingdom may herald a different and less abrasive approach to the problems of South Africa, but in the end result, what our friends and potential friends will look for is meaningful change in the social and political fabric of our society. That is where I believe, on the strength of Government speeches in this debate, that we fall hopelessly short.

Hear, hear!

I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister credit for buying some time for us. There is no doubt that as a result of his utterances, and those of some members of his Cabinet, the belief has been created that South Africa is on the verge of change, that race discrimination is being thrown out of the window and that equal opportunities for all in South Africa are just around the comer. That is the expectation that has been created, but time is not on our side. Externally and internally high expectations have been created, and people are now waiting for the hon. the Prime Minister to deliver the goods.

Like other hon. members of this House I spent some time during the parliamentary recess outside South Africa. I spent two months or more in Europe and North America. I spoke to politicians, businessmen and other people, and I must tell the House that I did not find any evidence of the so-called total onslaught against South Africa. [Interjections.] Nowhere did I find evidence that people considered that the Whites in South Africa were expendable or that they should submit to Black majority rule. Instead, in some of the foremost democracies in the world, I have found a high degree of understanding of our situation and our problems, and a sympathy for the enormity of those problems, plus the fervent, desperate hope and expectation that in view of the hon. the Prime Minister’s so-called new approach we are on the verge of changing direction towards a situation that would give us some credibility in the Free World. Having said that, however, let me add that nowhere could I find any sympathy or support for policies that entrench statutory discrimination in South Africa or policies that suggest that separation, and the discrimination which that itself implies, can be a viable solution to the race issue in this country. One cannot talk to people outside South Africa, be they of right-wing or left-wing persuasions, about laws such as the Population Registration Act, legislation relating to separate amenities, the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and others, and expect South Africa to have any credibility or expect South Africa to be regarded as anything but a racist society.

This brings me back to the hon. the Prime Minister. The world—or at least those who are interested in South Africa—has waited for him to move. People have noted the speeches he has been making, calling for changes, and their expectation that these views would soon be translated into real reform of our race laws has been high. There were great expectations that during the last session of Parliament there would be a legislative programme which would give effect to some of these changes, but that did not eventuate. Again speeches were made during the past recess, by the hon. the Prime Minister and others, about a legislative programme during this session of Parliament, a programme involving changes in existing laws. This bought more time, and the hope was once again that we would see a constructive session devoted to these changes, but instead, what has happened? The hon. the Prime Minister came to this House yesterday, curtailed the session and announced a general election. I want to say that what South Africa needs at this time is not an election campaign but a legislative programme of reform in order to reduce racial tension internally and show the rest of the world our earnestness in seeking peaceful change. What was needed was not a general election announcement but a constructive session of Parliament in which apartheid would be dismantled and the real issues in this country would be dealt with in order to show proof of the Government’s so-called commitment to change. Instead of that, however, we had a general election announcement and, if I may say so, an announcement in the worst possible terms and in the most ominous possible terms. The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that the option for South Africa was either the policy of the NP or the Marxist policies.

This, I believe, was a highly irresponsible statement and if this is to be the platform on which the election is to be fought by the NP, I believe it can do untold harm to South Africa. Can you imagine what kind of impact this sort of attitude will have on Blacks who reject the policy of separate development or apartheid and all that it entails for them? Does this mean that the people of South Africa, White and Black alike, who reject the NP and its policy are now automatically going to be labelled Marxist sympathizers? What else can the hon. the Prime Minister’s limited option mean? The hon. the Prime Minister knows full well that the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa of all race groups are opposed to Marxist ideology, and it is arrogance of the worst kind to suggest that the only alternative to that ideology is the confused and divisive policy of the NP. I fear that, because of the barrenness of the hon. the Prime Minister’s record, because of his failure to translate words into deeds, we are going to be involved in a “red peril” election campaign which can only have the result of doing tremendous damage to South Africa. We will be treated to more and more to talk about total onslaught, about total strategy, and the Government will be more and more intent upon building up a siege mentality which they are already creating for South Africa in their attempts to play politics of the worst kind in order to force and cajole people into the White laager.

What, in fact, is the record on which this Government will fight the election? It is a record of words, not of deeds. It is a record of fine sounding phrases, of talk of constellations and of twelve-point plans, but otherwise it is a record of total uncertainty and total confusion. Before this session started we were told—we had reference to it again this afternoon with a certain amount of backtracking on the issue—of hundreds of bills in the pipeline which would bring about profound changes in our society, but no one knows what those changes are going to be and no one will know what those changes are going to be until after the election. That ever-optimistic and ever-confused hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development is a classic example of what I am now saying. With a great fanfare of trumpets he announced three bills last year which were going to give effect to changes recommended by the Riekert Commission, bills which were going to bring joy into the lives of urban Blacks in South Africa. When those bills were published, however, they were seen to do nothing of the sort and they were roundly rejected by all concerned. Then the hon. the Minister sought to wriggle out of his totally untenable situation the other day during this debate by saying that those bills had really only been published in order to elicit comment and that, in fact, hundreds of amendments were now being considered. I want to know what those amendments are. What shape will these important bills take in their final form? Surely, the country is entitled to know this sort of thing before a general election. Surely we are entitled to know what these amendments are. Is the Government going to make meaningful changes to the pass laws and influx control which affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of South Africans and, if so, why is it afraid to come clean on the matter before an election? Why the secrecy, or is there simply total confusion in the minds of the hon. the Minister and the people who draft these laws? If these bills are so important and we are to have a general election in a few months’ time, surely the country is entitled to know what the Government has in mind in these important areas.

The same reluctance and the same unwillingness to come clean applies to the Government’s consolidation plans which are the cause of so much uncertainty and unsettlement throughout the country at the present time. The hon. the Prime Minister referred yesterday to the question of consolidation and the Van der Walt Commission and told us that the commission’s findings would not be made known until he was ready. He then again used his new-found magic formula, telling us that consolidation was a part of the only alternative to Marxism. This is going to be the tactic. It may go down if, talking to the extreme right-wingers in South Africa, he says: “Either you accept consolidation or there will be Marxism,” but that is just not good enough. The hon. the Prime Minister must know that the operation of the Van der Walt Commission has already caused enormous uncertainty and confusion throughout the country. He must know, too, that there is widespread fear that many of the public hearings of the commission are being regarded as a farce because the commission has in many instances already made up its mind on what its findings will be. That fear exists, and with some justification.

That is not true.

The Prime Minister is again going to the country with a blank cheque on the whole question of consolidation. The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is not true. He can comment on a few other remarks I am going to make in a few minutes.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke yesterday of the priority that would be given to implementing the consolidation proposals of 1975. I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House but other hon. members may be able to say why the hon. the Prime Minister did not tell us about the cost of implementing the consolidation proposals of 1975. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not tell us what the Van der Walt Commission’s own estimates of those costs are, estimates of which the Prime Minister has full knowledge? Why did he not tell us that the estimated cost at 1979 prices for giving effect to these proposals, excluding the removal of Black spots, was R519,6 million and that a like amount would be necessary for the resettlement and removal of people in the areas concerned? In other words, over R1 000 million is required for this aspect of consolidation alone. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us that on the eve of an election?

Then, why did the hon. the Prime Minister not tell us that as far back as June last year the commission, in an agreement with the Ciskeian Government, recommended that King William’s Town should be part of Ciskei as part of the deal for Ciskeian independence? That was accepted.

Where did you get that from?

