Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, on one occasion Dr. Anton Rupert said the following about South Africa—

The Department of Co-operation and Development is concerned with the laminated wood out of which a strong Southern Africa must be built. What Dr. Rupert did not say, was that laminated wood was held together by glue. It is often rather the strength of the glue than that of the various layers that determines the quality of the end-product. What is the nature of the glue with which we have to keep the laminated wood of South Africa strong and sound? I would say without hesitation that it consists of mutual trust, goodwill, acceptance of and co-operation with one another. The layers of wood need not necessarily be of equal thickness and strength. Think, for example, of the sizes of our population groups, economies, and so on.

I truly believe that this co-operation in several spheres must grow organically and be built up systematically from beneath. In this way functional co-operation is achieved from the lowest to the highest levels in diverse spheres of development. Let us just consider for a moment the historical background of this diversity, this laminated wood of South Africa.

In the two Republics and the two colonies that were united in 1910 to form the Union of South Africa, and even in the previous century, those in power had deemed it necessary to make provision for separate departments to deal with the administration of the people of Black communities within their borders. At the time of Union in 1910, provision was made inter alia for the establishment of a Department—as it was then called—of Native Affairs, and for the appointment of a Minister of Native Affairs. This department was specifically entrusted with the task of the administration of people of Black communities and with looking after their interests, the emphasis at the time falling very strongly on the administrative functions that the department had to perform. I find it very interesting to research this admirable history, referring to files and other documents, and to become well acquainted with it.

It is also important to note that gradually, the realization grew that the development of the people of Black communities and their traditional territories should enjoy attention. This gradual shift in emphasis was given concrete form in 1936, in the form of Native Trust and Land Act, which provided inter alia for the purchase of more land for occupation by people of Black communities and the management, administration and development of such land. Of course, this shift in emphasis has been very strongly evident since 1948, particularly under the late Dr. Verwoerd, Minister M. C. Botha and, subsequently, others. This shift in emphasis and these basic changes were also reflected in changes in the department’s name. The name of the Department of Native Affairs was later changed to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. This was not coincidental. In view of the increasing emphasis on the department’s task of development, which resulted in one Black people after another progressing on the road of development to such an extent that self-government and independence, and the subsequent constitutional development by way of bilateral, multilateral and other agreements, became a reality, development was emphasized to an increasing extent, and this is till the case at present. If we look at the historical background from before 1910, we note the golden thread that runs throughout our history up to the present. It provides an exceptional momentum which is still carrying forward the development in the department.

A logical outcome of this process of development was, of course, that the Government would inevitably continue to move further away from an administrative approach to its task and that the idea of co-operation and consultation would increasingly come to the fore as development progressed further. As one national State after the other developed towards full-fledged self-government and independence, the idea of co-operation came increasingly to the fore, and in 1979 resulted in the department’s name being changed to the Department of Co-operation and Development.

What about the Department of Plural Relations, Piet?

Yes, we had that little offshoot, too. [Interjections.]

Since 1948 a constitutional development has taken place among ethnic groups in the Republic of South Africa in consequence of the Government’s policy of peaceful coexistence of peoples and the implementation of the abovementioned policy by the department and due, too, to co-operation, consultation and development in the broadest sense, a form of development which will be found in this country only, and nowhere else in the world.

All I am trying to do now, is to show hon. members clearly how deeply rooted this is. Black States and self-governing States have come into being, government services have been established and, in addition, the economic and physical development of the States in question has been seen to by the department with dedication and exceptional enthusiasm. The existence of the various national States and their leaders is due to co-operation between White and Black. Allow me to state clearly here today that I learnt this as a young man from Dr. Verwoerd. It was the secret of success; the secret of the success of the road we have travelled here. By way of co-operation between White and Blacks as embodied in the Department of Co-operation and Development, constitutional development has taken place, development which it would be difficult to reverse. For example, Black towns have been established—Umlazi, Mdantsane and many others—that have initiated the urbanization process in national States. I want to point out that the urbanization—a process which is certainly inevitable—in the self-governing States and in the former self-governing States is among the top priorities. In the course of the debate we shall provide statistics to support this. The majority of people simply overlook this.

