Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) undertaken the constitutional ordering of the Republic;
2. (2) paved the way for better human relations; and
3. (3) improved the living conditions of all the people of the Republic.

At a time when election challenges are flying to and fro, it is a great pleasure to discuss the achievements of the NP here, a party that can fight elections and that can win elections. It is high time that recognition be granted to the National Party in this House for good government over the course of 34 years and that appreciation be shown in particular for the great and constructive role played by the National Government over more than three decades in the constitutional ordering of South Africa.

Nowadays it is no longer the same party.

If the hon. member would only listen he would find that it is indeed the same party as always. [Interjections.] I want to go back a long way. After all, it is pleasant to page back in history a little. The most important reason why Gen. Hertzog founded the National Party was to make South Africa a free and independent country. Gen Hertzog was also father to the idea of “South Africa First”. That is why he was kicked out of the Cabinet. However, the idea of “South Africa first” continued to live and grow stronger. It was out of that that the policy of the National Party grew into what is still being implemented today. [Interjections.] When the private dispute across the floor has been settled, I shall attempt to continue with my speech.

Order!

The NP’s highest ideal was that South Africa should become independent in the constitutional and economic spheres. Laboriously and in the course of many years the NP strove to achieve the ideal of constitutional and economic independence. Step by step the foundations were laid for the edifice of the Republic of South Africa. Our own flag, sovereign independence, South African citizenship, our own national anthem and withdrawal from the Commonwealth were all milestones along the road to political liberation. These were milestones that were not easily achieved, because every step met with bitter resistance from the Opposition. In achieving these things there was little or no help from the Opposition. The then official Opposition, the old United Party, stolidly fought all ideological legislation. This is something one can only smile sadly about today when one recalls with regret how the United Party thereby dug its own grave. Next to us here is the NRP, the once mighty governing party of Gen. Smuts. This party has been reduced to a small group of nice fellows. The most ironic but nevertheless the best thing that could have happened is the fact that the old United Party, that fought the Republic tooth and nail, eventually accepted the Republic. In fact, that party even changed its name to the New Republic Party. Today the NRP sits close to us and they stand close to us, too. We welcome that.

Have we moved or have you?

The hon. member has moved far closer to us and we welcome it. The creation of a republic was the biggest benefit the NP has conferred on South Africa. It united the language groups into one common loyalty and opened up new horizons of growth and development to our country.

I should like to begin at the beginning. When the NP came to power in 1948 it inherited a well and truly scrambled egg. It was a country in which people and borders were rapidly becoming undefined, and order was lacking. We all remember the disorderly Black nests in our cities. The National Government had to take rapid and drastic action to call a halt and create order, and its greatest task was the constitutional ordering of the Black peoples of South Africa. From the outset the NP perceived the reality of the existence of different peoples in South Africa and consistently adopted the standpoint that the things the Whites demanded for themselves they could not begrudge the Black peoples in South Africa in their own area. The policy of separate freedoms rests on the idea that each nation must govern itself in its own ethnic context, that it must carve out its own future and cherish and develop its own national pride. Four Black peoples have already been liberated by the National Government, and all the other Black States in this country have self-government and the option to become independent as well. Since 1948 the National Government has spent the vast sum of almost R8 500 million on the development of the national States. [Interjections.] What a good investment that has been! What a good deed that was! [Interjections.]

When one speaks to the leaders of these independent Black States, one sees that they are full of pride at their freedom, their autonomy … [Interjections.] … and all those things that have already been achieved in their States. That hon. member at the black is laughing, but he must just go and look …

I have been to look.

However, he was blind when he went there. [Interjections.] As in the case of the process whereby South Africa became a Republic, it will not be possible to avert or undo the independence of South Africa’s Black peoples. When one asks Black leaders whether they want to go back to the period before independence, the say: Never, never! They also refer with great pride to what they have achieved, to what has already been achieved in their countries. [Interjections.] All that still remains is that these States must be made more viable. The greatest service industrialists or people with capital, here and overseas, can do South Africa is to invest their money in these up-and-coming national States so that these States can be made more viable.

Therefore it is extremely encouraging that the Government’s decentralization benefits have elicited so much interest, even from abroad. 355 applications for these decentralization benefits were approved in the calendar year 1981. This represents an amount of R900 million, and it is expected that this amount will make it possible to create approximately 28 000 employment opportunities. A further 559 applications have been received, representing an investment of more than R800 million. Once this has been realized, it will create employment for more than 45 000 people. After all, this is an ambitious plan which deserves everyone’s support. This is an achievement of the NP. Clearly this must give tremendous impetus to the plan to make the Black States more viable. We in this country are rapidly approaching the point at which the Black peoples of South Africa will also be grateful to and appreciative of the NP for having enabled them to develop into self-respecting nations.

Last year, on a parliamentary tour abroad, we were asked everywhere why the Black people of South Africa were being excluded from the constitutional processes.

Did you have any answers?

We had the answers. The hon. member is getting them now. After all, Sir, that is not true. The fact is that Black constitutional development is one of the Government’s top priorities. In fact, the Black people have progressed further along the road of constitutional development than the Coloureds and the Indians. Moreover, we told our foreign friends this.

As far as the Black people are concerned, the Government will continue with its policy of establishing national States for all the ethnic groups and creating structures for the Black people outside the national States whereby they can exercise the maximum power in relation to their own affairs. However, there must be no false expectations with regard to one thing: The Government does not intend to enter into compromises concerning a fourth parliamentary chamber for Black people. Black nations are not a unitary political group as the PFP would like to regard them. Black people consist of various nations with their own political power bases. The inclusion of Black people in the Parliament of South Africa would be a negation of multinationalism and would undermine the historic process of ethnic diversity. In this process, minorities, whose cause is so often pleaded in this House, would go under, and together with those minorities the Whites, who are the bearers of Christian values in this country, would also go under.

It will not be permitted that a fourth chamber be established here, but this does not mean that the Blacks will be excluded from the process of reform. The NP can be trusted to work out a structure or structures for the so-called urban Black man as well, to enable him to have a say at the highest level concerning matters affecting him. However, it is still the Government’s standpoint that whatever is done, the highest form of self-determination for the Black nations is the achievement of independence in their own territory. There can be no departure from that.

The people of South Africa, of all colours, owe a profound debt of thanks to the NP which, as an intellectual giant, as the guiding force, in this Southern Africa with its many conflicts, has placed South Africa firmly on the road of constitutional ordering, of peaceful co-existence and of greater prosperity for all. The 35 years of NP rule will one day be known as South Africa’s golden years.

Sir, if you ask me now what the seven greatest achievements of the NP have been over the past 35 years, I should like to sum them up as follows…

The seven wonders of the world!

Yes, that is true. The hon. member is right. The NP has achieved wonders in this country. The first wonder it achieved was to create this flourishing Republic that is recognized by all. The second wonder was the liberation of the Black people of South Africa. The third wonder will be the new dispensation for Coloureds and Indians which the Government is at present giving effect to. Another major achievement is the stabilizing role played in South Africa by virtue of its strong economy and sound infrastructure—not a destabilizing role, as we are falsely accused of playing, but a stabilizing role. Another achievement is the strengthening of South Africa’s national defence, our proud Defence Force. Then there are the good relations which the Government is promoting among the heterogeneous groups of the Republic with a view to positive co-operation. The seventh achievement of the National Party is the way in which it has improved the standard of living and the quality of life of all the communities in this country. We could discuss that for hours. It is an impressive list and there are several more that could be mentioned.

I now want to deal with the constitutional plan. The NP has been deliberating and working for years on a plan that will also accommodate the political aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians. At the great federal congress of the NP in Bloemfontein last year the hon. the Prime Minister submitted a master plan. In that way a dynamic and irreversible movement got under way, a movement towards a new political system in which all South Africa’s people will ultimately take their rightful place. The constitutional road along which this Government is taking South Africa …

What did the Free State congress decide in 1977?

The hon. member would do well to go and look it up. At that time he was still with us. In the meantime, however, his memory has become confused. What the hon. the Prime Minister announced at that congress was a unique model which will not be encountered in any textbook, but which seems to be eminently suited to a country of minorities and of diversity like South Africa. It is a plan that can and will work. It is a plan whereby the Whites will be able to maintain their self-determination in this country while also enabling other national groups to achieve self-determination concerning their own affairs. The radicals of the right, the HNP and the CP, reject the plan. [Interjections.] The radicals of the left, too, reject the plan. One advocates permanent baasskap whereas the other contends that summary White surrender is the solution. The NP does not accept either of these two ideas. This important reform may be entrusted to the NP because it seeks to achieve it by way of the realistic method of peaceful development. After the Government’s constitutional plan was announced, there was wide acceptance of it and the Government succeeded in cultivating favourable attitudes and goodwill. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development played an exceptional role in this regard and did a tremendous job to bring about goodwill and acceptance among those involved. We and South Africa owe him a profound debt of thanks. We say to the hon. the Minister: Go on with the good work.

Now, however, there are White leaders who are harming the goodwill that is being created by way of ill-considered and provocative statements. This is being done by people who are trying to bedevil this attitude. They are committing a crime against South Africa. There is a ferment in progress in Coloured politics at the moment, and the Whites must refrain from interfering. The Brown people must be afforded the opportunity to settle matters among themselves. What is happening in Brown politics at the moment is in a certain sense only a repetition of what has happened in White politics. After all, we know how turbulent White politics were in this country in earlier years.

We must appeal to the Whites to count their words when they speak about the Coloureds. They must refrain from alienation and insult. We must also call upon hon. members in this House to refrain from doing so. Stumbling blocks must not be placed in the way of this new dispensation. The last hurdle is still ahead. To the official Opposition we want to say: Please do not be so negative. Come and help us, because we are engaged in an exciting exercise. The NP Government has progressed so far with the political ordering of South Africa. It has been a laborious and uphill struggle, because a great deal of opposition has been encountered, and little or no help received, from the Opposition and others. After all, the Opposition, as they sit here now, have had no share in this great constitutional process which the NP has initiated in South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP had to walk this road virtually alone. And all the hon. members of the Opposition are still sitting here today with just as negative a spirit as always. [Interjections.]

If the NP is not accorded recognition for what it has achieved with regard to the constitutional ordering of South Africa, then history itself will one day recognize this party’s far-sightedness and wisdom in placing South Africa on this particular stable constitutional road. Time will tell that the NP was right in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, firstly, to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for the calm and composed way in which he put his case. I believe that private motions of this nature afford the House the opportunity to reflect in a calm way on important matters, particularly when they do not go hand in hand with the heat of the normal party-political debates. I therefore want to try to reply in the same spirit, to approach the matter just as calmly as the hon. member for Bloemfontein North did.

Naturally the hon. member surely cannot expect me to be in accord with and to agree with all the statements he made. Consequently I now want to move an amendment to the motion of the hon. member, as follows—

1. (1) the Government’s inability to combat inflation effectively;
2. (2) the Government’s unwillingness to remove all statutory discrimination;
3. (3) the procedure adopted by the Government in creating a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa; and
4. (4) the exclusion of Blacks from participation in the proposed constitutional dispensation.”.

Mr. Speaker, I want …

Oh please, that last point has really become completely hackneyed.

Nevertheless, I am still going to refer to it. If the hon. member for Witbank would do me the favour of listening to me, we could perhaps have a meaningful discussion of this matter. [Interjections.] I want to comment on one particular aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. The hon. member intimated—and I assume that he included the PFP—that there had been attempts on the part of the Opposition, and still were, to influence the attitude of the Coloureds in respect of the constitutional proposals of the Government. I now want to challenge anyone in this House, in all humility, to produce even the slightest proof that the PFP at any time …

… boycotted.

… at any time exerted pressure on or tried to influence the Labour Party or anyone for that matter, to adopt a particular attitude towards the Government’s proposals.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me whether I should therefore deduce that individual members of the PFP did not try to propagate a particular decision among members of the Labour Party.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, no individual member of the PFP … [Interjections.] I am simply trying to reply to the hon. the Minister’s question. As far as I am aware, no individual member of the PFP tried to do anything like that. However, if the hon. the Minister knows about members of the PFP who did do that, I will be glad if he would inform the House about it. I say in all honesty that I do not know of any such person. [Interjections.] I also want to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein North that there are certainly many things which have been done by the NP since 1948 that contributed to the country’s welfare. However, he went too far when he spoke about all the ideological steps taken by the NP, because during that time the NP took steps for ideological reasons which today the hon. member himself rejects. We need only think about all the petty apartheid, etc., which, seen in retrospect, was silly to have done. That is why I say that if we take stock of actions of that kind, we cannot say in all honesty that it was a record which was commendable in all respects. However, we are of course grateful that a change has occurred.

In pursuance of my proposed amendment, I should now like to come back to a few aspects of the present constitutional dispensation. Actually I had expected the hon. member to have had more to say about the present framework and less about the past. I want to come back to one of our problems of principle concerning the present constitutional dispensation. I say this with reference to an interjection which was recently made by the hon. member for Witbank. I am referring here to the question of the exclusion of Blacks. In this regard I want to state our fundamental premises. Firstly, it will not benefit us if we are able to arrive at an accommodation with whoever it may be in this country and that accommodation excludes Blacks. The basic conflict in South Africa— and I think all hon. members will agree with me on this—lies in the problem of Black/ non-Black or Black/White relations.

It also lies between Black and Black.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is perfectly correct. [Interjections.] However, it is an evasion of the principle.

Yes, but it is fundamental.

I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would give me the opportunity to put my case. This is the fundamental question confronting us in this country. It is no use trying to run away from it. I say that no matter how important it may be to us to reach an acceptable compromise with the Coloureds and the Indians, if we cannot find an acceptable accommodation with the Blacks, we would not, in essence, have solved anything as far as the future of this country is concerned. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government and that side of the House that we accept it as a fact and that we then try to think soberly about what we can do to find that accommodation with Blacks in South Africa.

Did the hon. member take cognizance of the Cabinet Committee?

I shall come to that later. I am referring specifically to those Blacks who are a permanent part of our population structure and who will remain here permanently. They are the people who primarily have and claim the right to take part in our political participation process.

We have never said that Blacks were in all respects excluded from the constitutional negotiating process. When we have regard to the negotiations which the Government has held to bring about independence for the four States, and what that involved, such a standpoint would not have been correct. What we did say, and this is in fact perfectly true, was that as a result of this constitutional dispensation which the Government had now accepted as its dispensation, the Blacks were being completely excluded. That dispensation makes provision for a Parliament consisting of three separate chambers and the Blacks are not involved in it. The Blacks are not included in this dispensation. However, decisions are being made about them.

With reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, I also want to say that that it was initially said—not by the hon. the Minister; I do not want to charge him with it, but certainly by NP supporters as well as hon. members of this House: This is a starting point, the fact that Coloureds and Indians will now be involved in Parliament. They also say that the actual intention is that Blacks will also be involved in it later. This has been said.

The hon. member is really a stagnated, dyed-in-the-wool United Party supporter. [Interjections.]

I am glad that that matter has finally been quashed now. The hon. the Minister said it the other day and the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has also said it now. There is, therefore, no possibility of a fourth chamber, one for the Blacks, in the new dispensation. I am glad that at least we have clarity about that. Therefore, as regards this constitutional dispensation, it is not a starting point if one thinks about the possibility of the inclusion of Blacks. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us then try to establish what it is all about. What are the reasons that are advanced as to why Blacks should be excluded from a constitutional dispensation? The first reasons is, as was indicated by the hon. member, as was indicated by the hon. Minister and as was indicated in the official documents of the NP, that Blacks have followed a different constitutional process. That process involves the development (a) of independent Black States; (b) of self-governing national States; (c) of a large measure of local self-government for Blacks in the so-called White areas; and (d) the possible inclusion of those Black local authorities in a constellation, either via the homelands or via whatever other channel, for the satisfaction of their political aspirations.

I want to make it very clear that if political rights are to mean anything to anyone at all, those political rights must be meaningful in terms of the ability of the political instruments to influence the circumstances of life of those people; in other words, to help determine their future destinies.

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

Sir, my time is very limited.

It is a very serious question.

If I have the time later, I will allow a question.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must resume his seat.

The hon. member is trying to interrupt my train of thought.

No, I wanted to ask a very good question.

I repeat: If political institutions are to be of any significance to any group of people, those political institutions must be able to influence, to touch the lives of those people meaningfully.

There is no way in which representation of the people permanently outside the homelands via the homelands, or via the independent States or via a form of constellation can serve as a means to that end, because it is this Parliament, whether it consists of one, two or three chambers, which will in the end determine the future and the fate of those people. There is no method whereby we can make provision for the political needs of those people through the creation of other or alternative mechanisms. Therefore, whatever the answer may be, we will have to find political mechanisms in which those people will be able to take part in the political decision-making process in that part of the country in which they are permanently resident.

There are two points in this connection which I wish to state very emphatically. There is no way in which the Whites would have been satisfied to exercise political rights merely at the local level, no matter how important those local rights were. There is no way in which it will be possible to satisfy any group, whether it be the Coloureds, the Indians or the Blacks, with a form of local government. A form of local government cannot provide an adequate answer for the political needs of any group. I want to make it very clear that we Whites would not have been satisfied if we had been told: Look, you now have all forms of rights at the local authority level. Consequently we must please forget about offering that as an answer.

I now come to the second point. It is being said—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as Chief Minister Buthelezi referred to this—that in the case of KwaZulu the Blacks already have self-government. Let me say at once that Chief Minister Buthelezi, and as far as I know the other homelanders, for example as Dr. Phatudi, as well, have consistently said that their acceptance of that self-government at that stage did not mean that they excluded themselves from the political system of South Africa. It does not detract from their insistence upon and their claim to taking part and to having a share in the political decision-making process for South Africa as a whole. I want to say in all humility that we must please not deceive ourselves by saying that because those people accepted self-government it means that it is fair—or that they will regard it as being fair—to exclude them from the central political decision-making process in South Africa.

As my hon. leader has pointed out, we welcome the appointment of the parliamentary Cabinet committee. I am sorry that they have once again made the same mistake of appointing a White committee, particularly a Cabinet committee, to consider this matter. I now want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. If it is really the intention that this Cabinet committee should also consider the old question of the future of Blacks in the political sphere, is it not then desirable that we must have a moratorium in respect of the constitutional dispensation on which the government is now engaged? I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. member about the problems we will be facing if we once again want to effect changes when this dispensation has already been accepted by Parliament and the tricarneral system is already functioning. I want to make an earnest appeal to all hon. members on that side of the House and suggest that since there is no deadly haste with this, they should wait a while until we can see what the report of the Cabinet committee comes up with.

The hon. the Minister for Constituional Develomment and Planning will forgive me if I say to him, with reference to the rationalization in respect of the exclusion of Blacks, that I am deeply concerned about the interpretations which can be attached to certain statements made in his speech last week to justify the exclusion of Blacks. I want to quote them to the House, because I am very concerned about impressions that may have been created in that speech, which could cause the same damage as the impressions which were created by irresponsible statements about Blacks which were made on other occasions in the House. I do not have to spell them out here, because the person involved is not present at the moment and I do not want to hold it against him in his absence. The hon. the Minister said— and I quote (Hansard, 2 February 1983, col. 212)—

He says that if we can lump all Blacks in Africa together—

I agree with the hon. the Minister on this score.