I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is curious. The fact of the matter is that this matter was considered by the regional committee dealing with Ciskei way back in April last year. The Ciskeian Government said they wanted King William’s Town. This was agreed to and those recommendations were then put forward by the central committee in June last year.

Where do you get that information from?

Never mind where I got it from, am I right or am I not right? Is it true or is it not true? I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny it.

It is not true.

In June last year the commission, in an agreement with the Ciskeian Government and also on the recommendations of the regional committee, accepted that King William’s Town be included in Ciskei. Why were we not told of that by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday when he announced there was to be a general election?

He is selling out the White man.

These are some of the things the country is entitled to know. The country should also know in general terms that the whole contentious consolidation issue is merely another part of the price South Africa is paying for NP ideologies. Despite that, the Government persists with this grandiose scheme of consolidation involving uncertainty for all concerned, enormous cost to the country and the removal and the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of people. Our attitude on the question of consolidation is perfectly clear. We, in the PFP, are opposed to the fragmentation of the Republic into a number of independent states. We are opposed to the purchase of land to effect consolidation for the sake of consolidation; the more so if such consolidation is undertaken with a view to independence. We are also opposed to the mass removal of people and the dislocation of communities in order to effect consolidation or to remove so-called Black spots, unless such removal takes place at the request of the community concerned. We believe that it is essential that more land should be made available for Black utilization and occupation and we accept that the present land apportionment is totally inequitable. As a first step we would advocate the immediate full implementation of the 1936 legislation and we would also advocate the removal of all the present statutory restrictions which prohibit Blacks from acquiring land outside the homeland areas. We accept that all agricultural land, in the hands of whomever it may be, must be productively utilized in order to provide for the basic needs of the people. We also advocate that there should be proper training, Co-operation and assistance to enable Blacks, as well as Whites, to use such land as is available or is made available to them as productively as possible.

These are sensible attitudes which deal with the realities of the South African situation and they are in sharp contrast to the attitude of the Government and its slavish commitment to impractical ideologies. We believe that the Government has failed hopelessly to remove confusion in the area of land consolidation, as in so many other areas, and consequently the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a motion which deserves to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, later on I shall express a few ideas about the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave.

On this occasion, I shall probably be granted the opportunity of expressing a word of thanks towards my former constituency for the time that I was able to serve as MP for Schweizer-Reineke. It is a neat constituency. I am leaving it in a neat condition and a neat fellow is going to succeed me. I have no doubt that the NP will win that constituency once again. This is more than hon. members of the Opposition can say about their constituencies. [Interjections.]

Later on I shall react to the speech by the hon. member for East London North. Now I first want to dwell for a moment on the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave. In his speech he said how confused everything allegedly was. He alleges that the Government made promises about which they are doing nothing. He also alleges that the Government should have done certain things, but that they did not. He goes on to allege that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is not making any progress. The hon. member for Durban Point said that an election is now going to be held as a result of the split in the NP. If all this was true, then the hon. members of the Opposition should be cheering, because what better conditions could they want for fighting an election? Why then is the Opposition complaining about the election if everything is supposed to be so confused? Surely they now have something to take advantage of. But now they complain that the hon. the Prime Minister was so kind as to offer them the opportunity of fighting an election in circumstances of which they can take advantage. Their attitude is beyond me. In recent times I have had a great deal to do with Black politicians . . .

And they are not so stupid. [Interjections.]

They are not so stupid at all. They understand much more about politics than hon. members of the Opposition do.

In the first place I want to say a few words about King William’s Town and then about consolidation in general. I want to tell the hon. member for East London North that I am sorry that he took the opportunity of looking for a new seat today. It is very clear that the hon. member is also aiming at standing in King William’s Town during the election. I want to put it on record that the two Opposition parties only came to life as far as consolidation and the consolidation of the Ciskei is concerned, after the HNP had infected them. I should like to say—and if I may not say it, I shall withdraw it—that they were such a bunch of sluggards that they first waited until the HNP got going, and I can prove this. The hon. member for East London North will not be prepared to deny it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “a bunch of sluggards”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. However, they were so inactive that they were already beginning to smell like death. [Interjections.] Together with the HNP, those hon. members tried to turn King William’s Town into a political football. I really find this tragic. King William’s Town was never meant to become a political football. The hon. member for East London North himself said that these Black States must be developed economically. That is his own statement. In terms of the PFP policy, what it amounts to is that the Black people may stay there as far as they are concerned. Of course, this is in accordance with their old, so-called liberal ideas with regard to reserves as living areas for those people. However, what are those people to do there? The PFP’s standpoint with regard to these Black States is that they want them in the Black States, but that the Black States must be mere labour reservoirs. Nothing else is to happen there. If they would give some realistic thought to their policy, both the PFP and the NRP would realize in time that the consolidation and the development of these Black territories is just as essential for the implementation of their policies as it is for the implementation of the policy of the NP. This is a fact. No one can argue it away.

Now allow me to deal with the whole question of consultation, about which such a great fuss is made when King William’s Town is discussed. Of course, I do not hold it against the hon. member for East London North for saying that the commission worked on the report for rather a long time. To me, it is simply a sign of his stupidity concerning the extent of the work that the commission had to do. If he had known what a large quantity of work the commission had done, he would have cheered about the fact that the report is already available. Let us now take a look at what happened.

The hon. the Prime Minister announced here in the House that consolidation is going to be looked at once again. The hon. the Prime Minister laid down guide-lines. The number of members of the commission was increased from four to six. A Central Consolidation Committee was appointed, consisting of 35 members. Apart from the Central Consolidation Committee, six subcommittees were appointed, which are in fact specialist groups. A regional committee was also appointed, which investigated each region separately. There was feedback from the specialist committees to the regional committees, who in their turn investigated local affairs.

How many years ago?

The regional committees were represented there. Not only was the commission represented there in the person of the chairman; all interest groups were represented there . . .

Except for the city council of King William’s Town.

Mr. Speaker, that simply proves yet again the ignorance of the hon. member for East London North. It seems to me that the few months that he was absent from the House of Assembly, have really affected him. [Interjections.] Every organization was represented on those regional committees. It is not my fault or the fault of the Government if local authorities in the Cape did not elect people from King William’s Town to the regional committee, but other people who were also involved with local authorities. It is not my fault. Nor is it the fault of the hon. the Prime Minister. In the same way, people are now complaining because someone else, someone from a different territory, is being appointed to that regional committee as agricultural representative. It is not my fault or that of a Minister when the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union decides that they are appointing this man or that one. We have no say in it. We invited the organizations to select the people.

After that it was generally made known— in the Press, in all the media and wherever it was possible to announce it—that people who felt that they were affected or could possibly be affected by consolidation, could give evidence and submit memoranda to the Greeff Committee, as we referred to it. The hon. member for Aliwal was the chairman of that committee.

Now there is something that I want to put right here today, something which is always being thrown up in our faces. Only after the regional committee had completed its work, did the city council of King William’s Town produce their memorandum. They came forward far too late, after the deadline had expired. Now who is to be blamed? I am being blamed now and the commission is being blamed. The city council of King William’s Town must take the blame itself, because I find it very strange that the city councils of Beaufort West, Stutterheim, Queenstown, East London and other places reacted. Only the city council of King William’s Town did not react—and the NP is not in control of the city council of King William’s Town.

Do you know why they did not? Because they were promised they would never go Black.