There is one point I want to bring out very clearly in order to bring home to hon. members the priority given to development, cooperation and consultation. One of the major tasks of the department is to promote the development of the various Black ethnic units towards self-determination. The development of a people extends across a wide spectrum and is based on four main pillars, namely constitutional development, social development, economic development and physical development. One fact that is immediately striking when one considers the draft appropriation for 1983-’84, is that out of the amount of R1 386 million submitted to Parliament for appropriation, R1 059 million, or 76,4%, is to be utilized specifically for the development of the national States and the consolidation of the national States and Black territories. If the statutory additions are also taken into account, the amount to be utilized for development comprises R1 266 million out of the total estimated expenditure of R1 593 million. This means that 79,5% of the total amount appropriated by Parliament is to be utilized for the development of the national States and these communities, and for that alone.

The amount of R1 266 million is composed as follows: R375 million for the development of Black areas towards self-determination; R620 million for assistance to Governments of self-governing national States; R206 million by way of statutory grants to national States; and R63 million for supporting and associated services.

I just wish to mention a few facts about this before making certain announcements. It is of special significance to note that the amount requested under programme 1, viz. in respect of administration, to conduct the overall management of the department, comprises only 1,1% of the total estimated expenditure. Almost 80% of the total appropriation is therefore devoted solely to development and consolidation, whereas only 1,1% is used for overall management. Here one must bear in mind that out of the remaining percentage of less than 20%, provision must still be made for social services, etc., and in this regard one is dealing with fixed amounts. In view of that, I really think that I am submitting to Parliament a very significant picture of our priorities that are in fact being implemented as such in practice in this country. It is evident from the analysis of the department’s budget that the extension and promotion of the national States is regarded as being of primary importance. This confirms the stated policy of the Government that the development of the national States is one of its top priorities.

Thus far there has been one shortcoming in the pattern of development which I wish to single out and I wish to make an appeal in this regard. This shortcoming is that very few of the really big conglomerates in the industrial sector have had a share in the tremendous historical, economic and financial programmes. I want to express my regret that in general, this process is being left to the smaller industrialists. I should like to ask that a number of Black entrepreneurs be encouraged, with the support of leaders among the industrial giants, to produce certain products or processes under their control in the national States, even on a subcontractual basis. The Black entrepreneurs could deliver the products produced in this way on contract. They could be assisted by way of quality control, and once success has been achieved in establishing a few entrepreneurs in this way, the scheme could be extended. This is a friendly request that I should like to make on this occasion. If this is done, it will contribute significantly towards the welfare of all the people in this country.

†I should now like to make a few announcements.

I hope it is good news for a change.

If the hon. member is open to good news, he can see it in my Vote. Otherwise he is only open for bad news.

With the passing of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, the Government confirmed that it was every community’s basic right to manage its own affairs. The aim is, wherever possible, to leave the decision-making and final responsibility for their own welfare in the hands of the local communities and their elected representatives. Existing Community Councils do not automatically become local authorities. Each community will be considered in accordance with certain criteria, such as whether the community is viable or possesses the potential to become viable within a specified period of time and has at its disposal the sources of revenue to ensure minimum services to the community. This is a very excellent process of phasing in towards complete autonomy in terms of the Act of 1982.

Since the passing of the Act extensive preparatory work covering a very wide field has been undertaken, such as the preparation of standing orders for the different types of local authorities and a large variety of regulations covering matters such as elections, finance, staff, streets, electricity and many more of these things, as well as guidelines for the classification of urban Black residential areas with a view to the establishment of proper and meaningful local authorities. The preparatory work is in an advanced stage and it is already possible to classify residential areas. The establishment of a local authority is a weighty and time-consuming matter. It is envisaged that a number of communities will be considered for local authority status during the later part of this year. Local authorities will be established in phases.

