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

Training is one of the most important cornerstones of a country’s economic development and its social order. In addition, training can play a decisive role in the personal life and aspirations of the individual. In view of this the Government indicated in its White Paper on Part 2 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation that training derserves special priority. That is why the Government placed particular emphasis in the White Paper on the necessity for training, retraining and development of our country’s total manpower. In this White Paper the Government declared unequivocally that, as far as manpower was concerned, its general object was to utilize its total labour force to the optimum. That is why the Government also declared that training was the most important aspect of this object and proceeded to introduce certain legislation.

The first step the Government took was to consolidate the four Labour Acts falling under the Department of Manpower and also dealing with training. These Acts were the Apprenticeship Act, 1944; the Training of Artisans’ Act, 1951; the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act, 1976; and the In-Service Training Act 1979. These Acts were consolidated into one measure.

One of the most important features of the new Act was the introduction of the National Training Board. Another feature of the Act was the involvement of the State, employers and employees. In accordance with the principles of the free market system, the responsibility for training is left mainly to the private sector, while the Government assists with advice and financial support. The Government passed the enabling legislation and its advisers act as councillors in the process of training, but the actual training task is left in the hands of the employer and employee. It may justifiably be said that the Manpower Training Act is one of the cornerstones on which the economic development of South Africa rests. I think it is time for us to give generous recognition to the fact that our present labour legislation was the greatest breakthrough in the field of labour for South Africa both nationally and internationally. By amending the country’s labour legislation this Government laid the foundation for a dynamic period of development in the field of manpower. It is fair because it is based on the principles of freedom of association, justice, self-determination and order. It is indeed a foundation on which one can build with confidence in the future.

The person who played a key role in the successful implementation of this legislation was the present Minister of Manpower, Mr. S. P. Botha. After the Government’s White Papers had been published, he personally visited the major labour and industrial centres in the country to explain the new guidelines to employers, employees and trade unions with enthusiasm, fervour and zeal, and get them to accept them. Here in Parliament, the hon. the Minister explained the legislation so convincingly that even the Opposition supported it. The hon. the Minister’s interest in and enthusiasm for training is further illustrated by the donation of a trophy bearing his name which he awarded to top scorers in trade tests a few weeks ago at the Carlton hotel. This wonderful gesture of his reflects the approach and seriousness with which the Government is dealing with training in South Africa.

South Africa is greatly indebted to the hon. the Minister for his wonderful handling of labour matters and his positive promotion of sound labour relations. Two aspects namely the most efficient utilization of labour and training, are important in our country and cannot be over-emphasized. Labour is the mother of life itself in the same way as education is the mother of all professions. South Africa is a developing country and still has many development possibilities. We are blessed with a virtually inexhaustible source of labour. However our problem is that this labour force is not trained. That is why it is our task to ensure that these people are trained and utilized to the optimum.

South Africa has grown and developed under the National Party regime and in the process the NP has ensured that all people can share fully in this development and growth. It is a well-known fact that there is a shortage of highly-skilled manpower, but over the years the Government has created training facilities, so that those persons who wished to do so were given an opportunity to receive training. The Government not only assisted employees; employers were also encouraged, through tax concessions and financial assistance, to train their workers. Not only did the Government see to training; it also saw to the creation of employment opportunities. I am thinking here of the tremendous task the various development corporations carried out in order to create employment opportunities in South Africa.

Last year in a White Paper the Government announced its policy of decentralization and the promotion of decentralized industrial development. In terms of this policy eight growth points are identified where development can take place on a regional basis so that employment opportunities may be created for all the inhabitants of that region. I want to mention one example in this connection, namely the industrial development at Bronkhorstspruit, where employment opportunities are to be created inside and outside a Black State.

During the Good Hope conference with business and community leaders in Cape Town the hon. the Prime Minister announced a new dispensation for decentralized industrial development. In order to promote training in these areas, the Government made special concessions, for example a tax rebate of 125% on the costs of training schemes and centres. It was also announced that in order to make the concessions even attractive, the contribution of the Government in these areas may be paid out as a non-taxable cash grant.

The NP has a long-term policy, and the same applies to manpower utilization. It is a long-term policy that considers matters in advance. Plans are then made accordingly. Therefore it also creates confidence in the employee, the employer and the investor. This long-term planning has already borne fruit. If we compare South Africa with other industrial countries today, we see that not only South Africa, but most industrial countries in the world, are going through a recession. If we nevertheless compare our growth with that in other countries, we see that during the past year South Africa in fact had a positive growth rate, compared with a negative growth rate in most of the industrial countries of the West. In the USA, for example, it was —1,5%; in West Germany, –1,0%; in the United Kingdom, –0,5%; in Switzerland, –1,5% and in Canada, –3,0%. Of course there are certain underlying reasons why South Africa was able to achieve and maintain this growth rate. I would say one of the main reasons for this was the good systematic training programme we had, controlled employment, sound labour relations and good human relations. I mentioned earlier that the Government also saw to it that everyone was able to share in the economic development and prosperity of this country. Better training was also responsible for the trained worker receiving a better salary and being able to live under better social conditions. However, we also have a training task as far as those people are concerned, because they must also be trained and led to adapt to changing circumstances. They must learn that there must be social and behavioural discipline.

In the South African economy productivity is an exceptionally important factor. However, productivity incorporates various facets of which training is a key facet. It is clear that the Government’s training strategy sets everything in motion to promote training to the maximum. However, it is the task of the employers and employees to take positive steps to ensure that productivity is increased. In future this aspect will have to receive a great deal of attention in our country, for if we compare ourselves with the rest of the world, we find that we are lagging very far behind.

Perhaps it is also necessary to place what has happened in our labour situation in South Africa in perspective. What has happened to us over the past few years? If we compare ourselves with other industrial countries in the world with an industrial history of between 100 and 200 years, we see how short the period of our industrial history is—a mere 25 years. On the other hand, almost overnight we found ourselves in a position which forced us into certain directions, not because the economy required this of us, but in fact owing to prevailing circumstances. I am thinking, for example, of the oil boycotts and other sanctions. Within a short period of time we had to build Sasol plants and other factories. We had the necessary manpower, and that is why we immediately set to work to train manpower for these industries. If we consider everything this Government has achieved in the development of our industries, what we have in fact achieved within a very short period of time as an industrial country, everything we have achieved as regards the creation of opportunities for training and the positive direct and indirect assistance, advice and guidance from the Government, we can only feel proud.

However, this motion is also concerned with unemployment and productivity. I wo of my colleagues will elaborate on these two aspects. However, I want to go into greater detail on the positive things this Government has done in connection with training.

If we look at the 1981-’82 budget, we see that a quarter of the budget was spent on training. This proves the seriousness with which the Government approached this problem of training and how essential the Government considers the solution to this problem to be.

In the same way the Government also considers manpower utilization in all its facets, such as the placement of manpower, guidance and staff selection, as very important and as a result more than one-fifth of the money voted for the Directorate of Manpower is spent on that.

I have already referred to the National Training Board. The National Training Board was established in terms of section 3(1) of the 1981 Act and its major function is to advise the Minister in connection with matters of policy affecting the application of the Act and training matters. It is also the task of the board to promote training and to undertake research on training and the needs in the field of training. The board also ensures uniform standards for the control and promotion of effective training. This board consists of 22 members and because the private sector and employees also have a part to play here, eight of the members are employers and four are employees. This board therefore has close contact with the private sector which is represented on the board. This board therefore keeps abreast of the realities of life.

The National Training Board is divided into six committees. There is the executive committee with six members and it has the authority to take action when urgent matters require this. There is the research and development committee. There is the committee for artisan training which takes care of the promotion of the training of artisans. There is the committee for in-service training which is involved in the registration of training centres and schemes and the payment of grants-in-aid. Then there is the trade test committee. Its name speaks for itself. In conclusion, there is the manpower training committee which is responsible for the control over the training and conditions of employment of apprentices in the various industries.

In addition to the private training and group training centres, the Government also plays an active role in the training of manpower in the country. In the four State training centres in Cape Town, Vereeniging and Durban 348 apprentices were trained and placed with approved employers in 1981.

In addition, the Government also gives ample financial assistance by means of tax rebates to approved private training centres. The Government also supports training centres and schemes by means of the Manpower Development Fund. Last year an amount of R715 000 was paid and R200 000 was voted for subsidizing the salaries of instructors at training centres.

Guidance also plays a role. The Department also participates in that. Every quarter a magazine, My Career is published in which prospective employees, mainly high school pupils of all race groups, are provided with guidance. As part of the programme Manpower 2000 there were also various career exhibitions and these exhibitions were visited by approxiately a quarter of a million pupils.

South Africa, like the rest of the world, is at present experiencing a recession. But this is in fact an opportunity to give attention to the improvement of training so that when the economy recovers there will be sufficient trained workers to get the industries into top gear. The Government is doing its share, but the private sector will, as a partner have to contribute more. This House, employers and employees greatly appreciate what this Government has done, is still doing and will do for the training of its entire labour force.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alberton, in introducing his motion, focused on the training of manpower as the cornerstone of economic development in South Africa, and I have no quarrel with that, not at all. In fact, I think that the House is indebted to the hon. member for bringing this motion to the House, because it is of the utmost importance for all of us. In addition he sketched the history of manpower training in South Africa in terms of the legislation and co-ordination which has taken place. Amongst other things he praised the hon. the Minister of Manpower for the lead that he has given in this field. I should like to add my own words of appreciation to this, realizing that any praise from me might well be bad news for him in the light of the forthcoming by-election and especially of recent developments. Nevertheless this party has over the last years been more than ready to give support to any forward move made by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member has made the point that manpower training has developed considerably in South Africa, and it is indeed true that in recent years the whole question of the urgency of training has become as popular as motherhood and “melktert”. I think it would be difficult to find anyone in this House who would disagree with the need for urgent emphasis on manpower training. It was not too long ago, however, that this was not the case. Whilst we are appreciative of the new development, the new emphasis, we should not overlook entirely the years of neglect. It is no use belabouring this and I do not intend to belabour the wasted years, but at least we should be aware of this so that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

South Africa is, as is well known, a land of disparities. On the one hand it has a highly developed commercial, industrial and banking sector and in the mining industry it is a world leader. In addition it has an agricultural industry which rivals those in developed countries. Alongside this, however, we have a subsistence agriculture, rural poverty and, in both rural and urban areas, massive unemployment. On the one hand it has a substantial number of highly educated people in the professions, in management, performing a great variety of skills as complex as any in the world, and alongside it has millions who are illiterate or under-educated and lacking in any skills. According to Prof. Jill Nattrass the average output per head in the most developed 10% of South Africa is 15 times greater than that in the least developed 10%. Furthermore, one-third of the population produces less than 5% of the Republic’s total production.

If there is one point I want to make in this debate, it is that basic education sets the limit to any training programme. Therefore an absolute priority is a massive improvement in basic education for all South Africans. Without this foundation, without the foundation of basic education, the best training schemes in the world will not achieve the desired results. Those of us who are familiar on a regular basis with companies and the private sector, people who have gone out of their way to spend more money on training, they will tell you on every occasion that the one thing that holds them up and hinders them is the fact that the material that they have is in many instances untrainable because, even as far as literacy is concerned, they lack the basic rudiments of education. No matter how many tax incentives are given, no matter how great the levy, no matter how much money is made available from the Department of Manpower, if greater emphasis is not placed on basic fundamentals, a great deal of the goodwill, money, time, expertise and energy will run down, like some of our great rivers, into the sea.

That is the first point I want to make. The second point, which is coupled with this one, is the following. It is absolutely sheer lunacy, utter madness, to go on pursuing this Government’s educational policy in the light of that fact. Only in recent days have we been told that the Government is moving towards a quota system so that the National Education Act will be amended, and instead of having the permit system in respect of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians to attend so-called White universities, a quota system is going to be introduced in terms of which a certain number of people of colour will be allowed to attend these universities. That is nonsense. Against the backgound of the need we have, how on earth can we go on discriminating on racial grounds? The same thing applies as far as permits are concerned. Only today I have received an application for a young Black student who has a first class matric. He wants to study in a certain direction which we in this country need badly. However, after 14 months he receives a letter informing him that he cannot attend the university of his choice. So too, Mr. Speaker, there is the whole question of approach in respect of technikons and technical education, where certain people are barred from attending those institutions. The whole separate education approach of this Government is hindering the very progress mentioned by the hon. member for Alberton. It only compounds the problem in connection with the increased training of all our manpower in South Africa.

The statistics which I want to give are mostly drawn from the estimates for 1981 as contained in the High-Level Manpower Report. These show that this country has been wasteful and neglectful of a resource even more important than its gold, its diamonds and its minerals. I mean its people—the resource on which our future depends more than any other.

Let us look first at those who are in the economically active group—male and female—and who have completed no more than primary school level. Only 1,6% of Whites are in this category. That is healthy and good. However, 24,7% of Asians, 59% of Coloureds and a staggering 84% of Blacks are also in this same category. To give these statistics more point I should stress that it is reckoned that only 32 000 Whites have only primary education, while 6,36 million Blacks are in this same category.

How on earth are we going to train people who have less than primary school qualifications? Those who have reached matric level or Std. X represent 30% of the White manpower, 10% of Asians, 2% of Coloureds and 3,3% of Blacks. The total number of Blacks, Asians and Coloureds with Std. X qualifications is estimated at just over 73 000. That figure may even be a little higher, because the figures I quote relate to the High-level Manpower Report. The number of Whites with Std. X qualifications is almost 600 000. No wonder that because we no longer have enough Whites to do the job, we find it impossible to get the right kind of people from amongst the other population groups.

To complete the picture I should like to point out that 330 000 Whites have post-Std. X diplomas or degrees. That is a high percentage—16,7% of White manpower. Only 1,3% of Coloureds are in this category, and a minuscule 15 000, or 0,2%, of Blacks.

If we were to total all South Africa’s manpower at 10,8 million, 30% are to be regarded as having no education at all. One-third of these people have no education at all. Another 36% have only primary schooling. Secondary education accounts for 31%, and diplomas and degrees for about 3%.

Bearing in mind that nearly all skilled occupations—naturally there are shortages— require a minimum of a Std. VIII education, and that professional and managerial posts usually demand matriculation and beyond, we have no more than 20% of our manpower sufficiently qualified for this work, while many will not have had the training to perform such jobs. The hon. the Minister has gone out of his way and, in my view, has done his utmost to encourage manpower training. I think the hon. the Minister will be among the first to agree that unless there is a basic education on which one can build and train, a great deal of his energy and of his work will come to nothing. As the High Level Manpower Report itself comments—

The report goes on to say—

If we are to have a realistic assessment of what needs to happen in the provision of quality education for Blacks in relation to our manpower developments and requirements, we have to look at a number of forces which are operating and which will continue to operate. These are irresistible forces that are at work in South Africa.

The first of these forces is the dramatic change in the structure of our South African population. In 1951 the White population made up 20,6% of the South African population. In the year 2000, it will only be 11,2%. In contrast to this, Blacks who made up 66,9% of the total population in 1951 will be 78,5% by the year 2000. These facts must be seen against the background of a population that is going to grow from 27,7 million in 1980 to an expected 47,5 million by the year 2000.

We often boast, and with justification, of our natural resources but these are fixed and are indeed a declining asset. Much more important are our human resources and our future in this country, our economic growth in this country will depend on how we develop this invaluable asset.

The second factor that we need to be aware of is the demand for skills by industry in South Africa and the demand for work. These two aspects cannot be seen in isolation from each other. On the one hand, as I say, there the demand for skills by industry and, on the other hand, the demand for work. As I say, these two must be seen together. Even at the relatively high economic growth rate of 5% per annum—to which we have come nowhere near during the past year—one can expect the unemployment figure to reach about 11,5% in 1987. This figure may well be an underestimation because it looks at the employment situation from a First World South Africa point of view. I have already drawn attention to the disparity that exists in this regard in South Africa in that we have a First World and a Third World situation existing together in this country. When we look at the demographic patterns for all population groups, the figures are much more ominous. Prof. Sadie of Stellenbosch, a man of great reputation, has estimated the increments in the labour force in South Africa for the period 1980 to 2000. According to his reckoning, the South African labour force is expected to increase from 10,5 million in 1980 to 17,6 million by the year 2000. This represents a straight average of about 354 000 per year. This projection will give some indication of the challenge to create jobs on the one hand— 350 000 per year—and, on the other hand, the need to develop the necessary skills. One cannot only create jobs. That is of course important and capital is required for it. However, by means of education and training one needs to develop the skills in order that the work can be done well.

There are other points which have to be made to emphasize the urgency for a revolutionary approach to education and training. First there is a growing inability of the rural agricultural areas to support a consistently growing population. This will inevitably force more and more Blacks into the industrialized sectors of South Africa. The only way in which we can accommodate this will be through training, the development of skills on a massive scale and by allowing people to sell their labour to the highest bidder.

In recent years the Government has rediscovered free enterprise, but a cardinal principle of free enterprise is labour mobility. This is another factor which has to be reckoned with. One cannot say to people that they can only work there and not here, because this is a contradiction of the free enterprise principle.

Do you couple this …

No, it is another obstacle which we say has to be removed if one is going to train people and wants to fit people for jobs.

One of the outstanding characters of the urbanization pattern in South Africa is the concentration of the population in a few large metropolitan areas. More than 75% of the total urban population of the country lives in the four large metropolitan areas. 68% of the White population lives in those four large urban complexes, with 41% concentrated in the PWV area. Approximately 90% of the Asians are urbanized with 74% residing in the Durban-Pinetown-Pieter-maritzburg area. The four metropolitan areas also accommodate 55% of the Coloured population while 39% resides in the urban environment of Cape Town.

We believe that we have successfully placed the Black population in the so-called homelands, but of the Black population outside the national States 43% are found in the large metropolitan complexes with roughly one-third concentrated in the PWV area.

An indication of the educational needs in terms of numbers is vividly illustrated by the population structure in the 5 to 25 year age group. In 1980 the Black percentage of all groups 5 to 25 year old was 74,43%, but by the year 2000 it will be over 83%. The equivalent in the White group is 12,86% in 1980 and only 7,73% by the year 2000. This is a further indication of the pressures, the irresistible forces which are at work.

If one looks at the projections by the Department of Education and Training alone— not by the PFP, but made by the department—one finds that the challenge can be highlighted by saying that the number of Black pupils in Sub Std. A a year ago was approximately equal to the entire White school-going population.

I move as an amendment—

1. (1) calls on the Government to remove without delay all obstacles placed in the way of the full utilization of South Africa’s manpower potential; and
2. (2) urges the public and the private sectors to increase their efforts in manpower training at all levels.”.

I have tried to stress that training cannot be seen in isolation from education. I have also emphasized that despite the commendable strides made in the provision of basic education, there remains an awesome gap between the desired goal and reality. It follows therefore that if the public and private sectors are to be able to fulfil their responsibility in manpower training, they must have material which is “trainable”. We therefore have to pump more money into Black education. In order to improve training realistically, to increase productivity and to alleviate the job famine, one absolute priority is to improve basic education for all South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusually pleasant experience to be able to follow the hon. member for Pinelands especially because he expressed sentiments with which one can basically agree, although, of course, I disagree with some of his perceptions. He himself mentioned that South Africa has an unusual population structure, with First World component and Third World component, which, historically, brings with it certain difficulties in providing the basic education which he called for and which I agree with. It is certainly linked with training at the higher level. We must all strive to improve the basic education of our people, and I have no doubt in my mind that that is precisely what the Government is doing. I do not necessarily agree that an integrated education system will simply take away the obstacles which that hon. member has mentioned. What one must strive for, is to provide adequate educational facilities for everybody.