Mr. Speaker, if we had listened to all the promises the United Party made in its day, we would really have been in a terrible position today. Sir, I do not want to quarrel with the city council of King William’s Town about the matter today, because we are now making good progress. When we were there during October and November, we were given a definite “no”. However, we were there again the other day, and we shall be in the Ciskei once again next week. Then we are going to Queenstown. Therefore, the hon. member does not have to make such a fuss about Hogsback and the Watertown dam. We have all that information. In fact, that information which the hon. member gave us, was obtained from the memoranda of the various organizations. Surely this is true. We are going there again, Sir, and we are going to look at it. We are not there simply to share out South Africa right and left. That is not at issue. However, if we want to be honest with the people of King William’s Town, we shall have to tell them what the situation is. We shall have to tell those people: Think of what is going to happen when the Ciskei becomes independent, when the capital develops where it is envisaged that it will develop. Think too of the fact that 92% of all the money earned in King William’s Town, is earned from the wages of Black people who spend their money there. All the people who live off the fat of King William’s Town, live off the money which Black people, Ciskeians, spend in King William’s Town. One must think of these things.

Now the hon. members say that we went about things in the wrong way because we did not consult with the people first. Sir, the regional committee consisted of the people that I mentioned, together with representatives of the Ciskeian Government. The regional committee on the Ciskei produced a unanimous report. Agriculture, commerce and industry, local authorities and the whole lot of them agreed, with the exception of one man.

Two!

Well, the other fellow is dead, and that is why I say with the exception of one man. If the hon. member has seen that regional committee’s report, then he must rise to his feet here and tell us where he found it, because he should not have seen it. He must rise to his feet in the House and say where he got hold of that report, which is a secret document. Did he perhaps get it from his blood brothers, the HNP? [Interjections.] Sir, since the report of the regional committee was practically unanimous—I call it unanimous—the commission accepted it. After that, the commission went to the Cabinet and said: This is what the situation is. Then at a certain stage the Cabinet gave permission for the proposals to be made public. After that one goes along and tests public opinion, as we undertook to do. After all, one cannot test public opinion before one has a plan. If one does not have a plan, what is one going to ask public opinion? They held a referendum in King William’s Town, and what was it about? “Yes” or “no”. After all, one cannot test something if one does not have a plan. Of course, this does not apply to the official Opposition. They test everything without a plan. It is not difficult for them. They understand it. I do not know how they manage it, but they test everything without a plan. The allegation was made that we gave King William’s Town away to the Ciskei before the Government had seen the plans, or before the plans had been made known. I want to state categorically that the package agreement between the Ciskei and the Government of the Republic did not include the fact that King William’s Town should become part of the Ciskei. I state this categorically: It does not include that, because so far, the Cabinet has not yet decided that King William’s Town is going to form part of the Ciskei. No Cabinet decision has yet been taken in this regard. The Cabinet has not yet decided that a single morgen of land is going to be added to the Ciskei.

Because the hon. members did not know what was happening there, they fell like political vultures upon the stories that the HNP was spreading there, and these are what they are using here in the House today. But they are doing even worse than the HNP. The HNP is not so audacious as to try to say that here in the House, because they know they cannot do so; they simply say it in their gossipmongering little newspaper.

However, these stories are devoid of all truth. One agreement was made with the Ciskei with regard to consolidation. Dr. Sebe asked for the 1975 consolidation proposals to be concluded before the end of 1981. We said that this could not be done but that we would try our best to conclude them before the end of 1982, because approximately R80 million is involved there.

Whilst on the subject of the 1975 proposals, I want to say at once that hon. members must be very careful when they criticize us in this regard. The 1975 proposals envisage nothing but handing over the quota land laid down in the 1936 Act. It does nothing more than that, nothing at all. Let me also remind hon. members that it was not the NP who made that Act in 1936. That Act was produced by a coalition Government, a coalition Government that represented more than 70% of the voters of South Africa. Therefore, for all practical purposes we can say that the White man of South Africa made that promise in 1936. I am one of those who do not hesitate to admit that I am ashamed that we have not yet implemented the provisions of the 1936 Act. I admit it, but it is not the fault of the NP alone that we have not yet done this. What did the United Party do from 1936 to 1950 regarding the 1936 legislation? What did they do? [Interjections.] It was only when the NP came into power that the necessary funds were voted.

Let me now put this question to the hon. members of the Opposition: If I were to rise to my feet during the additional appropriation debate and ask the Minister of Finance to give us R1 000 million so that we would conclude the 1975 proposals within two years, would they support me? Zip! There they sit! It is true what the hon. member for Musgrave said, although his calculations were not completely correct, that it would cost another R519 million and yet another R500 million to carry out resettlement. However, I can tell him that that figure is still going to rise. In the period between May and December 1980, the price of land in South Africa increased by 42%. Therefore, we must accept that that figure is going to be much higher than the one which the hon. member for Musgrave mentioned.

The commission is once again giving attention to King William’s Town. Interesting proposals were made. Now that the community has been motivated to look at their position themselves, we are receiving in teresting proposals with regard to King William’s Town. We are also receiving interesting proposals in connection with the Hogsback/Watertown dam area. Mr. Speaker, you yourself as the member for Queenstown, also submitted representations to the commission in regard to this matter.

If we cannot do the one thing, we must see what else we can do, because we must not only stimulate economic development in the Ciskei, but we must really create space in some territories there. The hon. member knows what I am talking about. We promised to give land to the Ciskeians who left Herschel and moved to the Ciskei when the Transkei became independent. We shall have to honour that promise. We cannot do anything else. We shall have to do that.

Just a few* words in connection with consolidation in general: I think the time is past in South Africa to speak about consolidation in terms of merely drawing lines and borders. It is no longer possible. Geographic consolidation in South Africa is definitely not possible. If we wanted to carry out consolidation on a geographic basis, then we could possibly have succeeded 40 years ago, but today it is no longer possible. If we think of geographic consolidation today, we must think of 3 million ha plus predominantly agricultural land which will have to be added to the national and/or independent States, most probably at a cost, taking escalation into account, because we shall not be able to do so in one year, of R6 000 million over a period of ten years. Once one has done all this, one has not increased the economic potential of the independent and national States by a half of a per cent. Therefore, the addition of land as such is not the answer.

We covered a very wide area in the report. A matter like population growth is something tremendous, and this applies to any party in power in this country. It is a social problem that we shall have to deal with. Without offending the Department of Statistics, I want to say today that we do not know how many Black people there are in South Africa. There are many more Black people than our statistics reflect and the commission will prove it. Our finding is that the Black population of South Africa will double itself within 26 years; in other words, within 50 years from now we will have almost 84 million Black people, based on the figures of the Department of Statistics. These are not our figures; we are now working with the official figures. However, it is going to be much higher. Then we are going to have a White population that has increased from 4 million to 7 million. It becomes quite clear that any political party that governs this country, must take cognizance of this fact. Only 14% of all the Black people entering the labour market in these national States, find employment in the Black States. The rest must flow over or are basically unemployed. [Interjections.]

I agree whole-heartedly with hon. members, and they must not try to take all the credit. We have put a lot of hard work into these things. We have already told the Government that land alone is not the answer. Economic development is the answer, and economic development that is not necessarily based on the policy of separate development, because one fact is as plain as pikestaff and that is that there cannot be nine or ten economies in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] The Cabinet has admitted it and the NP has admitted it. It is not as big a thing as those hon. members are trying to make out.

The fact is that economic development, based on an economic basis, means that decentralization of economic activities takes place throughout South Africa, disregarding the borders between States. This applies to Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, South West Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia. We shall have to obtain the funds for this.