During the first phase the following towns will be considered should the communities so desire, namely: Soweto, Galeshewe, Mamelodi, Daveyton, Thabong, Atteridgeville, Katlehong, Uitenhage, Vosloosrus, Tembisa, Kwa-Tema, Evaton, Port Elizabeth, Tokoza, Kroonstad, Witbank, Grahamstown, Wattville, Kagiso, Alexandra, Bethlehem, Cradock, Bloemfontein, Potchefstroom and Klerksdorp. These communities are at present being consulted. As a second phase a further 84 towns have been identified for consideration shortly after the completion of phase 1 during 1984.

Once the first two phases are complete there will obviously be some remaining communities which may wish to be considered. The communities which do not qualify at this stage for a local authority may in the meantime establish local committees. Methods are being considered to bring those Community Councils which cannot be dealt with in terms of the new dispensation at this stage within the ambit of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. The communities which are to be considered in the first phase will be able to hold elections during either September, October or November this year in accordance with their wishes. For the first time ever in the history of this country they will vote on proper voters’ lists compiled in these local communities. It is therefore a development of some moment. The remainder will be afforded the opportunity to hold elections in terms of the new dispensation at a later stage. The urban communities are now about to enter an exciting future and will be able to participate fully in local government.

*I should also like to make a statement about the new city, Khayelitsha, which is being built near Cape Town. In order to administer the new residential area at Khayelitsha on a co-ordinated basis, a project committee has been appointed and the cooperation of all surrounding local authorities has been obtained. The results already achieved attest to the high degree of teamwork that it has been possible to achieve in the Peninsula, and a special word of thanks goes to the responsible bodies. There are almost too many of them to mention, but there are the local authorities concerned that are still providing assistance, and the provincial administration, which is represented on the project committee. I want to convey a special word of thanks to my colleagues, in particular the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who helped in taking the initiative to bring about this tremendous team effort. I have only the greatest praise and appreciation for this, because if ever there was an achievement, this is it. Details of the Khayelitsha project and the construction work that has already been completed are as follows: The total area of the development there comprises approximately 3 000 hectares. Due to marshy conditions in the Kuils River flood-plain and the need to protect areas that are sensitive from an ecological point of view, approximately 2 500 hectares will be made available for urban development. The plan is ultimately to establish a city, on the available area, for between 200 000 and 300 000 members of the Black communities of the Peninsula, with all the necessary services and infrastructure, including a railway line and community facilities. The city will be about 30 kilometers from Cape Town—not 40 kilometers, mischief-makers are trying to intimate—and 15 kilometers from Bellville, and a railway line to Cape Town and Bellville is envisaged for the future. The first phase of development has already begun and entails making approximately 1 000 plots available with an average surface area of 170 square meters with rudimentary services—that is to say, gravel streets, one pillar-tap for every four plots, toilets, street lights and a rubbish removal service. Community facilities are being provided, e.g. administrative offices, a school; a clinic, a post office, shops and public transport. A beach resort for the Coloured community is being planned as a high priority approximately three kilometers from the first phase of development. Families will be permitted to construct accommodation on a controlled self-build basis, which will be upgraded in due course. Permanent services such as sewerage and water supply will at a later stage be provided on each plot. Construction work for the first phase of development began on 16 May 1983, and the first plots with all the necessary rudimentary services are ready today, on 6 June, and the first occupants who are here in Cape Town lawfully were settled there this morning. This truly attests to a wonderful team effort in this regard and I wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation once again to all those involved.

