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

I want to state immediately that I intend to move an amendment seeking to reduce the salaries of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. I accordingly move—

Are you going to support me?

Mr. Chairman, we have been extremely generous to both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister because we are allowing them each R500 of their salaries. That will allow them to buy food at R20 a month for the whole year, with a little over to buy either some tobacco or something for Christmas.

Thank you very much.

We do this more in anger than in sorrow. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House have nothing to feel sorry about, but we have a great deal to be angry about. If ever there was a department which was in a state of chaos and confusion, I believe it is the Department of Co-operation and Development. This department either neglects to handle things it should be handling, or it mishandles those matters with which it does deal. The unfulfilled promises made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the totally unsympathetic attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation have served to exacerbate the situation in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister has blamed civil servants in his department who, he says, are obstructive. This does not mean all of them, but he says there are some of them who are obstructive. He has called them tortoises—slow to move and obdurate if prodded. But I still say the hon. the Minister has to take responsibility for everything that goes wrong, for all the sins of omission and commission in his own department. He is, so to speak, the head tortoise, and he has to take responsibility. The hon. the Deputy Minister is the deputy head tortoise in the department. [Interjections.]

Two steps behind. [Interjections.]

Order!

In order to motivate the reduction in salaries, which is a fairly strong step to take in this Committee, my colleagues and I will be discussing a number of very important matters, inter alia, the squatter problem, the operation of the pass laws, the Black Commissioners’ courts, the Administration Boards and the way they are functioning, consolidation, resettlement and pensions.

I did not have the privilege of seeing the Prime Minister myself on television last night—which is a tremendous deprivation, I am sure—but he was reported as saying on television last night that people abroad were not as stunned by Government action against the Nyanga squatters as some people made out. Of course, as is the custom with the NP, he blamed the media for exaggerated reporting. It so happens, however, that my information is quite different, and I also have quite extensive correspondence with people abroad. I am told that South Africa’s image abroad during the last few weeks has been as bad as it ever was during the Soweto unrest from 1976 onwards and during the time of the Biko affair. That, by anybody’s standards—even by the hon. the Prime Minister’s standards—I would say, is pretty bad indeed. One need only think back of what happened in Nyanga, with people left shivering and without shelter in the icy winter on the Cape Flats, hounded and harassed, and finally rounded up and deported back to areas which some of them have not seen for years and where nothing whatsoever awaited them as far as employment possibilities are concerned. I should like to tell this Committee that the scandal of Nyanga is not over by any means. It did not just go away. It has not just disappeared with the deportation of hundreds of people about 10 days ago. [Interjections.] Those people still exist. They are still around, and many of them, I can tell hon. members, have had a fate which is akin to that of the boat people of Cambodia—shuttled backwards and forth under the most trying conditions, the only difference being they were on buses and not on boats. [Interjections.]

Why do you not go back to your own home country?

It was all the Government’s fault. It was entirely the Government’s fault. [Interjections.]

Order!

One bus load of 54 people left Umtata, having been bused back there by this Government. They were bused back, authorized, I am told, and paid for by the Secretary of Interior of the Transkei, who gave these people, innocently enough and, I am afraid, not within legal limits, 14-day permits to come back to the Republic of South Africa to collect their belongings which had been left behind in Cape Town, and in some cases, to collect children who had been left behind in the big roundup. The bus left Umtata at 09h00 and arrived at Queenstown at about 17h00 after having spent about four hours at a road-block. It then went on to Cradock, where it was checked at 04h00.

Where?

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s own home town. This is exactly the sort of treatment one can expect to be meted out to them in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s home town. They were taken to the police station at 05h00, processed at 07h00, all in the icy winter, unheated, unfed and exhausted people. Then in the end, all but one were taken off the bus, the one person being declared legal and the rest were taken to an army camp nearby and, presumably, eventually sent back to Umtata. The same fate awaited a number of other bus loads of people, passengers who were carrying warrants authorizing people to return to Cape Town to collect their belongings and children. The warrants should, of course, never have been issued, because nobody in another country, and Transkei is supposedly an independent country, can issue warrants of entry into the Republic of South Africa. However, out of innocent concern for these people, warrants were issued allowing them to come back for 14 days to collect their belongings and children. One bus load was actually authorized by the station commander at Cradock. There were 64 people, including the one person who had been declared legal originally. They were put on the same bus and they managed to get through road-blocks at Graaff-Reinet and Beaufort West, as did a few other buses, but at the road-block at Worcester the document of the station commander at Cradock was challenged, it was not accepted and only 10 contract workers, two medical cases and three so-called legal people were allowed to proceed out of the original 64. They were taken to Victor Verster gaol at Worcester and, for all I know, that is where they are still languishing. What has happened to all the other hundreds of deportees who were sent back to Umtata? It is anybody’s guess. A lot of them have been dispersed throughout the territory, although I am told that about 350 of them are still being kept and looked after by the Transkeian Army, of all things, in three church halls in Umtata while negotiations, presumably, are afoot between the two Governments to see what can be done about these people.

What do you know about it?

During a survey an interesting thing came to light, viz. that 223 of these people were actually in employment in Cape Town and only 38 of them had been in Cape Town for less than two years. The rest have been here for between two and 15 years. This ties up completely with the records of the Nyanga squatters that were kept by the Black Sash who came to visit them. They also found that some sort of work was being done by practically all the people at Nyanga. Contrary to the hon. the Minister’s statement that newcomers had flooded into Nyanga, bribed and sent there by inciters, the vast majority of squatters had been in Cape Town for two to 10 years and more and between them 550 people supported 1 452 children. Many of the women worked as domestics, many of the men as construction workers and many were self-employed in the informal sector. If the hon. the Minister had only included those people in the moratorium which he sensibly declared a few years ago for so-called illegals in other areas of South Africa, all those people would have been able to legalize their position and the hon. the Minister could have avoided a very thorny problem. He is landed with it now. All he offers is bluster and nobody who looks at this problem objectively is taken in by the nonsense that he talked on “Midweek” when he talked about “orchestrated incitement”. I have never heard of such nonsense in my life.

Of course it is true.

Where did Mrs. Luckett get her money from?

There is only one way to deal with the problem and that is to face up to the realities of the situation. The hon. the Minister is sadly mistaken if he thinks he has solved the squatter problem by bussing people back to Transkei or the Ciskei. These people are going to be back in Cape Town in no time at all.

They will not be back in Cape Town.

They are going to come through, road-blocks or no roadblocks. A whole Army exercise has been carried out over the last few weeks, with police and road-blocks to try to keep them from coming back. We cannot keep that up for ever. They are going to be back in no time because in spite of the ever-present danger of being picked up by the police when they come back into the urban areas, there is also the chance of picking up some form of livelihood in the formal or informal sector in the urban area.

What do you mean by “informal”?

I am talking about self-employment. Do you not know what the word means? [Interjections.] Half the people at Crossroads are involved in informal employment. They sell coal, they sell food, they do odd jobs, they mend boots and shoes. That is informal employment.

Where do they get licences from to do all that type of thing?

Where do they get licences from! [Interjections.] It is a most amazing thing, you know, Sir, but when people are starving they do not stop to think that they need a licence to earn a living!

According to Prof. Thomas of the University of Transkei the number of unemployed people in Transkei increases by 10 000 each year. They have to seek work elsewhere and “elsewhere” happens to be here because this is the nearest point where they can find such employment. Therefore, the reality of the situation is that we have poverty-stricken neighbours who cannot provide employment. Because of this fact the people will continue to leave the rural areas to seek work in the urban areas, no matter what, and independence notwithstanding.

May I ask a question please?

No, I do not have time to answer questions. Sit! [Interjections.] The thing to do. Sir, is to treat the Cape Peninsula as a growth point and to plan for what is going to happen, no matter what this “kragdadige” Government tries to do. We must plan for this sort of thing—we must plan site and service schemes and core housing schemes for the Cape and do away with this ridiculous labour preference scheme for the Coloureds. Tell the Department of Community Development to go and jump in the lake with their highfalutin ideas in regard to standards of housing. We have to provide mass housing and we cannot do so at these high standards. We also have to repeal that ridiculous section 3 of the Planning Act which also inhibits employment in the urban areas. The new regional plan is not going to work—this decentralization or deconcentration or whatever it is called. It goes against all the normal forces of the location of industry which any first year student of economics can tell the Government is obviously what have to be followed. There are locational factors which indicate where industries should be established. None of us minimizes the difficulties of urbanization. We all know that there are going to be great transitional problems. However, they will not be insoluble if they are tackled sensibly and in a civilized fashion. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he earned the respect of the civilized world and of all concerned South Africans because of the manner in which he handled the Crossroads situation. I do not know what went on in his caucus but all civilized and concerned people congratulated the hon. the Minister on the manner in which he solved that situation. However, the manner in which he attempted to solve the Nyanga squatter situation has caused a shudder of revulsion here and throughout the civilized world.

All this, of course, ties in with the whole question of influx control and the pass laws. At the beginning of the session the hon. the Minister told us that he would be introducing three Bills, three revamped Bills which emanated from the Grosskopf Commission. The session is almost over—we only have another six weeks of this session—and I should like to know when we are going to have sight of these three extremely important measures. Other hon. members and I have told this Government over and over again ad nauseam how important it is to get a move on with reforming the influx control and pass laws which have such a heavy impact on Black South Africans. Of course, we believe they should be abolished. We believe that it is a fundamental right of a man to move around in his own country, and every other race group in South Africa does enjoy this right except, of course, the Indians in the Orange Free State. Indians are not permitted to enter and live in the Orange Free State. This is therefore absolutely undiluted and hurtful discrimination.

The second reason is that influx control simply does not work. The forces of urbanization are far too strong. There is the push factor of poverty in the rural areas and the pull factor of job opportunities in the urban areas. Because of these factors, influx control just does not work. Stronger proof of this cannot surely be offered than the number of people who are arrested under the influx control and pass laws which fact proves that these laws do not act as a deterrent. Sir, does this Committee know that in the past 2½ years, 435 981 people throughout the Republic have been arrested under the influx control and pass laws? What an absurd manner for the police to be occupying themselves with when really serious crime goes undetected and when crime that is detected simply is not solved! Yet here the police are busy arresting people whose major crime is that of trying to find a livelihood.

I want to know what the hon. the Minister is doing about the Commissioner’s Courts. Anyone who has ever visited those courts will bear witness that they are an absolute travesty of justice. They act like a sausage machine processing people. Something like 10 000 people were dealt with by the Johannesburg Commissioner’s Court alone last year. What is the hon. the Minister doing about the report which was published in The Sunday Times about the gross irregularities in the Commissioner’s Courts in Pretoria? I understand exactly the same thing happens elsewhere. The commissioners are supposed to act as magistrates. They are presumably dispensing justice. In clause 39(1) of the Code of Practice of the department, we read under the heading “Commissioners”—the word “Black” now appears instead of “Bantu”—

So much for the impartiality of commissioners who sit in judgment over tens of thousands of people who are caught in the vast net of the pass laws.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether any new instructions were given to the commissioners and to the prosecutors to see that the Commissioner’s Courts are acting in some semblance of the normal process of justice.

Mr. Chairman, allow me in the first place to convey my sincere congratulations to the Director General, Mr. Johan Mills, of the Department of Co-operation and Development, on his appointment as Commissional-General of the kwaNdebele nation. [Interjections.] Mr. Mills has a long record as an excellent and able public servant, and we wish to avail ourselves of this opportunity of thanking him for the services he has rendered and wishing him everything of the best in the extremely important position to which he has now been appointed. We wish him and his family everything of the very best for the future.

I shall also be permitted to convey my sincerest thanks to all the officials of my department for the hard work they are engaged in, frequently under very difficult circumstances and usually under very thankless circumstances—this afternoon we had another example of this—with so much distinction. I am convinced that I at least am speaking on behalf of this side of the House when I thank them sincerely and wish them everything of the best, too, in the great task which awaits them.

At this early stage of the discussion I wish to furnish a little information on what the Government is achieving in respect of what we consider to be a priority, which is, in the first place, to lead the Black nations to self-government and to complete independence. In the second place, and related to this, I wish to furnish some information on what the Government is achieving in respect of economic development in the national States and the creation of employment opportunities. I should very much like to do this before I again deal with the Nyanga situation in reply to the hon. member who has just resumed her seat and who, in my humble opinion and to put it mildly, was absolutely objectionable, in regard to my own person as well, when she spoke about these matters.

Let us first consider the Economic Development Corporation. After that I shall furnish some general information. What is the position at present? Twenty one years ago the Economic Development Corporation was established with a capital of R1 million appropriated by Parliament. That was a mere 21 years ago. I shall refer you to the funds available for development in 19 80-’81: Share capital allocated to the EDC and the development corporations—excluding the independent States—in the form of loan funds and loans on capital works at market rates, R54 million; capital generated by the corporations themselves, R42 million; and South African Development Trust funds, R54 million. The South African Development Trust, therefore, R54 million; loan funds, R51 million; and capital generated by the corporations themselves, R42 million. This gives a total of R147 million for 1980-’81. For the 1981-’82 financial year the corresponding figures are R62 million for the South African Development Trust; R66 million in loan capital and R85 million generated by the EDC itself—a total of R213 million in comparison with R147 million for the previous year. In the 1982-’83 financial year it is expected that a total amount of R258 million will be required by the EDC and the national corporations, made up as follows: R87 million for the South African Development Trust; loan funds, R107 million and self-generated capital, R64 million. It therefore appears that to an increasing extent loan funds from the private sector are being used to finance development activities, thus alleviating the burden on the State. This means that development funds are no longer cheap, and for this reason it has been decided—and in my opinion it is a very important decision which we took several months ago—to subsidize the interest burden of the EDC and the corporations for 1981-’82 by an amount of R5,5 million. As the loans are for periods varying from five to 20 years, we feel that this principle of subsidizing will have to be maintained in future. Loans negotiated by the corporation will total R253 million on 31 March 1983, if the R107 million budgeted for is borrowed in 1982-’83. As indicated, these loans must be repaid within the next 20 years, and if special funds are not appropriated for redemption, voted share capital will have to be used for this purpose to the detriment of the development programme. The total expenditure increased by 45% between 1980-’81 and 1981-’82. And this happened under a Government which is being accused in season and out of season of doing very little to create employment opportunities, and hon. members must bear in mind that I am referring only to the EDC, which was established 21 years ago by this Government with a capital of R1 million. If there was ever a success story it is this one I have just recounted. Within a year there was an increase of 45% in total expenditure, and for the ensuing year an increase of 21% is expected.

The corporation’s major activities are in respect of the manufacturing sector and this year R112 million will be spent, as against R48 million last year, the amount has therefore more than doubled. For the 1982-’83 financial year an amount of R95 million is being envisaged. The most important facet is the financing of White industrialists, for which R58 million has been voted for 1981-’82, as against R37 million the previous year, and R77 million for 1982-’83.

Industrial development takes place mainly in the growth points created by us. While I was Deputy Minister during the period 1968 to 1972, I did everything in my power to get the industrial growth points going, for example at Isithebe, Ngobagoba, Lebowakgomo, Phudatjitjhaba, Seshego and Dimbaza. It would take hours to tell this House about Dimbaza and the stories the hon. members opposite told about it at the time, just as they are doing now in regard to Nyanga. Over the weekend I referred to Hansard to see what the hon. member for Houghton, who again made such a fuss here this afternoon, had to say at the time about Dimbaza, and inter alia, I as the Deputy Minister said the following—

This is exactly the course of action I also took in connection with the Nyanga squatters.

I told the hon. member for Houghton that she should go and have a look at what was going on there and that if she had a complaint she should raise it. I also said—

At that stage I as Deputy Minister, time and again, inside and outside this House, made an appeal to people to come forward and help, because we established that scheme as a welfare scheme. I wonder whether that hon. member has ever been there. We asked industrialists—after we had completed the welfare work there—to help us create employment opportunities. This was almost 10 years ago, but as far as I know, not a single employment opportunity has so far been created there by the people who support those hon. members. [Interjections.] This is what makes the Black leaders so angry with those people. They kick up a terrible fuss and tell the most pious stories. [Interjections.] One of the leaders told me one day that while he was having talks with the PFP, including the hon. member for Houghton, he put one question to them at the commencement of the talks. After he had said “Talk is cheap, but it is money that buys the whisky” he asked what they were prepared to make available in the form of funds for his national State. He said a deathly silence descended over them.

[Inaudible.]

He then said: “Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the conversation” and walked out. This is a very pertinent example. Do hon. members know which body was the first to come forward there? It was the Dutch Reformed Church and they are in actual fact not geared to creating employment opportunities and to establishing industrial development. Do hon. members know how many industries there are today at Dimbaza? At the time, however, that hon. member carried on like a squawking hen, exactly as she is carrying on again about Nyanga now. Today there are 33 factories at Dimbaza employing thousands of Black people. We had to do this alone in the face of the most vehement criticism, as we had from her again today.

With whose money did you do it?

In this way we created the necessary infrastructure at those places for the development provided by the EDC. Expenditure this year was R2,4 million as against R1,2 million the previous year. For the next year an amount of R2,6 million is being envisaged. [Interjections.]

Order!

Just look at the percentage increases involved here. In the case I have just mentioned the increase is in excess of 100%. However, those hon. members are kicking up a fuss here, in the name of all that is holy and goodness knows what else, but in the meanwhile they are doing very little to make a real contribution to solve the problem. What is worse, they are placing one obstacle after another in the path of the Government while it and the leaders of the national States are doing everything in their power to combat these problems effectively and realistically and indeed to create one employment opportunity after another. I must sit here and listen to my colleague being criticized when he presents his budget. However, if those hon. members had wanted to do something they could have made a contribution by strengthening the Government’s hand in this mighty attempt to create employment opportunities at those places. I am furnishing the cold, hard facts. An amount of R36 million was spent in the previous year solely in respect of the extension of existing infrastructures.

I am very pleased to be able to say that recently the private sector has in fact played a real part, especially after the Carlton Conference. I should like to thank them for this. They are now making a substantial contribution to industrial development in the national States, and the estimated contribution by the private sector to date is R150 million. In excess of 30 000 employment opportunities have already been created by this campaign and this was done solely by the EDC. This year a further 6 000 employment opportunities will be created.

The second most important development programme, as far as funds are concerned, is the financing of Black traders and service industries. In 1980-’81 R38 million was appropriated for this purpose. In 1981-’82 the amount was R54 million. For the period 1982-’83 an amount of R55 million will be appropriated. The need to finance small traders and small businessmen in the national States is increasing, and the national corporations play an extremely important role here so that businessmen will be able to meet the daily needs of their own people. Today there is a national corporation for every nation. I only wish I had the time to tell the hon. members what a tremendous task these national corporations are accomplishing. If I had the time to do so, those hon. members would not kick up the kind of fuss they have been kicking up here. Those corporations are concentrating to an ever increasing extent on the provision of facilities to small manufacturers. They do this by means of funds at subsidized interest rates, by making buildings available on a lease basis, by training the Black people, etc. My own son is very closely involved in the training of Black people in this small business set-up. During the past year 270 retailers have already been helped in this way. It is estimated that commerce and service industries at present making employment opportunities available for more than 60 000 people in the national States. Then one asks oneself: What contribution are the hon. members of the official Opposition making, apart from criticizing, disparaging and denigrating, and what is more, placing obstacles in the way of the Black people and the White Government? Propaganda of the worst kind is being sent overseas to the detriment of the people of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I now come to the question of the conveyance of passengers in the national States. Just listen to these facts. When I talk about this I get enthusiastic and I find it difficult to adopt a low-key approach when I put accross the hard, actual facts of the present situation in South Africa to this House and to the country. As regards the conveyance of passengers I believe this has been a wonderful achievement, wonderful for any country in the Western world, to say nothing of an African country. Transportation is still increasing. Transport networks have been created by the EDC—and I am speaking only of the economic development corporation now—to assure the rapidly growing economically active population of an efficient service. Transport companies have been established in almost every national State, with 50:50 shareholding between the EDC and the development corporation of each national State, and the citizens of those States are directors of the corporation. As a matter of fact, the Cabinet has already approved the appointment of Bishop Zulu as chairman of the kwaZulu Development Corporation. He is the first Black man in the history of South Africa to be appointed chairman of a development corporation, but hon. members on that side of the House and their Press have completely ignored this fact, and then they say the Government has ground to a halt, or is not moving in the direction they think it should be moving. They are trying to make petty political capital, but the fact remains that this is the kind of thing the Government is doing. In 1980-’81 expenditure on transport totalled R20 million and in 1981-’82 it will total R36 million. This is expenditure in respect of transport by the EDC alone. An amount of R82 million is being appropriated for 1982-’83. Expenditure on this activity can become very much greater in future in order to ensure that commuters are efficiently conveyed between residential areas and their places of employment. In 1980-’81, 240 million Black passengers were conveyed and 116 million kilometres were covered by the buses of the EDC, which was established 21 years ago by this Government with R1 million. In this activity 1 700 buses are being used, and 7 000 Black people employed. This means that about 90% of the total manpower of the transport activities of the corporation is Black. In this way 7 000 employment opportunities have been created for Blacks and the manpower of the transport activities of the corporation is therefore virtually 100% Black. Special training is also being provided by a centre run by the EDC. How many of those hon. members have been there to take a look at what is happening and to see what a tremendously large project it is? It is tremendous and I am not exaggerating when I say this. President Mangope was there to present drivers with certificates for their wonderful achievements of the previous year, and over 130 drivers stepped forward to receive these awards. However, those hon. members have no interest in these positive things. The Black people are being provided with proper training to ensure efficiency and as far as possible to involve the national States’ own people in these activities.

A colleague of mine will talk about agricultural matters. I wish to single out a few figures in this connection. At the Carlton Conference it was decided that agriculture should be accorded the highest priority in the development of the national States. Our department and the development corporations, and specifically the EDC, are also working on this. The economic welfare of a country, even a country with the greatest technological development, depends to a great extent on the state of its agricultural development. Consequently the EDC attaches particularly great importance to agricultural development in the national States, and it remains a major source of income and a creator of employment opportunities.

Let us consider what the corporation has spent on this sector. In 1980-’81 it was R20 million; in 1981-’82, R30 million and in the budget for 1982-’83, R49 million is being set aside for this. In two years the amount has more than doubled. What more must the Government do? A large part of this expenditure is being handled by agricultural companies established for each national State, and Black citizens of the various States serve on the boards of these companies. All the hon. members have to do is visit Qwa-Qwa and see what their agricultural development corporation is doing. Then they can come back here and talk. I am not saying there are no problems, but honestly, Sir, we are working with First World and Third World circumstances in South Africa. Do the hon. members not know this? The hon. member for Houghton does not know this. She is talking with a view to receiving doctor’s degrees in America and elsewhere, and not in the interests of South Africa.

You need not be jealous.

Where did you get your doctor’s degree?

A large part of this expenditure is handled by agricultural companies, and over the past five years in the agricultural sector more than 18 300 employment opportunities have been created, with a total investment of R64 million. Surely these are not insignificant achievements. Let the hon. members try to create just one employment opportunity and they will see how difficult it is. Here we are talking about 18 300 in the agricultural sector alone. By means of large sugar mills, as agents of the EDC, financing is being provided for the programmes of more than 3 000 Zulu farmers. In addition, in other national States and independent countries financing is also being provided for a further 3 200 small farmers on maize, wheat, cotton and groundnut projects. Through the activities of the EDC it has become clear that the national States have a development potential which could allow them to make a substantial contribution to providing Southern Africa with food. I have only sketched a small part of the picture in the sphere of agriculture and I hope my colleague will go into greater detail.

Let us consider the contribution which the EDC has made in the sphere of housing. In this category, R18 million was spent in 1980-’81, and R25 million in 1981-’82. For the 1982-’83 financial year R26 million has been appropriated under this heading. In order to stimulate these activities a rotating fund was established in 1977-’78 by the South African Development Trust, which initially contributed 25% while the remaining 75% was contributed by the EDC from share capital and savings funds. Under this formula R12 million was generated for this programme. This obviously underlines the importance of housing for the Black people. In 1980-’81 the EDC paid a further R13 million into this fund. The total of R25 million has at present been fully utilized and 3 500 houses were erected at an average cost of R7 000. This is what the EDC has managed to do on its own.

Later this afternoon I shall return to the question of housing to give the hon. members an indication of what our viewpoint in this connection is. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on two separate occasions in this House that the Government has no strategy at all in respect of housing. I could only smile, because it is not true and I can support this contention with facts, as I shall do in a moment.

But first allow me to complete my argument in connection with this very important matter of the provision of employment and the results achieved in this connection in the national States. Let us consider the development programmes in the national States over the past ten years or so. It then appears that the size of the population of the national States—these are very interesting and very important figures—increased from 7 431,2 million in 1970 to 10 751,5 million in 1980. This is the population growth over a period of ten years. It is a considerable growth rate.

Is this the present population of the national States?

This is the figure for 1980 for the national States with the exception of the States which are already independent. I can give the hon. member the figures in that connection as well. But what are the facts? The increase in the number of Black people in the national States was 44,7%, which was also, I grant you, as a result of boundary changes and resettlement. The fact remains, however, that the increase in the number of Black people in the national States was 44,7% during the past ten years. And then hon. members on that side say that our policy has failed! They ignore the fact that the Ciskei is becoming independent on 4 December this year. They also ignore the fact that there are already three independent Black States. When I also tell them that this is not the last State to become independent they do not realize that I am speaking the truth. They do not know that we are already having discussions with the other national States on independence. All they do is allege that our policy is a failure.

The increase in the number of Black people in the national States, as I have already said, was 44,7% during the past ten years. In the White areas the increase in numbers was only 11,6%. This means that the percentage of the total population resident in the national States was 46,7% in 1970, whereas it was 53,2% in 1980.

When I returned in 1952 from the university where I was studying considerably more than 50% of the Black people were present in White South Africa, as against only 47% in the national States, which were then called homelands. The position now as I have just stated. And yet it is still being alleged that our policy is a failure.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt is working on the entire matter of consolidation. When this entire question of consolidation is completed, which we hope will be within the next twelve months, as the hon. the Prime Minister has also indicated, I shall again rise in this House—I can tell the hon. members this in advance—and enumerate the facts once again. I shall do so in spite of the fact that hon. members of the Opposition wish to reduce my salary. In any case I can get along without their help. As long as I am alive and healthy I shall rise in this House and tell hon. members that the figures with regard to Black people in the national States will have continued to grow considerably. Within the next twelve months, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, we expect to have all the facts in this connection in order. After all, this is hard work, work which is being undertaken scientifically and on which the best brainpower in the country is engaged.