Hon. members said that the hon. the Prime Minister did not take important initiatives. The commission spoke to the financial powers of the country. We asked the people why they did not invest in the national States. One reply was: Man, I am a little worried about the economic policy of the national States. When we come to the constellation of States, which basically is a purely economic concept, we can start overcoming the problems. Then the participating parties in a constellation of States can follow a similar economic policy which will create confidence in the economy of Southern Africa. After all, we have examples in the world of where serious problems existed, for instance Europe which became an underdeveloped territory after the last world war as a result of the war. Ultimately the EEC was established which was the one single factor that ensured that the economy of Europe and the participating States is what it is today. An example of such a State is West Germany, which holds one of the top four positions in the world economy today. We must bear in mind—and the commission pointed out this matter—that it is essential for South Africa to realize that the minerals of this country, whether they are found in the Black States or in the RSA, are a very strategic weapon for South Africa. We shall have to come to an agreement with one another in the constellation of states with regard to this matter. We may have control over the minerals in the sense of infrastructures and transport that is provided, etc., but many of the minerals are not owned by South Africans. They are owned by people from outside South Africa, and it is necessary for us to take a look at this.

The development bank must receive urgent attention in order to stimulate the process of development within the national States. Regional-economic development is of cardinal importance. Let us take a practical example. We may say that we are going to undertake development, for example to build a large city in the Bronkhorstspruit or Witbank area in order to bring about industrial growth along the industrial axis which joins the Rand to Nelspruit. However, one is faced with certain territories—it does not matter whether they are national States or reserves—like Venda and Gazankulu, where there is no strong economic development in the immediate area, and if there is no drawing power for economic development in an area, we shall have to see to it that economic development does in fact occur in that area, not on the basis of anything but the importance to White and Black in South Africa that economic activities are decentralized, for the sake of living space, for the sake of order and for the sake of social problems that may otherwise arise. I could mention other facets with which the commission dealt in its report, but one important thing I must say at once: I have no objection to the fact that the Cabinet does not want to publish the report now. In all modesty, I believe that what is contained in the report is very important for South Africa, but what is even more important with regard to the whole matter, is how the contents of the report are going to be dealt with, and that is why I think the Cabinet is right in having a modus operandi with regard to how they are going to deal with this report.

In conclusion I should just like to say thank you to all those who co-operated with the commission, central consolidation committees and regional committees. There were about 230 people, academics and farmers. Unfortunately, I cannot thank one of the Opposition members because they never co-operated. I want to thank all those people very much for the co-operation that we received. I can assure the Opposition and other hon. members that what is contained in the report, is meant to be to the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I never believed it possible that I would find myself following up a speech by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and actually congratulating him on some of the sentiments and viewpoints he expressed in his speech. I think that possibly I am going to be one of the very few to do so because looking at some of the faces of those opposite me while he was speaking I certainly did not see any happiness there. The hon. member was actually, at long last, stating a factual situation, and it is absolutely wonderful for us to hear an NP member suddenly realizing the economic facts of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Just do not kiss me.

One need only say that the population figures and economic facts he quoted are the epitaph of separate development. They spell the end of any sort of separate development. He said himself that you cannot develop South Africa’s economy as 11 separate entities; it is one economy. And he is so right. We have been saying this for years. I can only say that it is with much regret that we say it has taken us so long to get to that stage where it has finally sunk through to certain hon. members on that side of the House that South Africa is one country, that one cannot develop all these different economies and that the homelands are not viable. It was encouraging. I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister from the Waterberg agrees as well. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt did make one most interesting statement. He said that one cannot test public opinion unless one has a plan. He was referring to the King William’s Town situation. I, with other members of my party, would love to hear what the hon. member for King William’s Town himself has to say about this situation, but I am pretty sure that he will not be given the opportunity to say it. Of course, there was a somewhat strange situation where we had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, who has since left the House, saying, in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave, that no report had been submitted in which it was suggested that King William’s Town should be incorporated into the Ciskei. Then we heard a different story from the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt during his speech. We know, of course, that that recommendation was made last year. A plan was made but we have not been given the opportunity to see that plan. The voters of South Africa are not being given the opportunity to see that plan and I can place my head on a block that they will not be given that opportunity before the election because it might well prove embarrassing to the Government.

I have explained the matter. Why are you complaining?

I am not complaining at all. All that I am saying, is that it is really quite right to say—and the hon. member should again be congratulated—that one cannot test public opinion without a plan, and we are going into an election period without a plan. [Interjections.] One of the most extraordinary aspects of this general election that has been called by the hon. the Prime Minister, is its timing. All of us are aware that expectations have been aroused, that promises have been made, and this was to have been the session when we delivered, during which those expectations were going to be realized. The hon. the Prime Minister was going to deliver the goods in this session but, unfortunately, faced with the cold reality which would have caused strife and rebellion within his own party, the hon. the Prime Minister has funked it. The prospect of facing up to actually doing something to meet these expectations that he has aroused without five years of security in front of him, has obviously daunted him. We are going into an election and all that we have so far is words and no action. What is going to happen to all the discriminatory legislation? We have discussed this. There has been an argument as to whether there are 800 statutes that are going to be withdrawn from the Statute Book of South Africa. I am not interested in how many there are; I should like to know exactly what he is going to do, what he is going to take off the Statute Book. What Acts are going to disappear? I should like to know whether we are going to hear this before the election. Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to indicate in detail what he is going to do, what concrete action he is going to take to carry out his promise to remove discrimination? We can go further. With three draft bills submitted by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, which, as they stand, are such a monumental let-down, are we going to get a sight of the new versions of these bills before the election, before South Africa goes to the polls, or are we going to have to be content with vague and pleasant-sounding generalities with regard to getting rid of discrimination and making Black people as free as White people? These are generalities, not facts. One would have thought that, with a general election in the offing, the hon. the Prime Minister would have given his Cabinet the opportunity of spelling out in detail exact steps which are ostensibly part of the programme of enlightened government because, with all the words he has used, this hon. Prime Minister has somehow projected an image of being somewhat more enlightened than his predecessors. We have to ask ourselves the question, however, whether he is more enlightened. After some of the speeches made by members of his Cabinet during this debate, one begins to doubt it. Following his speech yesterday, one begins to doubt it and it is quite clear that the soft pedal is being used on any reform. South Africa still has to discover just how enlightened the hon. the Prime Minister really is, whether his “verligte” image can be justified and whether he is capable of introducing the urgent reform that he has spoken about. There is no doubt in my mind that this election is merely a delaying tactic. The tragedy of having an election at this time is that we are wasting time, time South Africa can ill afford. Also, there is no doubt at all that this election and the accompanying delay are going to disappoint many of our friends inside South Africa, in Africa and overseas. They are going to be very disappointed that the hon. the Prime Minister is dragging his heels and is now able to find an excuse for postponing any action. It is inevitable that they are going to worry about whether he has had second thoughts. I must say that, on listening to the debate on this motion, many of us must be wondering whether the hon. the Prime Minister has had second thoughts.

We have seen the President’s Council come into being and heard it heralded as a major instrument for constitutional reform, but we are going to be fighting a general election before it has had time to come up with any recommendations at all. If, on the other hand, Parliament had run its full term, at least the President’s Council would have had well over a year to come up with some recommendations. The country could then, when it casts its vote, have given consideration to the recommendations from the President’s Council. It is quite apparent that the hon. the Prime Minister does not want to be pinned down at this stage. He is playing the old game of trying to be all things to all men. He puts on his verkrampte face before the conservatives and looks as liberal as possible before those who believe that reform is necessary.

