Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasing for this House to note that no tariff increases are being announced in this budget. We congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster General and his staff on this state of affairs, particularly at a time when an increase in postal tariffs would militate against the policies adopted to curb inflation. I would not, however, have anticipated any increase at this stage, because it would not have been justified in view of the buoyant economy we are enjoying, and also having regard to the total operating surplus after loan redemption and an increase of standard stock, of R116,3 million, against the estimate of R99,5 million and the hon. the Minister’s figure today of R110 million.

This budget can be termed a half-time, mark-time budget. It is a half-time budget in the sense that it covers two periods of six months each, the budget being introduced right in the middle of that period, almost like half time in a rugby match. It can be termed a mark-time budget in the sense that there are sufficient reserves built up in the Post Office’s financial resources to see things through, which means that the Post Office is now in a position in which it can provide sufficient funds from its own normal growth in order to cope until the end of the financial year ending 31 March 1982. Whilst the finances of the Post Office appear to be sound, there are problem areas, particularly revolving around the shortage of staff, which is a cause for concern.

We are told that 17 204 full-time officials resigned from the Post Office during the time covered by the last annual report. We are also told that there is a shortage of something like 1 440 trained technicians, draughtsmen, telecommunications electricians and telecommunications mechanics of all population groups, particularly on the Witwatersrand. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister has told us today that there is an overall drop of 0,1% in the total staff contingent, bringing down the total to 76 358. We do, however, react favourably to the technical advances that have been made, the equipment provided and the improved services. The difficulties encountered by the staff are we consider one of the causes of the tremendous backlog that has built up in the supply of telephones, which is the biggest money spinner in the department, with 148 454 applications outstanding as at 30 June, which exceeds the figure of 141 200 announced by the hon. the Minister today.

But we shall have the opportunity to deal with these matters in more detail tomorrow, so I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question of the non-independent homelands, the so-called self-governing States, and their future in terms of the Government’s grand plan for South Africa. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal specifically with this issue when he replies later to the debate. During the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote I asked the hon. the Prime Minister to give us an assurance that those non-independent homelands would not be forced into taking independence, but the hon. the Prime Minister did not respond to that. There is a history to this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Vorster, is on record as having stated on many occasions that it is Government policy not to force independence on homelands. They should be free to choose independence if they so desire. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether it is still the policy of the Government not to force independence on the homelands. If the hon. the Minister can give me a categorical assurance on this it will be of great help. I should like the hon. the Minister to give a categorical assurance that independence will not be forced either directly or covertly on the homelands. I raise this issue because I am disturbed by what I think is an insidious and growing trend to take it for granted in Government circles that, whether they want it or not, all homelands are on the way to becoming politically and constitutionally independent of the Republic. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but from speeches from that side of the House we understand that there are members who actually take it as a fait accompli that they are independent. We had evidence of this in two instances during this session of Parliament. Firstly, during the debate on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, when he was talking about the question of trade union organizations and employer organizations setting up their headquarters, said that they would not be able to set up headquarters in the self-governing States. When he was asked why not, he said that it would be as illogical as setting up headquarters in a country like Mozambique. That in itself was a disturbing admission for a senior Minister to make. In addition to that, during the discussion on the Nursing Amendment Bill we had the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions stating very clearly that while that Bill provided that all the nurses operating within the Republic would have to join the South African Nursing Association, this would not apply to the so-called self-governing states. This trend is also confirmed when one looks at the report of the Department of Co-operation and Development for 1979-’80. Reference is made here to the question of Venda and it states, inter alia—

It goes on in the same paragraph to deal with the South Ndebele ethnic unit, and it states, inter alia—

And then, also in the same paragraph, it states—

The clear trend from this would indicate the very clear inference that all that this means is that states which take on additional functions are in fact moving towards the Government’s declared goal of independence, whether they want independence or not. Therefore the trend of taking all this for granted is also linked to the growing suspicion that homelands that have declared themselves against independence are in fact being victimized by the Government because of their stance in so refusing to take independence. This is, of course another way of edging them into a comer where in desperation they may find themselves with no alternative but to accept a spurious independence offered them. In terms of the Government’s policy and the National States Constitution Act of 1971, these areas do in fact enjoy a certain limited regional authority on a limited local budget which is dependent on grants each year from the Treasury to a very large extent. Partial regional autonomy, Sir, is one thing, and there may well be merit in this form of regional development, but it is quite wrong to suggest that additional regional autonomy and responsibility should be equated with the desire for full independence from the Republic. The Government’s methods in this regard also come under suspicion. The Government proceeds to encourage the homelands to take over additional responsibility and to this end makes some additional but, in very many cases, very parsimonious financial allocations to them in lieu of additional services, and then it turns around and it claims that this is a further step on the part of the homelands concerned towards sovereign independence. It is, really, Sir, a case of passing the buck to the homelands. The Government gives them additional responsibility for services and relieves itself of such responsibility with the result that the so-called self-governing states get the worst of both worlds. They do not want independence, Mr. Chairman, and they have stated so on numerous occasions, but they are often cajoled into taking more regional power even though their financial resources are such that they cannot provide adequate services and the woefully inadequate services that they do provide incur the wrath of the people concerned. This is the dilemma in which they find themselves. It is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs and it is counterproductive as far as homeland administration is concerned. They are being subject to complaints about inadequate health services and inadequate pension services, there are complaints about salaries over a wide field, there are complaints about removals and resettlement, and these complaints are now directed not only at the central Government but are also directed at the homelands which are seen to be party to these inadequacies. I want to say, Sir, that what the Government is in fact doing by means of this process is not to provide a solution to these problems but merely to provide for the transfer of these problems from the central Government to the homeland authority.

Yesterday, for example, the hon. the Minister told us that there had been an increase of 44,7% in the number of Blacks in these self-governing states. He mentioned in passing, of course, that there had been a change in boundaries. Of course, Sir, this is a very major factor when one looks at the increase in the population. One can take the city of Durban, for example, with the whole township of kwaMashu which was excised from the City of Durban and placed under the responsibility of kwaZulu. There are thousands of people living in kwaMashu and obviously this has a direct bearing on the number situation. The whole thing becomes nonsensical when the Government assumes that people living in areas like that are no longer part of the economy of the region in which they work and live. We had the ridiculous situation a few years ago when, after the Wiehahn Commission’s report was published and the amendment to the Industrial Reconciliation Act was considered, these people were termed “frontier commuters” as if they almost came from outer space into the industrial areas of Durban. This makes nonsense of the whole thing. It is a bit of sophistry, it is nonsense and it is political poppy-cock to suggest that this is in any way alters the situation of those people who well may live 5 miles from where they work. Even if they do, they are all part in fact of the economic entity where they live.

The whole question of the homelands situation is one which needs very definite attention. There is poverty and famine on a wide scale. They are depressed and underdeveloped areas of South Africa and what happens in them reverberates right across the rest of the South African society, and the economy of the homelands cannot be separated from that society. The needs of these homelands cannot be over-emphasized and it is criminal if they are to be discriminated against for political reasons.

I have mentioned that there is a fear of discrimination, of victimization of the homelands who are opposed to independence. One example of this can be seen if one analyses the sums of money which, as the hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday, are to be given to the development corporations. If one analyses the distribution of share capital allocated to the Corporation of Economic Development by the S.A. Development Trust during the 1981-’82 financial year, and the per capita allocation in relation to the population of the self-governing States, one can see a very clear distinction. The hon. the Minister must pay attention to this. If one looks at these figures one finds for example that the per capita allocation to kwaZulu of the amount given for the kwaZulu Development Corporation is R3,44. The allocation given to Lebowa for the Lebowa Development Corporation is per capita to its population R1,41. The allocation given to the Ciskei Development Corporation for the same year per capita to its population is, however, as high as R15,06.

To me it sounds very much like blackmail.

Why is there a difference between the allocation to a homeland which has decided against independence and the allocation to a homeland which has opted for independence? If the hon. the Minister looks at the Estimates before us, he will find, for example that there are increases too. The increase for Lebowa this year amounts to 38%; the increase for kwaZulu, to 37%, and the increase for Ciskei, to 62%—a great difference. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has once again set out the typical Progressive programme here. I wonder if it is only the Progressives who give absolutely no attention to a national soul. I wonder if they have no understanding of the need of a community or nation to have a national soul. The hon. member spoke as if there were only one group of people in South Africa, as if there were no people with a national soul. It is typical of the PFP to argue along these lines, because they only see people; they do not see nations, whereas it is a fact that throughout the world, people are bound together in groups and nations. Their national orientation is what inspires people and causes them to develop, and gives them something to strive for in life. I sometimes wonder, as I did on occasion in this debate, whether the PFP see themselves as a mouthpiece for the Blacks, or are they completely on the wrong track? It is obvious to me that there is something wrong with the makeup of the PFP.

Today I should like to refer briefly to aspects of consolidation and related matters, especially the resettlement of people with a view to trying to bring about meaningful consolidation. The purpose of consolidation is to link those areas which are the traditional and historic home of a specific nation, in the most practical way, but with the primary aim of placing such areas on the road to planned and co-ordinated economic development. There are two approaches in respect of the development of people. The one is to ignore the soul of a nation entirely and to plan only for economic development. Such an approach pays no attention to a nation’s inner feeling of belonging together, but is purely materialistic, and I do not think the vast majority of people in South Africa would be in favour of that. Our purpose is not to alienate the Blacks in South Africa from their national orientation and national identity. On the contrary, the most effective way of developing these people is to strengthen the bond of national orientation. However, one cannot do this if one does not launch a planned, co-ordinated and nationally oriented economic development. I refer now, for example, to the approach in respect of the geographic consolidation of kwaZulu. Where people from Black spots have to be resettled with the aim of establishing them in a geographic unit, it is done with the primary aim of making planned and co-ordinated economic development possible. Under those circumstances the development of human material is possible, not as appendages of another community, but as people who can take the lead in their own community.

What better way is there of affording people who have already progressed further in the academic, economic and many social fields, the opportunity of acting as leaders in those fields in their national States? For this reason I believe that meaningful geographic development is in the first place aimed at uplifting people within the framework of a national orientation. If people feel there is no future for them in an area I can understand that they will seek their economic salvation elsewhere. A few years ago, a leader of one of the national States told me about a Black doctor who had settled in a certain metropolitan area. His approach was that he was not at all interested in ever returning to his national State. However, when the Black doctor was offered a post as medical superintendent of a hospital in the national State, and received a salary larger than what he was getting in the metropolitan White area, he developed a pride in offering nationally oriented service. The striving to leave the national States and come to the White metropolitan areas is, in the first place, economically motivated. It occurs because there is no economic force attracting people to the national States. But how can we ever create economic incentives to attract people to the national State if we always skim off the cream for the White areas, while only the underdeveloped people remain in the national States? There must surely be an opportunity for positive economic development, and that positive economic development must also be nationally oriented. It is the primary aim of consolidation to allow nationally oriented development to take place.

Together with this there are the political implications of a relatively explosive situation in South Africa. It goes without saying that we cannot view the political development of Southern Africa in total isolation. After all, we have a pattern in the rest of Africa, and not only in Africa, but in the world as a whole. There is the pattern of the development of underdeveloped States and people, and we can see how things have turned out.

Here in Southern Africa we have an amalgamation of the First World concept and the Third World concept, and the political and economic stability in this country will depend on the preservation of the right to self-determination, including that of the Whites, but basically there is a feeling of goodwill among the Whites, and among the vast majority of Blacks, too, there is a realization of the basic justice of our legal system. There is also recognition of the basic goodwill and of the will of the Whites to help the Blacks to develop and be uplifted. It is with this attitude that development must take place. One surely cannot escape from the implications of the fact that if we develop in one integrated community, political tension will result. Political tension could not be avoided, because the emotion of national orientation cannot be eliminated in the development of Southern Africa. In order to remove the emotional tension we must co-operate on the basis of the closest consultation, but we must eliminate the danger of majority domination or minority domination. This can be done by recognizing the self-determination of every nation. We call this concept a constellation, but we can call it anything we like. It must be the foundation for the closest possible liaison, which will be to the benefit of all the peoples and nations in Southern Africa, with the assurance that the Whites have a safe future here and that the Indians and Coloureds and all the Black nations of South Africa will also have a safe future here. There is basic goodwill, and everyone should realize this.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to convey my sincere congratulations on his contribution to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I also want to thank him for it. I could not have stated the matter better than the hon. member stated it, and I therefore wish to endorse his opinion fully. What he said was true, and we are grateful that this Government is acting accordingly, to the best of its ability, and trying to guide the nations along the course which that hon. member explained very ably and very well.

He is a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, and he is making an exceptional contribution on that body as well. As a matter of fact, this brings me to the point I should like to raise. I should like to extend my very sincere thanks to the chairman and to every member of that commission for the excellent work which they have done during the past year. I know how hard those gentlemen work and I know how much the country is indebted to them. I thank them very much indeed for the unstinting service which they are rendering.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my two Deputy Ministers, who support me so ably, for their loyalty and assistance. I am well aware of how many nocturnal hours are devoted to this work and also how many sacrifices they have to make to render the service they do. I thank them very much indeed for this great contribution which they are making in the interests of their country and its people. These are people who do not work for money or any other form of reward. They are people who are inspired with a motive to serve, and it is this motive which encourages them to render all the people of our country a service. If this motive to serve can in turn be conveyed to our young people throughout the Republic of South Africa, the message that we should be less materially orientated and should be remotivated and re-inspired to render a real service, we shall make much better progress towards solving our problems in this country and cultivating better relations. This message should be brought home to our young people in particular. When I was a young boy, there were many people, active in the spheres of culture, the church, politics and constitutional affairs, who inculcated in our young people that we should be inspired to render a service, that we should not base our actions on pecuniary motives, but should be inspired to render a service. The question now arises whether we should not give greater emphasis, particularly in our time, to this motivation to render service. I should like to cite these hon. colleagues of mine as examples of people who are really actuated and inspired by such a motivation.