Allow me to go a little further and pause for a moment to consider the question of employment. The figure for the estimated number of salaried Black labourers employed in the national States was 102 318 in 1972. In 1980 the figure was 176 000. Allow me also to add the figure for the independent States. This is undoubtedly a wonderful success story. In 1972 the number of salaried workers was 88 125. By 1980 the number had grown from 88 125 to 216 000. These are the figures, in spite of the fact that hon. members of the Opposition allege that the policy is not a success. The combined total grew from 190 443 in 1970 to 392 000 in 1980.

Before I forget, there is something I should like to say straight away. I shall talk about Nyanga in a moment. My wife told me to remain calm and not become angry. I shall try my best, but it is really much more difficult not to become angry with the hon. member for Houghton than my wife realizes.

How true. [Interjections.]

As regards the Ciskei we are certainly not blind. I have said time and again that there is no one in this House—and I say this with all due respect—who, together with his department, works harder to try to enhance the quality of life of the Black people than I do. Long before the hon. member for Houghton took her seat in this Parliament I had learned that it is terribly easy to talk. Actually to do things, to perform deeds, takes much longer and is also extremely difficult.

What have we done in the Ciskei, in respect of the area to which the hon. members of the Opposition paid a visit, for example Oxton? Long before they were there I had already been there myself. We then asked the Wentzel Commission to institute a proper investigation into every facet, not only of Oxton, but of all the towns in that area. When the hon. the Deputy Minister speaks he can elaborate on this in detail. In May this year we approached the hon. the Minister of Finance and asked him to pay a visit to the area as well. Meanwhile we had ploughed R9,5 million into the Ciskei alone, because we saw that there were people there who were really suffering hardships and that we had to try to create employment opportunities, etc. there. First R7 million was ploughed into the Ciskei and then a further R2,5 million, during the past year alone. With the R9,5 million more than 13 000 employment opportunities have been created in the Ciskei alone, and then the hon. member for Houghton wants our salaries reduced. Could she have done any better? However, we did not stop there. After the hon. the Minister of Finance had visited Oxton he returned and said that, having seen the conditions there, he was prepared to make a further R1.25 million available. If hon. members look at the estimate of expenditure they will see that a further R1,25 million has been appropriated for the Ciskei. When the Wentzel Commission submitted its findings to us we sent them to the hon. the Minister of Finance and we worked out a programme extending over a few years and involving an amount of R27 million. We went even further and appropriated just over R20 million for this area. Hon. members must now realize this is R9,5 million plus the R1,25 million, to say nothing of the R27 million. This is spread over a few years, although a certain amount has already been budgeted for this purpose this year. For example, we squeezed an additional R3,25 million from the White liquor profit account because we were unable to obtain funds from any other source, even after we had sat for hours round a table mulling over the problem with senior officials. What did we do with it? We tried to create employment opportunities there. Then we appropriated more than R20 million for buildings with a view to the coming independence of the Ciskei, which will not provide hundreds of employment opportunities in the Ciskei but several thousands. I therefore ask the hon. member who is so critical, the hon. member who made such an insulting remark about me here this afternoon, whether she could have done any better. Does she think she could have done any better? I really do not think she could. I do not think it is possible. And do hon. members know what the result was. I have already said repeatedly, and nothing on earth will make me deviate from it—I am so convinced of it; it has been drummed into me since my childhood—that we must give the Black child in this country hope. We must give him something to hope for.

This is my own personal experience. I am proud of it and it is a wonderful privilege for me to be on the side of the NP because the National Party Government, as hon. members see them here, has the same approach. It is only by giving the Black man hope, by giving the Black child hope, that there can be any hope for my children and for the White children of South Africa. And we are doing this; we are not just talking about it. And do hon. members know what the result was? What I mentioned in connection with the Ciskei had the further implication at Oxton and other places that only ten from that area were Nyanga squatters, those places which the hon. members of the PFP visited surreptitiously, which caused Dr. Sebe to say that he had felt like throwing them in gaol … Sir, it is a pity he did not do so … [Interjections.] What were those hon. members doing there? I am specifically asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question. Ever since this session of Parliament began,—and I have been in this House for many years—the hon. members of the official Opposition have, in my humble opinion, been trying to drive a wedge between White and Black in this country, and this can be fatal for South Africa. If I may make a plea it will be that they should put an immediate stop to what they are doing. I made this plea the other day and I repeat it here this afternoon: Put a stop to this. And do not turn a deaf ear to one Black leader after another who tells you the same thing.

In connection with this Nyanga situation a leader told me the other day that if it were not for the interference of certain White bodies …

Name them.

… I shall name them in a minute—we and those Black people would have been able to understand one another and we could then have found a solution to this problem. He said this to me in the presence of a number of officials and it came from the bottom of his heart. Let us therefore be a little more careful when it comes to these matters. Hon. members opposite accuse us and make the point that this behaviour is harming us in the outside world. Do they think we are blind? We are not blind. The people who are doing South Africa irreparable harm overseas in this kind of situation are certainly not on this side of the House. It is those hon. members opposite and certain other bodies I shall mention in a moment. [Interjections.] If they do not stop this I foresee great difficulty and great problems ahead. I appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—it is only a few people on his side; we know who they are—to keep those people in check. They must stop this kind of behaviour. We must allow this situation to cool down so that we can devote our attention to the positive things and not, as we have had to do during the past few weeks, involve hundreds of men in negative matters purely and simply to combat civil disobedience and deal effectively with the contravention of law and order in this country. I wish to tell hon. members that this Government is aware that the hallmark of good government through all the centuries has been the maintaining of law and order and if any person or any organization challenges law and order it will learn that this Government will act ruthlessly in this respect, whether it be in the Cape Peninsula or anywhere else. [Interjections.] This also applies to the hon. member for Houghton and I hope she will not experience problems in her old age which will cause her embarrassment. I hope this does not happen to other hon. members opposite either. Any Government that is worth its salt cannot simply allow law and order thrown to the wind, no matter in whose name this is done. That is impossible. If you abandon the maintenance of law and order in the Cape Peninsula, how can you maintain it in Johannesburg or Pretoria or elsewhere in the Republic? Can the hon. members opposite not understand this simple message? They must therefore not challenge us by encouraging people to contravene law and order and think the Government will sit back and allow this to happen because we shall not. We cannot do so.

I should like to return to the national accounts. I have here a very important figure for hon. members who are interested. The gross domestic product at current prices in the self-governing national States was R153,191 million in 1970. In 1979 it was R523,316 million. Surely this is tremendous progress. Compare this with other African States and then you will see what progress there was. Allow me to furnish the figure for the independent States as well. This is even more impressive. In 1970 the gross domestic product in the independent State was R147,660 million. This had grown to R574,961 million in 1979. If we now consider the domestic national product at current prices per capita we see in the self-governing States it was R103 in 1970 while in 1979 it was R368. This is a considerable increase. In the independent States the figure was R104 in 1970 and in 1979 it had grown to R358, which is an average of R362 for national States and independent States.

If we consider the provision of employment and the creation of income we see that the total assets in share capital of the development corporation—this includes the NDC, all the national corporations and the Economic Development Corporation—have increased considerably. We are talking about large sums of money now. Twenty one years ago it was established with R1 million. In 1970 the total assets were R397,2 million. Do hon. members know what it was in 1979? R2 186,3 million; more than R2 milliards. Surely this is a phenomenal achievement measured against any standards in the Western world. The issued share capital in 1970 was R252,4 million, but in 1979 it had already grown to R1 213,6 million. If we consider the gross value of agriculture and forestry production we see that in the self-governing States this amounted to R46,972 million in 1971-72, but in 1977-78 it had already risen to R139,061 million. This gives us an average annual increase of 19,8%. If we consider mining in the national States we see that 33 operating mines were established by 31 March 1979, employing 10 871 people. At that stage there were 22 mines in the independent States providing 47 279 people with employment.

I come now to figures pertaining to the establishment of industries in the national States. Cumulative capital investment by industrialists and corporations in decentralization in the national States themselves rose from R88,5 million on 31 March 1975, to R329 million in March 1979. This gives an average annual increase of R60,1 million. Of this amount R329 million, R124,8 million was in respect of self-governing national States and R204,2 million in respect of independent States. Let us consider Black employment. In undertakings established with the aid of concession benefits the figure of 10 219 on 1 March 1975 rose to 29 000 on 1 March 1979. This gives an average of approximately 4 697 employment opportunities every year. Of the 29 000 undertakings, 9 857 were in the self-governing States and 19 149 in the independent States. Up to the end of June 1977 the Industrial Development Corporation had already spent about R292,9 million in respect of decentralization on housing, loans, share capital and industrial buildings in border areas just outside the national States. The estimated Black employment at the end of June 1979 in this sector alone was 74 571.

If one sees against this background the sort of figures we are talking about, the sort of money we are talking about and the sort of employment opportunities we are talking about, you could perhaps say it is not enough. If anyone says this, I have sympathy and understanding for it, because nowhere in Africa can this be done to a sufficient extent. In parts of South America this would not be enough either, and the same applies in the East. But to pretend that nothing is being done is not fair. Is it fair for a patriot who loves this country to persist in levelling negative criticism at us while it is so difficult to bring this kind of information to people’s attention because the newspapers do not consider it to be newsworthy? Is it fair to keep on badgering us the way the Opposition is so persistently doing?

This brings me to Nyanga. I repeat that as far as I am concerned the hon. member for Houghton dealt with this matter in an extremely unpleasant way. She was also extremely irresponsible. On a previous occasion I used the word “incite” and said “they incite”, and if I may say so now I say they are inciters, because this is the truth.

Mr. Chairman …

It is not necessary to raise a point of order. I withdraw that remark. [Interjections.]

On 14 August 1981 the Transkeian and the South African Governments agreed on two basic points. A few years ago Pres. Kaiser Matanzima expressed very strong views on this point when he said—

This is the policy which has been adopted by the Transkeian Government in Transkei, and it is the policy which any responsible Government ought to adopt in its country. We also came to an agreement with the Transkeian Government that—

The hon. members opposite, specifically the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands, and others as well, argue against this, and do so in spite of the fact that responsible Black Governments have stated their standpoints in black and white and in spite of the fact that every normal person ought to realize that if you want to maintain law and order, this ought to be your standpoint. If chaos were to result here, where would the hon. member for Houghton be then? She would run so fast that one … [Interjections.] Sir, their behaviour is irresponsible. If a Black Government tells its people: “Uncontrolled squatting cannot be tolerated and will not be allowed in the interests of the squatters themselves”, then the Opposition argues against this.

I joined this department of Co-operation and Development in 1952, in other words almost 30 years ago, and I undoubtedly had a great deal of experience of squatting during my period of service, for example during the clearing up of Sophiatown and other areas at the time. During those 30 years I also saw what happened in Soweto, and in all honesty I can say that in my opinion the Transkeian Government is 100% correct in its standpoint, because once one is dealing with uncontrolled squatting there is only one solution and that is to nip it in the bud immediately.

And let them starve.

One must clamp down on it immediately, otherwise you are not acting in a responsible way, not towards the taxpayer either. If you do not do so, not ten times but thousands of times as much money will subsequently have to be ploughed in to clear up the resulting mess, the numbers which increase by the thousands overnight. To allow this would surely be irresponsible. In addition one must also take into account all the things which accompany squatting, e.g. the socio-economic conditions of crime and the chaotic conditions which can develop, etc. The solution therefore lies in other directions. It definitely does not lie in the direction of uncontrolled squatting. That hon. member and the other hon. members opposite can squawk to their heart’s content. As long as this Government is in control and I am the Minister concerned we do not intend to deal with uncontrolled squatting in any other way than to nip it in the bud the moment it rears its head. I am referring to uncontrolled squatting now. The Transkeian Government is 100% correct when it says that uncontrolled squatting cannot be tolerated in the interests of the squatters themselves. This is how we have acted here and we shall continue to act in the same way.

I should now like to inform the House about the facts of this matter. We tried not to conjure up spectres unnecessarily but said that there had been “a concerted effort”, orchestrated as well as it was humanly possible, to defy the Government, to throw law and order to the winds, to encourage civil disobedience, and so on. Some people believed us, but others did not, and I should now like to furnish a few particulars. On 16 July 1981, after the police and officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development had arrested a group of squatters at the Nyanga site, members of the Women’s Movement for Peace took down the names of all those arrested. This was in addition to the National Council of Churches who are now crawling out of their holes—as one could have read yesterday in one of the Sunday newspapers—and themselves admitting that they were doing this. We have known for some time that members of the Women’s Movement for Peace have been doing this in an orchestrated way in the Cape Peninsula. I can furnish proof of the part played by members of the Women’s Movement for Peace when we were compelled to repatriate certain Black people to the Transkei in May. I can prove how members of the Women’s Movement for Peace arranged for buses to bring them back and how they also received those people here. They even arranged a reception committee and telephoned people and churches asking them if they would like to help because the members of the Women’s Movement for Peace were arranging for buses to convey the people from the Transkei to the Peninsula. [Interjections.] I am merely furnishing the facts. Not only can I furnish proof that a reception committee was arranged but I can also mention the names of the women who were members of that committee. [Interjections.] I shall do so, if those hon. members want me to. They not only arranged a reception committee, they also arranged with the churches to provide the people with food here when they arrived here from the Transkei. [Interjections.] Now is that fair? This Government is trying to maintain law and order. It is a Government which is proud of the Cape Peninsula. After all Cape Town is our heimat. Van Riebeeck landed here. Do we want chaos here? Surely what is involved here is not race or colour. [Interjections.] Surely all that is involved here is the order we wish to preserve here. The other day during a debate here I said that if White people had been involved the circumstances would have been exactly the same. But those hon. members do not want to believe this. [Interjections.] However, it is the truth. We do not want disorder here.

Why do you not build houses?

We can talk about that. In the Cape Peninsula we have a very fine record in this regard. On 23 July 1981 it became known that the Rev. Luckett, members of the Women’s Movement for Peace and members of the Athlone Advice Bureau had decided that if Blacks in Cape Town were sent back to the Transkei, they would ensure that for every bus used to remove them a bus would be made available to bring them back to the Peninsula.

That is true.

Those are the facts of the matter.

That is nonsense.

In the Sunday Times of 26 July it was reported—hon. members must listen to this—that the lawyers defending the squatters were deliberately trying to draw out the hearings for as long as possible with a view to putting a stop to the raids. These lawyers were drawn from 19 different Cape Town firms at the request of the Athlone Centre. This is according to the newspaper report. On 30 July a mass meeting was held in the St. George’s Cathedral in Cape Town to express solidarity with the squatters. The meeting was arranged by the Civil Rights League, the Western Province Council of Churches and the PFP.

Was it illegal then?

The Black Sash was also involved in the arrangements.

So what?

And so were members of the Women’s Movement for Peace and the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission. Hon. members must listen carefully now. After various individuals had made speeches in which they condemned the authorities for their actions, a petition, drawn up by St. John’s Parish, Wynberg, was sent round to be signed. During the meeting in the church the squatters sang N’kosi Sikelele i’ Afrika. We do not hold it against them if they want to sing this, but they also gave the Black Power salute and ended with the cry “Amandhla”, “Amandhla’wethu”. This happened inside the church. [Interjections.] Perhaps it was only certain people, but what was the intention behind this? [Interjections.] I should like to demonstrate what is behind this whole business. On 11.8.1981, during the removal of squatter shelters in Nyanga, the same Rev. Luckett intervened and I told him—I said it in front of him; I did not say it behind his back—that they were making it virtually impossible for us and for the Transkeian Government to come to any sort of an agreement with these people …

Why?

He and others had made it impossible for us to reach any agreement so that those people could be dealt with on merit and so that we could cope with a difficult problem.

Why?

On 21 August a report was received that members of the Women’s Movement for Peace and certain clergymen had arranged for three buses to take the deported squatters back to the Peninsula. The driver of one of the buses, an Indian—I can give you his name but why should I?—had a letter in his possession, dated 23 August 1981, signed by the Rev. M. Hall of the Border Council of Churches, St. Michael’s Church, Queenstown. The letter contained the following words—

Right. They were looking for their children.

That will be the day.

According to the Indian who was driving the bus the Rev. Hall undertook to pay him R17,50 for each person conveyed. He was then paid R1 000 in advance, with the promise that the balance would be handed over after the journey had been completed. One can also read what Bishop Tutu had to say. This was over and above the travel tickets for these people, which were also paid for. I shall furnish the figures in a moment. It is incredible! In addition to the money for the bus tickets, etc.—and this is not what I say, but what they say—each one of them was given R20 pocket money. They were given R20 to come and establish themselves in the Cape Peninsula, in defiance of the decisions that had been taken. People were brought here by the busload to break the law and to commit civil disobedience.

The R20 was to keep them alive.

The hon. member for Green Point was one of the ringleaders in this regard. Believe me, the voters of South Africa would oust those hon. members if they only knew what those hon. members have been doing during the past 14 days. Of that I am certain. [Interjections.]

Order!

On 25 August it was reported that Blacks from the Transkei were finding their way to Queenstown in various ways, without going through the border posts. Now hon. members will realize what a sinister, orchestrated organization is behind all this, one in which some members of the PFP are directly involved. Then the hon. member for Houghton rises to her feet here and makes a pious, hypocritical speech.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “hypocritical”.

I withdraw the word, Sir. Black people leave the Transkei in various ways, without going through the border posts, and find their way to Queenstown. From there the Rev. Hall arranges transport for them to Cape Town. The Athlone Advice Bureau is also contacted from Queenstown, as well as a certain Mrs. West of the Roman Catholic Church in Somerset Road, Cape Town. On 27 August 1981 three busloads of Blacks were stopped on the main road between Tarkastad and Cradock by the South African Police. A White woman, Mrs. M. K. Luckett, wife of the Rev. Luckett of the St. Josephine Church in Wynberg, was a passenger on one of the buses. I think I should also point out that as long ago as 18 May 1981, Bishop Desmond Tutu sent out a circular on behalf of the South African Council of Churches to all affiliated churches, in which he announced that the South African Council of Churches was going to give priority to the question of resettlement or, as he put it, “the uprooting and dumping of God’s children”.

Which is exactly what it is.

The organization began as long ago as 22 May 1981. We have proof of this. I can tell this hon. House that I even have proof that a Black journalist from America who had visited this country told a South African Black leader in America that all hell would break loose in the Cape Peninsula to coincide with the start of the Parliamentary session to cause the Government the greatest possible embarrassment. I knew this even before this affair started in July. The Western Province Council of Churches, in response to the appeal made by Bishop Tutu, in its turn made an appeal on 22 May 1981 to its churches for August 1981 to be known as “a month of compassion” with the theme “The cry of resettled communities”. The month would be set aside for practical co-operation to promote the unity they want. Once one has these facts can one doubt for a moment when we allege that it was an orchestrated attempt in which the PFP was directly involved from the very beginning? They co-operated to cause what happened at Nyanga. If the hon. member for Houghton takes no notice of this—and I do not expect her to—I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will do so. On 24 July 1981—and I am going to mention the attorney by name—we received proof that Mr. A. M. Omar of Cape Town gave the Blacks legal advice and told them, inter alia, that they must always keep their children with them to make the task of inspectors and the police more difficult. I now wish to give this House the facts about what happened and how comprehensively orchestrated the entire matter is and was. During the five days from 24 August 1981 to 8 a.m. on 29 August 1981 229 buses were stopped on their way here from the Transkei.

Eight other vehicles were stopped. The total number of Black passengers questioned in just five days up to eight o’clock this morning was 8 984. If we had not done all these things during these five days, approximately 9 000 people would have been brought here by the people who are engaged in this orchestrated attempt, and in which some of the PFP members are absolutely and directly involved. The number of people who have been declared prohibited immigrants and sent back to the Transkei under police escort was 922, plus 1 601, making a total of 2 523. We therefore intercepted 922 of these people who were sent here from Queenstown on an organized basis. This is only during the past five days, up to eight o’clock this morning. The number of people charged with contravening the Urban Areas Act, was 78. One Black bus driver was charged with not being in possession of valid transport documents. The number of people who had been declared prohibited immigrants in Cape Town and who were found returning to Cape Town in buses and who were then sent back to the Transkei, was 129. Of the thousands to whom I have referred—it is almost 10 000 in round figures—who were brought here on an orchestrated and organized basis the likes of which I have never seen before, certainly not in this sphere, there were only 129 who had squatted here before. Ten Black men previously deported from Cape Town who returned illegally to Cape Town were stopped at Worcester. They alleged that they wanted to come and fetch their property in Cape Town. This is the reason being given: They have come to fetch their property. Others said they had come to fetch their children. We were as fair and humane as anyone could possibly be to prevent any awkwardness and difficulty. However, when the people concerned were unable to use one pretext they brought the people to Cape Town ostensibly to fetch their belongings because the cruel Government had summarily taken them and loaded them into buses. That is not true. All we did was that, after we had offered them a thousand employment opportunities and they had refused to co-operate because they had been incited by Whites not to do so, and for no other reason, we gathered them together in one place and then processed every case on its merits.

They want to live with their families.

Quite a number of them were allowed to return to work immediately. Where we were able to help them, we did so. In this way we helped quite a few of them. Only those people who really could not be helped here, were processed out. The people who were stopped at Worcester who said they were returning to Cape Town to fetch their belongings here, gave addresses where their personal possessions were supposedly stored. We asked the police to investigate the matter and they then went to the addresses given and found that with only a few exceptions those people were completely unknown at those addresses. They were completely unknown.

I am only lifting the veil slightly. The hon. members opposite know me. Do they think for a single moment that we would act like this if we were not absolutely sure that we are dealing here with an organized matter which has as little to do with squatting as the man in the moon and if we had not known that it was an orchestrated attempt to embarrass the Government and the country and to cause the most unpleasant publicity imaginable for South Africa abroad?

In view of this irrefutable proof and facts I should again like to make an appeal to everyone to allow this matter to cool down and to allow us to reach the point where we can consider our problems in a proper and positive way, as I wish to do when I wish to furnish this House with information on housing and other matters in my next turn to speak, in order to demonstrate that we in fact have an excellent strategy in respect of urban Blacks and what progress we are making in the sphere of housing. That story is just as good as the one in connection with the creation of employment opportunities in the national States.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to use this opportunity of making it quite clear where the NRP stands in relation to two matters which have been discussed here this afternoon. The first one is the Nyanga affair, and the second one is the question of urbanization.

Starting with the Nyanga affair, I should like to state that we believe that there is no one in this House today who, in his heart of hearts, is pleased with what took place. To put it the other way round, I am sure everyone of us is very sorry that this ever happened to South Africa’s good name at all. I am quite certain that that is in fact the case, and that if we could turn the clock back and do the whole thing in a different manner we would all be a great deal happier today.

It is the opinion of this party, however, that within the Government’s laws of influx control and in the present situation, it is quite possible for this sort of affair to be handled in a far more concerned, compassionate and innovative manner. If this had indeed been done, it would have added to the credit of the Government and it would have gone a long way to solving a problem which, we believe, we are going to have to face on an increasing scale in the future.

In this regard we in these benches find it rather strange that this country should spend millions on keeping people engaged in civic action on our borders and in the developing homelands. This is a sensitive area. It is a long process of building up confidence and of giving assistance to developing people. We spend millions on that aspect and yet when we are faced with a crisis right in our midst, we fail to recognize such crisis for what it really is, and also fail to take the proper action which is required. That is indeed the type of situation which, we believe, we shall have to face over and over again in the future. There are good reasons for this, as stated by many hon. members during the course of the past few weeks in debates on, for instance, labour legislation and matters of that nature.

I would go so far as to say that it is quite ridiculous to think of it that at this very moment there are refugees and prisoners on the South West African border with Angola, who probably have a more planned and better controlled reception, processing and handling than people right here in our own midst, in our own country. This is a fact, and I believe we must indeed ask the Government to accept total responsibility for the situation which was allowed to develop. If there was in fact incitement and if this matter was exploited in an organized and orchestrated fashion, it is the responsibility of the Government to see to it that a similar situation is not allowed to occur again. I do not say this lightly. I also know that the officials concerned are dealing with an enormous task. Therefore I believe that the Government must acknowledge the fact that the whole question of urbanization of Black people is one with which the Department of Co-operation and Development is going to have to cope in a very sensitive, compassionate and planned manner on an ever-increasing scale. It might also be necessary to add to their numbers, to change their methods and, in general, to give them the sort of assistance and support which they really need in order to cope with a sensitive and extremely difficult problem.

We must look at this thing anew and achieve the sort of compassionate firmness that is required here in order to cope with this matter to the credit of the country. In that regard it is the considered opinion of the members of this party that there is much that could be done. It is unfortunate that the Government in its ideological standpoint in relation to the urban Black somehow has a total blind spot in that the moment anything that sounds like urban Black is mentioned, there is a freeze; it has simply got to be dealt with and got out of the way. I put it to hon. members that this is an area in which this country has a great deal of research and thinking to do for the good of the country and in order to buy that sort of time that is necessary for progress to be made in these areas which are going to defuse pressure on the urbanization process. Coming to that point, it goes without saying that the tremendous push-pull situation that exists, the economic attraction to the urban centres is, as I have said previously in this House, a known factor. We know where the development centres are, we know where people are going to go and we already know that urbanization is on its way to a great extent. We must take cognizance of this and must be prepared to cope with this sort of situation. If the development of the homelands is slowed down for economic reasons, or if it does not reach its target, it is going to be a fait accompli that we are going to have a great deal more of this type of thing arising. I would not say that it will indicate any form of weakness at all on the part of the Government to issue a statement at this time to indicate that the matter is being reviewed and that methods of dealing with the matter are going to be revamped and considered to prevent any sort of situation such as this recurring.