Your leader praised him for two hours.

Inevitably people who try to do this, to have their cake and eat it, finally end up with the trust and support of neither side.

One can perhaps understand some of the reasons which must have moved the hon. the Prime Minister to call this early election. Rampant inflation threatens to get worse and the Government appear to be completely incapable of doing anything about it at all. They seem to have given up the fight and to have accepted double-figure inflation as being inevitable. He would obviously like to get an election behind him when he knows the inflation figure is going to get worse.

South Africa has been a remarkably lucky country in recent years with the escalating gold price and the prices of many other minerals escalating sharply.

It is thanks to good government.

This has, of course, brought prosperity, and should have increased the prosperity of all South Africans. Unfortunately uncontrolled inflation has removed the benefit of this gold and mineral bonanza and many South Africans have been faced with a severe drop in living standards—this at a time when we should have been on the crest of a wave of prosperity.

A study of the rise in food prices over the last few years, but more particularly over the last few months, shows a horrifying picture. South Africa as a major food-producing country is no longer able to supply its people with food at a reasonable cost. Food prices rose by nearly 30% last year and they look all set to do exactly the same thing this year. Admittedly wages and salaries have also increased, but certainly not enough to cover this escalation in prices. Having heard the former Minister of Agriculture on numerous occasions telling us how well-off we were in South Africa and how much cheaper things were here, I found it interesting, when I was in London with some of my colleagues from that side of the House, to discover that we in South Africa have to pay more for meat at the moment than the people in Britain do.

That is not true.

It is absolutely true. I saw it with my own eyes. If the hon. the Minister wants chapter and verse, I suggest he talk to his colleagues who were with me when we looked at those meat prices. In all this the hardest hit are the poor, the pensioners and people on fixed incomes. How it is that many of them survive I just do not know. Many of them are leading lives of absolute desperation. They just cannot afford to live. What are the Government doing in these circumstances? They allow incompetent State-supported marketing systems to continue to operate, vide the meat marketing system. They allow “fat cat” monopolies to rake in unreasonable profits. They just do not care about the man in the street. They do not care about the housewife, they do not care about the poor and they do not care about the pensioners. Perhaps I am doing them an injustice. Perhaps they do care. Perhaps I am being unfair.

Are you taking the opportunity of appearing before the commission?

If they do care, all I can say is that they are grossly incompetent and unable to do anything to slow down the spiral of rising prices. Over the years we in the PFP have urged them to take action to curb monopolies, to introduce better marketing methods and to do something about farmers’ input costs, but to no avail. Now South Africa is paying the price. One can look at the monopolies that are allowed to exist in spite of our anti-monopolies legislation which so far has been completely ineffective. What about fertilizers? There is no doubt at all that farmers should not be paying the inflated prices laid down by the fertilizer monopoly.

This, of course, has an important effect on all foodstuffs. What about meat? Repeated pleas that the monopolies in the meat industry should be dealt with have been ignored, and look at the result. Did we not warn hon. members on the other side of the House that this was going to happen? Have I not stood up time and time again and said that this was going to happen? It has happened and still paralysis sets in and nothing is done. No wonder the former hon. Minister of Agriculture has climbed on the gravy train by selling his dairy cattle and buying beef.

Let us look at another monopoly and consider the high price of bricks which has resulted from a monopoly-induced shortage, a shortage which is costing us dear in a tremendously important building programme. Why is a monopoly like this allowed to continue when the results are so obvious to all? Every home owner now has to pay more than is necessary and rentals have shot sky high because of the increased building costs. There is no necessity at all for escalations to be quite so drastic and yet the Government does nothing.

What about the liquor industry which was mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton? I see there again the wine monopoly has announced one of its periodic price increases, subject to ministerial approval. It interests me to note that these prices are always announced prior to the hon. the Minister giving his permission and I wonder when last any Minister of Agriculture from the other side of the House did exercise his right to curb that rise? Perhaps I could suggest to the new hon. Minister of Agriculture that he attempt to take a stronger line. However, they all fold up as soon as the wine monopoly has its say. The beer monopoly continues to raise prices in spite of a promise last year not to do so. They do so by such subterfuges as introducing a delivery cost to certain retailers, thereby forcing those retailers to raise their prices to the consumer. The net result is that the consumer is paying more than he did before.

What about the poultry industry which has been severely damaged by official meddling? The price of chicken and eggs has escalated beyond reason because of gross incompetence in the exercise of control by the authorities. Time and again we have debated in this House the problem of vertical integration in various sectors of agriculture, but the Government does absolutely nothing.

That is not true.

The only parts of the Government that are not suffering from paralysis are their mouths. They do not suffer from paralysis at all. Talk is cheap. From the hon. the Prime Minister down, lip service is paid to the finding of solutions to the problems that have arisen in practically every aspect of government.

Your brain suffers from paralysis.

They talk about solutions but nothing happens, and talk is not enough as action is needed. This is where the major problem arises because the NP just do not know where they are going. I think they realize that some sort of action is needed. I do not know whether they are unwilling to take action but they do not know what action to take. They do not have solutions. Certainly, in terms of ideology, as we heard from the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, they have lost the star to which they hitched their wagon for so long—that is the star of separate development, the star of apartheid. They have realized that it just does not work and we had a very fine speech from the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt which showed just why it cannot work. However, they have found no alternative ideology with which to replace it and herein lies a very grave danger for South Africa. Ad hoc solutions are provided which prove to be unworkable and are then rejected. They move from ad hoc solution to ad hoc solution and I would suggest that the President’s Council may well prove to be one of these. Of course, they have not really changed either. They realize they must change, but inside it becomes very hard indeed.

Typical of the muddled reasoning that has come from the opposite side of the House during this debate was the speech by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs who said that the Government could say with absolute conviction that there would never be mixed schools in South Africa and that there would always be separate residential areas. I regret to have to tell that hon. Minister and hon. members opposite that he is totally wrong on both accounts. With regard to residential areas it amazes me how hon. members on that side of the House delude themselves that they live in exclusively White residential areas. Presumably the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs believes that his farm is in a White area, but I am willing to bet that there are more Blacks resident on that farm than there are Whites. [Interjections.] All the suburban areas mentioned by the hon. the Minister—Sunnyside, Orange Grove, wherever—all have considerable numbers of Blacks residing there.

That is because you are their MP.

I am also willing to bet . . . Well, I should tell the hon. the Minister of Police that Potchefstroom also has many, many Blacks living there; many Blacks indeed. In fact, I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of hon. members opposite are already living next door to Black people.

With regard to schools, I know that no one wants to force integration. I should like to forecast, however, to hon. members opposite that more and more multiracial schools will come about. My own daughter attends one, and the sky has not fallen yet. Could I suggest that instead of living in a cloud cuckoo land of wishful thinking, hon. members opposite decide to face the facts that we are a multiracial country and that the Black people are really there? It is a great pity that the voters of South Africa will have to make up their minds when so little has been resolved by the NP, when so little is being placed before us. We are facing an election when the NP has no constitutional plans, when no overall consolidation plan is known to us. We face an election when the new deal for urban Blacks, in the form of legislation, is unknown to us. The electorate cannot judge just how far the NP is prepared to go. When these three most important aspects of policy are not resolved it is totally cynical to ask the electorate to make up their minds.