At the same time I should on this occasion like to thank the Commissioners-General for their tremendous contribution. They are in the frontline of the contact situation. They are people who are unstintingly rendering services of inestimable value, and I want them to know that this House and the people of South Africa have great appreciation for the way in which the work is being done there. I see that Mr. Rive is also here, and I should also like to thank him for his contribution in Soweto. I shall have something more to say about Soweto in a moment, and about the absolute transformation which has taken place there during the past two years. This has to a great extent been due to the work which Mr. Louis Rive and the Planning Board are doing there. In the same breath I should also like to mention the chairman of the Administration Board there, Mr. John Knoetze, and all the officials who assist them, as well as Mr. Thebehali, the mayor of Soweto, and the officials who assist him. And now, before I forget, I want to raise an interesting point and emphasize it. Are hon. members aware that the position in Soweto at present is that already there are more than 1 900 officials in the employ of the Soweto Community Council or city council? Hon. members will recall that I announced last year that we had a programme for appointing officials there. Do hon. members realize that the city council of Soweto today has almost 2 000 officials in its employ? In addition there are nine other Community Councils which are already employing some of their own people as officials, and the services of the other Community Councils are being programmed and will soon be introduced in the same way. Actually this is very good progress which is being made in this way.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier apologized for not being able to be present here this afternoon. If he had been here, I would have had more to say about Administration Boards, but in his absence I shall leave it at that now, because he was the only hon. member who discussed them. I also wish to thank the chairmen of the Administration Boards and the 7 051 White officials and 38 576 Black officials in their employ for the services they are rendering. When we sometimes refer so casually and readily to Administration Boards, there is one thing we must bear in mind: Those people are also in the frontline of the contact situation between Whites and Black. If there are hon. members in this House who think that one could simply eliminate the Administration Boards without causing a tremendous vacuum, with disastrous consequences for relations between Whites and Blacks in South Africa, they must think again. The fact of the matter is that the Government, through the Commission for Administration, is scrutinizing the entire position of Administration Boards very carefully against the background of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission. They have already made a great deal of progress with their inquiry into this matter, and as soon as it is finalized I shall make the necessary announcement in this connection after the matter has been discussed with the Administration Boards. However, I should like to make a general appeal in and through this Parliament. We must stop running down the Administration Boards at all times, as if they were not rendering a very great service to South Africa. If hon. members do not believe this, they must accompany me one day so that I can show them. Hon. members need only come and sit down with me for a few hours so that I can give them the information on the role the Administration Boards are playing. We must not become confused in our thinking. Hon. members must remember that the White local authorities had for many years been the point of contact between the Black people and the White people on local government level. Then, in 1971, after thorough investigations by commissions, the Administration Boards were introduced in the place of the White local authorities, and now it has become fashionable in South Africa to denigrate the Administration Boards at all times as if they were of absolutely no value at all. Surely this is simply not correct. The point is that we should have appreciation for the work being done by the Administration Boards. The chairmen of those boards are people who are held in high esteem. There are also sufficient bodies, for example the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the Department of Co-operation and Development and the boards themselves, that are exercising the necessary control. If one city council makes a mistake and is brought to judgment, that does not mean to say that all the city councils should be labelled with the same tag or that one should willy-nilly, quad erat demonstrandum, arrive at the conclusion that all city councils in South Africa should be abolished. Surely that would not be sensible, that would be logically untenable. Let us therefore examine this matter carefully and always treat it with circumspection and sympathy, and accept that these people are playing a cardinal role in the interests of Black people and White people, and that they are doing so with exceptional dedication and great sacrifices.

Hon. members must recall that at present there are just over 7 000 officials in the employ of the Community Councils, and if we persist in running them down without putting something meaningful in their place, what are we actually doing? We are allowing the Administration Boards to lose good officials and in that way become short-staffed, while we are doing our children a disservice. Consequently, when we need the benefits accruing from this system, we shall reap only the disadvantages, for how can the young people who are inspired with a motive to serve come forward to make a contribution to the relations issue between White and Black—when I was young there were still young people who were inspired with a motive to serve—when these boards require people with such a motive to serve, but here in the highest Council Chamber they are being vilified at all times? I wish to make an appeal to our young people to come forward with confidence and seek employment in the Administration Boards. The Government will look after the officials who are attached to the Administration Boards. They may rest assured that they will have the necessary stability and future prospects there. The Government will ensure them of a secure future.

I hope that I have with these few words at least succeeded in creating the necessary climate in which these almost 50 000 officials will be able to carry on with their work in peace and quiet, with the necessary certainty and stability for their families and those who are dear to them.

Sir, I do not know what I have done to deserve this, but it seems I must always fall victim to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I have the morning newspaper, The Cape Times, in my hand here, and in this newspaper I read that I was supposed to have said in this House yesterday that—

Order! The hon. Minister may not quote from the newspaper report. He may only refer to it or summarize it.

I respect your ruling, Sir. The point is that they state here that I allegedly said that as long as this Government was in power, and I was the Minister, we would nip “squatting” in the bud wherever it reared its head. However, that is not what I said, and this is what makes me so impatient. I have fallen a prey to this on more than one occasion—I do not know whether it is wilfulness or whether it is an oversight, or whether it is merely a stupid mistake. This kind of thing happens to me and also to some of my colleagues, and it does not only happen once, but repeatedly. The person who wrote this report wrested the entire meaning of what I said completely out of context. What did I say? I have my Hansard here in my hand. If one is dealing with “uncontrolled squatting”, I said, there is only one solution to it, and that is to “nip it in the bud immediately”. Surely there is a tremendous difference between “uncontrolled squatting” and “squatting”. If I had said “squatting”, and someone made a fool of me because I had said it, he has the right to do so. However I never referred to “squatting”. I referred to “uncontrolled squatting”. Do you see the vast difference? Consequently I hope that this newspaper will rectify this matter.

I could easily mention 10 or 20 examples where similar things occured before. I do not like taking issue with the newspapers. Consequently I usually allow such things to go unanswered. By now I am quite a senior member of this Parliament. The newspapers did precisely the same thing to me with my statement in regard to the removal of people. Never at any stage did I say that in future there would be no further removal of people in this country. For the sake of convenience, or out of sheer wilfulness, or for whatever other reason they did so, some newspapers simply omitted to state that I had also said: “As far as is humanly possible, and as far as is practical”. Surely something like this changes the quality of what a person says. It changes it tremendously. Then reproaches are subsequently hurled at one, as though one had been a fool to say that the removal of people in South Africa would no longer take place, and they do this although I never said that, and no one can prove that I said it, because I did not say it. I am not capable of saying such a thing. However, this is the way it is presented. Perhaps it is just as well, because if I do not rectify this matter now, while my Vote is being discussed in Parliament, it will again be announced to the world that I said: “Squatting must be nipped in the bud”, while I actually said: “Uncontrolled squatting must be nipped in the bud.”

This brings me to my next point.

Are you in favour of squatting?

If the hon. member does not understand the difference he will simply have to ask one of the hon. members on his side of the House to explain it to him, otherwise he will just have to go back to school and learn the alphabet all over again.

[Inaudible.]

Oh please, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss that again. We finished discussing that yesterday. However, we are sensible in regard to these things. [Interjections.]

May I now refer to something else, also in a very realistic way and also in the interests of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The point I wish to refer to now, is the question of the removal of people, something which I referred to in passing yesterday. Hon. members of the Opposition have not received a monopoly from any one on the basis of which they can allege that they are the only people who act humanely and who treat other people with human decency. I honestly believe that there are people sitting on this side of the House who have the same humanitarian instincts as hon. members opposite have. There are people sitting on this side of the House who have shown by their actions over a whole lifetime —with deeds, not words—that they are inspired and actuated by a service motive. One such person is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, a man who is a medical doctor and who could therefore have earned far more money in many other ways.

Consequently, when we discuss the removal of people, we do not do so lightly. With us it is a very serious matter. The Department of Co-operation and Development and the Government have been giving very intensive attention to this matter during the past few months; and so has the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I want to point out today that the Cabinet decided on 18 March 1980 last year that cognizance had been taken of the fact that no resolution had been adopted to the effect that the resettlement of people in South Africa would be stopped or would no longer take place. No one ever said that. Nor did the Government ever take such a decision. Consequently let us for once have absolute clarity on this matter.

In the second place it was decided that the Department of Co-operation and Development, with the co-operation of the national States, would proceed with the resettlement of people on a selective basis. It was decided that, wherever it was clear that the present investigation did not result in a change in the resettlement programme which had stemmed from the 1975 consolidation plans and which had been approved by this Parliament, the resettlement of people would be proceeded with on a selective basis. The Department of Co-operation and Development, as well as the commission and the other interested bodies, thereupon went to a lot of trouble to lay down guidelines in regard to this great human issue, this burning issue, an issue which we must deal with in such a way that it does not cause problems in South Africa.

I said yesterday that I would sketch those guidelines for hon. members here today, and I shall do so now. The basic principle which must apply throughout in the settlement of people is that we are dealing here with the building of nations, with the development of the national States and with the improvement of the living conditions of the people who are being settled to enable them, inter alia, to acquire a legal place of residence. The removal of people must therefore be development-orientated. That is the first guideline. From this follows that the new place of abode should, within reasonable limits, be made as attractive as possible, that the settlement of people should take place in a way commensurate with human dignity and that the principle of community development, as accepted by the department, should be applied throughout.

I am now going to enumerate the other guidelines to hon. members. But let me first say, and this may sound strange, but it is true, that between 24 and 27 December 1980 24 000 kwaNdebeles moved voluntarily to kwaNdebele. They did so absolutely voluntarily. Hon. members should go and have a look at what the conditions are to which they moved, and then you still get members here who talk about “site-and-service schemes” and goodness knows what else. I shall come back to that in a moment. Hon. members would do well to go and see with what success “site-and-service schemes” were applied in respect of these people, for example in kwaNdebele. No one told them that they had to move. No one even asked them to move. They went of their own free will.

I can mention other examples of far larger numbers of Black people who wish to move into this country at present and whom we have had to restrain from doing so. I am honestly not exaggerating the position, and surely hon. members know by this time that I am an honest man. When I speak, I mean every word I say. As example I could mention that at present we have 80 000 people who wish to move so that they can be with their people but we have to restrain them from doing so because we are just not able to accommodate them and because the national State in question cannot accommodate them either at the present time. But now hon. members opposite, and with all due respect, Bishop Tutu as well, speak so extremely casually, lightly and in a rambling way of the removal of people. Let us at least be realistic in respect of these matters and let us at least perceive what the department and I personally are trying to do in respect of this very complicated human problem in the Republic of South Africa.

What are the guidelines that we adhere to? Firstly there must be a proper water supply. Secondly there must be sanitation and thirdly there must be adequate housing, a shelter.

A tent.

If it were only a tent which was temporary. The other day an hon. member pleaded with me to erect tents in a certain place. Hon. members can ask him if they like. And now this hon. member is complaining about tents. Those two hon. members must first settle their differences, and then we shall discuss the matter again. You see, Sir, this is merely a superficial and haphazard approach on the part of that side of the House. I shall now come back to these guidelines. Fourthly, health facilities must be present; fifthly, school facilities must be provided and sixthly, there must be shopping facilities. Arrangements must be made in advance for the availability of a shop, etc. In the seventh place there must be transport facilities and in the eighth place employment opportunities must be created. Resettlement does not deprive them of their existing employment. If workers establish themselves in a national State in terms of section 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, arrangements must be made for them to retain their employment in a prescribed area in terms of the aforesaid section. Where it appears to be essential, the settlement programme must go hand-in-hand with the creation of employment. I adopt this standpoint, and I tell the senior officials straight out that this is the position. After all I saw this in Dimbaza. Hon. members who have been sitting in this House for a long time know that when I visited Dimbaza I said—and this was reported very prominently in one of the English-language newspapers—that we do not wish to treat people in an inhuman way. However, there is such a thing as self-determination, as the hon. member said a while ago. There is such a thing as building a nation, and there is also such a phenomenon that people who belong together, prefer to be together. Hon. members must consequently not raise a hue and cry about this as though they were about to have a fit. This is the absolute truth. That is why we are trying to deal with this matter as I have just elucidated. The eight guidelines which I have elucidated are extremely important, and the department is acting in accordance with these guidelines. Everyone who is involved in this human issue is acting in this way. There must be intensive prior negotiation with all the persons and bodies involved in a settlement programme on a planning basis, e.g. with those who are about to be moved, with the national State involved, with the agricultural union involved, as well as with all other persons and bodies who may be involved. Where appropriate, arrangements should be made for affected persons to be compensated for existing improvements which they have made out of their own funds. In the case of resettlement they can be allowed to take with them any re-usable building material from their buildings which have to be demolished.

In addition a proper form of local government must be created as soon as possible for that community involved when it is resettled. And then there are settlement committees. In the application of a settlement programme, a committee must normally be constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Commissioner concerned and the committee is then entrusted with the promotion and implementation of that settlement programme. Now, I hope that my message is not falling on deaf ears. I know that this matter is being turned into a political issue in South Africa. Now hon. members know about these guidelines. The guidelines are being sent to all the Commissioners throughout the Republic of South Africa and also to all interested parties. These are the guidelines in accordance with which this work is being done. If hon. members opposite see anything in this which is inhuman or offensive to human dignity, they can come and tell me so and then we shall look into the matter. We do not wish to act in a way which is offensive to human dignity.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to come to another very important matter, and that is in connection with housing. We are accused of not having a strategy for urbanization. Let us just examine the facts for a moment. I wish I had time to tell hon. members something about our history. This is a problem which has to be approached from a historic point of view. In order to see the matter in perspective, we must go back in history to the 1939-’45 World War and even before. However, I am not going to take hon. members so far back. They can reflect on these matters themselves. However, during the 1939-’45 period, while the Second World War was in progress, all building activities in Black residential areas came to a standstill. We could not do anything about it. We were not even in power in South Africa at that time. However, the influx of Black people from their national homes continued unabated. In fact, it was accelerated by the large-scale industrial expansion which had been stimulated by the war. These Black workers arrived in the cities without any financial assets, and the situation which developed created almost insoluble socio-economic demands and problems. By way of illustration I may just mention Orlando to hon. members, where there were 10 000 inhabitants before the 1939-’45 war. By 1945, that number had increased to 60 000 people in round figures. This happened throughout South Africa. What did it lead to? It led to the mushrooming of squatters’ camps which in many cases arose almost overnight. Vacant land was illegally occupied and primitive shelters were erected. These people lived under wretched circumstances without any basic services. Crime and immorality were rife. This was the beginning of the large-scale urbanization of the Black people in White areas. As in the case of underdeveloped countries in Africa and in the East and elsewhere in the world, this urbanization is stimulated by economic, social and political factors. It is now a field of study which I studied at the University of Stellenbosch and also at Oxford University, where I wrote a doctoral thesis about it. It dealt with the whole question of urbanization in Britain during the period between 1830 and 1850. I wish the people who get so indignant about all these matters would sit down and read the records of that period between 1830 and 1850, which are kept in the Bodleian library at Oxford University. Then they would see that during that period, the British had the so-called Parish Laws. Truly, Sir, there is no law in South Africa which can be compared with the Parish Laws of the British during that period. One could not move from one parish to another. Although I read those records and the Parish Laws a hundred years after they were written, I could visualize the exasperation of an official of that period when he described the position as follows: “If only this damn British Government would understand one thing and that is that a human being is not like a suitcase in that if you put him down in one place he will stay there.” This is an eternal truth. That is why I say that this problem which we are now faced with at Nyanga and elsewhere is not a new one. Nor is it a new problem in South Africa. It is not a new problem at all. If there is anyone sitting in this House who thinks that the Government cannot find solutions to this problem, he will have to change his view, because we have solved these problems in the past with great success. We acquired knowledge and expertise during that period, and we shall be able to do it again. What is more, we are doing it in any event.