The work being done during these three weeks entails, inter alia, the following: Firstly, the deforestation, levelling and stabilization of 36 hectares of land. Approximately 500 000 cubic metres of groundworks have been completed and 15 000 cubic metres of gravel is being placed and stabilized; secondly, the construction of a high standard access of road of approximately two kilometers and a network of gravel streets to serve the 1 000 residential plots; thirdly, the installation of a main water supply pipeline and water distribution network with pillar-taps; and, fourthly, the installation of highmast street lighting. Community facilities are still being built at present. Some of them will be ready today, whereas the others will be ready within a few weeks. Toilet facilities will be constructed as families are settled on the plots. In the near future the access road will be tarred. The total estimated cost of the first phase of development is approximately R2,5 million. The planning for the next phases of development is carrying on unabated and is enjoying the highest priority.

In conclusion, I just want to eliminate one misunderstanding. The broad guidelines of no further filling in or increase in density of the existing residential areas of Nyanga, Guguletu and Langa, do not mean that normal maintenance of and improvements to existing accommodation cannot take place. However, we do not intend departing from the rule of no further filling in or increase in density in the existing residential areas. I hope that is very clear.

Then, too, I just want to make one other announcement. Hon. members will realize what I am doing and at the end of my speech I shall summarize everything. I see that the hon. member for Berea is not present at the moment. I have before me a report on Inanda. We have issued instructions to a consulting firm to draw up a report on Inanda. This is another area in South Africa where we are harassed, as has been the case for a long period here in the Cape Peninsula, in Soweto and in the Eastern Cape—thus, in the four great metropolitan complexes. We have given serious consideration to the problem, as we did in the case of Soweto. I am tabling the report this afternoon. I wish to point out that the firm of consultants in question made use of the services of subconsultants. Contributions were made and information provided by, inter alia, the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Chief Commissioner in Natal, the Commissioner in Verulam, the secretaries of various departments of the kwaZulu Government service, the Urban Foundation for the Natal Region, the S.A. Transport Services, the Durban City Engineers Department, the Durban Electrical Engineers Department, the Port Natal Administration Board, the local authorities in kwaZulu, the local authority of Clermont, the Department of Environment Affairs, the Department of Prisons and the kwaZulu Development Corporation. At present the report is before the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu. I am tabling the report this afternoon with the kind co-operation of Chief Minister Buthelezi, because they will not be able to contribute their inputs on the report before September/October this year. He said he would appreciate it if I would table the report here during the discussion of my Vote. I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation for the co-operation given by officials of the Government of kwaZulu and for the contributions by the Department of Co-operation and Development and from outside the department.

We are saddled with a colossal problem there. There are several hundreds of thousands of people there. If one has not been there yet, one does not have the vaguest idea of the problem facing us. The process whereby to eliminate the problem there, too, has now been initiated. I am profoundly grateful to be able to table this report today, a report which is the fruit of maximum cooperation from so many quarters.

This is a comprehensive report that is being submitted. It deals with all aspects of the planning. It contains recommendations relating to development in the short and long term with the express indications of the expected cost aspect of the financing of proposed projects and the acquisition of land. The report has been divided into three parts, and each part deals with a wide range of aspects that have to be approached and defined from a planning point of view.

I want to say here and now that I personally do not accept everything contained in the report. There are matters which could be considered. However, the process whereby to resolve this matter is now well under way. The situation and historical background, the population composition and figures and the expected population growth rate until after the year 2000 are provided, with an indication of the present settlement situation. Problems such as squatting and the growth of settlements in the adjacent Durban metropolitan area consisting of housing and community facilities, business enterprises, infrastructure provision and the proposed Inanda dam are matters dealt with in part 1 of the report, with the objectives for a planning strategy, conclusions and recommendations.

To eliminate any misunderstanding, I want to say at once that as regards the Inanda dam and any resettlements that have to take place as a result of that, I shall do this in the closest co-operation with the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu and the chief Minister personally.

Part 1 is a short summary of part 2, which is seen as the main report. Full details are also provided in respect of planning, engineering works, proposals for implementation and in addition, an assessment of the socioeconomic and other factors. Part 3 contains schedules A to F, which provide full details of the various studies undertaken to obtain background data required for the preparation of the report. Information concerning the planning, the provision of services and development standards, and the estimated expenditure, are matters dealt with in part 3.