I should like to forecast that there will be certain inducements to sections of the electorate to make up their minds. I am sure there is going to be a healthy pay rise in the pipeline for teachers.

Do you not think it is right?

I think it is absolutely right. What I believe, however, is absolutely disgraceful is that it has to take an election to get them to fulfil their responsibilities with regard to teachers.

They are buying their votes. [Interjections.]

They can sit there for years and years, but now that the NP is having difficulties and is in need of the support of those teachers, now finally . . . [Interjections.] I am pretty sure that I am right in forecasting that we are going to have increases in teachers’ salaries. The record of the NP with regard to the treatment of teachers is a record of shame. Inevitably I am sure it is also true to say that other public servants will be granted increases before the election. I shall also say that they are going to need every cent of those increases. They will need every cent of them in order to cope with galloping inflation. As an election inducement I could perhaps urge that a decision be taken to drop general sales tax on basic foodstuffs. Could I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance that? At least if this concession is made something good might come out of this election.

In retrospect—and to conclude—we all know why the predecessor of this hon. Prime Minister called an election in 1977. He told us it was because of foreign interference in South Africa’s affairs. In retrospect, however, we know it was because the Information scandal was going to blow. I wonder in the back of my mind . . .

Do you have a mind?

. . . what is in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove said he knew why the 1977 election was held. According to him it was to conceal or cover up the Information scandal. So he wondered what the hon. the Prime Minister had in mind this time. My submission is that the hon. member has cast a reflection on the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister. Not only do I think that it testifies to extremely bad taste, but to bad manners as well. Nor do I think it is parliamentary, if I may put my submission to you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to place on record my revulsion and contempt for that allegation of the hon. member for Orange Grove. [Interjections.]

We listened here today to a fear-stricken man. The hon. member for Orange Grove is apprehensive. He is mortally afraid of the coming election. [Interjections.] I have a neighbour who says that when something bad happens to a person, he gets the “heebie-jeebies”. That is what the hon. member for Orange Grove gets when he thinks of the election. [Interjections.] The party of the hon. member for Orange Grove has lost by-elections, and they know what is coming. They know what is coming, hence the indignation at the calling of an election now.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that we should not hold an election now; we should first wait for the recommendations of the President’s Council and then hold an election.

I wanted to know why an election was called.

The hon. member did make that statement. He said that we should first wait for the recommendations of the President’s Council and then hold an election. I cannot understand why the hon. member made such a statement, for they are, after all, boycotting the President’s Council. Apparently that is the logic of the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is now angry with us because we do not wait for the recommendations of a body which is being boycotted by them. Only he can come up with something like that.

That hon. member, after all, has the capacity to see into the future. Like the Seer Van Rensburg we had in our history, it would seem that we now have a Seer from Orange Grove. If that hon. member’s visions and predictions of the future are as wrong as his facts, I shall not have to pay much heed to his prophecies.

Unfortunately the hon. member purveyed an untruth to Parliament today. Unfortunately he gave Parliament information which was not true. He said that meat was cheaper in Britain than in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the allegation which the hon. member made. I wish to state categorically that it is not true. I have the information with me, and I can furnish the August 1980 prices for beef. In South Africa sirloin cost R3,28 per kg and in the United Kingdom, R8,81. I do not know how the hon. member can support his allegations. Rump steak at that stage cost R4,16 per kg and R9,38 in the United Kingdom; topside cost R2,79 per kg in South Africa and R6,89 in Britain; brisket cost R2,01 in South Africa and R4,41 in Britain. As far as mutton was concerned, the price per kilogramme in South Africa was R3,40 and R5,58 in Britain. I also have the November 1980 London and South African prices with me here, and I shall quote these as well to make sure that all the facts are correct. The hon. member alleged categorically here that meat in Britain was cheaper than in South Africa. He told that to us here in Parliament. In November 1980 the price of sirloin was R3,75 per kg in South Africa and R10,26 in London. I hope the hon. member’s politics is not as muddled as his arithmetic, because it seems to me he does not know what is the most, R10 or R3. The hon. member is confused. As an excuse for his condition, however, I can suggest that I think he became so apprehensive of and confused at the prospect of this election that he is no longer able to do his arithmetic.

The hon. member referred to inexpensive meat in Britain. But in South Africa a kilogramme of pork chops costs R3,34, while it costs R4,77 in London. However, he referred to meat in general, consequently I shall also mention the price of broiler chickens. In November 1980 it was R1,77 per kg in South Africa and R1,92 in London. While I am dealing with comparitive prices I shall also give him the price of eggs now, because he complained about everything. In our country eggs cost 79c per dozen; in London they cost R1,47. Next we come to cheese. In South Africa cheese costs R2,86 and in London R4,14. In South Africa milk costs 41c per litre and in London 56c. In South Africa we pay 30 cents for a loaf of white bread. In London it costs 76 cents.

Could the hon. member explain this to us: How does he come by the information that meat is cheaper in London than in this country? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member said he saw it there himself.

What kind of meat did he eat?

But is the hon. member certain he was in a butcher shop? Was he not perhaps somewhere else? Is the hon. member certain it was meat he was looking at?

The hon. member made a pre-election speech here. As I have already said, he was so worried about this election that he had to begin his “primaries” at this early stage to try to embarrass the Government. And then the hon. member made the reprehensible allegation here that we were going to increase teachers’ salaries with view to the election.

Of course!

I wish to tell the hon. member that we are not burdened by the same mentality as he has. If the hon. member would only open his eyes and ears he would have realized by now that we have been engaged for some time on an in-depth investigation into teachers’ salaries.

For about three years.

What has the HSRC been doing? If the results are announced at some stage now, the hon. member is going to say: “Yes, it is for election purposes.”

He is already saying that.

With that he is ignoring everything which was said and done in this connection in the past.

The hon. member for Orange Grove discussed the cost of living and food prices here. I shall react to that too at an opportune time.

Sir, by your leave, I should very much like to say something about the great disaster which has struck large areas of the Cape Province. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Director General of Agriculture and Fisheries and Mr. Bosch, the Secretary of the Western Cape Agricultural Union and I visited the flood-stricken areas in the Western Cape by helicopter on 27 and 28 January 1981. The purpose of the visit was to gain a general impressions of the extent to which agriculture was affected by the floods. Attention was given to the flood-plains of the Buffels River at Laingsburg, the flood-plains of the Groot and Touws River at Ladismith as well as the flood-plains at Vanwyksdorp and Calitzdorp. The low-lying areas along the Gouritz River, which include the Mossel Bay and Albertinia districts, were also visited. We also visited flood-plains at and in the vicinity of Montagu, Ashton, Robertson and Worcester. From the visits it became clear that the flooded rivers left a path of devastation and horror. According to preliminary estimates it is the greatest and most ghastly flood disaster ever to befall agriculture in South Africa. In its most severe form the flood caused loss of lives in the farming community and its labourers as well as damage to their dwellings and other possessions. Some farmers are completely isolated from the rest of their neighbours as a result of the total disruption of road and communications links. Some of the most valuable and highly productive irrigation soil in the Republic was washed away to the rock-bed in certain places. In addition the farmers suffered great losses in the form of implements and equipment. The losses suffered by the farming community may be classified into the following categories: Firstly, crop losses in respect of vineyards, orchards and other crops; secondly, stock losses which in some cases amount to a total extinction of livestock; and thirdly destruction of road and rail links which in all the districts caused total disruption in the sense that farmers were completely cut off from markets, canning factories and from facilities and services. Due to the critical stage in which the remaining fruit-crop (mainly peaches) is at present the isolation entails that farmers will not be able to market their crops unless road links are restored at strategic places within the next few days. The transportation of fresh as well as industrial milk is similarly affected. It will require a determined and co-ordinated effort on the part of the authorities, local organizations and farmers to cope speedily with the emergency situation. Apart from a need for accommodation and a livelihood the repair of road links and other means of communication represents the most cardinal problem.