As I said, this urbanization has been stimulated by economic, social and political factors. People’s income and standards of living rise rapidly, and this requires higher standards of housing, services and other community facilities. That is why revolutions took place in other countries during the previous century. The governments of the day could not meet the ordinary basic human needs of water, sanitation and housing. Today we have so much expertise—thank God—that there is no need for revolu tions to result from those circumstances, certainly not in the Republic of South Africa. This I can say with certainty and I can substantiate it.

When these things hit us after the Second World War, we underwent a more sudden and more rapid industrial revolution in this country than even Britain did at the time of its industrial revolution. Those who doubt my words might read what is said in the Hoemlé Memorial Lecture. In it, the late Dr. Van Eck drew a comparison between the industrial revolution of Britain and that of South Africa after the Second World War. He came to the conclusion, chapter and verse, that our country was undergoing a more rapid industrial revolution than even Britain did during its industrial revolution. It should also be noted that historians say the wonder of the previous century was that Britain went through an industrial revolution which did not develop into a bloody revolution. When one examines the reasons for this, one sees that in South Africa we are on a stable course in respect to these things. What we must not do, however, is to stir up things unnecessarily.

This is why we sometimes level accusations at the PFP, as we have been doing lately and during this session, which are not merely idle fancies. We mean it sincerely, we believe we have every reason for telling the hon. members of the PFP that they should not behave as they are doing in this situation.

What did we do after the Second World War? At that time, fortunately, I had already appeared on the scene. I am now talking about a little more than 30 years ago. During the years I have been here, we cleared up Sophiatown, Martindale, New-clare, large parts of Alexandra, Eersterus, Mooiplaas, Derdepoort and Morsgat—the hon. member for Houghton spoke such a great deal about it at the time. The hon. member really should tell us the history of Morsgat. She is so well informed about it. We solved the problems of Cato Manor, involving 80 000 people. Then there are Bethalsdorp and Veeplaas. I could go on in this vein. These things were done by the NP Government. A prominent English industrialist, one of the greatest in this country, in my humble opinion, once told me that this country ought to put up a monument to Dr. Verwoerd because of the great strides that had been taken towards solving the Black housing problem in the ’fifties under the leadership of the late Dr. Verwoerd. In this way, great difficulties were prevented in South Africa at the time.

What has happened subsequently? I do not have time now to elaborate on the 99-year leasehold system, the home-ownership scheme we have introduced for Black people, the appeals to employers and building societies, the loans through development corporations in national States and the—allow me to use this word, because it is true—mighty contribution made by the Government towards solving the great problem of housing and squatting in our country.

I wish to refer to the population increase in South Africa. 250 years after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in 1652, there were only 6 million people in South Africa; 40 years later there were 13 million; and 24 years later there were 26 million. All these figures point to only one thing, and that is that the Government cannot possibly solve these problems alone. From this it is clear that the private sector and other bodies must come forward to make their contribution.

How many times have I appealed to that side of the House? I have requested them, instead of acting in such a negative manner when it comes to such burning human problems, to make a contribution and to appeal to the people who are able to make contributions to help solve the problems. However, we have never heard them do that. I had the Black Sash in my office. I gave them a roasting—I almost used the wrong word—because I raised only one point by asking them: Very well, I agree with you, but what contribution are you making towards solving the problem? They really left my office in a state of great confusion, because they knew they were not making any contribution. After all, it is very easy to shout from the sidelines. Any fool can do that. To help solve it, that is the hard part. That is what the country needs.

We can compare conditions in the Republic of South Africa with conditions elsewhere, and in this connection I refer to the book called The home of man in which Lady Barbara Ward Jackson, a British economist who undertook certain investigations at the behest of the UN, recounts some very interesting facts. Before quoting from the book I first wish to point out something else. The UN has conducted in-depth investigations of squatting in Africa, in the East and elsewhere in the world, and the department and I are acquainted with the findings of the UN in that connection. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation has spoken about this on more than one occasion, including last year’s NP congress in the Cape. We have held four symposiums, and as the hon. the Deputy Minister recently said here, we invited top experts in the country to make sure of obtaining the most up-to-date knowledge of this matter, on the basis of which we could act. We shall soon make an announcement in this connection. In this UN report, Lady Barbara Ward Jackson writes as follows—

That is in Paris.

So we are lucky.

The author goes on to say—

These facts indicate, therefore, that by comparison we in the Republic have accomplished much. However, this does not detract from our responsibility to give urgent attention to this problem, with the aid of the private sector. Would those people who blame the Government for these conditions be willing, for example, to accept a tax increase to make up the backlog? If we increased taxes, it would cause the inflation rate to rise, and our economy would not find itself on the sound footing that exists at the moment, and what would be the consequences if there were economic instability in the country? When one is in power, one has to use the knowledge and expertise one has. Mr. Hennie van der Walt put it very well in this House yesterday when he said that we did not only have a responsibility towards the 1 500 people who were breaking the law and who were guilty of civil disobedience, but that we had a responsibility towards 28 million people. But those hon. members do not recognize that. No. They castigate us in view of the outside world and fail to realize that in doing so, they are harming South Africa. When this is pointed out to them, they lay the blame on us. Where are we going if this kind of debate is conducted in this House? Moreover, they have access to newspapers which publicize this kind of thing on their front pages morning, noon and night. Surely this is not fair towards our children’s future, and least of all is it fair towards the Black people, not to mention the White people. Perhaps the hon. members opposite have forgotten, but there are Coloured people and Indians in South Africa as well. Is it fair towards them?

A tendency has developed in recent years to regard the question of the provision of housing as the responsibility of the Government only, and in this respect there is a great deal of truth in what Dr. Rupert, a sensible man, said last week—

What do we see when we look at what the South African Development Trust has allocated for the establishment and administration of townships? In 1981-’82, the Government appropriated R76,4 million for this purpose. This includes R11,1 million for Mdantsane; R4,065 million for Mabopani East—which is very important to Pretoria; R2,8 million for Edenvale; R2 million for Umlazi and R4,7 million for Onverwag-Vaalkraal near Bloemfontein. In addition, funds for township development, funds which are largely derived from the Republic, are also provided in the budgets of the national States. In respect of the self-governing States alone—excluding the independent States—R53,7 million has been appropriated for housing in this year’s budget. Surely this is not a story of failure and defeat. Surely it is a story of success, of a contribution which is being made towards solving the problems in this field. However, it is still not enough, so we examined this matter very carefully, in co-operation with the Department of Community Development. I should like to convey a word of very great appreciation and esteem to the Department of Community Development in this House today for the great work they are doing in the provision of housing for all population groups in South Africa. I have more than once been privileged, on tours and on other occasions, to see for myself the work done by this department. This department truly deserves great praise for the excellent results they have obtained under the previous as well as the present Minister and the officials at the head of the department. [Interjections.] For months—a start was made last year—the Department of Community Development, the Department of Co-operation and Development and the other departments concerned have been making a thorough study of this problem. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks whether we have a strategy for Black urbanization, one may be sure that the Government got that message, which he may only now be getting, at least two years ago, because we are in power and we must stay on the ball. It is expected of us.

It is with pleasure that I am able to make the following statement on which the Cabinet has reached agreement.

“Housing forms one of the cornerstones of stable communities and labour peace, and for this reason, it enjoys high priority. It is the responsibility of the individual to provide for his own housing where he is at all able to do so. A minimum norm will have to be complied with in order to qualify for low-cost housing. Employers have an equally important responsibility in this connection. The State accepts responsibility for the provision of housing. This implies several possibilities, but the direct contribution of the State will be confined to low-cost housing for low income groups, and social housing, such as old-age homes, etc. The norms and standards of housing will be determined by the socio-economic means of the individual, taking into consideration certain minimum requirements, and this is where the Department of Community Development has made an enormous contribution. Squatting does not form part of the housing policy, but it is recognized as a reality. At the same time, control over and the upgrading of squatter areas are emphasized as top priorities.

In cases where squatting is already a reality, it must be controlled, and where it is practicable, certain basic services must be provided there, such as water and sanitation, as well as other community services and the necessary infrastructure. In order to give the individual a greater share and responsibility in providing of his own housing, site-and-service schemes, together with self-built core housing schemes, should be encouraged and promoted—with the aid of technical advice centres—wherever this is practicable subject to control and specified minimum standards, of course. The Department of Co-operation and Development must accept full responsibility for the provision of housing for Black people, and submit the following to the Cabinet for approval: A departmental strategy in respect of guidelines, minimum standards for self-built dwellings and similar schemes in consultation with the Department of Community Development, priority identification, programmes of execution, etc. The National Housing Fund must not be fragmented and remains the responsibility of the Department of Community Development.”

One encounters strange phenomena in this country. The Government has committed itself to the removal of hurtful discrimination, and we are keeping that promise. It is a difficult process, but we are determined to do it. One splendid example of the removal of hurtful discrimination is the fact that two years ago, all housing for Whites, Coloured people, Indians and Blacks was placed under the Department of Community Development, which had always handled housing for Whites, Coloured people and Indians. This was done in a sincere attempt to remove hurtful discrimination on the highest level. But hon. members on that side ask in their ignorance: “Why does the Department of Co-operation and Development not take active steps?” In an attempt to remove hurtful discrimination, it was all placed under the Department of Community Development, and if hon. members on that side agree with that, surely they should not castigate my department, because the housing needs of all people in South Africa—Blacks, Whites, Coloured people and Indians—are now being handled by one department. This is the reason why.

“Furthermore, it is our policy that everything which hinders the individual in his attempts to obtain funds for housing must as far as possible be eliminated. The Department of Co-operation and Development is giving urgent attention to this matter. The Department of Co-operation and Development, together with the Treasury and building societies, must as a matter of urgency, devise ways and means in which Blacks can obtain funds for housing from building societies and other institutions. Furthermore, the Department of Co-operation and Development must launch an extensive campaign to inform and activate the private sector and employers to get involved in Black housing. The possibility must be investigated of giving employers lease-hold ownership in Black residential areas in respect of housing financed by them. Furthermore, the possibility must be investigated of allowing township developers, where possible and appropriate, to undertake such development in Black areas. Morevoer, the Department of Co-operation and Development must make an all-out attempt, not only to promote home-ownership, but to ensure that the present lease loans are limited mainly to those who qualify for low-cost housing. The creation of an infrastructure, and especially the provision of services, will remain chiefly dependent on government aid, because of the present constitutional and economic status of Black local authorities, but a deliberate attempt must be made to involve the private sector in this facet of housing as well.”

The Social Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister has now been directly involved, as a result of these decisions, in the further development of a strategy with respect to Black urbanization and the provision of Black housing in the Republic.

I take great pleasure in announcing two other things. In the first place, hon. members will recall that not very long ago, in the closest co-operation with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Ministers of Community Development and Finance, I appointed the Viljoen Committee to investigate, with specific reference to Soweto, the question of involving the private sector in this great problem of providing better housing for specific Black people. I am very glad to be able to say that we have received the report of the Viljoen Committee. It is an excellent report entitled “Report of Committee to Investigate Private Sector Involvement in Resolving Housing Backlog in Soweto”. I wish to convey my very great appreciation to Mr. A. F. V. Viljoen for the report which the committee has submitted to us. The report has been considered by the working committee and by the Cabinet committee concerned. On the whole, the report has met with agreement. There is one very important matter which is covered in the report, and that is the committee’s recommendations in respect of subsidies for individuals. It was felt that this recommendation should be separately and urgently investigated, and it will immediately be investigated further by the working committee concerned, which will then make recommendations to the Government in this connection.

I think that as far as the Viljoen Committee is concerned, we have reached a milestone which certainly holds out the great promise that in that way, we may be able to handle the problem with greater expertise in future. I want to convey my thanks to every committee member who was involved in this.

Then it gives me pleasure to be able to announce that the Government has decided to expand the Commission for Co-operation and Development by allowing members of Parliament to serve on it by virtue of their specific interest in Black people outside the national States, i.e. by virtue of their interest in the problems of the urban Black people. We hope to introduce the necessary legislation during this session to increase the membership of the commission to twelve. We shall word the legislation in such a way that if necessary, we could appoint even more members. This has already been approved in principle. The enlarged commission will have two vice-chairmen, so that one section of the commission under one vice-chairman will be able to concentrate on the national States and consolidation, while the other section under the other vice-chairman will be able to concentrate on the problem of the Black people outside the national States. The commission as a whole will be under the chairmanship of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt.

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

Just allow me to finish first. Then the hon. member will be very welcome to ask his question. The commission will also be more closely involved in the top echelon of the Department of Co-operation and Development so that the two branches of the commission will be able to communicate with the department, the one branch with the section of the department which deals with Black people outside the national States, and the other branch with the section which deals with consolidation and the national States themselves.