I have said that the report is still to be dealt with and studied by kwaZulu. Therefore the report has not yet been finally accepted. Accordingly a programme of implementation has not yet been decided on. Nevertheless, a development committee to co-ordinate the development of Inanda has already been appointed. Certain priorities with a view to alleviating the situation in Inanda are already being given attention and considerable progress has already been made as regards, inter alia, the laying of water-pipes. Other essential services are also being provided for the community. Among the members of the Inanda Steering Committee appointed to furnish guidance to the consultants with regard to greater Inanda—a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Commissioner of Natal, who also provides the secretariat—are, inter alia, members of the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu and the kwaZulu Secretary of Internal Affairs, together with the kwaZulu Secretary of Works. Representatives of the local population also serve on the steering committee. The contribution of this committee has contributed to the drafting of this structural plan for Inanda and vicinity, and the members of the steering committee have concurred with the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Sir, what have I been trying to do? I have been trying to indicate very briefly to hon. members the guideline that if we want to deal effectively with our problems in this important and delicate sphere, the road ahead is clearly marked. It is the road of development, trust, liaison, consultation and co-operation. There is no other road we can follow. Note is taken of whether things are indeed done in this way. It is not perfect, of course, and I should be able to point to hundreds of weak aspects, but the fact that the process is succeeding is evident from the degree of contentment, stability and security that all of us in South Africa are experiencing.

I have made further announcements concerning the areas where the problems are greatest and most urgent. This was the case with Soweto. We addressed ourselves to the problems of Soweto, and hon. members are aware what the situation there is at present. We can discuss that under this Vote. The second area was the Eastern Cape. I intend making an important announcement in connection with the Eastern Cape tomorrow. One need only consider what the situation was in the Eastern Cape a year ago and then consider what the area looks like today. This did not simply happen; it is the result of hard work and a certain strategy that has been implemented. We are often accused of not having a strategy, but I have tried to indicate, quoting chapter and verse, that is not true. I have made announcements concerning the third major complex, that of the Cape Peninsula. It is clear that by tackling the problems, and due to the co-operation achieved, we are solving the problems. It is not easy, but challenges are there to be surmounted. In the light of South Africa’s problems, I have tried to indicate that however difficult the road may be with regard to the four great complexes, viz. the PWV area, the Durban-Pietermaritzburg area, the Eastern Cape and the Cape Peninsula, the problems are being tackled. I am grateful to be able to say that there has been a great deal of hard work behind the scenes. Mercifully, the results are there to be seen, in spite of vicious attacks that are often made on me personally and on the department.

On this occasion I want to conclude by referring briefly to a matter which is giving rise to a great deal of speculation in the newspapers at the moment, and that the finding of the court in the case of Rikhoto. The Appeal Court issued its finding based on its interpretation of the provisions of the Act. That finding is in conflict with the accepted interpretation of the section in question up to now. In the nature of the matter I do not want to comment on the finding itself. I, and the Government, respect our courts and hold them in the highest esteem. However, the finding has certain social and economic implications which no responsible government can ignore, and which the Government will have to consider in the interests of all. The hon. member for Sea Point must not be so quick to shake his head. He does not even know what I am going to say. This is a very difficult matter to deal with, and I hope that we shall all show the necessary insight to realize that this is a very difficult matter to deal with. If there is co-operation we can solve this problem effectively. There is a great deal at stake in this regard. Thus, we respect the court. The accepted intention and interpretation of the legislator and those who implemented the legislation was to the effect that contract workers, viz. section 10(1)(d) cases, do not acquire rights. No one can dispute that. The finding is in conflict with that intention and interpretation. This entails consequences for people who have acquired rights as well as those who have not yet acquired rights but may do so. It has grave social, economic and financial implications. This is, in the nature of things, a matter which the Government must deal with, and everyone will concede that.