In addition there is livestock that has been trapped on islands and at which, owing to a lack of road links, had to be provided with fodder by air transport, although these were exceptional cases. In addition there is the temporary or permanent loss of grazing and lucerne crops as a result of silting. The actual damage in this regard will depend on the depth on which existing lands have been silted up.

Furthermore there is the destruction of irrigation channels and the loss of pumping installations, pipelines and irrigation systems. The tragedy is that it would seem that the repair of these channels will in many cases be problematic. The loss of fences, stock watering places, soil conservation works and irrigation dams has assumed unprecedented proportions. Finally there is the loss of implements and other equipment.

Under these circumstances it will be impossible for most of the farmers to resume production in the foreseeable future from their own or other financial resources, and positive financial assistance will have to be provided. The Government is particularly sympathetic to the problems which farmers are experiencing in resuming production, and the farmers may therefore accept without hesitation that they will be provided with financial assistance to enable them to resume production as soon as possible. The proposed financial assistance will be aimed mainly at the restoration of lands, fences and soil conversation work, the re-establishment of vineyards, orchards and pastures and the rebuilding of herds and flocks.

Irrigation matters will be dealt with by the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental conservation, in close Co-operation of course with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The exact form which the assistance will take is not yet known, but this will be finalized as soon as the necessary particulars had been obtained by means of a survey to be conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in co-operation with the South African Agricultural Union, soil conservation committees and agricultural credit committees. Instructions to this effect have already been issued and the department is at present planning the survey.

Cognizance was taken with shock of the extent of the overall loss of soil which occurred in the flood-plain. This entails that a considerable percentage of farmers had been deprived of valuable high-potential soil, which jeopardizes the economic viability of such farming units. Many such cases were observed during the course of the visit. In the long terms the problem must be seen as one of the most serious flood losses ever suffered by the agricultural sector. As soon as sufficient information has been obtained by means of the proposed survey, further consideration will be given to the steps which can be taken.

On behalf of the Government I wish to express my most sincere sympathy with the farmers of the particularly severely flood-stricken areas with the assurance that their problems will be looked into with the utmost compassion as soon as the required information has been obtained. The aim of the assistance offered by the Government will be to enable fanners to resume production as soon as possible wherever conditions permit.

May I in conclusion, on behalf of the Government, express my deepest sympathy with regard to the loss of life suffered by the farming community and their farm labourers.

I should like to mention to this House that the overwhelming impression one gets when visiting the area is that one is dealing here with a most terrible disaster, a disaster which wiped out everything in its path. It makes one realize once again the puniness and frailty of mankind and its existence, and the awesome power of the elements.

I should also like to say a few words about the importance of agriculture in our country. With reference to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said about the rising food prices in South Africa, I should just like to mention a few simple facts. The hon. member for Orange Grove implied that the rising food prices in South Africa were attributable to, and were the result of the marketing and control board system, and the policy of the Government. The hon. member tried to create the impression that the existing control board system and the policy of the Government were the cause of high food prices in South Africa. I am sorry to have to disillusion the hon. member, but one has to take the facts into consideration if one wishes to assess any situation. Consequently I wish to state a fact now, which is that the production costs, or put another way the prices of farming requisites, have increased by 37% per year during the past 10 years. The increase in the agricultural inputs last season was 36%.

Why do you not do something about that?

This is due to increases in the prices of items such as fuel and the cost of imported items, and there are many of them. There are items such as fertilizer. And then we are still importing certain of our raw materials in the fertilizer industry. But the hon. gentlemen here complain about the increase in the price of food. They must simply tell me who should then pay for that increase in the price of agricultural inputs. Or do the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side want prices to be kept constant while production costs rise, so that farmers simply have to keep on borrowing against their capital until they are eventually insolvent?

I suggest you start by doing something about the fertilizer prices.

We must realize and accept that although the inflation rate last year was 14,9%, the rate rose to 26% for the farmer, the agricultural sector. These are the hard facts, and the farmer has to put up with them when he produces. The hon. member opposite, who had so much to say about meat prices, and who had so many views on future meat prices, should now do his duty. After all, the State President has appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate the meat industry. But surely this is not the place to kick up a fuss now.

I have been asking for that for years.

He should see whether he has the necessary facts and then testify before the commission.

Correct, but is he going to?

I think that that hon. gentleman and all the other people who have so much to say about the red meat prices, should testify before the commission. Of course, if the hon. member is apprehensive about testifying before a judge, he can testify before the committee I have appointed on the long-term supply position of the red meat industry in South Africa. I hope he will testify before the commission, but I doubt it. I think the hon. member will say that he was too busy losing his election in Orange Grove. [Interjections.] However, I want to say something in respect of the increase in food prices as far as the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other are concerned.

Why don’t you take GST away?

I maintain that the producer as well as the consumer are the victims of our greatest public enemy, namely inflation. Inflation hits the producer, because it pushes up his production costs, thus in turn affecting the consumer. In this country 28 million people are being fed annually by the agricultural industry. It is a matter of great concern to me that we should have a country in which there is enough food which everyone can afford. However, we should not disregard the facts of the situation, viz. that the agricultural sector is faced with a murderous inflation rate in respect of its inputs. After all, agriculture does have to deal with a murderous inflation rate. Last year it was 26%. Surely we should try to retain our equilibrium and our perspective. Why is a fuss only being kicked up about the price of red meat? Why is a fuss not being kicked up about the prices of other commodities as well, which are also soaring?

He is forgetting Eddie Barlow’s pork.

Yes, Eddie Barlow’s pork, for example. Why should red meat be singled out? The number of cattle in South Africa has diminished by almost one million in the past two years. This is a fact, and the number of sheep by 700 000. We see that the North Western Transvaal and the Far Northern Transvaal are becoming depopulated. Why is that happening? The depopulation is taking place because it is no longer profitable to farm with red meat there. These are the hard facts. There is no other reason for it. When that part of the rural areas became depopulated the Government had to adopt other measures from a security point of view, which cost many millions of rands. If something goes wrong with an agricultural sector and it begins to deteriorate, the entire country pays for it in the end. We in South Africa may indeed be proud of our Republic being one of the only six net food exporters in the world. There are only six nett exporters of food in the world and South Africa is one of them. Should we not occasionally be thankful that there is an abundance of food in this country? Have hon. members thought of what would happen to us if there were no food to be bought in this country, even though we do have all that revenue from gold? Not only is agriculture producing enough food for our people, it is also an exporter of food and consequently an earner of foreign exchange for South Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred here to “ineffective” control boards. I do not know whether he was referring to the farmers as well.

I do not blame the farmers. I blame you.

Some who think the way he does, the people living with him in his nest, have alleged in the past that farmers in this country are inefficient. Let us look at the facts. If our farmers are so inefficient, surely we would not today have been one of the six net exporters of food in the world. However, I looked up the figures to establish what our farmers have accomplished over the past 20 years. South Africa is known to be a difficult agricultural country, one which is plagued by droughts. We have a sub-tropical climate. We cannot build up humus in the soil in a natural way. We have many disadvantages. In spite of that the farmers of South Africa have pushed up the physical volume of agricultural production by 3,4% during the past 20 years, compared to a population growth of 2,1% during the same period.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Please allow me to finish making my point.