I must now come back again, of course, to the question of our sharing one economy. It has been said in this House by hon. members in the Government benches that we are in fact going to share a common economy. One cannot get away from that. I think the words used by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt were “a collective economy”. I think he must have meant a “common” economy, because to have a collective economy means that one collects from everybody and then has to redistribute it again. I do not think that is the case at all. We are going to share a common economy. One cannot have a burgeoning, growing, common economy without the people participating on the political front as well. The two go hand in hand and then the situation that arose in Nyanga would not occur. During the discussion of the manpower debate I could not help thinking how much more perfect the manpower legislation would have been had the debate concerning it and concerning the workers who in the main are going to be involved in it, had been conducted by all those involved, in fact the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned spectacular amounts which were being expended and enterprises and deeds which were being initiated to improve the quality of life of the Black people in South Africa. These things, in themselves, must grip the imagination of every right-minded person in this country and move him deeply to know that it is the intention and also the endeavour of the Government to do the best for these people that can be done under the circumstances in order, by so doing, to further sound relations in this country. In contrast to that the hon. the Minister also revealed alarming situations to us of what people on the other side are doing in regard to the squatter situation at Nyanga. The hon. member for Houghton, in her typical—what is the word we had to withdraw?—shall I say sanctimonious manner …

Order! The hon. member must not try to circumvent the rules in that way.

Very well, Sir, I shall say that the hon. member for Houghton unburdened herself of certain allegations here in a very strident tone and in a very provocative way. She devoted a large part of her speech to squatting here in Nyanga. I should like to do the same, but I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that if she addresses the Government in the way she did, then a skirmish with the official Opposition is a very great temptation to me.

Today I should like to speak to the official Opposition in a completely different tone to see whether we cannot perhaps as a result create a better understanding of and attitude towards the problems of this department in the official Opposition. If we cannot succeed in doing so, then we know that the problems surrounding the Black people are for the official Opposition an indispensable element for their politics of destruction of the existing order. They now have the opportunity to demonstrate to us which side they choose. Consequently I want to say that these deeply disturbing events at Nyanga—because they were disturbing—must be transformed into a positive deed. The hon. the Minister stated repeatedly that the solution to the problem lay in a different sphere. A new, vigorous slogan should be created out of these events, namely: Develop the national and the independent States in such a way that it prevents squatting in South Africa.

The emphasis must fall on development and basically, three different methods must be used: Firstly, project aid must be granted to national States instead of unspecified appropriations on their budgets; secondly a diplomacy of economic development must be adopted in respect of the independent States, instead of the granting of statutory or normal foreign aid which is also unspecified; and thirdly, co-operative projects with both the national and the independent States must be urgently launched so that their economies can be stimulated and strengthened in that way. This method of granting development aid must be applied so that the funds which are appropriated do not simply flow away into the establishment of administrative and social infrastructures while the real development which is labour-generating in these States remains in abeyance. From the very outset it will then be clear that the Government cannot undertake this major task for the future alone and unaided. The greatest measure of understanding and cooperation and zeal is required from the public, the business sector, the industries, the mining industry and even the national and the independent States themselves. In this way a powerful and unstoppable working team can be created to get the development of the national States off the ground in a meaningful way.

Everyone in this country, White, Black and Brown, who believe in law and order for their daily working conditions and secure continued existence—and there are millions of them—and everyone in this country who hopes for peace—that is, individuals and groups of all nations and colours as well as the political parties which serve them—must turn this slogan into a reality: Develop the national and the independent States in such a way that it prevents squatting in South Africa. If the Government has a special task in this connection—and it does—then the official Opposition and its organs may not exclude themselves from their responsibilities within the South African situation. The Opposition and its Press can play a decisive role in causing all aspects surrounding the prevention of squatting to evolve either in a peaceful or in a dangerous way. That is precisely how powerful the official Opposition and its Press is—I do not hesitate to say this—but that power must be used in a responsible way. Responsibility does not mean political advantage or propaganda for the Opposition; responsibility then means that the established norms of people who have permanence in this country—White, Black and Brown—must be taken into consideration.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that if priority in this situation is not given to understanding and reconciliation and co-operation, we are heading inavertibly for chaos in this country, the end of which cannot be calculated.

Some people want it.

The hon. member is quite correct when he says that some people want it.

That is why the forces of reason and fairness must be cherished. They must be supported and encouraged. They must be given tangible and positive assistance, and the forces of anarchy and chaos which can damage and destroy, must be avoided or even combated.

When this Nyanga issue was at its height, Dawie of Die Burger described the situation very well in his column when he wrote the following—

I am now asking the official Opposition whether what Dawie said was true. [Interjections.] The hon. members must demonstrate to us through their deeds that Dawie of Die Burger was not telling the truth when he wrote these words in his column.

Let us then in a spirit of friendliness, but also with common sense instead of emotion, make an appeal to the official Opposition to contribute their co-operation and support in the interests of the preservation of law and order, in the interests of civilized standards, in the interests of the self-preservation of the human race here at the southernmost point of Africa towards finding a real solution to this human drama of squatting with all the sensitivity with which it is surrounded.

If they do not join us in doing this, we are heading for a disastrous climax which will destroy everything which has been brought into existence in this country over generations. By being able to maintain and guarantee law and order under all circumstances it will be possible to make of South Africa the most developed and the most prosperous country on this vast continent, a country which ensures all its inhabitants—White, Black and Brown—of a secure home and a good existence. If we are unable to do this, the quality of life for all these people in this country will be destroyed.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member sincerely for the opportunity to complete my speech.

The withholding of co-operation and support will in reality precipitate us towards the destruction of the human race itself—White, Black and Brown—here at the southernmost point of Africa and not only here but deep into the heart of Africa itself. That is where the ripple effect of these consequences will be felt. Therefore we must develop the national and independent States in such a way that it will prevent squatting in South Africa and will eliminate friction and chaos and revolution.

Now, it is true that various instruments have already been created by the Government to undertake the development of the Black States, for example the EDC, SADT, the Economic Development Corporations of the various Black States themselves, as well as direct appropriations from the RSA Exchequer for the budgets of the national and independent States.

However, we must be fair and admit that our best efforts in this connection have not been entirely successful, and that it was a mistake to exclude White investment capital from these States for such a long time. We have not been able to succeed, with everything we have done so far, in creating sufficient employment opportunities for the Black people within their own area, to say nothing of surplus employment opportunities in order to lure people away from our White areas and place them in employment in their own States. For this reason the Government is at present engaged in creating additional instruments to help to realize this possibility, viz. the Development Bank and the Corporation for Small Businesses, by means of which the private sector as well as the international community can make a contribution if they are in earnest about rendering assistance. The official Opposition, too, has an opportunity of indicating to us, through these instruments, to what extent they are in earnest about helping the Black States to develop, precisely in order to avoid the problem of squatting in South Africa as well. We trust that these undertakings will develop into powerful financing organs which will receive international recognition, and that we shall in such a way be able to bring about the development of the national and independent States so that this will create stability, not only for the people of these States, not only for the people who have per manence in the White area, but stability for the whole of Africa as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton made a remark which hurt me deeply. Bishop Tutu spoke about the “uprooting and dumping of God’s children”, and the hon. member’s rejoinder was: “That is exactly what happened.” I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton and the other PFP members that in the history of South Africa in future, posterity is not only going to ask the official 1981 Opposition what it said, but also what it did in the interests of South Africa. History will indicate whether they played a positive or negative role in respect of stability in South Africa, for let us have no illusions about this, it is for every politician in South Africa, with his remarks, statements and deeds, to incite or to calm emotions or feelings in this complex South Africa of ours. I shall therefore leave it to the conscience of the hon. member for Houghton.

In South Africa there are certain realities from which neither the Opposition nor we on this side can escape. For example we are dealing with the tremendous problem of urbanization, and I want to say something about this. The hon. member for Houghton knows that according to calculations we shall, by the end of this century, have more than 20 million Black people in our urban areas. She also knows that in South Africa we are dealing with a backlog in development among the Black people, about which volumes could be written. As a trained social anthropologist who worked among the Black people for many years, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that one cannot rectify this problem of the backlog in development of the Black people by expressing sentimental emotions concerning the equality of people. It is a very complex question and it lends to this problem a specific dimension, a dimension from which we dare not run away. This dimension entails that we are not always able to do the things we should like to do as rapidly as we should like to do them. We are dealing with population growth in South Africa, from which neither the official Opposition nor the Government can run away. It is a simple truth that 48% of the Black population in South Africa is under the age of 15 years, and that creates socio-economic problems of vast dimensions for us. When those hon. members attack us, they should simply take the following few realities into consideration: The tremendous rate of urbanization, the backlog in development among the Black people and the phenomenal population growth. They must also bear in mind that we are a Third World State, in truth, an African State. Although the Third World, and in particular Africa, has been forced to its knees by these abovementioned problems, those hon. members still wish to denigrate us in the international political arena. What are the facts? In all the cities in African States virtually half of the inhabitants are squatters. We must examine the entire upliftment effort in respect of Black people in our urban areas, for surely we want a stable Black urban community. We must ensure that this stability is not disrupted by disorderly elements, and we must also do everything in our power to ensure socio-economic stability by means of proper housing which can serve as a basis for the stable development of these people.

In all decency I wish to put a question to the the Leader of the Opposition. Would they please help us to refrain from politicizing these problems? After all, he will agree with me that we can create endless tension around these problems. They must please refrain from politicizing the major problems surrounding the realities of Africa in such a way that all our splendid efforts to preserve stability and bring about the socio-economic upliftment of people are utterly destroyed and only the tatters of emotional chaos remain. The hon. members know that the world will come to have a better understanding of South Africa’s problems. We need only look at Europe, and the tremendous problems with guest labourers. In West Germany, 14% of the labour force consists of foreigners. Throughout Europe they have this problem of guest labourers. If we take all the socio-political problems which flow from this into consideration, we see that the world is now, on the basis of its own experience, beginning to have a better understanding of South Africa’s problems.

Furthermore we need only look at the race conflicts throughout the world to realize that as we approach the year 2000 there will be an increasing number of people and countries in the world which will, on the basis of their own experiences, begin to understand the complexity of potential racial emotions in South Africa. When we discuss these matters, let us say to one another: South Africa is a land of challenges and not only a land of problems, for surrounding every problem in South Africa there are vast challenges, and we cannot deal with those challenges by allowing emotions and disorder to get the upper hand.

This Government is not a perfect government, and we admit that candidly. The National Party Government has made mistakes with the entire urban Black problem. For a long time we said that the group of people in the urban areas were merely temporary, and we thought they could return to whence they came. However, that was a mistake. With quite a number of statements, as well as with things such as the 99-year leasehold scheme, the Government is now saying, however, that it admits the permanence of the problem, and on that basis we are now coming forward with practical steps. However, we are asking the Opposition to support us in order to ensure stability here. There are many other things which we must also do. Not only must we ensure stability here but, as the hon. member for Parys said, we must also have decentralized economic development in South Africa. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a well-qualified sociologist, to negotiate with the big finances in South Africa so that we can give sufficient attention to the problem of rural development. If he does this, we will have come a long way.

In South Africa we are at present saddled with a problem of a shortage of 160 000 houses for Black people in the urban areas. We must also take into consideration—and the hon. member Prof. Olivier will agree with this—that the efforts of the NP to cope with this socio-economic problem, which involves housing as well as education, has been considerably hampered during the past few years as a result of international economic factors over which we had no control, such as the sharp rise in the oil price and the tremendous effect which this had on inflation. These major economic factors have contributed dramatically to our building up a backlog in coping with the socio-economic problems surrounding the Black people, viz. the provision of an infrastructure and of housing and education. In fact, we have fallen a long way behind in many respects during the past few years, and we are going to require a great deal of patience and the intervention of Providence to make up lost ground.

In the few minutes which I still have at my disposal I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the Black urban problem in the Pretoria complex. In Pretoria there are 46 366 Black people who live in White residential areas outside the Black residential areas. Furthermore, there are 22 000 Black people who are living illegally in our White residential areas. I have no doubt at all that we are dealing with a situation of mounting potential conflict. I see it in my own constituency, and one sees it in a major city such as Pretoria. I want to make a very earnest plea to the hon. the Minister: If we are to continue in a city such as Pretoria, and also in many other cities, at the present rate with the provision of housing and the establishment of infrastructure, we shall not succeed in solving the present problem within 20 years. In the meantime we are left with the potential for racial tension between people in our residential areas and for major problems in our city centre complexes. If we wish to stabilize the Black people in our urban areas, I wish to address a plea to the hon. the Minister that we should, in Pretoria and also in other cities of our country, accord the highest priority during the next few years to the creation of an infrastructure in the Black residential areas, so that they do not remain mere impoverished appendages of the White cities, and that we should accord the highest priority to housing for those people, particularly that category of people which the State will have to provide with housing. If we cannot succeed in bringing about the dramatic socio-economic upliftment of Black people in our cities so as to defuse this conflict potential in our White suburban areas foresee trouble, and I foresee that the NP will stand accused by the public of not having accomplished what it had promised. I wish to advocate that we get away from that accusation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has quoted a whole variety of figures to show what has been done under the NP Government in recent years to create job opportunities in the homeland areas and to stimulate development there. However, the point is that all the money in the world could not make that policy work.

Is it going to make yours work?

On the most important testing ground of all, namely the question of urbanization, that policy is a hopeless failure. Hence the almost panicky reaction of the hon. the Minister to the whole situation and the bitter and spiteful arguments we have had to listen to today and on previous occasions. Hence, too, the tendency to conjure up spectres and to see things which do not exist, because it is the realization that their policy is indeed letting them down on this fundamental level which they cannot face. Arguments which have been advanced here are, in my humble opinion, not worthy of the hon. the Minister. We may consider, for example, the one-sidedness which the hon. the Minister showed in his arguments and the way in which he quoted figures. The hon. member for Innesdal has just told us that by the end of this century, there will be 20 million Black people living in the urban areas in South Africa.

I said I would discuss housing at a later stage.

What on earth is the hon. the Minister going to do with 20 million Black people for whom there is no political or any other accommodation? If it goes on at this rate, what is the Government going to do with these people? This is a figure which the hon. the Minister conveniently failed to mention.

Then the hon. the Minister said that this party was denigrating the country. How many times have we had to listen to this rubbish over the past few weeks of the session.

But it is true.

The people who are creating the problems are sitting on the other side of the House.

The problems are not created. They are simply there.

When we talk about them, we are accused of denigrating the country overseas. If hon. members on that side of the House are looking for people who are prepared to turn South Africa into a whited sepulchre in which skeletons are concealed, they must not look for them on this side of the House. When we see a problem, as in this case, we shall talk about it, for that is our duty. We are here to try to resolve those problems.

In a publication published in King William’s Town, I see that a foreign visitor with whom I had a meal myself, and who was brought to this country by the Directorate of Information, has strongly condemned the Government’s policy. When he spoke to me, he told me: “Sir, you are the fourteenth man I have met in South Africa who is involved in politics. The other thirteen were all Nationalists.” Then he added: “Do you know how I feel? I feel depressed.” [Interjections.] Then the hon. members opposite accuse the Opposition of denigrating this country abroad.

The hon. the Minister also likes to refer to what the homeland leaders and Black leaders in South Africa have to say about the Opposition. What he fails to mention is what they have to say about the NP. Chief Sebe has said—

This is the man whom the hon. the Minister likes to call as a witness. We cannot go on in this way.

Then the hon. the Minister made some really outrageous accusations. He spoke about the lawyers who had helped to defend squatters when they had been charged with a whole variety of things. He then alleged that these people were deliberately obstructing the legal processes for certain political purposes. If the hon. the Minister wishes to make that allegation, he must do so before the Law Society and the Bar Council. Then we shall see what becomes of it. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister has evidence to substantiate his allegations, he must take it to the right address. I want to tell him that his allegation is disgraceful. I have nothing but admiration for people who are prepared to stick out their necks in response to the suffering of others and to offer their services, sometimes even free of charge, to help the people involved.

They are allowing themselves to be used.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that now that some of these people have appeared in his commissioner’s courts to teach some of the people working in those courts a little more about the legal process, those courts are functioning better than they have for a long time.

Then the hon. the Minister spoke about a protest meeting that had been held. I attended that meeting myself. I do not associate myself with “Amandhla” and the songs that were sung. I am not interested in that. The protest meeting was concerned with conduct by the Government which I regard as being nothing short of criminal, abominable and inhuman.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “criminal”.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw it. Let me say that it is inhuman and degrading.

Yes, it is disgraceful.

Then the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that food had been provided. A terrible fuss is being made about the fact that money was made available to these people. If the logical consequence of the Government’s policy, or of any aspect thereof, is that people may eventually perish because of it, because they may eventually die as a result of it …

But that is rubbish!

No, Sir. Those people are being forced by exposure to abide by the policies of the Government and to conduct themselves accordingly. When people are exposed to such things, to serious disease and eventually perhaps to death itself, it is the duty of every decent human being to help those people. [Interjections.] That is exactly what has been done. It is what I am also prepared to do.

It is what our parents taught us.

It is abominable to deprive people of their shelters. Then, on top of that, the hon. the Minister has the temerity to criticize people who gave food to those homeless people. I believe it is the most human and the most natural thing to do. A decent person does it spontaneously.

You are using those people.

I am convinced that there was a time when the hon. the Minister himself would have done the same thing under similar circumstances.

You are using innocent people.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal very briefly with an aspect of Government policy which, more than any other of the constraints of separate development, has compounded our problem, particularly in this part of the country. That is the Coloured labour preference policy enforced by the Government in the Western Cape. The history of this policy is, to say the least, very obscure. Therefore I should not want to deal with that at all. I also do not have the time to do so.

I do believe, however, that the hon. the Minister can no longer avoid facing this strange ideological concoction and answering at least some of the questions which arise from discussing this policy. One should expect that any policy which brings about so much suffering and inhumanity as that witnessed during the Nyanga East incident, must have some very good reason for its existence. Hardly any explanation has, however, been given during the past few weeks for the existence and the continuation of this policy. Few observers can understand why Black people should be treated more harshly and be subjected to more severe restrictions in the Western Cape than anywhere else in South Africa; almost—and I choose my words guardedly—as if they carry some terribly contagious disease. It is not necessary to look any further than Nyanga East in order to realize the viciousness of this policy in practice. I do not believe that Blacks elsewhere in South Africa are treated quite as ruthlessly during the process of flushing them out of an area as happened in Nyanga East.

All the other reasons that were advanced for the action taken against those people in Nyanga East were very interesting indeed. I believe most of them were patently irrelevant. I should venture to say that in some instances some of those reasons given were downright false. In the latter category, that of false reasons given, I should like to include the hon. the Minister’s argument that the land in question in Nyanga East was urgently needed for the building of houses. It is a strange need which all of a sudden disappeared again once the squatters had been removed.

Among the other reasons advanced was, firstly, unemployment. Surely, the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that unemployment is infinitely worse in the areas where those people come from, in spite of vast sums of money spent there. We are not unaware of these factors. The money spent, however, is not sufficient to make the policy work. The second reason advanced was that of the lack of housing. The lack of housing for Black people in the Western Cape is a direct result of the Government’s refusal to provide housing for Blacks in this area. The Government has refused to do so for well over a decade. The hon. the Minister knows that. During the past two or three years things have improved somewhat, but there was a period of ten years in which not a single dwelling unit was provided for Blacks in the Western Cape. [Interjections.]

Why do you not refer to the lack of employment?

I am coming to that presently. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it grieves me that we once again have to conduct a debate this afternoon at the level at which it was opened by the hon. member for Houghton and continued by the hon. member for Green Point.

It is being proposed that my salary and the Minister’s be reduced, and the proposal comes from an hon. member who professes to be a servant of this country, an hon. member who nevertheless tells us that when her party comes into power, she will allow the Communist Party in this country. She has the temerity to propose this. She also advocates that Mandela, a saboteur, should participate in a national convention. She, who has admitted that she cannot guarantee the rights of minorities in this country, has the temerity to propose that my salary be reduced. [Interjections.] She has the temerity to attack me and the hon. the Minister about our alleged lack of compassion. Her allegation is completely refuted by the hon. the Minister’s record. I devoted myself to treating Black people for 15 years in my profession. I did not sit around tables, talking; I rolled up my sleeves and I did the work that had to be done. I worked day and night. I sacrificed my health for that. Then that hon. member, who does nothing but yap, yap, yap all day, has the temerity to say that my salary should be reduced. The hon. member has the temerity to allege, as she did in Australia, that the world, and not only South Africa, is opposed to the racism of the NP. She is the one who does not even have the basic decency, when going to visit a national State, or to spy there, like a present-day Mata Hari, to request permission to go there from the head of that State. However, she is proposing that my salary be reduced. I reject this temerity with contempt.

I want to deal with another scandalous allegation made by her. This is the kind of thing that is being said here, the emotional language that is being used here, and it is not being used here for consumption in this House or in South Africa. The idiom in which they are talking is the idiom of the revolutionary radicals. That is the idiom she is talking in. She compared us with Cambodia. Hon. members know what happened in Cambodia. I want to read something about this—

Now I challenge her to substantiate that scandalous allegation she made.

She was talking about the boat people.

What was she talking about? Man, you must keep quiet. You are much too young to speak in grown-up company.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must refer to the hon. member as the hon. member.

Sir, I shall do so. It is very difficult, but I shall refer to him as the hon. member. I shall tolerate him.

The hon. the Minister, the department and I, who toiled day and night to solve the squatters’ problem in the most humanitarian way and with the greatest possible compassion, have been subjected to very heated attack in this House. There is no squatting today, except at Crossroads, which we are not placing on a very sound footing, thanks to the initiative of the hon. the Minister. Is this the type of housing that hon. member wants us to provide to our Black population?

Is that what she wants them to have for a happy future? Is it for this that the people should come to the Cape from Transkei, to come and live in areas such as Crossroads? That is the kind of rubbish she dreams up in her warm cosy house in Houghton. They work themselves into a warm feeling of solidarity and then they think they are being terribly humanitarian when they unburden themselves of such absolute drivel.

You put them out into the rain and cold. [Interjections.]

The process of squatting has been halted. There is no one who approaches squatting with greater compassion than we, because we understand that it is a socio-economic problem which is driving the people to squatting.

Who put them out …

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. These cases have been handled with great compassion. We are making a study of it. We have held several seminars in the department, with people such as Dr. Finlayson and Dr. Smit, world authorities on the problem of squatting. We understand that squatting is a phenomenon which one cannot eradicate overnight, but on the other hand, one cannot allow it to run rampant and to create atrocious conditions.

I wish to refute some of the further allegations that have been made against us. The scandalous allegation has been made that when we repatriated these people in Langa, some of their children were left behind.

Some were.

The newspapers were full of it. Did the hon. member say “some were”?

Yes, I did. Some were left behind.

It is not true. It is a blatant untruth.

They were left in the bush. I warned you about it.

I now want to tell that hon. member that the officials of the department, including the Director-General, stayed at those assembly-points for a week in an attempt to sort out these cases with great compassion.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must not become frivolous.

You know, Sir, she is very provoking! I want to choose my words, because she is a lady, but she is making it very, very difficult for me. She sits there cackling all the time like a broody hen that does not know how to stop.

Those cases which she mentioned here of parents being repatriated and children being left behind have all been thoroughly investigated, and not in a single case was it found that children had been left behind who had come here with their mothers. It did appear that children had stayed behind at the site of the squatting when some of the parents were taken to Pollsmoor, but they were reunited with their parents within a few hours.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned how these people lied about the possessions they had here. I make bold to say that if we were accused in this Peninsula of being lacking in compassion or not—and we certainly are not …

No one would accuse you of being compassionate!

Now the other parrot has started again! Sir, I want to say that I hope we have halted this process. I really trust that when we discuss these matters again, we shall do so with much less emotion and much more reason than we are doing at the moment. In this climate, which has been created by that hon. member for Houghton and her spiritual associates, we cannot conduct a debate which will be of benefit to these people whose interests we must promote. It is impossible for us to do so, because they are bedevilling relationships. They are the people who are always accusing us of bedevilling relationships. We have only to think of the emotional language which the hon. member for Houghton used this afternoon. Do we think the Black people enjoy this? Do we think they appreciate it when their interests are dealt with in such a way? No, Sir; and not least because they know that words and words and more words will do nothing about their situation. They are getting to realize that they are being used by an Opposition which is certainly not intent on promoting the interests of this country. We have to listen to a party which, as I have said before, makes allegations to which we have not yet received a reply. They are the people who make remarks such as the following. I have already asked them whether this is true—

I have not heard from the hon. member for Houghton whether this is true or not. I accept that it is true. Then they come here, however, and they talk about the interests of people who have been entrusted to our care.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. Opposition Whip for the opportunity to complete my speech. Let us continue on a more positive note now.

My department is deeply aware of our duty towards the Black people, especially in respect of housing. Sometimes the impression is created that we have no policy with regard to this matter. I just want to show hon. members what we have done in this field over the years. The Department of Co-operation and Development, together with the Development Trust, built 160 000 dwelling units in our national States between 1960 and the end of March 1981. At the moment we are working on 56 townships.

The point of these projects is that the administration boards, working from the Republic, as well as other bodies, are establishing townships for Black people in the national States. In co-operation with the Department of Community Development, we have financed Black housing through the National Housing Fund as well. Over the past 30 years, 396 295 dwelling units have been provided for Blacks. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here this afternoon, says we should abolish the administration boards. He says we should summarily abolish them. If we did that, we would be creating a vacuum, and who would build houses then? Since 1972, those same Administration Boards have provided 15 000 dwelling units from their own funds.

The impression is also being created that we have no plan for slum clearance and for handling squatter conditions which arise. However, when we take action and when we do something in the humane and compassionate way in which we have been doing it recently, we are accused and slandered, in this country and in the overseas Press. I do not blame the overseas visitor who spoke to the hon. member for Green Point and who was so depressed, as the hon. member said. Just listening to his speech depresses me, let alone having to converse with him. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that South Africa is part of the Third World. This is the crux of the whole matter, i.e. that we must be seen within the context of the Third World. We are engaged in a great renewal project at the Alexandra residential area. About 26 000 families have been settled in proper accommodation at Diepkloof, Meadowlands. At Eersterus, Mooiplaas, Derdepoort and Eastwood in the Pretoria vicinity, 30 000 families have been settled. From Cato Manor, 15 000 families have been settled. At Umlazi, we are providing housing for 85 000 people. Surely this is phenomenal work! Surely this is a success story. Surely these are great achievements on the part of the Government. Our economy is generated by 4,5 million people, but it has to care for 25 million people in South Africa.

Don’t the other people do anything, then?

Surely it is an enormous achievement that we have been able to do what we are doing under these circumstances, and still to maintain peace and order in the country. We are indeed the only State in Africa which can boast of such an achievement.