But surely it is a fact.

The Minister continued—

I want to make two comments on this. Firstly, in the light of the Government’s proposals and the tremendous powers which the State President will have, I cannot see how we can talk about a decentralization of power at that level. Secondly, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the traditional setup of Black communities there was indeed a tremendous degree of decentralization and democracy. It was only in the case of some Black tribes and nations that we observed the so-called tendency towards an enormous centralization of power. Measured merely against the Africa culture, this statement is therefore not correct. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

I must say that it is strange for the NP, which, in the first place, represents the Afrikaners, to talk about an objection to ethnic domination. I also want to say this: If we look at the new constitutional proposals and at the ratio of 4:2:1 which is being created, how can we say that we are getting away from ethnic domination? In all honesty, how can we say that? The hon. the Minister went on to say in his speech—

I do not know what the hon. the Minister means by that. Surely other groups further their own interests and we as Afrikaners are the last people who can say that we do not try to further our own interests. The impression could be formed from the hon. the Minister’s speech, where he talks about conflicting political cultures, that he ascribes racial elements to it.

You are making a malicious speech.

No, it is not. The possibility of a wrong interpretation exists because the hon. the Minister is trying to ascribe genetic characteristics here which do not exist.

That is a malicious interpretation of my speech.

No, it is not malicious. Once again however, I want to make an appeal for us to wait in toto until such time as clarity is reached about the road that has followed with our urban Blacks.

Mr. Speaker, in the politics of South Africa we have a situation which probably could not be regarded as remarkable, in which one group denies the realities of ethnicity whereas there is another group that seeks to divide ethnic differences and the handling of such differences, more or less into watertight compartments. We must recognize that in the situation in which we in South Africa find ourselves, neither of these two affords a solution for the problems of South Africa. However, let us fully recognize that ethnicity is a reality. It is a reality not only in South Africa but also internationally. In the Cape Times of today there is an article on Zimbabwe in which the following is mentioned—

This is only one minor aspect of what is now at issue. For how long has Black majority Government not been sought after in Zimbabwe? Now they have it, but the smaller tribe is feeling insecure. However, it is not only in Zimbabwe that that is the case. Nor is this solely due to ethnicity. The mere fact that differences are not recognized in the diversity of administration leads to problems. I refer to the problems between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. I refer to the problems between the Walloons and the Flemings in Belgium. I refer to the problems in Lebanon between the Christians and the Arabs.

And what about India?

I refer to the problems between the Jews and the Arabs in Israel, to the problems between the French and English-speaking people in Canada and the problems between the Turks and Greeks in Cyprus. In Africa there are innumerable examples. It is indeed a fact that ethnic differences must be taken into account in the administration of the country. However, at the same time they cannot be divided into absolute, watertight compartments because we are living in a community in which areas of contact occur in several spheres. These aspects must be taken into account.

According to the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North a constitutional ordering has taken place at the initiative of the NP Government. After all, it is a fact that this constitutional ordering has taken into account ethnic realities, and the areas of contact that exist in several spheres. In other words, we endeavour to eliminate the injustice brought about by the denial of ethnic realities. We are striving to eliminate the domination of majorities by minorities and of minorities by majorities in the constitutional ordering we are trying to achieve in South Africa.

It is a matter of the domination of large chambers by small chambers.

There is no domination of small chambers by large chambers. In the system that is envisaged, there is reasonable opportunity for responsible participation with regard to all group-specific matters, for reasonable participation …

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

No, I am not prepared to answer questions because my time is very limited. [Interjections.] There is reasonable opportunity for responsible participation when any group-specific interests are at issue. There is also reasonable opportunity of responsible participation in regard to those matters concerning which areas of contact exist, but at the same time this system of political ordering makes provision for the prevention of domination of minorities by majorities or even of majorities by minorities. This is inherent in a system which accords recognition to existing differences but which, at the same time, recognizes the need for fairness in the process of constitutional ordering.

And if the Indian chamber were to decide to abolish the Group Areas Act, what would happen then?

I shall go into that in more detail on another occasion. The argument advanced there is a fair one, and there is a very good reply to it, but I simply do not have sufficient time to react to that at the moment.

I particularly wish to give attention to certain aspects of the standards of living or levels of development that have improved over the past number of years under this NP Government. I think that all parties in this House will recognize that there has been a significant improvement in standards of living, in the real standards of living not only of the Whites, but also, and in particular, those of the Blacks, Indians and Coloureds in this country. I have before me figures which I obtained from one of the documents of the S.A. Foundation. They are figures indicating that the number of Blacks at school has increased significantly. I do not wish to refer to the total number attending school, but in 1951, 36,7% of Black children of schoolgoing age—viz., from 6 to 16 years—were at schools whereas in 1975 the figure was 75%; and that is not to mention the figure for 1983. Now, of course, the figure is considerably higher. What is also of special importance is that the number of pupils who go on to Matric—and in other words, achieve high standards—has increased from fewer than 500 in 1953 to 23 200 in 1979 and 43 200 in 1980. In other words, there has been virtually a 100% increase in one year, from 1979 to 1980. Thus, leaving aside the figures for 1981 and 1982, in one year there was virtually a 100% increase, from 23 000 to more than 43 000. Then, too, the number of Blacks undergoing adult education increased from 32 000 in 1978 to 64 000 in 1980. Again, this represents a 100% increase over a period of two years. Surely this represents an improvement and an achievement.

Let us consider employment opportunities and participation in and a say in negotiation concerning conditions of employment. Yesterday and the day before, the debate in this House was about a share that Blacks, Indians and Coloureds could have in negotiation concerning conditions of employment. This does not pose a threat to the working conditions of the Whites. The working conditions of the Whites are not jeopardized thereby. Here, however, there has been a tangible improvement.

I have already referred to education, but there has surely been a dramatic increase over the past five years—not to speak of the past 20 years—in income, in salaries and in income per capita. There has surely been a dramatic improvement in security in the field of housing for Blacks, Indians and Coloureds. If there is anything that contributes to improved human relations then surely it is the will of a Government to show goodwill to other groups, even though they differ politically. That will on the part of the Government has been demonstrated and proved by statistics and facts. There is the will to improve living conditions in all fields. This includes education, employment opportunities, income, health services, housing, community upliftment and also political security. However, human relations are not improving the political rights alone. It is far more important that the political rights be improved in such a way that at the same time security is afforded to all ethnic groups in South Africa. Accordingly we must strive to recognize the ethnicity without making of it an absolute. I am of the opinion that this Government has done a tremendous amount to bring this about. I refer to the political independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

I analysed the employment pattern of the citizens of Bophuthatswana and compared it with the employment pattern of other States in Africa and even in Europe. I wish to quote a few figures relating to the pattern of employment in agriculture, industry and the public services. In Malawi, for example, 86% of the citizens are employed in agriculture, whereas in Nigeria the figure is 56% and in Bophuthatswana, 56%. As far as industries are concerned, for Malawi the figure is 5%, for Nigeria 17% and for Bophuthatswana 16%. In the case of public services the figure for Malawi is 9%, for Nigeria 27% and for Bophuthatswana 28%. Surely this shows that Bophuthatswana compares favourably with Nigeria which, with its oil wealth, is one of the most developed countries in Black Africa. Surely this points to significant progress in a country which has become politically independent, but where the need for economic co-operation is recognized by way of the discussions and negotiations. However, provision has been made for political security for the Tswanas. That is what this Government has achieved, viz. an improvement in living conditions which has really contributed something positive to the upliftment of people. This is what lies at the root of the improvement in human relations, because the lack of security for ethnic minorities is being removed, and recognition of human dignity is being given effect to in every field. We are not people who make of ethnicity an absolute; nor are we people who believe in a unitary approach in the economy, in politics and in social living conditions. We believe in the recognition of the existing differences but in a spirit of basic goodwill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be referring to many of the remarks of the hon. member for Klip River during the course of my speech. I should like to comment now only on the point that he started and ended up with, i.e. the question of ethnicity although I do not intend to go into great detail on this.

The hon. member makes the point that ethnicity is a reality, and I think that everybody in South Africa will accept that. The hon. member then went on to say that ethnic differences must be taken into account, and by implication, if not directly, he said that this party, the PFP, does not do so. But the hon. member can look at our constitutional plan and particularly at the elements of minority veto and freedom of association, although he may not consider them to be adequate protection. Well, he is entitled to his own opinion. But I do not think the hon. member can suggest that provision has not been made to take into account ethnic groups that feel inclined to group together. I would also suggest that in terms of the policy of the hon. member’s party, in many instances the sort of argument that he has been putting forward today about ethnicity is in fact nothing more than a rationalization of racism. By no stretch of the imagination and by no reputable theory can a group such as the Coloureds be considered to be an ethnic group, distinct from the Whites. The difference between many Coloureds with a language and religion similar to those of the Whites is often less than the difference between Whites who speak different languages and have different religions and cultures. Therefore ethnicity is very often just a rationalization.

Are the Indians a different ethnic group?

Yes, of course! They have different cultures.

We are debating a motion today in which we are asked to express our appreciation to the Government after nearly 35 years of Nationalist rule. In the circumstances the present NP Government can obviously not put very much blame on the Governments that preceded them, other than the basic realities of South Africa. I would suggest that it is an occasion for mourning rather than for appreciation. We should be grieving for lost opportunities, about the increased racial polarization that exists in this country and the unnecessary poverty and suffering that have been caused as a result of it. It is obviously not surprising that a PFP MP has these views of the Government’s track record and its policies. But let us have a look at how a very prominent Nationalist sees the situation, and here I wish to refer to an address made at the 1982 Marketing Convention in Johannesburg by Mr. D. P. de Villiers, the managing director of Nasionale Pers. In it he referred to the last decade and some changed perceptions, and said—

Hardly a vote of confidence, Mr. Speaker. Nor is it a vote of appreciation of the NP.

Let us, however, have a look at what evidence there is in terms of constitutional ordering in the first instance. Let us look at the track record of the Government. As the situation is now, we have a defunct CRC. Nothing exists for the Coloureds although there are plans under way. We have meaningless political rights for the urban Blacks. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has referred to that at considerable length. Therefore I shall not elaborate. We also have a despised Indian Council. I think nothing illustrates the situation more graphically than the Government Gazette of 30 April 1982, when it reports that in a by-election in the electoral division of Fordsburg of the S.A. Indian Council, of the two candidates Mr. Daya received 57 votes, and Mr. Desai received 34 votes out of a total number of voters of 4 043; a 2,25% poll.

Very enthusiastic!

Very democratic, is it not?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs says it was very democratic. On that basis, of course, the hon. the Leader of the House has a chance to win the by-election in Soutpansberg if he can get 134 votes. [Interjections.] That is the laughable nature of it all. If we had an hon. member in this House, except possibly from Walvis Bay, who was elected on the strength of 134 votes, we would all think it was an absolute joke.

Now the NP is planning to impose unilaterally a new constitutional system in an attempt to get out of a constitutionally embarassing situation. Almost everyone agrees that we do need constitutional reform in South Africa. Why? Is it because the Whites do not have enough power? Of course not. The simple fact is that despite the Whites having all the formal political power they are unable to guarantee their own future security and prosperity. The reason for change being needed is the widespread and mounting discontent with Government policies, a discontent that is growing daily in our Black communities. Our problem is essentially one of minority White domination and race discrimination, and the proposals that are being put forward retain White domination and entrench race discrimination.

The most basic causes of the conflict in our society will remain entrenched in the proposed new dispensation, ostensibly aimed at resolving the very conflict that exists. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has referred again to Blacks. However, even if we look at the position of Coloureds and Asians, this new dispensation provides for no power sharing. It provides for institutionalized discussion and involvement but it does not provide for power sharing. It is unfortunately not even a new beginning. It is rather a desperate last attempt to keep as much of the discredited apartheid master plan alive as is possible.

In the second leg of the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North we are asked to express our appreciation of the Government for having paved the way towards better human relations. The hon. the Minister of Defence, at the Natal NP congress, also spoke about improved human relations. What did he have to say there? He said the following. He said that the country could face a revolution in the near future unless the needs and political aspirations of all population groups were met. Is that the sort of statement to make in a country with good human relations? However, is this surprising in a country which has laws which result in 85% of the people being discriminated against, where people daily meet with personal insults to their human dignity? We need only think in this regard of the school principal who had to write his examination in the kitchen. We need only think of the Cango caves …

The cave is open. The hon. member can come and crawl in if he wishes.

… in that hon. Deputy Minister’s constituency. Yes, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct. The caves are apparently now open. However, how long did it take for this to happen? How much harm did it not cause? We also think in this regard of the stories that we hear every now and again of ambulances being turned away because the patient was the wrong colour. This sort of thing happens every now and then, to our shame. [Interjections.] There is no point in hon. members on that side always saying: Oh, it was a mistake on the part of some or other official who did not use his judgement properly. I have no sympathy with that sort of statement. That is the way these people have been indoctrinated over a period of 30 years. It is the laws that are wrong. It is not just simply a question of the discretion exercised by some relatively junior official in some or other position.

Millions of people have been uprooted and forcibly removed, often in the process having their social and economic life chances destroyed. We shall be debating this matter much more deeply this afternoon. Families and communities have been split by race classification, group areas and influx control laws. The pass laws have put in jail some 13 million people since this Government came into power with the result that one-third of the prison population consists of people who are there because of laws that only apply to Black people. [Interjections.] This costs the country millions of rands every year while the human costs are incalculable. No wonder we have racial polarization and deteriorating human relations. No wonder the hon. the Minister of Defence talks of facing a revolution in the near future.

The next leg of the motion deals with the improved living conditions of all the people in the Republic. What does the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs have to say about this? On 7 May last year he had this to say in Potchefstroom—

This in the country that wishes to express its appreciation for the improved living conditions of all its people which are such that they are a fruitful basis for revolution!

The hon. member for Klip River today perpetuated the arguments of many of the members of the Government. They give us a list of all sorts of things that have been done and then say that they must be congratulated because so many things have been done and therefore the position must be improving. This is meaningless unless it is measured against the problems and the challenges facing us. It is no use saying how many people there are at school without taking into consideration the size of the population and what we have to achieve in order to bring about stability and prosperity in this country. The hon. member fell into the classic trap of mistaking activity for achievement. It is quite true that the real earnings of those in employment have increased but unfortunately that is only the attractive tip of a menacing iceberg. Government ideology and mismanagement have aggravated the problems of this country. Economic growth has been stifled and inflation has been rampant for nearly a decade.

Let us look at some of the ways in which economic growth has been stifled. Firstly, there was hopelessly inadequate investment in education and training for a period of 30 years. We all know that virtually all the booms in this country come to a halt because of the lack of skilled manpower. Even now, where we certainly have had advances in this area, because of our racist policies we have under-utilized facilities in many parts of the country such as empty White schools which are not made available to Coloureds. The same thing holds good for teacher-training colleges. Port Elizabeth is a good example of this. There is a magnificent facility there which is occupied to 25% or 30% of its capacity by Whites while the remainder is vacant because people of other races are not allowed to use that facility. Ideological controls over industries and people have resulted in gross inefficiencies. This has limited labour mobility, has placed reliance on migrant labour and the limited skills development arising from that and has forced limitations on expansion.

One of the results of this is of course the very poor growth in productivity which we have had. It is certainly not entirely the fault of the Government, but it played a major role. In the years 1972 to 1980 our growth was 0,3% per annum compared with, for instance, the very good example of Taiwan where it was 6,8%, which is really abnormally high. Even a country like the United Kingdom that has struggled economically achieved a productivity growth rate of 1,5% per annum over that period—something like five times the rate we achieved. Billions of rands have been wasted on impractical apartheid projects and duplication as well as endless and needless red-tape control on every aspect of people’s lives. This is expensive and stifling.

We must also look at rampant inflation. For nine years in succession it has exceeded 10%, something, when it first arose, that was considered a disaster. The value of the rand has almost halved in the last five years alone. Today one needs R190 to buy the same goods that cost one just R100 five years ago. South Africa’s international record in this respect is very poor. Last year our inflation rate ran at nearly double that of the average of the OECD countries. The Government itself has fuelled the inflationary furnace over the last decade by printing money to finance ideological schemes, by increasing Government expenditure faster than the rate of inflation, by aggravating the shortage of skilled manpower, by wasting billions of rands on apartheid projects and administration, by allowing the money supply to run out of control and by continually increasing controlled prices faster than the rate of inflation.

Today we have a very good example of that. We have increased postal tariffs. The Government wants the public and the private sector to believe it is serious about inflation, but what have they done? On standard letters, in one fell swoop they put up the price by 25%. On domestic telephone rentals there is an increase of 50%. This is the example the Government sets the private sector, but it expects us to believe it is really taking inflation seriously.

The result of this disastrous blend of apartheid policies and economic management is there for all to see. Unemployment is dangerously high, and many economists tell us that we are heading for more than 20% unemployed. Massive social and political implications will arise from this unemployment. Unemployment is estimated to have doubled during the past year.

Let us look at the plight of pensioners. White Social pensioners’ pensions have not kept pace over the last five years. Prices have gone up 90% and their pensions have only gone up 63%. There has been a continual eroding of the standard of living of our social pensioners and it has destroyed the security of many and even impaired the health of thousands. Let us consider a person who retired in 1975 at the age of 65. He is now approaching the age of 73. He has provided for his own retirement, but every rand of income which he had then, is now worth only 40 cents, and the chances are that he is unable to survive on his own. His security, independence and often his self respect have gone. Instead of enjoying a peaceful retirement he now sees himself as a burden on his family and friends. The position of other races is of course even worse. Their pensions vary from 36% to 60% of those of the Whites.

Let us look at health: Malnutrition is as widespread if not more widespread than ever. It is estimated that up to 8 million Black children suffer from malnutrition and that up to 30 000 per annum die from diseases arising from malnutrition. Yet we have a situation where White hospitals are underutilized while Black hospitals and wards are overutilized.

And yet we have the situation that millions of Blacks want to come to South Africa.

But not to Mossel Bay.

The number of hospital beds per thousand for example is as follows: Whites over six; Blacks just under four. The Blacks are the poorest and therefore they are the section which probably needs hospital beds the most. Slow growth in homelands and in the national States has been another result of Government policy. The gross domestic product per capita ranged from R46 to R85 in 1980, with Bophuthatswana being the exception at R159. These are the levels of poverty that we are talking about. More than 80% are not economically active.

We have problems in housing for the aged and for the Blacks. The Government ignored the problems and only recently were they prepared to consider site-and-service schemes. Therefore, due to all these reasons, there is wide-spread poverty and food prices in particular are examples of massive increases. For example, over five years brown bread went from 16c to 36c per loaf and milk from 27c to 57c per litre.