Do you agree that technikons should be open?

They are open, to a certain extent and under certain conditions.

If one considers that, roughly, 24% of the Third World component of our population is at school, compared with 21% of the First World component and one compares this again with the figure of roughly 17,9% as an average for the whole of Western Europe and 9,7% as an average for the rest of Africa—which is comparable to the Third World component of our population—I think this country has done very well in the field of basic educaiton.

Influx control is necessary until one has sufficiently decentralized industrial and other employment opportunities, a process with which the Government is actively engaged.

*For these reasons I want to say right from the start that, unlike the hon. member for Pinelands, I unhesitatingly support this motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Alberton. I do so because it is the endeavour of this Government to ensure a safe, prosperous and peaceful existence for all who live and work in our country. We aim for a happy society, because happy people live peacefully and are satisfied. And in the main, happy people are those who are afforded the opportunity to earn and to progress according to their ability so that they can improve their own living conditions and those of their next of kin. To be able to do this, they must have employment opportunities and must be able to be productive. And for them to be able to be that, training is necessary. For the untrained person there are in the modem world, with its numerous demands on the ability and skill of every person, a limited and diminishing number of vocational opportunities. The chances are good that people who are not trained will, at one time or another, have to join the ranks of the unemployed. This always happens, especially in times of economic recession, as is the case now, when we are experiencing a world-wide recession. In countries such as West Germany and Belgium, which are highly sophisticated industrial countries, the unemployment figure has reached an unheard—of high of 11% of the total population, and we are also encountering this tendency in South Africa. Those who lose their jobs first, are those who are the least productive and those who have undergone the least training.

In South Africa this problem is alleviated, on the one hand, by the dire shortage of skilled and trained manpower and, on the other hand, it is aggravated by the existing oversupply of unskilled manpower.

There are various reasons why South Africa finds itself in this position. Out of a total population of 25,5 million about one-fifth, 20%, belong to the First World, with its relatively long technological and industrial tradition. 1,9 million of these people, or almost half of this section of the population, are economically productive. Because this section of the population does not increase in number to any significant extent, the possibilities of economic expansion of the economically active section are virtually nil.

On the other hand, about 80% of our population form part of the Third World population, which until very recently has had no technological and industrial tradition of its own. Of this population about 7 million, more or less one-third, are economically active. For the most part they do the unskilled work and have a relatively high population growth rate.

Whereas nowadays we recognize as self-evident that it is possible for fewer than 2 million people to perform all the skilled and professional work in a modern, sophisticated country such as South Africa, South Africa, and especially the private sector, has until recently been less training-conscious than it might have been. For this, too, there have been several reasons. In contrast to the traditional industrial countries, South Africa has not had a long history of development of its own technological and industrial culture. While these countries have undergone a period of industrial development spanning almost two centuries, South Africa’s industrial tradition is hardly older than a quarter of a century. In addition, South Africa has fairly recently, and quite suddenly, been subjected to international boycotts and threats of sanctions on a scale which no other country in history has endured. Our country had to build up its own arms industry in haste, and it has done so with great success. Our country has also had to develop alternative sources of energy and this resulted in the establishment of Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 and of Koeberg. In addition to the more rapid industrial development in the past decade or so, other large projects were also tackled, for example the Richards Bay and Sishen-Saldanha projects. All this rapid development made sudden dramatic and abnormal demands on our resources of trained manpower. However, the Government envisaged this situation.

In a large-scale effort to improve the skills and productivity of the South African labour force, legislation was passed as long ago as 1976 and 1979 to control and encourage the training of workers. In my opinion the incentives were among the best in the world. In order to develop the skills of their employees, employers were granted extensive tax concessions to reduce the costs relating to in-service training or the attendance by their employees of public or private training centres. What this amounted to was that employers could deduct 200% of the cost of a worker’s training for tax purposes. Under certain circumstances this concession in respect of the training of Black workers in economically developing areas could be increased to 225%.

† These incentives, I am sure everybody will agree, were quite unprecedented. Nonetheless, the astonishing thing is that they do not seem to have the effects one would have expected. In spite of the fact that an employer would have to pay a mere R60 out of every R100 to have his worker trained and his productivity increased, the prevailing attitude among a very large proportion of our private sector employers seem to be that it is more convenient, if not cheaper, to have the State train their workers so that they can buy them. If they saw the danger signals flickering they did not heed them or they believed that somewhere sufficient trained people would miraculously appear when the crunch came. Obviously something else had to be done. Here I think recognition is due to the Government, and in particular to the hon. the Minister of Manpower, for doing two things. The first is the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation …

One resigning his seat and two fighting it.

That is irrelevant. The second is the launching of the Manpower 2000 project. Both, as we all know, changed the face of our labour dispensation beyond recognition. If ever there was a productive and cost-efficient exercise, it was Manpower 2000, which at a cost of less than R1,5 million achieved what some of the best monetary incentives could not achieve. Among other things there was the adoption of the Manpower Training Bill in 1981 and the establishment of the National Training Council in terms of that legislation. In short, what emerged was a comprehensive manpower strategy closely involving the workers, the State and the private sector on which, in terms of the principles of the free-enterprise system, the greatest responsibility must needs rest. Who else, after all, has greater freedom to organize its training activities so as best to meet its own requirements and circumstances? There is certainly room for improvement, but I should like to say at this point that the private sector is increasingly rising to the challenge, so much so that there are already today some 2 500 registered in-service training courses conducted by the private sector. This is a substantial improvement on the position that pertained three years ago. It is equally gratifying to note the growing support for the eight group training centres which now fall under the Manpower Training Act.

I should like to illustrate this growth in terms of the Apex Training Centre which is in my constituency. In 1981 it trained 1 603 people and last year 2 156. This year it will have trained 4 000 people. In that period the trainee weeks increased—almost doubled— from 5 000 in 1981 to just over 9 000 this year. The number of courses there have increased dramatically, in the civil engineering sector from five to 17 last year and in the transport sector from two to eight. It is even offering productivity improvement and orientation courses, not only for labourers, but also for top management.

At this point I should like to express my particular gratitude to that hon. Minister for having allocated R6,5 million last year for the improvement of the workshops, equipment and hostel accommodation of that centre. As grateful as I am for that, I am even more grateful for the amendment to the Manpower Training legislation which was passed a month ago, an amendment in terms of which these centres can now achieve direct State assistance.

*If I had the time I could have talked at length about the role of universities, technikons and technical colleges in the training of our people. However, I just want to say that in addition to the existing financial incentives, the Government has also recently instituted special concessions to facilitate the training of apprentices. For example, apprentices can now also decide whether they want to perform their military service before or after their training, a privilege which was previously confined to university students. As a result of these incentives and concessions a record number of 14 500 apprentices were enrolled last year, representing an increase of 21% over the previous year’s figure. Last year almost 20 000 candidates in 200 different trades were tested by the Olifantsfontein Test Centre, and 60% of them passed. This was also an improvement on the previous pass rate. Whereas four years ago the Government had only one centre for full-time adult training, it now has five that can train 600 people at once.

My time has nearly expired, but there is still one thing I want to say. I also appreciate especially what this hon. Minister does to obtain recognition for the status of the artisan in this country. I have no wish to discount the necessity for professional people, of whom we also have a shortage, or for academical training as such. However, I want to express the opinion that there are too many BAs and too few NTCs in circulation in South Africa, just as is the case in many developing countries. It is therefore time for parents and young people not simply to consider a university training automatically, if they can afford it, but also to have regard for the fact that artisans are the truly productive people of the world, the backbone of a modern technological society. It must be realized that an artisan can do just as much for his country, and sometimes more, too, than an official, a journalist or even a politician with a bachelor degree. Because the hon. the Minister is also striving for this, I gladly support this motion.

† I support this motion because I believe that the Government is doing its best to develop what I consider to be our most precious and valued resource.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move as a further amendment—

It has been interesting to hear how much praise the hon. the Minister has been getting recently from the PFP and from the English-speaking Press. This reminds me of what Genl. Hertzog said at one time: The moment one is praised by the English-speaking Press and by the Opposition parties it is time for introspection; then the leaders and the nation must consider whether the leaders of the NP are still travelling the path for which they were elected.

We have just heard from the hon. the Minister of Manpower that an amount of R1,33 million has been spent thus far in respect of the Manpower 2000 project. If a balance sheet were to be drawn up, I should very much like to see what it would look like. On the one hand R1,33 million has been spent on the Manpower 2000 project. However, what is the other side of the coin? What has one had in return for the amount of money spent in this regard? During the debate on the Additional Appropriation, we learnt that R19,5 million had been voted for manpower training. Only R13,7 million of this was spent, while R5,682 million remained unspent. The excuse was that clear guidelines for the training of people seeking employment first had to be formulated and that they then had to be approved by the National Training Board, the Minister of Manpower and the Minister of Finance. Moreover, the two group training centres where group training was originally instituted, had first to make preparations for the courses. Candidates could only be accepted once vacancies had occurred. Surely all these facts must have been known when the budget was drawn up?

Poor administration!

When one draws up one’s statement, one must know what one is able to do and therefore how one is going te spend the money. Now we are being asked to praise the Government for this.

On 14 February Dr. Jan Visser, the Executive Director of the National Productivity Institute, gave evidence on the free market system before the Economic Committee of the President’s Council in Johannesburg. In this regard I refer to Beeid of 15 February in which his evidence was reported. He said—

This hon. Minister has been the Minister of Manpower for about seven out of those 10 years.

He goes hunting too often.

I read further—

Now Britain is a country adversely affected by strikes and all kinds of other things. Nevertheless, its production over ten years has been higher than that of South Africa. However, the hon. member for Alberton says that we should praise the Government.

Dr. Jan Visser defines productivity as being a yardstick of the way in which scarce resources in the community are used by management to market goods and services at the minimum cost and therefore at lower prices. He says that scarce resources consist of labour, capital, material and energy. This erudite lecturer went on to say that South Africa was not yet achieving satisfactorily in the sphere of productivity. The most important reasons for this are, firstly, the low level of education and training of the majority of the labour force. However, the hon. member for Alberton is asking us to praise the Government. The second reason is a lack of awareness of productivity and ignorance concerning the meaning of productivity, and thirdly, too little attention is being given to research and development. Yet the hon. the Minister of Manpower is to be praised for this.

Thirdly, we come to the combating of unemployment. In this regard the motion itself is inherently contradictory. Better training means the more effective utilization of one’s labour, which means a saving on labour, and therefore unemployment. Of course one could combat unemployment by creating more management posts and posts for artisans. On 11 August 1982, the hon. the Minister of Manpower addressed the general meeting of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and claimed that according to the most recent survey by his department, there was a real shortage of 187 897 people in the various professions. In the professional, semi-professional and technical spheres there has been an increase in the shortage of 73,4%, compared with the survey undertaken in April 1979. The shortage of artisans and apprentices was 27 562 in April 1981, as apposed to 10 972 in 1979—an increase in the shortage of 51,2% over that two-year period. This is what we are to praise the hon. the Minister for now.

This is a disturbing situation, and the solution is obvious. The time has come for imaginative attention to be given to selective immigration from our countries of origin. Immigration is not being given the intensive attention and preference it deserves. An “Immigration 2000” policy would have been a more effective initiative than a “Manpower 2000” policy. After all, the Western European countries are in a state of depression at the moment and we could recruit highly trained and semi-trained artisans from our countries of origin and bring them here.

If one wishes to engineer high productivity in the field of labour, personal security and job security must be ensured. In order to attain this in a deeply divided plural society, the right of self-determination of all peoples must be acknowledged and respected. For example, just take the situation with regard to the Sullivan principles and the so-called African Advancement which are the order of the day in the large companies nowadays. It is claimed that by rubbing shoulders with one another literally and figuratively, there will be greater mutual respect. What has the reaction of the artisans and the apprentices been in respect of this matter? They are asking certain questions and they are making certain statements. Firstly, they wish to know whether the employers can give the assurance that what is demanded of them now, will stay as it is, or whether it is simply going to lead from one concession to another on the road to total, unavoidable integration? Secondly, their observation has been that the concessions which are granted, are granted out of fear and at the expense of the White employees. Thirdly, they ask themselves whether the concessions are being made voluntarily, or under pressure from abroad. Fourthly, it is true that an apprentice may be granted deferment. The hon. member for Benoni referred to this, but what he really said was that an apprentice could request deferment of military service, or he could undergo military service before or after his training. But he is also granted deferment of his course when he undergoes military service. However, this occurs at the expense of his training. Instead of attending three classes, he now only attends two. This affects his self-confidence.

In the fifth place, where there is equal pay for equal work, the Black worker has more money in his pocket than the White man, since his transport, as well as his accommodation, his health services, etc. are subsidized. You see, Mr. Speaker, over the years the workers have regarded the entrepreneur as indispensable. However, this has changed. The employer was also the provider of security. That image has now changed completely, so that the Black worker sees himself as being increasingly indispensable and irreplaceable.

I maintain that we must return, we must return enthusiastically to the policy of geographic separate development. [Interjections.] Arising out of this, a system of labour preference must … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp must go and have a look at what is happening in his constituency. The CP is in the process of taking over in Krugersdorp. Therefore he would do well to behave somewhat more calmly. [Interjections.]

Order!

Arising out of this, a system must … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, arising out of this, a system of labour preference should be introduced for the various peoples in their different areas. This system must be supported by a policy of creative withdrawal of foreign labour from one another’s areas. The hon. the Minister claims that when there is free association, and when trade unions are autonomous, one’s right of self-determination is ensured. There you have it! Can you believe it!

Then you might as well hunt buffalo. [Interjections.]

Earlier on the hon. member for Pinelands mentioned certain figures. However, I am speaking in very general terms now. In a situation in which the Whites will soon constitute only 12% of the total labour force, where mixed trade unions are being given full rein, and the White worker is in danger of being ploughed under in his own heartland, the hon. the Minister of Manpower is saying that our right of self-determination is ensured, since we can associate freely and our trade unions are autonomous. One of the most important reasons why Black trade unions were recognized was that the employers gave those trade unions increasing recognition. Can one imagine how much weight increasingly smaller White trade unions are going to carry with increasingly unsympathetic and intolerant employer organizations! That is why it is imperative that the problems of workers be dealt with on an inter-State level if we wish to promote labour peace and security in the long term.

Of course, it is no secret that a leader such as Chief Minister Buthelezi wishes to use the trade unions to promote his political ideals. Since the objective of all hon. members in this House is the contented survival of all the peoples in this country as well as the minimization of conflict, the retention of the right of self-determination of people in a complex labour situation and geographic separate development remain the highest aim and ideal. We must continue to strive for this ideal and aim if we want this country to continue to be worth living in. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to devote much of my time in arguing with the hon. member for Brakpan. I must point out though that it has been very much an East Rand debate so far. We have had the hon. members for Alberton, Benoni and Brakpan. It seems as though we are going to have the hon. member for Germiston next; so to speak—anyway, born in Germiston.

Helen, do you know I was born in Germiston? [Interjections.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is about the only link between myself and the hon. member for Rissik, I am afraid, to date. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately hon. members of the CP refuse to accept the economic realities of South Africa in the 1980s. They seek to go back to the ox-wagon economics. [Interjections.] This certainly does not fit in with modern industrial development. The hon. member has admitted that there is a grave shortage of skilled workers in South Africa and his solution to this problem is geographic separation on the one hand and immigration on the other hand. The idea of training South Africa’s existing manpower and dealing with unemployment in that way does not appear to have struck him. The hon. member has reproached the Government for the advances it has made while my colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands, has praised the Government for those advances that it has made, and I agree with him that there have been considerable changes on the labour front over the past three or four years. However, I must tell the hon. member who moved the motion that it is not really correct to use the word “sustained” or to describe the Government’s actions as “positive” thereby praising the Government for its efforts to increase productivity and combat unemployment.

I am assuming that the hon. member is including Black workers in his motion since they do after all constitute more than 70% of the industrial manpower, 90%, if not more, of the mining workforce and, of course, almost the entire agricultural labour force. Government action regarding this huge percentage of the labour force has unfortunately over the years been characterized by placing every obstacle in the way of Blacks developing skills that are so badly needed. I wish to cite just a few of these obstacles.

The first was the introduction of job reservation in industry in the 1950s which, fortunately, has gone by the board entirely owing to economic pressures. Secondly, there was the refusal, until just three years ago after the publication of the Wiehahn Commission report, to change the definition of “employee” so that Black workers could be included as employees. How ludicrous when, as I say, they constitute by far the largest percentage of the labour force! Anyway thereafter, they could then be included as employees and could join registered trade unions. This in turn meant that they could become apprenticed and that the restriction which closed shop had until then placed on their becoming skilled and semi-skilled workers, was at least partially removed.

In the third instance—and this is very important—there has been the deliberate extension over the past 30 years of the migratory labour system which in itself flies in the face of all the requirements of industry for a stabilized labour force that can be trained. One cannot train men of two worlds, men who live partly in the rural areas and partly in the industrial areas. It is impossible to train these people to become skilled and semi-skilled workers. One has to have a stabilized labour force.

While they are still uneducated do you support the migratory labour system?

No, we do not support the principle of migratory labour. We say it should be done away with as fast as possible.

The fourth obstacle has been dealt with at length by my colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands …

And very well too!

… and that has been the failure—oh, very well indeed!—of the Government to provide a sound basic education particularly I would say in subjects such as mathematics and science which would enable Blacks to be trained for skilled jobs Unfortunately, the last two obstacles are still in existence, namely, the Government’s reliance on contract labour, the migratory labour system, as the underlying basis of the labour system in South Africa and secondly, although there have been improvements in basic education, the fact that basic education of the Blacks is still very much inferior to the basic education provided for the Whites and the other races, although it has improved. Therefore, the hon. member cannot talk about a sustained effort because “sustained” means over a long period of time and I do not consider the period of three years during which the Government has changed and improved its labour system, a long enough period to be called a sustained effort. What has been done in the past is to create bottlenecks in skilled labour fields, which slowed down our economic growth rate quite drastically as a result, and which limited productivity and restricted the consumer power of Blacks, which has led to low standards of living and poverty. So there is a long way to go before we can talk about sustained positive action. It is only three and a half years since, as I say, our industrial conciliation legislation was amended, and at last it appeared that there was a glimmering of understanding reaching the Government that the economic interdependence of the racial groups was quite ineluctable. One cannot improve the standard of living of one section of the community without that reacting favourably on the standard of living of others; in other words widening the market by increasing the productivity and consumer power of Blacks will be beneficial to all—the farmers, the industrialists, the commercial men, the professions—and this in turn means more employment for everybody.

There are still many obstacles. There are the mobility restrictions mentioned by my hon. colleague and there are the restrictions which still apply on the mines. The legislation concerning Mines and Works is still a job reservation law which I know no hon. Minister on that side will dare touch with a barge pole until the two Northern Transvaal by-elections have been fought. That is Sperrgebiet; do not touch it. Do not touch the Mineworkers’ Union and do not alter job reservation on the mines! But it is a major obstacle to the acquisition of skills on the mines by Black workers.