It has been proved in the past that we are able to tackle problems and solve them. Our strategy is there to be continuously adjusted and to be adapted to the means of the Government of the day. Adjustments will have to be made from time to time. There is one thing we must always bring to the attention of our people. The first duty of every person—it is primarily his duty—is to see to his own housing. Then it is also the duty of private employers.

Let us take the case of our farms. Let us consider the type of accommodation which is being provided there for our Black people. There are millions of them. We are always inclined to speak only of the squatters and the people at Nyanga and of the national States, while forgetting that there are people living on our farms as well. The hon. member for Houghton should go and see what our farmers are providing for the Black people on their farms. It is phenomenal and a success story.

The State can only act within its limited financial means in helping to maintain a full-scale housing process and to build healthy communities. The standpoint of our department is that we should try to get the individual involved in his housing and so forth. It has been scientifically ascertained that a Black man’s first priority is water; next he wants job opportunities; then a way of getting to his job; and only in the fourth place does he want a roof over his head. However, we are trying to give him all those things at the same time. But as Mr. Louis Rive has appropriately said, the Black people must also put sweat capital into building their houses. This is why we have self-help building schemes where we give these people all the opportunities to build their own houses. The State creates the infrastructure and we encourage the community. Some very fine schemes have been undertaken by administration boards, such as the Letsema scheme near Christiana. The Western Transvaal Administration Board began a scheme there for old-age pensioners in groups of ten. Those ten people had to build a house for each of them and had to pay only a deposit of R10 each. A positive aspect of that scheme is that the White community of Christiana donated each person’s R10. Those pensioners used the soil on the site and cement to make their own bricks with the aid of a brick press, and they built their own houses, while the Administration Board only helped them with the technical work, such as putting in windows and doors. I was privileged to visit that area last year and to see the fine scheme established there on a community development basis, a scheme which does credit to the Black people who live there.

I do not know when last the hon. member for Houghton went to Soweto, but I had the privilege of going there last Saturday. When one compares the present Soweto with the Soweto of two years ago, it is almost incredible that so much could have been accomplished over the past two years. This Government and the hon. the Minister and his department are doing splendid things for our Black people in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to the beginning of the speech of the hon. the Minister, because unfortunately there is no time to deal with it at length today, and then I want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

The hon. the Minister said the main function of the department was to develop the Black States into sovereign independent States.

†I want to put it clearly on record that this party believes that here is the start of the fatal flaw in Government thinking. The creation of separate autonomous independent foreign States is the prime and sole objective of Government ambition in South Africa. With it go two other fatal flaws in planning for the future. The first is the fallacy that the homelands can accommodate the population growth amongst the Black people of South Africa; the idea that one can develop the homelands so that they will be able to accommodate all the new people who will be bom between now and the year 2000. The other fallacy is the official Opposition’s approach that if one simply removes restrictions, one will have a Utopia and half one’s problems will disappear; then one will have a heaven on earth, and everything will be fine. The truth lies somewhere between. Obviously, restrictions, hurtful discrimination, the things that are hangovers from a past philosophy which is dead and which has no place in the 1980’s in South Africa, must go. We all accept that, except those in the Government who are desperately clinging to them, looking upon it as a security blanket from yesteryear. The concept that the homelands will be the answer to the problems of all the Blacks in South Africa is, however, a fallacy. It is also a fallacy that this can accommodate their political ambitions and that it can provide jobs so as to accommodate them economically. It is equally a fallacy to believe that one can just remove all differences, all restrictions, and that everybody will then live happily and in peace.

The answer lies in the field covered by the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. the question of urbanization. This is a question, however, that the Government does not seem to have any plans for. If one accepts that we are going to have to double our cities by the year 2000 and that there will have to be two houses for every one house that exists in South Africa at present and that we have to plan for 50 million people over the next 20 years, one is entitled to say that this Government has no plan to cope with the magnitude of the challenge before us. There is a crucial mental block in the Government’s thinking because the Government sees urban townships as being dormitories to house workers that must work for White employees.

That is not true, Vause, and you know it.

Basically the Government thinks of existing job opportunities as the factor governing urbanization. We have seen this with the Nyanga debacle, which I think was handled ham-handedly. I do not agree with the wild, overboard criticism, because I do not support uncontrolled squatting. I nevertheless believe the affair was dealt with ham-handedly because it was dealt with against the background of the philosophy that because there are no jobs for them, they must go back. We are not thinking far enough into the problem itself. We are not thinking beyond the concept of urban townships in and around the White areas being dormitories from which people will basically—not entirely—go out to work and to which they will return.

Look what we did at Crossroads for 25 000 people.

Yes, they have been housed, but that brings me immediately to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. On 10 June this year he said—

But I said that this afternoon again.

What he said then but did not repeat this afternoon, however, was—

But what is there in what I said today that is any different?

What the hon. the Deputy Minister did today was to quote figures, applicable since 1948—back to the clearance of the slums of Cato Manor. He quoted those figures as if that was a solution. It is only a contribution towards a solution, because the hon. the Minister himself realizes that it is not the final answer, that the Government cannot provide the houses and that one has to have a different approach to, or concept of, the whole question of urbanization. It is not just a question of having places to sleep, together with the essential social services. We have to create living cities generating their own opportunities, their own employment, their own development and their own infrastructures which will absorb people into the vital life of the cities.

In the national States.

There we have it! There again we see that mental block in the thinking of that hon. member. They cannot think in terms of anything but the national States being the be all and end all. That is an indication of the mental capacity of this Government when considering any problem. All they have to say is that that must happen in the national States. Those people will, however, also be in the White State. In fact, they will be all over South Africa, because the problem is one that is country-wide. It is not just a question of the national States.

Rather speak of White South Africa.

It is not only in White South Africa; it is all over South Africa. It is not only in the national States, as the hon. member for Klip River said.

It is only in the State of the Whites.

No, it is not only in the State of the Whites; it cannot be in the State of the White’s only, because it is impossible to provide enough housing and jobs for 50 million people in our existing cities.

It is a worldwide problem.

Now the hon. member says it is a worldwide problem. Of course it is. It is a worldwide phenomenon which the Government is trying to deal with in terms of a 1948 philosophy of creating separate Black areas in which everybody will find their “toekoms”, their future hope and their future accommodation. There are, however, other aspects to urbanization than just building a house and creating social services. I want to give an example of what happens in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Some hon. members may have seen in the television feature on Hong Kong recently the cottage industries creating employment, not by working in a factory for a boss. Why can we not develop that sort of cottage industry, or backroom industry, in our urban areas where the informal sector can make components which can be assembled in a factory? People can then sell their product instead of only their labour. They can then become part of the private enterprise system and part of a system in which they have a stake. What, however, does the Government do? We heard it from that hon. Deputy Minister. When somebody said the people were selling food, he asked: “Where did they get the licence?” The Government thinks in terms of licences and red tape, and they build houses in terms of standards which we have built up over generations. Why can we not build houses pied à terre, like the one I lived on when I lived on a farm? A house built of mud blocks is perfect to live in.

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

So do I.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not think the hon. member for Durban Point need feel sorry that his time has expired. There is little to which I can react, because, like a modem Don Quixote, the hon. member created a mental block concept for himself and argued around it. At the same time he is a Rip van Winkel with regard to development; he is still trapped in his idea of backyard industries.

Why don’t you introduce freehold title?

The poor hon. member’s party has not been able to come up with an alternative yet, and I think this is due to its lack of leadership.

I now come to the official Opposition. I think the hon. the Minister has already covered the whole field in a very extensive speech this afternoon, particularly with regard to the influx of Blacks to the Western Cape on a specific basis, so that there is probably not much more to be said about it. One can ask oneself: Are these humanitarian benefactors and the political hyenas who are fanning emotional flames in the misery of Black squatting, not aware of the explosive situation that they are creating by means of their so-called good deeds and their so-called concern? Illegal Blacks have suddenly arrived here overnight in their hundreds, out of the blue as it were, and it has been clearly shown how this happened. With military precision they descended on Nyanga, armed with green branches and plastic. One cannot be taken amiss if one says that it was highly organized and orchestrated as a final onslaught on a system and an existing order. I do not think there need be any doubt about this after this afternoon. What is tragic, is that these people have found an enthusiastic mouthpiece in the House which is in fact aimed at attempting to destroy the system. Pious people are trying to call down the judgment of Hell upon the unfeeling Government and those who are not so pious, are taking refuge in the cathedral—I ask you—probably to prostrate themselves in humility there.

I want to speak on behalf of other people today. I want to speak on behalf of the Whites, Coloureds and legal Black people who are intimately affected by this matter. When I speak on behalf of the Whites, I am speaking on behalf of my people, people who did not buy their comfort against the shadowy slopes of Table Mountain, on the hills of Constantia and Wynberg or against the cliffs of Sea Point and Clifton. They are people who live on the Cape Flats or adjacent to the Cape Flats and whose daily lives are threatened by illegal and unhygienic development. I do not think I am going too far if I say that I am speaking on behalf of thousands upon thousands of Coloureds who cannot escape the depressed economic position of the Western Cape, but who have to make their living here. The Western Cape can simply not generate enough employment opportunities for its local population. This is due to a lack of prospects on the short term, the medium term and the long term. However, we are not restricting our conversation to Whites and Coloureds. I think one is also entitled to say that one is speaking on behalf of thousands of legal Blacks as well who are experiencing serious problems in finding and retaining employment. Today there are thousands of legal Blacks who are unemployed in the Cape metropolitan area and it is a question of mere survival for them. Does the Opposition not want to realize that the large numbers of illegal Blacks that are arriving here, are making impossible demands of the existing infrastructure—the schools, the hospitals, the transport services and housing—and that their presence is in fact destroying the standard of living of the Blacks who are legally present in the Western Cape? The dispensation which was granted to the Crossroads community, remains a cause of intense dissatisfaction amongst the legal Blacks in the Western Cape. Must we continue to shorten the fuse on this powder-keg? What misplaced morality are we dealing with when the bread is literally being taken out of the mouths of the people who are legally present here, simply because their fate is not as spectacular as the fate of the other people is being made out to be?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the existing legislation is perhaps inadequate to combat organized influx, the like of which we are dealing with at the moment.

Do you want to make it even more serious? [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point has the nasty habit of never keeping quiet. When he has the opportunity to speak, he does not have the ability to make a contribution. Therefore, he may do well to remain silent. It often amazes me to see how many illegal people are granted a dispensation merely because they have jobs in the Western Cape. Employers are apparently only too prepared to run the risk of employing Black people in the Western Cape illegally. The way in which penal measures are implemented today, simply does not deter them. Let me say at once that the vast majority of industrialists adhere to the legal provisions. However, there is a category of industrialists, which is on the increase, which batten on illegal labour because it provides them with willing workers at a minimal wage. They do not pay any levies and the labourers have no defence because they are here illegally. This is the most blatant form of exploitation imaginable. It is profitable for such an industrialist even to discharge a legal Black in order to employ an illegal Black. At the same time—and this is the tragedy of the matter—those people are the very ones who are in the front line when there are protests on moral grounds to the actions taken against the squatters.

We know who they are. Most industrialists can tell us who they are. One simply has to go into the industrial area in my constituency and those industrialists will be pointed out to you. The PFP champions the cause of those who are guilty of this blatant exploitation. However, these exploiters are getting away with it. They got away with it at Crossroads, and now, at Nyanga, they are also getting away with it to a large extent.

Now it is true that in 1978 the congress of the Cape NP in East London expressed itself very strongly with regard to this matter. On that occasion meaningful decisions were made in this regard and I should like to mention only a few of them. The first is that minimum fines for employing an illegally present Black, should be made prohibitively high if possible. Hon. members will note that the crux of these decisions has a bearing on the employer every time, and not on the Black labourer. It was also proposed that the labour quota of employers who employ Black people, should be curtailed. In the third place, it was proposed that employers who are found guilty of employing illegally present Blacks, should be responsible for the repatriation of those Black workers. It is clear from the White Paper on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into legislation concerning the utilization of manpower, that the recommendations in that commission’s report comply more or less with the decisions that were taken.

However, fines were adjusted to a maximum of R500 for the first offence. Now, however, we find that since 1979 no employer has yet had such a fine imposed upon him. Generally, they prefer to pay an admission of guilt of R100 with regard to a group of illegal workers, or are fined a minimal amount by the court. Now it is true that the hon. the Minister indicated the other day that, in spite of the dispensation which he has granted to illegal Blacks who have employment, he will nevertheless see to it that the employers are prosecuted. He will also see to it that the minimum fines for which the Act provides, be increased. [Time expired.]

That was rather poor.

Drop dead. You have become a disgrace to this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it does not often happen that an ordinary member like myself has the privilege of being able to react to the speech by the hon. Chief Whip, particularly not when it is the hon. Chief Whip’s birthday to boot.

Hear, hear!

Now rumour has it that the hon. Chief Whip has passed the half century mark today. Without any hidden meanings in mind, I must say that the hon. Chief Whip does not look a day over 30.

Hear, hear!

We want to wish the hon. Chief Whip everything of the best for the year ahead.

Political ideals are often tempered by harsh realities. Ideal choices, as one would like them to be, are not always possible. Circumstances over which one does not always have any control, can restrict one’s choices, so that one’s choice, although it may not be the best choice, becomes the best possible choice. In this way, for years it has been the ideal of the Whites to develop all the Blacks under White trusteeship in their own areas towards self-government in their own homelands.

In spite of all efforts to promote development in the Black States, there are approximately 10 million Black people in their own areas today, and approximately 10 million Black people in the White area.

Furthermore, it is true that the size and the extent of several Black urban residential areas is already of such a nature that even if influx from outside could be halted, the natural growth rate would cause their population will practically double within the foreseeable future. Therefore, the fact that we have the Blacks with us in the White urban areas, is a reality that we must accept and to which we shall have to adapt in the future.

Therefore, against this background, it was quite clear to the NP Government that effective local government for the urban Blacks can no longer be implemented by Whites from outside. Within the new dispensation that we are now entering, decisions in dealing with population issues will no longer be able to be made in a one-sided, paternalistic fashion. That is why it has become necessary for a truly effective local self-government with real power and responsibility to be granted to the Black urban communities on an ethnic basis as far as possible. And in this way the Community Councils were established. The Community Councils therefore aim at accommodating the needs and aspirations characteristic of the urban Black man within the Republic in the new constitutional dispensation that we are entering in South Africa at the moment.

Self-interest is an important factor in politics. That is why, by creating the institutions that serve as instruments for achieving personal aspirations, the NP wants to offer the urban Black man too the opportunity of striving towards his own interests as far as possible, by means of the community councils. If we look back today over the past few years, we can say that community councils have already come into effect in a dynamic way, that the process of development at this level has been set in motion and that a great deal of success has already been achieved. The success that has already been achieved through these councils thus far, can largely be ascribed to the sound co-operation between White officials and responsible Black people.

However, no one would wish to allege that the community councils are already functioning ideally. There are definitely still shortcomings in the system which do not satisfy everyone. Some critics will even allege that there can be no question of democracy here because the polling percentages for the election of these councils was low in some cases. But then it must be borne in mind that this was the first attempt and that Blacks were previously governed by a chieftain system where there was no question of voting. It was not more democratic, but it was acceptable to the Blacks because it formed part of their tradition and cultural pattern.

However, the biggest problem which is being experienced with regard to our community councils at this stage, is the phenomenon of participants and spoilers in the Black community. Participants are those who are prepared to attempt to solve the problems that exist. Spoilers are those who say that they advocate anti-apartheid and then cut themselves off from the problems of their own people. They are unwilling to work for a better community and instead of the control of conflict, they strive for the promotion of conflict, particularly by spreading the idea of White racism.

Anyone who has an interest in this, the critics too, must realize that shortcomings can arise and that community councils in the present form are definitely not the final answer either. Indeed, democracy, including the Westminster model thereof, is based on the assumption of fallibility. If we did not have the assumption that a Government is fallible, there would have been no reason for the existence of a system for changing governments by means of elections and having an opposition as an alternative government. Therefore, community councils will be fallible, but this is acceptable because the alternatives come from within the community and not from outside the community. Therefore, the community itself will establish what the restrictions on its own freedom are.

I believe that the success of this system will depend to a large extent on the form and content which the councils give their own government. Results are going to determine whether the community wants greater participation in their government and whether the community itself will think of effective alternatives. The Whites too, from their rich treasure of experience, can make a meaningful contribution towards the success of these Community Councils. We can do a great deal towards creating the right atmosphere and opportunities in which those people can win the confidence of their own community. That is why I believe the ideal should always be that the Community Councils will have the sole right of decisionmaking with regard to those powers that have been transferred to them. They must have meaningful power so that they do not have to tell their people that they will first ask the White Government. It is to be understood that to begin with, with regard to various matters the councils will only have an advisory say or a joint say, but then the ideal must still be that the situation will be able to develop dynamically and evolutionarily towards an independent say.

Furthermore the ideal should also be that the Community Councils obtain unrestricted channels for advisory action to the White central, provincial and municipal authority.

I believe that by achieving these ideals, we can increase the participants in the Black communities and give them a fair chance of exposing the spoilers as powerless puppets.

Mr. Chairman, the question of whether the Black urban areas are going to be a factor of stability and development here in South Africa or are going to be the fuse on a powder keg which will scorch their own people, together with the rest, is going to be determined to a large extent, in my opinion, by the way in which we can all succeed in reaching the Black urban dweller by means of reason, realism and by empathy and to guide him to independence.

Mr. Chairman, in his detailed statement this afternoon, the hon. the Minister gave us a large number of figures to show what the Government is doing in relation to economic development particularly in the homeland areas. There is no doubt that the Government is certainly undertaking various projects and spending fairly large sums of money in some areas. However, the weakness in the hon. the Minister’s argument is that one has to relate what one is doing to the size of the problem, and indicate how what one is doing is in fact going to make a considerable contribution towards solving the problem. Simply to mention sums of money and numbers of people employed without comparing with the numbers of people that have to be employed, is not in itself a solution to the problem. I think one is in danger of falling into the trap of mistaking activity for achievement in that regard.

The second point raised by the hon. the Minister that I should like to mention is this: The Government has set up this target in respect of uncontrolled squatting. They say that they will not allow it, that they are opposed to it. But, Sir, nobody on this side is in favour of uncontrolled squatting. The point is simply that if one gives people no other alternative, that is what one is going to get. I hope, therefore, that that will be the last that we hear of that accusation that we are in favour of uncontrolled squatting. We are all opposed to uncontrolled squatting.

Mr. Chairman, the series of incidents arising from the eviction of hundreds of people from the Langa barracks in the middle of a cold and wet Cape winter has caused widespread unhappiness. The hon. the Minister himself is unhappy about the events that have taken place. The Black squatters themselves are unhappy about the situation and so are many thousands of concerned Capetonians …

But you are happy!

… not to mention some startled United States congressmen. The reason for this unhappiness varies but it all stems from the presence of large numbers of Black people in the Cape Peninsula whom the Government does not want to be here. Let us have a quick look at the background. Black people have been involved in the labour structure of the Western Cape for more than 150 years. Settled urban Black communities have existed in this area for nearly a century, and the urbanization of rural populations is a world-wide phenomenon, as has been mentioned by many speakers this afternoon.

This is where the critical question arises and in all sincerity I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he honestly believes that the Government can prevent a large increase in the number of Blacks in the Western Cape over the next decade.

I am not so stupid, but I am also not so stupid as not to know that civil disobedience, whether it is in Russia or anywhere else, is wrong. The hon. member, however, is so stupid that he does not know that.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister acknowledges that there is going to be a large increase in the number of Blacks in the Western Cape. I am glad that he is so sensitive about it that he is prepared to bring in a red herring.

If you would stop your nonsense we would be able to get on with the squatters …

It is a critical question and I am glad that the hon. the Minister has seen his way clear to give an unequivocal reply to it.

I believe that the urbanization of tens of thousands of Blacks from the Ciskei and Transkei is inevitable and that large numbers of these people will settle in the Western Cape. Let us look at some of the relevant facts that apply to this situation: The Government instituted its Coloured labour preference policy for the Western Cape in 1962 to limit the further inflow of Blacks; from 1968 to 1974 employment of Blacks in the Western Cape on average trebled, and in the Post Office and the Railways it quadrupled; a survey in 1977-78 showed that nearly 50% of the people from Transkei and the Ciskei who came to the Cape Peninsula to seek work had no land or livestock in the homelands and had no other source of income or food; it was mentioned in the censure debate that the homelands themselves can only absorb 28% of the labour supply that they generate; and finally, another relevant fact is that the Black population of the Western Cape increased by 63% between 1970 and 1980.

All of this happened while the Coloured labour preference policy was ruthlessly implemented and a freeze on all new housing for Blacks was applied from 1972 until very recently. Clearly this policy has been a failure. The Black population is growing, and according to the hon. the Minister’s own figures 43% of the 200 000 Blacks in the greater Cape Town area are considered to be here illegally at present. This has nothing to do with the relatively few thousand squatters in Nyanga.

Organized industry, commerce and labour are opposed to the policy. Prof. Sadie, of the University of Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research, in a report commissioned by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Consumer Affairs, called for the policy to be scrapped. 81% of employers believe that the economy of the Western Cape will be harmed if Black labour is reduced. The Riekert Commission called for its abolishment. The report of the Department of Sociology of the University of Stellenbosch, financially supported by the hon. the Minister’s department, recommended that the policy be scrapped. The National Manpower Commission has asked for it to go. In fact, one is left wondering who is in favour of this policy. That is the second critical question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister today: Who is still in favour of a Coloured labour preference area policy? Is the hon. the Minister in favour of it?

I shall reply when I reply to the debate. I must point out in the meantime that the Government has decided …

Is the hon. the Minister still in favour of the policy?

The congresses of the NP decided to …

Did they decide that they are still in favour of it? Is the department of the hon. the Minister still in favour of it? Is it perhaps the case that some obstinate, hard-line Nationalists who still dream of White and Brown homelands, irrespective of the costs to the Western Cape economy or to good race relations in the area, are in favour of it?

The theory that Blacks will displace Coloureds in their jobs has been discredited by numerous experts. Furthermore, no representative Coloured organization has called for the retention of the policy; on the contrary, there is much evidence to show that Coloureds generally are strongly opposed to it and that it has retarded the economic development of the Western Cape.

The hon. the Minister and his officials have made numerous statements on the employment position of Blacks in the Western Cape and I should like to look at a couple of them. They give official unemployment as over 6 000, but the actual figure as being closer to 10 000. In his reply to a question on Friday, the hon. the Minister told me that there were 4 622 unemployed registered out of a de jure work force of over 58 000. If one adjusts the “normal” unemployment figure of, say, 4% at any time which applies in an economy, one has only 2 274 Black official work seekers generally unemployed.

Then there is the question of there being no work for the squatters. In actual fact, applications for the employment of over 10 000 Blacks have been turned down by the Government over the last four years. During last year alone 2 866 Blacks were denied employment by the authorities. In other words, there were more jobs going than the effective unemployment of Blacks at present. It is claimed that many Blacks legally in the area have lost their jobs because employers took on other people. No facts or figures have been given to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, figures show that the vast majority—over 90% of the Nyanga squatters—have lived and worked in the Western Cape for more than two years, and more than half of them have been here for over five years.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Government’s Coloured labour preference area policy is needed, is working or will ever work. It is an abysmal failure. I find it repugnant that this Government persecutes and punishes thousands of people because its policies have failed and because it refused to build houses for Black people for nearly a decade. [Interjections.]

It is sometimes said that the hon. the Minister is fighting to do his best in difficult circumstances, but I am afraid he does not have my sympathy. He has chosen to be a Nationalist for many years. He, together with all those who support Nationalist policy, are responsible for what is happening here in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] I consider that the harassment of the Nyanga squatters was callous and inhumane and that all Nationalists are co-responsible for jeopardizing the peace and prosperity of all the people in the Western Cape. I therefore call on the hon. the Minister to abandon the Coloured labour preference area policy without further delay.

Mr. Chairman, I listened in amazement to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. As the hon. member for Tygervallei said, that hon. member is of course speaking from the slopes of Table Mountain where they are not struggling with the same problems with which the people on the planes of the Cape Flats and elsewhere are struggling, and that is why he was, of course, able to argue in this fashion. I, on the other hand, want to make a request of the hon. the Minister today to confirm once again that he and the Government are still adhering to the party’s policy that the Western Cape is a labour preference area for Whites and Coloureds. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, alleged that no one speaks about it or asks for it, but I should like to quote a report which appeared in Die Burger on Saturday. Die Burger does not lie, and therefore we all know that this is the truth—

The writer goes on to explain how the number of Blacks from Soweto and elsewhere would increase without an influx from outside and says—

That hon. member does not know what this is all about because he never goes to that area. He does not know what the problem is about, nor what the facts of the problem are.

What about Prof. Sadie? Does he not know?

I am still coming to Prof. Sadie. Up to and including 1975 there was no Crossroads and there were no Nyanga squatters either. At the time it was under the control of the local authorities, the Cape Town City Council and the Divisional Council of the Cape. That control was a good thing because it did not allow squatters here, and it was also much stricter than the control which is being exercised by the hon. the Minister’s department at the moment. Members on that side of the House did not make any fuss about it then, because then they were part of that pattern. However, just to make petty politics of it now, and also because the matter now falls under the Department of the hon. the Minister, they are raising these arguments. They know their behaviour is wrong, because they themselves have already exercised this type of control. They may have acted in a much more inhuman fashion in that respect, because their control was exercised much more strictly.

Let us look for a moment at the figures with regard to the Western Cape in order to see what the real situation in the Western Cape was. However, these are not the figures of Prof. Sadie, but those of Prof. S. P. Cilliers.

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

A little later. Up to and including 1891 there were no Bantu in the Western Cape. This is according to the statistics in Prof. Cilliers’ book. Up to and including 1911 there were only 5 800 Black people in the Western Cape. I am mentioning these figures in order to indicate that the Western Cape has never been a Black residential area. It was the exclusive, demarcated territory for Coloureds and Whites. There are several hon. members in this House who will testify that they saw Black people for the first time when they were 30 or 40 years old.