Build more houses.

But of course! You must just provide the money. [Interjections.] It is easy to give advice from the sidelines. But I held discussions with bodies two to three years ago, in the course of which I told them that they had such a lot to say, complained such a lot and criticized so vigorously, but were unable to produce a single contribution towards one of the most burning problems, viz. the provision of accommodation for the Black people. Three years have passed and they are still kicking up a fuss, but not a cent has been contributed by them. [Interjections.] There comes a time when one gets sick and tired of that. This must be said in this House too for a change. As hon. members are aware, I am not one who seeks to fight all the time.

But as I said, the finding of the Appeal Court entails grave social, economic and financial implications. It implies that the Government will have to take account of those people who have obtained rights and may obtain rights in the future. While there are provisions, in terms of section 10, relating to rights for specific categories of people, a Bill is at present being considered by the Select Committee for Constitutional Affairs, which is the third Bill of an overall programme, as hon. members all know. The second one is now through, and we are just waiting for the third, which will be attended to during the recess, a Bill which, by its nature, is the most difficult of the three. But, as I said, there is a Bill before the Select Committee at present, and I referred it to the Select Committee after the First Reading, not after the Second Reading. It is a Bill which proposes new criteria, inter alia relating to residents and employment, for the acquisition of rights, which will be the basis for decisions. Pending finalization of legislation at present before the Select Committee, the Government will take interim steps to set matters straight with regard to the future and, in respect of rights obtained due to the finding of the court, determine the facts as far as numbers are concerned, and in the light of that will take the necessary decisions.

I have now made the statement and I sincerely hope—not that I think it will help much—that since this is a very delicate matter and since the Government must see to it—and it will not evade its duty—that order will continue to be maintained in this country and that the orderly settlement of communities be given the necessary attention, as I have indiciated in the statements I have made, no one should have any illusion about the fact that the Government regards this as its task and that the Government will implement that task with the utmost circumspection, however difficult it may be to do so, because it is in the interests, in the first place, of we who sit here in Parliament, but—and this is something that is often overlooked—it is also in the interests of those Black people who are lawfully present here, who also want to give their children a decent education, who also want to improve their quality of life. What kind of State and country is it that does not have order? This Government puts the highest premium on order, and if this is held against it then we are prepared to have it held against us. We call for co-operation, to enable us to maintain order in this beautiful country. There is no reason why this cannot be done with the greatest success, as long as there is co-operation among White, Black, Brown and Indian.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Sir, I shall come to the last remarks of the hon. the Minister as I proceed with my speech. At this stage let me say it is the quality of life in the Black townships that is much more important than the powers those people are going to enjoy under the Local Authorities Act. As it is, the quality of life in these townships leaves a lot to be desired, and the hon. the Minister is not going to cover up all the sins of omission and commission of past years by telling us that Blacks are now going to have local authority rights.

I want to come to the question of Khayelitsha immediately because this is something of interest to all of us. I noted that when the hon. the Minister was giving us details of this new township, which is to be established, according to him, 30 km and according to others 40 km from Cape Town, the hon. member for Tygervallei looked very worried. I am sure it is not something of which he approves. To him, as to other hon. members of the NP in the Western Cape, this is to be the last redoubt of the Whites in South Africa. I must say I often have an image of 50 years on, when all the Whites have been driven down to this southern tip of the Continent, and of everybody sitting in the shadow of Table Mountain eating dried peaches, because that is about all they would have to live on. Hon. members must realize that they cannot excise the Western Cape from the problems that are besetting the rest of the country. They cannot reserve this area for the White people only. Sir, I welcome the fact that this new township has been declared but I must say that urban planners to whom I have spoken are extremely worried at the distance of this new township from Cape Town. They call it a peripheral township and they say that it is going to make the provision of self-help housing much more expensive. In addition, the cost of transport is going to be unbearable. All in all, they say, setting up a township so far away is uneconomic and offers by no means a solution to the problem. I hope I understood the hon. the Minister correctly when he tried to reassure us about the future of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, that is, that these townships are not going to be uprooted, an impression that was created last week. In any event will he reassure us that those who have Section 10 rights and have to be moved will retain those rights. This is the hon. the Minister’s solution to the KTC problem. A lot of those people are legally in the Western Cape and have section 10(1) rights. Can the hon. the Minister tell whether, if and when those people start their new life in Khayelitsha, which is to be in the immediate future, they will in fact retain section 10(1) rights? People still remember the trauma that was caused in the Western Cape in the late fifties when Nyanga was excised from Cape Town and all those people lost their 10(1) rights.