There is resistance of course by White workers—this is fostered, to their everlasting shame, by the hon. members of the CP—to the advancement of Black workers. As I have shown, however, if there could be an advancement of Black workers, their consumer power would be increased and that would enhance the ability of everybody to live at a higher standard of living. The economic cake in South Africa is not fixed in its size; it can be expanded to the benefit of all people. I want to point out that because of that resistance of White workers, fostered by the CP, there are today, out of a total of 6,3 million economically active people, only about 350 000 in trade unions. Agricultural and domestic workers are not included in the figure of 6,3 million.

The one thing that I must say is sustained by the Government is the harassment of trade union officials and their organizers by the Security Police.

I want to concede at once that making apprenticeship multiracial is a major advance in this country, but at the end of 1981 only 500 out of 12 000 apprentices were Blacks. It is nevertheless an improvement over the previous year when there were only 100 Black apprentices in the whole of South Africa. Now we have non-racial training legislation, we have cheek-by-jowl training in the factories—this is objected to by the CP—but for reasons which I am unable to fathom the Government insists on racially separate technical colleges. This is another point which my hon. colleague stressed.

I believe there are two Black technikons— the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—and I think there are two other technical colleges that aspire to be technikons, but there is no doubt that the training facilities offered at these institutions are not equal to those offered at the White technikons. They do not draw the best instructors to begin with; those technical instructors go to the White colleges.

I want to deal with a couple of other issues. The main one which I should like to mention is unemployment which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Alberton. I do not know why he is so starry-eyed about this situation. I do not know why he talks about sustained constant action to combat unemployment because it has been patently unsuccessful. I want to give some figures. The Department of Statistics estimated unemployment among Whites, Coloureds and Asians—that was at the end of 1982—to be up by 87,5% on the previous year. Prof. Keenan of the Department of Social Anthropology at Wits estimated the number of unemployed to be 3 million. Just to keep joblessness down to a million, we need 200 000 new jobs to be created every year, and we certainly do not achieve this. We need a 5,3% growth rate per annum to keep the percentage of unemployed constant. We need an estimated 6,7% growth rate per annum to keep the numbers of unemployed constant. These are estimates by Mr. Simkins, who is the labour economist at the University of Cape Town. And our growth rate is nowhere near 5,3% and certainly is nowhere near 6,7% per annum. The chief economist of Barclays Bank stated that South Africa is threatened by the most serious unemployment problem since the end of World War II. Dr. David Webster of Wits has said that 24% of the country’s labour force is currently unemployed. And so I can go on.

It seems to me that the Government’s way of combating unemployment is to try to stem the tide of urbanization by pushing people back into the rural areas, by trying to tighten the screws of influx control and by attempting a very long-distance policy of deconcentration, which I for one do not believe is going to be any more successful than the border industry policy has been.

Suggest a better alternative.

The alternative is to allow people to sell their labour in the best market and to allow them to develop an informal sector economy inside the urban areas, which in itself is an enormous help in solving the unemployment problem.

There are some very disquieting figures as far as unemployment is concerned. They have some important political implications which we should not be overlooking. First of all I want to say that 60% of unemployed Blacks and Coloureds are under 30 years of age. This is a very important figure. I obtained it from the Financial Mail of June last year. More than 63% of unemployed Blacks have been looking for jobs for more than six months and almost 25% of unemployed Blacks have never worked at all. This means that kids come out of school and cannot find jobs, therefore remaining unemployed. What are the implications of that? It can only mean that there is going to be an increase in the crime rate in this country. As the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed out, about 80% of unemployed Blacks have an educational level of less than standard 6 and about half of them have practically no educational qualifications at all. These all have important political considerations.

This brings me to my final point, namely the lack of educational qualifications of so many unemployed people. This applies also, if not particularly, to people in the White rural areas and the Black rural areas. There is a poverty trap in which millions of farm labourers and their children are caught, unable to leave the rural areas because of influx control and with little or no education to enable them ever to do anything but the low-paid unskilled jobs. Schools for rural Blacks go up to standard 4 only. There are no secondary schools for the rural Blacks in the White areas. To the best of my knowledge—the hon. the Minister will perhaps correct me if I am wrong—there are no agricultural training colleges for Blacks at all to enable them, therefore, to take on the more skilled jobs in the rural areas.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Alberton could tell us what positive sustained action is being planned by the Government to increase the productivity of these millions of people—I should think an estimated four million would not be a over-estimate—and to reduce unemployment.

In conclusion I want to say that I do not want to leave the impression that we believe that there have been no advances on the manpower front—there have been and I believe that those improvements have not necessarily been because the Government has had a change of heart. I believe the improvements have largely been due to economic pressure and to the fact that the bottleneck in skilled labour has been the major restricting force on the growth-rate in South Africa. The Government has finally had to realize that and I suppose in about 50 years time the Conservative Party, if it still exists by then, which I sincerely hope it will not, will also realize that the real restriction on productivity and economic development in South Africa is because we have not used our manpower to its full extent. By manpower I do not only mean the White trade unionists, but also the entire Black labour force in South Africa.

We do not disagree with that.

The hon. member says he does not disagree with that, but the way in which he figures it will work is not via the Sullivan principles, which he obviously does not like at all. In fact, these principles have proved a considerable success in many industries in uplifting Black workers and have not cost one White his job. That is the important thing to remember. It has not cost one White his job. It is amazing, I am told by the managers of these factories, how quickly White workers adapt to work cheek by jowl, shoulder to shoulder.

That is a step towards integration.

It is not a step towards integration; integration is a fact. Whether the hon. members like it or not, integration is here and here to stay. There is no way in which those hon. members can ever turn the clock back.

That will lead to political integration.

It probably will. It is very likely and it should indeed lead to political integration.

That is what the NP wants.

Our party faces the reality of the situation.

That is Black Power.

No, it is not Black Power. Let me tell the hon. member that the Blacks are here and that they are going to use what power they have. It is far better to let them use it through properly set up political institutions than leaving it entirely to trade union movements to use their power in order to obtain political rights. That is the big fallacy on the Government side. It believes it can give Blacks a vote in industry but keep them out of the political processes elsewhere. That is an impossibility as well, just as one cannot turn back the clock as far as economic integration is concerned. Sooner or later that side of the House is going to face up to the necessity for allowing Blacks to have a say in the proper political institutions in this country. Otherwise, I believe, industry is going to become a battlefield in South Africa and Blacks will use the trade union movement to get rights which they are denied by this Parliament in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Alberton for having used his motion today to focus our attention on the problems of the utilization of manpower and the increase of productivity in South Africa. These are some of the most important and crucial questions facing us. I listened carefully to the various aspects outlined so effectively by the hon. member for Alberton today, and to what other hon. members had to say.

The hon. member for Alberton called our attention to the positive aspects of what has taken place in the labour field in recent years. Our party, like the other parties in the House, recognizes the fact that especially since 1979, there has been a positive approach by the hon. the Minister and his department in respect of the solving of the problems in the labour field. The change is impressive. We look forward to progressing further in future along this impressive road we have followed in recent times. By calling our attention to the positive aspects, the hon. member for Alberton has drawn our attention all the more to the deficiencies that still remain in the field of the utilization and training of labour, the two legs on which his argument was based.

† Before coming to the actual problems regarding productivity and labour in South Africa, let me say that what I found so interesting today was the fact that the hon. member for Houghton has seen in the CP a mirror image of PFP policy. The CP today indicated to us how unrealistic their approach is to solving the problems of manpower development and training in South Africa. To talk about physical separation is a total impracticality. To say that the Coloureds must go back into a homeland area of their own is also an impracticality. To say that we must make up the shortage in skilled manpower in South Africa by immigration from overseas, is also an impracticality.

Why?

I want to ask the hon. member who asked “why?” whether they believe that other race groups should be afforded equal opportunities to improve themselves through work.

We have no objection to that.

But why do those hon. members then want to remove those opportunities by bringing in immigrants from overseas?

Because immigrants supply work. Skilled artisans supply … [Interjections.]

Would not a Coloured or Indian skilled artisan do the same?

In their own areas, yes. [Interjections.]

Why in their own areas? There is no work for them in their own areas. [Interjections.] That is totally impractical, and I am afraid that that racist attitude … [Interjections.] … towards the problem in South Africa is going to result in …[Interjections.]

You are finished in Soutpansberg, Fanie old chap!

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must please be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely replying to what the hon. the Minister said.

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat and be quiet. Another hon. member is addressing this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister provoked me, and when I reply to him, you reprove me and not the hon. the Minister.

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

The hon. member for Houghton can see, in the CP, a mirror image of what their policies will lead to in South Africa, and that is increased tension and conflict, and I hope the hon. member for Houghton will recognize the fact … [Interjections.] … that both their policies— that of the CP and the PFP—would have the same end-result in South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course they would, because the hon. members of the CP reject people of other colours, accepting only Whites, whilst the members of the PFP want to deny the Whites of South Africa their legitimate rights in South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course they do! That is why there would be conflict if PFP policy were applied in South Africa. [Interjections.] This debate, however, should not be one involving politics. We should come back to the more positive aspect.

One of the prime concerns that we in the NRP have, involves the lack of solutions to the problem of illiteracy in South Africa. Illiteracy and a lack of adequate education in South Africa for all race groups are together the bottle-neck, the one factor giving us a high inflation rate and a low rate of productivity, and unless we can solve the problems of inflation and productivity in this country, I believe we will continue to invite escalating dissatisfaction and instability, particularly amongst the Blacks of South Africa. [Interjections.] The one bulwark against communism in this country is to be found in the development and expansion of a Black middle class, and unless that Black middle class is able to obtain education, it will not be possible to have it employed productively, at higher income levels, and that in itself would cause dissatisfaction and social unrest. When a man is hungry, when he is dissatisfied with his lot in life, irrespective of the reasons for that dissatisfaction, he will turn to other people who want to break down the existing system. The hon. member for Alberton mentioned the fact that we must educate other groups so as to enable them to enter into the benefits of the free-enterprise system, but there is no sense in educating people so as to enable them to enter into the benefits of a free enterprise system if one denies them complete access to that system. In fact, all one would then be doing would be to heighten their frustrations.

I should like to draw the attention to the hon. the Minister to the report which was issued by the HSRC, a report entitled “The promotion of literacy in South Africa—a multi-faceted survey at the start of the 80s”. When we read that report—and I only have an extract here from The Daily News dated 2 March 1983—we find that there are over 6 million Blacks in South Africa who are classified as illiterate. So there are about 6 million people in South Africa who have not received sufficient education to be called literate. These are the people we want to have involved in the free enterprise system. More disturbing than that, however, is the fact that there are 300 000 Blacks per annum who drop out of the formal educational system without attaining a level of functional literacy. How are we going to solve our economic, social and political problems if this is the baseline from which we have to operate? I have told the hon. the Minister, on many occasions, that I believe that he should take the initiative in co-ordinating a literacy campaign on a massive scale in South Africa in order to make up the backlog which we have developed over the years. We are not saying the hon. the Minister is responsible entirely for literacy training of adults, but he must take the initiative. As the hon. the Minister took the initiative with Manpower 2000, I should like to suggest to him that his department should come in with a literacy programme for the year 2000.

Let me point out what the HSRC has recommended. I quote from the article I mentioned earlier—

I say it is desirable, and the responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He should take the initiative to create that forum.

One of the interesting facts which has come to light from this report of the HSRC is that adult workers, Black workers, who are desperately keen to improve their position educationally and to move from illiteracy to literacy find it physically impossible to get to the centres for adult education provided by the Department of Education and Training, i.e. the department responsible for Black education. The worker cannot physically get to one of those centres and, if he does get to one of those centres after-hours, he is so tired that in fact he cannot concentrate adequately on the work being done there. We of the NRP believe that the hon. the Minister should concentrate on in-house training schemes similar to the in-house training schemes for technical skills. Let us encourage the entrepreneur to give literacy training classes in his factory or workshop during working hours with a tax incentive from the State.

Why cannot this go ahead? Why has it not happened before? The reason for that is a lack of initiative on the part of the Government and a lack of fiscal incentive for the entrepreneur to use his time for a literacy training campaign for his labour force. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he can train all the technicians and semi-skilled workers he likes, but that he will not solve the basic problems in respect of inflation, productivity and social satisfaction, as opposed to social dissatisfaction, until a programme of upliftment through basic literacy training is instituted.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North. I shall refer to a few aspects of it in the course of my own speech. The same applies to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. However, I want to come back to some of the remarks made by my neighbour, the hon. member for Brakpan.

Are you his keeper?

Yes, I am his keeper. He is very worried about that and he also has a few problems in Brakpan which I am sorting out for him. [Interjections.] There are a few other MP’s from the East Rand who have also had a bad night, I think. The hon. member for Nigel, for example, saw his big induna in Nigel cross over from the CP to the NP.

But you intimidated him.

Mr. Speaker, the East Rand is a turmoil, and these two hon. members have got problems there.

Do you feel safe?

However, I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member said that Manpower 2000 should be replaced by Immigration 2000. To me this is another very good indication of the racism which is taking hold of the CP. Their whole approach has changed overnight. They have changed overnight from moderates sitting with us on this side of the House into a bunch of racists.

The Minister of Internal Affairs advocated it himself.

Sir, we are not opposed to immigration at all. However, when they want to substitute immigration for the upliftment of people in their own country and for raising the standard of living of people in this country, we want to tell them that they are advocating a racist policy. All they are trying to advocate in this way is their piebald policy. I wonder how big the White patch is going to be in the end.

The hon. member for Brakpan and I come from the same area, and I want to ask him whether the industries on the East Rand are integrated as far as labour practices are concerned.

They are headed that way.

Do White and Black work together in the same factories? Do they work together on the same factory floor? Or do the Blacks stand at one end of the factory floor and the Whites at the other? What does the final product which emerges at the other end look like? Does it consist only of the inputs of Blacks, does it consist only of the inputs of Whites, or are the inputs of all the labourers on that floor combined? We have to face up to certain realities in this country. We must not run away from the truth in this country.

I should like to make a few remarks of my own. South Africa is very often referred to either as a Third World country or as a First World country, depending on how it suits us, and then comparisons are drawn according to how it suits us. Personally I believe that our situation is so unique that neither of the two is applicable to us. Our circumstances are unique, and that is why we are proposing unique solutions to the problems we experience in this country. In order to maintain and improve our standards as an industrial country, we shall have to raise the level of competence in South Africa. For more than three centuries, the White population in South Africa has managed to provide the managerial class of South Africa. The pressure on the Whites to produce this managerial class, the high-level manpower and the leaders in the economic community has become extremely high. I believe that the tension and pressure to which the White section of the population is being subjected as a result of this has now become so great that it was a sensible step to have adapted ur labour legislation in the way we have. South Africa has changed overnight from an agricultural into an industrial country. In many spheres South Africa has become self-sufficient.

I now want to come to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton. I concede that in the past, restrictions in our labour legislation hampered the provision of leaders in certain sectors. In the process, we neglected to train people in South Africa as entrepreneurs or as supervisors. But since then we have done away with those restrictive measures, and in so doing we have created an atmosphere in South Africa in which we shall be able to become the industrial giant which we have the potential to be.

Now I see, if I may make a few political remarks in this connection, that something has happened in Soutpansberg. Some of the people have run away.

A wild goose chase!

Koos Kudu, you had better stick to your kudus. Do whatever you like with your quarry.

I do not hunt buffalo illegally.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must please co-operate now and allow the hon. member for Springs to make his speech. I make this appeal to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to have it placed on record that I try to co-operate all the time.

Order! The hon. member must now resume his seat.

I do so, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Springs may proceed.

There we have the situation at the moment that one political party has joined forces with another in a campaign, ostensibly because they do not like the labour policy of the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

The way the Progs helped you in Germiston District.

It is very interesting to see how people who used to fight one another have suddenly become bed-fellows. When we look at these hon. members sitting here, we realize that most of them were opposed by members of the HNP in the previous general election.

And what is happening in Waterberg?

And what has happened now? The HNP has given them such a fright …

Who is helping whom in Waterberg?

Order!

We have created a dispensation in South Africa which is going to resolve the entire labour situation in this country. Non-Whites now have the opportunity to become skilled in South Africa. Non-Whites now have the opportunity to develop into entrepreneurs. They have the opportunity to become supervisors. And in the process we shall be able to utilize the labour force in South Africa to the full. We have a backlog, and I want to allege that the backlog with regard to skilled labourers, entrepreneurs and supervisors will become even greater in the near future. We shall not wipe out this backlog overnight by means of the new measures we have taken. We are going to be faced with an even greater backlog, and then we shall begin to wipe out this backlog by means of something to which the hon. member for Durban North has referred, namely the basic formal training of all the population groups. When we have succeeded in extending formal training to the non-Whites as well, and especially to the Black section of our population, we shall be able to provide the training which has to take place in the labour sphere in a more meaningful manner. Let us be frank, therefore, with regard to the shortage which has developed. There has been a shortage. The literacy rate among these people has been too low. The percentages in this connection are most alarming. In 1970, fully 40% of our Black labourers in urban areas had received no formal training of any nature whatsoever. Of these, 82% had not even passed Standard 6. We are not blind to these facts, but on the other hand, we should not regard the problem as insuperable. We shall eventually solve this problem with regard to high-level manpower and the sophisticated training of our labour force. In fact, we have already taken the bull by the horns, and we are wrestling with the problem.

However, this condition has been aggravated by a number of patterns, the first of which is the pattern of population increase. The second pattern is that of urbanization, and the third is the pattern of change in our economic structures. These factors have all served to aggravate the problem. After all, a lack of skills has a direct effect on the productivity of every person. Therefore it is extremely important that attention be given to this matter.

What are we doing now? We have embarked upon a training programme in South Africa. We have identified the problems, and we have begun to take the necessary steps to solve these problems. There is a very great and accelerating improvement in the formal training standards of the non-Whites. I do not believe that anyone would dispute this statement. The hon. Minister to whom this work has been entrusted is performing a gigantic task.

He is making a gigantic mess of it.

I believe that in the process, the profile of the worker is going to imporve drastically in future. The moment we start working on this new profile, with better formal training, we shall find that we have a more skilled labour force and more high-level labourers, among our other population groups as well. The Department of Education and Training began to concentrate on adult education as far back as 1975. In 1977, there were 20 registered training centres for adults, with 52 decentralized centres, and thousands of people have been trained since then. Then there has been the founding of Vista University, which I believe is going to have a very important share in training these people and in establishing leaders in their communities, who can later be called upon to play a meaningful role. This whole process is going to change drastically the training of our skilled workers in future, thereby making the whole question of training extremly meaningful.

Training programmes by employers are co-ordinated by the departments involved. These matters have already been discussed. There remains one aspect, though, which I would like to refer to. This the phenomenon of trained workers being enticed away from one organization by another. Certain organizations have adopted what I would call a system of poaching workers. They make use of this method, with the result that they do not have to spend any money themselves on the training of their workers. Instead of training their workers themselves, they buy an already trained worker at an increased salary from an organization which does provide training. Unfortunately, it is simply not profitable for an organization to train people and, on top of that, to pay them a higher than average salary. If one tried to do this, the economic consequences would be bound to follow sooner or later. These organizations have one effect on our economy. They cause the salary spiral to shoot up, and in the process they are entirely counterproductive. They simply ruin the productivity of workers and their potential for achievement. Adam Smith said, even in his day—

This is true, of course. Nothing pays as well as a trained artisan or workman. Human material, not raw materials or natural resources, determines the standing of a nation in the world. Hon. members have already referred to the question of productivity, and I do not wish to dwell on it at any length. I just want to say that we in South Africa are deeply aware of the fact that our level of productivity in this country is not what it should be. This can be attributed to numerous factors. However, we are aware of the fact that all the efforts of the Department of Manpower and of the hon. the Minister are directed at raising our level of productivity. We made a great mistake in South Africa in the past by talking about increased production. Entrepreneurs understood this to mean increased inputs, but increased production is not increased inputs. Increased production should mean increased productivity, and I believe that we should be working to achieve this in South Africa.