Prof. Cilliers’ book also indicates that 86% of the Coloureds lived in the Western Cape during that period. I think the percentage today is approximately 90% of the total Coloured population of the Republic. If we look at population figures, we see that in 1977, there were 2,43 million Coloureds in the Republic and that 90% of them were resident in the Western Cape. It is predicted that there will be 4,7 million Coloureds in the Republic in the year 2000, and that 90% or more will be resident in the Western Cape. Between 30% and 40% of the increase in the population, from now until the year 2000—i.e. over the following 19 years—will have to be accommodated, and work will also have to be found for them. This means that employment opportunities will have to be created for approximately one million people. This means approximately 50 000 employment opportunities will have to be created per year, and bear in mind that this is for the indigenous Coloured population of the Western Cape only. Furthermore, we must also take into account that there are approximately 250 effective working days per year. The 50 000 employment opportunities will have to be created in the industrial sector in the Western Cape rather than in other activities, because it is on that level that the Western Cape will have to expand. This means that approximately R4 000 million will have to be invested over the following 19 years, based upon the very latest figure of R5 000 for the creation of a single employment opportunity. In the chemical industry the amount can be as high as R60 000 per employment opportunity, and there are other sectors where the figures are between R30 000 and R40 000 per employment opportunity. As I said, approximately R4 000 million will have to be invested, and this boils down to approximately R1 million per day which will have to be invested in the Western Cape simply to provide employment opportunities to cover the natural growth of the Coloured population in the Western Cape. However, the figures that I have just mentioned, are much higher than the amounts that are in fact being spent in the Western Cape at the moment. Indeed, investment in the Western Cape is decreasing. How on earth can those hon. members therefore ask that the Western Cape should not be a labour preference area for Whites and Coloureds. Surely what they are asking for is an economic impossibility.

In view of the figures I have mentioned, it is therefore so important for me to forget about politics and other related matters and merely to look at the economic and social problems. It is as plain as a pikestaff that we in the Western Cape will have to exercise control and attempt to keep the Western Cape a labour preference area for Whites and Coloureds as far as possible. Unfortunately, hon. members opposite know nothing about the future and even less about history. If one goes back to this same book by Prof. S. P. Cilliers, who is well known for not being much in agreement with the NP’s policy, one finds the following remark on page 90—

After all this is quite obvious—

I want to go back further into history. Some of us may even have forgotten what the outlook of the Afrikaans-speaking person was towards the Coloureds, and this is important. I am referring here to Onderwys en die Armblanke which was published in 1932. It may be interesting to quote a piece on job reservation from it—

I am quoting this for interest’s sake, and the following section is important—

I have quoted this with the specific idea of indicating that the prosperity, the interest and the protection of the Whites and the Coloureds in the Western Cape … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that I can follow on from the hon. member for Vasco, because as a person coming from the Transvaal who has had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Coloured population of the Cape only in the last three years, I want to tell him that, with the many Coloured people living in my area, I agree with him whole-heartedly. It is a good thing that the hon. member broke a lance for the world in which the Coloured people are living. I am also grateful that so many members of the Opposition are still here, because this afternoon I am going to concentrate on them to a large extent.

However, before I come to the official Opposition, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I agree with him on two matters. In the first place I agree with him that his department is producing brilliant work. In Boksburg, where I am in contact with the East Rand Administration Board, I can speak with praise and great appreciation of those officials. In the second place I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I agree with him on what he said a week ago about humanity. The hon. the Minister must not consider this a weakness, because in spite of the fact that some people always try to exploit that humanity, there are thousands of others who will appreciate that fine character trait of his and will co-operate with him.

In our search for solutions to South Africa’s racial problem, these two elements, viz. humanity and co-operation, are of cardinal importance to me, and I believe that they are going to play an important role. It is no use if the political leaders display the humanity and then we do not have the co-operation of the business world in our country. That business world promised the hon. the Prime Minister and the people of South Africa at the Carlton Conference that they were going to co-operate. I believe it is essential that we should have this co-operation, because in the nature of things, the bulk of our nation’s welfare is in their hands. I read the statement by the hon. the Minister in Die Burger of 17 July with interest, and in it he says the following—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have no quarrel with this, because in Boksburg we recently saw how the Coloured community of Reiger Park resorted to riot action because they wanted their world to be protected from suppression by Indian traders. The fuss that has been made in the Cape over the past two weeks, as the hon. member for Vasco clearly indicated, has in the nature of things concerned practical arrangements in connection with the world of the Coloureds. In Benoni Indian traders from Actonville told me that they were threatened by Black inhabitants of Wattville, the Black town adjacent to Actonville, that if they closed their shops on 16 June, they would be burnt down. I think it is important for the hon. the Minister to take note of the fact that we may have to make practical arrangements for protecting the world of those Indians. Therefore, it is not simply the world of the Whites which the hon. the Minister must protect. He must ensure co-operation and development so that the worlds of all may be protected here.

I want to say at once that I am proud of the Whites of my town who proved that they support the expansion of Reiger Park. We support it because it is essential that more land should be made available for Coloured housing. They are entitled to it. It improves their world. I hope the businessmen are also going to support us in that respect because in the nature of things it is in their interest too. I am pointing out these matters because a problem is developing in my constituency which I believe deserves the serious attention of the hon. the Minister.

In my constituency, at the moment, which includes the central area of Boksburg, there are approximately 45 000 Whites, 25 000 Coloureds and 40 000 Blacks living in an area measuring 10 by 12 km. Between us and Benoni there are also about 16 000 Indians. I do not think there is another area in South Africa that is so densely populated and cosmopolitan in nature. Now the mine has addressed a request to the department for an additional 7 000 single Black men to be settled in that area in hostels. The financial ability of the city council to provide for the requirements and facilities of 65 000 Whites, 25 000 Coloureds and 45 000 Blacks solely from the revenue obtained from the White ratepayers, is simply not enough. Apart from the financial burden that it creates, the hostel for single men from other States create social problems which cause unnecessary friction not only for Whites, but for Coloureds too and, as I can indicate, for the local Blacks.

I believe we have reached the point where the camel’s back is about to break. I have already sent a long memorandum on this subject to the hon. the Minister and I trust that he will succeed in convincing the mining group concerned to supplement its additional workers corps from the local population, as De Beers does in Kimberley, and to provide accommodation for them closer to the Black town of Vosloorus. In this way they will not be encroaching upon the world of the other races of Boksburg, they will be creating a better world for their workers and they can fulfil the promise that they made at the Carlton conference. Nor is it in the mine’s favour—now I come to the problems of the Western Cape—that 54%, or 9 400, of its Black workers come from countries beyond the Republic of South Africa such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe. A mere 35% of the workers on that mine come from the Republic of South Africa and its independent States. I consider this to be the suppression of the world of the Black man of the Republic of South Africa, particularly in view of the events in the Western Cape as the past 14 days when Black people were misused by the party opposite in order, in full view of the world, to raise feelings against us, the Whites who are favourably disposed towards them, with regard to their right to be allowed to work in the land of their birth, in Cape Town, where there are no employment opportunities for them, as has just been indicated by means of statistics. Why do those hon. Opposition members not rather help us to create employment opportunities for the Black people of the Republic? Why are the hon. members of the Opposition afraid to speak to their voters? These heads of the mines are in fact their voters. They live in those suburbs of Johannesburg that are represented here by those hon. members. I believe that they should go and speak to their voters instead of holding meetings in St. Qeorge’s Cathedral.

I believe that they should hold house meetings in their constituencies rather than poking their noses in here and wherever else the problem of creating employment opportunities arises. I am sorry that I have to mention members of the private sector by name. However, I am doing so as a result of a statement that was issued here in Cape Town last week by the private sector, and also because I am quite convinced that many of them have done little or nothing towards helping the hon. the Minister and the Government solve the country’s problems.

In the same breath I want to say thank you to those who have already put their shoulders to the wheel in order to set things in motion. I consider it my duty to refer to their achievements too. This is why I am now coming back to the mining industry. It gives one reason for gratitude to note that the mining industry as a whole is employing many more Black people from the Republic today than it did in 1974, only seven years ago, when a mere 22% of the total number of Blacks were from South Africa. Last year the figure was 55% of the total. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Vasco will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to their speeches. I should very much have liked to question the figures quoted by the hon. member for Vasco in the calculations he made. However, I do not have the opportunity to do so now.

It is regrettable that towards the end of an otherwise interesting speech, the hon. member for Boksburg saw fit to launch what was in fact an attack on the official Opposition. It is not the official Opposition that is causing the problems. [Interjections.]

I should like to discuss the administration boards with the hon. the Minister. That is why I am not reacting to the speeches by the hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member for Boksburg. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I am convinced that it is time for us to consider an entirely new form of control with regard to the regulation of the conditions of the Black people in our cities. I believe that the administration boards are not going to cope. I shall elaborate on this in a moment. As far as the administration boards are concerned we are dealing here with a colossus—not as regards the individual part played of some of the administration boards, but viewing them as a whole. On 31 March 1979 the administration boards in South Africa employed no fewer than 44 600 people. That comprised 6 700 Whites and 33 800 Blacks.

A lot of tortoises.

Their total assets amounted to R884 million. I am not exaggerating. The remuneration paid by the administration boards to their employees amounted to more than R123 million during the 1978-79 financial year. The income from their main sources of revenue in that year amounted to approximately R450 million. We are therefore looking at a colossus. What has been created here is an apparatus of tremendous magnitude.

I now want to come back to my initial statement that in my honest opinion, the administration boards have really failed to do their work properly—indeed, are incapable of doing their work properly. One may ask what that work in fact comprises. I want to state this against the background of the picture the hon. the Minister himself sketched on the occasion of the introduction of the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill in this House, when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. At that stage he himself explained what the task of the administration boards was to be. The hon. the Minister said in this House on 2 March 1971 (Hansard, Vol. 32, col. 1962)—

The hon. the Minister then goes on to speak of a confusing diversity of investigating officers and then states, in column 1963—

1. (a) to provide greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu Affairs over a much larger area; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, on the basis of knowledge of Bantu Affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

In reply to the accusation levelled by Mr. Hughes, who was in this House at the time, to the effect that the whole intention of the system was in fact to take the control away from the municipalities such as Johannesburg, because the municipality of Johannesburg in fact acted far more humanely as a result of their interpretation of legislation, the hon. the Deputy Minister said on that occasion: “These boards will be more sympathetic.” Measured in terms of all those yardsticks set by the hon. the Minister, the administration boards are clearly a hopeless failure. They have not succeeded, nor has the legislation succeeded in bringing about greater mobility of labour. They have not, and the hon. the Minister knows it, in spite of all the pleas made in this connection, because the concept of prescribed areas has remained unchanged within the area of jurisdiction of the administration boards. I do not believe that the administration boards have given us a more efficient system of urban regulation for Blacks.

Listening to the figures provided this afternoon by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is very clear that during the period of the existence of the administration boards—almost 10 years—they have also failed to render any proper service. That is why it has been necessary for the past two years to take hasty emergency action at Soweto. That is also why so few houses have been built in urban areas during those ten years. In no single respect have the administration boards complied with the expectations which the hon. the Minister set them. On the contrary, many of the administration boards are regarded by many Blacks not as the people who are there to help the Blacks, but as the people who oppress the Blacks. Rightly or wrongly, this is what many Blacks feel. Indeed, many employers regard the administration board and the tasks they have to perform as a nuisance and an interference. Many employers also have serious objections to the administration boards.

What are the reasons for this obvious failure of the administration boards? In the first place, it is because the boards have to implement legislation which in point of fact is unacceptable to both the ordinary Black man and the employers of Blacks. In that sense I cannot accuse only the administration boards. It is because they were and are compelled to implement measures which some of them would themselves far rather not implement. Speaking of instructions, when Modderdam was demolished it was painful to me to see how officials of the administration boards themselves had severe qualms at having to implement the instructions. They did not want to do it, but they had no alternative. This is one reason why the administration boards have not been successful, but I want to add that I blame the hon. the Minister for that in a certain sense. He knows as well as I do that very often the wrong people are appointed to lead the administration boards, and that this has been a further reason why the administration boards have not been able to perform their functions properly.

I therefore wish to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister. We cannot carry on any longer with administration boards. Basically, they are the people entrusted with the task of seeing to it that thousands of Blacks are cast in gaol every year due to the implementation of the legislation and the regulations in this connection. The situation is aggravated when we consider the way in which the administration boards are financed. The Act reads, and it is the policy of the department, that the administration boards must be financially self-supporting. Leaving aside provisionally aspects such as the provision of housing, electricity, water, and that kind of thing, the sober fact is that the major sources of revenue for these boards are the following: Registration fees, fines paid by Blacks that have been arrested, profits from the sorghum beer account—in the year just mentioned, the profits from the sorghum beer account alone amount to R35,5 million—and profits from the liquor account, viz. R4,5 million. I refer to surpluses on current account in both those instances. If ever there was an example of Marxist socialism, then it is the fact that the State enters the liquor trade in order to use the profits it obtains, not in the social interests of the people who provide those profits, but in order to persecute those people.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I just want to say that the administration boards cannot function without these profits from the liquor account. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member Prof. Olivier concluded his speech by saying that the Government was taking the profits on the sorghum beer account with the intention of prosecuting these people. Without labouring the point, I wish to tell the hon. member in the strongest possible terms that it really is scandelous of him to make such an allegation in this House. To accuse this Government of Marxist socialism and then to relate that to this argument is outrageous. The hon. member Prof. Olivier also said that the officials who had to implement the influx control regulations did so with remorse. I want to tell him at once that the NP and all the members of the Government are not indifferent to the fate of people who are suffering. Therefore it is quite possible that people could feel remorseful. Sir, let us put a stop to this hypocrisy. I want to ask the hon. member and the official Opposition this one question across th floor of this House: Is it the policy of the official Opposition that all influx control and control regulations in respect of Black people should be abolished immediately and unconditionally? I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether it is the policy of the official Opposition that all influx control regulations and all control regulations in respect of Black people should be abolished immediately and unconditionally.

It has to be done, but properly.

The hon. member for Houghton says it has to be abolished, but properly. What does that mean, Sir? [Interjections.] I want to know whether it must be immediatley abolished or not. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Billingsgate, who is now …

Order! There is no hon. member for Billingsgate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton, who is behaving as though she were the hon. member for Billingsgate, must give us that answer in this House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pretoria Central entitled to suggest, by referring to the hon. member for Houghton as acting like the hon. member for Billingsgate, that she is a fishwife? I feel that is an offensive remark, Sir, and I appeal to you to instruct the hon. member for Pretoria Central to withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir. I say, Sir, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition itself owe us a reply to this question.

The Government has been severely criticized in connection with the Nyanga affair, but in the process, certain vital facts have been ignored on a daily basis. The first fact that has been ignored is that there is no work in Cape Town. The second fact that has been ignored is that there is no housing here. The third fact that has been ignored is that if the people come here, it leads to additional evils which are not only prejudicial to the squatters themselves, but also to other people already living here. The fourth fact which has been ignored is that we are faced here with a South African variation of an international problem. One comes to the conclusion that what was at issue here was not the question of whether the Government was acting in a humanitarian way; it was who was governing …

And the cheap labour.

When one looks at certain reports which have appeared in the Press and the information furnished by the hon. the Minister today, it is clear that the South African Council of Churches is behind quite a lot of the actions that have been taken here. It is clear that they financed the return of people to Cape Town. Now I want to ask: Why are they bringing the people back to Cape Town from Transkei? Why not to Port Elizabeth? Why not to East London? Surely those two cities are nearby, and there is no work either, but why do they not take the people there? The reason is that they are being brought back here because the PFP is probably in control of Cape Town and is able to exercise a greater influence here.

Then Mr. Desmond Tutu said, according to a report in one of this morning’s newspapers—

Here he refers to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—

I should like to reiterate that neither I nor the NP is indifferent to human suffering. After all, the policy of the Government is to develop and to build. Everybody must remember that the NP stands completely united in its unequivocal condemnation of illegal squatting and of civil disobedience. I should like to ask since when is sympathy for people who are suffering and help for the poor on the one hand and civil obedience on the other hand poles apart. Within the framework of the law there is a lot to do for the man who really wants to help the poor in South Africa. Mr. Tutu further said—

This is the hard judgment of a man who also tells the world that they should not invest in South Africa, who goes from platform to platform to tell the world that they should not create jobs in South Africa, that they should not participate in the uplifting of the Black people of South Africa. This is the man who now comes along to pass judgment on the Government. What sort of a man is this? I should like to say that he, Desmond Tutu, has done very little to really alleviate human suffering, but he has done a lot to bring it about. When a man like Desmond Tutu goes around in the outside world to tell people not to invest in South Africa, not to create jobs in South Africa, I should like to quote him against himself and therefore say: Your deeds are wholly unchristian and are totally evil.

*This side of the House is sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the people who attack us, the hypocrisy of the hon. members of the Opposition who do not state their policy, who do not rise to say: We are in favour of all influx control measures being scrapped at once. I say it is hypocrisy to bring people here from various regions to bring about this kind of confrontation.

†They talk about compassionate money, but this is not money for compassionate reasons. The money given by the church, I do believe, was given because of the motivation to bring about a confrontation with the State.

*There are classic cases in the world where State and church have come into conflict. There is little doubt in my mind that there are people who are up to something with this Nyanga affair. What they are planning is an attempt to bring about a situation here where they will be able to say: There is confrontation between State and church. I am quite prepared to have the reputation of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development weighed against that of any clergymen, including the Secretary, bishop Desmond Tutu. When we compare the conduct and reputation of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his actual achievements with those of the people who are raising a hue and cry, we shall see that he has done his duty. He is working for the Black people, indeed, for all the people of South Africa, and also to promote the interests of the country. For this reason, we have absolutely no doubt in our own minds that we can be fully confident in rejecting the people who are clamouring so loudly. Their behaviour is inspired by political motives. I feel very sorry for the Black people …

Do you?

… because these people are using them as a political football. I challenge any person who deny that when Black people are driven to Cape Town in buses, they are being used as a political football. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, a new political dispensation is taking shape in South Africa. I refer to the independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, and to Ciskei, which is to become independent on 4 December. This is an evolutionary process of self-determination, and proof that the recognition of their own nationalism and self-determination is the fundamental and most basic urge in the life of every nation. It is a fact that to the extent that this political process unfolds, the self-determination of every nation in South Africa will come into its own and to the same extent, domination of one nation by another will disappear.

Seen against this background it is tragic that these historic moments are passing the official Opposition by and that they leave them cold. While this political process is unfolding, the process of Black urbanization and the natural population increase of the Black populations are giving rise to conditions surrounding the White cities in South Africa which could undermine the forces of political stability which this Government is trying to bring about. The Black urbanization process is being built into the political spectrum because it goes hand in hand with socioeconomic conditions of unemployment, a lack of housing and over-populated conditions which have a negative and depressing effect on the quality of life of the 6 million Black urban inhabitants.

Compared with conditions in Africa and Latin American States, those in South Africa are not so extensive, but what gives the urbanization process in South Africa a special political dimension is the fact that this process is taking place within the context of a First and a Third World situation. The urbanization process in South Africa is taking place within the realities of South Africa, and the realities of South Africa are White and Black. There are colour and cultural differences, and the potential for conflict and polarization is a reality. These facts, these realities in South Africa make the urbanization process a matter of the highest priority. Looking at the world as a whole we see that urbanization problems are assuming such proportions that the scientists are prepared to regard urbanization problems as such a real threat that only a nuclear war or famine is seen in a more serious light.

As far as South Africa is concerned, the full extent of the problem may be viewed in some perspective when I say that the present 8,5 million Black people living outside the national States are expected to increase to approximately 22,5 million by the year 2000. In the process of urbanization, and taking into account the increase, 1,4 million housing units will have to be made available at a capital outlay of R1,7 billion. This must also be seen against the background of an existing housing shortage of 168 000 units for Black people and an unemployment figure of 750 000. Due to a lack of time I want to reduce the whole problem to a few statements. The security of the White community is directly influenced by the instability in the Black communities. It has been said before —and I agree—that the future of South Africa will depend, inter alia, on what happens in the cities, and the quality of life of the Black man in the cities will play a decisive role in this regard. The time, energy and money that will have to be spent to stabilize the urban Black communities is not only in the interests of the Black man in South Africa, but in the interests of the White man as well. It has to do with security for South Africa which is something we all desire. Because the position of the urban Black man is so central in the politics of the day, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Looking back, I must say to this Committee that in my opinion it was a mistake to limit the provision of family housing in the years 1968-78 to such an extent that the number of houses built was 2½ times lower than in the preceeding ten years. Moreover, I am convinced that the present influx control measures are having a restrictive effect on human relations which does not promote order and stability in South Africa, and that the influx control measures must be revised. Either they must be made more stringent or they must assume a different form. Therefore, now is the right time to come forward with a dynamic programme of social reconstruction for the urban Black man, a programme based on the stabilization of urban Black communiities and the elimination of geographic anomalies as self-supporting urban complexes. This dynamic programme of reconstruction must be based on more stringent influx control linked to available employment opportunities and housing, and the recognition of urbanization as an economic process. This must include an imaginative programme of decentralization and the activation of interstate co-operation projects, as well as the creation of employment opportunities by decentralization and a moving away from industrial metropolises. The programme must also take into account the dynamic development of employment opportunities not only in the homelands, but also in the co-operation areas. Because the quality of life in the Black communities centres around housing, we can formulate a housing policy based on the creation of housing in decentralized industrial growth points, the freezing of squatter camps on a specific date and the condonation of existing squatter huts, a partnership approach among the authorities, the private sector and in particular the Black man himself, who must assist in the provision of his housing and the launching of crash programmes to provide simple but viable houses. I wish to conclude with a quotation from the latest work by Prof. Smit. On page 107 of his book Swart Verstedelikingsproses he states—

I now wish to issue a warning: The militants and radicals, both Black and White, who seek to exploit these forces of urbanization for their own purposes will and must be faced with the full authority of the State, as was the case at Nyanga. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have almost given up hope. That was the type of contribution to this debate we have been wanting, and it is the first one we have had today, without any doubt. However angry we on this side of the House must be because of the bungling that has taken place in the Black housing programme, bungling by hon. members on the benches opposite, those hon. members should themselves be more angry. We never believed that the NP policy could work; yet they believed it, but their policy, even if it were feasible, had no chance whatsoever of working, so badly was it carried out. [Interjections.] I hope the attitude for constructive debate can prevail. I think we should look at the size of the housing job and establish how big it is. We must then look at what has been done and debate it, and then we can come to a sensible conclusion as to what should be done, because reorganization must certainly take place.

How many houses are required to be built per annum? All sorts of estimates have been made, and these range from 100 000 per annum to over 200 000 per annum for the next 20 years. So that no red herrings can be drawn across the path, we should in our estimates use the lower figure of 100 000. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself produced that figure at a meeting I attended and it is corroborated by a large number of people, but it is definitely at the lower level.

What is our past performance with which to compare this figure of 100 000 houses which, we all agree, we need per annum? I am quite certain and I think that, probably, the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that that is a very conservative estimate. The astonishing thing is that the department does not know how many houses were supplied over the last eight years. In answer to a question of mine the other day, I was told across the floor in reply that the information was not available. But we do in fact know, or at least we have a pretty good idea, because in the report of the Department of Community Development it is indicated that on average approximately 8 200 houses were built over the last five to six years. Another figure was produced the other day in the House by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said 94 000 units were supplied over 10 years, or an average of 9 400 per year. Again, because we want to be conservative, let us use the higher figure. What we then have to believe is that 9,4% of the houses that were required were actually built. This does not even take care, by half, of the natural increase, let alone any influx whatsoever.

In money terms it would appear that over the last five years we have averaged R33 million per year on housing in South Africa. That figure we have to compare with estimates of what is required, which range between R500 million and R800 million. I just do not believe that we are tackling this problem even nearly satisfactorily. How do we jack up a situation by eleven times, because that is what we have to do? If we all agree that that is the number of houses we need, something must be done so that we can build houses or find dwelling units at eleven times that pace. I think that, as so often happens in life, what looked at one way is a major problem, looked at another way is actually an opportunity. I believe that this thing we are all scared of is in fact an opportunity for us. Why is it an opportunity? Firstly, it provides employment for those who need it. Secondly, its solution is fixed capital formative, and even humble housing is part of a nation’s wealth. Thirdly, it is an ideal area in which to train rural people in the first industrial skills. Fourthly, owned housing can give Blacks a sense of belonging that our security demands. In the fifth place, owned housing will beneficially affect a man’s work ethic. In the sixth place, the success of initiatives in the field of education and labour legislation are dependent on satisfactory housing conditions.

What must be done? There is no simple solution. The answer is a composite solution. One must create, I believe, a ministry of Black housing. This would be staffed by people with engineering and financial experience and would co-ordinate and control construction in all the White areas. Secondly, financial planning should be arranged over a period of five years, the first year at a definite amount, the second year within a tolerance of, say, 20%, and the third year within a tolerance of, say, 25%. There should further be an indication in respect of subsequent years. Thirdly, there is no single solution to the housing problem, but initiatives to be embarked upon are the following: Black freehold rights; and finance supplied far more liberally by staff, but eventually the centre of gravity would move and be taken over by the Black resident himself and by private enterprise to an increasing degree. In housing itself the following initiatives can be mentioned: Upgrading; site and service schemes; owner-built unconventional or traditional housing; owner-built with industrial kits; core housing; conventional housing schemes; conventional private-enterprise-built housing for middle class people; Black involvement eventually in the management of these areas, and I know that that is part of the policy; informal development; business development in these areas, without licences, I might add, for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s benefit; and different township areas developed on different standards.

I have no doubt that if these or similar initiatives are embarked upon, a Black housing programme, which is of such an immence size that we will all shrink away from it can give this economy of ours greater stability and strength while the transfer of the Black man from traditional, rural areas to the cities, where they must find their future, takes place.

If there is still time left to me, I should just like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation whether he stated that the first requirements Black people had when they moved into an area was water.

Yes.

I should like to point out that this is the type of problem that we have. In Port Elizabeth today there is an area known as Soweto, a shanty area, in which there are over 60 000 people. That is the official number. They have 36 stand pipes for 60 000 people there, which means 1 400 people at least to each single stand pipe. There is no electric light. …

Did you not know that they were going to be resettled elsewhere?

They have been there a long time now. Is that not so?

They will probably all be dehydrated by the time they are resettled.

I understand that it is the intention that they are not to be reestablished immediately. At the moment they share one bucket latrine between four households. Is that right? They have no water other than those 36 stand pipes. They also have no roads, no storm water drains, etc. How can one expect that those people, taken into another environment, can ever behave as one would like them to? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin this evening on a more positive note than that in which the hon. the official Opposition has conducted the entire debate thus far. It is very easy to stress all the negative aspects of a community without taking any note of what is positive or considering what aspect of the positive side one can stress and what one should do to develop it in order to promote the interests of the community as a whole.