We need to reverse this deteriorating situation. We need trust to re-establish goodwill in this country. We need the removal of racial discrimination, a political settlement and economic growth. The words of the hon. Ministers that I have quoted are true. They are a massive indictment of NP policy and performance and they themselves are a negation of this motion. I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member Mr. Olivier.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of what the hon. member for Gardens has said, that is worthy of very serious consideration, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with everything he has said, particular as far as his remarks on the South African Indian Council is concerned. He referred to the South African Indian Council as being “the despised Indian Council”. He did not state who despises them and I must therefore assume that he despises them. Having worked with the Indian Council considerably over the years, I might not agree with a great deal of what they do or say, but I certainly do not despise them. In fact, I have considerable respect for them.

The other point that he made that I would like to touch upon, was that the new constitutional proposals do not constitute powersharing. Well, I rather wish that the hon. members of the PFP and the CP would get together on this and make up their minds whether it does or not, because they are confusing everybody else. As far as the motion before us is concerned, I most sincerely wish that I could support it. I shall tell you why I wish that I could support it.

[Inaudible.]

Why do you not shut your ruddy mouth!

The hon. nember must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it.

What I mean by saying that I wish I could suport the motion, is that it would mean that the constitutional proposals were satisfactory or at least acceptable to the majority of South Africans and that the majority of our citizens were satisfied with the progress in the matter of human relations between our various communities and that they had at least broken the back of the housing problem and reduced the cost of living in real terms. Sadly, this is not the case. I freely concede that in all three fields specifically mentioned, there has been progress and particularly recently, to a greater or lesser degree. However, I am afraid that there has been nowhere near enough progress to meet even the partial needs of a huge section of our population, and certainly not enough to justify the eulogies that the hon. members of the NP have heaped upon the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to take each item seriatim and explain why we in there benches consider this motion somewhat provocative, certainly insensitive and perhaps just a little ridiculous.

The first reason put forward expressing appreciation for the constitutional ordering of the Government does not ask for appreciation for the proposed constitutional changes. No, it talks about the “constitutional ordering” of the Government. No time factor is mentioned, but presumably it is from the time the Government came into power 34 years ago. I think anybody who is at all fair-minded about this will admit that the Government does deserve a little appreciation for its recent change of direction. That I accept. However, the Government had to make this change of direction because for 34 years it has been going in the wrong direction. As far as we are concerned the Government has put legislation on the Statute Book, which is part of the ordering of the Government, which is positively preposterous. The motion on the Order Paper makes no mention of this change in direction. If it had done so one might have been able to accept that part in principle.

I want to ask whether the hon. member—I think this is what he really meant—was rather frightened or ashamed to admit that the Government has changed direction and that the track we have been on has been the wrong one? I believe if we had not made change we would have been destroyed completely. The Government has made about a 95° turn, not a 180° turn. The Government has just stopped, turned slightly to the right and pulled back just a little bit, or perhaps gone to the left, politically speaking. We will not be able to express appreciation in respect of constitutional ordering until all the iniquities of the past have been righted and the non-homeland Blacks are given worthwhile political emancipation.

As far as reason number two of the hon. member’s motion is concerned, I believe he has a point. This is not to suggest that there is not considerable room for improvement but there has been progress in human relations, not only between Blacks, Browns and Whites but also between the Afrikaans-and English-speaking people. If the human relations between people of colour and the Whites had improved to the same degree as between Afrikaans and English-speakers over the past few years I would be very happy to express appreciation. This is another point where it appears that I disagree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens because he believes that there is a polarization between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. There have been great changes since the decades of the 50s, 60s and 70s when such derogatory terms as “Kaffirs”, “Coolies” and “houtkop” were the norm, where Whites were almost banned from shaking a Black hand, where Government officials were forebidden to attend official diplomatic receptions if non-Whites were present and where the only concept of consultation was in telling non-Whites what the future held for them, their opinions being of no consequence. Yes, there has been change in the field of human relations but there are still far too many Whites in South Africa who do not only regard citizens of colour as being different but also as being inferior. A few members of the Government have recently made public statements on this matter explaining that difference does not ipso facto mean inferiority. In passing I would like to suggest that we Whites—by that I mean all of us of all political persuasions and not merely the Government—must learn this lesson and remember it well.

The third reason in the hon. member’s motion must be about as cynical a reason for appreciation as I have ever heard. The motion talks of “improved living conditions of all the people of the Republic”. Would the pensioner who is terrified of losing the roof over his head agree because of the situation in housing? Would the housewife who has to feed a hungry family with rands worth less than half of what they were only five years ago agree? Would those people desperate for real homes, which are just not available, who have been thrown out of the only home they have, a miserable shack, agree? No, they would not agree. I will admit that the spoken intentions of the Government may be of the best, and if committees and commissions of inquiry are the measure of a caring Government then we must probably have the most caring Government in the world! Regrettably we are not even within sighting distance of solving our housing problems in South Africa, and as adequate housing is irrefutably the only base upon which good living conditions can flourish, I find it impossible to appreciate this gross cynicism.

It is accepted that in all three matters referred to in this motion there has been some progress, but in the first it is inadequate, in the second improved attitudes are needed and in the third too few have benefitted, and far too many have retrogressed, in their living standards, to justify such an unfortunate motion.

Mr. Speaker, before the 1981 general election the NP published an election manifesto. This was the manifesto that was signed by the hon. member for Waterberg, among others, and in which his picture also appeared.

And read us clause 4.

In it, the NP published a programme of principles on which it would fight the election. These are the principles which have subsequently been abandoned by the hon. member for Waterberg and the other hon. members of the CP. However, that is a debate for another day.

No. Deal with it now.

In this manifesto, it was clearly stated that support for the NP would amount to a mandate being given to the party—and then to the Government—firstly, to ensure South Africa’s security, secondly, to persevere in its efforts to bring prosperity to all in South Africa, and, thirdly, to work for the maintenance of self-determination of each nation and freedom for all of them in South Africa. In the 1981 election, the NP was voted into power to bring about freedom, security and prosperity for the people of South Africa.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer silly questions. [Interjections.] Freedom, security and prosperity are indispensable prerequisites for improving the circumstances of life of the people of South Africa. Because of the admirable way in which the Government has perpetuated and promoted freedom, security and prosperity, I very gladly support this motion which is before the House.

And to think he was one of us verkramptes!

The freedom and security of the people of the Republic of South Africa are being threatened by Russian imperialism. [Interjections.] It is the self-confessed and generally accepted goal of Soviet Russia to dominate the word. What is disturbing in this connection is that since 1917, the Marxists have never set themselves an objective anywhere in the world which they have not eventually achieved, or which they have not persevered in trying to achieve. In other words, nowhere in the world have imperialist Marxists set themselves a goal which they have subsequently abandoned or deviated from. A free Republic of South Africa is a troublesome obstacle in the way of Russian imperialism, because of the strategic position of the Republic, the strategic raw materials it possesses, the economic and military strength of the Republic and several other factors. [Interjections.] It would be more than naïve to believe that the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa will sooner or later be called off or abandoned. The effective implementation of an efficacious counter-strategy is essential, therefore, to ensure the freedom and security of the people of the Republic of South Africa and to ensure and be able to improve their already favourable circumstances of life.

Tell us about the spy from Mossel Bay.

In spite of this total onslaught on the Republic, the Government has succeeded, by means of the South African security forces, in preserving intact the territory of the Republic of South Africa, and in protecting all the people of the Republic— this applies to all the people, including the hon. members of the CP who jeer when these things are said—against hostile attacks. The borders of South West Africa have been successfully defended and the hostile forces have been confined to the other side of the border, which is a unique achievement in the unconventional warfare of modern times. In this way, the Government has succeeded in keeping open the Republic’s left flank in Africa.

The Government has also succeeded in maintaining law and order inside the country, with the assistance of the South Africa security forces, in spite of the most vehement criticism that has been and is still being, hurled across the floor of this House, inter alia, against the Government’s actions in this connection. Internal terrorism has been and is still being combated effectively.

The Government has also succeeded in preserving the moral and spiritual resilience of the people of the Republic. This is important, for the total onslaught on our country cannot be successfully countered without a total commitment to this goal. It is of great significance, therefore, that the Government has been able to utilize this total commitment of all the population groups of the Republic in order to combat the onslaught, successfully.

The Government has also succeeded in increasing the prosperity of the people of the Republic of South Africa—of all the people of the Republic of South Africa. It is a part of the reality of South Africa that it is not possible to bring about prosperity for one group of people in this country at the expense of any other group of people in the country. Either we are all going to prosper in this country or we shall all be plunged into misery. This is a reality of South Africa which some people apparently do not want to accept.

As far as the South African economy is concerned, I just want to refer to certain remarks that were made here this morning. It is sometimes cynically suggested that the South African economy is strong in spite of the Government. But what are the facts? The facts are that no economy anywhere in the world can prosper without the necessary infrastructure of facilities and services, which has to be provided by the Government, without fiscal and monetary measures, without the maintenance of law and order and without a climate of confidence. Directly or indirectly, these factors are all closely bound up with Government action. This has just been very clearly demonstrated during the past week in the measures taken by the Treasury and the reaction to those measures. This showed very clearly how sensitive the economy is to measures taken by the Government. Therefore it is nonsensical to suggest that the achievements of the South African economy in recent years would have been possible without positive inputs by the Government.

Of the Government’s achievements in the economic sphere, I shall mention only the positive growth rate that has been maintained. There have been derogatory references to the low growth rate of the past year, but there have also been years when the growth rate has been among the highest in the world. Growth rates are not constant factors. They fluctuate. However, when one takes the average, the South African growth rates in recent years are still among the highest in the developed world.

I also refer to the low unemployment rate and the high rate of employment. Some hon. members seem to think that these things come about spontaneously or can be taken for granted, without realizing that a price has to be paid for them. One of the prices, unfortunately, is the unacceptably high inflation rate we are struggling with. In their arguments, hon. members want to eat their cake and have it. They want the best of both worlds. It does not work that way anywhere in the world, including South Africa. To blame the Government for that, however, is either wilfulness or ignorance, or both.

In the constitutional field, too, the Government has been responsible for great achievements recently. Time does not allow me to mention them all, but I just want to point out that those achievements are not in respect of one sector of the population of South Africa only; they are in respect of all the population groups of South Africa, including the Blacks. The hon. member Prof. Olivier made a great fuss in this House about the political rights of Black people and said at the end of his speech; Let us wait and see what is produced by the Cabinet Committee that has been announced. But his whole speech ran counter to this appeal which he made. This proves the prejudiced attitude of hon. members of the official Opposition. They are rejecting in advance any positive steps that may be taken in respect of the constitutional development of Black people.

Since my time has run out, I shall conclude by saying that I gladly support the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the motion moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, I want to ask you to allow me just to voice a few thoughts. It is exactly two weeks ago today that Parliament was officially opened. During these two weeks I have often sat here in my bench with a feeling of nostalgia as I realized—as many other hon. members have probably realized—that this session of Parliament may quite possibly be the last session of a sovereign, independent White Parliament in Africa. [Interjections.] Because this has not quite come home to us yet, I just want to point out that when one finds oneself in the midst of historical developments, when one is making history, one is so involved in it that one does not always realize what it means. Therefore history is to a large extent like good wine—the older it gets, the better. Years after this session of Parliament—if this in fact happens—history will point out quite rightly that this was the last session of a pure, sovereign White Parliament in Africa. [Interjections.] My thoughts go back a very long way today. I am thinking of 331 years ago, when Jan van Riebeeck came ashore here at the Cape of Good Hope in quite a modest fashion with his three small ships. This was the beginning of a White form of Government here at the Southern tip of Africa. Subsequently other White nations came here and planted their flags in other parts of Africa. However, they were colonists. They were like the tumbleweeds of Africa. When the storms became too fierce, they were blown away. Their roots did not go very deep.

However, the form of government that was established here, which was brought here by Jan van Riebeeck and subsequently strengthened by the arrival of the French Huguenots, the British settlers and others, was not like the waving grass of Africa. It was like the oak trees which Simon van der Stel planted here in the Boland. Its roots went very, very deep. Those roots grew and penetrated to the heart of this land, and bore the fruit of self-determination and White sovereignty. I am vere grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has given us the opportunity of discussing this matter in this House today. It also enables me to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) has deviated from the direction of all previous governments since 1948;
2. (2) rejects separate development and accepts integration;
3. (3) wants to substitute mixed government for self-determination for all peoples and ethnic groups and in that very way—
   1. (a) frustrates constitutional ordering;
   2. (b) promotes tension among various population groups; and
   3. (c) destroys the opportunity for the greater socio-economic upliftment and development of certain members of the population.”.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to make my contribution to the discussion of the motion which is before the House. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein North speaks of constitutional ordering, I want to point out one or two aspects in this connection. Here in my hand I have a newspaper report concerning the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. In this report the hon. member speaks of the new NP. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to the achievements of the NP in the past, he should actually have said that he was talking about the achievements the NP as it used to be, because hon. members opposite now belong to a new NP. [Interjections.] Why have they become the new NP? According to Hansard, the hon. the Prime Minister said (4 March 1968, Col. 1508)—

Those were the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha.

Now we come to the new dispensation, concerning which I had thought the speakers would enlighten us today. Now I shall have to take it upon me, as a member of the Opposition, to try to enlighten them with regard to the new dispensation, on the basis of the information I have had to obtain from various sources. It concerns the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds. The Coloureds recently held their Labour Party congress, and that congress adopted the following resolution—

1. (a) die groot meerderheid Suid-Afrikaners uitgesluit word;
2. (b) dit nie aan die vereistes van ons party en ons tyd voldoen nie;
3. (c) etnisiteit daarin verskans is.

This is the resolution which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs have applauded. It is a threat. They invite these people for talks. I say this is a blatant threat. When 22 NP colleagues of those two hon. Ministers demanded the right on 24 February 1982, to disagree about principles and party policy, we were not allowed to have our say. We had to vote, and when we had voted, we were thrown out. [Interjections.] However, those hon. Ministers invite people who have given them advance notice at a congress that they are coming to fight, that they do not accept ethnicity. They say they are going to demand one man, one vote. Those are the people with whom those two hon. Ministers want to co-operate. [Interjections.] Just look at this headline: “Arbeidersparty: Nee vir die riglyne van die Regering”. This is the success that has been achieved, the progress that has been made. Here is another one: “Arbeiders is nou Nasionale Party se Opposisie”. These are the people who have to negotiate with them about the future of the White people, the Brown people, the Yellow people and the Black people of South Africa.

There have also been references to constitutional ordering in this House today. What is happening? I want to say this today: The Government has caused a very great deal of friction since it began to espouse the policy of power-sharing. It has caused friction and division in the ranks of the Afrikaners and the Whites such as this nation and this country have never known.

Schismatics!

There is division in the ranks of the Coloured people. What have those hon. members caused in the ranks of the Coloured people? The Coloured people cannot hold meetings any more. Look at this headline: “Alle vergaderings afgelas in die Skiereiland.” In the Transvaal, all the Coloured meetings are being violently broken up and White policemen have to intervene to maintain order. The Government has caused tension in the ranks of the Coloureds. Among the Blacks the effect of the Government’s actions has been that Blacks who have always identified themselves with specific ethnic groups are now joining forces and saying: This matter has been aggravated by the Government because the Government has involved the Coloured people and the Indians, but we Blacks are being excluded. So they are ready to form a bloc. This is the tension which the Government has created with its new constitutional proposals.

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for lunch, I was saying that the Labour Party had passed a resolution at their congress which in my opinion amounted to blatant blackmail of the Government. In spite of that, the Government accepted it joyfully and said how pleased they were with it. I shall read just one or two sentences—

If one is negotiating with people and they utter a threat like this, what has become of one’s pride, what has become of one’s self-respect? [Interjections.]

Three years ago, it was said of none other than the hon. the Prime Minister—

Can I be blamed for asking myself: What has become of our political depth in South Africa today if the things one said in all seriousness three or four years ago no longer carry any weight today and are no longer adhered to?

I come now to the policy guidelines as spelt out by the Government in this publication. I am somewhat colour-blind, so I cannot quite identify the colours. [Interjections.] I cannot say whose colours appear on the cover of the publication.

Prog colours.

In this booklet, questions are asked and replies are given. The first question and reply are as follows, but before reading them, I want to say in passing that with this booklet in the hands of our recruiters, we are going to take the world of Hans Strijdom, the Waterberg, by storm and return the leader of the CP to Parliament, for everything it says in this booklet is what Hans Strijdom fought against all his life. [Interjections.] Everything it says here runs counter to the idealism of Hans Strijdom, and that is why we shall rout the NP in Waterberg with the aid of this propaganda.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time; I am sorry. [Interjections.]

Order!

The booklet provides the questions. The first question and reply are as follows—

I have a staunch Nationalist in my constituency, a man called Oom Dawid. Oom Dawid is one of the few people who did not come over to the CP with me on 24 February, but we have remained good friends. Oom Dawid has consistently told me: Willie, PW will not appoint Coloureds to the Cabinet; he will not do that. He will not sell us down the river. Those were his words. During the Parys by-election, National Party MPs gave him the assurance that Coloureds would not be appointed to the Cabinet. When I got this pamphlet, I went to Oom Dawid and I showed it to him. I read him the question and reply—

Oom Dawid looked at it and told me: Willie, I find myself in a terrible quandary. I asked him why. He said: “I have taken an oath.” He said that in all seriousness.

You should have told Oom Dawid that in 1977.

He said: “I have taken an oath that if I ever resign from the NP, I shall cut off my right hand.” Then I said: “Oom Dawid, there is only one favour I want to ask you: When it comes to the NP, please do not put your other hand at risk as well.”

The next question in the pamphlet reads—

The reply is—

A further question reads—

The reply is “Yes”, like an afterthought: The Whites will also have a chamber. [Interjections.] That is what we have come to in White politics in South Africa.

Another question is—

The reply is—

… “Some of their members”. Why are the numbers not mentioned? For whose benefit are the numbers omitted? Is it for the benefit of the Coloureds, the Indians or the Whites? Another question is—

The reply to that is—

[Interjections.] If life and Providence are kind to me, I shall be a man of 70 in 15 years’ time. In 50 years’ time, quite possibly in my lifetime, the Coloureds and Indians will outnumber the Whites. How will the President be elected then and what President will be elected then?

I come to the last question—

The reply to that is—

The policy of separate development of the old NP and the policy of the CP has never been a policy of injustice to others. It is a policy of doing justice to each group in its own sphere.

I have here in my hand a sketch published by the NP in order to explain the functioning of the committee system in the proposed Parliament. The work is going to be done by means of committees. Let us examine the Committee on Public Accounts, for example. At the moment it consists of 18 members. Of the 18 members, 12 belong to the NP, three to the PFP, one to the NRP and two to the CP. In terms of the NP’s formula of 4:2:1, it seems logical to me that the Coloureds and Indians will also be represented on this committee in the ratio of 4:2:1, i.e. nine members for the Coloureds and four for the Indians. Together with the PFP’s three, that would give a total of 16. The PFP is practically governing already! [Interjections.] Together with the Coloureds and Indians, the PFP has the support of 16 members, while the NP has only 12 members. The PFP can start governing very soon. The same applies to all the other committees.