Many interesting steps have been taken in this connection. In this regard I want to refer to the Guidance and Placement Act of 1981, which regulates certain functions, including those of guidance and placement centres, the registration of workseekers, the advisory employment boards and the private employment boards, and the organization of these. I believe that this measure covers a very wide field, including productivity. It is going to be a very important measure in future, because a motivated worker and a worker who has been correctly placed, a worker who has been selected for the right job, is a worker who has a sense of self-fulfilment, and a man with a sense of fulfilment in his job is a man who does his job well. Naturally, such a man will be an asset with a view to increasing productivity.

I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House should very much like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his attempts to provide training and on the fact that we in South Africa are looking forward to turning this country of ours into an economic giant in the world with the help of a trained and enthusiastic labour force.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of this debate, and I should like to thank hon. members who have taken part in the debate, because I think that each of them made a good contribution, except the hon. member for Brakpan, who in his bitterness associated himself with Mr. Jaap Marais, the new leader on the other side, in saying that they are not going to play the ball now; they are going to play the man.

We are not going to hunt buffalo. [Interjections.]

In his bitterness, the hon. member made a lot of foolish remarks. I am sorry to see that he has run away and that he is not in his bench at the moment, because I have a few questions to put to him. I should be glad if hon. members opposite would call him, because I want to put the questions to him.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that the hon. member for Brakpan has become afraid? [Interjections.]

Order! I listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister said. He said that the hon. member for Brakpan had run away; he did not say the hon. member was afraid. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is the hon. member for Springs entitled to call me a pig? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Springs say that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for lunch, I was saying that I hoped the hon. member for Brakpan would be in his seat when I replied to the debate, because he had attacked me. Therefore I am glad he is here now. He launched an attack on me and on this side of the House today in a certain spirit and with a certain attitude, something he has done in the past as well. He attacked me on legislation which the hon. member and all the hon. members have wholeheartedly endorsed up to now. All the legislation on which he based his accusations against me was supported by him at all the various stages. Never once did he oppose it. The hon. member not only did this while he was still sitting on this side of the House; he did it even after he had taken his seat on the other side. After all, we have introduced legislation this year which he has also supported.

I want to ask the hon. member—I hope he will reply to this—whether he was being honest in supporting it until this year.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Do I have to reply to a question by the hon. the Minister, who is not a member of this House?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I can understand that the hon. member is having recourse to all kinds of technicalities in an attempt to escape, but I am asking him now whether he was being honest when he voted for the legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is that not a reflection on the honesty of an hon. member of this House?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In all fairness to this House and in all fairness to myself, since I have been attacked, I think the hon. member owes me and the House a reply to my question. Was he being honest? [Interjections.]

Order!

This is a very serious … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister listened very quietly and attentively this morning to all the standpoints of the hon. members who participated in the debate. I now request hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are prepared to give the hon. the Minister our full attention, but is he allowed, then, to ask us questions?

Order! I shall allow a reasonable reaction on the part of the Opposition Parties, but I shall not allow them to shout at the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I think that considering the language and spirit in which I have been attacked, it is only reasonable that I should seriously question what went on in the mind of the hon. member when, while sitting on this side and over there, he voted for all the things on which he is now attacking me. How can one launch an attack on the one hand and, on the other, entertain secret doubts as to one’s own standpoint, while nevertheless voting for those same things?

Ask yourself what about Dr. Andries Treurnicht.

I want to put a second question to the hon. member. This is also a reasonable question, and I think it is high time he replied to it because I am not getting any reply from them. The question is this—

Would you accept a challenge …

The hon. member for Jeppe will not be allowed to make any further interjections for the remainder of this debate.

Then I request your permission to withdraw from the Chamber.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw from the Chamber.

Must I withdraw from the Chamber or …

I have said that the hon. member must withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, are you then giving me …

Order! The hon. member must apologize to the Chair and then withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must apologize and then withdraw from the Chamber at once.

Why must I …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You said that the hon. member for Jeppe was not allowed to make any further interjections. Was that the ruling you gave?

Yes, that was the ruling I gave. However, the hon. member for Jeppe refused to obey the ruling and said that he was going to withdraw from the Chamber. Thereupon I ordered him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon. member for Jeppe must now withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Jeppe only wanted to know what your ruling was. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

If the hon. member for Jeppe agrees not to make any further interjections, I want to request you to rule that the hon. member may remain in the Chamber.

I have already given my ruling. The hon. member for Jeppe disregarded the authority of the Chair, and for that reason I say that he must withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I want to …

The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr, Speaker, am I not allowed to ask you a question?

The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw from the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What is your ruling with regard to other hon. members who are making remarks at the moment?

I request hon. members to be quiet now in order to enable the hon. member for Jeppe to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.]

I have been attacked in the most negative spirit and in the most offensive language on the basis of legislation placed on the Statute Book on my initiative.

That is untrue.

I want to know whether the hon. member for Brakpan can mention a single Act or section of any Act which he voted for and which he now wants us to repeal. He must mention only one. Which legislation passed by us does he want to be repealed? The hon. member has attacked me on this, and now I am asking him what I am supposed to repeal. If the hon. member cannot say which legislation, I want to ask him which section of any Act he thinks should be repealed. I want to go further. Does the hon. member want the definition of “worker”, for example, to be withdrawn? I do not know whether the hon. member realizes the implications of his silence.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to keep asking us questions while you have ruled that we may not say anything?

If that was the way the hon. member for Rissik interpreted my ruling, he misconstrued it. I said that I would allow reasonable interjections and discussion, but that I would not allow hon. members to shout at one another.

Does the hon. member for Brakpan want that particular definition to be withdrawn?

I shall send you our policy documents and then you can read them and see what good old NP policy is.

The hon. member’s leader also refused to reply to these matters during his last days in this House, while I am being attacked. I am being attacked in my constituency on these very matters.

You said my hon. leader did not have the courage of a gnat. Is that a nice thing to say?

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to a few matters, and I want to come to those. In the first place, the hon. member spoke about the selective withdrawal of labour from South Africa, and he said that preference should be given in the various countries to the labour of those countries. Yes, in terms of the standpoint which has always been and is still being adopted in this country by us on this side of the House, it is true that we have implemented a policy in the Western Cape, for example, so as to bring about an orderly state of affairs. However, the hon. member is talking about the withdrawal of workers on a large scale. Does his standpoint apply to the farmers as well? Does it apply only to the industrialists, or does it apply to the farmers as well. Does it apply to those 1,2 million workers employed on our farms? Does his standpoint, which is based on principle, apply to those people as well? The hon. member should have no difficulty in replying to that question, as he is a farmer himself. [Interjections.] He is a farmer himself, after all, so I ask him whether his standpoint, which is based on principle, is applicable to the farmers as well.

I do not introduce tainted meat into the farmers’ area. [Interjections.]

I am asking him whether it is applicable to industrialists only or whether it is applicable to the farmers as well. [Interjections.] This is a very dangerous standpoint to adopt because … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members on this side of the House, too, must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

In the labour situation in South Africa, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having two objectives we must try to achieve. On the one hand, we must try to run an economy at a pace which is fast enough to generate economic prosperity, in order to accommodate in a free economy the millions of people entering the labour market. Mention has been made of a growth rate of 5,5%. Whether it be 5,5%, 4,5% or 6%, the fact remains that if there is not to be large-scale unemployment, the economy will have to move at a certain pace. Otherwise it will not be able to accommodate the millions of people who are entering the labour market and for whom jobs have to be created. This is the position on the one hand. On the other hand, we have a situation in which many of the Black workers— representatives of various Black peoples— who enter the labour market have to be accommodated, because they are entitled to this, but it must also be possible to accommodate them in the economy of this country in the interests of an orderly society. If this is not done, we shall be creating a situation in which the unemployment figure could rise so sharply that we could be faced with problems regarding peace and security in our country. That is why the economy has to move at such a pace. Therefore the entire economic policy is designed to comply with the principle of economic interdependence, and within the concept of economic interdependence, various policies are implemented from time to time in order to achieve this objective. One of these is the latest policy that is being implemented in an attempt to achieve this, i.e. the policy of regional development. South Africa has been divided into eight regions, and the intention is in fact to afford the various peoples living in or within range of these regions, as well as the Whites, an opportunity to create an infrastructure there, to create jobs in order to initiate projects in this way through co-operation and interdependence, so that all may be able to work and to make a living. This forms part of it. Over the years, there has also been an attempt to take into consideration the difficulties which may be experienced in the economy of a society which is structured in the way that our South African society is, i.e. the question of accommodation, of housing and of transport, all of them serious problems. In order to assist people in this sphere, hundreds of millions of rands are being spent, precisely in order that the objective of enabling each group to develop along its own lines and to establish its own communities, as well as to have and promote its own communal life, may eventually be achieved. That is why we have Sowetos, and that is why we are trying, by means of the commuter systems and the development of nearby homeland areas, to move millions of people backwards and forwards so that they may live in one area among their own people and may work in another area. All these things form part of our attempt to solve an extremely difficult problem under very difficult circumstances in a multinational country such as South Africa. In the short time available to me, I do not wish to elaborate on this any further. I just want to make the point that one must be very careful not to adopt such a negative approach to this matter that eventually it borders on racism. The hon. member opposite, for example, approached the matter today in a spirit which amounted to nothing but naked racism.

If there really has to be a large-scale withdrawal of non-Whites, does the hon. member not realize that this is a blueprint for chaos and destabilization? Does the hon. member not realize that it is a blueprint for disinvestment? If it became public knowledge that this country could be governed by a party which has stated in so many words that it is going to withdraw people on a large scale, as the Oranje workers say they will do in terms of their policy, if this were the impression created among industrialists inside and outside South Africa, does the hon. member realize what our chances would be of any further investment in this country? Can the hon. member imagine what would happen if economic growth were slowed down precisely because of a negative attitude being adopted with regard to development, as he wants to do? What is more, would the hon. member tell the industrialists in Brakpan that he wants them to tell their Black workers to get out of Brakpan? Where major industries such as the motor vehicle industry employ 3 000 to 4 000 people, up to 98% of whom are Blacks, where investments run into hundreds of millions of rands and the total infrastructure of an area or a city has been adapted to accommodate such an industry, would the hon. member tell such industrialists in South Africa that it is his standpoint and that of his supporters that they want to reverse the whole process and that South Africa now has to pay for the reversal of that whole process which they are advocating? Can the hon. member imagine what would happen if the industrialists of South Africa were to find themselves in such a situation of unrest and if the Whites, the Black workers and the Coloured workers in the country also found themselves in this situation of unrest? Surely the hon. member is looking for serious trouble.

The hon. member went further. He attacked me and he adopted a standpoint which was very unwise. He said that we should bring immigrants to this country on a large scale.

F. W. de Klerk says so too.

The hon. member said that. He said we should not train people, we should rather get people from overseas, from the Germanic countries, to come and do the work here. I want to explain our standpoint in this connection at once—and I think it is a sensible standpoint on immigration in so far as it affects the position of labour. Our standpoint is that immigration should be supplementary and not substitutionary. If our immigration were substitutionary, if we said that we were bringing people to this country from abroad and that a Brown man, a Yellow man or a Black man had no chance of ever being trained in South Africa, just imagine the tension this would immediately cause in South Africa!

Where in my speech did I say that it was to be substitutionary?

The hon. member advocated in his speech that we should attract immigrants and that we should not train people the way they are being trained.

Yes, but that is not substitutionary. [Interjections. ]

The hon. member does not realize the implications of his words.

You are drawing inferences which are not justified.

On more than one occasion, we have advocated in this House that immigration should be supplementary and we have said that it cannot be substitutionary. Of course, it is true that we lack the necessary skills and expertise in respect of many industries.

Exactly.

I myself quoted the example of a new industry in this House in this connection. I said that when we entered the electronic industry, we did not have people in South Africa with the expertise to get the factory going, and that for this reason we had to import people. However, we cannot tell South Africa that a Brown man or a Coloured person in this country should be replaced by someone from outside.

That is an unwarranted inference.

But that was the hon. member’s standpoint.

That is an unwarranted inference.

Of course it is the correct inference. It is the hon. member’s standpoint.

The hon. member attacked me on something else as well. He attacked me on the whole principle of remuneration. He stated that the fact that Whites and Black workers in South Africa were getting the same renumeration meant that the Black and Coloured people now had more money to spend. The hon. member was saying, by implication, that we should have two kinds of wages, a higher wage for White workers and a lower wage for Black workers. Is that still his opinion?

You are drawing conclusions which are quite wrong.

Does the hon. member want the principle that there should be two kinds of wages, one for Blacks and another for Whites? What does the hon. member want? If the hon. member does not want that, why does he attack me on it? Why does he attack me on that point if he does not want it? I am asking the hon. member: Does he want it? [Interjections.] That hon. member and the other hon. members in his party say all kinds of things when I ask a question across the floor of the House. The hon. member does not want to answer me. Surely it is very easy to say “Yes” or “No”. Does he want it?

We shall reply to you during the discussion of your Vote.

That hon. member does not understand these things, anyway. He had better keep out of the debate. The standpoint of this side of the House is the standpoint of the White worker, namely the standpoint of equal pay in the private sector for the same work.

The rate for the job.

In the first place, it is normal and it would be discriminatory if anyone in the private sector failed to comply with that principle. That is precisely why, as far as the public sector is concerned, we say that we are phasing in the principle there, too, as rapidly as the economy allows. Secondly, the White trade unions of this country have been saying for many years that if there is one thing which they demand of the Government as a cornerstone, it is that there should not be two wages, for the White workers say that if there is a lower wage for a Black worker, a Brown worker or a Yellow worker, then the man who has to employ a worker will take the cheaper one, with a view to profit, and not the more expensive one. That is why the White workers have maintained through the years that they want built-in protection in the principle of the rate for the job. However, the hon. member attacks me on this. He suggests that this is a terrible mistake I have made. Does the hon. member know that this approach has not been formulated by me nor by the latest legislation? When I came to this House, it was already the standpoint of the NP. When that hon. member came here, this was the standpoint. The fact is, however, that the hon. member knows so little about labour matters that he does not even know the historical background. That is why he talks such a lot of nonsense.

You had better go and read my speech again.

I want to go further in dealing with that hon. member. The hon. member referred in derogatory way to the two cornerstones of our labour relations in South Africa. These are cornerstones which he helped create. He helped create them when he was still sitting on this side of the House. The one is the recognition of the autonomy of trade unions. The hon. member attacked me on that. He also attacked me on the other cornerstone, namely freedom of association. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Does he wish to uphold the principle of the autonomy of trade unions in South Africa, as this side of the House does?

We are going to abolish Black trade unions when we take over. [Interjections.] In White South Africa we are going to abolish Black trade unions.

That does not answer my question. My question to the hon. member is whether he is prepared to uphold the principle of the autonomy of trade unions. He must just tell me that.

We shall make our own speeches.

Or does the hon. member reject that principle? There he is sitting, just like his former leader. Now I want to ask the hon. member another question. Does he recognize the principle of freedom of association, or does he reject that as well?

Put it all in writing and we shall reply to you.

If one knows where one stands, one will be able to say “Yes” or “No”, but the hon. member can say neither. The mere fact that he is afraid to say this, the mere fact that the hon. members are silent on this point, tells me all I want to know. It tells me that they do not have the courage to admit this here, in view of the forthcoming by-elections. Therefore I want to ask the hon. member another question before I sit down, for my time has expired: Concerning the matter which I questioned him about a short while ago, does he include agriculture as far as the workers in South Africa are concerned? [Interjections.] Does he include agriculture? What am I to tell the people at Letaba and Tzaneen when I go to address a meeting there one of these days? What am I to tell the people there? Am I to say that those hon. members exclude agriculture, or that they include it? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, we shall not get anywhere with those hon. members. The hon. member attacked me on four points, but he has not had the courage to reply to a single question of mine. I want the hon. member to realize that when he rises in this House and attacks the Government on certain matters, he should have the courage to say where he stands in respect of those matters. He has attacked me here, but he has not had the courage to say where his party stands in this matter.

Sir, I regret that my time has expired. In conclusion I just want to say that I am standing here to defend, not only what the NP wants, but also what the White workers of South Africa want.

There you are making a big mistake.

I am standing here, too, to defend not only the White worker, but all other workers, because they are people too. I have asked the hon. member on more than one occasion whether he endorses the definition of “worker”, which includes all workers at the moment. But the hon. member has not been prepared to reply to that. This is so because injustice and discrimination are built into his whole philosophy, injustice and discrimination which we on this side of the House are trying to eliminate to the best of our ability. I want to tell the hon. member that there will be an opportunity to put this matter to the test in the near future, and I can tell the hon. member that the reply I am going to get from the voters will be that they have confidence in this party and in its labour measures.

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

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

1. (a) the serious shortage of housing for Blacks; and
2. (b) the rapidly deteriorating accommodation situation facing many pensioners and retired persons living in our cities.

Sir, I move this motion in the fervent hope that it will take the attention of hon. members away from the “broedertwis” in the battle of “Die Berge” to some of the more pressing realities of multiracial South Africa. My motion deals with one of the most critical issues facing South Africa today, i.e. the issue of housing. Here lies, I believe, the greatest single challenge for South Africa in the ’80s and ’90s. The issue of housing—and by housing I mean not just the house, but the whole question of the shelter and the defensible space—is already one of the most acutely sensitive social issues in our country, and I must say to the Government that unless the housing situation is handled with great skill and determination, it can become one of the most explosive political issues before the turn of the century.

Mr. Speaker, the first part of my motion calls for a single department of housing. In times of war one can have many units, many battalions, each one playing its part. But if you want to win a battle you can only have one commander and one general laying down one strategy to gain victory. And so it is, Sir, in respect of the war that we wage in regard to housing. We can have many agencies; we can have many organizations, each playing its part in building homes, but if the efforts of these various organizations are to result in victory, then I submit there must be one Minister, one department and one strategy to bring victory in the housing field. I do not believe we can continue as we have been doing with divided control on ministerial level over our national housing strategy. I refer here to the divided control essentially between the Department of Community Development and the Department of Co-operation and Development. If we want to give real dynamic thrust to our national housing strategy, I contend, there should be one Minister responsible for and accountable for that national housing strategy. I do not believe that we can continue as we have done in the past, with different Ministers and different Deputy Ministers putting different emphasis on housing strategy.

We cannot continue with different officials stating different views on how to solve the housing crisis. We cannot have one department that sees housing as a piece of social engineering, and another department which sees housing as an instrument for applying a political ideology. We cannot continue with the buck being passed from one Minister to the other in such critical areas as the allocation of funds, the provision of land, the laying down of standards and the procedures for the establishment of townships.