The NP has expounded its approach with regard to the self-determination of nations and the political division of power in very clear terms. Moreover, this has repeatedly been accepted by the electorate of South Africa, and the Government will not budge from it an inch. Only this can bring about political stability in the whole of South Africa and prevent the striving for power by groupings of minority groups from disturbing the balance of power. With this point of departure and in the light of existing realities, it is imperative to place the economic viability of existing and embryonic independent Black States on the road to prosperity. The Black man in Southern Africa has always been either dependent on a subsistence economy or in the capacity of employee. This is the primary characteristic of people or nations that are bound to dependence as a group. No community can achieve healthy economic prosperity and political stability from this position of dependence. With political power alone, and without the necessary structure of economic entrepreneurship, deterioration and decline must necessarily follow.

The need for simultaneous and linked development of, in the first place, effective and balanced political approaches and, in the second place, an efficient political, industrial and business expertise and, in the third place, a productive agricultural sector, is of primary importance.

The existing, recognized and accepted structures of the Black peoples must be used as the point of departure here, with the necessary adaptations, of course. The criteria of developed Western and highly industrialized countries are inappropriate and an injustice in the process of the development of every employee community into a balanced employer/employee nation. Accordingly it is the Government’s view that in the agricultural sphere all production factors should be taken into account, namely land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship, in order to achieve these objectives. Only sound growth at the agricultural level will give the developing countries an economic stimulus, as well as good neighbourliness with South African border farmers. For example, there is the combating of destructive veld fires which are blown towards White farms, the maintenance of border fences and cattle thieving. At this point I might mention that agriculture cannot be underestimated as a primary instrument wherewith to bring about economic development, because agricultural development and the prosperity that stems from it also stimulates secondary industries which can employ a tremendous amount of labour. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Government should grant aid in the process of development. The criticism that the Government is either doing everything for the Black man or doing nothing for the Black man is therefore devoid of all truth. Balanced aid is at all times the most productive. Structures leading to self-help are: The departments of agriculture of the National States, agricultural advisory services, various co-operatives, agricultural companies and local organizations at the tribal and regional level. The Government has also made tremendous progress in this field. Denial of this by the Opposition is a disservice to South Africa as a whole and the denial of what has already been achieved by those Black people.

The project farming that has been undertaken in various regions over a period of time is already yielding results, and such projects can be initiated as State projects, depending on capital requirements, or can be initiated by national corporations or even by private bodies, for example by way of co-operative participation. Success has already been achieved and mistakes learnt from. Nevertheless, this is a slow process. The knowledge available must be conveyed and applied so that the entrepreneuring spirit can have an infectious effect in practice. For that very reason the results of development projects must and will result in further satellite projects. The production-increasing factors which create the biggest initial problem are capital and the application of entrepreneurship. Land and labour are available, and the effective utilization thereof must be increased in the process. State-supported capital provision by appropriate organs of credit supply is therefore essential, but must be supplemented by self-generated capital, for example the thrift club idea which is already operating in kwaZulu. This will assist the Black agriculturist to build up capital, and this formation of capital will uplift individuals engaged in agriculture in the Black States from a position of dependence towards autonomy. The necessary extension services and technical assistance can have a further supplementary effect on the increase of production. A word of thanks ought to be conveyed to those members of the staff who render service in this connection. The road of agricultural development is already showing results by way of its successes, although a great deal remains to be done. Since the greater part of the surface area available is relatively unproductive, the infectiousness of individual successes will prepare the way so that the endeavour of the Black farmer to achieve autonomy and self-help may be realized. The cumulative effect and momentum thus achieved must not be underestimated. Let us as White people support these people in the interests of all. During the embryonic stage the problems of the White border farmers will also have to be considered. The many growth pains of this process cannot rest upon the shoulders of the White border farmers alone. The spreading of the burden borne by these farmers by way of economic losses, security risks and social inconveniences, could also contribute greatly towards greater stability in these border areas. Assurances in connection with these matters from the Government are imperative.

To conclude, let us approach the future in a positive spirit. Those who stress negative aspects are undermining the process of autonomy and entrepreneurship. The objective of the Government is to initiate a process leading to viability, self-help and independence. Then the result will be longterm economic autonomy with political equilibrium, as against the temporary economic benefits but with long-term economically dependent employee communities and everlasting political instability advocated by the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Ventersdorp spoke before supper, he referred inter alia, to the agricultural development in the national States. Among other things, he said that agriculture forms the basis of any economic development of the developing States. Since this is an aspect which I am very much concerned with, I shall come back in the course of my speech to the issue of the agricultural development of the national States.

However, I should be neglecting my duty if I did not say something about the violent and venomous attack on the hon. the Minister launched by the PFP, more specifically by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. I want to tell you that these attacks were very transparent attacks. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. Oddly enough, I was left out as regards the issue of salary, but I want to tell you that I do not feel very honoured by that. It may be a kiss of death. I was left out, and I do not feel very happy about that. I want to be very honest with you, Sir. [Interjections.] I want to tell you that if the hon. member for Houghton attacks a person, one must know that one is on the right road. I say that this attack was a very transparent attack. It is probably the most drastic attack one can make on a Minister within the Parliamentary procedure. Why does the PFP do this? Why have they still been visiting Nyanga the whole afternoon? They simply could not stop squatting in Nyanga. The reason for this is very transparent. It is because the hon. the Minister has achieved great success in his leadership and action in bringing about development among Black people. In bringing about development among Black people, good and sound relations are of the utmost importance. If the PFP can succeed in discrediting the hon. the Minister among Black people and leaders, then hon. members will succeed in their purpose. However, I want to say to you that they are not going to succeed, because the hon. the Minister has already engendered so much confidence in Black leaders in South Africa that his position has been very strongly stabilized in this connection. I want to say to those hon. members that they can go and squat at Nyanga to their hearts’ content, but at the moment, Piet Koornhof is held in very high esteem by the Black leaders in South Africa. [Interjections.] Now the PFP is trying to undermine the hon. the Minister by means of a transparent ploy. I want to say to those hon. members that they will not succeed. Our department is engaged in a task of development. It is carrying out research in this connection, very important research. We have a committee which deals with all kinds of research in connection with development. It is interesting to know that this committee has found that With all the research projects carried out throughout the country—as it happens, some of the universities are represented on this co-ordinating research committee; inter alia, the vice rector of the University of the North and a professor at the University of Fort Hare are members. They have found that the development of people is the most important development factor in any development effort one initiates. If one can succeed in disturbing relations in such a process then one destroys the whole effort, and that is what the PFP is doing now.

And Helen in particular.

They are doing that, Sir, because they are seeking to destroy the relations we must have, which are so vital and of the utmost importance for all our development efforts in the national States.

I say, Sir, that the hon. member for Ventersdorp referred to agricultural development in the national States as a very fundamental part of the total economic development. We in the field of agricultural development also believe that human development forms the most important basis of this development action. It is interesting to note what one of the national leaders himself had to say about this particular aspect. I quote what the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, said in this connection. He said—

We share the same standpoint with regard to our development actions. It is interesting to point this out. I think that this is one of the points of departure which have not been applicable in the rest of Africa, because people launched development projects which the people were not involved in. The moment the colonial powers withdrew, they lapsed into chaos. Therefore we are very much concerned that the people themselves should be involved in the development effort.

As regards agricultural development, there is particularly sound co-operation between my department and the departments of agriculture of the various national States. This also applies in regard to the departments of agriculture of the independent States. Many reports have already been compiled and the departments of agriculture of the national States are at present compiling agricultural development plans. Therefore these people are themselves involved in these different actions. This is not, therefore, something that comes from the Government, but is something that emanates from the national States themselves. As far as possible, all we have done has been to give technical assistance in this connection. Therefore the governments of the national States are beginning to see that land use is an extremely important aspect of this development. The Governments of the national States realize that 42% of the economically active people in the national States are involved in agriculture. As a result there is over-utilization of the agricultural natural resources. Therefore it is not only agricultural development that is essential; it is also important that in the process one should have urbanization of people who are at present in the agricultural industry in the national States, in order to bring about better utilization and better general settlement of people.

What about ownership of land?

The hon. member asks about land ownership. This is a very sensitive area. I want to say to him that there is one mistake we must not make in this country. If we want to adopt the standpoint of summarily changing the system of land ownership in the national States in accordance with the Western method I want to tell him that we shall be doing precisely what we must not do, because that goes against the traditions of Black people. One must recognize the tribal system and the Black system of authority in this process. They have a communal system of land ownership. Therefore we are initiating certain production models that link up with the tribal system. We are achieving a great deal of success in this regard. I could mention a whole series of these production models. There are tribal systems, with which co-operative systems are linked up. These are major projects: 600 ha, 700 ha, 3 000 ha are under maize with a production of more than 3,5 tons per hectare. We are achieving a great deal of success.

What is more, since the hon. member put the question to me: The production systems are gaining momentum in the national States. It is infectious. A number of tribal authorities are now coming to ask for advice and are discussing projects with us. I want to say to the hon. member that the system is going to gain momentum and that the so-called low utilization of agricultural resources in the national States is going to change within a few years and develop into a position in which agriculture in the national States will be market oriented. It will no longer be merely a subsistence farming system. I refer hon. members to Bophuthatswana. This year Bophuthatswana is going to be an exporter of grain, due to production systems adapted to the tribal authorities and the tribal system. We are therefore working in that sphere. We are utilizing methods which the people understand. We are not going forward, as has happened in the Third World, with grandiose schemes costing millions of rands and as soon as the entrepeneurs withdraw, there is nothing left; I am tempted to say “bugger all”. [Interjections.]

The same applies to animal production.

Order! The time of the hon. the Deputy Minister has expired.

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

I thank the hon. member.

I want to refer to another production division of agriculture in the national States, viz. animal production. In this field as well, the national States are engaged in the process of development adapted to the people and their traditions. There are hon. members from Natal here and they are acquainted with the Nguni cattle. We are at present developing one of the finest Nguni herds in kwaZulu, cattle of which the Zulus can be just as proud as the British are of their Sussex and South Devon cattle.

And of their bulldogs.

In Lebowa we are engaged in the development of their traditional Pedi cattle and sheep. These are animals of which the Lebowa farmers are proud. We are at present engaged in projects of this kind which form part of these people’s development and are therefore acceptable to them. With the aid of Medunsa we are establishing veterinarian services in our national States in terms of which we can place animal health on a far better basis. Accordingly there is a major demand for courses at Medunsa in this connection.

We are also concentrating on production systems relating to industrial crops. At present the national States produce 80% of all sisal produced in South Africa and as hon. members know, there is a great demand for this fibre since the price of petroleum products has skyrocketed. In certain national States a high quality of cotton is produced, with an economic yield of up to 2 000 kg per ha.

The net farming income of a variety of Black farmers in the national States is in the order of R8 000 to R9 000 per annum, and they are themselves employers. Indeed, I encountered one fanner who employed 30 to 40 people to harvest his cotton. In this way employment opportunities are being created in the national States. The national States are undoubtedly displaying growth in the field of agriculture.

We are establishing a co-operative system which is not yet under way in the national States, specifically due to the fact—I am prepared to admit this in the House—that we wanted to develop a type of co-operative system in the national States which was not adaptable to the traditional systems of the tribal authorities. However, we are continuing with the work and in Lebowa we have succeeded in developing two such systems in terms of which the tribal system is integrated with the co-operative system. Last year the agricultural co-operatives had a turnover of approximately R2,5 million as against R0,9 million the previous year.

I want to say at once that the co-operative system is not only of the utmost economic importance from a production point of view; in the national States it is also one of the elements by means of which these States must link up with the White agricultural sector. When we speak of a confederal system, I want to state that it will begin at the agricultural level, because agriculture is one of the most important developmental elements of the national States. We are going to reach a stage at which people in South African agriculture and those of the national States will have to sit around the table and argue with one another in order to co-ordinate production and marketing affairs. Agriculture is going to form the basis on which aspects of co-operation can be dealt with on a joint basis.

Another convention.

Therefore my department and I will do everything possible to develop agriculture and everything that goes with it as effectively as possible. Indeed, we are making rapid progress in this sphere.

This brings me to the question of mining. In 1980 we already had 55 mines in the national States offering 58 000 employment opportunities. The Mining Corporation is still prospecting in the national States and we shall also continue to develop this primary industry in the national States.

In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to convey my most sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister under whom I work for the strong support I receive from him. It is specifically due to his ability to maintain good relations with leaders and other Black people that he makes it possible for me to enter the national States and negotiate freely with those people. Because they trust the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, they trust me too. The PFP are not doing the national States a favour when they undermines the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, nor are they doing the Black people in general or South Africa any favour either. My message to them is: Refrain from this undermining of people who do not deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to react to what the Deputy Minister had to say. In the limited time at my disposal I wish to speak on a specific aspect for which money was voted under programme 4 in the White Book. I am speaking about social old age pensions for Blacks for the year 1981-’82. The amount involved is approximately R94 million. The significance of this particular Vote lies not in the actual amount being voted, but rather in the number of people being affected, which amounts to approximately 200 000. These are figures I obtained in answer to questions I put to the hon. the Minister.

The full significance of this figure can be seen if one takes White, Coloured and Indian social old age pensioners. The combined figure is about 245 000, so the number of social old age pensioners falling within the ambit of this department is, in fact, a particularly significant figure. What is more, the figure is likely to increase fairly dramatically, and there are three reasons for this. Firstly, it will increase dramatically because the actual number of aged Blacks is going to increase, and we are not talking about something that is going to happen some time in the future. We are actually talking about something that is already taking place. I say this because the people who are going to be 65 years and older by the year 2000 or 2020 have already been born. That is the first aspect to bear in mind. Secondly the life expectancy of Blacks is going to increase. One only has to look at the figures given by the HSRC on life expectancy. The indication is that for the period 1980-’85 the life expectancy for a female is 59,57 years. By the year 2000 it will have increased to 67,23 years. As in the case of Whites, Black females also live longer than men.

Good job, too.

This will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, increase the number of aged Blacks. At the present moment we have approximately 783 000 aged Blacks in South Africa. By the year 2000 this will nearly have doubled, and by the year 2020, in 39 years’ time, we will have more than 3 million aged Blacks in South Africa.

At present, a quarter of the aged claim social pensions, but this will increase with urbanization. The Federated Chamber of Industries tells us that within the next 20 years somewhere between 10 and 18 million people will move into the urban areas and that a large percentage of these will be Blacks. The result of this is that one has the breakdown of the extended family system whereby people care for their aged in the community. This is something which has already happened within the White communities, and therefore we can expect a fairly dramatic increase in the number of aged Black people. If one looks at the applications granted, one can see it already. In 1978 it was 17 000 and in 1980, 28 000. During this period the number of new social pensions granted to Whites actually declined. We are therefore dealing with a very important social problem that affects a large portion of the Black population and will affect an even larger section in the future.

We in the PFP believe that the problem would be best handled if there was one department whose responsibility it was to look after the interests of all aged people in South Africa, irrespective of their skin colour. When we talk about rationalization, here is an area which should be tackled as a matter of urgent priority. While this particular department, however, continues to handle the problems of Black pensioners, there is a number of things they can do to improve their lot. I am not suggesting that the department does all of this immediately, but I think it is important that they move in the right direction. The first thing they can do relates to the gap between White, Coloured, Asian and Black social pensioners. On 1 October the maximum social pension for a White will be R122 per month; for Coloureds and Asians, R71 per month and for Blacks, R40 per month. The Government has said that it is committed to closing this gap, but if one looks at the latest increases, one sees that the increase for a White is R13 per month, for a Coloured, R9 per month and for a Black, R7 per month. If one looks at the bonus, one sees that the bonus is R30 for Whites, R24 for Coloureds and R18 for Blacks. It is no good talking of percentage increases, because people actually spend rands; they do not spend percentages. When I hear this talk of percentages, I can appreciate what Disraeli said in the British House of Commons when he was harangued with a whole lot of statistics. He turned to the Speaker and said: “Mr. Speaker, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”. I appreciate that the gap cannot be closed immediately, but I think what is important is that in rand terms we should not widen the gap. In other words, if we are going to grant an increase in social pensions, let us grant the same increase to all pensioners. Let us at the same time encourage employers to provide pension funds and let us start educating people to the benefits of belonging to pension funds.

A further point is that we should look at the method of payment. At present the social pensioners receive their pensions every two months. If one is a social pensioner, regardless of whether one is White, Black, Coloured or Indian, one needs that money as soon as one can get it. Let it therefore be paid monthly, because R40 is now a significant figure, and let it be paid into a savings account or a bank account as is the case with White social pensioners. It is very difficult for old people to have to travel to collect their social pensions. In this age of computerization I am quite sure we can do it. If one looks at the guide on social pensions—which is very good—it says on page 15—

However, if one looks at the regulations applying to Black social pensions, it says—

If one is a social pensioner one needs the money as soon as one can get it. Why then make people wait for two months? In the case of a White social pensioner it vests from the date on which the application is attested.

There are also certain anomalies within the means test which would not cost all that much to rectify and which, if rectified, would, I believe, create tremendous good will. Let me give an example of what I mean here. As regards income from children, on page 5 of the guide for Whites it states—

In other words, if a White social pensioner has children living with him, the rent is not counted for purposes of the means test, but in the case of Blacks’ children who work, or who can work, and who live with their parents are assessed for a reasonable amount for rent. The amount so determined is to be treated as income for the parents and not as a voluntary contribution and therefore it must be taken into account for means test purposes. There is another example I can give, viz. income from farming activities. In the case of a White social pensioner it is taken at R144 per annum, irrespective of the actual amount. If with regard to the means test we were to apply the same sort of ratio for Blacks, then theoretically they should, irrespective of their farming income, be assessed at R38, but in fact there is a different method of assessment. One is assessed, for example, for each cow one owns at R8 per annum, for each sheep at 75c per annum, and so on. Mealies and all such things are assessed. These are all anomalies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the investigation into the consolidation of the national States one realizes at once what tremendous pressure is exerted on the resources, territory and economy of the whole of South Africa by the population explosion. One really becomes concerned, indeed oppressed, by the population figures, which always comprise an element of major importance in speculations about this subject. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by quoting figures, but it is important to note the following, stated in round figures: It is estimated that the Black population, which at present stands at 20 million, will be 35 million in the year 2000; the Whites, of whom there are at present 4,5 million, will number 6,5 million; the Coloureds, of whom there are at present 2,5 million, will number 4,5 million; and the Asians, of whom there are at present 750 000, will number 1¼ million. The important fact here is that over the next 20 years South Africa will have to make provision for 20 million more people. This is truly an enormous challenge, a challenge which we shall have to face and which rests squarely on our shoulders. We shall have to see to it that there is orderly development in the 20 years that lie ahead. If we think in terms of employment opportunities, what this amounts to is that an average of 1 400 employment opportunities will have to be created every day during this period. One realizes, therefore, that attention will have to be given to various approaches in order to promote a basis for economic viability for all the nations in South Africa which will supplement what may be called heartland development. To me the development of the heartland regions is priority number one when we bear in mind the development programme of the national States. On the other hand, the interdependence of the various regional economies of South Africa must be recognized, and it is here that I find the idea of co-prosperity areas or coprosperity projects or functions exceptionally stimulating. I therefore wish to exchange a few ideas in this regard. Coprosperity areas are regarded as clearly identifiable parts of the territory-of the Republic or of the national States which are operated by way of agreement for an indeterminate period to the mutual benefit of the economic development of the region, the States involved and the Republic, and the aim is maximum development and consequent utilization of the possibilities of the regions in question.

The fundamental principle of coprosperity areas comprises, for example, the decentralization of powers and also joint responsibility of and joint benefit to the States involved. The designation of a specific region as a co-prosperity area or the declaration of a specific project as a co-prosperity project or co-prosperity function among two or more States does not mean that such territory is divided up or physically excised or transferred or even shared, or that the sovereignty or political control thereof is affected in any way. It remains the territory of, and remains under the control of, one specific State but it refers to a specific interstate agreement or arrangement in terms of which a joint contribution is made to the development and mutual growth and advantage of all the States involved.

Here we have in mind for example the development of an industrial region, a rural production region or a specific economic function that must be developed to the benefit of all the States involved. Briefly, what this amounts to is helping, working hands actively utilized by the States involved as a source of revenue, as a source of employment opportunities. To me this idea of co-operation fits in beautifully with the idea of a constellation of States, to which attention is also being given at the moment. It links the national States directly once again to the economic business cycle of the Republic and results in the elimination of the duplication of economic facilities and means that the same facility can be beneficially utilized by more than one State. To me this idea of co-prosperity is an exceptional one which can only be beneficial. It involves the extended hand of mutual co-operation to mutual benefit; an invitation to one another, as it were, in terms of which forces are joined to achieve the development and expansion of everyone involved, particularly the joint progress of the States in question. It follows, then, that the agreements entered into between the Republic and the national States providing for coprosperity regions and/or co-prosperity projects or co-prosperity functions will also have to make provision for the establishment of a joint economic-administrative management body which will be concerned with the day-to-day operation and management, along business lines, of the region, project or function in question.

Such a body will also have to take decisions in connection with the provision of infrastructure and other services, as well as the sharing of expenses and the sharing of tax revenue, if any, from such regions or functions among the participating States. Spheres in which the idea of co-prosperity or co-prosperity projects might take root are, firstly, industrial areas bordering on, or situated within commuting distance of, the national States. In the second place there are mining areas; in the third place, harbour and even airport areas, and last but not least, areas with unique characteristics with regard to recreation and tourism.

Such co-prosperity regions or coprosperity projects and functions entail definite possibilities and advantages for the future economic development of South Africa and the national States. They could be the solution to several problems that could arise if every nation were to insist on a totally independent regional economy which could give rise to a costly process of duplication of development. This would certainly have the following good results. In the first place, the sovereign authorities concerned would become more closely bound together in a joint economic context, and ongoing co-operation, joint decision-taking and joint responsibility for development planning could follow. In the second place, this could serve as a counter to the argument that more land is a prerequisite for economic development. In the third place, it involves fewer economic, social and political implications than the inclusion of such regions in the territory of the national States. In the fourth place, it can alleviate the pressure of consolidation considerations on agricultural resources, because there are relatively few prospects for economic development of the national States in the large-scale addition of agricultural land.

I conclude with the thought that the implementation of this idea of co-prosperity projects or functions will result in a viability which simply cannot be brought about by the mere addition of land. It goes without saying that economic viability is the most important aim to be achieved if we wish to think in terms of meaningful consolidation.

Mr. Chairman, it is an exceptional privilege to follow the hon. member for Aliwal, particularly since we know that as a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, he is making an exceptional contribution with regard to those matters he touched on here in particular.

I should very much like to come back to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Edenvale, and I should be obliged if I could have his attention for a moment. If there is one aspect of which hon. members on both sides of this House should take very careful note, it is that basically, there are profound differences between Whites and non-Whites. One special aspect is that as far as Black people in South Africa are concerned, there are very strong inter-group bonds among them. Equally important is the fact that as far as family ties are concerned they place a higher premium on their relationship than do the Whites. In the third place, the Black people of South Africa are very insistent on partnership with regard to the bonds I have just sketched. Socially this means that Black people share their joys far more widely than Whites do. At the same time they share their sorrows, too, far more widely than we Whites do. Because this is so, it is obvious, too, that Black people share their economy with one another more than the Whites do, the Whites who are more oriented towards capitalism. The hon. member for Edenvale had a great deal to say about pension matters, the care of the aged and statistics this evening. That is why I come back to what the hon. member had to say, in order to point out these basic truths and show that if one does not adopt that as a premise, one will never be able to create the proper structures to accord with the distinctive needs of these people. In effect this means that the health services, social services and care services for the people in the national States must be along individual lines. The mistake most of us make is to try to apply typical Western standards, needs and systems to the Black people of South Africa without adaptation. Because we are the way we are, they ought to be so too, and because we think as we do, we assume that they ought to think as we do. This is mistake number one, and it is an error in thinking which I perceived throughout the argument of the hon. member for Edenvale. A second mistake that is made is to try and solve African problems from behind a Western desk. I am tempted to say that if one does not do as a Swedish scholar described years ago, and try to put oneself in the place of those people who have a problem or a need and see the world from their point of view, one will not be able to determine their distinctive needs. I am satisfied that the Government has helped to establish the basic structures but left the Black man the opportunity to make his contribution in his own way—I am tempted to say, in his distinctive way. Moreover, I am satisfied that the Government has also established the structures necessary for social services. We need only go to the national States to see what has already been done there, again with sufficient opportunity for the Black man to fill in the details himself. Therefore I say this evening that if we want to discuss pensions and the needs of the Blacks, then we must do so while bearing this in mind: That in this respect we may think differently and move in different worlds, and we must not take it amiss of one another for being different in those respects.

In the second place, I should very much like to say a few things this evening concerning co-operation within the context of the constellation in the border areas—in these States and in these regions which we have been discussing. I contend that there are 10 basic facts or realities which must constitute our points of departure when we argue about this whole position. When we speak about the constellation with regard to the border areas, we must accept the fact that national States exist. That is the first point of departure. In the second place, we must accept the fact that these national States are sovereign. In the third place, we must accept that the national States are on an equal footing as sovereign States in the Republic of South Africa. In the fourth place, we must recognize that the existence of the national States is, to the benefit of all of us. In the fifth place, we must recognize the fact that the national States still have a long way to go, and I say this in a positive spirit. In the sixth place, we must recognize the fact that the national States have the Republic of South Africa as their senior partner. In the seventh place, we must recognize that the national States and the Republic of South Africa have common borders; we are not separated from one another by oceans but are neighbours. We live and build and work alongside one another. In the eighth place, we must recognize the fact that our infrastructures are interlinked. In the ninth place, we must recognize the fact that our economics are interdependent. The tenth reality as regards the constellation aspect which we must recognize, is that we are dependent on one another’s help as regards our alliance in the total struggle and the total onslaught aimed at us. Sir, I mention these 10 basic realities within the context of a constellation.

In a nutshell, this means that we must accept one another as neighbours, we must accept one another as fellow men and must accept one another as partners in the constellation concept in Southern Africa.