Consequently we are today able to export 19,6% of our total agricultural production. Surely that is a tremendous achievement. But what is more: At present we are the only net exporter of food on the entire continent of Africa. Surely it is a wonderful thing that the granaries in our country are filled and we are able to export and feed people because food is life, food is energy, food is manpower and capacity, food is prosperity.

It is with pity that one takes cognizance of what is happening in the rest of Africa. In 1965 Africa had to import 5 million tons of grain. In 1978 Africa imported 11,3 million tons of grain. In 1985 Africa is going to import 15 million tons of grain. Africa is already importing more grain than the total maize crop in South Africa. Since 1965 there has been a per capita decrease in Africa of 1% per annum in food production. This means that in 1980, 15% less food per capita was produced than 15 years ago. The picture now unfolding is one of an impending disaster, for the demographers say that the present 450 million inhabitants of Africa will have doubled by the end of the century. With a decrease in the per capita food production surely that predicts only one thing: That there is going to be a disastrous famine in Africa.

That is why it is wonderful that we in South Africa are the only surplus producers of food in Africa. That is something we can pride ourselves on. Our country consists of only 3,75% of the surface area of Africa, but we are producing 36% of the total maize crop in Africa, 18% of the total wheat crop, 54% of the total wool production, 83% of Africa’s sunflower seed, 17% of its potatoes, 19% of its red meat and 33% of its sugar cane. Surely it is a wonderful achievement that, although our country comprises only 3,75% of the total surface area, we are such a giant in food production.

Moreover, I should like to make the point that besides earning foreign exchange, agriculture is at the same time a very important supplier of raw materials for our industries. In the 1978-’79 season agriculture supplied the industries with 55% of its production in the form of raw materials, to the value of R1 000 million. This is one of the wonderful achievements of agriculture in South Africa.

The hon. member may now ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Minister give me the names of the people who he claims blame the farmers of South Africa for being inefficient?

You are one of them.

Nonsense.

The hon. member said the control boards were ineffective.

I did not say the farmers were.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did so by implication. [Interjections.] The control boards consist of farmers in the majority. [Interjections.] If the hon. member says the control boards are inefficient, he also implies that the farmers are inefficient because the farmers constitute the majority of the members of the control boards. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the fine speech he has made, the statistics he has given and the prices he has quoted in respect of food. I want to express the hope that the Press and radio will for once make proper use of them so that the public may take cognizance of the true facts and so that they can make the right comparisons.

It passes my understanding that hon. members of the official Opposition can lie next to their private swimming pools, having stuffed themselves with imported cake and biscuits and having had their fill of imported expensive whisky, and then complain about the price of wine, bread and meat in this country. [Interjections.] I do not even want to talk about the Coca-cola they drink instead of milk. Perhaps that is the reason why their minds are no longer as alert as they should be.

†I want to say a few words about King William’s Town but I must mention in passing that I cannot help wondering what has happened to the no-confidence debate, because as far as I can see the no-confidence debate has fallen completely flat on its face, like a pancake. As a matter of fact, I think it has turned into a motion of full confidence.

The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned in his speech King William”s Town and my name. He said it was disgusting that I would only be allowed to speak in the caucus where I could be shut up by the authority of the Party. My reply to the hon. member is that members of my party have full opportunity for free speech and full discussion at its caucus meetings. No-one has prescribed to me as to what I should or should not say here this afternoon.

*If I could have believed that the concern shown by the hon. member for Durban Point for King William’s Town and myself was prompted only by humane considerations, I could have thanked him for his interest in my welfare, but because I know that his interference is merely a case of political point-scoring, I cannot thank him. In the troubled waters of King William’s Town we already have enough loudmouthed frogs kicking up mud. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point rather to stay out of the puddle. Having listened to the naked political opportunism shown here this afternoon by the hon. member for East London North, I want to tell him that we do not need any small-mouthed little frogs there either. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members who also want to indulge in political point-scoring regarding King William’s Town that they have been forestalled by Mr. Jaap Marais. If they want to go in for any further point-scoring there, they will have to take up the matter with Jaap Marais. In fact, it seems to me that the hon. member for East London North is already Mr. Jaap Marais’ partner in this kind of business. [Interjections.]

I also want to make it clear to hon. members that the position at King William’s Town is very delicate, that race relations are at stake there, that everyone has to handle the matter with the greatest responsibility and circumspection, that the good relations between White and Black in that area, or the impairment of those relations, will affect the future of all South Africa. I also want to point out that this is an emotional matter, that it is a matter in which the people there feel themselves to be involved heart and soul, that the monuments, the graves, the whole history of that area is involved in the matter. King William’s Town is the principal town of the descendants of the German settlers, most of whom had to give up Frankfurt and other places and have moved to King William’s Town. In the same way, after Grahamstown, King William’s Town is the principal town of the British settlers, who have left an indelible mark on the history of King William’s Town. It is a place which holds many memories for them.

I want to warn hon. members of the Opposition by pointing out that the people of King William’s Town will not tolerate anyone who tries to exploit their anxiety and concern for their own political gain.

You will not be elected there again; that is sure. [Interjections.]

The Coloured people of Breidbach have also had more than their share of troubles, and now at last seem to have been settled where they would like to go on living as citizens of South Africa and in the Republic of South Africa.

Not only the Whites and the Coloured people, but the Black people, too, attach a great deal of historical and sentimental importance to King William’s Town or eQonce, as they call the place in their own language. Their forefathers, too, left their mark on the town. So this whole matter has to be treated with the greatest circumspection, and all the facts I have just mentioned here have to be taken into consideration in taking decisions about King William’s Town.

The Ciskei has to have a capital, and as we all already know, they would like to have King William’s Town. The Whites in their turn would like to retain King William’s Town, because it belongs to them. What should be done now? Personally I believe it would be a mistake to incorporate King William’s Town into the Ciskei, as proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, we are faced with legitimate Black aspirations and expectations. Therefore my personal solution is one of a compromise which could satisfy both parties, not entirely, but to a large extent. It would give more to the Black people, but it would also allow the Whites and the Coloured people to keep the things that belong to them, the things that are sacred to them. I have already submitted this proposal. Inside this Parliament or outside, whether or not I am the MP for King William’s Town, I shall always fight to prevent anyone in that area from being harmed.

I repeat what has often been said before, and what has been said here again this afternoon, i.e. that the Van der Walt Commission merely made a recommendation, nothing more and nothing less. The final decision, whatever that may be, has not yet been taken, but still has to be taken. Therefore I want to appeal to all responsible people—and I hope hon. members of the Opposition also regard themselves as such— to set aside their own personal and political grievances in the interests of good race relations, which are of supreme importance to us in South Africa. I want to ask all those involved to remain calm and to reason calmly, knowing that when a decision has to be taken by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, regard will be had to the aspirations and interests of everyone, as well as all the facts, and it will be done in the interests of us all in South Africa.

What is your solution?

In conclusion, I do not think this is the place to comment on the rest of the proposals, but in passing I just want to say that as far as the Klipplaat boundary is concerned the proposal that the Klipplaat River should form a boundary— with all due respect to my hon. friend in front of me—is I think the most stupid proposal I have ever come across in my life.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—