As I have said, I do not believe that we can afford to go on as we have done hitherto with divided responsibility and divided direction in what is the most critical area facing South Africa. I believe that the overall strategy and the execution of that strategy should be the prime function of one department. Before I go any further one might ask: “What department should it be?” What should its name be? I believe that if one wants to spell out the intention of that department that department should be known as the department of housing, and its Minister should be known as the Minister of Housing. That will give a very clear definition of the purpose and the function and the fundamental objective of that department.

I recognize of course that hon. members on the Government side may ask how we could put that housing under the same Minister and under the same department as housing for Coloureds, Indians and Whites in South Africa. Of course, to some extent this has been done in part because the National Housing Commission is now being made the Government’s chief agent for regulating the flow of funds to Coloured, Indian, White and Black housing.

There can always be Black local authorities and Black development boards that can still be important agents for the establishment of townships and the building of houses for Blacks, just as there can still be town councils, divisional councils and community development boards building houses for Coloureds, Indians and Whites. But these boards or councils, whether they be Black or White or Brown or integrated, should all be working in terms of an overall national strategy laid down by a single housing authority.

Against the background of Government thinking in years gone by, there may even have been a case in the past for keeping the control of Black housing separate from the control of housing for the other race groups. In the past the main thrust of Government policy in respect of the settlement of Blacks was directed towards homeland consolidation and towards separation. That has been the thrust of the Government policy for over 30 years. Today, however, much overdue, the thrust of Government housing policy for Blacks has taken a different turn. It now seems to be based on the recognition of the inevitability of urbanization. This recognition must of necessity give new emphasis to a housing strategy, away from the political ideology of consolidation and separation, and towards the socio-economic phenomenon of urbanization.

What is interesting and important in respect of this debate about the process of urbanization is in the first instance its massive scale involving a vast increase in the urban population and generating the biggest demand for housing South Africa has ever experienced.

Allow me to give one or two figures. Looking at the year 2000, which is only 17 years away, it is estimated that a staggering increase of 113% in the Black urban population will occur, which means that the Black population will grow from 6,5 million to an estimated 13,9 million in the next 17 years. Apart from the 250 000 to 350 000 houses required to wipe out the existing backlog, if we were to keep pace with the backlog which will develop in the years to come, during the next 17 years, we are going to have to build houses at a rate of 89 000 each year, or 450 houses each working day from now until the end of the century if we hope to deal with the demand which is caused by urbanization. That is the impact of urbanization on the housing issue.

What is even more interesting, however, Mr. Speaker, and what is also more important, is that this process of urbanization is not going to take place in the distant homelands. This process of urbanization is going to take place predominantly within what we call White South Africa, or in growth points adjacent to so-called White South Africa. That means we do not have a problem which can be solved by separating the races on a geographic basis. We have a phenomenon, a situation in which we are going to need a common approach, because the process of urbanization is taking place in our very midst. The fact that this urbanization is not taking place in the distant homelands but in the heartland of South Africa means that the kind of housing, the kind of township, the kind of environment in which urban Blacks are going to live in the future will not only affect the lives of urban Blacks but will also affect the lives and the fortunes of Coloured, White and Indian South Africans living in the same economic region or in the same metropolitan areas. In these circumstances of urbanization in the heartlands of South Africa the issues and procedures related to regional town planning, to the provision of services, to the setting of standards, to the control of the environment and to the registration of property rights are of necessity going to have to be deracialized. I am not arguing from a liberal or a conservative point of view. The harsh reality of urbanization is that we are going to have to deracialize a whole range of aspects in relation to our housing policy. Faced with the mammoth task of coping with urbanization it would be crazy for us to continue to put the interrelated processes and issues in racial compartments and have a divided authority over our national housing strategy.

There is a further point that must not be lost sight of. It is the intention of the Government to involve the private sector to a greater extent either through individuals or private sector firms. However, as the private sector becomes more and more involved in the housing process so it is going to be necessary for the State to streamline, simplify and unify the procedures for establishing townships, for the acquisition and sale of land, for the lending of money and for the registration of bonds and other forms of security. Indeed, unless the Government simplifies and deracializes these processes in relation to township establishment and the building of homes, it is not going to enable the private sector to make the contribution it could make to deal with the housing challenge facing South Africa. So much then for the first leg of my motion, namely, the case for a single, unified Department of Housing.

The second element of my motion deals with the need to promote, co-ordinate and implement a new housing strategy. We have been hearing the expression “housing strategy” from the lips of the hon. the Minister of Community Development for some time now. However, this is what we have called for in this House from these benches. I want to say that there have been some timid and partial responses on the part of the Government from time to time. Occasionally those responses have come from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development or the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. Occasionally they have come from the hon. the Minister of Community Development or his deputy. Occasionally they have come from a triumvirate, namely the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the present hon. Minister of Education and Training who have been involved in joint statements. I presume that Government members will say that if one puts all these statements together one finds that the Government has now defined its new housing strategy. I think I am probably correct in assuming that that will be the Government’s point of view. Let me say immediately that when one considers the collective implications of all these various statements which one could put together somehow or other as a strategy, then I want to tell the Government that if it follows its strategy as declared it runs the very serious risk of turning our housing crisis in South Africa into a housing disaster. I put that very advisedly to them. What emerges with greater and greater clarity from each successive statement is that the essential feature of the Government’s new strategy is to try to slide out of the Government’s overall responsibility to ensure that there is adequate housing for all our people, and to try to pass this responsibility on to the private sector and the private individual. That is the thrust of the Government’s new strategy. I want to speak quite frankly to the hon. the Minister. It is one thing for the Government to make it possible for and to encourage the private sector and the individual to play a part in the provision of housing. That is a good thing. However, it is quite another thing for the Government to run away from its own responsibility and to try to pass the buck to the private sector and the private individual.

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member can speak in this debate. There is nothing preventing him from doing so. The second point is that it is one thing for the Government to encourage the private sector to increase its contribution to housing. That is a good thing. However, it is quite another thing for the Government to use the private sector’s increased contribution to try to reduce its own contribution to the solution of the housing problem.

While the housing needs of South Africa may be provided by the private sector or the public sector or a combination of both sectors, it does not do away with the Government’s overriding responsibility to ensure that there is adequate housing at prices which the people can afford.

I accuse the Government this afternoon and that is why I am sorry that only the hon. the Minister of Community Development is here and not also the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, because he is equally culpable. I accuse them collectively of the Government’s attempts to evade its overall responsibility for the provision of housing in general and for the provision of low cost housing in particular. They are trying to evade that responsibility. Secondly I charge the Government with not according to housing, especially low cost housing, the priority which it should have in the allocation of Government funds and recourses. Let us look for a moment at one or two key announcements of the Government in respect of the housing strategy.

*I am going back to the joint statement of 27 January last year, when the two hon. Ministers and one hon. Deputy Minister issued a statement collectively. This was a clarification of the Government’s new strategy which flowed from the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission, which had investigated the possible role of the private sector in the elimination of the housing backlog in Soweto.

In general the Government’s approach was positive, but as far as the key or vital recommendation was concerned, it was negative. This, according to the report of the Viljoen Commission, is the key recommendation—

† The first one was the question of permanence—

That was what the Viljoen Commission recommended way back in 1981, and the Government responded to the recommendation in January 1982.

*The whole matter was referred to the Steyn Committee, but 15 months later we have not received a statement by the Government on the recommendations of the Steyn Committee. To date the Government has remained silent on them, but if one reads between the lines it would appear that the Government is persisting in its original rejection of the subsidy concept of the Viljoen Commission.

This rejection of the subsidy element in the report of the Viljoen Commission could have important consequences, because it remains as plain as a pikestaff that the Government will not succeed in involving the private sector to any significant extent in the building of subeconomic houses or township development unless the Government makes it possible for that involvement to take place on an economic basis. The fact of the matter is that the private sector does not invest money or embark on projects in order to suffer losses, because if they continue to suffer losses there will eventually be no private sector.

Consequently, if the Government wants to obtain the aid of the private sector in the provision of low-cost housing, the Government, as recommended by the Viljoen Commission, will have to bridge the financial gap between the sub-economic level at which the occupant can pay and the economic level at which the private sector is able to participate, either by subsidization or by other positive methods. If the Government is unable to effect that bridging, the private sector will not make its contribution to the housing of the low-income groups.

† The next statement to which I want to refer is the recent major statement made by the three hon. Ministers on 3 March. This statement deals with a scheme for home-ownership. To the extent that home-ownership can give people a sense of security and give them a sense of permanence and provide them with a hedge against inflation, we in the PFP welcome the home-ownership concept. We welcome the concept, but we have also issued warnings. I believe that the warnings that we have issued are even more important because of the joint statement read together with the circular minute which the hon. the Minister of Community Development’s department sent to local authorities on 12 January this year. I must say immediately that the circular minute which defines the financial implications of the new policy is nothing less than a shocker. It is a shock to everyone and I believe it is going to be proved both dangerous and disgraceful.

When one reads that circular it is clear that the Government is in the process of reducing rather than increasing its commitment in the provision of low-cost housing. Secondly, if one reads that circular it is clear that the Government is trying to offload its responsibility on to the individual and the private sector. Until now the Government has recognized that it has a specific responsibility for providing assisted housing for people with incomes up to R650 per month. In terms of the new policy, except in the case of the aged and the indigent, the Government is going to limit its responsibility for providing houses to people with the princely income of R150 per month. Mr. Speaker, R150 per month! What is going to happen to the people who at the moment receive subsidies and who are in the R200, R300 or R400 per month income group? What about the hundreds of thousands of people in that income category who simply cannot afford to pay either economic or market related rentals? What is the hon. the Minister going to do? Is he going to kick them out of their houses in terms of the new policy?

Added to this, the Government has actually written to the local authorities, saying—

That was 12 January—

Around the country, the large local authorities, the city councils and divisional councils who are working with highly qualified teams of professional people on housing schemes have been told summarily that, as from 12 January, those housing schemes are no longer approved. Has the hon. the Minister thought of the impact which this is going to make on those teams of people? Has he thought of the impact which it is going to make on the regular flow of low-cost housing?

I want to emphasize four warnings, and I want to spell them out again for hon. Ministers present here. I relate now to the practical impact of the house selling scheme. The first warning is that unless the scheme is accompanied by a vast house-building programme for people in the lower-income group its consequences are not only going to be socially and economically disruptive, but I want to predict that they are also going to be politically explosive. I say that because the hon. the Minister is starting to feel the sensitivity of low-cost housing in South Africa.

What is going to happen when one sells off half a million houses? There is going to be a dramatic reduction in the amount of rental housing stock available for other people. The economically better off who will be able to buy their houses are going to feel secure while the economically worse off and the people who at the moment do not have homes are going to be placed in an even more vulnerable position than they were before. Thirdly, there will be a drastic rise in rentals, not for the better off who will own their homes, but for the poorest of the poor who cannot afford to own their homes. This is going to happen because rentals are going to become market oriented in a market in which the Government has created a shortage of housing, and therefore there will be a pressure of demand on the limited Government supply.

The second reason why rentals are going to go up is because the stock of low-cost old houses is going to be sold off and new rentals are going to have to relate to the inflated present-day or future prices of the new housing stock that is constructed. I remind the Government that rentals for low-cost housing is an acutely sensitive issue and if the Government is going to try to manipulate rentals by its new scheme without taking into account the ability of the masses of the people to afford them, it will be playing with political dynamite. It is absolutely imperative if the Government is going to sell off all these houses that it sees that new houses are brought on stream. It must also make sure that the demand for rented houses for the poor is catered for first before the older, low-cost housing is sold off to the wealthier people. That is absolutely imperative.

The second warning is that if the finance costs of purchasing and maintaining a house are significantly higher than the present rental cost or what people can afford, then the hon. the Minister must accept that the scheme is going to meet with a vast negative reaction from the populace in the main. I am shocked that the hon. the Minister in his statement included references to future “drastic rental increases” for people who do not buy. I believe people should be assisted to buy their own homes. I do not think they should be bullied, pressurized or threatened to buy their homes because the Government is going to push up the rentals. The Government is playing with fire if it thinks it can manipulate rentals in an attempt to get low income group people to make a greater financial contribution than they are able to make.

I want to issue a third warning. The uncertainty relating to the urban Blacks, as well as the question-mark hanging over the 99-year leasehold system, are going to be major obstacles in this whole sales campaign. The provisions of the Urban Areas Act relating to urban areas for Blacks are archaic. The Grösskopf Committee has recommended major changes. The Orderly Movement and Settlement Bill has been sent to Select Committee on the Constitution. Permanence, which affects not only the right of purchase and registration of property, but also the right of occupation, resale, inheritence and transfer, is a critical factor in the whole question of property economics. The question of the permanence of Blacks in the cities has to be resolved if the scheme is not to be jeopardized, and so too the whole question of freehold and leasehold rights. This must be resolved before, and not after, the scheme gets a bad name. We all accept that 99-year leasehold is better than nothing at all, but in the words of Mr. Jan Steyn of the Urban Foundation, giving evidence only this week before a committee of the President’s Council—

This issue has to be resolved before one starts selling houses—or tries to sell them, and not afterwards.

Now the fourth warning. I trust that the Government will see to it—and I should like an undertaking from the Government this afternoon—that no low income group tenant is evicted from his home either because the house has been sold over his head to someone else, or because he cannot afford to pay the new “drastically increased rentals” which the hon. the Minister has threatened will apply from next year. If the consequence of this scheme—which has some good features in the sense that home-ownership is a positive thing—is to be that existing low income group tenants are going to be penalized, prejudiced and evicted because they cannot or will not buy their homes, the scheme will turn out to be a disaster.

Having spoken in general, I now want to make one or two comments about how this scheme and its strategy are going to affect the Western Cape. In general the housing problem is a problem of urbanization, but in the Western Cape the problems of urbanization are being compounded by a deliberate act of the Government in terms of its Western Cape housing strategy. I believe—and I will illustrate it—that this strategy is shortsighted, inhumane, damaging and dangerous. It is also based on a false premise. Because the Western Cape is a so-called Coloured labour preference area, the Government seems to assume that there is no need for Blacks to be decently housed. By what stretch of contorted logic can one possibly argue that a Coloured labour preference policy in the Cape can justify punishing and penalizing Black South Africans who, in terms of the Government’s own laws, are here legally and permanently? What kind of logic is this? What kind of moral or political justification can there be for denying a Black who was born in Cape Town, lives in Cape Town, works in Cape Town and has a family in Cape Town, the same right as Blacks elsewhere to own the home in which he and his family live? There can be no moral justification for it. In fact, the crazy thing about it is that the Western Cape Coloured labour preference policy is not the same thing as a housing policy. Even in the north, where people can get 99-year leasehold, they can only get it if they qualify in terms of Government policy. So surely those Blacks who qualify for residence in the Cape in terms of Government policy must have the same rights. It appears that the Government has adopted a deliberate policy of trying to make the life of the Blacks in the Western Cape as uncomfortable and as harsh as possible. [Interjections.] This has resulted in the housing situation deteriorating to such an extent today that it is not only unhealthy, but also downright dangerous. We ask, in fact we demand, that this Government should not only provide more land because it is essential for the growth of the Black population in this area, but should also allow the Blacks who are legally resident in this area the same rights of occupation and ownership that they can have in other parts of the country.

In the few minutes left to me I want to deal with another aspect. The housing problem is not confined only to the people in the lower-income group who have recently become urbanized. It reaches out from that group right to established city dwellers, to people in our constituencies who have lived and worked productively all their lives, to older and retired people many of whom live on pensions or the income from their life’s savings. These are the people who, when they were younger, perhaps saw themselves as members of the middle-income group or the lower part of the middle-income group. No group of people in our society is feeling the chilling impact of inflation more than the older retired people in our cities. We all know this. They see prices rising. They see the value of their incomes and savings declining. They cut back on their expenditure, but in the end they see their rentals rising until one day the traumatic blow comes and they can no longer afford to pay the rent for the house, the flat or the room they have come to know as their home. That would not be so bad were it not for the fact that there is nowhere else for them to go. They cannot afford the flats in which they live and there is nowhere else for them to go.

I want to say to the Government that inflation is pushing these people, who do not deserve this treatment, down and down the economic and social ladder in South Africa.

That is why we in these benches get angry when we see the casual way in which the Government in general and the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular deals with inflation. We want to say to the Government that, as far as the older people in this community and their housing are concerned, inflation is public enemy No. 1. Although an inflation rate of 14% may be acceptable to the NP Government, it is not acceptable to us in the PFP. Just as the Government is not doing enough to reduce inflation, so I believe the Government is not doing enough to remedy the deteriorating accommodation position as regards the older people in the cities. The hon. the Minister will stand up at the end and tell us of all the things the Government is doing. However, when he has done that, my response will be: That is not enough. This Government must realize that we as a society owe a debt to our senior citizens.

Leaving aside the negative restrictions the Government may wish to impose by means of all kinds of controls, I believe that there are certain positive things the Government should be doing to solve the housing problem of our senior citizens. I shall spell them out. I believe the senior citizens should be ensured of maximum security of tenure in their accommodation. I believe that the Government should ensure that older low-rental stock should be kept available for senior citizens. I believe that in order to preserve low-cost buildings, the Government should consider buying them and remodelling or refashioning them for use by senior citizens. I believe the Government should go all out through its departments and through the private sector to design and build houses and flats tailor-made for the needs of senior citizens. I believe the Government must provide land or else loans at favourable interest rates for the construction of “retirement villages”. I believe it must provide incentives to the private sector to come into the field of housing for the aged. Where the Government is itself unable to provide suitable accommodation for the senior citizens of our country, I believe the Government must provide direct rental allowances for those senior citizens who cannot afford to pay economic rentals.

I just hope that this debate this afternoon will not only focus the Government’s attention on the problem before us, but will also persuade this Government at long last to give the question of housing for our people—Black, White and Brown—the priority it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to the motion of the hon. member for Sea Point, which affords this House the opportunity of debating this important matter of housing and home ownership. I wish to say right at the outset that the hon. member for Sea Point pointed out certain matters in connection with this whole housing question which are extremely important, but in certain respects, he also made certain statements with regard to the housing situation concerning which I wish to say on behalf of this side of the House that they are devoid of all truth. The first statement one simply cannot allow to pass unchallenged, is that the Government is evading its responsibility in respect of the question of low-cost housing. I should like to come back to this at a later stage in my speech. At this point, however, I wish to state categorically that even in the past the Government, with a view to the future, instituted a dynamic programme of funding and new adjustments with regard to the housing strategy specifically in order to meet the needs of the low-cost housing sector. Why? Because to this side of the House and to the Government, housing is the basic foundation of a healthy community life, and the Government wishes to build healthy communities on this foundation. If this is true, and if this is part of its housing strategy, why would the Government not give due attention to the question of low-cost housing? The Government has an objective in respect of housing in terms of which low-cost housing and housing for all are regarded not merely as the basic building block of a healthy community life, but also as the foundation for a sound constitutional dispensation. That is why housing and home-ownership, as well as low-cost housing and low-cost home-ownership must be developed to their full extent.

A further objective of the Government with regard to housing is that housing improves the quality of life of a population group, whether White, Black, Coloured or Indian. That is why the Government has a specific housing strategy whereby to achieve what I would call these housing objectives. Therefore, in view of this whole context which I have sketched, the hon. member for Sea Point really cannot say that housing is only being provided for those with an income of less than R150. In fact, this was mentioned in the statement, but those of the income group of over R150 per month, are being assisted with self-help schemes. They are being assisted by way of core housing, as well as site-and-service schemes. This is part of the strategy.