Let us examine the position of the Constitutional Committee. The important Constitutional Committee consists of 20 members. The NP has 14 members, the PFP three, the NRP one and the CP two. The Coloureds should then have ten and the Indians should have five members on this committee. The Coloureds and Indians together will be 15, and if that is added to the three members of the PFP, it brings their total to 18, as against the 14 members of the NP. So the PFP is going to take over the Government in no time at all. Therefore the PFP should be supporting these proposals. Our policy of selfdetermination emphasizes the cherishing of one’s own heritage, the desire to preserve those things that form part of one’s own way of life. Where I farm, I have two neighbours on either side of me. One is a very rich man. He is a respected man, a man who is highly thought of, and I respect him, but I do not allow him to come and tell me what to do on my own farm. [Interjections.] The other one is a young farmer who is just starting out. I respect him too, but he will not come and tell me how to farm either. However, when he needs help, I shall offer him my assistance. That is what the policy of separate development means. [Interjections.] It is a policy of the Whites in their own area, the Coloureds in their own area, the Indians in their own area, and when it is necessary, we shall assist one another. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that when the hon. member for Bloemfontein North gave notice of his motion for discussion in this House, I entertained the vain hope that the proposal would afford us an opportunity to discuss the subject more critically and clinically, that we would be able to debate the alternatives if we were opposed to the Government’s policy. I want to say with great respect that I have listened to the hon. members on the other side and come to the conclusion that the discussion has really become an exercise in futility. [Interjection.] I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Meyerton at a later stage, if there is time, but I just want to remind him that he gave notice last year of a motion which he was to have moved in this House, but which he subsequently withdrew for personal reasons. [Interjections.] I did not interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member’s motion read as follows—

But that was before you changed.

Yes, before they became Progs.

Order!

I should just like to refer briefly to the constitutional processes which the hon. member for Meyerton mentioned so approvingly in his motion at that time. These were the 1977 proposals which were then the policy of his party’s supporters… [Interjections.] These are the facts, and I just want to refer to them briefly. [Interjections.] According to him, a friend of his said that if the NP’s proposals meant that a Coloured or an Asian could become a member of the Cabinet, he would cut off his hands. However, he either accepted Mr. Vorster’s leadership in 1977 or he did not. [Interjections.] If he did not, he was being politically dishonest. [Interjections.]

Order!

In 1978 the hon. members debated the 1977 proposals in this House. That is the fact of the matter. What happened then, however? In reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Vorster said that the legislation which was to be introduced to give effect to these proposals would not contain a provision in terms of which the President of the country would have to be a White or a Coloured or an Asian.

There were to have been three parliaments.

In other words, that hon. member, who is so concerned about political morality, was prepared to accept that the occupant of the highest executive position in the country—who in terms of the 1977 proposals would have been able to promulgate legislation with the consent of only one Parliament—could be a man of colour. [Interjections.] But now the hon. member objects to persons whom that President can appoint to his Cabinet.

I want to reply further to the hon. member and I just want to refer briefly to something else. When we discuss the motion of the hon. the leader of the CP next week, I shall deal with it in detail. Mr. Vorster said—that hon. member supported it and I supported it too, and I am not running away from it—that there would be a Council of Cabinets consisting of seven Whites, four Coloured people and three Asians. Mr. Vorster also indicated what the implications of this would be long before the hon. member had his motion placed on the Order Paper in 1982. Mr. Vorster said that that Council of Cabinets would have the same powers and functions in respect of matters of common concern as the White Cabinet has today.

It is not the same at all. [Interjections.]

All I want to say is that when the hon. member introduced his motion in 1982, either it was an endorsement of Mr. Vorster’s policy, in which we all believed, or he was playing a double game. He will have to decide for himself which of the two it was. [Interjections.]

I come now to the official Opposition. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to take cognizance of what I want to say. I want to talk to him frankly. This house, the country and responsible leaders among other population groups are sick and tired of the total hypocrisy of the PFP. I want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens simply by reading a telex to the House which I think will serve as an adequate reply to the hon. members opposite.

† This telex was sent by an Indian leader for transmission to me during the no-confidence debate. I should like to read it for the benefit of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—

He goes on to give the qualifications of people who could have been nominated from that community. He concludes as follows—

It is signed by the chairman of that despised Indian Council to which the hon. member has referred. [Interjections.]

What was his percentage poll?

The point is not how much support he had. What is important is that a Prog-dominated management committee is not prepared to allow people of colour to serve on its committees. That is the point. [Interjections.]

*If there is one danger in this country, and this has been confirmed again in this debate, it is the danger that we may over-simplify the nature of the problems facing our society to such an extent that it may give rise to a futile search for over-simplified solutions. When we look at the speeches made by the hon. members opposite—all of them—this is in fact what has happened here today. The various population groups in the country— and I am very serious in saying this today— are in danger of seeing the constitutional problems of the country, as well as its economic requirements, only in terms of their own interests and therefore of their own advantage, to such an extent …

Who is talking? After 34 years who is talking now?

If it had not been for the NP, this country would have gone the way of Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, they will search for solutions on that basis only, without taking into consideration the existence of other groups. This applies to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well. There is yet another danger, and that is that our constitutional problems may be seen only in terms of a humanistic interpretation of the principle of justice, without taking into consideration the realities of the society of which we form part. I repeat that there is much less time left in which to find solutions to our problems than most hon. members seem to understand.

We have been trying to bring that home to you for years.

The fact is that those who pretend that they want to make a contribution towards solving the problems of this country will have to take cognizance of what the limitations are when it comes to successful constitutional development in this country. I do not intend to discuss this at any length, except for saying that the emotional limitations are formidable and dangerous and that the capacity of our economy is not unlimited and cannot meet all the demands. Therefore it is fatal to do what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens did, namely to lose sight of the demands that are made by a Third World on the capacities of a First World, within the borders of the same country. Having listened to that hon. member, I ask myself: What is he doing here? There are more people of colour, Black people, Asians and Coloured people, who would like to cross the border in their thousands overnight and to come to this country—to which he referred in such derogatory terms—if they were allowed to. I think it is disgraceful to speak only in negative terms. I would be the last to suggest that we have found all the solutions to the problems of this country. We have not. However, we must not talk such simplistic nonsense as we have had to listen to today.

What are we all doing in this country?

† We are struggling with a problem of government. [Interjections.] We are all struggling, each according to our perception and according to what we believe our principles are, to see whether it is possible to evolve a system that will maintain the security and stability and still ensure participation of all groups. We are all involved in trying to establish whether it is possible to devise a system in which this can be accomplished without destroying the rights of minority groups. We must concede that no successful exercise in this regard can be used as an example for us to follow.

*If this is true, why are we unable to face up to the urgency of the circumstances in this country? Why is it necessary, then— even though we belong to different political parties—to speak as we do in this privileged House, as though the realities of South Africa outside did not exist? We often say that this country is unique. This is quite true. However, the uniqueness of the circumstances of South African society does not lie in the nature of its problems. It lies in their complexity. Other countries have these problems too, after all, the problems of multinationalism and of the existence of minority groups. The complexity of this society, however, is caused by South Africa’s great diversity of peoples and population groups. Why, then, does the hon. member Prof. Olivier reproach me for saying that there are different political cultures on this continent? Surely it is true. Why does the hon. member blame me for saying that Black peoples in this country and elsewhere on the continent of Africa have developed their own political values and value systems? Surely that is true. As a scientist, he knows that it is true.

What is the real challenge we are faced with? If constitutional development and reform in this country are to take place in an evolutionary and constitutional manner, the responsibility for that rests on us; on each of us, no matter to which party he belongs. That challenge lies in the need fully to accommodate all the peoples and all the communities, politically and socio-economically, in an equitable way, if this is possible, of course. I do not want to discuss the question today of whether it is impossible. The fact remains that this is the challenge we have to meet. This Government has committed itself to reform. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has said, our history has been characterized by constitutional and economic reform, and by social and educational reform as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party think that they are the only people who want to bring about reform, and then they do it in a spirit of intolerance, which is so well exemplified by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I should like to have the Government’s standpoint in this connection placed on record. The primary object of reform which we propagate is, of course, to promote the security and stability of the country, for without that there cannot be any question of reform. To increase the spiritual and material wellbeing of all the people in South Africa is part of that objective. In fact, no one can deny that in the material field, great progress has been made in spite of the limited capacity of the country, economically and otherwise. In order to achieve this ideal in the constitutional field, we desire to bring about a democratic dispensation in which everyone can have an effective say in the process of decision-making which affects his own life. It is not easy, but in this process this Government must bear in mind, like any other responsible government, whether it be ours or any other country’s, that stability has to be maintained at all times, because during a process of reform, the potential for conflict is greater because there is resistance on the one hand, while on the other hand there are expectations which the country is unable to satisfy. The exponents of both these schools of thought are sitting in front of me in this House. Reform must be balanced, and for that reason it must take place in every sphere of life, if it is to have a stabilising effect—and we accept that it does—and I say that this Government has done more to synchronize reform in the economic, social, educational and constitutional spheres than any previous government. Economic development and growth must be maintained, and if we do not take cognizance of the heterogeneous population of this country, we shall not succeed. For that reason, the Government’s policy—admittedly an imperfect one, because our society does not lend itself to perfect solutions—and the Government’s guidelines are aimed, not at playing off one population group against another, but at bringing about reconciliation, and one cannot bring about reconciliation unless people’s fears of being dominated by others have been allayed. The Government’s guidelines have been drawn up taking into consideration the realities of society, in order to find workable solutions, not solutions which testify to flights of the imagination. No one is being excluded from the process of negotiation and no one’s progress in any sphere of life is being hampered by these guidelines.

What are the alternatives of the other parties? The alternatives of the other parties represented in this House, their formulas for the solution of our problems, fail, in the first place, to take into consideration the complexity of our society, and they fail to do so for the following reasons: On the one hand, they over-estimate the role of ethnicity. On the other hand, they under-estimate the role of ethnicity. On the one hand, White interests are ignored, and on the other hand. White interests are absolutized. Black and Coloured interests are ignored, or Black interests only are absolutized. I say there is only one party which takes all these forces into consideration, and that is this party. We believe that stability and growth are essential prerequisites for orderly development and a just dispensation. We believe that if there is a guarantee for these prerequisites, only the NP can provide it. That is why the NP has not committed itself to any specific constitutional model, and that is why it wants to take elements from various ones, in the first place to be able to deal more effectively with the potential for conflict, so that a dispensation may be created in a democratic manner in which group domination can be elimnated, but self-determination and co-responsibility can be ensured. This means that minorities will be protected, but not at the expense of others. I say that the Government’s guidelines for the future constitutional dispensation of Whites, Coloureds and Asians undoubtedly accommodate these values in the best possible way in our society. Ethnicity is not over-or under-estimated, but provision is made for people to control their own affairs; that is to say, ethnic minorities will have self-determination at the legislative as well as the executive level. The principles of free enterprise and the maximum devolution of power, which are also contained in the guidelines and in terms of which local authorities are to be as autonomous as possible, will give impetus to these principles. They provide for the exercise of co-responsibility; that is to say, for joint decision-making at the legislative as well as the executive level.

We accept that this is a multinational country, but we also accept that the preservation of these groups cannot be based on injustice and discrimination. Just like any other group, the White group in this country must serve the interests of the country, and not the other way round, for if that is not done, we shall destroy the country.

I want to point out to the hon. member Prof. Olivier that these proposals do not absolutize or ignore Black interests. A lot of hard work is constantly being put into the development of Black communities—the hon. member knows this—so as to improve the quality of life of those people, too, and to give them participation as well. There is no single solution to the problem of rights for Black people, as a result of the complexity of the problem and of its diversity, and for that reason, there will have to be a whole package of measures to deal and accommodate it finally and to ensure those rights.

I want to conclude. The choice we have in this country is very simple. It is a choice between the NP and the alternatives of the other hon. members, whose policies have proved to be a failure in Africa. To summarize, this means that under the South African circumstances, the entrenchment of privileged positions at the expense of others, on the one hand, and liberal-democratic integration politics, on the other, do not offer any possibility of group protection in South Afrcia, and cannot ensure meaningful coexistence in any society.

The right-wing groups in the country want to entrench White privilege.

Only political rights.

They want to leave the political monopoly in the hands of the Whites and they want to reserve economic benefits mainly for the Whites. Such a policy is a policy for revolution, and there are some of them in this country who hope that there will be violent confrontation so that they will be able to maintain their position through violence.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This motion is introduced in order to highlight the plight of hundreds of thousands of people around South Africa who have either already been moved or are about to be moved or are threatened with removal for ideological purposes. From its terms the motion calls for the immediate halt of any further such removals in the interests of peace and security in South Africa.

When we talk of the uprooting of settled Black communities, we are in this instance not talking of people in areas like Nyanga or Crossroads only whose plight is nationally and internationally known because of their proximity to the media and to the people who care, but we are talking of hundreds of thousands of others in the far reaches of South Africa, in the dark rural areas of the Eastern Cape, Natal, Transvaal and elsewhere whose way of life and daily existence is threatened by the ideological hand of officialdom which decrees that they should be dispossessed of the land which they presently occupy and be shunted off to some other part of South Africa. I talk of people who, as we sit here, are distraught, disconsolate and disillusioned because they believe that we as the White authority, the White Parliament of South Africa, want to unsettle them and dispossess them of the land which they presently occupy. I talk not of people who are political agitators or in any way politically motivated at this stage, but I talk of simple people, of peace-loving people, of loyal people, peasants and others whom we are driving away from us and forcing into insecurity and uncertainty in the name of political ideology.

We sit here in Parliament at a time when there is ostensibly verbal consensus between the parties on the need to nurture and to ensure good relations between Black and White in South Africa. We sit here at a time when there is talk, as we heard a few minutes ago from the hon. the Minister, of reform, when there is talk of change and when we are on the eve of a new constitutional dispensation which we are told will bring us closer to a better understanding between races. We heard that again here this afternoon. We must realize that while we talk in these terms, for hundreds and thousands of people who live in areas such as the Ciskei corridor, the remote areas of the Transvaal, in Natal or kwaZulu, change means something quite different. For them change does not mean healthy power-sharing or a new constitutional dispensation, but for them it means uprooting and despoliation. It means having to leave homes, land, farms and businesses which they and their families have managed and occupied for generations. It matters not to them whether such removal is in the name of apartheid, separate development, consolidation or resettlement, which are some of the terms used as an excuse for what is happening to them. Let me say in passing that the term “resettlement” is a euphemism. What the Government is really doing in terms of its policy is to remove people. The emphasis is on removal, and resettlement is a secondary consideration.

The fact is that as far as officialdom is concerned, these people are, to quote official jargon, “badly situated people” or they constitute “Black spots” and must therefore be relocated. I have spoken of hundreds of thousands of people who have been or who are being threatened by removals in one way or another in terms of Government policy and decree. It is difficult to quantify the numbers precisely, but studies of removals reveal that over the past 20 to 25 years about 3 million people have been uprooted in the name of apartheid or separate development in South Africa. More than 1½ million people still, at the present time, live under the threat of removal because of Government policy. What sort of legacy will this give us as we seek to find peace and security for ourselves and our children in this country? What sort of legacy is this going to leave us with?

My colleagues will deal later in this debate with the situation in the Cape Province, the Transvaal and elsewhere, but I want to deal primarily now with the situation in Natal and kwaZulu as far as removals are concerned. When one looks at the question of removals in Natal in the name of consolidation or for any other reason, one sees that the situation is somewhat different in many respects from that in the other provinces. What sets Natal apart from the others is the unusual nature of interaction and interdependence between Natal and kwaZulu. In Natal there is only one homeland to deal with and it is a relatively powerful one which dominates the province as no other homeland dominates any other province kwaZulu is probably the largest and most densely populated of the homelands and it is also the most fragmented of them all. In the mid-1970s it comprised some 48 pieces straddling the entire province, not counting about 150 Black freehold farms in the so-called Black spots.

So far the best the Government has been able to suggest, in dealing with the fragmentation, is that in time kwaZulu should be reduced to 10 separate pieces. It is also a fact that kwaZulu, of all the homelands, has probably spoken out most strongly against consolidation and independence, and in this the Government of kwaZulu has had—and does have—the support of White agricultural and business interests, and in particular the Natal sugar industry. So these are some of the features that have been important in determining the nature of forced removals involving tens of thousands of people over the past 20 years—in the province of Natal. It would seem that the main thrust of removals in Natal has been threefold—firstly to consolidate kwaZulu into a more coherent geo-political whole, secondly to eliminate the large Black population living in what is regarded as White areas, whether on White-owned farms, Black-owned farms or in urban locations and to relocate them inside the boundaries of kwaZulu and, thirdly, to clear strategic areas of potentially troublesome communities which happen to be living there. So the removals continue.

If one looks at the present situation—the Government’s 1975 consolidation proposals—the removals involved in the future will include, in the Paulpietersburg area where a resettlement area for evicted labour tenants was established in the 1970s, the evisaged further removal and relocation of some 20 000 people. In the upper Tugela location, which has a population estimated variously at between 30 000 and 100 000 people, the 1975 proposals call for the removal of the entire population to an expanded block of kwaZulu somewhere near Estcourt. Then there are the Black spots in the Ladysmith area. The hon. the Minister announced a few months ago in Natal that the remaining farms involving some 88 000 people—are to be cleared as soon as possible. Then one has another instance, that of Reserve No. 4 on the coast of Natal, north of Richards Bay, which was excised from kwaZulu by proclamation, and here some 20 000 people face the threat of removal. I shall be returning to the question of Reserve No. 4 a little later. So one could go on.

Demographers at the University of Natal have estimated that if the 1975 proposals are to be implemented in Natal some 300 000 people will have to be moved. Add to that the Black spots still to be cleared, involving some 150 000 to 200 000 people, and we have the staggering figure of half a million people in the province of Natal alone, at the present time, threatened with removal in terms of Government policy, and all of this in the name of separate development! I believe it is a situation that is heartless, in fact inhuman. It is a situation that reflects a reckless and dangerous process, the effect of which would do more harm to race relations and the security of the State than anything else one could imagine. The Government, however, seeks to justify all of this because it is said to be necessary. The Government also goes to great lengths to tell us that it is in the best interests of the people concerned in the long run. The Government goes further and tells us that it does not remove people without first negotiating with them, and also that it does not remove people without providing them with adequate compensatory land of equivalent value. These are some of the arguments the Government uses to justify the inhumanities that it is perpetrating in the name of ideology.