Furthermore, I am very grateful to be able to say that the Cabinet has already granted approval in principle for us to obtain the services of one of the top experts in the country to co-operate with the department at a very high level on a contract basis, or on a basis to be agreed upon. That person will be an expert in the field of the processes of urbanization and of housing, etc. I hope that I shall soon be able to disclose the name of this expert, and I believe that it will meet with general approval.

I have referred to the success that has been achieved in Soweto and elsewhere, and I think I have said enough to indicate that the Government is not only deeply aware of the problems we are faced with, but is also really on the ball and determined to make sure that we are not overwhelmed by chaotic conditions in this country. We have the ability and the expertise, and if we can obtain the necessary co-operation and bring about the necessary co-ordinating action—-and I think that my announcement proves that we can—we shall be able to deal with these problems successfully with the help of Providence.

I now wish to leave this subject. I could spend a long time telling hon. members about the successful self-building schemes we already have in this country, for example, at Christiana, Orkney, Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Bioemhof, Koster, Stilfontein, Carletonville, Inanda and elsewhere, but I do not have time to go into detail now. In area A at Inanda, for example, there are 3 402 stands, in area B there are 300 stands, and in area C there are 998 stands. This adds up to 4 700 stands in all. For the 1981-’82 financial year, an amount of R1,8 million has been allocated for self-building projects. One could also refer to the scheme at Onverwacht and Steilloop. The other day we invited hon. members of the Opposition to see a film showing what was being accomplished at Steilloop. When we look, for example, at the Letsema project in the Western Transvaal, I could tell beautiful stories of the wonderful things that are happening on this level in this country. For example, I could tell hon. members about someone who was 80 years old and who simply wandered around this scheme to begin with. He was 80 years old and he is the most striking example of the positive attitude created by this project, i.e. the attitude of helping one another. And this is what “Letsema” means. He was already 80 years old and worn out with age when the project commenced. However, he joined the very first project team and began to sift soil, to make bricks and to do the other work which he had to do as a member of his project team in order to get his house built. Gradually, however, something began to happen to him. He gradually began to appear younger and more vigorous, and the sparkle in his eye is unmistakable. He is still a member of the Letsema Committee, in spite of the fact that his house has been completed and he is 82 years old now. I mention this case only as an example of the positive results that have been obtained by this scheme. It is also an example of how people co-operate, especially because of the fact that we attach great importance to the principle of community development and of involving the community in this kind of scheme.

Before concluding the discussion of this Vote, I shall answer the questions put to me by hon. members. However, the hon. member for Durban Point indicated earlier that he would like to ask me a question. I shall now be glad to listen to his question.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask the hon. the Minister how and to what extent Black people will be involved in the investigation of non-homeland Blacks and to what extent they will form part of it.

There are several ways in which this can be done. The hon. member for Helderkruin has referred to the success that has been achieved with the regional committees. The six regional committees are spread all over the Republic of South Africa, and we have involved the Black people in them. We are continuing with this process, but there is also a possibility, as I have already said, that we may involve the Black people in the committees as well. We have already involved Black people in the committee which deals with community development. This is the central committee under the leadership of Dr. Jackson, a committee which is doing excellent work. The Black people on that committee are co-operating. I am very glad the hon. member asked the question. It is our wish …

But these are technical committees. I am actually talking about the greater investigation.

We are trying to involve the Black people in these investigations. In fact, we proved this in the case of the Grosskopf Committee, in which we involved two Black people. That was not a technical committee. So it is our intention to involve the Black people in those matters that affect them. We are doing it at all the various levels.

Participation? So they will not merely be consulted?

We want them to participate as well. Naturally we do.

Finally, I wish to say a few words about Soweto, because it proves what can be done. The policy of the Government that active steps must be taken to improve the quality of life of the Black people in our urban areas has nowhere in our country had a more dramatic effect than in Soweto. The changes that have taken place there have already been witnessed by thousands of important visitors from South Africa as well as from overseas, and great appreciation is expressed every day for what is happening there. I wish to furnish only a few particulars of the change that is taking place there and also of what is envisaged for the next few years.

In the first place, there is the electrification project. It was begun 18 months ago, and 15 600 houses are now at various stages of being wired for electricity. The wiring of approximately 5 000 houses has been finally approved and the electricity has already been switched on. Bearing in mind the fact that by the end of 1983, 103 000 existing houses, as well as about 14 000 new houses in Greater Soweto, will have electricity, that more than 5 000 km of electric cables will have been laid during that period and that residential areas extending over 8 000 ha will have electricity, this can only be regarded as a remarkable achievement. It was in fact less than two years ago that, after exhaustive discussions we had had about the matter with all the interested parties, I decided in my office in the H. F. Verwoerd Building one evening—it was already past midnight—that the Soweto Community Council should from that moment accept responsibility itself for the entire electrification scheme. It is not every day that one sees a Black man cry, but I hope Mr. Thebehali will not take amiss of me if I say that when I announced this decision, tears of gratitude ran down his cheeks. I present these results to hon. members. It is an absolutely remarkable achievement. This is not a White achievement; it is a Black achievement, and we must pay tribute and convey our gratitude for this achievement to the Soweto Community Council, and specifically to the mayor of Soweto, Mr. Thebehali, and his council, and I take great pleasure in doing so on this occasion.

The estimated cost of the project is R208 million.

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

Please allow me to finish; then I shall gladly reply to a question. The installation and operation of the scheme will be done on a fully economic basis.

†However, that is not all that is happening in Soweto. In July 1980 one of the most ambitious civil engineering projects ever undertaken in South Africa was started in Soweto. We owe this to the planning council of Mr. Rive and Mr. Knoetze and the community councils of Mr. Mahihishi, Mr. Thebehali and Mr. Meetsi in those townships. I refer to the programme to upgrade all essential services including sewerage, water, the installation of water meters in all houses, the building of two high-level reservoirs, the tarring of certain main access roads, including the rebuilding of major portions of the old Potchefstroom road over the distance that it traverses Soweto, and the building of the new Klip River Valley Road which will join up with the new arterial roads linking Soweto with Johannesburg. All this is made possible by the Government’s guaranteeing a R150 million loan which will be taken up by the community councils of Soweto, Dobsonville and Deep Meadow. This upgrading programme was drawn up in the unbelievably short time of 2½ months through the splendid co-operation of the Association of Civil Contracting Engineers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the CSIR, the Johannesburg Municipality, the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Department of Community Development, the West Rand Administration Board and the Transvaal Provincial Administration. If ever there was a joint effort between White and Black then I want to tell hon. members this is it.

*Hon. members will recall that at the time of the first additional appropriation after I became Minister of this department, I requested an additional appropriation of R9,5 million. That was the beginning of the upgrading of the services in Soweto. Look where we are standing today, and it is not even two years later.

†However, there is more to tell hon. members. In Dobsonville, Pimville and Diepkloof over 2 500 stands are being developed on a 99-year leasehold basis. Most of these stands will accommodate economic and luxury-type housing, either owner-built or developed by financial institutions at a cost varying between R13 000 and R30 000. Approximately 1 000 of these better-class houses have been completed or are in various stages of construction.

*There are already 1 047 leasehold contracts in Soweto, and a further 2 000 are in the pipeline. Now that the services have been improved, it is possible to start building houses in Soweto on a large scale again. A start has already been made with services for 800 houses and 400 flats and 6 000 houses are being planned for completion over the next three years. There are problems with State funds for houses for the lower-income groups. That is true. But with the plans that have been devised for involving the private sector in the housing action, I honestly believe that we can carry out or even improve on this proposed programme.

Another ambitious plan which has appealed to the imagination of the inhabitants, the employers and the financial institutions is the upgrading of existing houses. By adding only one room to each of the existing 103 000 houses, where good services now exist, additional accommodation for 206 000 people will be provided in Soweto. Therefore this is a programme which should be supported by everyone, not only by the people of Soweto, but by the inhabitants of the other towns as well. Naturally, all this development is creating many job opportunities for Black people in Soweto. Work has also commenced on three industrial parks in which 120 Black industrialists will be accommodated. 10 new day hospitals, in which a comprehensive health service will be provided, are already under construction, and one or two more are in the planning stage. Approximately 450 classrooms have been added to the existing schools there during the past 18 months. New double-storey schools have also been completed there. Meanwhile, urgent attention is being given to the acquisition of land for the building of houses to accommodate the natural increase in the population of Soweto and other Black townships in the area of the West Rand Administration Board over the next 20 years. Of course, this is being done within the context of the geographic development strategy of the PWV complex. All these programmes are being planned and carried out in close co-operation with these community leaders and the local population and meet with the strong approval of the inhabitants. The result is understanding and appreciation for the development which is taking place and for the positive policy of the Government in creating and promoting better relations and attitudes between White and Black. I could give you the most beautiful pamphlets coming from Soweto. The people there are developing a splendid sense of pride and all these things testify to the improvements we are making there.

Now it is said: Very well, you are doing these things for Soweto and we take cognizance of them. However, what is being done for the other areas? I want to reply to that at once. It is certainly not the intention of this Government to do certain things in Soweto only and not elsewhere. However, we have to do these things within the limits of our financial means and of the skills and people available to us. Of course, there are many other factors that have to be taken into consideration. Therefore no one can tell us that this Government has specifically singled out Soweto for these changes and that they are not being made anywhere else. I could say things that are just as positive about Tembisa, Katlehong and the East Rand, and I have just told hon. members about the areas in the Western Transvaal. Of course not all the problems have been solved, but I do not intend to start thinking that these problems are so great that they cannot be solved. We have already proved that we can solve these problems. These problems are challenges with which we are faced and they can be dealt with if we have the necessary co-operation and expertise. These matters can be satisfactorily resolved and I am very glad to be able to assure hon. members that these matters are to a very large extent in the process of being resolved. I believe the hon. member for Walmer wishes to ask me a question.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not true that over the past three years in Soweto the number of houses that were built was 50 houses, 174 houses and no houses, respectively.

Mr. Chairman, we have stated that in Parliament but, as I have already indicated to hon. members, we have utilized more than R150 million. At this very moment in time we are ploughing over R400 million into Soweto and I want to tell the hon. member that this is being done on a planned basis. Two years ago I indicated in this House what the prime needs and the priorities in Soweto were. I did not simply rely on the advice given to me by others. I went there myself in the company of some of the top men in this country. I even mentioned their names. After we had investigated the problem from all angles we knew that the answer was that we had first and foremost to upgrade the basic services. I do not wish to go into details in this regard. All I want to say is that if the services are such that many of the sewerage pipes are blocked over weekends, how can people live decently under circumstances of that nature? Can the hon. member tell me? It took a Government loan of R150 million to upgrade these services and yet hon. members opposite accuse us periodically of building no houses.

That is expensive sewerage!

Houses were built on the 99-year leasehold system. It was not a question of our not wanting to build houses. It was simply a question of planning, as I have just indicated. We had to do first things first, we had to arrange our priorities and now that we have done so, I have indicated to hon. members what the programme will be. Those hon. members must not, therefore, accuse us but rather show some understanding of and appreciation for the solution of this very vexed and complex problem that existed in Soweto.

*I shall be glad to reply at a later stage to the questions which hon. members wish to put to me.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that the announcement that a commission is now to investigate the whole question of the non-homeland or urbanized Black is a very welcome one. We hope that this commission will not become bogged down, that the hon. the Minister will see to it that it has on-going results and that it will not gain the reputation of some of the commissions that have been appointed in order to try to solve some of the problems in our country which seemed to go on forever without any solutions being forthcoming.

In passing I should just like to make mention of two matters in connection with the hon. the Minister’s announcement. The first of these is that despite the very laudable guidelines in regard to removals, the proof of the pudding is in the implementation of those guidelines and whether or not the department can, in fact, by virtue of its manpower and the officials at its disposal, adhere to those guidelines. I say this because in many cases this does not appear to be so.

The second point which I should like to make is that I do hope that the commission will not close its eyes to the vital aspect of ownership, because I feel that all the efforts which are being put in—there are indeed some positive ones—might in fact not reap nearly the sort of benefit or bring about the sort of change that they could if there is not a very hard look at the question of ownership in the urban areas.

My intent, however, was not to come back to the urban side of matters, but really to talk about land matters and the acquisition of land, the formation of borders and all matters relating to that, because yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister made an extremely interesting remark in respect of agriculture being the field in which very likely confederal activities would find their beginning. If one is allowed to give free range to one’s mind in this respect, then it conjures up the prospect of confederal agricultural congresses where people from neighbouring States will sit together to debate their mutual problems and find solutions to these problems, and, indeed, perhaps go so far as joint decision-making. This must surely apply to a tremendous extent to the very sensitive and emotion-charged area of borders and the people who are thrust into a situation, not of their making and foreign to them.

Here I must unfortunately introduce a somewhat negative note, but I think it must be said in order to put into perspective the methods in which borders have been dealt with. These methods and the acquisition of ground have in fact left in many farmers’ and other landowners’ minds the thought that the loose ends and all the “wrywing” that takes place are intentional and are part of the Government’s strategy in order to acquire the additional land that it would like. As much as the Government might in fact refute that, the seed is planted in the affected person’s mind and it is therefore up to the Government to bring about the sort of action which will deny the possibility of that sort of thought.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that where there exists within the Government’s policy a very real opportunity for reform in respect of the question of land and the formation of new borders, we on these benches would like the Government to focus its attention on the border farmer. The tremendous duty that he has and the tremendous role that he has to play on behalf of his country and the neighbouring country must be appreciated and he must be supported in maintaining a very stable diplomatic understanding of and attitude towards the situation in which he finds himself. We are of the opinion that it is vital that the Government should create the sort of stable platform on which he can execute this duty to bring about the desired situation.

The commission has put forward the very sensible and sane points of view that the acquisition of further land does not solve problems for either many homelands or the Republic and that bad usage of land leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction.