If time permits, I just want to mention two examples to illustrate that these things are indeed possible and that they are being done through the agency of the Department of this Minister. I associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development said here this evening. He said that it was the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who opened the doors and created the attitude which made it possible to achieve what they are in fact achieving in the agricultural sphere. I also wish to felicitate the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development on the tremendous task with which he is burdened.

In my constituency we have one specific aspect and that is that in many places there are parts of Bophuthatswana and parts of South Africa where Tswana and South Africans constantly move through one another’s areas and across one another’s borders. This results in certain specific problems. I appeal to my fellow South Africans that we should carry our identity documents with us when passing through a national State, because then we are no longer in South Africa. Our people must accept these realities. We can co-operate with one another if necessary. I also want to turn this argument around as far as the citizens of the national States are concerned, and I hope that when they come to South Africa they will accept it in the same spirit. We had an area where there were two schools on opposite sides of a road and there was a danger that children could be knocked down and killed. To cut a very long story short, we used the channels established by the Africa Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs to negotiate. Accordingly, people were brought from Pretoria and from Mmabatho to discuss matters with the local leaders in order to solve the problem in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch briefly on one point the hon. member for Brits mentioned and that was how important it is for all sections of the community to live together with their new neighbours particularly those who have been created as a result of land purchases. I should like to deal with this—with great respect to the hon. Deputy Minister—in relation to his approach to the question of the utilization of land that already has been taken over for purposes of consolidation. In dealing with this I should like to point out how absolutely vital it is that there should be a greater degree of flexibility in the utilization of this land. We on these benches feel that there are particular aspects to which consideration must be given. One aspect concerns those persons from whom the land was originally purchased and I refer here to those farmers who, in a spirit of co-operation and others who had to deal with a situation over which they had no control, moved from their land and accepted the inevitability of having to do so.

One must ask oneself what the effect of this has been on many of these displaced farmers? There is no doubt that many of them have been detrimentally affected. I accept that the hon. the Prime Minister has given an indication that a statement will be made in the near future in regard to the whole question of boundaries. In the Natal area this is a matter of absolute importance. There are factors here which make it a matter of extreme urgency and I must point out that a number of farmers still live in so-called released areas and I would like to stress that they have been living in these areas since 1975 when the consolidation proposals of that year were accepted by them in good faith. Many of these people have been compelled to stay on their farms and at this moment are unable to move and are unable to sell—merely awaiting final payment and an approach from the powers-that-be. I wonder if any of us have put ourselves in the position of those unfortunate people and appreciate the manner in which many of them are suffering at the present time.

See Horwood about it.

They are unable to dispose of their properties and they are unable to make arrangements in any way towards purchasing new properties.

They cannot improve them.

They are unable to improve them as the hon. member rightly says.

That is not true.

There is no incentive to improve them. [Interjections.]

Why not?

If one knows that one is moving from an area one does not improve. [Interjections.] I would suggest that when finality is eventually reached it is absolutely essential that the areas which have been designated for incorporation into either self-governing or independent states should be purchased on an en bloc basis after consultation through the recognized channels of the agricultural unions and agricultural societies. This is a prerequisite in that it will obviate any nibbling at the cake and avoid any possibility of allowing certain undesirable practices occurring and where those with influence could receive preferential treatment. [Interjections.]

When we look at the question of areas that have been earmarked for consolidation, I feel bound here to refer to those unfortunate farmers who lived in the Ongeluksnek area and who were paid out some three to four years ago for their farms. They were paid out on the basis of 60% Government stock and have not yet been accorded the option of discounting this Government stock. They will now, as a result of budget concessions, be allowed to draw advances from the Land Bank—but on Land Bank Terms. I must point out that a number of these people have now left the farming scene and the Land Bank is of no use to them. I can, therefore, only appeal on their behalf that their Government stock should be 100% redeemable, rather than them having to be realized at the present discount rate of approximately 25% to 30%.

There is a problem that I see in relation to farms that have been taken over for consolidation purposes and which have been put out to lease. I do not think though that this is the time to look at every factor in regard to the terms of these leases but may I make the suggestion here that such farms should be leased on a tender basis and that a strict system of supervision should be applied to see that there is no denudation of these properties.

I was very interested to hear the remark from the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the utilization of consolidated land but I would point out that one of the biggest problems that is becoming obvious is that of soil erosion. If soil erosion is allowed to continue on the present scale it will be almost impossible to control. I feel that the question of soil erosion is probably one of the biggest factors that has to be dealt with in that the tribal concept, in many of these areas is the cause of this tremendous problem.

In conclusion, may I say that while people have been compelled to hand over their farms and others have done so in a spirit of co-operation, we must realize that this concept has heralded a new era.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River referred to very real problems affecting the farmers. He is a farmer himself and is aware of the farmers’ problems, yet I still think that he was a little unfair in respect of some of his criticism. I agree with him—and the hon. the Prime Minister also pointed out—that it is imperative to direct the commission to announce the boundaries of the areas. He said that within a year there must be an indication of the boundaries of all the national States. I agree with him that it is imperative to bring about stability in this area, so that people can know where they stand.

He referred to the treatment farmers receive from the department. Many of the farmers in my area have always received sympathetic treatment from the department. The Prime Minister specifically instructed the commission to discuss matters and to negotiate with these people and, indeed, look after their interests on a full-time basis. I think there has been a vast improvement in this connection. The farmers know with whom they have to negotiate, they know that the chairman of the commission has been specifically singled out for this purpose.

He also referred to bloc purchases, but the hon. member must understand that it is impossible to make bloc purchases throughout the country. That is why it is now being done in certain national States. The situation is being looked into, and then attempts are being made to make bloc purchases in specific areas.

There are still decisions which have to be taken in regard to certain people under the 1975 proposals. The department has already indicated that it considers this to be a very high priority and that a decision should be taken about those people as soon as possible. However, there are financial and other problems which have to be eliminated.

This brings me to bonds, and the question of 60% as against the 40%. We must admit that it is a very important concession on the part of the hon. the Minister of Finance that people who do wish to keep on farming may deposit their bonds with the Land Bank as security.

The hon. member also spoke about soil erosion. Of course this is a problem throughout South Africa. In reality it is perhaps far more of a problem in the Black States. However, the combating of soil erosion is a long-term process. I need only think back 20 years to what the position was in my part of the world, in Nongoma and Mahlabatini in kwaZulu. At that time absolutely nothing was done there, but at present there is proper combating of soil erosion by means of proper contour farming methods, proper grazing techniques and proper fencing. Proper control is therefore being exercised now, because there are officials giving attention to this matter on a full-time basis. But I do wish to agree with the hon. member that it is a problem.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that it was as a result of the success of the hon. the Minister that such a vehement and concentrated attack was made on him this evening by the hon. member for Houghton and other members. The hon. the Minister is standing in their way of course, so that they cannot achieve their goal, which is to create chaos and disorder and ultimately to bring about Black majority rule in South Africa. [Interjections.]

They hate our farmers and they hate the Afrikaner.

The speech made by the hon. member for Houghton tonight—and what their Press writes as well—is not intended for South Africa. It is aimed solely at the outside world. They are creating misconceptions. [Interjections.] In my opinion the squatting which occurred in the Cape was organized wilful behaviour in which the official Opposition played a major role. We cannot make progress in this country without control and without law and order. But what is the objective of hon. members of the Opposition? I should like to indicate what it is. More than a week ago there was a full-page article in the Sunday Tribune under the headline “Let these people be”. I quote—

It was also alleged that the reason why the people had moved from the homelands to Nyanga had been the conditions in the homeland. The following allegations were made: A farmer in the homeland has less than 1 ha of land to cultivate, there is absolutely no irrigation and not even any irrigation water, they have nothing to plough with and a farmer’s entire production is three bags per annum, and that determines his entire income and, in conclusion, such a farmer has only two chickens. These are the kind of reasons which were advanced in the article to indicate why those people had moved to Nyanga.

In the same newspaper of approximately a week ago there was another full-page article, but this time under the headline “The millions of voteless people”. An interview was conducted with three persons who ostensibly objected because they as Black people had no franchise in South Africa. That is why I say that the objective of those hon. members is not to help these people to help themselves, as the department or the Government is doing. The one thing they want to do is to have Black majority rule established in South Africa. That is the goal they wish to achieve. We said here this evening that they were talking as if there was no development, but there are no farmers on that side of the House. I think there is perhaps one farmer among their number, and he farms with chickens in the Western Cape. However, there are no farmers on that side of the House who know about the economic development which is taking place here. They do not know about the employment opportunities which are being created in agriculture. Nor do they know about the part which agriculture plays in creating employment opportunities in South Africa. The people of the department have for example created 16 000 employment opportunities in the homelands, at a cost of only R43 million, which amounts to R2 495 per employment opportunity. Compare that to what the creation of an employment opportunity costs in the city.

Food production is important, but so, too, are the processing industries which are linked to it. Agriculture in the national States has the potential of feeding 25 million people, but at present that potential is being considerably underutilized. There are many possibilities, because it is general knowledge that agricultural areas in the homelands in the eastern part of the country have good rainfall, good water and good soil which only has to be utilized. At present we are engaged in a process which is aimed at getting people to adopt better methods. Fantastic success is being achieved. Some of those farmers not only have two chickens, they have tractors, trucks and pick-ups and they are major lifestock and grain producers. For example if one goes to Bophuthatswana today, one will find that whereas maize production there used to be 1 ton or less per hectare, they are now talking about 5 tons per hectare. The department is engaged in the provision of credit, extension, planning and research and they are also providing these people with marketing facilities. Hon. members opposite say there are no irrigation schemes, but there are many irrigation schemes, for example on the Makatini Flats, where there are 35 000 ha of land which can be irrigated from the J. G. Strijdom dam.

When is it going to be placed under irrigation?

I do not want to talk about the other irrigation schemes, yet hon. members opposite say there is no irrigation potential.

You do not know what is happening there, my friend.

Let us see what role the Economic Development Corporation and the National Corporations are playing in these territories. There are two faculties of agriculture, seven agricultural colleges and more than 1 000 Black agricultural extension officers who assist these people in the sphere of agriculture. The EDC and the National Corporations have approximately 50 projects for the irrigation of citrus, tea, sugar, maize, dairy farms, cattle farms, coffee, wheat and sisal. Consequently there have been fantastic success stories which one could recount in this connection, and one could elaborate at great length on how these people are being helped to help themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vryheid sincerely on a very positive contribution.

I came to this House in 1974, and when I arrived here, the United Party was the official Opposition. Opposition or no, that was at least a responsible Opposition, and respectable people to boot.

Where are they today?

I honestly cannot say that of the present official Opposition. For the present I shall leave it at that.

I have very great appreciation for the very important work which is being done by this Commission for Co-Operation and Development, particularly in respect of meaningful consolidation. It is a Herculean task which takes up a tremendous amount of the time of the commission, and I think it deserves the sincere thanks of every hon. member on this side of the House. However, I am of the opinion that the task of the commission can be considerably facilitated if it is possible, at the same time, to give attention to the problems with which the border farmers of our country are faced, because these problems go hand in hand with consolidation.

Every farmer in South Africa is exposed to the elements of nature, over which he has no control, and which he accepts as being inevitable, but besides these normal problems the border farmers also have tremendous problems in respect of stock theft, dogs which savage sheep, the removal of boundary fences, veld fires and many other problems as well. The hon. member for Ventersdorp also referred to this in passing.

These farmers are rendering this country a very great and valuable service by carrying on with their farming practices in spite of all their problems and financial losses. If these farmers should find themselves in the situation, as a result of their problems, that they no longer see their way clear to remaining there and carrying on with their farming practices, what it amounts to is that our borders simply contract and we cannot afford that. These fanners are making tremendous sacrifices for the sake of all the inhabitants of this country, and it is certainly no more than right that every tax-payer should make a contribution to make life tolerable for the border farmers. I am thoroughly aware that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is already giving attention to the resettlement of farmers along the northern border of the Transvaal, but we really cannot afford to allow all our border farmers to end up in that situation. Therefore I wish to address an earnest request for this matter to be given serious attention. I want to suggest that the border farmer should receive a special rebate on his income tax, to compensate in this way for his losses. Consideration could also be given to allowing the border farmer to enjoy the same benefits as those enjoyed by border industries. Consequently I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether at this stage any form of compensation is being considered to make life more endurable for the border farmer. I shall leave it at that.

I wish to discuss another matter which cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. Before doing so, however, I wish to say that the protection and conservation of the natural resources, as well as their exploitation, are extremely important for the survival and development of a nation. I do not think that anyone inside or outside this House will disagree with me on this point. In this process the people involved—White, Brown and Black—and their mutual co-operation are playing a key role. The agricultural sector in South Africa and the position it occupies in the economy, is in this connection an excellent example of the initiative, perseverance and zeal which is being displayed by our people in the development of the natural resources of our country. These achievements are the result of the co-operation between Whites and non-Whites in the agricultural sector, and definitely not the result of a confrontation. I happened to read a report in this connection in one of our agricultural magazines, viz. Die Kouter. If I had not known that this agricultural publication had not existed in 1881, I would have thought that it had been printed round about that time. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that it is in fact dated March 1981. I am quoting what is stated here. “Geweld al instelling” is the headline. It goes on to state—

It is disgraceful.

It is the greatest disservice anyone could have done the farming community of South Africa, and I think our legal system as well. In fact, I consider our legal system to be the best in the world. A speech such as this one not only causes ill-feeling between the consumer and the farmer, but is also noised abroad and causes our farmers to be seen everywhere as slave-drivers and a bunch of thugs. The fact of the matter is that it is false propaganda and that it is joined to all the other false propaganda which is disseminated abroad to destroy this country and its fine people.

During the discussion of this Vote, the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that 4,5 million Black workers are employed on farms in South Africa. As far as I know, there is no law which compels a worker to work for a specific farmer. If what Mr. Roelofse alleged were true, no worker would be prepared to work voluntarily for a farmer.

Now, it may be asked who this Mr. Roelofse actually is. I do not know him at all. Actually, I am pleased that I do not know him. I established that he was a director of the S.A. Consumer Council and that he was eventually kicked out. Subsequently he was appointed as the ombudsman for the S.A. Council of Churches. [Interjections.] That is his present task, and it seems to me as if he could be a kindred spirit of the hon. official Opposition. [Interjections.] What are the facts? The facts are that the workers on our farms are happy workers, very happy workers. They are well-paid, have good housing and, I am convinced of this, if the other sectors of our economy treat their Black employees in the same way as our farming population treats our workers, South Africa would have no race problems. [Interjections.]

I take it extremely amiss of any person who unburdens himself of such untruths. Such a person honestly does not deserve that the sun of South Africa to shine on him. I reject these utterances of Mr. Roelofse with the contempt which they deserve.

Order! In the course of his speech the hon. member for Ladybrand referred to the old United Party as a decent Opposition. Did the hon. member imply by that that hon. members of the official Opposition who are sitting here at the moment, are not decent?

Mr. Chairman, I really did not mean it in such a bad sense. In any event, I am prepared to withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ladybrand will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to what he has had to say. I should, however, like to associate myself—and I hope he does not get too big a surprise when I say this—with his criticism of Mr. Roelofse for making wild generalizations about the way farmers in South Africa treat their labourers. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member said about the many good things that South African farmers have done and are doing for their labourers and the way they treat their labourers.

Then I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Mooi River had to say about certain aspects of the way in which those farmers who are affected by consolidation are being compensated, in particular the 60%-40% method of compensation where farmers are being bought out. This subject has already been dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Finance, but I want to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. member about difficulties that those farmers who are leaving the land, that is, those who are retiring from farming, find themselves in now. These farmers do not wish to re-invest their money in agricultural land. They wish to make other investments. I am sure the hon. member for Mooi River will agree with me that we do not want to make party political capital out of this. We feel that this is a wrong that we hope will be put right because a lot of people are being affected by it. These farmers feel aggrieved because they were after all the first farmers to co-operate with the department. They agreed to the valuation that the department placed on their properties and as a result they now find themselves in a disadvantageous position. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could respond directly to the plea from both the hon. member for Mooi River and myself.

I wish to refer now to some problems that are being created by the denationalization of Black people in South Africa. This process of denationalization is, of course, taking place under the policies being applied by the hon. the Minister’s department. It seems to be a quid pro quo of independence. The issue of nationality is central to the political future of South Africa, and the hon. the Minister must answer this simple but very important question: Is the present policy of denationalization to be continued, or are Blacks to be somehow accommodated under a wider sort of South African nationalism? If one is to go by Government pronouncement since 1978, there seems to be little doubt as to what way the wind is blowing, and it does not seem to be a very good wind either. On 7 February 1978 Dr. C. P. Mulder made a fairly definitive statement in this House. He said, and I quote (Hansard, 7 February 1978, col. 579)—

This statement has not yet been repudiated but has actually been reinforced, also during this session, by speakers on that side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister has spoken in vague terms about “comprehensive arrangements” which are to be made to anticipate problems with regard to passports, etc., but the legal and political status of urban Blacks in terms of South African nationality has not yet been clarified. Until there is clarification on this score we must assume that the status quo holds good. By losing their nationality in this way, Sir, Blacks not only lose their right to exercise the privileges of South African nationality such as diplomatic protection and the right to carry a South African passport but they also lose all claim to civil and political rights in South Africa either now or in the future. As we have heard, Sir, this process is destined to continue until in the fullness of time there will no longer be any Black South African nationals in the Republic.

What nonsense!

By the turn of the century there will instead be some 20 million Blacks in our cities and on our farms who have the status of foreigners at best, and stateless people at worst.

White domination.

They will have no more claim to citizenship rights in South Africa than for example, Portuguese or Greek nationals. There is, however, a slight difference. A Portuguese or Greek national, provided he spends a statutory period of time in South Africa, can apply to become a naturalized South African and be granted full and equal civil and political rights, whereas a Black man can live to be a hundred years of age in the land of his birth, and never hold any status other than that of a foreigner. Section 10(1)(c) of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949 will see to that.

This has important repercussions both domestically and internationally. At home it has invoked a bitter response from people like Bishop Tutu. I should like to quote what Bishop Tutu had to say in in this regard. He said—

That is the urban Blacks—

I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is a moderate statement although it does reflect bitterness. It is one of the more moderate statements made by Black leaders. I wonder, Sir, what kind of language would be used by some of the hon. members on that side of the House if overnight there were to be a change of Government, and that new Government were to deprive them of their South African nationality, and force them to become citizens of Holland, or Britain, or Israel, or whatever country to which they could be ethnically or linguistically attached. [Interjections.]

On the international front, this denationalization of Black South Africans has destroyed whatever hope there might have been of the world’s recognizing the independence of the homelands. As long as millions of South Africans are summarily deprived of their nationality in this fashion there is not the faintest hope of international recognition.

I want now, Sir, to turn to an actual problem that has arisen from this policy of denationalization. This is a problem which holds the seeds of destruction of the whole system. I am referring to the 600 people in the Kokstad area of East Griqualand who have allegedly been refused Transkeian nationality by the Transkeian authorities. Perhaps the hon. member for Mooi River will bear me out on this. My information in this regard comes from a memorandum given to me by the Bhongweni liaison group in Kokstad. It has been read and approved by the magistrate at Kokstad. It is claimed in this memorandum that a crisis situation exists because Transkei refuses to issue identity documents to Xhosa youths who have been born in the Republic desnite the fact that their parents had Transkeian nationality conferred upon them at the time of independence. The document goes on to state further—

This was 16 June 1981. These people now exist in the twilight world of the stateless and this creates an alarming precedent. It is all very well to draw up statutes that confer the nationality of a newly independent State upon persons who have been deprived of their South African citizenship but what happens when such a State suddenly and unilaterally opts out of its obligations? Unless the South African Government can succeed in begging, bribing or forcing independent homelands to confer nationality in an ongoing way upon all Blacks born outside of the homelands as well as in, the collapse of the system will be considerably accelerated with dire results for many.

A serious situation has arisen in certain parts of the country and at present we have no assurance that that situation will be resolved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany started his speech very well and moderately and made certain appeals in respect of farmers who had suffered as a result of consolidation, and expressed certain ideas which cannot be faulted. What did surprise me in the latter portion of the hon. member’s speech—and this is a blunder made by the whole official Opposition—is that they show no understanding of what citizenship is. In point of fact, our policy—with regard to the independence granted to States and the citizenship which is granted to people in those States, and by means of which they are linked to the national States—is specifically aimed at instilling a feeling of security in people who are at present in a state of insecurity.

I do not want to waste my time any further on arguments about citizenship. I have other matters I should like to discuss. The consolidation of the land of the national States has for the past few years enjoyed very high priority and we are all awaiting with interest the final decisions stemming from the report and findings of the Van der Walt Commission. What we know, in any event, is that the national States have a great deal of high-potential agricultural land, but that a great deal will have to be done to make the citizens of the national States duly agriculture-conscious to ensure that the available land is optimally utilized. Last year we paid a visit to Venda, and inspected various agricultural projects, inter alia the cultivation of tea and coffee, their forestry industry as well as their fishing industry. It did not require a great deal of imagination to be impressed by the tremendous agricultural potential there. After the election, just before we returned for the Parliamentary session this year, I paid a visit one day to kwaNdbele and the district of Mutsi in Lebowa. At that stage—it was early in winter—all the wheat fields were a beautiful green colour and everywhere the Black people were irrigating their wheat patches. What I found significant was that for the most part the people on the lands were women. Now, we know that it is in fact tradition among the Black people that the women are the agriculturists. The men are very seldom seen on their own lands. I can discuss this with authority, particularly as far as the kwaNdbele are concerned. I grew up with them. I mention this because the development in agriculture must also be seen in terms of the provision of employment for men. If agriculture can be developed to the optimum in the Black States and the men do not become fully involved, this will necessarily mean that the women will remain the farmers and that further employment opportunities will have to be created for the men in industry and commerce, for he will remain a workseeker. Accordingly I foresee a special task for the Agricultural Extension Division of the Department of Co-operation and Development in motivating the men to become really involved in their farming operations. If this happens, I foresee the possibility that the agricultural sector will contribute its share towards increasing production in the national States. Increasing production in agriculture must be one of the strategic objectives in the development of the national States. Not only will this enable the agricultural industry to carry out its primary and fundamental function of the provision of food; increased turnovers could also lead to export. In other words, it could become an earner of foreign exchange for these States. It is in the fulfilment of these aims that two fundamental policies or strategies are relevant in the homelands. The first is an increase in production by the private farmer. The objective of this first policy is to bring about increased agricultural turnover through the private Black farmer. The emphasis here must be on agricultural auxiliary services and the agricultural milieu, which the Government sector is giving attention to in an effort to afford the private farmer the opportunity of producing in that way. In this respect I am thinking in the first place of the agricultural extension services which, by way of the principle of community development draw the attention of the people to their needs, and which hold up effective agricultural production to them as the most suitable method of satisfying those needs.

Agricultural training in the homelands must be undertaken across a broad front by, for example, offering horticulture as a subject in primary schools and agricultural sciences up to matriculation standard, and by the establishment of agricultural high schools. In addition the construction in due course of at least one agricultural college in each homeland is being envisaged. The training of farmers at agricultural colleges and agricultural centres must be offered on an ongoing basis. University training at the universities for Blacks in the homelands which have agricultural faculties must be accorded high priority, and agricultural research must be geared specifically to the homelands. There are various persons and bodies that look after the specific needs of the homelands. The Department of Co-operation and Development, with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, Benbo, White universities and private persons and bodies are being involved in research activities in the Black States on an ongoing basis. Soil conservation and renewal projects are being accorded a high priority and are for the most part being conducted by the Government. The development of irrigation schemes, to which reference has also been made this evening, is of course of great importance and there are already a number of schemes of this nature. Furthermore it is self-evident that further schemes for which there are considerable possibilities, will have to be planned on a cost justification basis.

Where the private sector fails to provide commercial marketing services, the Departments of Agriculture in the homelands also provide marketing facilities in the form of auction kraals and public market places in the homelands. Furthermore credit is being granted by the Government sector. Relatively small amounts for short and medium term credit are being granted to thousands of small farmers, and the recovery of that money involves many problems which will have to be solved effectively. The granting of credit in the form of technical means of production, for example seed, fertilizer, weed-killers, dips, breeding stock and mechanical services, are a very popular form of aid.

The founding of co-operatives to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred is the ideal organizatory arrangement whereby to put commercial auxiliary services at the disposal of the private farmer, and active steps have already been taken to make the co-operative idea more acceptable to the private farmers. There are signs that the co-operative idea is increasing in popularity among the Black people. Consequently co-operative formation affords the opportunity of concentrating Government activities in other areas. Unfortunately, the effect of the services which are being provided by the Government and are aimed at an increase in the production of private farmers, has thus far been slight.

The second policy concerns an increase in production in the agricultural sector, and aims to involve the public sector physically in agricultural production, because at this stage the private farmer is still failing to utilize an economic farming unit within the bounds of his values and notions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to react to the speech of the hon. member for Middelburg and I associate myself with it without hesitation. If the hon. member for Albany would only be patient for a while, I shall, after having raised one or two other points, come to the question of denationalization which he dealt with in his speech.

I think it is appropriate, during a discussion of the Co-operation and Development Vote, to stop for a moment and consider where we are today and where we have come from. I want to link my speech to the name of this Vote, Co-operation and Development. The Co-operation part is very important, for if we want a civilized future for ourselves and for the other peoples in this country, the word “co-operation” will have to be written in bold capital letters in our history book. That is why co-operation between all the people of South Africa is of the utmost importance for our future.

Except the Progs.

If one goes back in history and looks at the conditions that prevailed 30 years ago, and the prospects for co-operation at the time, and compares them with today’s prospects for co-operation, one can indeed see what progress we have made. Thirty years ago there was, on the one hand, a White national group with virtually a fully developed political system, and on the other a mass of Black people who were left with only the ashes of their political system, only the remains. In that situation, with a complete political system on the one hand and on the other, virtually no political structures remaining, there could be no question of a co-operative relationship. There could only be a master-servant relationship, and any person with common sense could have seen even then, particularly if he examined the history of the Afrikaner himself, that the master-servant relationship could not have continued for ever. That is why it is the objective of the NP to enable the Black people to build structures for themselves, which will then in turn enable them to participate in the co-operation process as full-fledged partners.