Allow me to spell out to the hon. member for Sea Point and the Opposition the strategy of this side of the House in terms of housing. The housing strategy of this side of the House occurs within the parameters of the possible. Housing is part of one’s national economy and only a certain percentage of one’s national budget can be spent on housing if the entire economy is not to be distorted. During this year and in future years, the Government will as far as possible do its duty in respect of housing without distorting the economy.

What are the parameters of the possible? The Government says that in terms of the housing strategy, it is, firstly, no longer possible to build houses for all. However, in terms of the creation of infrastructure and in terms of the provisions of plots, it is possible for everyone to obtain a house. This is part of the Government’s strategy with regard to housing. It is no longer possible to continue subsidizing housing on the scale on which it has been done in the past. The hon. member also referred to the fact that 500 000 housing units are being sold in Soweto. However, this selling programme cannot succeed if the present rental of houses in Soweto remains at its present level. The rental in Soweto is R3,25 per month. Therefore it is much cheaper to hire a house than to purchase it. That is why the Government cannot continue with this large-scale subsidization, since this applies to all population groups. Therefore the rental formula must be elevated to a level where the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian can decide: It is better and more advantageous for me to own a house than to rent one, since by owning a house I am improving the quality of my life. Today in South Africa there are battles being waged on two fronts; on the operational front with rifles, to maintain specific values, values which others wish to destroy. On the other hand, here in the cities we are working towards a particular standard of living and values by way of housing, and because housing is so fundamental to a healthy and ordered community life and to a healthy, orderly political dispensation and quality of life, it is a matter of the highest priority to the Government to make housing accessible to all sectors, but within the parameters of what is possible. It simply is no longer possible for the Government to continue subsidizing on the scale which applied in the past in order to provide everyone with a home. The Government’s standpoint is that it does not owe each individual in the country a home, but that it is primarily the individual’s own responsibility to see to it that he is housed, and then it is the responsibility of the employer, and only in the third place is it that of the State, but then not to provide a home as such, but to create the infrastructure so as to place the individual in the position of being able to obtain a home. The hon. member raised another more serious matter, viz. that there is fragmentary control over the provision of housing. Allow me to state that the Department of Community Development has developed into a dynamic housing machine over the past 15 years. Of course there are shortcomings, and we do not wish to explain these away. However, let us just look at what has been achieved over the past five years. 155 000 units have been built at a cost of R1 800 million. If our strategy is correct, if the funds are available and if the private sector can become involved in the housing process, there is a possibility of reducing these shortcomings dramatically.

The hon. member put forward no argument as to why there should be a so-called integrated department of housing. After all, there is only one department of housing. White, Black, Coloured and Indian start right from ground level, through local authorities, management committees, through to the Minister of Community Development and to the National Housing Fund with its various branches. On the one hand there is the National Building Research Institute and on the other, the Community Development Fund and the National Housing Commission—a great integrated whole, a dynamic housing machine to fulfil the housing needs of the population.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is extremely limited, and I therefore wish to conclude with this one idea: There are deficiencies. For example, those with an income of R1 100 per month, who do not qualify for State aid, are struggling, and we must move outside of the conventional methods to see how we can assist these people.

Therefore I wish to suggest that the traditional concept of housing in which the improvements, together with the plot, are regarded by someone as his home, no longer applies. I believe that housing costs could be cut by as much as 20% if the plot and the improvements are separated. If together with this we have a combination of the 99-year leasehold system and the sectional title scheme, and we apply this to housing, so that the plot may be rented and the structure as such sold separately, we have isolated the element of the plot at the outset. Of course, this applies to State housing. In this way, housing may become available more readily for everyone.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we are experiencing the dawn of a social revolution. This is something no one dare deny. However, the success of this process of housing is going to determine whether this dawn is going to be steeped in darkness and chaos or whether, if this housing process succeeds, a new light will shine for White, Coloured, Indian and Black man, or whether the risk of survival for each of us here in South Africa will be reduced and will create fine and wonderful opportunities for us in future.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot quarrel with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Bellville. However, when one considers them it is clear that the NP’s housing programme is condemned by those very sentiments, because far from making housing a basis for the structure that they intend to build up to improve society, a rotten social situation has developed because they have failed to create the basis which the hon. member maintains is the foundation of their policy.

When one considers the tasks performed by Mr. Louis Rive recently, I believe a few things become evident. Let me say immediately I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Louis Rive, and nobody will be more grateful than I if he is able to achieve for the Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth areas the spending of R300 million over a comparatively short period. However, have hon. members of the NP ever stopped to think what a condemnation it is of their system that a man like Mr. Louis Rive has to be brought in from outside on an ad hoc basis in order to try to rectify a disaster situation? It is not a system that we see operating; it is a rescue operation. While we are glad to be rescued we must condemn the system.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to concentrate, in the brief time available to me, on Black housing, and predominantly on Black housing in the White areas of South Africa. It is unfortunate that Black housing has been traditionally separated from White housing. The hon. member for Sea Point has told the House what the attitude of this party is in that regard. However, because it is historical one tends to have to deal with it as a separate problem. I intend to do so and to touch on the current situation, how it arose, influx and changes in Government approach to the situation, and to establish whether these are likely to be adequate or not. I know that people are bemused by the mind-boggling series of statistics that are always thrown at us concerning housing. However, these statistics and projections are important and we cannot turn our backs on them like the NP Government did for many, many years, and with calamitous results.

We must start off by summarizing these statistics very briefly. The office of the hon. the Prime Minister estimates the current housing shortage for rural and urban Blacks at 724 000. Berbd has calculated that there will be 4 million houses required for Blacks between now and the year 2000 and 1,6 million of those will be in so-called White South Africa. These should be constructed over that 20-year period at an average rate of about 80 000 houses per annum which should cost at present-day prices something in the neighbourhood of between R600 and R800 million per annum.

Do you think we can afford it?

All I am saying is that these are the hon. the Minister’s figures. [Interjections.] I believe we can afford it and I shall come back to this point later. How have we performed against that background? Instead of the annual requirements of 80 000 houses, we averaged in this area that I am talking about 6 500 houses over the five years ended at the end of 1982.

When was that?

That was for the five-year period ended 1982. This was information I received in answer to a question that I put to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. This is in White urban South Africa. Instead of an annual expenditure of plus-minus R600 million per annum in this area—this is also a reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—we have spent R44 million per annum. If you are not depressed enough, Mr. Speaker, the office of the hon. the Prime Minister states that 2,5 million houses are required over the whole of South Africa during the next eight years. This will cost something of the order of R4 000 million per annum, and Dr. Robin Lee of the Urban Foundation has stated that this represents about 6% of GDP which he describes as being not out of line with the amount spent on housing in other countries.

How did we get into this extraordinary mess? How was it possible that in Soweto, for example, over a seven-year period we built only 7 700 houses or just over 1 000 houses per annum when the Viljoen Commission decided that the incremental population alone would require 4 000 houses per annum or, in other words, 28 000 houses over that period? It is difficult to work out in a rational manner how this situation could have arisen.

They are not rational.

The only conclusion that one can come to is that it was not a rational decision. In fact, it was a sort of group madness that overtook this country that was almost analogous to what happened in Nazi Germany under Hitler. One has to remember that this was not a default; it was a deliberate policy. The hon. member for Sea Point has just described what is happening in the Western Cape where the living conditions of people are kept bad deliberately so that they will not want to stay here at the end of a contract period. One must remember that this is not something that was just allowed to happen. It is part and parcel of this policy. If there are good, respectable and well-meaning people who believe that this policy is dead, then all I can say is that they are probably NRP members. Grand apartheid demands that Blacks be anchored in their homelands or independent Black States. It was the deliberate policy of those people sitting opposite us to discourage the influx of Blacks to urban White areas by ensuring that living conditions were so appalling, so overcrowded, so utterly deprived even to the extent of being deprived of wives and families that at the end of their contract periods Blacks would simply want to leave. The only limit set on their standards was that they should not represent a health hazard to adjacent White areas. I believe that that is no exaggeration.

However, the system came unstuck. It came unstuck because living conditions in the Black homelands became so disastrous and so appalling that Mr. Jan Lange was able to calculate that if a Black man left Ciskei and went to a White urban area and was gaoled there for three months of the year, he was still very much better off than if he had stayed at home. What astonishes me is that the people responsible for this situation have the self-confidence to go on governing.

If I were in their position, I would resign.

What is even more amazing is that a punchdrunk electorate still allows them to govern.

That is even worse. That is so-called democracy.

This party is not being wise after the event. We have hammered these points home to that side of the House over 20 years. What has changed? In the first place the Government has realized that Blacks living in White urban areas are not only permanent, but they are increasing in number too. They must increase in number because our economy needs them. In the second place it is imperative that these people are not just hewers of wood; from them we are going to get our semi-skilled and skilled labour. From them we are going to get our managers and our entrepreneurs. The Government is therefore in the process of accepting that urban Blacks must have training and education, freedom to advance in employment and a range of housing and living standards which conforms to the spectrum of their own social positon and their own salary. This entails a vast expenditure on land, on infrastructure, on buildings and on public amenities. Obviously the public and private sectors will have to be drawn together to achieve this amalgamation of resources. The strategy is to involve the individual Black home aspirant and to develop Black entrepreneurs; in other words an informal economy which is directed towards a new estate—the creation of a class of privileged Black urban South Africans who live in White South Africa.

Here we have a curious paradox. The wealth differential between the Black homelands and our cities acted as a great syphon by which people were sucked into White areas for decades. What we are now going to do is to increase this differential by improving the lot of people in the Black townships in the White areas.

Surely you have done better this afternoon. [Interjections.]

By increasing the standards of those people this differential will increase too. It was Dr. Smit who said—

If housing and welfare standards for Blacks in the White urban areas are to be improved, the wealth differential compared with Black States will be increased. Surely then, if that happens, one will get an increasing influx into these areas, but the Government has a plan for that. They intend establishing more job opportunities near the Black homelands, near the independent Black States, and they intend doing this by the establishment of decentralized industry in certain areas. That, however, will not be successful; I am afraid it will not.

I do not wish to discuss at this stage the economics of the decentralization of industry, but it is important to remember, firstly, that by establishing a family in Ciskei and not in the Western Cape one does not do away with a house, because that house in Ciskei is still needed.

So we must build a house here as well as in Ciskei.

No, that is not what he is saying.

Secondly, if he is going to work in an industry, logistics demand that he lives in a town. People working in industries cannot live spread out over the whole countryside. If such a man lives in a town, that town is going to have an infrastructure. Having been in the contracting business all my life, I know that to construct an infrastructure for a town way out in a border area is not going to be any less costly—in fact it is going to be more expensive— than to expand the infrastructure of an already existing town.

Our urban housing problem starts in areas like Ciskei. It is not going to be solved by either the decentralization of industries or the type of settlement to which the countless so-called removed people are subjected. The journey of those people to South Africa’s industrialized urban areas is “onvermydelik”. How can they stay where they are? What this Government is doing by dumping Blacks in the Ciskei veld is devastating the ecology of the area. When we went on tour at the end of last year one of the Ciskeian Ministers asked me how they were going to feed those people, because they were being dumped in the veld. The Ciskei is a highly fragile extensive grazing area. These people cannot live there in the way they do. They cannot survive, neither can the countryside on which they are established continue to survive.

This is why we appeal for a positive approach to urbanization. Urbanization, which we fight all the way in this country, is not a disaster. It offers the solution to a whole host of major problems. Firstly, it enables people who should be taken off the land, to get off the land. Does the hon. the Minister believe that Ciskei is a suitable place to live for the people who are settled and sprawled over that area? Is it a suitable place for them to live? Can they work and survive there?

Secondly, urbanization creates the opportunity for these people to become productive. Thirdly, it gives them scope to fulfil their educational, economic, social or political ambitions. Fourthly, urbanization enables one to build up one’s national store of wealth. It is the first step towards a more equitable distribution of wealth. A houseowning population has a stake in the land, which gives it stability and a cohesion, which ultimately is our protection as well as theirs.

It is fitting to end off by stressing that for most of us our houses represent the best investment we ever made. Not only is the interest on the bond a compulsory saving, not only is a house a security for us in our old age and something we can leave our children, but it is also part of the national capital. Nothing could be more important than that the Blacks be now participating in the possibility of creating that capital formation. What better signal could be given to Blacks in this country than for us to tell them that they can forget about 99-year leasehold and that they can now have free title to the land and the property which they are going to acquire in White urban areas? When one analyses that 99-year leasehold, system it is nothing but an attempt to take a hostage for good behaviour. The results of it are going to be negative and will achieve none of the ends which the Government wants.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) strongly reprimands the Government for its failure to formulate a clear and meaningful policy for the provision of housing in the Republic; and
2. (2) earnestly requests the Government to give thorough consideration to the policy of separate development for the various ethnic groups in implementing its housing policy.”.

As far as housing is concerned, the greatest problem in South Africa, as in any other country in the world, is to accommodate people within their pecuniary means. That is not an easy task. What a person wants and what he can afford are poles apart. Over the years certain problems have arisen in South Africa because no guidelines were laid down and because it was not clear who should do what. In earlier years, for example, local authorities knew what they had to finance, but in the ’sixties, when local governments were under pressure, they did not finance anything. Township developers on the other hand felt that they should not finance commercial services. Consequently there is no cut and dried method for financing township development. This brings me to my question. With township development, cannot the township developers be charged with the cutting up and subdivision? Then the municipality or local authority can undertake the distribution of services. The Treasury can then conclude a 60-year loan which is paid back by means of a levy over the years. Guidelines are laid down, and within those guidelines provision is then made for the requirements of Government departments. The fact that one frequently has to liaise with more than one department, sometimes has to go and discuss matters over and over again for a period of six or seven months and still receives no reply, are matters which can be solved. The major problem, however, is who finances what, and the quibbling over that question. One can make a quick calculation to work out how easily it can be done with a levy, a levy which is being made by municipalities today in any case. If a proper levy is introduced over a period of 60 years, it will be possible to reduce the cost of services by an amount of approximately R10 000 less …

No, that is not true.

Man, I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] Oh please, I have nothing further to say to that hon. member.

I come now to the question of Mayfair. [Interjections.] A new proclamation is going to be issued in connection with Mayfair. The hon. the Minister is going to institute an investigation …

It is an investigation which is on its way.

Yes, it is an investigation which is on its way. I just hope it is not an investigation of which the recommendations are not going to be applied. [Interjections.]

You are now fishing on dry land.

Do hon. members know what hits me the hardest in regard to this entire matter? I go alone among these people day and night—sometimes until 11 o’clock at night. Those hon. members can say that I am doing it for political gain, but no, I go to see the people who need me, who want to talk about things, who want to encourage calmness among those people. [Interjections.] But what do I find? What do I find? I find a young journalist who accompanies me and takes photographs of those people …

For Die Patriot.

No, in this case he comes from a very good newspaper, just like Die Patriot. [Interjections.] But what do we find? The young man has a hidden tape recorder …

That is your type, not so?

I wish those hon. members would keep quiet, for this is a very serious matter.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Langlaagte a chance to state his case.

This young man gave himself out to be extremely right-wing and indicated how much he would like to talk to those people. In some cases he even egged them on, to such an extent that I had to tell him calmly: These are people with heart ailments and so on; take it easy with these issues! [Interjections.]

Who are you fighting now?

When I realized that that man had a tape recording, I asked him who had given him that tape recording. [Interjections.] He then said that he had been fired from the Citizen that morning. He said—

[Inaudible.]

Wait a minute. I quote further—

Yes, it was not I.

Wait. I am still coming to that. [Interjections.] I quote further—

It was also submitted to Dr. De Klerk and—

Sir, may I not then do my work in Parliament? [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member laughing?

You never have.

One newspaper therefore sends other people with a tape recording from another newspaper …

Gee, but this is complicated!

… to make tape recordings of members of the House of Assembly who are doing their job to see if it is not possible to extract some defamatory tale or other from it.

Let me tell you, Sir, what they were looking for.

Order! The hon. member must really come back to the motion.

Sir, I can tell you that there were two women who wanted to come and see the Minister about Mayfair. All this still concerns housing. They wanted to come and see the Minister about housing. The young man told them that he could get it. Then I told him: “It isn’t necessary for you to get it”.

Not get what?

I told him: “I shall pay for my voters myself. They can come down to see the Minister. Will you, because I am in Cape Town, take the money and make an airline booking for those people—it will be three of them?” He asked: “Who are the people who must come down?” Then he said, of his own accord: “Sir, these people have the greatest problems with housing. This woman’s house is being taken away from under her nose. With children and all …”

Who is taking it away from her?

The hon. the Minister must please keep quiet.

But who is taking the house away from her?

If the hon. the Minister does not know, he does not know his job.

Someone told you an damnable lie. No one is taking the house away.

Sir, the conversation was therefore about these people going to the Cape. I then told the fellow, Mr. Allers: “Look, I agree. I shall pay for them. Let them go. It is not necessary to collect in the streets or to go to out-of-the-way places. I shall pay for them myself. But someone has to go with them. Who can go with them? I am in Parliament. I do not have the time. Give me the date of their arrival here, so that I can tell the Minister that they are coming.” They even wanted to see the Prime Minister. I said: “That is fine. There is no problem.”

Sir, I would ask you to be patient, because all of this concerns housing. The statement in front of me here was made on 10 March and in it this journalist wrote the following—

We were to have gone there to hear what problems those people had. I quote further—

She took the photographs. I continue—

I quote further—

Mr. Allers tried to get round it and asked: “Can’t we send the old ladies down so that people will think that they went on their own?” It was, in other words, a kind of underhand thing. I said: “No, under no circumstances.” Mr. Allers wrote further—

This is a Kotzé-gate. It is no longer Mulder-gate. It is a Wimpiegate. A whole group of conspirators tried to embarrass me and tried, under false pretexts, to make people say things on a tape …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member casting a reflection on the Chair?

Order! What does the hon. member mean?

The hon. member is casting a reflection on the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

No, it has nothing to do with me.

I shall come to the hon. the Minister in a moment.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

It was found that the person concerned acted dishonestly by recording conversations on a tape and pretending that he was going along merely to take photographs, etc. I quote again—

He does not work for those parties, but he telephoned them immediately. I quote further—

The cheque was to pay the people with.

Order! The hon. member must really come back to the motion under discussion now.

Yes, Sir. I then asked the person who took the photographs in that area and who spoke to the people there what he was going to do after he had been fired.

Why was he fired?

He then told me that he expected to receive a lot of money from the people who had appointed him.

Order! I have now asked the hon. member to return to the motion under discussion. If the hon. member reads the motion, he will see that this story which he is now telling this House, has nothing to do with the motion. I am courteously asking the hon. member to come back to the motion now.

Mr. Speaker, you must please have a little patience. [Interjections.] This young man said that while he was taking photographs in Mayfair and was looking at all the problems in Mayfair, he was still in the employ of people whom I have not mentioned up to now. I shall mention their names when it suits me. You can rule me out of order, Sir, and I shall then resume my seat …

Hear, hear!

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I shall content myself with that, Sir. I have completed my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one thing to say about this story the hon. member for Langlaagte just dished up here. It seems to me that this is a wisp of smoke coming from a fire burning in an unfavourable place. I want to state categorically that I doubt the truth of this story he has just dished up to the House, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I have the suspicion …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Johannesburg West say he doubts the truth of a statement the hon. member for Langlaagte made? [Interjections.] Is he entitled to do that?