If we look at this, we find that a viable unit in the hands of a Republican farmer is responsible for vital elements of the economy. It offers employment, produces food and raw material, and it is part of our economic system in which property values in fact, gives tremendous scope for developing wealth and progress. The moment the ink is dry on the piece of paper, transferring the unit, it loses all those abilities. Not one cent can be raised from it, and we believe that it is here that the 1975 consolidation proposals for the acquisition of land give us the ideal opportunity to bring about a new border dispensation in which the joint ventures about which so much is being spoken play a key role. The joint venture on all the new borders should be between the Government in the form of the Development Trust and the relevant homeland or state. These joint ventures would create the very stable situation in which farmers border farmers, where real co-operation and assistance can take place. We will then not have a situation of farmers bordering settlement areas. By bringing about a situation of farmer bordering farmer, one introduces into the homelands the vital aspect of free enterprise, and land reform where the thorny and sensitive problem of tribal land and the vested ownership of chiefs is so very difficult to resolve. Here we have land that, in fact, is not enmeshed in that type of situation, and this is a tremendous opportunity for the Government to both create a climate of border stability, and introduce free enterprises. A joint venture of this nature will of course be entirely for the homeland’s or independent State’s account, and will bring about the initiation of a free enterprise land reform on our borders.

It has been said repeatedly that the entire question of over-population or population density in the independent States is going to be relieved by industrial development and employment opportunities, thus relieving the land of a situation that it cannot carry and allowing agricultural development to take place. We would put it to you, Sir, that it is on these lines that the Government should proceed in respect of the formation of new borders.

My time is running out and I must come back to the urban situation. Whereas up till now the Government has been proceeding with a commission in respect of borders in the rural situation, they have in fact not done anything about the urban situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to react to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said. I do not differ with the hon. member as regards his view of the situation of border farmers. Everyone will agree that since 1913, when we began with consolidation—perhaps it was not called consolidation in those days—up to the present, we have in fact been constantly creating new border farmers. This has also been a very serious problem for the commission. I could just mention to the hon. member that the commission intends to submit a report to the Cabinet in the near future which will deal with the question of border farmers. We should like to take up the idea mentioned here by the hon. member with him personally and discuss other aspects of it with him and with the agricultural unions. When one speaks of a border, one has the problem of deciding what constitutes a good border. Is a range of mountains, a road or a river a good border? As a matter of fact one can mention anything in one’s quest for a good border. In certain cases a little of everything is a good border, but then one is faced with the situation in which one has to decide on a border line, but there is no more than a boundary fence between farms to mark that border. Unfortunately this is the truth of the matter.

However, if we are to adopt a practical approach to this matter and use the additional land made available in terms of the commission’s latest report in that way—and here, of course, I agree 100% with the hon. member—and could settle in a border situation Black farmers who are proud of their land and use it properly, then this would already be a major step forward.

However, we can go even further. We could also consider methods of enabling the individual Black farmer to obtain the land himself, so that it is not always necessary for us to have to supply all the land. We can call for opinions in connection with this matter and work out methods to solve the problems. The man who is proud of his land, who cultivates his own land, is a man with whom one has far fewer problems. [Interjections.] We shall have to look at the situation of the border farmer, which has been spelled out so frequently by various people. The border farmer is in a unique position and he will therefore have to be dealt with in a unique way. On more than one occasion in the past I have said in this House that I can see no difference between a border farmer and a border industry. If a border industry is granted certain concessions, I cannot see why a border farmer cannot also be granted certain concessions. There is no point in considering the border farmer problem 10 to 20 years after it arises. We must look at the situation now. I am not arguing with hon. members about this because I think we are in agreement.

The hon. the Prime Minister announced that in June of next year—touch wood!—the reports will be ready and that the Cabinet will be able to make all the announcements. I should also very much like to see us defining more dearly our view of the situation of the border farmers on that occasion. In other words, when we make announcements as to where the borders of a State are going to be, we must be able to say at the same time that we already have certain things in mind as regards the border farmers.

There is something I should like to say for the information of the hon. member for King William’s Town, as well as for all those persons who may also have an interest in the matter. We have made a great deal of progress in completing the consolidation of the Ciskei. I believe the Government must be put in a position to announce proposed borders before the Ciskei becomes independent on 4 December. I do not say this with a view to the inclusion of any land additional to that indicated in the Status of the Ciskei Act, because this cannot happen. We must, however, at least try to achieve certainty in that region. With this in view, the commission will give a hearing to people affected by the consolidation proposals in Queenstown on 23 September and in Seymour on 24 September. We hope to enable the Cabinet to make its announcement regarding the Ciskei shortly afterwards. I should however very much like us to be able at that stage to give some indication—if not the whole picture, then at least in part—of what we consider important as regards the border situation. I think this will bring about far greater stability in the pattern which has developed thus far. If we can announce the full picture next year, that would be very reassuring to South African agriculture. It would afford many people in South African agriculture far more peace of mind. If we consider what the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday in connection with possible co-prosperity projects in the field of agriculture, we see that a special responsibility rests on our South African farmers. However, I think our South African farmers have on occasion already shown that they are able to shoulder that responsibility and that we can undertake certain projects in conjunction with the Black States—both the independent and the national States—because it is in the interests of everyone, including agriculture, to tackle this project and, by means of organized agriculture to extend a hand to the other States. We are up against problems such as soil conservation, stock diseases and everything which that entails. This is a mutual problem which we have and I should like to appeal to organized agriculture to act far more vigorously so that we can take this element along with us and can develop it. I believe that in this way we can bring into being an agricultural corps within the Republic, the national and independent States, because we know that a strong, stable agricultural corps with a moderate approach to certain problems is a good thing in any country. It is true that people involved in agriculture and living close to nature see certain problems in a different light to other people. For this reason I wish to ask that we give very serious attention to organized agriculture so that we can overcome this problem.

I should also like to refer to two matters to which the hon. member referred briefly and to which the hon. the Minister referred in detail. However, before I come to this, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I consider it a compliment by the Government to our commission to place so much confidence in the commission as to give the commission additional work regarding Black people in White areas. Today is not the time, and this is not the place, to argue about this any further, but I only wish to say I believe the commission will work on this problem with the same energy that they devoted to the consolidation investigations that have been carried out. Particularly if we can remove the cloud still hanging over the Department of Co-operation and Development as regards rationalization, so that there can be clarity as regards that matter, I believe that our joint efforts could be of great use to South Africa in the future. I do not think it is right that we should still be keeping this department, which is concerned with the essential aspects of our race relations as regards Whites and Blacks, under this cloud of rationalization.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I should like the following to be placed on record because it is absolutely essential. I know it was not easy to come to decisions in connection with the announcements which the hon. the Minister made relating to housing for Black people. However, I wish to say here and now that I think absolute realism was displayed. The commission pointed out—I have already spoken about this—that we must not try to deny that realism. If we accept that realism, then there is one thing that hon. members on both sides of this House must tell each other today, and that is that it is all very well for us to do the sort of thing announced by the hon. the Minister, but I think that politics in South Africa and the relations situation in South Africa is more than ripe for this. I am speaking now to all politicians, and not only the Opposition as such; in this connection I am also speaking to myself. The hon. member for Wynberg must not nod his head so rapidly, because he made a terrible blunder yesterday. He must go and sit in his place so that I can talk to him.

But I am listening so attentively.

Yes, but the hon. member made a terrible blunder and he must first apologize.

I think as regards this entire situation as regards relations in South Africa we must move in such a way that we are prepared to agree on certain points and not to make a political football of them. We do not have to agree on all points, but we must not make a political football of those aspects of the relations situation on which we are agreed that they cause us problems. We must try to elevate these things above politics. I have again taken a thorough look at the policies of all the parties represented in this House as regards relations with all the Black people, the development of the national States and everything connected with this. I found that despite all, there are so many things about which we ought really to be in agreement with one another that we need not make a political football of these issues. After all is said and done, we in this country must surely be very careful, and ask ourselves if it is not merely a question of numbers which lies at the root of the problems. Here the issue is not whether we follow the PFP policy, the NRP policy or the NP policy. On one occasion I was talking to a group of farmers about land prices, and a former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Uys, attacked me when I said that land prices would rise and keep on rising. He asked me what I based that on. My answer to him was: “For the simple reason that God stopped making land but He did not stop making people.” It is as simple as that, and this leads to the cardinal problem as regards relations in South Africa. It lies at the root of the relations problem in South Africa. It is pointless us trying to make a political football of it. Nor must we try to score points off one another in connection with this matter. We must realize that this is a situation we have to deal with.

For this reason I am grateful for what the hon. the Minister said about housing. I am even more grateful for what the hon. the Minister said about resettlement. I wish to state very clearly—hon. members opposite also commented on this—that this is not exactly what is being done at present as regards resettlement, but that this is the ideal we are striving to achieve in the field of resettlement. We shall have to realize that ideal as quickly as possible.

When we speak of resettlement, we are not speaking of resettlement merely for the sake of consolidation. I can give hon. members various examples of cases where it is essential to resettle people. Allow me to give one simple reason. The hon. members from Natal will have to concede this point unreservedly. It is clear that the waters of the Tugela are the vital artery of Natal, and of the Witwatersrand as well. In Natal one now has the de facto situation that the best dam basin areas are situated in kwaZulu. If one then wishes to resettle people in order to build a dam, this does not involve consolidation. There is another reason for it. If we resettle people for the sake of sponge catchment areas of water resources which must eventually supply 82% of the Rand’s water supply, we must not attach a party-political connotation to this, but must take the factual situation into account.

As regards resettlement I wish to say that since I became chairman of the commission two years ago, there has very definitely been a change in the attitude of both the department and the Black States. Allow me to illustrate this. The Minister said that the commission will be more closely involved in the activities of the department. On 7 August, in Cape Town, we reached agreement with the Government of Bophuthatswana regarding resettlement—this is only an example, because we shall have to elaborate on this—that because we are struggling to bring about resettlement in respect of less well-situated Black areas, we shall appoint an implementation committee consisting of representatives of the Republic of South Africa and representatives of the Government of Bophuthatswana. Together we are forming the implementation committee to deal with the resettlement and transfer of people as regards Bophuthatswana. In passing I want to tell hon. members that this is a method which I, too, should like to follow. It is at the suggestion of Bophuthatswana that I shall serve as chairman of the implementation committee. This is the sort of attitude we wish to have in connection with this matter. We must give this due consideration. We discussed the utilization of agricultural land and I wish to say that the Governments of the Black States are just as concerned about this as we are. In the case of many of these Black Governments when they are asked why they want more land in the process of consolidation, they simply answer that they would like more land because they want to give Black people private land ownership. However, they do not have private land. 92% of the territory of Transkei is communally owned. These are problems. We have encountered Black people like President Mangope, who have been able to free land from communal and tribal ownership.

The hon. the Minister said such nice things about the Western Transvaal today. One day the hon. member for Houghton and I had an argument here about the housing of farmers in the Western Transvaal. Hon. members would do well to come to the Western Transvaal. There sits the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, a little way from me. He has inherited a fine constituency. Every day we hear about all the things going on in Christiana and Bloemhof. That is really a nice constituency. [Interjections.] However, people have worked in that area. Let us also take note of matters in the Western Transvaal. Hon. members have already referred to them. Here we have an example of what can happen when one undertakes things with the necessary inspiration and the necessary co-operation from the private sector, the agricultural cooperatives and the farmers. For example, in the Western Transvaal it has been decided to undertake certain agricultural projects in Bophuthatswana. This has been done, and everyone involved is extremely proud of what has been done. This year, for the first time in its history, Bophuthatswana will not need to import maize. This year Bophuthatswana is becoming an exporter of maize. This is of course not solely as a result of techniques. The control factor is there. However the fact is that an investigation is now under way to ascertain whether 200 000 ha of land earmarked for incorporation into Bophuthatswana—and we are beginning with this task tomorrow—can be transferred to Bophuthatswana as soon as possible because that State has shown that it can produce farmers capable of using that land productively. Moreover, the entire procedure is taking place in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Government on 28 October last year. The system followed in this case, is a wonderful system. However, these are not things which take place overnight. Hard work must be done to put all these things into effect, not only by the department but by other bodies as well. What is of importance in the entire process, is the goodwill shown by both the Blacks and the Whites, in their enthusiasm to make a resounding success of such a tremendous task. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt touched on a number of matters, and I want to state immediately that there are quite a few things with which we on this side of the House agree. For example, I agree with the hon. member that the problem we have in South Africa is a problem of survival. I also wish to add immediately that I have never questioned the bona fides of hon. members in this House. In fact, I believe that everybody who sits here, does his best for South Africa and that everyone wants to do the best for our future.

It is, however, with exactly that how we are going to achieve that survival that the debate in this House is concerned.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to the hon. member for Pretoria Central at all. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt mentioned quite a few matters on which I feel we can be united. He referred, for example, to the aspect of land tenure, the fact that a farmer, irrespective of whether he is Black or White, is interested in proper fanning methods because it is in the interests of the future of this country, and then the importance of proper resettlement as well. But, I shall come to that in a moment.

The hon. the Minister also made quite a few announcements about which we are delighted. Here I am also thinking in particular about his announcement with regard to resettlement. I shall talk about that too later.

†During the past 80 years since the turn of the century we have witnessed a fantastic growth in the Black population in Natal. That has occurred for two reasons. One of the reasons is basically the natural increase in the population because the province of Natal has experienced a very high birthrate. Secondly there has been a massive movement of Black people away from White-owned farms following the abolition of the labour tenant system which was introduced under Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Where did those people move to? They basically moved to three places. Firstly they moved to the cities; sometimes cities beyond the Natal borders, but mostly to cities in Natal, where they live in townships which, in Natal, are generally convenient in respect of work and amenities.

They also live in our greater Durban and Pietermaritzburg areas in squatter settlements or in locations and reserves which are adjacent to our large cities. In Natal, in a sense, we do not really have Black spots, but Natal is a White spot in a Black province. Secondly, they have moved into the reserves or the locations in the rural areas, or the trust lands or—what is now kwaZulu. These places are becoming increasingly densely populated by families where the male heads work in the vast hostels on the Reef and in the cities of Natal. The third areas that they have moved to are what are now known as “Black spots”. These are areas, mostly freehold land, purchased by churches or far-sighted Black individuals or by a chief for his tribe 80 to 100 years ago. Some are delightful rural settlements, some are progressive, some are overcrowded and backward, but almost all of them are in desperate need of development. However, almost without exception they are happy, settled, healthy communities with almost no crime. It is the Government’s stated intention for the purpose of consolidation to move all these Black spots, to settle the people elsewhere and to take the land for eventual use by Whites.