As an example of this, I want to come back to the specific situation in Reserve No. 4 in Natal, i.e. the area to the north of Richards Bay to which I referred earlier. I have made representations to the hon. the Minister and his department over the past two years about the plight of the people in Reserve No. 4. I appealed to the Government to consider the decision to remove those people from Reserve No. 4, the area having been excised from kwaZulu by way of proclamation. In 1981 I wrote to the then Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, Mr. Wentzel, on this issue. I want to quote extracts from a letter I received from the Deputy Minister, dated 14 September 1981, referring me to my letter of 14 May— this department takes a very long time to reply to correspondence. He said certain negotiations had been conducted and were to be continued—

He went on to say—

Subsequently, when I raised this and other related matters in the House, I was told by Government members to leave these matters to the Government to negotiate. I have been told forcibly not to interfere and to confine myself to the interests of the voters of the constituency of Berea.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in October last year—so much for his negotiation and consultation and the efforts of his department!—I received an invitation from the tribe concerned, the Sokulu tribal authority, to visit the reserve, which I did. The invitation, couched in plaintive terms, invited me to assist them in their plight and to intervene on their behalf with the Government. I quote certain extracts from the letter—

Those are the terms of the letter. I continue—

I spent a day with the people of Reserve No. 4. I listened to them. I was taken around the reserve and listened to their grievances. These are people who have occupied this land for over 200 years. They told me stories of how Chaka himself used to visit the area because of the fertility of the soil in order to receive gifts of fruit and vegetables in days gone by. They showed me crops of mealies, vegetables and fruit which were of the lushest I have ever seen. They showed me plantations and told me again that the Government had told them 20 years ago to farm their land by White agricultural methods, which they had done. Then they said: “Now the Government comes along and says the land is to be taken away from us.” There is every evidence in Reserve No. 4—I invite the hon. the Minister to go there if he has not already been there and I also invite other hon. members to go—of a settled and viable economic community. In fact, people from the urban areas are coming to settle there in order to engage in farming operations. This is the area from which the Government suddenly requires the people to be removed. I believe this is totally heartless and inhuman.

The people there told me they had not been consulted and that they feared that they would suffer the same fate as their neighbours in the south who had already been removed from Reserve No. 6 and relocated to an area known as Ntambanana north-east of Empangeni. It is interesting that in 1976 6 000 people were removed from Reserve No. 6. They were removed from an area which is a high-rainfall, subtropical, coastal-land area, to Ntambanana, 50 km inland, which is drought-stricken bush-veld country, perhaps suitable for extensive cattle ranching but not for dense settlement or cultivation. This is the fate which the people in Reserve No. 4 believe awaits them.

It now transpires that the department has had second thoughts about the area to which these people are to be relocated. This in itself is quite revealing. The Director-General of the department has said—

That is the Ntambanana farms, i.e. the same area to which the people from Reserve No. 6 had been relocated—

That is a masterpiece of understatement. One wonders in those circumstances what has happened to the 6 000 people already settled there, and one knows, of course, that they have been the sufferers under severe drought conditions and they are today a depressed community. But presumably for this hon. Minister and his department they were merely the guineapigs used by the department which has now discovered that the area to which they have been removed is incapable of accommodating other people. One could go on at considerable length in dealing with matters of this kind. One thinks, for example, of the way in which people are dealt with, the way in which they are handled when the delicate issue of removal is laid out before them, when they are approached on removal. I have here, for example, a letter from the Chakaville Advisory Board relating to a visit recently by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation—I am sorry he is not in the House this afternoon. This is a letter written on 19 January and we were asked once again to bring this matter to the attention of the House. They refer again to the threat of their removal from Chakaville which is near Stanger. They say—

They then refer to the visit by the hon. the Deputy Minister who apparently arrived there on 14 January. They say that they turned out in order to meet him. They were told that he was going to come and they said that on his way in he refused to have anything to do with them, even to stop and talk to them. They say that eventually when they pinned him down during the discussion, Dr. Morrison was very hostile and far from being helpful. I cannot read the whole letter, but it is a fairly revealing letter and they go on to say—

If this is the way in which the Government even tries to sell its own policy on sensitive issues such as resettlement, they are inviting bad race relations in South Africa.

One could go on at considerable length about incidents of this kind, but in the end the lunacy of the whole process must surely be manifest to all concerned. In these circumstances I believe it is vital in the interests of South Africa that forced removals for ideological reasons should be abandoned forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right at the outset that I object most strongly to the string of adjectives which the hon. member for Berea again used here this afternoon, when he referred to “reckless, heartless, inhuman, inhumanity, the Government removes people, the settlement people does not really take place”, and other things of that nature. I most strongly object to that and I want to put one question only: When did those members sitting on the other side obtain the right to elevate themselves to the position of being the only people who are able to act in a humane and decent manner towards other people?

Your actions give us that right.

We on this side of the House are inspired with exactly the same high ideals of acting in a humane, fair, just and decent manner towards other people. I try to do everything in my power and so does the Government, to do exactly that. Now I should like to make a second important statement.

What did the hon. member for Berea again do here this afternoon? He set up his own puppets and then started shooting them down himself. He spoke without his arguments having any real substance. Just consider the statements made by him: “500 000 people are going to be moved”.

† The hon. member’s assumption in this regard is absolutely premature. That will be clear from what I am going to say now.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, nobody can made any positive contribution in that fashion. That is my honest opinion. What we are dealing with is the fact that the resettlement of people is a matter which is not treated lightly but which is given deep thought and consideration at the highest level of government.

Why do you have to do it at all?

It is a highly emotional issue. It is an issue with many facets. It is also an issue which is very often exploited for various motives by outside bodies often completely unnecessarily. It is centainly an issue about which, in the context of the Republic of South Africa, a lot of wrong allegations and innuendoes are being bandied about. Without detracting from anything stated here by the hon. member for Berea, I must say that he has done exactly that again here today. That is what I should like to prove now. [Interjections.]

I am on record as stating that the Government and I will do everything possible to abolish the forced removal of people as far as is practicable and possible.

Then you must have changed your policy.

Well, I am on record as having said that. I said that on behalf of the Government.

Do you still believe that?

I still believe that, of course. The latter part of what I said is conveniently deleted by those who want to use that stement in order to harass me personally. The truth is that we have been doing, and will continue to do, precisely that. We will do it to the best of our ability. That was done not without results. However, the Government cannot do more than is practicable and possible within a given framework. [Interjections.]

*In accordance with a Cabinet resolution …

[Inaudible.]

Oh please, let us just state the facts first, then we can differ on the fundamentals. Hon. members of the PFP, however, are advocates of a system of one man one vote in a unitary State. In that respect we differ from them entirely. [Interjections.] Let us first state the facts. [Interjections.]

Piet jigsaw puzzle! [Interjections.]

Order!

In accordance with a Cabinet resolution of 18 March 1980 the settlement programme of the Department of Co-operation and Development must proceed, with the existing machinery of the settlement division. It must be accepted that the process of consolidation inevitably results in the resettlement of people, White as well as Black. The Government considers the process of consolidation to be in the interests of all the people of the Republic of South Africa, and is therefore seeking an evolutionary and peaceful solution to this country’s problems, with its heterogeneous population structure. Consolidation brings sacrifices for Whites as well as Blacks. Just compare the consolidation process in Ciskei, and also the recent one in kwaNdebele, and the sacrifices these entailed for the Whites. Next week we must go and hold deliberations with the Whites on the consolidation process in kwaNdebele. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation—unfortunately he is not present here today—can testify to what a trauma it was for the Whites when the process of consolidation with regard to Ciskei entered the finalization stage.

In accordance with the aforementioned Cabinet resolution, the Department of Co-operation and Development must therefore, on a selective basis and the co-operation of the bodies concerned, proceed with the settlement of people, Whites as well as Blacks, because this side of the House believes that it is in the interests of all the people of the Republic of South Africa that the consolidation processes should be completed in a proper and meaningful way. Consequently, since it is clear that the investigation by the Commission for Co-operation and Development does not entail a change in the resettlement programme arising out of the consolidation proposals of 1975, it is necessary to continue on a selective basis with the resettlement of Whites as well as Blacks, arising out of the consolidation process. Hon. members of the PFP speak as though only the resettlement of Black people takes place. The basic principle which applies throughout with resettlement is that we are dealing here with nation-building, with development; the development of national States and the improvement of the living conditions of those who are resettled, including the process of enabling them to acquire legal places of residence. From this follows that the settlement in the new place of residence must take place in a decent way and the principle of community development must be applied throughout. Settlement and resettlement must therefore be development orientated. That is the directive from the Government and myself and it is embodied in circular No. NK2 of 1982. I personally gave the hon. member for Houghton a copy. This circular was addressed to all the offices of the Department of Co-operation and Development, as well as to all magistrates of the Directorate of Justice in the RSA and in the Government services in the national States, after various in-depth discussions under my chairmanship of the whole resettlement programme.

The point I am therefore making is that there is a reformist approach and also an approach involving new initiatives in respect of resettlement, as I said to hon. members a moment ago and as I shall now indicate further to them. Consequently there is a programme of reform in progress in connection with this matter and if those hon. members want the facts, then I shall give them the facts now. There are also new initiatives in progress in respect of this matter. Quite a number of cases can be mentioned where resettlement was recently prevented, such as Ramagoep and Matok, for example, which were to have been moved and which would have involved approximately 80 000 to 100 000 Black people. I announced in this House the other day that this would no longer take place. The same also applies to Khutame and Sentimula, involving between 35 000 and 45 000 Black people. I could mention other cases as well. Consequently exhaustive consideration will be given to whether people can be moved or not, and in this connection the Cabinet will consider each of these cases on merit and also in connection with the recommendation made by the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I therefore want to tell hon. members that when they rise to their feet here and try to make everyone believe the falsehoods which they wish to bruit abroad about hundreds of thousands of people that are going to be moved, as was said again this afternoon, when they also implied that these were “forced removals”, then they do not know what they are talking about. They are speaking prematurely and what they are saying is wrong.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry, my time is limited and I should like to furnish these facts. Today the removal of people is a very expensive undertaking, involving a great deal of criticism, as we heard once again this afternoon. To a far greater extent than before the position of people in relation to their employment opportunities and infrastructures, and also in general, is considered. Where vehement criticism was levelled at removals in advance, I can produce proof consisting of letters which we received after the removals in which thanks and appreciation were expressed for the improved position in which those people found themselves after the removals, which were development orientated, had taken place. Consequently removal has a positive side as well. When I think about the debates in this House, and when I think of the newspaper headlines all over the world in those days when attention was being given to Meadowlands and those places, then we are simply experiencing the same thing now. Go and ask the inhabitants of those places afterwards whether they would like to return to the places from whence they came. Go and ask them and their children about the improved conditions in which they find themselves so that we can achieve a little perspective in regard to these matters.

I now wish to quote certain figures to indicate what the facts are, since so much is being said about “inhuman” and “heartless” and “reckless” conduct on the part of the Government in this respect. The number of Black persons and families removed from Black spots and the development costs involved are as follows: In 1977, 63 600 persons; families 9 000; costs R5 900 000. In 1978, 57 000 persons; 8 000 families and the costs involved, R6 million plus. In 1979, 61 000 persons; 8 000 families and the costs, R9 million. In 1980 there were no removals. Now those people, the CPs, on the other hand are taking me to task because there were no removals. [Interjections.] The hon. members do not have the facts at their disposal, and then harm the country. I am being accused of “inhuman and reckless” conduct and goodness knows what else. Is that fair? Is there no such thing as justice and fairness to me as well, as the responsible Minister, and to the Department of Co-operation and Development, which is being torn to pieces? When will the hon. members wake up?

It has nothing to do with the department.

Of course it has, because they are not only accusing me; they are accusing the department as well.

In 1981 the removals from Black spots— this is after all the ideological angle which the hon. member for Berea takes as his point of departure—involved 420 Black persons, 60 families and an amount of R96 000. In 1982 506 persons, 72 families and R144 000 were involved. These are the facts of the situation.

† Everything possible is being done to ensure that the resettlement of Black people is in the first instance in their own interest …

Tell that to the Fingoes.

The hon. member should read the document which I gave to that hon. member. What I have just said, is an instruction to the officers of the department throughout the country. Can the hon. member do anything better?

But do they have a say in that?

I am coming to that. Of course they must have a say in that.

Everything possible is also being done to ensure that it is carried out with consideration and compassion and that all people of South Africa will eventually benefit from it.

When?

But just give me a chance.

In conjunction with the facts furnished above, it must be pointed out that Whites, too, have to relinquish their lands and move. White owners are offered the market value of their property plus an amount of 10% in respect of loss and inconvenience, up to a maximum of R10 000. Additional costs involved in moving and finding alternative land and accommodation are added, but for the rest he has to fend for himself. The White owner must go and look for and purchase another property himself. If a White owner does not wish to accept an offer he is expropriated, and therefore he has no alternative.

I could tell many sad stories in this connection, some involving my own family as well. It is not pleasant. These are difficult matters.

This is the White’s share of the sacrifice in order to help and ensure that every national group is able to acquire its own territory and so that we can arrive at a peaceful solution to our difficult problems in this country for the sake of our children. Surely there are no simple instant solutions to these problems. Many of the White owners are intensely unhappy about this, but in spite of that they are prepared to make their share of the sacrifice. [Interjections.]

I also wish to point out that, with hardly any exceptions, all the White farms which were bought out and are still being bought out for national States, were and are highly productive units which were of course well planned. In contrast to this I wish to mention that with a few exceptions the poorly situated areas and Black spots which are being cleared up are usually in a very poor condition, and overgrazed. Soil erosion occurs in these areas, and we sometimes find wasteful cultivation occurring there as well.

A moment ago I furnished the figures pertaining to Black people who have been removed, and in total it amounted to 34 000 persons. Let us see what happened in connection with Whites over this same period. I shall furnish only a few figures. One does not hear a single word about this from those hon. members. In the year 1976-77, 506 White units were bought out; in 1977-78, 735, and during the period April 1982 until January 1983, 662. I think it is fair if one multiplies this by five, and then one arrives at a figure of approximately 25 000 Whites who were moved in the process, as against 34 000 Blacks. Nonetheless one hears this cacophony on this matter which we have been forced to listen to today. I am simply advocating that we should be reasonable and look at the matter coolly and calmly. We must please look at the facts. [Interjections.]

† The Department of Co-operation and Development has now, in terms of the abovementioned circular of last year, strict requirements that have to be complied with before resettlement commences. As a first step the area where the people are to be resettled has to be properly planned by the town-planning division in collaboration with the agricultural experts of the department. This planning is however not a one-sided exercise as the Department of Co-operation and Development insists that the community should also be involved, and to give effect to this, the community is requested to appoint a representative group—usually about 10 persons—to serve on the planning committee so that they may advise the department and make recommendations on matters of which they have special knowledge. Serious consideration is given to these advices and recommendations. Members of the various church denominations as well as minister of religion are free to serve on these committees provided they are nominated by the community. I invite them publicly here today to participate. I have also instructed the department to do so. Some of them were present when I had discussions with the clergy on this matter. From these facts it is therefore clear that removals are not a result of unilateral action on the part of the Department of Co-operation and Development. We want to draw in the Black people—we are doing it in practice—but we want the other people to be involved too. We do it in a planned fashion and I have emphasized that it is development orientated.

Once the preliminary planning has been finalized to everybody’s satisfaction it is the function of the Department of Co-operation and Development to implement the plan and to provide the infrastructure necessary for a community. As a first priority a source of potable water has to be established after which the water is reticulated by pipeline to convenient points in the residential area. Provision is likewise made for livestock. There must also be adequate and proper sanitation. There must be suitable streets. During the planning stage a survey is made of residents, among other things, to determine what schooling and health amenities will be required. I invite hon. members to look at the circular which was sent out by way of instruction to all these bodies which I have mentioned. All I am doing now is quoting from that circular.

And if they do not want to move?

Then we try to discuss it with them, to persuade them, and we try to get them to participate. I am on record on behalf of the Government as saying that we want to get away as far as is practicable and possible from forced removals. I am giving hon. members the facts of how we are trying to do it but they continue as if they were still in the ox-wagon age with all their accusations.

These improvements are provided entirely at the expense of the Government and nothing is recovered from the people concerned. Before any removal is commenced the dwellings, fences, fruit trees and all other improvements are valued by trained valuators. Families are also provided with weatherproof iron huts to house them—the days of tents are over; we do not do it along those lines—and their belongings until such time as they have re-erected permanent accommodation. Rations are also provided in the removal stage which conform with the requirements of the Department of Health. We then also look very attentively at work in urban areas because they do not lose their right to work. We look attentively at the question of transport and make it available. A member of the Department of Transport is also a member of that committee. The hon. member of Berea is talking about things of the past. I am giving him the facts of what the position is after we have looked into the matter and have tried everything in our endeavour to bring about new initiatives and reform as far as the settlement question is concerned. I cannot do more than give the hon. member the facts. The hon. member can visit these places.

From the foregoing hon. members will appreciate that removals are undertaken with due consideration of the people’s needs, and the accusation that people are dumped is just no longer true. The removal of people, where there is no alternative, to implement the policy of the Government, will therefore continue to be undertaken with compassion and due respect for human dignity, but I am not able to give any assurance that no further removals will take place.

*Consequently I want to make an appeal this afternoon to everyone involved in this matter to be fair and to realize that the Government is playing its part by applying persuasion and, in general, by having adopted a new approach to the matter. We shall demonstrate that this can be done successfully in practice. That is why I would please like to ask courteously that there should be as little interference as possible by inciting people and making an already difficult task even more difficult, and particularly that a stop be put to the unbelievable exaggeration associated with this matter, and that the facts be taken into account. Hon. members can rely on the Government to play its part—and I personally, mine—to the best of our ability in an attempt to find a solution to this human problem in regard to which I feel as earnestly and strongly as any of the hon. members on that side.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us, as usual, his flights of fancy, telling us of things he would perhaps like to see. We, however, have one piece of advice to give the hon. the Minister, and that is to go and see these people himself.

But, my dear, I do it, more than you do.

No, the hon. the Minister sends his Deputy or his officials. They then come back and tell him what he wants to hear.

There is no place you have been that I have not been.

Well, if the hon. the Minister has been where I have been, then all I can say is that we are looking at the same sight with completely different eyes. That is all I can say. There is, however, something else I should like to tell him. It is no good his telling us that he is looking at everything in a new way, that he is implementing the policy in a different way. That much I do grant him, and I shall tell him why in a minute.

Thanks for small mercies.

The point is, however, that the policy does not change, and as long as everything he does has to be done within the parameters of that rotten policy, we can never have any real improvement. It can only be marginal. The basic, underlying fact that it involves the uprooting and removing of thousands of people still, in terms of Government policy, remains untouched. The hon. the Minister asked us to forget about the past and to think only of his existing policy. We cannot, however, forget the past, because there are over 3 million removals of 2 million people involved, because many people have been removed more than once. That means that although some 2 million people have been removed, there are actually over 3 million removals involved, people uprooted time and time again in terms of Government policy and ideology, and not for any practical reason whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister said we never talk about the Whites who are removed, but he does not seem to realize that we do not want anyone removed. That is the point. We do not want Blacks removed, and nor do we want Whites removed. We do not go along with the Government’s policy of consolidation, and therefore it is not necessary for White farmers to be bought out—at vast cost, let me tell hon. members, because the hon. the Deputy Minister has estimated that to complete consolidation would require a further R6 000 million. That sort of money does not go to the Black people who are removed. That money goes to buy out the farmers who have to be moved in the interests of consolidation. That is the reason why we do not talk about the White farmers. I just want to quote a paragraph from the hon. the Minister’s own circular which he was good enough to give me when I visited him in his office in October of last year. I was very flattered, because I had asked for an interview with the hon. the Minister on the question of removals and a few other subjects, and I was greeted by a veritable army of people.