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if this little tale the hon. member for Langlaagte is trying to dish up to this House, may possibly have an opposite origin … [Interjections.]

Will you repeat that outside this House?

Yes. [Interjections.]

I dare you to repeat that outside this House. [Interjections.] I dare him! [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot all talk at once. Only the hon. member for Johannesburg West is speaking at the moment.

I believe this story originates elsewhere, and I should like to prove this by means of a few other examples. Since Wednesday night the hon. member for Langlaagte has been making statements here in this House which are totally devoid of truth.

Why do you not prove it then?

Very well, I shall prove it. Mr. Speaker, I am now going to prove it to the hon. member.

You cannot.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Wednesday evening the hon. member for Langlaagte said there was a housing scheme in Mayfair, which affects these people. Surely that is not true.

What do you know about Mayfair?

It is not true.

Do you want to argue with me?

Of course.

Then you do not know Mayfair.

Surely it is not true that it is a SATS housing scheme.

But of course it is. What do you know in any case?

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must really control himself now.

Mr. Speaker, in the second place it is not the whole of Mayfair that is involved in this investigation. Only a small portion of Mayfair east of Princess Street is involved.

You know nothing about these things.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to what I know of the matter in a moment. [Interjections.]

Come to my meeting on Monday evening. Then I will show you.

Mr. Speaker, in the third place the hon. member for Langlaagte said on Wednesday eveing that the area in question had been proclaimed an Indian area. Surely that is not true either. Why does the hon. member for Langlaagte make statements in this House that are untrue? Against this background, I must say that I doubt the truth of this story he told here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I now want to make a further statement to support my argument.

Are you part of the conspiracy?

Order! I am definitely not prepared to allow one hon. member to accuse another hon. member of being part of a conspiracy. The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw that accusation.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, it has been alleged …

Are you part of the Kotze-De Klerk plan?

Just give me a chance, please. During the past few months complaints have been made to the Group Areas Police in Johannesburg in connection with illegal occupation by Indians in the Mayfair area. Since August of last year a total of 158 such complaints have been received. What is interesting is that in respect of 101 of those complaints it was found that the allegations were unfounded, that there were therefore no Indians or other people of colour living in those houses about which complaints were submitted. [Interjections.]

But you had them reclassified White. [Interjections.]

I believe an attempt is being made here—a deliberate and obvious attempt on the part of someone—to create the impression …

Probably by Rapport.

… to create the impression that that area is no longer a White area or will not remain a White area. Against that background, I believe that the statements made by the hon. member for Langlaagte here in this House this afternoon are very suspicious.

Come and say that at my meeting on Monday evening.

I should now like to make a further statement. On Tuesday— after it had been announced in the newspapers that I would be in my constituency—I myself issued an invitation to people resident in that area and who will be subject to that investigation to come and see me in my office in Johannesburg. About 30 people came to see me. I have the names, addresses and telephone numbers of those people here. After I had explained the matter to them and had also read out the statement of the hon. the Minister to them, not one of those people stated that they were unhappy or dissatisfied about the handling or the proposed handling of this matter by the hon. the Minister. I have the names of all those people here. Do hon. members know what those people told me? When they walked out of my office that afternoon they asked me to do them a favour. They asked me to send the hon. member for Langlaagte to that area because they wanted to wring his neck.

I am holding a meeting on Monday evening. I challenge that hon. member and the hon. the Minister to attend that meeting. [Interjections.]

May I put a question? I want to ask the hon. member if we could please have a photostatic copy of those names, addresses and telephone numbers.

Certainly, I have them here. I just want to make this further remark and then I will resume my seat. The hon. member for Langlaagte made a great fuss here about his ostensible non-political involvement in this matter. I maintain it is in fact the opposite. The way in which these poor people of Mayfair are being exploited is in my opinion the expression of a specific mentality we cannot afford in this country. The actions of the hon. member for Langlaagte have nothing to do with the interests of the people of Mayfair, but are for the sake of short-lived political gain.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my fate to enter the debate every time after we have had a marvellous exhibition of brotherly love between the CP and the NP. I do not wish to become involved in the arguments that they have with one another so I shall confine myself to the debate.

The hon. member for Langlaagte moved an amendment to this motion. However, as he did not speak to it or give me any indication as to what he really had in mind, I am afraid that I shall not be able to support his amendment.

The hon. member for Walmer seemed to have had some vinegar with his lunch because he spent a considerable amount of his time being rude to people, including referring to me as being dead—my party, that is. Well, Sir, we may be, but I make an awful lot of noise for a dead person!

The hon. member for Bellville whom I like very much indeed referred to the parameters of the possible. However, he does seem to me to be somewhat self-satisfied with the system as it prevails and I am afraid that on that point I must disagree with him.

In so far as the motion before us is concerned, I believe that I can strongly support it. However, I cannot altogether support the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point in support of the motion. There are a couple of points he made with which neither I nor my party agree. The one point with which we do not agree was primarily the hon. member’s philosophy that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide housing for all population groups. This is a policy of liberal socialism and we do not support it. We support a policy of the Government’s making housing land available and ensuring that there are sufficient stands available to the population for building purpose. However, we do not agree that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide homes for everybody. That type of socialism is not part of our way of life. I have not seen the circular to which the hon. member referred which he said had been sent to local authorities and which indicates that the department is going to reduce the amount of money available from Government sources for housing. I have not seen such a circular an I do not even know whether it exists. As the hon. member mentioned it, I assume that some such circular must exist.

Whilst emphasis is placed on Black housing in the motion as well as on housing for pensioners and retired people, which I believe to be justified, I think that the whole spectrum of housing for all race groups is going to present the Government and the people of South Africa as a whole with an enormous problem over many years to come unless we can get a co-ordinated organization off the ground. I do not believe that our present setup is going to resolve the problem.

Over the last few years there have been a large number of committees and commissions—I think they number round about 17—looking into various aspects of the provision of housing. I am afraid that we have not had a great deal of beneficial use out of all these committees and commissions so far. We have masses of information, but I am afraid we have not put it to practical use.

I believe that if we are going to resolve our housing problem, we shall have to put the whole of the building industry into top gear. To do this, we will need a co-ordinating body which will give the direction and the backing to the industry and will co-operate with the industry at all levels of government. They will then build the houses. There is no shortage of building material. There is no shortage of labour. I believe that the problems can be resolved if there are sufficient service sites made available on a properly co-ordinated basis, and this I believe should be the primary function of the Government. The department which I envisage would perform these functions. It will provide suitable services or serviceable land. It will collect and disburse the funds from Government sources and from the sale of the houses. It will also co-ordinate the funds that are made available by private enterprise for this type of development.

I believe that home building must be tackled on the widest possible base. For the most part we think only in terms of big schemes with big developers and massive organizations. When I first got involved with the building industry 30 odd years ago, the greatest proportion of home building was developed by small builders. There are thousands of small builders who can build five, ten, fifty homes per year. If one can inspan that whole sector of the building industry, among them, I am firmly convinced they can build thousands upon thousands of home units per annum. Unfortunately, however, our thinking over many years has been along the lines of dealing with the major schemes and operators only. I believe therefore that if the land is made available, units in small blocs are made available to small builders as well as to the big contractors, we will be bringing in a new dimension towards solving our problems.

If one is to do this on any sort of an organized basis, somebody will have to co-ordinate the effort. I believe that such a department should fall under our estimable Minister of Community Development. [Interjections.] I shall be perfectly happy to see him as the Minister for such a project. I believe he is an energetic man and he is not too proud to take advice from people from time to time. I believe that such a department could co-ordinate all these efforts, but it will have one further advantage. It would stabilize the building industry. Wherever I go I hear people say: Oh, that is an unstable sort of industry. Why is it unstable? It is unstable because there is no co-ordination of the work in the industry. People come and go, but at the first opportunity they get to move into a stable industry, they will do so. Again this affects the pricing structure in the building industry, because when a builder has a job he says to himself: Well, I do not know where the next one is coming from, so I shall put a little fat in this to cover me for a little later.

It must be appreciated that whilst the Government and the mover of the motion have an hour apiece to talk, I only have 10 minutes on behalf of my party. I am afraid I cannot devote very much time to broaden my picture. However, I believe it is necessary to have this co-ordinating organization, that they should have projects in the pipeline at all times and that they try to keep the building industry in full employment with sufficient serviced stands. What is more, when these stands are serviced efforts should be made to make sure that they are surveyed for home-ownership from the start, so that whilst they may be used for letting purposes in the beginning they could with great ease at an appropriate time, be released for sale. There are many aspects which only a co-ordinated plan can successfully weld together to create a non-stop flow of homes for our exponentially growing population.

I believe a single department of housing composed of the best available personnel from Government and private services may be able to solve our problems in housing. I am afraid our present system will not.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting motion before the House this afternoon.

I want to begin by agreeing with what the hon. member for Umbilo said about the housing policy. I am able to state categorically that in consequence of the hon. the Minister’s statement a week or so ago with regard to the new housing policy of the Government, not a single newspaper reacted negatively to the Government’s new housing policy. Not a word of criticism was levelled at the basic philosophy of the policy to supply housing to as many people as possible.

If I have to sum up the record of the Government with regard to housing during the past 30 years in a nutshell this afternoon, it is a fairy tale, particularly if regard is had to economic conditions, the small number of people who had to deal with the matter and what has been achieved in South Africa. This afternoon it was asked what the aim of the Government’s housing policy was. What is involved is to improve the quality of life of people.

The second part of the motion is concerned with housing for pensioners and retired persons. Up to 1983 we had erected 353 old-age homes for almost 25 000 old people. In addition 80 private old-age homes had been erected for 4 178 old people. Four departmental old-age homes were erected for the infirm aged and these are accommodating 360 people. A further four old-age homes are in the planning stage and they will be run by private bodies for the department.

How many old people are there at present in old-age homes? There are 29 219, approximately 8% of the White population of South Africa. That is the highest percentage in the Free World as far as homes for the infirm aged and old people are concerned. In this regard South Africa has a proud record. This obliges us to say immediately that our policy and philosophy is not based on a socialistic structure where the State must deal with all housing requirements.

We are concerned in the second place in making service centres available where retired people can be cared for by means of service delivery schemes. These people provide assistance such as primary aid to old people, with regard to food and clothing and all manner of essential support measures such as these. We are proud to say that we already have 50 such centres in 1983, whereas in 1980 we only had 35 of them, and these 50 centres serve 16 800 old people in the public life.

I now come to the primary goal of the Government with its housing policy for pensioners and retired persons, which is to extend normal housing projects and to improve the rendering of services to old people from these service centres. This will have to increase to a certain extent so that we can achieve our primary aim, namely to provide maximum service in old-age homes for frail old people who can no longer take care of themselves, or for whom other people can no longer care, so that they can be cared for. I should like to give the figures to indicate the cost structure. In an old-age home where less than 40% of the residents are infirm, the unit cost per person is R184 per month. If the figure is between 40% and 45%, the cost is R238 per month and if the figure is 75% or more, the cost is R383 per month. This gives us a total subsidy of R26 million per year for these people. I do not want to go into the pensions being paid to these people.

I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a wonderful report in Die Burger under the caption “Personal”. Mention was made of a certain lady, ouma Malan, who is celebrating her 100th birthday today. This morning she was visited by Minister Heunis and the MPC, Mr. Koos Eksteen. Her congregation entertained the guests this morning at 10h00. All this is wonderful, but do hon. members know what is best of all? She has been living with her children in that house for 28 years! From this I have deduced—and this is very important—that she is not only a wonderful person, but that she also has wonderful children. From this I deduce that there are thousands of old people of this kind in the rest of South Africa, and also thousands of young people who want to take care of their fathers and mothers. However, that is not all. I believe there are just as many thousands who, irrespective of family links, would be prepared to care for such people in such circumstances.

However, I also want to present the other side of the picture to hon. members. There are probably just as many single people who would like to be placed with such families. Let us use our common sense. In our social services a precedent has already been set, in the Department of Health and Welfare where foster parents are identified to be paid to take foster children under their roofs. In most cases such a close link develops between the foster children and the foster parents that in many cases they apply to adopt those children. This brings me to my suggestion to the hon. the Minister. Why can we not also extend this principle to the aged people in South Africa. Let them also be adopted by families, or by widows or widowers who want to take them in, and then we pay a monthly subsidy to those people. In this way we can save huge amounts in infrastructure. We then also keep all the old people in the community. In that way we also fight socialism in South Africa. In my opinion what I have just said is also supported by an investigation recently undertaken in England on the instructions of the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. Seven of her Cabinet Ministers, and a journalist, undertook an investigation into the possibility I have just mentioned. After the investigation the journalist wrote a book entitled “The Subversive Family”. The name of the journalist is Ferdinand Mount. They said that the best bulwark against socialism—and by implication communism—is the family. Mrs. Thatcher said during the first four years of her Government she wanted to put the economy right and in the second part she wanted to allow her ideology with regard to social services to work through, and this would be the way in which she wanted to reverse socialism in Britain as far as welfare services were concerned.

In conclusion I want to make a second suggestion to the hon. the Minister. It concerns rent control. Today rent control applies to all flats occupied for the first time prior to 20 October 1949. This means that all lessees, irrespective of whether they are poor or well-to-do, receive the same treatment, in other words they enjoy the same protection of rent control. For that reason I want to ask that the Government should not protect those persons who can pay market related prices, but only those persons who are unable to pay market related prices. In other words, those people enjoy protection and security which they would otherwise not enjoy. I therefore suggest that rent control be adjusted in such a way that it can be applicable to deserving cases of needy people who qualify according to income and should not be applicable to the unit leased or to the flat as such.

Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited, so I shall not reply to the hon. member for Brits. It gives me pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for Sea Point. From the contributions from both sides of the House it is very clear that the solution to the so-called housing problem is very high on everyone’s list of priorities. I think that next to education and training it is probably one of the leading claimants to the top position when it comes to the allocation of funds. This is as it should be, because accommodation is not simply a roof over one’s head or a shelter from the elements while one is sleeping. This is where the social welfare of the individual, of the family and ultimately of the entire community is determined.

However, the housing problem is not merely concerned with how a person puts together a load of bricks, and windows, doors and a roof. It also involves land, financing and services. To cope with all these problems, the starting point of course is thorough planning. The main thrust of the motion is therefore that there should be a single Department of Housing so that the total strategy can be implemented in a co-ordinated way.

To illustrate how unco-ordinated planning with regard to this problem can only contribute further to the crisis, I want to sketch the position in Natal/kwaZulu briefly. There are 3,2 million Black people living in kwaZulu. In White Natal there are 1,2 million Zulus, 650 000 Indians, 550 000 Whites and 90 000 Coloureds. These are the official statistics, but it is said that approximately a further 400 000 Black people are also living in “White” Natal—they are just too afriad to admit that they are there. In the Buthelezi Report it is stated that geographically 72% are in Durban-Pinetown, 23% in Newcastle, the coal fields in the north and in the coastal strip, and only 5% in the whole of kwaZulu and in the further “White” hinterland of Natal. It is very clear that this pattern will not change in the near future, that it is almost impossible for this pattern to be able to change even in the very long term.

If we now consider the accommodation pattern in Natal, then we see that the cities and towns in “White” Natal manifest the usual pattern: First one finds a multi-storey commercial centre with a high density; one then moves out to an urban high density residential area; and, thirdly, one has sprawling suburban residential areas with a low density. This is how the planners see the whole picture and how they plan.

I come now to the differences between Natal and the rest of South Africa. Elsewhere in the world or elsewhere in South Africa the contact point between the sparsely populated suburbs and the sparsely populated rural areas is usually the peri-urban areas or the rural residential areas. These are the areas which provide room for the subsequent development of peri-urban areas. When one talks about the Durban-Pietermaritzburg metropolitan complex, as well as the entire coastal strip of Natal, those areas are not surrounded by rural areas where there are very few people. They are surrounded by absolutely unplanned informal high density areas. There are no services. They constitute a health hazard not only for the areas themselves, but also for the entire Pietermaritzburg-Natal area. Around Durban-Pinetown lie KwaMashu, Kwadebeke, Molweni, Inanda, Ngcolosi, Embo and Nyuswa. These areas are situated in the north and it is estimated that there are approximately 300 000 people who are living in informal areas. In the south it is no different. In Dassenhoek, Thomwood, Clermont, Malukazi and KwaMakuta there are also approximately 250 000 people who are absolutely concentrated into areas with as high a density as the ordinary suburban areas of “White” South Africa. Just outside Pietermaritzburg there are 210 000 people in Sweet Waters and Edenvale alone.

Here in Cape Town we have the problem of approximately 26 000 Black people at Crossroads, on the outskirts of Cape Town. Crossroads has been in the news for quite a few years now. The authorities involved were so concerned about these informal houses, that they were not in good repair or that there were no services, that the houses have been demolished time and again. In Natal, around Durban and Pietermaritzburg alone, there are almost 1 million people living in precisely the same conditions. And then it is not a question of them living kilometres away, but people are direct neighbours. Slums appear only through those political boundaries which determine that the one is kwaZulu and the other Natal. One finds there a boundary fence with the best White residential area on the one side and shacks right next door. It is not the same as in Cape Town where there are only a few people. We are talking about almost 1 million people.

These people receive no assistance whatsoever from the Government and very little interest. Why? I think this is of course the second major difference between the situation in Natal and the one elsewhere in South Africa. After all, they are not in “White” South Africa; they are in kwaZulu and are therefore the responsibility of the kwaZulu Government. However, the problem will not be solved that easily.

This Government, with all the means at its disposal, has been struggling for several years now to solve the problem of 26 000 people in an informal area at Crossroads, how do hon. members expect the kwaZulu Government, with what it has at its disposal, to solve the problem of approximately 1 million people who form an integral part of the White areas of Natal, i.e. of Durban, of Pietermaritzburg and of the whole coastal strip? For that reason I think the first leg of the motion is very important. It is imperative that the planning authorities in Natal and kwaZulu should be integrated immediately so that an irreversible situation which will lead to a disaster is not created. In order to cope with the specific situation in Natal, and in the name of good town planning, it should be made possible immediately for local authorities to be of direct assistance in the provision and planning of services in those areas immediately adjoining the White residential areas. This will alleviate the pressure on the Central Government. It will alleviate the pressure on the kwaZulu Government. It will bring about a better utilization of the infrastructure. Above all it will promote sound relations in Natal, because the people there know how to live with one another. However, if things continue as they are doing now, the situation will only turn sour.

Furthermore, it appears that Natal is threatened by massive removals of people, people who at this stage all have a roof over their head. It would affect approximately 300 000 people if the consolidation proposals of 1975 were to be implemented. In addition it would affect a further 200 000 people as a result of the removal of so-called Black spots. In view of this the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to a question—question 39— which the hon. member for Sea Point put to him on Wednesday, 2 February this year, is completely ridiculous. The question was—

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. the Minister’s reply was in regard to the estimated shortage of housing in each province? According to him the total shortage in all the White areas together was only 160 000. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are 200 000 people who have to be eliminated from the Black spots alone. The hon. member for Sea Point also asked what the estimated shortage of housing in the national States was. The hon. the Minister then replied that it was not easy to furnish an accurate figure, but that the shortage in kwaZulu was 68 600. In the meantime, 500 000 people have to be moved from one place to another in Natal. If we add this to the hon. the Minister’s figure, this figure of 68 600 definitely looks like a joke. Merely in view of the housing problem, therefore, it is imperative that the Government should call a halt to its removal of people in terms of ideological planning. Merely in view of the housing problem alone, we cannot afford it.