I believe that it is here that the Government is exposed in all its naked racism, harshness and wickedness. In the implementation of this aspect of its policies we see the Government embittering our Black citizens and ensuring that Black hearts and minds will be won for the cause of revolution and not for peaceful change in South Africa. Last night the hon. the Minister indicated that the new approach to consolidation may mean that the plus minus 300 000 people whom the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned and who are due to be moved may, after all, not have to be moved. We shall await with interest what is going to come out of the proposals of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. The vast majority of people are going to be moved only because they are Black and what compounds the injustice is the way in which it is being done. Despite the guidelines that the hon. the Minister has mentioned and the fact that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, admitted that that is the ideal …

You are shooting at a pie in the sky.

Has the hon. member never heard about Whites being moved as well?

Of course, Whites are moved. We have an Expropriation Act which is an Act of Parliament to move people. We know that, but they were not moved just because they are White. Let the hon. the Minister go and tell the Germans of Natal that they must all move and live in the immediate Wartburg area. How long will they tolerate that? But that is what the hon. the Minister is doing to Black people. Then we still talk about “volkswil” and everything else. Natal is all Zulu country. We do not need “volkswil” there. They have a very good “volkswil” without having to have it imposed upon them by this Government.

After the exposés by courageous people like Cosmas Desmond the Government have been forced to provide better facilities. What did the people from Reserve Six at Richards Bay, where they enjoyed tropical gardens and fruit, timber, well-watered commonages and opportunities for fishing, find at Ntambanana when they were moved into the dry bushveld? They found fletcraft huts, tents, pit toilets and nothing else. Now, some years later they have some schools, roads and buses to take them to Empangeni. However, they have to start getting up at 03h00 in order to get to work. They are, in fact, in a controlled squatting situation. This Government, as usual, objects to squatting but it implements it as an aspect of Government policy. Osizweni, which is near Newcastle, is a giant squatter camp for people resettled from Charlestown.

General Circular 25 of 1967 from the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development talks of “suitable trust lands where families are settled in accordance with a system of controlled squatting”. Is it surprising, Sir, that the deviousness of the NP is never questioned when it organizes resettled people into nothing less than squatter camps, pays them pathetic, if any, compensation and forces them to pay for and organize most of their own facilities?

The helpless people from Reserve 4 near Richards Bay are also due to be removed, and what is their crime that they are to be removed? It is that they are Black and because their ancestors were wise enough to occupy land that is fertile, well watered and coastal but which is now coveted by this Nationalist Government. At Compensation and Qudeni and at Nqutu the Government is extending more squatter camps. The Swamp at Pevensy and Kwa Pitela near Himeville have been moved to Compensation. At Compensation near Impendhle the people have had to build their own homes out of wattle and daub. A lower primary school of three tin huts and two water tanks holding 4 500 litres were all that was available. Buses cannot enter Compensation because the roads are too bad and a store, clinic and bus stop are 3 km to 4 km away. It costs R3,70 return for a daily bus trip to Pietermaritzburg. This must please the hon. the Minister of Finance but it should not because it is exploiting the most defenceless and the poorest people in our population. Driefontein, Matiwane’s Kop, Shakaville, Chesterville and Lamontville are all under threats of removal. St. Wendolins is also due to be removed. Some of these areas obviously need development and better control but why does the Government not approach the matter on that basis instead of on the basis of an obsessive racist consolidation plan which will radicalize the Black people, create, not solve, political problems and destroy Natal’s economy? When the hon. the Minister who is now Minister of Education and Training, Dr. Hartzenberg, was responsible for this matter, he was prepared to be more reasonable about it. All the people of Natal and kwaZulu have rejected the NP.

Finally, Sir, I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. It is time that the hon. the Minister realized that the ends do not justify the means. In the Broederbond he learnt to justify that unfortunate view and in the Department of Sport and Recreation his means may have justified the end he had in mind but nothing can justify the hon. the Minister’s actions over the past four weeks. This hon. Minister has written the last chapter of Poppie Nongena and the first chapter of a bitter saga in South Africa’s troubled history. He must live with his own conscience and I cannot continue to give him the benefit of the doubt because his deeds speak louder than his words. Faith, Mr. Chairman, without good works, is dead.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one matter for which history will condemn the official Opposition, it is its attitude in this House towards the national States. With their vindictive behaviour they are doing a grave disservice to the peoples of those States. What are they doing? Recently we had an example when, with a lot of publicity, they sallied forth and went nosing around in a country like the Ciskei and told all kinds of stories but spoke not a word, Sir, of appreciation and praise for the work of development and upliftment and the wonderful progress made in developing the national States. Such words never pass their lips. We have just had a fine example of this in the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. There was also the speech of the hon. member for Berea earlier this afternoon. He consistently used such terms and expressions as “so-called” when he referred to the self-governing States. He called them the “so-called self-governing States.” He told us the policy of this Government is “so much political poppycock”. He also spoke about victimization of the Black nations by Government bodies and the department and then he said: “This Government’s methods are under suspicion”. This is the sort of behaviour one gets from these people. We are therefore justified in asking why they do not arrange a visit to our national States so that they can see the progress made there, what has been achieved there thus far and what the future possibilities of those States are. Then they can return and talk about it in this House or in the Committee. They can then come and tell South Africa and countries overseas what they found there.

After all, there are many positive things worth talking about. I wish to point out one example, the national State of Kangwane, which borders on my constituency. The human and physical development that has taken place since that State obtained its own legislative assembly in 1977 is a wonderful testimonial to the success of the Government’s policy of separate development. It is also a tribute to the work being done there by the Department of Co-operation and Development and to the Government and the people of the Swazi nation itself. We should take note of the fact that the future of Kangwane is extremely rosy, especially in the light of two recent occurrences to which I wish to refer briefly.

In the first place we had the announcement of the discovery of anthracite in the Nkomasi area. Large deposits of this valuable and rare mineral have been found there and its exploitation will be of enormous significance not only to Kangwane but to the rest of South Africa as well. It promises to be one of the best examples of a co-prosperity project between us on the one hand and those national States on the other.

Let us briefly consider what this discovery could mean for Kangwane. In the first place, it means a considerable source of revenue for that State’s Government, enabling it to launch further schemes. In the second place, it means job opportunities for thousands of citizens there. In the third place, it means the settlement of supporting industries involved in the mining of anthracite. In the fourth place, it means the building of one or more towns to provide housing for the workers in those industries. In the fifth place, it means the creation in that State of essential infrastructure such as roads, electricity supplies, dams for water, means of communication and many more. Even Kangwane’s dream of its own rail link into its hinterland may now be realized. Where could one wish for more positive things than are taking place in that particular national State and await them in the near future?

The second event to which I wish to refer is the extremely successful symposium of industrialists and businessmen, which the Kangwane Development Corporation convened in Nelspruit early in August of this year. This symposium far surpassed the expectations of its organizers because between 300 and 400 industrialists and businessmen attended it. The development potential and investment possibilities in that national State were discussed in depth. The enthusiasm of those present for the possibilities of the development of Kangwane was so great that a wonderful future awaits it and great expectations were aroused.

These are only two events from the recent past which I have singled out, and I could have mentioned many more.

What do all these things tell us? In the first place, they tell everyone who honestly wishes to take note of this that the NP was and still is on the right path with its policy of separate development and its policy regarding the Black nations in South Africa. This is proof of the fact that we are on the right path. In the second place, it also says a great deal for the Swazi nation itself, because it instils their Government with great self-confidence and hope for the future, a future in which they can become steadily more independent of the South African Government, a future in which they can become increasingly self-sufficient. What is perhaps even more important is that it strengthens the national pride of the Swazi nation; and they are a proud nation. It stimulates their love for what is their own and it stimulates their desire not only for national ties, but also for ties to their own soil, their own country. There is irrefutable proof for this.

The Job’s comforters in the official Opposition can take a look at the figures relating to Kangwane and they will find that there has recently been an unprecedented flow of Swazis from the Republic back to Kangwane. What is particularly interesting and significant is that a considerable percentage of those people come from Soweto. The movement back to the homeland is so widespread that we cannot keep pace with the provision of dwellings in places such as Chakastad, Eerstehoek, Mayflower, Fernie and many others. Nor can we keep pace with the building of schools to accomodate the children returning to that homeland.

And why is this happening? Why is the population streaming back to the homeland? I say the answer lies in the fact that the. Swazi wants to live in his own country and wants to settle his family there. He wants his children to go to school there amongst his own people, so that they can be educated and raised in their own language in the milieu of their own background and traditions, away from Soweto, a place where, if I am not mistaken, 11 murders are committed every day. They are therefore also thinking of the safety of their children.

This is surely human and national development and we must encourage this building up of what is theirs. I therefore ask the official Opposition to stop disparaging the national States. Rather help us to build up and develop these States, because ultimately it is in the interests of everyone, and it is only in this way that we can ensure prosperity, peace and safety for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Ermelo because it is unfortunately the case—and one could again see this very clearly on the Opposition side this afternoon—that while the hon. the Minister was enthusiastically telling the success story of his department to this House, hon. members on that side were extremely bored. All they really want to talk about is destructive politics. I understand the hon. member for Houghton is going to speak again this afternoon, and she will not put an alternative to the Government. On the contrary, she will simply propagate destructive and negative politics once again. This is to be expected.

I have no alternative because you never listen.

We are grateful for and very interested in the report of the Viljoen Commission which concerns the private sector’s involvement in housing for urban Blacks, and we shall read this report with enthusiasm. In the second place, we also welcome the further extension of the Commission for Co-operation and Development which is now to investigate the urban Black problem as well. I believe we shall also achieve success with these positive standpoints of the hon. the Minister in the future.

The guideplan of the office of the Prime Minister in respect of the PWV area has again emphasized the problems as regards urbanization and particularly the influx of Black people to White cities in South Africa. Apart from the socio-economic problems that this entails, it should also be very clearly spelt out what the political aspirations of these people are and how we are to accommodate those political aspirations. Any solution, or any attempt at a solution to this problem, should be seen against the background of the consequences of the policy which any party in South Africa seeks to implement. It is a fact that the PWV area is the centre of gravity of South Africa’s economic power and development, and it continues to attract any person who seeks work and strives towards development and progress.

The provisional census figures for 1980 show that the total population in that area already stands at 5 million people, of which the Whites constitute a mere 1,8 million. The estimate for the year 2000 is that the total population will increase to 8,5 million, of which the Whites will only constitute 3 million. I am speaking about the PWV area because I represent a constituency in the Witwatersrand area in Johannesburg. The problem of urbanization which is rearing its head there is a problem which must be seen in the broad context of the entire South African situation. It is and remains the crux of the problem for South Africa. The question we must ask ourselves is: where and how can these people’s political aspirations be satisfied. This is the crux of the matter. These are the true realities of South Africa, and no one can deny them. No one wishes to explain them away and no one is trying to hide them. We are all trying to solve this mass problem. The question that we must ask ourselves—and that hon. members on that side, too, must ask themselves—is whether the urban Black man should be completely cut off from the political development of the national States. In other words, the position of the Black man in the urban area is one of the most immediate problems we are faced with. Solutions, of course, demand clarity, insight and drive. However there is a difference between us and the hon. members opposite. They seek the solution in a unitary State, in other words, in a single national context, whereas this side of the House wishes to make provision for this in an alternative, way on the basis of the right to self-determination of every community.

There is something I should like to repeat. In the quest for an answer we must not only expound a policy. We must also consider the consequences of that policy, because as the English say: “Talk is cheap, but money buys the whisky.” There must be no doubt that the NP is on the path of reconciliation in South Africa. With goodwill and with a new perspective, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of this department are treading the path of evolutionary change in South Africa, but not—and this must be emphasized—at the expense of the continued existence of the Christian Western civilization here on the southern tip of Africa. The NP is prepared to ensure participation to all communities, including the Black man, in respect of South Africa’s propserity and progress. As regards a political say, however, the NP adopts certain very clear standpoints. In the first place this side of this House and this Government do not arouse unrealistic expectations in the Black man in South Africa. This is a warning one should address to the hon. members on that side of the House. They are so quick to talk and create such expectations which they know as well as we do they cannot satisfy, and this side of the House cannot satisfy. Surely it is clear—the hon. the Prime Minister has told us so—that there will not be representation for the urban Black man in the President’s Council. As regards his political rights at the national level, he must become involved in his national State. In the field of local management and local politics a greater say, or a higher say, may be given them than that of local municipal authorities. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that negotiations are under way to give the Black people more effective participation to accommodate them in the national State politics in South Africa. What is more, the door is open for the urban Black man to obtain a say in the confederation or constellation idea on the road ahead.

These are clear standpoints of this side of the House. However, what is the alternative from that side of the House? What does the PFP say? What is the philosophy of those hon. members and what is their policy? One has sympathy with the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt’s invitation to the hon. members opposite to keep racial politics out of the arena and, in the interests of South Africa, to try to discuss matters together man to man. Unfortunately this is not possible, because there are three aspects about which we on this side of the House differ from the hon. members opposite. In the first place, they are lukewarm in respect of decentralization and deconcentration in South Africa. They do not want to adopt a standpoint in this connection. The hon. member for Yeoville who is a “social democrat” in South Africa stated very clearly the other day that this does not work in South Africa; work must be created where infrastructures exist. In the second place, they talk about the abolition of influx control in South Africa, and the hon. member for Houghton will repeat this when she speaks in a moment. In the third place, they want to grant political rights in South Africa on a “colour-blind” basis. The hon. member for Bryanston told us that this is one of the cornerstones of the policy of the hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, the Broeder, shakes his head, but those are the standpoints of hon. members on that side of the House. As long as those hon. members adopt those standpoints there cannot be consensus in the field of Black politics in South Africa.

These are their points of departure, and what is their policy? Let us just consider one aspect of their policy, the so-called geographic federal units they want to create in South Africa. Those hon. members must also tell us where the boundaries of those geographical federal units will be. I wish to ask the hon. member for Houghton one question: Where will Soweto fall in their geographical federation?

In Turffontein!