I really went out of my way to accommodate you. [Interjections.]

Was the hon. the Minister scared to take her on one-to-one? [Interjections.]

I was flattered indeed, because not only was the hon. the Minister himself present, but there were also two Deputy Ministers and eight senior officials of the department. It was all very nice. I was most courteously received. They listened to all my complaints. They did their best to quieten me down and tell me that everything in the garden was lovely, just as the hon. the Minister has tried to do to us this afternoon.

I brought the people into a contact situation.

Yes, I was deeply grateful. The hon. the Minister must not think that I do not appreciate his efforts. In that case I certainly did.

Thanks.

He gave me a number of circulars…

It just didn’t work.

It worked very well.

I wish they would stop their little cross-argument and let me get on with it. He gave me a number of circulars which he thought would put me in the picture completely, and I should like to quote one paragraph because I think it is very interesting—

Granted. I read further—

I should think so!—

Did you ever hear such sophistry in your life! There is the poor White man who is bought out at great cost and at very enhanced prices and given a “verdriet” allowance because of the anguish he suffers when he leaves the graves of his ancestors. He has to fend for himself, poor man. But the lucky Black man is actually given compensatory land and he is moved to a closer settlement.

Let me tell hon. members something about this compensatory land. First of all, I want to point out that it is only registered land owners who get compensatory land and one must have a minimum of 17 ha to be a registered land owner, is that not so? That is about 30 acres.

No, you are wrong.

Is that not right? I am interested to hear that, because I have been told repeatedly that one has to have a minimum of 17 ha before one gets compensatory land or cash. Thousands of others have small plots, but they do not get compensatory land. What happens to them is that they have to sell their livestock and move into closer settlements. Invariably these closer settlements are far from their places of work where they used to supplement their income. So they have all these additional problems.

The hon. the Minister talks as if Black-spot removals and removals under consolidation are the only types of removal. There are, of course, four or five other types of removal. There are not only the Black-spot removals, but other types as well and they all suffer certain common disabilities which I have taken the trouble to list. There are Blackspot removals, there are removals for the purposes of consolidation, but there are also the removals of labour tenants and squatters from White farms into the homelands. That has contributed to enormous problems in places like Natal where they are moved into areas in kwaZulu where faction fighting takes place because of the desperate shortage of land. Nevertheless, thousands more people are pushed in. The same thing applies to every other poverty-stricken homeland into which these people are pushed. Then there is the uplifting of the Black townships in White towns. The affected people are moved into the nearest homeland which can be as much as 70 kilometres from the town from which they were moved. It requires very considerable influence to get the hon. the Minister to change his mind. One has to live in the constituency of the Speaker of this House. Then the Government changes its mind. I may say that the White traders in those towns object because they do not want to lose, firstly, their labour and, secondly, their customers. So the whole policy is nonsense from beginning to end. However, the people who are removed bear the brunt of the policy because they have to get up at four o’clock in the morning to catch a bus, which costs them a lot of money, to get to town, do their work and get back again. They therefore have to become commuters on a daily basis. Alternatively, they have to live in a hostel in the town and have the extra expense of living in a hostel while the family has been parked in the homeland. That whole policy is absolutely absurd. The mind boggles to think of the extra cost in road maintenance, in vehicles, in wear and tear and in fuel, not to mention, of course, the exhaustion of the people who have to do this tremendous amount of travelling in order to get back to the place from which they were removed. Then, of course, there are the ordinary endorsements out from the urban areas. They also swell these places.

I gave you the facts.

There are common consequences of this. There is hunger, sickness, despair and a deep sense of grievance, and particularly on the part of a people who are waiting to be removed, people who have occupied land for decades, as mentioned by the hon. member for Berea. I have got cases that I can bring to him. There are, for example, the Driefontein people and the Matupestat people. I have visted the Matupe-stat people and I have seen where they are and I have also seen where they are to be taken. There is no comparison. There is no compensatory land of any value. It is a stony hill-side. Admittedly there is potable water being piped in. There is a very nice school, an excellent school that has been built and there will no doubt be clinics and other facilities which the hon. the Minister has now laid down as prerequisites since there has been such a tremendous uproar over removals. That is why the Government had to ban the film put out by the Anglican Church about certain removals. They were ashamed to have that seen around the country. It is disgraceful. And, of course, Dimbaza is now the show settlement. “Look what you said about Dimbaza,” they said to me a couple of years ago. “Go and look at Dimbaza today.” It is only because Father Cosmas Desmond published a book from which a film called Last Grave in Dimbaza was produced that such an uproar was created. But there are dozens of Dimbazas all over South Africa about which books have not been written and which are still in the same miserable state in which they were when these people were removed. We cannot forget the past, much as the hon. the Minister wants us to. There were tears in his eyes when he saw Dimbaza: “Never again”, he said, “no more forced removals.”

Who saved it?

However, there are other ways of forcing removals other than taking armed policemen and forcing those people to move. There are bureaucratic harassments, difficulties in getting pensions, withdrawal of work permits and bribes to compliant chiefs which are often very successful. The chief is told he will get the farmhouse on which the farm is situated to which they are going to be moved. This happens over and over again. But let the hon. the Minister go and talk honestly to the people of Driefontein and to the people of Matupestat. Let him go and talk to the people of Bothashoek which is a dreadful removal area. Like the hon. member there, I refuse to call them resettlement areas. They do not resettle; they disrupt. They break up communities.

We do not want to do it.

They rend communities. The hon. the Minister says that he does not want to do it. What then is making him to do it, is what I want to know.

NP policy.

NP policy, I might tell the hon. the Minister, does not come down from the Mount. It can be changed. The Government can change it. They must not simply change the method whereby this is done; they must stop doing it altogether. Two weeks ago, the hon. the Prime Minister told us that one of the great tragedies of the century was taking place in Nigeria with the forced repatriation of two million people to their original homes. Do the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side of the House not realize that over the past two decades exactly the same dreadful tragedy has been enacted in South Africa and that two million people have been uprooted and sent back to homeland which many of them have not even seen.

That is not true.

The facts are there.

But I gave you the facts. You are disturbed by the facts.

They are South Africans, not foreigners.

They are decent South Africans.

As far as this matter is concerned, you are proper old ox-wagons!

I want the hon. the Minister to tell me the following. I understand there are 75 Black spots still scheduled for removal. Is he going to leave those people alone?

I have said that we are dealing with these cases on merit. I do not have the time … [Interjections.]

I must tell the hon. the Minister quite frankly across the floor of this House that I do not trust the judgment of the Government. We can only go on what has happened in the past. What has happened in the past has been a ruthless disregard for the human suffering that these removals have caused.

We do not want human suffering.

Well, if you do not want human suffering, I should tell the hon. the Minister he should stop this forthwith. I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of the whole question of consolidation the following question. There are about 1 million people that remain to be removed in terms of the present consolidation plans. Does he intend to go ahead with those consolidation plans? That is what we want to know. I wonder if hon. members have any idea of the terrible sense of insecurity which assails those communities which have had the dreaded letters from Pretoria telling them that they are going to face removal. Some of them have been waiting for two and a half years to get a decision from the hon. the Minister. Some have been waiting even longer. They come along and they mark numbers on the houses. They demolish the houses. They are now very generous. The material from which the houses are built is transported free to the new area where they are settled. Another very generous thing is that they are given three days’ rations. I want to know what happens on the fourth day.

Well, in many cases we give them rations for many more days.

Oh, you do? What happens then on the day after the hon. the Minister stops giving them rations? The hon. the Minister is deluding himself when he says there are no more deaths. There are deaths. There is blatant starvation in some of these areas. The hon. the Minister has not been back to see those areas, and it is time he got himself out of that green bench, got into his car and went to see for himself instead of relying on what he is told by his own officials.

I have been there myself.

No, you do not go there yourself. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. the Minister …

If you do not believe me, Helen, you can come with me and see for yourself.

Well, I will come with you. [Interjections.] I will not go alone with you. That I must tell you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister—if we can get back again to the seriousness of this subject—that the insecurity that is assailing these people is really pitiful. They come to visit all of us. All of us have had deputations from all over the country. They come, these respectable men, these elders of their community, and they tell us what is going on among their people. Communities are split because those who have land want to stay where they are. Those who do not have land think they will be better off. Little do they know they are not going to be better off, but they still believe that they are going to be better off. Lands are left unploughed because people are told they are going to be moved the following year. Then they are still there the next year, and they have planted nothing. Houses are not repaired because people obviously do not believe they are going to receive compensation if they repair their houses. It is a dreadful policy. It is a stain on the good name of South Africa, and I cannot put sufficient emotion into the appeal to this Government to reconsider this entire policy and to call an immediate halt to all plans for removal of all sorts, be they for consolidation of the homelands, Black spot removals, removals of squatters from farms, etc., because those people lose the only thing they have apart from the right to live with their families, and that was the right to cultivate some land and to graze a few animals. That also goes. They join the wretched army of migrant workers in this country, many of them illegal, spending their entire lives dodging the police for the crime of looking for a job with which to support their families.

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly had some impressive emotional tirades from the hon. member for Houghton before. Let us ask for one moment why it is that the gap in the standard of living between the underdeveloped people and those who advocate liberal policies is emphasized by people who live in those areas where the hon. member for Houghton comes from, those areas where people live in the luxury of absolute comfort?

Fat cats!

Is it because these people, living in the laps of luxury, are trying to salve their consciences by pleading in emotional terms for people who come nowhere near their standard of living?

Now you are being more ridiculous than you have ever been before.

When we analyse the position, we find that it is this Government which represents the middle class and the working class that is doing most in respect of the real and genuine upliftment and improvement of the standards of the broad average of the Black people.

What about the Union Hotel?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to refer to the Union Hotel episode. I understand that the hon. member for Houghton has sold it at a fat profit. With reference to the hon. member for Houghton, she referred to the film Last Grave in Dimbaza which was an emotional and rather shocking attempt to discredit the efforts of this Government to bring about a situation eventually to improve the lot of the Black people. However, what is also not generally known is that her grand-daughter played a part in that film.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the hon. member for Houghton’s granddaughter.

That was my niece.

In any event, it indicates a certain close attachment between that type of propaganda and the kind of story that we have had here. It is part of the family.

What we are dealing with here involves basically, communities with a different social and cultural system. We are dealing with the First World and the Third World and we are trying to solve problems which sound tremendously emotional when we talk to First World people but which are completely different to Third World people. Let us examine a few further circumstances. Let us examine for a moment the circumstances in which people live in these areas.

Like Reserve No. 4.

The circumstances at Reserve No. 4 may be slightly different but in most of these areas where resettlement takes place there is no security of tenure. A few people have land ownership or else the chief may exercise land ownership. However, the vast majority of those people have no land ownership. There are no health services, there are no roads, there is no proper water supply and, as far as the hon. member for Berea or the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, those people should not be settled. They may as well rot in oblivion.

Why do you not give them the services where they are?

Mr. Speaker, if we are to develop communities, this cannot be done in scattered circumstances throughout the country. Communities can best be developed in terms of a proper planning of where employment opportunities exist. Let us take the case of the Upper Tugela location to which the hon. member for Berea referred. In the Upper Tugela location more than 80% of the economically active population, those who do not eke out a mere existence by subsistence farming—and that land has become so badly eroded that it is no longer possible to practise even subsistence farming there—work at least 50 km and 70% work at least 200 km from where they are supposed to reside. Those people do not have employment there. The vast majority of them resort to migratory labour systems in order to work on the Reef or in the Durban/Pinetown industrial complex. They then go back to the reserves bascially on holiday, if they can call it a holiday, but they do not earn a living there. They basically degenerate in those areas. If, on the other hand, there is a resettlement on a planned basis, one can provide facilities such as streets, sanitation, health services, schools, water, electricity, etc., and help people on a broad basis te develop, to uplift themselves as a community. [Interjections.]

Something else which we have to take into consideration is that at the moment approximately 35% of the Blacks are urbanized. Without any effort whatsoever by the Government the normal process of urbanization must lead to an urbanization by the year 2000—in other words, within 17 years—of approximately 70%. To put it differently, approximately the same number of Blacks who now live in urban areas will have to become urbanized in the next 17 years. That will be a natural process of resettlement.

What the Government has done with its decentralization policy of providing employment facilities—with the help of private enterprise and with the help of overseas investors—of encouraging industrial development to go out to the border areas, to go out to the Black areas, is to effect in a human way, a decentralization of infrastructure, a decentralization of national income, a decentralization of human ability. It is no longer a case of just letting people degenerate in those areas where they might have been settled and where the vast majority of them have no security of tenure whatsoever, have no facilities and where they will never become uplifted as people who are moving into an industrial age. What the Government is doing is planned progress, but what the Opposition is pleading for is continued degeneration.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is an absolute fact. I have had numerous discussions with leaders of the Black community, with their elected representatives, with their chiefs and others on the question of providing better facilities. I have had discussions with representatives of their churches. I have put the positive aspects. Their reaction was: If only these attitudes were put to us by those people who talk to us, we would have been prepared to move voluntarily. The problem is that there is the role of some organizations and unfortunately also some church organizations that are suspect in this. They tell the people that they are being moved so that they cannot develop. I am referring at the moment to an announcement by some leading church representative who sides openly with Swapo because, he said, the majority of Blacks in SWA were on the side of Swapo. I ask whether those people do this because of their true analysis of religious beliefs, or is it for the politics of churchianity; is it to try to get a larger number of so-called members of their churches by playing politics of revolution, by trying to instigate these people against a system? Is it a politics of churchianity or is it genuine Christianity? It becomes suspect. The Opposition is also suspect as far as these things are concerned. This is why these things must be said; they must be said in public.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the ownership of cattle. Is the hon. member aware that under the present system of communal ownership or tribal ownership of land, the vast majority of areas occupied by these Blacks are vastly overgrazed, over-populated with cattle? That land can never be re-established in the way it should be, because of the overpopulation of cattle. In the constituency which I represent there are some areas where there are well over 5 000 Blacks living on one farm, but at the same time there are four times as many cattle as that land can carry under the most advantageous agricultural circumstances. The land is denuded; there is nothing left. Unfortunately this results in border problems with these unfortunate owners of cattle with no grass being available.

It is as a result of influx control.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who does not represent a rural seat but an urban seat because he cannot get representation in a rural seat knows that very well. With the circumstances in which we live in this country we must realize, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said on numerous occasions, that God has not stopped making people but that He has stopped making land. The land on which we live needs respect, the respect of the Opposition as well. If they realize that they will realize that people are not resettled for ideological reasons but for economic and social reasons and for their upliftment and improvement.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River is quite right about the situation regarding the value system of Blacks and the questions of over-grazing, high population, and other matters of that nature which have to be taken into account on a realistic basis. For the rest, however, there is an absolute air of unreality about what he and the hon. the Minister have said. The NP are running away as fast as they can from the policies which they have introduced into this country at enormous cost, and have caused vast unhappiness to people without actually having achieved anything. One need only go back a few years and look at the reality of the introduction of this policy. Every day when we go into the main dining-room of Parliament we are reminded of it by the big painting in which Dr. Verwoerd is showing everybody in the Cabinet the consolidation proposals of the Government. The proposals of the Government related to consolidation into single units of homelands, initially, and eventually national States, no Blacks in the Western Province, cities White by night …

Who said there would be no Blacks in the Western Province?

By 1978 there were supposed to be no Blacks in the Western Province. They were all supposed to have moved out.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can check in Hansard. The policy of the NP Government was to keep the Blacks in their own areas as much as possible and to draw them from there to areas of work. They went on to do it. Yet the reality of South Africa now is that urbanization will take place in any case and all the people cannot live on the land. Now that urbanization has been accepted there will have to be an alteration in Government policy in that respect. The land to which these people have been moved is really of no value in the whole process of the demographic settlement of people in the country. Now the Government comes along and says that it was not done for ideological reasons. Of course it was done for ideological reasons. The whole idea of getting people away from the various areas was to consolidate them into political States. The Government were told at the time that these States would be uneconomic and that it was not a practical policy, and now years have been wasted. What is worse is that all the money that has been wasted and that should have been used during that time for development within those areas, and for urbanization, has gone down the drain.

[Inaudible.]

Of course, the hon. member cannot run away from his own past. The Government must learn to stand up and accept its mistakes. It is being called the new National Party. I think it is going to be the new National Party and we should give it lots of encouragement. However, an admission by the Government that its policy was incorrect is more likely to get the Government support from people outside this House than by running away from it and trying to create a hybrid version with one foot still believing in what it said before and the other foot really giving no direction at all. It is quite paradoxical that we have a situation where there are members of the CP who were all for that policy in the days gone by and who are now criticizing the Government for not carrying it out. The Government in turn is trying to soft-pedal on the hard line it took before. I think one only has to ask the CP whether that was for ideological reasons, in other words, whether in terms of the ideology of the NP …

Does the NRP have a political ideology?

Indeed. [Interjections.] I am not saying one does not have to have one. I am simply saying that if we asked the CP whether or not removals were part of the original NP ideology, the CP would say: Yes, the idea was to move people into their own areas, to make them economically viable so that on that basis there would be separate in political compartments. It did not, however, include urbanization.

Are you opposed to the formation of Lesotho?

Lesotho was not formed, my friend.

No, tell me.

Lesotho has been there for years gone by. [Interjections.] I have nothing to do with the independence of Lesotho.

And Zululand?

I have nothing against the independence of Lesotho. It has nothing to do with South Africa. [Interjections.] It was a British protectorate.

No, pal, one does not escape the past like that.

Ideology was what created this policy, and until the Government admits that it was ideologically incorrect, we shall not get anywhere. There can be no remedy until the Government says that although it has got this far, it has not achieved anything, in lasting terms, and I say that because the Government has now accepted that the great masses of those people are going to urbanize. The hon. member for Klip River has just said it. All the people they have moved are going to have to move again—awaiting the actual fruition of the development plan—to give them work opportunities as close as possible. That is, however, going to take years and years and years. It is going to take years to create such employment opportunities. Most of the people that have been moved to the homelands, into those areas, are going to have to go to the urban areas, to the industrial areas, where there are work opportunities. So what should have happened was that urbanization should have been realized as a fact of life. Maximum effort should have been put into providing housing and job opportunities within the given areas, and that, coupled with regional development, would have given the people some hope.

Now, however, we sit at the crossroad. The other day I mentioned the example of a mangle, and I often think that sometimes the hon. the Minister is that worm in the mangle, because he has to turn and turn and turn, showing a different side each time. He does, in fact, have tremendous problems on his hands. He puts out an image, as far as these things are concerned, which does him great credit, and also does the Government great credit but some decisions have to be taken about these things.

In the minute or so I still have at my disposal, I just want to quote a very interesting paragraph from a book called The Right To The Land, a document on Southern African history.

Who wrote the book?