This, then, is where the development part is of importance. One must remember that it was not only the Blacks’ political systems which was virtually destroyed 30 years ago. It was also the instruments with which they had to start the building up process which were virtually completely absent. For example, 30 years ago there were fewer than 500 full-time matriculation candidates per annum among the Black people. Today there are more than 50 000. This is a hundredfold increase—not an increase of 100%—over a period of 30 years. I regard this as phenomenal. If one takes this as the foundation on which the Black people had to build to develop economically, socially and politically, one can see that that development had a very small nucleus 30 years ago. One could compare it to a snowball which is small when it begins and initially grows at a slow rate. However, as it becomes larger, its rate of growth accelerates. By way of comparison one could say that 30 years ago there may have been only a small golf-ball which grew in size very slowly, always at an increasing rate, until today it is as large as a rugby ball and growing rapidly.

Now, after the development has taken place, the co-operation aspect has progressed so far that we can really start to implement it. That is why we see today that local authorities are being established among the Black people, and these are local authorities which are starting to work, despite the prophecies of doom of three and four years ago on the future of these institutions. As I have said, they are starting to work. There was the fine example of the regional committees which were established under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, to see to the situation of the Black people outside the national States. I had the privilege of serving on one of those committees, and it was a very stimulating experience to see how co-operation was being established. Consequently this is the basis of the whole constellation and confederation idea. Twenty or 30 years ago, our statesmen could see a commonwealth in the distant future; today we can start to implement it. Just as that snowball is now so large that it can grow rapidly, we shall see that it will not require another 30 years before we are able to show as much further progress. That is why I should like to make an appeal to the Government to create structures and opportunities on all possible levels for further co-operation between all the population groups of South Africa, for our future lies in that.

In the few minutes I have left, I should like to say something about denationalization, which was raised by the hon. member for Albany. I found it very interesting that the hon. member built virtually his entire speech around a pamphlet which Prof. John Dugard recently distributed, but he did not single out one cardinal distinction drawn by Prof. Dugard, viz. the distinction between the external effect and the internal effect of this nationality or citizenship. In actual fact Prof. Dugard calls it two things: He speaks of external “nationality”, where the passport, protection in a foreign country, etc., are relevant, and “citizenship”, where franchise and participation in the political process are relevant. As far as nationality is concerned, I do not think there is much of a problem, for there are regulations in terms of which Black people who are citizens of the national or independent States, are able to obtain South African passports when they require them. With those passports they then enjoy the protection of the South African Government abroad, just like any other South African. When it comes to the internal functioning, to the “citizenship”, there is a difference. In that regard it need not be news to the hon. member for Albany that we differentiate as far as political rights are concerned. Furthermore it is true that it is the Government’s declared policy to create meaningful political rights for all persons in South Africa, but on a differentiated basis. This system may sound strange to people, but there is a very good precedent for it. The British originally advocated British passports to all citizens of all Commonwealth countries. Initially, that passport conferred nationality as well as citizenship. However, before long the British discovered that they were exposing themselves to severe pressures when they linked citizenship rights to that passport. Consequently they started to withdraw the citizenship rights one by one until the point was reached when holders of a British passport were no longer entitled to go and live and vote in Britain automatically. In fact, the situation has subsequently developed that the holder of a British passport can no longer count on being allowed into Britain. Accordingly, if we examine the development of the British passport and citizenship in the British Commonwealth, we have here a very good precedent we can follow in regulating citizenship and nationality.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Helderkruin will forgive for saying to him that it is obvious that he does not quite understand the difference between the citizenship granted to people who are part and parcel of one’s own community, such as the Black people of South Africa are, and the citizenship granted by a country such as Britain to people who perhaps have never been there, will never go there, have no interests there and in fact are citizens of an entirely different country. Until hon. members on that side of the House understand this concept, they will never be able to deal adequately with the question of the citizenship of the Black people of this country.

I also cannot continue without responding to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Middelburg. There is one thing I cannot understand about a man who actually knows something about the soil of South Africa: When such a man comes to the House and talks to us here with the amount of enthusiasm he displayed about the “agricultural reality” of the situation in most of the Black countries, or the Black territories, of South Africa, he has obviously either deluded himself or he is trying to delude the House. We know that practically every territory—Transkei, Ciskei and others he mentioned—is rapidly eroding away. The agricultural potential may well have been great at one time, but under the policy of the Government those areas are very rapidly being destroyed so that we may reach the point where there will be no potential left at all.

That is not true. I challenge you …

I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister, in that case, to come with me to Ciskei where I was two to three weeks ago. Then he can tell me what the potential of that area is. [Interjections.] For a man such as that hon. Deputy Minister, who understands agriculture, to say that kind of thing is, I think, patently not true. I must compare parts of my country to other parts of my country and I must tell the House when I see destruction taking place, wilful destruction, Sir, for which you and I and our children one day will have to pay the price.

What do you mean by “wilful destruction”?

We cannot come to the House and make the kind of speech that was made by an hon. member on the other side and pretend that everything is rosy in the garden, because that is in fact not the case at all.

I did not say it was rosy.

What about Lesotho? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there are several reasons which hon. members on that side of the House advance when they try to justify the Government’s action against Blacks in the Western Cape. One of the reasons advanced, is that there are no jobs for these people in the Western Cape. But then they send those people back to places where there are no jobs for them either, as if that would solve the problem.

Catch 22.

Moreover, it is maintained that there are no houses for those people in the Western Cape. But then these people are sent back to places where there are no houses for them either.

That is a stupid argument.

Furthermore it is stated that the Western Cape is a Coloured preference area. If one listens to the arguments on that side of the House, one gets the impression that the Coloured community …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister must just give me a chance. I am talking about his Vote.

Those are stupid arguments.

Then one would think that the Coloured community in the Western Cape are being specially favoured by the NP, but even in this case the opposite is true. Those same hon. members who are supposedly trying to protect the Coloured people, have in the last number of years deprived the Coloured people of their political rights. The Coloureds have been ousted from all the choice residential areas of Cape Town and driven out to the Cape Flats, and they have been denied the right to use public amenities and the beaches. I contend that hon. members opposite are hiding behind the Coloured man simply in order to implement the ideology of separation in practice. The reason why the Black people have been treated the way they have over the past 15 to 16 years is that Black people were deprived of their political say here in the Western Cape. The Government sought at all costs to prevent the Black man from gaining a political say or political rights in the Western Cape.

†Hon. members opposite argue as though nothing has happened during the past 15, 16 years. The point is that Transkei in fact became an independent country. Therefore one would expect that the citizens of that country would be treated in a decent manner by this Government, particularly since that country is the product of this Government’s own policy. The opposite is in fact true, however, and foreign relations between South Africa and Transkei have been bedevilled by the situation which has developed over the past two or three weeks.

If I were to accept, however, the points that were made by hon. members opposite, namely that if there were in fact job opportunities available in the Western Cape, if there was housing available in the Western Cape, if the Coloured community was protected and if the non-permanence of Black Transkei citizens was accepted, what would the NP do in such a case? How would they treat them then? It is my contention that if, in terms of the NP’s own policy, they accepted the fact that Transkei citizens were Black but foreign, the hon. the Minister should treat töose people in the same manner as that in which he would treat any other foreigner. If a foreigner were to come to South Africa on a one-year contract from, say, Germany or Portugal or anywhere else, or even from France to work here on the nuclear power station, and such foreigner said he wanted to bring his wife along, would the hon. the Minister or the Government allow him to do so? The answer is obviously “yes”, because the Government wants a worker there.

Because Transkei people are Black, however, they are not allowed to live a family life in this country.

That is utter nonsense. [Interjections.]

That is wrong.

Well, prove me to be wrong. [Interjections.]

They are not even allowed to be people.

If a farmer in the Western Cape should want a worker to work in his dairy, and if he could offer that worker a house, and if that Black worker with whom he had a contract and for whom he had a house, was not going to cause a Coloured man to be deprived of an employment opportunity, would the hon. the Minister or the Government then allow that Black man to bring his wife along with him? If the answer is “no” …

And it is …

… then it is quite clear that the basis of that party’s policy is simply race and colour. If the answer is “yes” … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg is really too late. We have finished discussing the squatters; we have finished discussing the Black people in the Western Cape and in point of fact we are already very far away from the Western Cape.

You will never be able to get away from it.

No, wait a minute. We have been dealing with this Vote since this afternoon.

But the problem has not yet been solved.

Yes, but let me tell those hon. members what is at issue here. As far as those hon. members are concerned, about 2 000 squatters came to Nyanga, whereas there are 15 million Black people in the rest of South Africa.

So what?

The hon. members say “So what?”. Mr. Chairman, that shows how simple-minded they are. They spend the whole afternoon talking about 2 000 people who were squatting illegally in the Western Cape, and are uninterested in the rest of South Africa with its 15 million Black people. I shall tell you why, Mr. Chairman. They found in the handful of people who came to squat here, a peg on which to hang a minor issue and make a tremendous “issue” out of it. The hon. member must not grin like that when looking in my direction. He should rather look the other way.

Horace, the hon. member is speaking to you.

No, I am not referring to that hon. member. When we speak about Transkeians and Ciskeians and the people who provided the funds to enable them to come from Transkei and Ciskei to Nyanga …

Their own Government supplied that.

I shall ask them whether this is true. I shall take the hon. member up on that point. He said that their own Governments supplied the funds. Does the hon. member repeat it?

I repeat what is stated in the newspapers.

Sir, this is the type of nonsense one hears from hon. members like that hon. member. The hon. member said “their own Governments supplied it”. Now I ask the hon. member: Does he repeat it?

He said so.

Did he say so?

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I am engaged in an argument. The heart of the matter is at issue here. That hon. member says that the Governments of those countries supplied funds to those people to come and squat in Cape Town, and I am asking the hon. member to repeat it. Now he says that this is what the newspapers said. This is the kind of nonsense we have to tolerate. We are discussing the squatters, because those hon. members cannot get away from the squatters. Let us ask the people who supplied the funds to those people to come here to supply further funds so that the people can go to Port Elizabeth, East London, Queenstown, King William’s Town or Durban.

One could say, a whole Garden Route tour!

Be a “plakker” and see the world!

All I ask is: why should they pass by all these places and end up only in Cape Town?

Because you made the laws.

It would have been easier for the Tswanas in Upington to come and squat here in Nyanga than it is for the Transkeians. At least they have a direct rail link to Cape Town.

You are making a major issue out of this.

However, it is strange that they do not come here. I am simply no longer prepared to accept an argument of this kind.

There is a political aim.

We should rather proceed to other matters. The hon. member for Wynberg is in any event too late.

I now want to come back to a few matters which were mentioned here and deal seriously with them. I do not think we should waste our time with such nonsense.

You are the most dishonest people I have ever met.

Order! Did the hon. member for Houghton refer to hon. members in this House as being dishonest?

Yes, I did.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw then, Sir.

I now want to refer to the question which was raised here in connection with the Government stock situation. I want to point out that we have come a long way with this question of Government stock. In the first place, we had the situation that there was virtually no other method of buying out than by way of Government stock. But as the process went on, we found that this did not work well. In the first place we then abandoned the method of using only Government stock. As far back as December last year the hon. the Deputy Minister announced that the purchasing of land by way of Government stock had been abandoned and that in future cash will be paid for land.

The second aspect which then received attention is that when once one has this Government stock, what can one do with it? We argued—and we obtained the cooperation of the Department of Finance, and in particular of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance—that where a person has a bona fide wish to enter agriculture once again, he is then able to offer that Government stock at the Land Bank as security, and we succeeded in our appeal. I think these are two important steps in this process.

The third leg of this situation is now that we are aware of the fact that there are people who may have suffered losses in this process. Personally, my conscience does not prevent me from admitting that there are people who suffer losses in the process. I would only be making a fool of myself if I did not admit this. We held intensive discussions with the South African Agricultural Union to determine whether these people are. Many of these people received Government stock and traded it. They speculated with it etc. Now one simply cannot try to compensate everyone who received Government stock in this process for losses he may have suffered. One does not know whether a person has suffered losses.

Basically, we came to an agreement with organized agriculture. We told organized agriculture—and the hon. the Minister of Finance will know that this is true—that if we encounter bona fide cases, where it can really be proven that a person has suffered losses in the process, then we shall have to look into the matter. However, we also told organized agriculture: Bring us the people and bring us the evidence, too. The hon. member for Albany has already furnished me with certain information concerning people who, in his opinion, had suffered losses in this process. We are looking into this matter. I am sure that if we could make a case for people who have suffered bona fide losses and they can prove it, then this Government does not intend to turn its back on those people. In the nature of the matter I cannot, of course, give any undertaking, but I know this of this Government—that it will not leave these people in the lurch if it is at all possible for it to avoid doing so.

Furthermore, the hon. member asked that we should lease trust farms on tender. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that I do not like us to lease land which is being purchased for the Black States to Whites on a long-term basis and at a constant low rent. I think this is fundamentally wrong, for we must have that land transferred to the Black States. We must give the Black States a start with that land. However, to think that we must make it available on a tender basis is in my opinion very undesirable. I could show you areas in this country where one wealthy man would lease a whole “corridor” on a tender basis, and no poor man would have the slightest chance of leasing that land. We cannot do it on that basis. We must do it on a selective basis. What I am opposed to is that people lease land at a low tariff which is not justifiable in terms of agricultural economy, and simply pay the rent from yeár to year, and where such a person derives all the benefit from such an arrangement. We must know that we are going to purchase land with a specific purpose. We are buying off or purchasing land to meet the 1936 quota or to make provision for land with which to compensate for exchanges. We must also ensure that once we have purchased that land, it must be utilized for the purpose for which it was purchased within the shortest possible time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I very gladly follow, literally and figuratively, in the shadow of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. What happens on the path of independence of a nation, is very often forgotten and not judged according to its true value. It is perhaps appropriate to look back over the past three decades—as was also done by the hon. member for Helderkruin—for this is the period which elapsed after the adoption of the Bantu Authorities Act which provided for the establishment of Bantu area and regional authorities and consequential matters, and for the gaining of freedom in an independent State. These events attest to purposeful implementation of the policy of the Government.

Both in this country and throughout the world, the word “independent” is so often written in quotation marks. It is understandable that hon. members of the Opposition, such as the hon. member for Houghton, who has other plans for this country and its people, would like those quotation marks to remain, for this would surely be a sign that the policy of the Government is not succeeding. [Interjections.] Moreover, it is no wonder that when findings are made or Benso makes a statement which could indicate that the milestones or the targets which were contemplated have not been achieved, this causes the Opposition parties to shout hosannas.

However, let there be no doubt on this score. The Government, with the means at its disposal and with the vision of its leaders, will erase those quotation marks so effectively that the world will have no choice but to recognize that independence.

If we want to solve the relations issues of this country, it is no longer enough to say what must be done; the time has come to say how it must be done. It is true that the NP has made mistakes in the past in that in the process of emphasizing the principle, philosophy and correctness of the fundamental concept of the policy of multinational development, has placed too little emphasis on the positive development part of the policy. As a result there is a severe backlog which we are now making up.

The statements of the Government indicate one aspect very clearly, i.e. the development of these independent States and the homelands is now a very high priority. We cannot cherish excessive expectations of economic development. Consequently it should not only be a matter of the progress of development as such, but progress in terms of the need to realize the ideal.

The enormous task of developing the agricultural, industrial and mining sectors—to mention but a few—demands an aggressive approach in tackling the auxiliary strategic programmes, of which one might mention just a few. There is, for example, the rapid transportation of commuters, township development and housing, the training of labour, the creation of infrastructure, programming of Government expenditure and then the overall task of involving and motivating Black communities in the task of development.

I believe that the key to eventual success lies specifically in community involvement. I believe that we can already perceive among the Blacks the national pride and the jealous guarding of what is their own as the result of community involvement. Surely the Government has demonstrated something to the world, for if President Lucas Mangope on behalf of the Tswana peoples can speak of “the mineral wealth of my country” and “the heritage of my people”, and if he is clearly delighted with the knowledge that the International Permanent Meat Bureau is one of the first international organizations to recognize the independence of Bophuthatswana, this means something. To many people this may not sound at all important, and to some it is very unimportant, but this is the clear language of people who realize that they have been liberated without bloodshed by our process of emancipation and can start to talk about that which is their own.

This is taking place according to a plan which is new to us as well. After all, this is not a plan which has been tested elsewhere, and is being put into effect at a point in time when nations are becoming aware of a national desire to be themselves. In the meantime the emancipation process is evolving without bloodshed, while external forces seek to incite an unreasonable and an all-destructive urgency in the hearts of people and unleash revolution. This is what we want to avoid.

In the process of the implementation of this policy the NP has made many errors of judgment and will probably make many more in the future. Moreover, it will probably be necessary to adjust our plans from time to time, but then the obstacles must not be the effort of people who have no understanding whatsoever of what we are doing and who want to put a spoke in the wheel. We ought not to tolerate our own country’s workers allowing themselves to be used by unscrupulous outsiders to create labour unrest. On the other hand, the obstacle must also not be the delayed flow of information to those who have to implement the plans, and least of all should it be unnecessary red tape in the administration.

With the experience we now have in the development of national States, it is clear that we still have a very long way to go. The implementation of such a comprehensive task requires development capital, manpower, planning of the highest quality and time. What has been achieved here over a short three decades, speaks volumes, but in future we must not take 24 months to do something which could have been finalized within 12 months. What we want to do now must be finalized within the next year or two. One day it will be recorded in the history books that the task performed by the Commission for Co-operation under Hennie van der Walt was a monumental one. It will be a pleasure to read and to study that history. In addition, it will be recorded that the Government of the day understood the message of the commission and did everything necessary, and sought to realize the ideal on the basis of the need.

No person of common sense questions the allocation of vast sums of money for the security of our country. And why is this the case? It is the case because everyone understands what is at issue. Consequently it must be the task of every hon. member of this House to inform and motivate every citizen to make sacrifices, and to understand when in future we spend more money to implement plans which will cause struggling economies to flourish, so that economic co-operation may succeed within a system of political differentiation. When that happens, those who are so quick to maintain that money is being pumped into Black States unnecessarily may realize in time that they are doing neither this country nor its people any favour by means of irresponsible propaganda of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg must please excuse me if I do not reply directly to what he said in his speech. I have an important matter to discuss in regard to kwaZulu and I really do not have much time available to me.

What I should like to do is to look at the economic viability of kwaZulu as a State. Various criteria have been laid down for deciding whether a State is actually economically viable or not. One set of criteria, which most academics and many other people would subscribe to, firstly poses the question as to whether or not the level of development has been sufficient to maintain the population’s present living standards. With kwaZulu this is simply not the case. R4 out of every R5 in kwaZulu is earned outside kwaZulu itself. It is estimated that 80% of the GDP comes from outside kwaZulu. The GDP per capita for kwaZulu workers in Durban is R1 500, and inside kwaZulu itself the per capita figure is R70. It is therefore no wonder at all that there is a strong urge for people to move from kwaZulu to the metropolitan areas of Durban, Pinetown and Pietermaritzburg.

The second criterion is whether or not the current levels of saving and investment are sufficient to maintain the existing capital stock intact, and the third is whether the country is able to meet its financial obligations. I really do not need to expand on this because a short perusal of the budget presented to us by the hon. the Minister of Finance will show that kwaZulu is totally dependent on the South African Government as a source of finance.

The fourth criterion is the extent to which a country has control over its own economic affairs and kwaZulu simply does not fall into this category. KwaZulu is totally dependent on money and assistance from outside.

I should like to present a few other facts in support of my argument that kwaZulu is totally dependent on South Africa, especially Natal, and that we cannot look at those two areas independently. Firstly kwaZulu covers about 33% of the total area of Natal. Right now kwaZulu comprises about 42 small pieces of land throughout Natal, and 140 little Black spots which are due for consolidation at some stage or other. Nobody knows exactly when but this will involve the removal of some 350 000 people in an attempt to obtain the ten consolidated areas envisaged by the Government. If the hon. member for Brits thinks he has passport problems, he should come to Natal some time. If the hon. member for Lady-brand thinks he has border problems, let me tell him that we invented border problems in Natal. All informed public opinion in Natal is opposed to further consolidation, including the Natal Agricultural Union …

So you want the Black spots to remain?

… and also the S.A. Sugar Association, organized commerce and industry and the Zulu people themselves, as the hon. the Minister very well knows and did, in fact, say as much at the congress of the Natal Agricultural Union earlier this year.

Let me just give some indication of the cost of establishing industrial undertakings in kwaZulu. Some 30 industrial undertakings have been established with an investment of R63 million but this has only given employment to some 2 500 workers. The arable area of kwaZulu is about 20% of the total area. KwaZulu, in fact, has about 40% of the usable water resources of South Africa flowing through it.

Where do you get those figures from?

I shall give that hon. member my sources afterwards because I do not have the time now. Properly farmed, kwaZulu could, it has been estimated, have an output something like that of a country such as Japan, but what are the facts? The land is overgrazed, there are serious erosion problems and irreparable damage is being done to large areas of kwaZulu. Wood is being used at a rate of something like 3 million metric tons per year according to the findings of research workers at the University of Zululand. This is further denuding and eroding the country. Agricultural production is low, the main cause being overcrowding and lack of capital and knowledge. Surprisingly enough, another of the main reasons for the low agricultural production is the lack of labour. Most men between 20 and 50 years of age are not in kwaZulu; they are away, working elsewhere. What is required to develop agricultural potential, is to get people off the land. I do not know how many hon. members are aware of it but the kwaZulu Cabinet has decided that individual land tenure is the ideal form of land tenure for kwaZulu. At the moment, however, it is totally impossible for them to implement this type of policy because they have problems of overcrowding and of people being dumped on to them. I hope that in the short time available to me, I have been able to emphasize to some hon. members on that side the interdependence between kwaZulu and Natal. It is certainly not possible to plan the one without the other. If the Government wants to proceed and make kwaZulu independent, on its own, it is simply not going to work. Developed and underdeveloped areas must be included within the boundaries of development regions. I must admit that this does fall into line with the actual co-operation ideas which the Government has at the moment. I believe that if these are their ideas and they are serious about them we should get on with them. Policies must, however, be designed to draw labour and capital together and we must encourage movement from the land otherwise we are just putting off a potential disaster.

Finally I should like to refer to this Government’s non-participation in the Buthelezi Commission. Participation by the Government in the Buthelezi Commission would have put no obligation whatsoever on them. They would not have been bound in any way by the findings of the commission.

They are boycotters!

Why don’t you serve on the President’s Council? [Interjections.]

They might then, I respectfully submit, have found out a little bit about the problems we have in Natal.

Leave that young man, he doesn’t know all these things yet.

The trouble with that party over there is that if anybody else takes the initiative then they are the boycotters. They are so fond of calling us the boycotters but they are the boycotters. Everybody was invited to participate in this commission unlike the President’s Council in which most South Africans were not invited to participate. There is a very big difference between the two.

I think it is time that the Government stopped bluffing itself and the people of Natal. KwaZulu can never be independent in the real sense of the word although it may be a satellite State. If the Government talk about satellite States than I may begin to understand what they are talking about. If, however, they are talking about a truly independent State, I believe we must stop talking along those lines and plan Natal and kwaZulu economically and politically as one area.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South refers lightly to the “removal of some 350 000 people from Black spots in kwaZulu”. I want to put it to the hon. member here and now that, in my humble opinion, this is really an irresponsible statement to make in such a responsible place as this Parliament. Is the hon. member not aware that the hon. the Prime Minister explained in this House a few days ago how the further activities concerning consolidation would evolve, that the Commission for Co-operation and Development, under the chairmanship of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, would pay a visit to that area and that matters would then be dealt with in the manner announced by the hon. the Prime Minister? I explained the matter at length at the congress of the agricultural union, to which the hon. member also referred. I explained the whole position there.

All I object to is playing on the fears of people by quoting such a tremendously high figure here, this implying, as it were, that we on this side of the House are confused. That is not true. These are difficult problems with which we are working here. [Interjections.] Furthermore I think that it is no less than fair and reasonable that … [Interjections.] These are difficult problems we are dealing with here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few minutes at my disposal. The hon. member may put his question to me tomorrow. These are difficult problems. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is a young member. It seemed to me that he was trying to speak here in a completely responsible way. All I am advocating …

He is a very responsible member.

Yes, very well then. I accept that. All I ask is that we must be careful when making statements such as this extreme statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. We must be careful because human lives are involved, and also because this is a very emotion-laden matter. If I am alive and healthy I shall react tomorrow to what the hon. member said about the whole question of the resettlement of people. This is an emotional matter. It is also—and I want to emphasize this—a human matter. It is for that very reason that the Department of Co-operation and Development and the Commission for Co-operation and Development have gone to a great deal of trouble over the past few months to lay down guidelines which we have to follow when we are compelled to resettle people from Black spots. The time is now too limited to explain this matter in full. However, tomorrow I shall come back to the question of the guidelines which, I believe, are very important. The key to the whole issue—this I can tell hon. members now—is that when we are dealing with a human situation of this nature, a structure geared towards development must be sought. Adopting this principle as a point of departure, we agreed on the acceptance of certain guidelines, with which the Commission for Co-operation and Development also concurs. However, I shall have more to say about this tomorrow.

We conducted a very long debate here today. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, you and hon. members will probably not take it amiss of me if I wish to conclude the proceedings of this long day in a lighter vein.

In one of our newspapers, Hoofstad, there is a regular letter by a certain Lodewikus, who writes letters to his mother. In the 25 August edition of that newspaper, one such letter appears in which he states that when you begin with a squatter, you end up with him. It seems to me as if we, too, are going to end up with squatters this evening. Be that as it may, Lodewikus writes as follows—

This is the heading of Lodewikus’ letter. He goes on to write—

After all today’s talking, I think that a little humour could, after all, help us who sit in this high council chamber to view a human situation such as this, a socio-economic problem such as this, in a little more perspective. I therefore sincerely hope that after today’s long and intensive discussion of today, which will be continued tomorrow, we are now able to see this matter more clearly. At this stage I want to thank all hon. members who participated in this debate, in particular hon. members on my side, for their very positive contributions, for I think hon. members will agree with me that very sound and very important contributions have indeed been made here today. I thank hon. members opposite, too, for their contributions.

Hon. members of the official Opposition will pardon me for telling them that in respect of this matter of squatting we are truly the hell in with them. [Interjections.] They must be absolutely sure about that.

The hon. the Minister should rather withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, if I must, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] No, it is a pleasure for me to withdraw it, and I trust that we shall have ample opportunity tomorrow to continue with a positive discussion, for there are still many positive things that we should very much like to mention.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.