That hon. member makes jokes, but this is a serious question, because I wish to tell the hon. member for Houghton that if she tells us that Soweto will be dealt with on a separate geographic basis, that they are racists. If they are going to accommodate Soweto in Johannesburg, or anywhere else, we come to the second point, and that is the granting of political rights. The basis on which they do this, is qualified franchise, and hon. members know just as well as I do where that will lead. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is obviously not going to be possible for me to cover all the subjects raised by the hon. member for Turffontein, but I would remind him of one or two encouraging statements made by Government spokesmen, notably the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, when he declared war on the “dompas” when he was in America a couple of years ago …

I still declare war on it.

… and the hon. the Prime Minister who talks about adapting or dying and words to that effect. Therefore the hon. member for Turffontein must not blame this side of the House for raising the expectations of the Black people; the expectations were raised by spokesmen on that side of the House.

We have listened very patiently, and reasonably silently, I think, to two long speeches by the hon. the Minister, in the course of which, both yesterday and today, he bombarded us with statistics with which he had been supplied. I can only remind the hon. the Minister, who tells us about the great development and work opportunities being provided in the homelands, Black states or whatever he likes to call them, that they are nowhere near the achievements that were demanded as an absolute minimum by the Tomlinson Commission if the idea of separate development was ever to work. If my memory serves me correctly, the Tomlinson Commission set as a minimum requirement the provision of 50 000 jobs outside of agriculture per annum. Absolutely nothing like that has been provided. I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is still a fact that, notwithstanding the 13 000 jobs for which R9½ million …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I haven’t time. In a 10 minute speech it is impossible. R9½ million was provided which means that these jobs have been made available at an average of roughly R730 per job. We should, first of all, like to know what those 13 000 jobs are; the hon. the Minister must tell us. Whatever they are, however, the fact of poverty in these homelands is surely accepted by every hon. member in the House. It is also a fact that the homelands have a very low income per capita per annum. By far the greater proportion of revenue in the homelands comes from money granted by Parliament and by the Republic to the homelands, be they independent states or dependent Black states, and from money sent home by migrant workers working in the Republic. That is where the income comes from. What does that serve to do? It surely only serves to accentuate the dependence of those areas on this country. It accentuates not the independence of those areas, but their dependence.

Although the hon. the Minister told us a great deal, he has not answered the very pertinent question put by the hon. member for Berea, viz. whether it is still Government policy to leave it to the existing Black States to decide voluntarily whether they are going to become independent or not. That is a very important question.

In the course of giving us statistics, the hon. the Minister talked about the “pende-laars”, the 240 million Black passengers—commuters—transported between their places of work and their dwellings, and about the 160 million kilometres traversed by buses belonging to the Economic Development Corporation. What I should like to know and what I believe the country would like to know is whether anyone has sat down and done some arithmetic to work out the extra costs to the country in terms of the provision of roads and vehicles, the consumption of fuel and, most of all, the utilization of human energy, because the existence of these “pendelaars” is largely the result of the Government’s policy of the relocation of Black urban townships. Throughout the platteland the Government has been uprooting Black urban townships where they belong, viz. right next door to where the people concerned work, and planting those people in the nearest homeland.

I take Vryburg as an example. I could not find a better one because that is the constituency of Mr. Speaker. For years now the township in Vryburg, which is called Huhudi, has been in a state of paralysis because the people there have been told they were going to be moved 50 kilometres away to Pudimoe in Bophuthatswana where houses are being built for them. Every single day those people are going to have to travel one hundred kilometres to get to and from work.

You know that that is an untruth.

The cost of busfare is estimated at between R20 and R25 per person per month. I think that the average wage in Vryburg is approximately R40 per month, for a domestic anyway. What on earth is the Government doing with this relocation of Black urban townships? It is going back to the old idea of “White by night”, but during the day those Black hands are needed, and not only the Black hands are needed but also the Black pockets, because the Black pockets keep those small towns going. The Chamber of Commerce and the Handelsinstituut of Vryburg are objecting to this move. For seven years the whole township has been paralysed. No one has been allowed to improve his house and the whole situation is in a state of chaos. I just cannot understand how anybody can stand up, as the hon. the Minister did, and use the example of the “pendelaars” being transported hundreds of thousands of miles every year to illustrate that the Government’s policy is working satisfactorily.

It creates job opportunities for bus drivers.

The hon. the Minister talked to us about housing and, in particular, he told us about housing in Soweto. I want to say at once—I hope he is listening—that I paid a visit to Soweto before I came down here, as is my wont. I go there quite often. There is progress, although not in the actual building of houses, I regret to say, but let us say in the planning thereof.

Not yet.

Yes, not yet as regards actual building operations. Ditches have been dug, electrification is in progress and in this respect they are doing quite well, but according to the chairman of WRAB the programme calls for 15 000 houses to be built in the next three years. This year, as the hon. member for Walmer pointed out, only 48 houses have so far been built. How is the hon. the Minister ever going to keep up with that programme? These figures appear in a pamphlet I have here which is very glossy and nice, and for which I think the hon. the Minister was looking.

I gave you the figures this afternoon.

This raises the hopes of the Black people in Soweto. I quote—

According to this pamphlet the scheme includes 1 200 sites for the construction of 800 three-bedroomed housing units and 400 flats during the next few months. This pamphlet came out in June/July. It is now the beginning of September and 48 houses have been built.

I gave you the figures a moment ago. I am not going to repeat them.

I was telling the hon. the Minister that progress has been made with the infrastructure. Why it has not been made years ago is another matter. We will not go into that now.

I was not around then.

Why we needed to raise a loan of R100 million overseas last year is also a matter I shall not go into. I think that is a loan raised by the Urban Foundation, if I am not much mistaken.

Which one? The R150 million loan?

Yes.

That is not correct.

All right. I shall accept what the hon. the Minister tells me. It is correct, however, that we did raise a large loan overseas. Right? Why could we not raise it here? It would have been a good anti-inflationary thing to do. The hon. the Minister will, however, have to get moving if the target of 15 000 houses in three years is to be reached.

I come now to what is perhaps the most bizarre part of the hon. the Minister’s two-one hour speeches delivered here. This was, of course, his speech of yesterday, in which he talked about “an orchestrated effort” to provoke the Government, to destroy law and order, and to encourage civil disobedience. He also mentioned a number of organizations engaged in this operation regarding the Nyanga squatter incidents. Among those he referred to was the Women’s Movement for Peace. He should meet some of these ladies. They are the most respectable ladies in Cape Town, I can assure him. [Interjections.] He also mentioned the Council of Churches, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, the Black Sash, the PFP … He did not mention, of course, the businessmen, the well-known businessmen who signed a declaration expressing their disgust with the Government at the way in which the squatter problem was being handled. The hon. the Minister also said that the Women’s Movement arranged for buses to bring people back and received them when they arrived here. That is not true. They absolutely deny this.

Of course it is true.

It is not true. They absolutely deny it, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to bring any evidence that that was done.

I produced the evidence here yesterday.

Nonsense! Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister simply said it had happened, and that is not evidence.

Did you read the Sunday Express of last Sunday?

What they did was to pay for some of the bus fares after those people had come back to Nyanga and found themselves without money. That is what they did. They did not in fact organize buses from the homelands back here. [Interjections.] It is true, of course, that legal advice was arranged by the Black Sash. That is absolutely true. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just rise to afford the hon. member for Houghton the opportunity to complete her speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Meyerton very much indeed. [Interjections.]

The Athlone Advice Bureau decided, according to the hon. the Minister, that Blacks should be sent back to the Transkei, and that for every bus used to remove them a bus would be made available to bring them back. The hon. the Minister of Police, by way of interjection, said that was so. What is the evidence? I should like to know, because it is untrue. It is completely untrue. They did not hand out a bean. [Interjections.] What worries me about this is the hon. the Minister’s …

It is unbelievable that you can say that. It is utterly unbelievable.

The hon. the Minister must produce the proof. That is all I am asking him to do. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister should repeat some of the things he said here yesterday outside this House he will be sued for libel. That I can tell him.

By whom?

[Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Police said that was so. What worries me is that it is on statements like this, statements from the police, and the so-called evidence that is advanced, that people are detained and banned in this country, without any evidence, without any proof being offered of their being guilty of any illegal actions whatsoever. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister also said something about the Rev. Hall and alleged that he had paid some of the bus fares. He did. He paid R1 000 to an Indian bus driver to bring those people back here, but not in order to cause civil disobedience. Those people had jobs here. They had belongings here, and they also had relatives here. I want to say that the hon. the Minister himself, in the very first statement he issued—and I have it here—said that where a person was already in employment the position would be legalized. Why then did he not legalize the position of those people who were sent back on the buses? The Black Sash produced the proof that many people were in fact in employment. [Interjections.]

I should want to put it to the hon. the Minister that South Africa must be the only country in the world, with the exception of countries behind the Iron Curtain, where squatting is regarded as a conspiracy. This is an expression I borrow from my hon. leader. South Africa must be the only country in the world where squatting is not regarded as a natural consequence of urbanization and of a shortage of housing at the same time. South Africa must be the only country in the world, with the exception of countries behind the Iron Curtain, where providing legal defence is condemned. [Interjections.] South Africa must be the only country where that is condemned instead of praised. It is the natural right of every person to have legal defence, and I believe that South Africa must be the only country in the world which purports to be civilized, in which the provision of food and shelter to homeless and desperate people is regarded as subversive. It must be the only country in the world that calls itself civilized. I believe it is probably also the only country in the civilized world where lawful protest against the Government’s actions is now not accepted as a democratic right.

Finally, I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the promises, by way of statements, made in this House when the Status of Transkei Bill was passed in 1976. I want to quote what the then Minister said on that occasion, but maybe this hon. Minister does not take responsibility for what the then Minister said, although he was a member of the Cabinet in those days. This is what was said (col. 8318)—

Hon. members must now listen to this bit. He said—

What does the hon. the Minister say about that? Those are people who have come from the homelands, and I say again that we have nothing but unconditional condemnation for the manner in which the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government as a whole have handled this thorny problem of the squatters of Nyanga. They have done no credit to South Africa, and we believe that they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the hon. member for Houghton, and to some of the other questions other hon. members put to me, I should first like to say in reply to the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt that the Commission for Administration investigated the question of the rationalization of the Department of Corporation and Development very thoroughly, a long investigation which lasted for months. A while ago we received a letter informing that the Commission for Administration had great understanding and appreciation for the unstinting service which officials of this department were rendering and the important contributions they were making even in the furthest outposts of the Republic of South Africa and South West Africa in implementing the policy of this Government in the interests of the Republic of South Africa. In the second place we were informed that the Commission for Administration, after a comprehensive rationalization investigation into the activities of the Department of Co-operation and Development, had concluded that with the exception of the administration of justice, it would be neither desirable nor in the interests of sound national administration to dismantle this department or to incorporate its executive functions in respect of the Black population of the Republic of South Africa into other departments. Consequently I am very grateful to be able to say that this is now the outcome for this department, which has been subject to the rationalization investigation for many months. This will surely result in great certainty among officials and also in other respects in South Africa.

I should now like to reply to the questions put to me and subsequently I shall come to the hon. member for Houghton who has just spoken. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal, who raised the important issue in connection with vagrancy, and everything that goes with it, in the Pretoria area, that he will see in the Estimate of the Expenditure for 1981-’82 that an amount of R4 065 000 was appropriated for housing in Mabopane East, from which is evident the seriousness with which the Government treats this whole problem of providing the necessary accommodation in that area as well, for the extent to which people can be provided with proper accommodation, enabling them to live on a family basis, this kind of problem, which the hon. member put forward here so skilfully, can be solved.

I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. member for Tygervallei on his birthday yesterday, and also on his fine and important contribution in this House. We have great appreciation for him as Chief Whip. He asked whether the existing legislation in respect of the Western Cape was adequate. I then reply very decisively, with reference to our experience during the past 14 days, that the legislation at our disposal at present is neither sufficient nor adequate. The reply to that question is “no”. I hope that if the hon. member for Houghton has a pipe, she will put this in it and smoke it. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Houghton thinks that she will frighten us here with her constant nagging, then I can only tell her that she is achieving the exact opposite. The sooner she puts a stop to it, the better. Her performance is far better when she discusses these manners in a calm and collected way.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Tygervallei that the department in question is taking action against the Whites who employ these Black people illegally, and they will be held answerable in court for their actions, for it is those Whites who exploit these Black people and whose actions in this regard are giving rise to all kinds of problems in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] Oh please, Sir, those hon. members can rant and rave as much as they like. I am merely stating the facts.

In the second place I want to say that we are investigating the question of the imposition of minimum fines. We have a maximum fine of R500 which can be imposed and we are investigating the practical implementation of the imposition of a minimum fine.

In further reply to the questions the hon. member put to me, I want to say that we shall reach a point, if these challenges continue, if those hon. members continue to question the facts we give them here, as the hon. member did here again this afternoon, where they will compel us to take further steps, and they are to compel employers who employ those people here illegally to pay the repatriation costs of those people to their country of origin themselves. I shall return to this point again when I reply to the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] They must not challenge us now and they must not compel us now. I have demonstrated that I have a great deal of humanity. I say that they must not compell me now to demonstrate that I can also act very firmly if it is necessary to do so in the interests of the Western Cape, of the Peninsula, and of my country, South Africa. [Interjections.] They can keep on squawking, Sir. If one provokes them into that kind of reaction, then you know that you were on target.

The hon. member for Vasco and one of the hon. members opposite raised the point as to whether this Western Cape area was considered to be a preference area for Whites and Coloureds. My reply is that the present policy of this Government is that this is the case and the policy is being implemented in this way. Let there be no doubt at all about that. [Interjections.] I have little time, Sir, and besides I do not feel like replying to a question put by that hon. member.