A person’s home is a symbol of his social and economic status. The social and economic status, however, is the result of both a person’s natural ability as well as what he receives from the community with which he can best develop his ability, things like education, welfare, health services, etc. In addition it must also be possible for the individual to share on an equal footing and in accordance with his ability in the material and non-material welfare produced by the community as a whole.

The housing pattern in South Africa is very clear. For the most part the problem of housing affects Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. Consequently it is not strange that we speak simultaneously of a constitutional crisis and of a housing crisis. The housing problem is merely the manifestation or the reflection of the abstract constitutional problem in a concrete form.

The hon. member for Bellville alleges that the Government’s solution to the housing problem is limited to what is possible. However, the hon. member only views it from the point of view of White politics.

I deny that. That is not true.

The hon. member says there is no money to build houses for everyone. He also says that only services will be provided.

You clearly did not listen to my speech.

To offer a solution to the housing problem at this stage, a solution which is formulated in such a simple way …

I did not say that.

… is just as onesided as the Government’s attempts to solve the constitutional crisis. I think the hon. member for Bellville can prepare himself for confrontation in the three chambers of the three separate Parliaments as far as this housing policy is concerned. If the hon. member for Bellville thinks that the Government will be exempted from providing people with housing—houses, and not only services— there is a major problem awaiting him.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to tell you that it is a very great privilege for me to have you, my old friend, sitting in that chair while I address you. I hope you will take our long friendship and good relationship into account. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Greytown and the hon. member for Sea Point have again allowed the spectre of desperation and the spectre of despondency to move into their boarding house. That is the trouble with the hon. members of the Opposision. They see things so negatively that now that we have announced a tremendous and positive housing programme, through which we want to sell 500 000 houses to people, they cannot even accept it in a positive spirit and begin discussing this other work that must still be done from that point of view. [Interjections.] All of us in this House know that the housing situation in South Africa is acute and in many respects critical. We must see that against the background of a number of factors. In the first place there is the tremendous population growth in South Africa. Of the Black people in South Africa 48% are under the age of 15. That is a major aggravating factor. If those hon. members always want to regard this solely as a problem unique to the policy of separate development, I want to ask hon. members of the PFP: Why is the same problem being experienced throughout Africa and throughout South America? In the second place they must see the housing problem against the background of world-wide urbanization which simply causes housing crises everywhere, and that includes this relatively backward community situation in South Africa. In the third place they must consider the matter of money. What capital is available in South Africa to enable us to overcome this crisis. They must also admit that this is not solely the responsibility of the Government They do not say this. As a matter of fact, I deduced from the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point that he wants the Government to do everything. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Sea Point has a dual political personality. On the one hand he is an economic socialist and on the other he is a kind of racist paternalist. Over and above that he sometimes sounds as if he wants to preserve the capitalist system. I must say he confuses me a little because he is sometimes very difficult to understand.

It has been said that we must look after the Black States. This is a major aggravating factor—neighbouring Black States we must help to develop. I have a document here that I do not have the time to quote from in which the hon. member for Sea Point himself said in To the Point that if he were in power, he would spend large sums of money on the infrastructure in the Black States. If this is the case, I want to tell him that there would simply be less money in the Treasury for housing here in so-called White South Africa.

There is another factor we must take into consideration when we want to ascertain why we are lagging so far behind as far as the housing problem is concerned. I am stating this as a fact and I do not want to comment on it. It is the tremendous amount of money South Africa has had to spend on the war effort over the past few years. There is no doubt about this. We have had to spend thousands of millions of rand in our effort to keep the terrorists and our communist enemies in check. I challenge any hon. member in this House to stand up and tell us we should not have done so.

We have now come up with a particularly positive approach. When we consider the housing strategy under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Community Development and under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, I want to say that we have recently had the most positive and most dynamic strategy South Africa could ever have devised. We had the Viljoen committee which in many respects gave the Government revolutionary advice. We also had the Steyn committee, and next week certain additional matters surrounding the Steyn committee will probably be ready, from which the hon. member for Sea Point will be able to deduce that this NP Government is a Government that is in earnest about housing. All of us on this side of the House say that if we do not want the steamrollers of poverty to roll over South Africa and flatten and destroy our ideals of prosperity then we must solve this housing problem. However, because we are in earnest about this, we have taken the right action. That is why I say our people can trust us with this.

In my humble opinion the greatest problem facing South Africa is the socio-economic problems of Black people and specifically the role played by inadequate housing in covering those socio-economic problems. That is why I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and everyone assisting him—here I am thinking in particular of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training—that for the umpteenth time I again see a positive attitude towards the provision of housing in South Africa and I know we are on the right track.

What do we do now? We should tell South Africa—that is the philosophy of the NP— that we want to give everyone something to lose. We do not mean this in the socialistic sense, namely that the Government wants to hand something to the people on a platter, but we mean it in a capitalistic sense, namely that we want to give everyone the opportunity to obtain something they do not want to lose. If people own something, the enemies of South Africa cannot tell them that they have nothing to lose. If they have nothing to lose they will readily join forces with the enemy. This applies in particular to the matter of housing.

The other day I said we should not consider this a crisis. Why do we in South Africa, together with the Black masses, not see the tremendous housing problems and backlogs as a challenge? I do not think there has ever been a greater possible generator of economic development and economic activity than the housing problem in South Africa. Let us illustrate this in practical terms. I took a quick look at this and decided on a house of 49,2 square metres—i.e. 8,2 metres long and 6 metres wide. This is a house consisting of two bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and a sittingroom/diningroom. I think we can accept that in future this will be a reasonable house. The present shortage of houses for Black people totals 534 000. In order to eliminate this backlog by building this type of house, we shall need 4 752 600 cubic metres of concrete. We shall need 6 642 960 cubic metres of building sand. That amount of building sand is equivalent to 1 328 592 loads of 5 cubic metres each that will have to be transported. We shall need 59 808 000 bags of cement. The hon. member for Meyerton will be very pleased to hear that we shall need 6 408 million bricks. We would need all this to eliminate the present housing shortage.

I could continue and tell you how many doors and door frames, how much glass etc. we would need, but the point I actually wanted to make was that if ever in the history of South Africa there was a local market with a potential for growth, with a potential for participation by people, it is this tremendous market. I am no longer so sure that, economically speaking we need to be so tremendously export orientated, when we consider this tremendous domestic economic potential. A great deal of this material has to be manufactured, it has to be transported and it has to be assembled.

I want to make a further point. I believe the Steyn Committee, too, has already given attention to this. I call upon the hon. the Minister to implement the Government’s plan in a dramatic way as far as our urban Black residential areas are concerned. In particular, too, we must consider the matter of land and future growth potential so that we are not again hampered by the factor of insufficient available land.

In the second place we must, for Heaven’s sake, see to it that we in South Africa reconsider the thousands, figuratively speaking, of rules and regulations and other restrictions on economic activities, including those affecting small businessmen that could become involved in this housing programme. It is not unusual for a democratic Government to say this. When he came to power recently, Chancellor Helmut Kohl said one of his aims was “to deregulate the economy”. President Reagan said the same thing and Mrs. Thatcher is engaged in doing so. In every democratic State in the world the historical process of an accumulation of a tremendous number of rules and regulations is a reality of the world in which we live. This morning, while I was driving to the office, I thought of my own home and of my father and mother, and wondered how on earth one can be a stable person if one does not have a home, a roof over one’s head to which one can return in the evenings, where one can feel wanted, where one has a mother and father to offer security, a place where one can find oneself as a person, a place one can escape to and a place from which one can channel one’s thoughts and activities towards the future. I believe a house is an essential stabilizing factor. The price we pay in South Africa for the poverty surrounding the shortage of houses, of which we in the NP are all aware, is phenomenal. If one were to ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare what effect inadequate housing has on health or if one were to ask the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training what school problems are caused by a lack of stable housing, one would see that we pay a tremendous price for this socio-economic problem. This is why we in the NP say that we want to tackle this problem and totally eradicate it. We want to eradicate poverty. We do not want poor appendages next to us.

In conclusion I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition please to be positive. The Government has come forward with a dramatic plan of action. We have a committee that will make further announcements and the Opposition must be positive so that we shall be able to tell the Black people of South Africa, the entire world and our own Whites that what we are doing will be good, that it is necessary and that it is for the sake of the survival of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made a very fine and valuable contribution and in the process he mentioned astronomical, mind-boggling figures. I should like to move as a further amendment—

† I must say I detected a very marked ambivalence in the approach of the hon. member for Sea Point. I distinctly heard two people speaking. I listened to the professional man, the knowledgeable man, the authority on housing matters. Indisputably the hon. member is an authority on housing matters and it is always very pleasant to listen to that hon. gentleman. However, I also listened to the politician. There is nothing wrong with being a politician, but when a politician is biased and prejudiced and loses his judgment and has shallow arguments as the hon. member did, I find fault. [Interjections.] Those hon. members find it very amusing when I am tonguetied for a moment. I said there were two people speaking. There was an ambivalence in his approach. Unfortunately we had merely a whimper from the professional man and we had a loud vociferous speech from the politician.

*This ambivalence that the hon. member displays—it is part of his whole makeup—is also reflected in the hon. member’s motion. His motion reads—

These are the words of a level-headed man. He asks the Government “to consider the advisability”. All at once, however, he becomes the politician again—

The hon. member calls for a single department because that is in line with his whole political philosophy of a single society, a single political structure, a single housing department, a single education department, a single dreary sameness in this country and a single rigid uniformity. Having said that, the hon. member all of a sudden became once again the level-headed scientist when he used the word “co-ordinate”. Surely that is sensible language. After all, that is a word from the vocabulary of the scientist. It is in line with this amendment, in which we refer to a comprehensive approach. “Co-ordination”—after all that is sensible language, and not “one department”.

I have with me a flow chart which could indicate to that hon. member the co-ordination that does in fact take place between the departments. It is excellent co-ordination. Linked to the Ministry are various arms such as the National Housing Commission, the Housing Policy Council, the Housing Matters Advisory Committee, the Community Development Board, etc. All are coordinated with one another and subordinated to the function of the Minister. This in turn makes itself felt in the other strata, the Provincial Administrations, the local authorities as functionaries, and also the semi-public sector and in other parts of the public sector, such as the Transport Services, the Post Office and the State Corporations, and the private sector as well. I do not have the time to elucidate this all in full, but I shall make this flow chart available to the hon. member so that he can see that there is a fine, comprehensive approach, an organic approach, with the result that everyone does not simply do his own thing in his own corner; instead there is co-ordinated action.

To return to the hon. member’s motion; he remains the scientist for a while and speaks about a housing strategy. “Housing strategy” is a fine word, a very sensible word. However, the hon. member spoils the word “housing strategy” by using the wrong article. He refers to “a” housing strategy which is to be designed, as if it has not yet been designed, instead of “the” housing strategy, the one which the Minister in question announced last year and to which tremendous publicity was given. Linked to that is the selling campaign announced the previous week. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member feels that he has been level-headed for too long. He has been the scientist for too long and now the politician has to take over again, the politician who gets his dig in, who is out to hurt and wound. At that point he comes up with a word straight from the arsenal of the politician, and speaks about a housing crisis. That, surely, is an ugly word, an exaggerated word.

But it is an ugly situation.

If the hon.member had wanted to be scientific he would really have asked himself what the extent of that housing crisis was to which he referred. He omitted to tell us what the extent of that housing crisis was, if it ever was a housing crisis! After all, the scientist would have taken a cool and clinical look at such a statement, but the politician simply rushes in. The scientist would surely have told us what had already been done to resolve this so-called crisis, but the hon. member omitted to do so. [Interjections.] He would also have told us what strategy to apply in order to resolve these problems and whether that strategy was adequate, but the hon. member omitted to do that.

What has been done over the past year? I should like to deal in due course with other statements made by the hon. member in the course of his speech, if time permits. Does the hon. member know that this department has built almost 35 000 houses in the past year alone, at a cost of R470 million, and that amount has never been equalled over the past 10 years? That number of houses was equalled once, in 1978, when there was a special appropriation, or when there were loans from the banks enabling the public sector to build housing.

We do not merely talk.

However, the hon. member speaks about a crisis. R470 million has been spent over the past year in these times of scarce money, but the hon. member for Walmer says that too little is being done, because R800 million should have been spent. While on the subject of the hon. member for Walmer, I want to say that he made one of the most irresponsible statements we have ever heard in this House. He said that this Government was deliberately causing distressful conditions for Black people, more specifically Black people here in the Western Cape, to make it unattractive for them here, so that they would go back to the national States.

Quite right.

That is a scandalous statement.

Sir, the hon. member is an industrialist. He is a very big employer. He attacked this Government and said that we were doing too little, but I want to tell him that in the period from 1976 to 1981 this Government was responsible for 92% of all Black housing outside the national States.

What did he do?

The private sector built 8% of the houses. I have yet to hear that hon. member, who is himself an employer and has contact with his kindred spirits among the employers, putting to them the matter of that contribution of 8% over a period of six years. [Interjections.]

Order!

The provision of housing is a dynamic process in which the whole society not only has an interest but ought, indeed, to be actively involved. I think that this is the crux of the interesting housing strategy that the hon. the Minister announced last year. The key word in this whole strategy is the word “involvement”. The goal of this entire housing strategy, the cornerstone of this whole strategy, is home-ownership.

I now wish to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he endorses a strategy the goal of which is, firstly, greater involvement on the part of the individual, the employer and the private sector.

Yes, but in the private sector as well.

The hon. member endorses it. Does he endorse the goal of home-ownership? The hon. member gave us a distorted image of this whole strategy and of the whole housing selling campaign, an image which could create considerable confusion in the country. I shall come back to that in due course.

The message of the hon. the Minister comes through loud and clear: This is a task that the Government cannot perform on its own. Many years ago I had this advice from an old professor: Do not do the work of ten people; rather get ten people to do your work. If this Government has built 92% of all Black housing outside the National States, then I want to say that over the years it has been doing the work of ten. The key to the strategy is therefore the involvement of other people; it is to get ten other people to help us to do this work.

In his speech the hon. member for Sea Point said that we were shifting our responsibility on to the private sector. If, then, he contends that we expect that the public sector will do less and the private sector more, then that is not correct. Last year’s figures that I have just quoted surely indicated that that is not correct. In future we are going to make a far greater contribution, a bigger share, but that goes for the private sector, too. The Minister’s message is: Get involved! This Government is taking the necessary steps to facilitate the involvement of the individual and the private sector by providing the infrastructure, serviced plots and a property market which we are now creating for certain population groups. For the first time in history there will now be a property market for Black people. Then, within the limit of our abilities, we are making individual loans available. Plans for the purchase of material will also be made available shortly. Technical advice is given to people to enable them to take part in these self-build schemes. Add to this enthusiasm and we have an excellent result. This will be of incalculable value for our country and all its people, and will afford hundreds of thousands of people the joy of home ownership.

† In the USA the idea of owning a home is referred to as the American dream. In Great Britain they say that every man’s home is his castle. I want to say that we must inculcate in the minds of our people that yearning for, that dream of an own home. People must literally be obsessed with the ideal of owning an own home.

The Blacks in the Western Cape as well?

The hon. menber then wants to say by implication that we are granting it for the whole of South Africa with the exception of this small portion here where there are a few thousand Blacks in the Western Cape. Thank you; that is a very nice compliment.

This morning the senior officials of this department and all our regional representatives had a meeting. I want to say this afternoon on behalf of the hon. the Minister and on behalf of the department that we in this department make this pledge that all the resources of this department and all the energies of the officials of this department will be directed to this one overriding purpose, and that is to make this wonderful dream come true for people. Mr. Speaker, if you will it to happen, dreams do come true. We in this department have this dream of home ownership for the majority of South Africans and if the people have that same dream, miracles will happen. We shall change the social face of South Africa and in its wake will come social, economic and political stability. One need not be fabulously rich for this dream to come true. All that is required is a firm resolve, tremendous dedication and, if need be, the ever-willing assistance of the Government. Add to this some sweat equity, perhaps plenty of it, and an own home is within the means of the very poorest. I have visited the houses that have been built by very poor people with an income of R200 to R300 per month. They built those homes on serviced land provided by the department and with the assistance of their employers who provided the material. Technical guidance was provided by the Administration Board. I have seen those houses built to a better standard than the houses the department has been building. The term “sweat equity” has been ridiculed in many quarters, but I say that if there is an incontrovertible psychological fact it is that we appreciate most and cherish the longest that for which we have toiled and which we have achieved by the sweat of our brows. I say that this Government, with this housing strategy it has announced, is making it possible for hundreds of thousands of people to enjoy just that.

*The amendment quoted here tells us that house ownership is the cornerstone of our housing strategy. Now the Government is coming forward with an offer to people. People who were lessees only yesterday, who have been lessees over the years and have acquired enormous stacks of rental receipts, are now receiving from us the tidings that it will be made possible for them—with their co-operation, of course—to obtain a better, a bigger, a more expensive document—the title to their own house.

That is a Prog dream.

Your dream lies across the Limpopo.

Your hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North does not see that dream.

The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about divided control between the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Surely that is not the whole truth. Has the hon. member ever gone to look at the budget of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to determine how much is appropriated for housing? He will find nothing in it for the areas outside the national States. All that falls within the budget of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The only responsibility with regard to housing that rests on the shoulders of the Department of Co-operation and Development—apart from the enormous inputs they make to determine the demand—is housing in the national States. Does the hon. member really expect us to place that housing, too, under the aegis of the Department of Community Development?

† The hon. member for Sea Point went on to say that we were going to ask the private sector to increase their contribution towards housing while we were going to reduce our own contribution. That is an irresponsible statement. I wrote next to this statement: “Balderdash”. [Interjections.] We are not going to evade our responsibilities.

Then the hon. member predicted that there would now be a drastic increase in rentals in respect of those houses that were not purchased.

But the hon. the Minister said so.

Yes, the hon. the Minister said that. The hon. member for Sea Point, however, said we were going to increase the rentals of the poorest of the poor. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that people with an income of up to R150 a month are paying as little as 5% of that income, with a maximum of R7,50 a month, and that that will not be changed? That will not be increased. [Interjections.] Why then does the hon. member make a statement like that?

The hon. member and I were together in Europe and in America last year. We travelled all over the world inspecting these housing schemes. Has the hon. member seen anything to compare with this, where someone can rent a house of 50 square metres for a maximum of R7,50 a month? Only in this maligned country is that possible.

The hon. member also alleged that we would be evicting people from their houses if they did not want to purchase those houses. I believe that is a very, very irresponsible statement to make. The hon. member knows that we are not going to bring pressure to bear on people to purchase those houses, as he suggested. It is to their benefit, but we are not pressurizing them, and if they do not want to purchase those houses they will remain on as tenants. The hon. member should know that. So why should we sell those houses over their heads? It is simply not true, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member also said we were not doing enough for the senior citizens. The hon. member for Brits replied to that. He said we should be purchasing blocks of flats for these people. We have been doing just that. During the past two years we have purchased 20 such blocks of flats. We have purchased 985 units for R8 million.

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