I shall tell the hon. member in a moment. On page 49 there is a paragraph, No. 79, entitled “A Successful African Farmer in the Glen Gray District, 1916”, and I quote—

Imagine, “the third quarter of the 19th century"—

As long ago as the third quarter of the 19th century there was this germ or seed amongst black people who were going to become part of our value system, become involved in agriculture on an ownership basis. The reason why this Government will not solve the problem, is because ownership is the missing factor in their ideological equation, seen in relation to the whole economic system. The Government accepts that we are going to share a common economy, but the Government will not accept the fact that those people have to have common ownership. The whole process of the removal of these Black spots must be geared towards giving these people a stake. In the areas where it is at all possible there must be a rural renewal policy. Let as many as possible of the people stay as landowners in the areas and become part of our economic system. The question of removals will, I hope, receive close attention from the new Cabinet Committee as well, because it is part and parcel of the whole situation regarding Blacks in this country. If the Government is genuine in its attempts at reform, as I believe it is, then some input into this area by way of some new and imaginative ideas about how it can turn something that has become an albatross around South Africa’s neck into something to its credit is quite possible.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town has now created the impression that he and his party are totally opposed to the resettlement of Black people in South Africa. He has intimated that the Government’s entire policy has thus far failed. However, I can just give him a simple example. I think Dim-baza is in his constituency. In his constituency there are innumerable farms that have been purchased in recent years by the Government of South Africa …

We are still waiting.

… to consolidate and enlarge those areas. Now he says it is a failure. However he ought to be aware of the many millions of rands that have been spent on this. How, then, can he say that this policy is a failure? This also concerns the resettlement of people. While I am at it I also want to say a few words to the hon. member for Houghton. I well remember how she and other hon. members in this House spoke about the extremely poor conditions at Dimbaza, in the same way they spoke today about the poor conditions at the resettlement camps at Thornhill, Sada and elsewhere. However, today the hon. member can go and ask any Black person living in Dimbaza whether he wants to remain there or whether he would prefer to return to the conditions in which he lived before.

Why do you only mention Dimbaza?

I can assure the hon. member for Houghton that in this regard I can speak from experience. I myself know Black people who used to live here in Cape Town and who now live in Dimbaza, and they say they would never want to return to Nyanga or Langa or any other part of the Western Province because today they have all possible facilities at their disposal. This was the first resettlement programme. Dimbaza is a success. Not only do the people there get the opportunity to live decently; light industries have now also been established in that area. [Interjections.] Now I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether this is not the kind of situation she would rather have in South Africa, giving those people an opportunity to build up a community, to five among their own people and to be able to do decent work. These are Black people who had work in Cape Town. I myself know a Black man who was born here and who returned to the Ciskei and today he occupies a responsible position there. His mother is also living in Dim-baza and she is happy there.

However, I know why the hon. member for Houghton has adopted this attitude here. After all she told us today, as she has repeatedly said in the past: “We do not want anybody to be removed; not White, not Black.”

Correct.

That is the philosophical difference between that hon. member and us. She is in favour or a unitary state.

It has nothing to do with that.

She wants to follow a policy of letting things take their own course. She does not want to protect the Western Province against squatters, against people who are here illegally. She wants these illegal people all over South Africa. On this basis we shall never solve our relations problems among groups and people in South Africa. The hon. the leader of the Opposition also said this. I have here a speech he made a while ago, in which he said “Influx laws are public enemy No. 1”. People may not be removed at all. The word “removal” should not be used at all. It is the hon. member for Houghton who uses the word “remove”. The correct word is “resettle”. If you remove a person, then you remove him. You do not see him again and you do not take any responsibility for him. But if you resettle a person, that is a completely different matter. The approach of this side of the House is to resettle people, not to chase them away and tell them that we want nothing further to do with them. That is not the approach of this side of the House.

Adolph and Joseph also tried to do that. [Interjections.]

I want to warn that glib-tongued hon. member that the kind of language he is now using is worse than the language used by the hon. member for Berea today. He is trying to create the impression that we in South Africa would kill people in order to get rid of them.

Do what?

Is that what the hon. member is suggesting?

No, resettle.

Then surely the hon. member knows that no one in South Africa has yet been killed or removed in terms of our resettlement policy.

I was not talking about killing.

He has always been given another chance.

Resettlement against his will.

But why then did the hon. member use the example of Adolf Hitler?

Because to resettle people is against their will.

The hon. member has not listened to the debate thus far. He could look at several examples I have mentioned to hon. members of Black people who have been resettled and who today are perfectly satisfied in those areas in which they are living, and who have a decent standard of living and are earning a decent livelihood. In their old age they can even retire decently in those areas.

Are you claiming that there are people who have decent privileges?

Having to force people living legally or illegally in one area to move to another area is not a problem unique to South Africa. There are many other countries in the world with the same problem. I can even remember a few years ago when certain people of colour in one of the countries that criticizes us so vehemently, did not want to move and took possession of a train. They had to be removed from that train by force of arms. We also all know that nothing stirs up so much feeling as removal. But to move people from slum conditions to improved accomodation is also sometimes branded as something evil. There is scarcely a developed or developing country in the world that does not have to do with resettlement at one time or another. It is therefore absolute nonsense for the hon. member for Houghton to ask the Government to put a complete stop to this. The successful completion of this programme frequently goes and in hand with a great deal of sorrow, tragedy and human suffering. We know this is the case. However, this is one of those essential actions which cause a sympathetic Government just as much heartache as it does those persons affected by it. That is why hon. members will find that a Government will keep resettlement and clearing of slum conditions down to a minimum. Usually this is only resorted to when all channels for persuading people to be resettled voluntarily have been fully explored and have failed. I know the Government’s approach is one of sympathy and compassion. Because the Government want to co-operate with others, this is its approach, and it is done in such a way that people are not hurt, but it is nevertheless done in the interests of the building of sound communities in South Africa.

It is a pity that we cannot gain the support of hon. members of the PFP for this. If they were to give their support to this, things would go even better in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting motion by the PFP, particularly in view of the specific time at which the PFP came up with this specific motion. I do not regard it as pure coincidence that after Nigeria was in the news recently because just on 2 million Black fellow Africans in that country were ordered to leave Nigeria in record time, the PFP has now seen fit to come to this House with a motion of this nature.

I compared the two situations, because it is a valid comparison. [Interjections.]

The inference I want to draw from that …

I compared the two situations, do you not see the resemblance?

As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Houghton said that what is now happening in Nigeria has taken place in South Africa for the past 20 years. This is nothing but an attempt—and these are the words used by the PFP itself—to transpose the inhuman action now being taken in Nigeria on to what has been taking place in South Africa for the past 20 years, and in that way to create the impression abroad that what we have done in South Africa is exactly the same as is at present being done in Nigeria.

Of course, the hon. member for Houghton then went on to let the cat out of the bag. Why did they introduce this motion here today? She said that it was their basic point of departure that they were opposed to the consolidation of the homelands. The arguments they raised here this afternoon are nothing more than an attempt to prevent the proper consolidation of the homelands, if they can succeed in doing so. According to the motion the PFP wants to express its disapproval of the enforced resettlement of established Black communities. We have heard that old argument of the PFP ad nauseam in this House.

However, there are also established White and other communities in South Africa. Never have we had the privilege of hearing the PFP utter a single word of disapproval if, as a result of the influx of Black people, as a result of the illegal squatting of Blacks, White communities are disrupted and threatened. Never have we heard a single word from the PFP in the interest of the White community that would be disrupted and threatened in such cases. Then the exact opposite happens. Then the PFP champion the cause of those very people who by illegal means want to disrupt and threaten an established White community through their behaviour.

Of course, this is nothing unusual. We are used to this standpoint of the PFP. As previous speakers have already said, they do not believe in ethnic differences. As a matter of fact, if I am to sum up their philosophy I would say they would very much like to do away with all ethnic differences in South Africa.

You are talking nonsense. Where do you get that from? [Interjections.]

There is also the other side of the picture, Mr. Speaker. Except for the propaganda purposes for which the PFP want to use this motion, I must unfortunately state that for all practical purposes this motion of theirs has become virtually unnecessary. This afternoon the hon. the Minister quoted certain figures to us in connection with what has been done in this regard during the three years since he became Minister. In the light of the tremendous problems involved in giving inconveniently situated Black areas back to the Whites, the figures he quoted to us means one thing only and that is that the attempt the NP made in the past to get rid of those Black areas and to resettle those people has ground to a dead halt. In 1980 nothing was done for the entire year, and since then virtually nothing has been done. That is why I say that for all practical purposes it was not necessary for the PFP to introduce this motion. I do not know whether I am allowed to refer to this but there is legislation at present before this House dealing with this matter. This afternoon the hon. the Minister referred to certain areas which were to be returned to the Whites and for very good reasons. However, the Government is repealing the decisions this House has already adopted and those areas are no longer to be returned to the Whites. [Interjections.] Why? Not because those proposals did not make sense, not because those proposals were not the correct ones, but for the one simple reason, viz. that this hon. Minister has not had the heart to implement that policy since he became Minister of this department. That is the fact of the matter, and I call the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is still to speak, to witness in this regard.

What area is the hon. member referring to now?

The hon. the Minister referred to the two areas. I am calling the hon. the Deputy Minister to witness. He said in this House that consolidation had come to a standstill. He said that last year in this House and the hon. the Deputy Minister will not deny it. That is our objection to this hon. Minister. Doctors have a very good saying: Gentle hands make infected wounds. I want to give that hon. Minister this piece of advice. This afternoon, and in the past, too, I have listened carefully to that hon. Minister.

Cas, are your hands clean?

I have listened carefully to him, and I gained the impression this afternoon that he did not intend to move a single Black, no matter how inconveniently he may be placed in White South Africa, without his consent. I need only recall what happened in my part of the world. I am also putting this to the PFP. In my constituency there was an area, Kromkrans, where many thousands of Blacks—and I want the hon. member for Houghton to take cognizance of this: I do not think she knows about it—where many thousands of Blacks were living in the most appalling conditions and where they were being exploited, not by Whites but by the Black owners of those farms. Almost 30 000 Blacks were living on 550 ha of land with only two boreholes. This is near my part of the world. Those Blacks had to pay another Black 5c for a tin of water. That was not necessary when those people were moved in the time when the hon. member for Lichtenburg was still responsible for the implementation of the NP policy. It was not necessary to force a single one of those Blacks to move. They looked forward longingly to going voluntarily to the Kangwane homeland because the opportunities created for them there by the hon. member for Lichtenburg were so attractive to them.

When he was still a Nationalist.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said when I was still a Nationalist.

No, I was not referring to you; I was referring to the hon. member for Lichtenburg.

As we sit here, we are all still Nationalists. [Interjections.] I told them that the day they terminated my membership of the NP: You can take away my membership of the NP, but you cannot take away the nationalism that burns in my heart. [Interjections.] They cannot take that away from me.

Come home!

For this reason it is a blatant lie to tell me that I am not a Nationalist, and to tell my hon. colleagues sitting here that they are not Nationalists. [Interjections.]

We on this side shall give the department and the hon. the Minister all the support under the sun if he will energetically implement the policy of proper consolidation of the Black States.

We shall also teach him, too.

As a matter of fact, we are impatient because the proper consolidation of the Black States is not progressing as it should. We now have an energetic—he was energetic; I hope he still is—new Deputy Minister, and we are looking forward to this new Deputy Minister giving new impetus to the attempts to implement proper consolidation. What I am now going to say, I do not say maliciously: Our experience of the hon. the Minister is that his enthusiasm when he speaks is in inverse proportion to the results of his actions. That is our difficulty, because the hon. the Minister can become so enthusiastic and can bubble over over with enthusiasm when he explains the policy of how the States are to be consolidated, but when we consider the practical results achieved since the hon. the Minister has taken charge, they fill us with sadness and melancholy. We know this is not the result of a lack of enthusiasm or energy among the officials of the department. They are industrious people who really believe that the policy of consolidation must succeed. However, it is just that we have gained the impression that since the hon. the Minister has taken charge of the department a damper has also been placed on the enthusiasm of the officials.

I want to conclude by repeating the standpoint of the CP. We have been accused of hating the Black people—why they were dragged into this I do not know. We are energetic supporters of the development and consolidation of all the Black States in South Africa, and we shall do everything in our power to bring this about. If a CP Government comes into power, that process will be speeded up as much as possible. For that reason the hon. the Minister need not be afraid that he will be reproached by this party if he continues with proper consolidation. However, we now find that White land is being purchased to be added to the national States, whereas the quid pro quo, that White South Africa must become increasingly White, is no longer taking place.

In fact the opposite is taking place. Accordingly we are beginning to have our doubts about the figures the hon. the Minister quoted to us this afternoon regarding the number of Black people who habe been resettled since 1980. If one compares those figures with the many thousands of Blacks who came to the Western Cape illegally and were accommodated here by this same hon. Minister, one begins to doubt that the NP is in earnest in its implementation of its policy with regard to the Black nations of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Barberton and I appear to live in two different South Africas. In the South Africa in which he lives there are Blacks queueing up to make themselves available as candidates for resettlement. The South Africa with which I am more familiar is a very different one indeed.

The hon. member for De Kuilen tried to justify the policy of resettlement by referring to what has happened at Dimbaza. May I just point out to him that before the Rev. Russell pointed out to the world what was happening at Dimbaza things were very different there. What happened was that the Rev. Russell was rewarded by being banned. I want to ask the hon. member for De Kuilen how he can justify what goes on in the other resettlement camps in the Ciskei which do not have the advantages of a settlement such as Dimbaza which is comparatively close to King William’s Town. What about the tens and hundreds of thousands of people living in settlements like Oxton, Zwelendengi and Sada where there is not the remotest chance of industrial infrastructure being provided for them in those places.

The motion before the House strikes at the very heart of the Government’s apartheid policy and for this reason it is bound to elicit a hostile response from the Government benches. The hon. the Minister became very angry and heated in his reply this afternoon to this debate. My father used to tell me that if I was in the right I had no need to be angry, and if I was in the wrong I had no right to be angry. I suggest that the hon. the Minister this afternoon had no right to be angry because the facts speak for themselves. This policy has from its inception involved the removal of hundreds and thousands of Black people from areas they have been used to and provided for their resettlement in areas quite foreign to them. These removals and the manner in which they have conducted has led to more adverse publicity than any other single thing which the Government has done. Of that I am positive. For this reason alone the hostility with which this policy is met from hon. members in these benches must also be fully understood.

One can add to that our repugnance of the physical breaking up of people’s homes, of forcing men, women and children away from what they regard as their homes. One thinks about the breaking up of families, particularly of extended families which means so much to the Black people in this country. One can also think of the deprivation, in many instances, of work opportunities and even of the right to work. In some cases people have been deprived of their citizenship. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, you will understand why we are introducing this private member’s motion.

Before proceeding any further there is a point which I would like to clarify with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister dealt at some time with the question of forced removal and voluntary removal. In July 1980 he declared that there would be no more forced removals and he indicated this afternoon that he still stands by that.

I said wherever practical and possible. Why do you omit it?

Right. What I now want to ask him is this: If the people of Mgwali or Mooiplaas or Lesseyton or any one of the other dozens of Black communities scheduled for uprooting state categorically that they do not wish to move, what will the position be?

They will be forced to.

What will the position be? Let me now quote from a letter to the hon. the Minister from a legal representative of the people of Mgwali—

The hon. the Minister’s reply in that instance was—

That still does not, however, answer the question, which is: What happens if the people say they do not want to be compensated, or that they do not want to go under any circumstances?

Force them.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is still the attitude of his department. If so, why is it that officials of his department recently visited Mgwali and painted numbers on all the doors of the buildings there, regardless. Who asked for those numbers to be painted? What do they portend, if not imminent expropriation?

Is that not what they did in Egypt?

Let me take again the example of the 32 000 people living in Duncan Village in East London. In reply to a question from me, the hon. the Deputy Minister confirmed that Duncan Village is to move. The question I now want to put to the hon. the Minister or his hon. Deputy is this: Has the community council of Duncan Village been consulted in this regard? I get no reply. Did the hon. the Minister approach the community council and say: Let us talk about the removal?

They do not care about that.

Is it not true that the community council of Duncan Village has sent a memorandum to the hon. the Minister protesting against the move? Did those people not, in June 1982, request permission of the Regional Director of the Eastern Cape Administration Board to send a delegation to the hon. the Minister to fight for the retention of Duncan Village? All this has been done, and yet the hon. the Minister still tells us those people will be moved. There is consequently no question of consultation or negotiation with them about whether they want to move or not.

Just force them.

Is it not also true that ALBOHAKA, i.e. the committee which represents Algoa, Albany, Border, Hangklip and Karroo, has also indicated that it does not want Duncan Village to be removed? In the face of this opposition, can the hon. the Minister still talk of voluntary movement? When does he intend consulting with the people of Duncan Village, Mgwali, Mooiplaas, Goshen, Wartberg or the rest on the question of their voluntary removal? Are his words not simply the sugar that coats the bitter pill? There is to be no consultation, no negotiation because the Government’s mind has already been made up and these communities must go.

I have chosen to home in on one or two communities in an area I know very well. I could, however, speak for hours about the 662 000 other Blacks on farms and in Black spots in the Eastern Cape who are yet to be moved, yet the hon. the Minister denies that this is the case. He says it is not so. Well, I shall be tabling some questions in which I shall be asking for details about the exact numbers, if these figures are incorrect. According to my statistics—which are open to correction—there are a further 68 000 living in White towns in this region who are yet to be forced to shoulder their way into Ciskei, already the most densely populated territory in South Africa if not in the whole of Africa, a territory, incidentally, which is perhaps the least able to support them.

I could speak for further hours on the 3 million Black people—to whom my colleague the hon. member for Houghton referred earlier—who have already been moved, and I could speak about the estimated 375 000 people awaiting removal, people whom the hon. member for Berea referred to, but I shall desist. It is altogether too depressing, and the facts are already well known.

What about the Government’s supporters? How do the Government’s supporters themselves feel about removals? Here one comes across a fascinating phenomenon. I refer to the distinction which the Government’s supporters apparently draw between “people” and “non-people”. There seems to be an acceptance that Coloureds and Indians are in fact “people”, people with hopes, ambitions and aspirations. But not Blacks, oh no! Blacks are “non-people”.

You are talking rubbish, man.

Just listen. The Blacks are there to do work when they are needed and then they must disappear obediently into the homelands when they are no longer needed.

Allow me to illustrate this attitude which appears to be so widespread in our society. The hon. member who was interjecting must now listen. I want to refer to a leading article in Rapport of 12 September 1982. It is by a well-known political columnist and it is titled: “Wil u die hel losmaak, dr. Ferdi?” [Interjections.] In it the author refers to the need to choose between what he calls “hard reality” on the one hand and what he calls “lekker-geloof" on the other. A secure future for the country, he contends, will not be assured by means of soothing words alone, not by bravado or wishful thinking. No! It will have to be “prised loose”, he says, with words and deeds and great difficulty. A fair deal for everyone—note the word “everyone”—in South Africa must be sought after.