The hon. member for Berea put a very important question to me. He asked whether we intended or were engaged in forcing the national States into a position of independence. My reply to this is very clear. We have always said that we do not intend to force any national State into independence. We do not make countries independent; we make it possible for nations, if they want to become independent, to exercise their own free right of becoming independent. This is our approach and this is our policy in this regard, and I shall now leave the matter at that. Furthermore our policy is, of course, to create, along a confederal course and by way of a constellation, a position here in South Africa in which there can be the necessary meaningful discussion about matters of common interest and in connection with which the necessary action can be taken. Allow me to reiterate very emphatically that history has demonstrated that in a community such as we have here on the southernmost point of Africa, the following is imperative: “You must establish equal status between the different constituent partners”. This is a point of cardinal importance and no one can argue it away. We have made our standpoint in this regard very clear. We are not compelling any nation. We do not want to compel them. We merely hope that nations will co-operate so that we can find a peaceful and an evolutionary constitutional solution to our problems here on the southernmost point of Africa, for it is an essential fact that by means of co-operation it is, after all, possible to bring about this necessary important equal status between all the participating parties. If we can succeed in bringing about that equal status, in a peaceful way and without compelling anyone, we would in that case have made good progress. In any event, how does one compel a nation? It is born in a nation and a nation has a love and desire for it. There are few nations who do not have this desire. Consequently, if the nations want to co-operate, it is possible for us to arrive at that point of equal status sooner and it is possible that we shall achieve a peaceful solution to our problems sooner and—this is the cardinal point in my humble opinion—this will then be the start of a course which is being followed in South Africa in which the possibilities of peace, prosperity and progress are integral components. This is my reply to that hon. member in respect of that question.

The hon. member for Houghton fulminated here again, as she has recently been doing. The first time she spoke she referred to “irregularities in Commissioners’ offices in Pretoria”. In addition the hon. member referred to a reporter, Mr. Martin Wells of the Sunday Times, who testified before the Hoexter Commission. It is really rather ludicrous, but let me furnish this House with the facts of the matter. It is a pity that the hon. member has, as it were, put her foot in it, for the fact is that that quotation comes from the Code and was quoted completely out of context. The Code deals with rehabilitation schemes, for example stock improvement and has nothing whatsoever—“Sweet Fanny Hall”—to do with … [Interjections.] It has absolutely nothing to do with courts or with influx, and one lawyer pointed out this abuse of the Code to the Hoexter Commission. Furthermore I can tell the hon. member for Houghton that the Attorney General is looking into this whole matter. All these old stories which are now being heard again, is typical gossip-mongering to which one really must not pay much attention. If something is amiss, I can give the hon. member the assurance that action will be taken. I, as the responsible Minister, will not tolerate that kind of mistake. Where action has to be taken in cases where there was unpleasantness and unfairness, my record is there for anyone to see. I personally have no truck with that kind of thing, and if it comes to my attention I shall issue these instructions without hesitation that action should be taken against it, as I did when things which happened in the Cape Commissioner’s Court were brought to my attention. If the hon. member for Houghton does not believe this, she must ask the hon. member for Yeoville, and he will tell her how I take action against that kind of thing. Where there are malpractices, we must and will take action against them.

But the file is missing.

I have already said that the Attorney General is investigating the matter, and if there is any problem, the person responsible will be brought to book.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the 13 000 employment opportunities in the Ciskei. I have replied to this before, but I want to tell her again that those employment opportunities are in connection with soil conservation work, such as the construction of small dams with manual labour, the eradication of noxious weeds, the cleaning of dams, the making of firebreaks, the construction of abutments, etc. This is work which is being done in the interests of the development of the Ciskei, and really great things are being accomplished.

†I should like to point out to the hon. member that the question of interdependence at the southern point of Africa is a vitally important consideration when it comes to a peaceful solution of the problems of the country. If anybody on that side of the House is overlooking the importance of the interdependence of the different people in South Africa, then they are overlooking a major factor in the evolutionary development of the Republic of South Africa and all its peoples.

*The hon. member for Houghton also referred to commuters. She asked who had estimated the expenditure on petrol, wear-and-tear, etc., for that vast number of buses. Does the hon. member not want to go and work out for a change how one calculates the price of peace and sound relationships in this country? How does one calculate the incalculable value of the peace and sound relationships which we have brought about in South Africa for the past 30 years? It would surely have been impossible to bring about the measure of peace we have had in this country up to now if it had not been for the policy of the recognition of the self-determination of nations and everything that flows from that. Now the hon. member has put her foot in it even further by singling out the constituency of the Mr. Speaker and by referring to Huhudi and Pudimoe. [Interjections.] The hon. member and I have reason to be so cross with each other as not to be on speaking terms, but if only she would have come to speak to me, I could have given her the facts. The fact of the matter is that we examined the question of Huhudi and made decisions in that regard. We decided, inter alia, that those who were living in Huhudi could remain there for the time being and that upgrading would take place. In fact, a series of decisions was announced and appeared in the newspapers of that region. We approached the question in a realistic way.

Pudimoe is approximately 40 km away …

36 kilometres.

Very well then, 40 minus 4 is 36. Surely one need not always be so accurate. Long ago when fuel prices were far lower than at present, it was possible for families to live in the national States and to travel to their places of employment. However, after they had lodged a complaint, we approached the matter in a realistic way, and these are the facts in connection with Huhudi with which we are now furnishing the hon. member. [Interjections.]

The hon. member quoted a former colleague of mine in connection with Transkei and employment opportunities here in Cape Town and tried to imply that we were not implementing those plans. There are 180 000 Black people in the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.] This is the official figure. If there are more, what I am going to say now is even more important. As far as independence is concerned we concluded an agreement with Transkei in which there is no provision which states that all Transkeian citizens may come and settle here in the Peninsula as is, for example, happening in connection with the people who are being conveyed here in “a concerted and organized manner”.

†Hon. members can cry and shout to their heart’s content, but the facts are that there has been a concerted, organized effort to bring these Blacks in their thousands from Transkei to the Cape Peninsula. About this there is no question, and if hon. members do not believe me, I can get sufficient proof to prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.

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

Unfortunately I only have a few minutes at my disposal.

It really is unfair to draw such a conclusion from those facts and in that way to try sow disaffection between us and Transkei. If there are really employment opportunities here and if the people of Transkei work through the proper channels, we shall not deviate from our agreement with them. However, the hon. Opposition must again get the message loud and clear that we do not intend to allow an uncontrolled influx to the Cape Peninsula, which will lead to chaos and disorder. If people have proper employment opportunities here, if there are possibilities of finding work for them here, they can come. [Interjections.] I told that hon. member yesterday that we knew that further urbanization would take place, but that it should take place in an orderly, fair and proper way, for our State was a State of order and not one of disorder. Believe me, that hon. Opposition can croak until it is blue in the face, but it will not cause us to deviate from this standpoint, for even before the time of Plato the hallmark of good government was the maintenance of law and order, and it does not matter if they do not understand this, for we on this side of the House understand it, the electorate understand it, the Transkeian authorities understand it, the Ciskeian authorities understand it, and so do the Black Governments in South Africa. They, too, are champions of law and order.

I now come to the youngest hon. member in this House, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.] He is the only member who really hurt me during this debate. I now want to talk to him on his level. The Christ whom I love and worship, was a Christ of order, in the Church and everywhere He went. That is why it is also our Christian duty to ensure that order is maintained in our fatherland, even more so here in the Mother City of this nation to which all the people of the Republic of South Africa are anchored.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 18.—“National Education”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am a farming man who has come here to represent other farming people. That is why I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Helderkruin who is a learned man: If he finds the terminology of the House strange, you can imagine what confusion it creates for me as a farming man. When one gets going on the farm, it means that one is getting out of trouble, but I think I am getting into difficulties today. This afternoon I was amazed once again at how the more one hon. member criticizes another, the more he addresses him as “the hon. member”. It seems as if I am also undergoing physiological changes here, because on the farm my vocal cords are in my throat, but now my heart is there. Worst of all, when I resume my seat, I am not sure that I am not sitting on my brains.

Mr. Chairman, or rather, Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to my predecessors in the House who were all farmers too.

There was Mr. Org du Plessis, a well-loved member of the House, who now serves on the Marketing Council, and there is my immediate predecessor, Mr. Jan van Vuuren, a man amongst men, chairman of the Free State Agricultural Union. Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had to hold so many meetings in order to become a member of the House that I have chairmen on the brain. I am very sorry, Sir.

The other day I passed by the Groote Kerk with my bench-mate and saw the tombstone of the Dutch gentleman who has been referred to as “De gestrengde heer”. The constituency that I come from, can very aptly be described as an “austere” constituency, because it is in that area nearby Memel where Gen. De Wet waited for three weeks with his commando and then moved right through the constituency to Roodepoort and Koppies where the rebellion was declared. It is also one seat which the HNP announced on the radio and television and in newspapers that they were going to win in the past election. Therefore, we arc definitely “austere” there.

We did have a display of flamboyance in our area in the past. I am referring to a man whose political values have flashed from left to right across the political firmament like a comet. In the ’forties we had oom Kaalkop van der Merwe’s Black shop in Heilbron, which can be best described in the words of Elizabeth Eybers—

Here, in the backyard, a young lawyer, a certain Mr. Rossouw, who boarded with Tannie Kleinschmidt, bought hides and eggs, mainly to divert the attention of the police from himself. That gentleman was one of the most right-wing people who was entertained at Government expense at Koffiefontein. Imagine how my eyes widened in amazement the other day when I saw the hon. the Prime Minister engaging in fraternal conversation with the hon. gentleman here in the House. [Interjections.]

When I talk about a co-operative, I am chiefly implying agricultural co-operatives. The co-operative is a free trade establishment which is generally considered by free trade as being quasi-socialistic. However, the fact of the matter is that both the co-operative and the company form of commerce favour the profit motive, even though the way in which it is done, definitely differs in nature. When a company is formed people come together and invest money in order to earn money for their share-holders, chiefly through trade with people outside the company. In the case of a co-operative people invest money in order to provide services to themselves and to make it possible for their members to produce as cheaply as possible. In the case of the company, the emphasis falls on making money for the share-holder. In the case of the co-operative, the emphasis falls not so much on achieving the greatest profit for the co-operative, but rather on enabling its members to produce as cheaply and as effectively as possible.

I should like to illustrate this by way of the following example. In an ordinary company the fat would be in the fire if the rate of turn-over, for instance, were to drop so low that it would reach a mere 2,5%, whilst in the case of co-operatives we find that it is in the interest of the members for the supply tum-over of certain parts to be even lower. If this does not happen, it may happen that a tractor, for instance, comes to a standstill during a critical peak time, which on the long-turn could result in a more expensive product than would have been the case when a high turn-over was being concentrated upon. Another definite point of difference between a co-operative and a company is that, in the case of the company, the franchise is to be found in the holding of shares. The number of shares owned by each share-holder, determines his franchise, whilst in the case of the co-operative, the franchise is democratic in nature. It is the case of one member, one vote. This means that the interests of smaller members can never be ploughed under simply to promote the interests of a few larger members or of the co-operative.

From the two abovementioned characteristics of a co-operative—in the first place that co-ops are created to provide a service to its members, and in the second place the fact that the co-operative considers it a profit if its members are enabled to produce as cheaply as possible—it is a logical consequence that if there are any divisible surpluses, they must be divided on the basis of each member’s share in the trade with his co-operative. Then such a declared surplus is in fact therefore nothing but a discount which a member receives on his trade with the co-operative. Therefore, what happens, is that the production costs of the member of the co-operative are decreased by the value of the paid out surplus that he receives. Therefore, the axiom that flows from this, is that the man who must pay the income tax on the paid out surplus, must nevertheless be the member of the co-operative. Indeed he is the one to benefit.

Together with this, if one bears in mind that 80% of the agricultural production in the country is produced by 20% of the farmers, it also means that a conniving evasion of income tax is not necessarily taking place here. The tax scale of the 20% of the large farmers who provide 80% of the yield, is most probably just as high as that of a company. There is at least some benefit here for the smaller farmer, which at the same time brings me to my next statement, and this is that our biggest problem in the platteland is the depopulation thereof at the moment, because farmers are being driven off their farms by decreased profit margins. Together with this, we also find the disappearance of the retailer from the platteland because the large farmers are forcing his profit margin down again. The phenomenon on the platteland these days is that the issue is no longer competition between the co-operatives and the retailer, but that type of competition in which the cooperatives are trying to enter the field of the large vertically and horizontally integrated oligopolies which are dominating the trade in farming accessories and food in this country entirely. I am convinced that as these companies enter the market to an increasing extent, the more difficult it will be to fix prices and the lower prices will be.

For instance, if we take note of where the shops, the head-offices and the factories of co-operatives are situated, we note that they are to be found from Pietersburg in the north—in the region of Venda—to Queenstown in the south, almost on the border of the Ciskei, and then again from Lichtenburg in the west—close to Bophuthatswana—to Dundee in the east, close to the border of Zululand. The infrastructure that has been created in this way by the co-operatives, can, with the necessary planning, and also with the necessary encouragement by the Government and the co-operation of company trade, take the initiative to settling and finalizing the decentralization requirements of this country as a matter of urgency. After all, all hon. members are in agreement that the decentralization of political and economic activities is absolutely essential for the stabilization of the politics of our country.

†In conclusion, I should like to quote the fabulous Mae West, who once said: “Save a man for a rainy day, and one in case it doesn’t.” I ask hon. members to be just as partial to the co-operatives.

It is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Heilbron on his maiden speech. It was an enjoyable speech, one in which humour and seriousness alternated. I am sure that the hon. member will make us laugh a great deal in this House in future, when he wants to have some fun, but that at the same time he will also make a serious contribution towards the debates in this House. I wish him everything of the best for the time that he will spend in this House as a representative of the voters of Heilbron.

For personal reasons, it gives me great pleasure to be able to say something about this particular Bill. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, this Bill is one of the cornerstones of the agricultural industry. Nor does it very often happen that I agree with an hon. Minister. In this case I do indeed agree with the Minister.

Hear, hear!

This Bill is one of the three pieces of legislation which together can be considered as being fundamental to the agricultural industry. The other two are the Marketing Act and the Soil Conservation Act. It is these three measures in particular which complement one another and therefore determine the future of farming in South Africa.

It is interesting to note that in all the years since 1939, there have been only five amendments to the Co-operatives Act. The hon. the Minister will not take it amiss if I draw attention to the fact that the Act of 1939, as well as the Marketing Act and the Soil Conservation Act, were all placed on the Statute Book by the old United Party, when it was still in power. [Interjections.] The fact that these measures have stood the test of time for 42 years, and that they are still being recognized and accepted as cornerstones of agriculture by this side of the House today, is something of which I am very proud. [Interjections.] The fact that it was necessary to amend these pieces of legislation only five times in 42 years, is also something of which I am very proud. [Interjections.]