It is not very original stuff, but it is faultless in its logic nonetheless. The author then goes on to take issue with Dr. Ferdi who allegedly pleaded for a heartland for Coloureds in the Western Cape. Dr. Ferdi evidently pleaded that Coloured land should be consolidated in the Western Cape for the exclusive use of Coloured people and that this was the logical place where Coloureds could exercise their political rights. Coloured people in the outlying areas, he said, should be given the same sort of rights as those currently being planned for urban Blacks. In the newspaper article the author says that this approach reminds him of the man who before the violence of 1976 said “Ons betaal, ons bepaal”. But, says the author, if he, i.e. Dr. Ferdi, is to be honest with himself, he should be saying “Ons bepaal, andere betaal”. The author’s implication is therefore that nothing but violence as in 1976 will be the outcome of that attitude. This is the “hel” that he referred to that will be “let loose”. He amplifies this by stating—

He then goes on to quote the numbers of Coloureds and Indians resettled so far: 80 000 Coloureds and 38 000 Indians. What follows is, to my way of thinking, priceless, and I agree with the columnist one hundred per cent. Let me quote it verbatim—

I am speechless—metaphorically speaking. To move 80 000 Coloured people will let the hell loose on us, but there are no similar fears that moving 3 million Black people, with another million or so to go, will elicit a similar reaction. There are no such fears at all! The thought does not enter the author’s head. That is not all. He goes on—

Mr. Speaker, listen to this—

Mr. Speaker, to bury hundreds of thousands of Blacks in the living hells of Sada, Thornhill, Dimbaza, Oxton, Glenmore, Kammaskraal, Elukhanyweni and the rest, as this Government does, passes without a murmur, but now Dr. Ferdi of the CP is without a heart because he proposes a homeland for Coloureds. It quite takes my breath away!

This article is so rich I cannot leave it alone! The good political columnist for Rapport goes on—

This is just too much! Ask the Tsitsikamma Fingoes about their economic chances at Keiskammahoek. Ask them how willing they were to move and to go to that place. Ask a million Blacks who have been moved to the god-forsaken settlements of Winterveld, Onverwacht, Nondweni, Msinga, Ekuwuikeni, Ezakheni, Limehill and a hundred others with names equally notorious, both in this country and out, what their answer is. I do not want to hear their answers. They would give me bad dreams in my sleep at night.

When Nationalists speak of “everyone in South Africa”, as does our columnist, when they speak of “us” and “we”, they fall into the fatal error of regarding the population as consisting of people and non-people, as I suggested earlier. Blacks are “non-people”, and therefore the sight or thought of them being uprooted, of them and not the Coloureds being sent to the moon, to the “klippers” of the Richtersveld, of them being forced into “compartments”, elicits no response from those hon. members. There is no fear that this kind of treatment will “maak die hel los”, as our author fears similar treatment will do to the Coloureds. The Coloureds are people, the Blacks are not. It is this attitude that is sowing the seeds of the White man’s destruction in this country.

Leave Dr. Ferdi and the CP alone; they are not ruling the country. They are not signing the eviction orders for Duncan Village, Mgwali and the rest. It is this Government and this Government alone which is doing so. It is their responsibility and their responsibility alone. That is why we in these benches are saying to you, Mr. Speaker, through the motion before the House: Stop this madness now before that hell breaks loose on all of us in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been interesting in the sense that the dilemma in which the ruling party finds itself is clearly demonstrated by the contrast between the wishes of the hon. members of the PFP and those of the hon. members of the CP. Of course it is clear that the answer lies somewhere between the wishes of those two groups. I shall come to that presently. I think the hon. member for Berea and his party decided at a congress early last year that they were going to make the question of removals, or the resettlement of people, a matter which they wished to debate here in Parliament this year. Of course there is not sufficient time now to conduct a comprehensive debate on this matter. Therefore I think that we can debate this entire matter successfully during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I think the hon. member for Berea was a little over-hasty, since the whole argument he used here today was based on the consolidation proposals of 1973 and 1975. He disregarded the fact that work had since then been done on proposals with regard to consolidation and that the Government had in the interim adopted certain standpoints with regard to the reports of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, which undeniably demonstrated that changes would be made to the borders as proposed in 1973 and 1975. There is no doubt about the fact that changes will be effected. That is why I believe the hon. member for Berea was being a little premature with this motion of his at this stage, since he is making it somewhat difficult for us, as we cannot make known at this stage what the Government has already decided with regard to consolidation and with regard to the reports before the Cabinet. Therefore, all I am asking is that we should forget the situation, i.e. that one million people still have to be removed. That is out of the question. The hon. member may as well forget the figure of 330 000 people in Natal too. That is also out of the question.

The Government has taken realistic decisions with regard to two areas. From this we have an indication of Government thinking in this process. Of course, I am now referring to the Motoks/Ramagoep area. The hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Waterberg are aware of the decisions with regard to those areas. They were present. The hon. member for Barberton sat with me on that commission.

The situation with regard to Kutama and Senthimula is also very clear. There is no doubt about what the Government is envisaging there.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain so that the hon. member for Berea may understand what the Government’s motives are. I do not wish to anticipate here in this House the legislation which is at present under discussion elsewhere. At Kutama and Senthimula we have the situation that as far as the independent State of Venda is concerned, there was in 1975 still an outstanding quota of land which had to be added. The hon. member for Lichtenburg dealt with that matter at that time. The land which was designated in connection with the removal of Kutama and Senthimula, together with additional quota of land which still had to be allocated, was designated in the Soekmekaar and the Bandelierkop area. Our commision investigated the matter with regard to Kutama and Senthimula repeatedly. We investigated the possibility of amalgamation. In fact, we considered every possibility. The value of the surface area of Kutama and Senthimula is estimated at almost R6 million. Approximately 25 000 people are living in Kutama and Senthimula, of whom the majority work in the vicinity of Louis Trichardt and in the town itself. Louis Trichardt is easily accessible to them; it is only seven kilometres away.

It is going to cost R15 million to resettle the Kutama and Senthimula area. Then, in terms of the proposals of that time, those people were to have been resettled in an area approximately 12 kilometres from where they are living now. That is as the crow flies. Then they would still have been only seven or eight kilometres from Louis Trichardt. That is why the Government very correctly decided that there would be no sense in such a resettlement process. The Government therefore decided that Kutama and Senthimula should remain where they were.

However, the Government also decided— just as in the case of Matoks and Ramagoep—that the compensatory land due to Venda if the resettlement of Kutama and Senthimula should take place—it comprises 20 000 hectares—would be withdrawn from Venda and be proclaimed a White area. It is only right that this should be done in this way. Similarly, 32 000 hectares of compensatory land is being withdrawn which the Matoks and the Ramagoep would have received if they had been moved. Mr. Speaker, this is an indication of the kind of thinking we may expect on the part of the Government in cases of this nature.

I shall deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Barberton at a later stage. However, I wish to confine myself to the hon. member for Houghton. In her typical way, as always in the past, disregarding the realities of the situation …

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes, just before I continue with the hon. member for Houghton, there is something more I wish to say to the hon. member for Berea. I think the hon. member for Berea owes the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation an apology. The allegation of the hon. member that the hon. the Deputy Minister had acted in an arrogant way in Natal, is completely contradicted by the sympathetic way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister is pleading the cause of those people with the department. I do not think it is fitting to disparage someone without first acquainting oneself with the facts. In fact, we are all aware that when we are dealing with resettlement, we are dealing with an extremely sensitive matter. That is why I wish to have a few words with the hon. member for Houghton today. I wish to say at the outset that I told the commission that I objected—and the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet are aware of this—to certain resettlement practices. That is why I said during the past week, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North as to whether a certain resettlement area was once again going to become a shanty town, such as the one the hon. member for Lichtenburg erected at Woodstock, that I was not in favour of such a resettlement. It does not become South Africa to establish such resettlement patterns. The hon. member for Lichtenburg moved those people from Woodstock to where they are today. They will have to be moved again if we do not prevent this.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to a number of areas but I wish to concentrate on her example of Matupestat. The hon. member for Houghton said that she had been to Matupestat.

I was.

How many springs are there in Matupestat? How many boreholes are there in Matupestat? You see, Sir, the hon. member drove to Matupestat, she whizzed through the Eastern Transvaal, and that was it. [Interjections.] I now wish to use Matupestat as an example and I wish to say that the example I am going to use, is precisely the same as at all the other places the hon. member visited.

Rubbish!

Matupestat is a small piece of land, not even 2 000 morgen in extent. 1 289 people live there. They have a school with four classrooms. There is one borehole which fell into a state of disreair as the people did not have the money to buy diesel fuel for running the pump. They told me that there were five springs. I visited those places after Mr. Budlender—there are a number of my colleagues here, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order in particular, who will remember him—had brought Matu-pestat’s people to me. We negotiated with him and I treated those people fairly. I intend doing this all along the line. They decided that they would appoint a planning committee from the inhabitants of Matupestat to negotiate further with us. The chief of Matupestat …

Is dead.

… is dead, yes. The fact is that the chief was in favour of removal, but now we have to deal with the chief’s uncle, a man who is 68 years old. At the moment there is a struggle in Matupestat about who is going to be the next chief. We will have to be careful in dealing with this matter.

Bribery!

While the hon. member is speaking of bribery, I want to tell her a few things about Matupestat. There are only 27 people who live in Matupestat and who own land there. There are only 27 people who own private property in Matupestat. I also wish to tell the hon. member that 22 of those 27 people live in Soweto. [Interjections.] Let us go a little further. Those people who are now living in Soweto, do not cultivate that land. Those people living in Soweto do not plough and plant there. They allow other people to “lotšha” there and they are paid for that.

What is wrong with that?

They are paid for that, and those people “lotäha” on that land. [Interjections.] They (the owners) are making money from those people.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry, I have little time left. The hon. member for Houghton said that she had been to Onderstepoort and that all she had seen there was a school.

No, piped water.

Then, unfortunately, the hon. member has not been to Onderstepoort. [Interjections.] The fact remains that at Onderstepoort there is a ready-built school with 14 classrooms to meet the needs of those people. There are 40 morgen of irrigable land and a proper water reticulation system has been laid on. This is permanent water, whereas water has to be transported to Matupestat.

May I ask a question? There are about 4 000 tin latrines at that place. Are they all for the people of Matupestat?

I regret to say this, but it seems to me that I will have to say to the hon. member that she can come to me and I shall give her the correct information.

Many more people are going to be resettled in the Onderstepoort area than only the people of Matupestat. We are going to see whether we can accommodate the people of Matupestat at Onderstepoort. The people are going to receive almost 300 ha more land than they have at present. They are receiving land which is going to be placed under irrigation. Opportunities for employment are being created for these people. They are close to work opportunities. [interjections.] I am going to negotiate with those people.

We cannot continue with the method by means of which resettlement took place in the past. We have to resettle, but …

Why?

Surely there are many practical examples. In Natal we shall have to consider a situation in which a dam is to be built and people, whether they are White or Black, will have to move because the place will be under water. Surely one has to resettle those people under those circumstances.

There is no dam there.

The hon. member has created the impression that we do not compensate the people properly when we resettle. However, I must point out that from 1975 to 1982 we spent R26 million on development in areas where we had to resettle, plus R11,5 million which was paid out to people as compensation for what they had owned. The hon. member is being completely contrary by making this kind of remark.

Why do they not want to go there?

The factual error of her attack with regard to Matupestat applies to all the other examples she mentioned, and this House can decide for itself.

I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton, but before I do so, I should like to thank hon. members on our side who took part in this debate. I shall do so in detail at a later stage, since I do not wish to spend any time on flattering them now.

Then there is also the hon. member for Albany. He referred to Wartberg and Umqwali and places like that in the Ciskei, knowing full well that we have concluded an agreement with the Ciskei with regard to those places. That agreement was concluded when the Ciskei became independent. We must be extremely careful now, and I do not want this side of the House to be guilty of discussing matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ciskeian Government. However, the hon. member is doing so. The day before yesterday the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, together with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information went to the Ciskei again to discuss these matters. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is constantly engaged in discussions concerning the question of Duncan Village. It is not a case of there being no discussion. An implementation committee, has been established in which the Governments of the Ciskei and the Republic are represented and which is considering these matters under the chairmanship of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Another committee of which I am chairman has been established and it is looking into the squatter conditions at Chalumna, and it has also been asked by the Government of Ciskei to look into the Fingo situation. There is continuous contact. The hon. member must not interfere in Ciskeian affairs. I do not want this side of the House to interfere in Ciskeian affairs either.

I say to the hon. member for King William’s Town that the NP and the Government have adopted a standpoint with regard to poorly situated areas in the corridor between East London and Queenstown. The Government will continue to do this.

There is another thing I wish to tell the hon. member for Albany. It surprises me that hon. members are talking about the overpopulation of Ciskei and that they are talking about the poor conditions there. The hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head. Well, she has put her foot in it. We submitted amendments in the Borders of Particular States Extension Act in order to make certain arrangements in respect of the Stockenström district which has been earmarked to accommodate the people at Thornhill, who come from Herschel, but they are opposing it. There is also the piece of land in the Queenstown district which has been set aside to accommodate people, but the hon. member is opposing this. There is also the Victoria East district which has been earmarked to bring development and relief in that area. The hon. member is opposing this as well. What do they really want? Can one have one’s bread buttered on both sides?

I do not agree totally with what the hon. member for Barberton had to say, but there is something I do agree with. That hon. member must be extremely careful in respect of these matters. The hon. member for Lichtenburg was in charge of them for many years and he has repeatedly been placed on record. We find this extremely handy. I wish to say to the hon. member, and I think everyone should know this, that the Government has reconsidered the removal and resettlement of people and that the Government has an additional standpoint on this matter. The department is working on it and the fact that we have not moved anyone since 1980—the hon. member for Lichtenburg knows this as well as I do—is due to the fact that we simply came up against a blank wall, since the Black people said that a new investigation into consolidation was in progress and that they did not wish to move. The entire removal process was frozen. Seen in the light of the decisions taken by the Government, this was a good thing, otherwise we would perhaps have had to move people twice or three times during the entire process.

I wish to tell hon. members that this resettlement process should not simply be a process whereby we move people from one place to another. This is not what it is concerned with. It should be development orientated and that is why I have asked the department—we are working on the scheme now—to see whether we can do away with the use of corrugated iron huts and replace them with core housing instead, so that the people may build on to them, as they are accustomed to doing. We should also remember that we have to introduce an orderly urbanization process within the Black areas and that our resettlement process should be aimed at that. Furthermore, one also has to establish agriculture in the national States in the course of the resettlement process and this resettlement process has to take this into account, or the pattern in which this takes place is disturbed.

If we do not take these factors into account, we shall achieve nothing with resettlement. The time when one thought that one could remove people from one area to another on a large scale without disruption taking place in the process, is past.

You therefore concede that we were right in part.

I am not conceding that the hon. member is right in part. All I am saying is that we took another look at the situation. If I say to the hon. member that he was partly right, I may just as well say that he was, to a large extent, wrong. [Interjections.] Then one might as well say that we are at the same point. From 1975 until 1982—the hon. member for Barberton referred to this, and I do not think it is wrong to refer to it again—4 983 farming units were purchases. One can imagine how many Whites were involved in this process of removal. These are Whites who have sacrificed a great deal. We receive daily representations—I cannot help but go to the Cabinet with these matters—from people who claim that they are incurring losses as a result of the fact that they have accepted Government stock as payment for their land. The hon. members of the CP are nodding their heads, but it was the hon. member for Lichtenburg who introduced the system of payment by way of Government stock. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The system of payment by way of Government stock was introduced with the co-operation of organized agriculture. I should therefore like to bring the hon. member for Lichtenburg to book. The fact I wish to emphasize is that today there are many Whites who are also struggling in this process and who, for example, now have Government stock which is perhaps not worth as much as they thought it was going to be. There are people who are struggling to obtain land in other places. We admit this. This is part of the sacrifice we have to make if we wish to deal with resettlement and consolidation. The Government did not run away from consolidation.

Are you going to continue consolidating?

Yes, we are going to continue with consolidation, and next Saturday those hon. members will bear witness to this when we announce the consolidation of kwaNdebele. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice—

† Mr. Speaker, it was with regret that we learned of your health problem which you announced a few days ago. We hope—and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of all the members of this House—that you will have a speedy recovery and that you will find your way, as you have visualized it, back into the ranks of your old colleagues here in the House of Assembly.

*We wish you and Mrs. Du Toit everything of the best. Since you became Deputy Chairman of Committees on 27 January 1978, you have come a long way with this House. On 1 February 1980 you became Deputy Speaker, and since 31 July 1981 you have occupied the high office of Speaker. Those of us who have known you over a long period, and who have been privileged to have you as a friend, wish you everything of the best. We hope that you may be spared for many years to come, so that you may continue with the work of your constituency. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and everything of the best.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I second the motion. I should like to associate the hon. members in these benches with the words just uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister. May I say, in addition, that we would not like you to feel that the absence from the Chamber of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was thought to be anything but by force of circumstances. In fact, I should like to read into the record this note to you—

You are the eleventh Speaker of the Union of South Africa and the Republic of South Africa and the last in a very distinguished line of great South Africans. You are the embodiment of Parliamentary democracy. It is always sad to say farewell. We are sad that you had to make this decision, but it was for you to make it. I happened to be in the House or in the precincts, rather, with a senior official when we heard of the setback to your health last year. We know that you have made a wonderful recovery, but obviously you do not feel that you have recovered completely yet. I should like to support the hon. the Prime Minister in the wish that you and your wife will be long spared, and in particular that you will again occupy one of these green benches with your usual dignity. We have pleasure in welcoming you back to the body of the House.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, allow me on behalf of the leader of the CP and the other members of this party to associate myself with the words of praise the hon. the Prime Minister has addressed to you. Unfortunately my leader cannot be present this afternoon, since the message was only received after he had already left. We, too, wish to place on record our appreciation for the work you have done. Our best wishes go to you and your family in the years ahead. We hope that you in particular, Mr. Speaker, will enjoy the best of health. We trust that all will go well with you and we wish you everything of the best. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the NRP with this motion and with the words expressed from both sides of the House. I want to say with complete sincerity that we wish you the very best for the future and a speedy return to health. I think I speak for all sides of the House when I say that you have earned the respect and the liking of all members of the House. We have respected the way in which you have carried out your difficult task. We have respected the dignity you have given to your position and the impartiality with which you have led the proceedings in this Chamber.

We of the NRP thank you, we wish you well and we hope that you will long be spared—also your good lady—to be with us and to serve as an ordinary member of the House. I support the motion.

Question agreed to.

I wish to thank the hon. the Prime Minister very warmly for his motion. I also wish to thank him and the other members for what they have said. Unfortunately it is true that there comes a time when one has to ask oneself what is in the best interests of Parliament and of all concerned.

I wish to thank all hon. members once again for the privilege I have had of serving this House. I also wish to thank them for the way in which they have treated the Chair over the past year. We never really had any serious disturbance in this House and it is due solely to the hon. members that this is so. I thank one and all.

† I want to thank everyone for all they did for me especially and for the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.