I was not around then.

Yes, you were around. In fact, you probably caused it.

I know I am the devil as far as you are concerned.

Oh no. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is entirely wrong. I just think he is thoroughly misguided and very incompetent. I do not know whether he considers that to be better or worse than being considered the devil!

The hon. the Minister also gave us some news about the issue which have been hitting the headlines over the last few days, i.e. the Appeal Court’s decision on the Rikhoto case. For us this is the best news we have had for a long time. It is the brighest piece of news we have had for many a long year. This decision gave rise to renewed hope amongst tens of thousands … I do not for a moment go along with this “Swart gevaar” headline in Rapport over the weekend under the heading “Die Swart stroom”. They say 1,5 million people will be able to come into the urban area as a result of this decision.

That is a conservative estimate. [Interjections.]

It is a gross overestimate. People forget that many migrant workers are unmarried and have no families to bring along. People forget too—and this is the most important point of all—that thousands of them are already here illegally. That is what squatter camps are all about. That is partly what KTC, and certainly Crossroads, were all about. It is about the fact that the families are here already; not all of them by any means, but nevertheless a great number of them. Therefore, I believe, this is an exaggerated figure. However, it will certainly—I will admit that—affect tens of thousands of people, who might, as a result of the decision, be able to come and live as families. Wonder of wonders, this is something very special in South Africa, for a Black person as of right to enjoy the privilege of living with his family!

What we all want to know, Mr. Chairman, and what the hon. the Minister has not really answered in his rather ambiguous statement here this afternoon, is whether he is going to abide by the court’s decision. I am not only talking of what he is going to do during the next few days, while he is busy working out something, and while, as he says, the Select Committee on the Constitution is considering the third Bill, which, I might say, the Select Committee has never had sight of this session and is highly unlikely to have sight of before the end of this session, since the committee is now deeply occupied with the Constitution Bill…

That will happen during the recess.

Well, then it will happen during the recess. I want to know, however, whether the hon. the Minister is going to abide by that court decision, and, more important, is he going to see to it that every official in the 14 administration board areas that exist in the Republic is going to receive unambiguous instructions to the effect? I put this to him for a very good reason, Mr. Chairman. I ask the hon. the Minister this question because we have had experience of what happened after the Komani case.

I must remind hon. members that when the Komani judgment was handed down, it took over a year, and also two further court hearings, as well as a severe comment from the judge who heard the second case, before a clear instruction was issued to administration board officials. In the interim they were in fact practising civil disobedience. That is what it amounted to. They were refusing to obey an Appeal Court decision on the Komani case. Of course, the Komani case had to do, not with migrant workers, but also, however, with the right of a man living in an urban area, who qualified in terms of section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Urban Areas Act, to have his wife and children living with him. For over a year, that Appeal Court decision was flouted. There is no other word for it. Therefore I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to see to it that, at least in the interim, while he is working out some mechanism to cope with the situation, the decision of the Appellate Division is going to be adhered to.

Furthermore, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that muddling around with a decision of the highest court in the land is likely to undermine entirely what is still remaining of the respect the Black people have for the system of law in South Africa. I advise the Government to leave this well alone, to respect the Appeal Court judgment, to accept it as it is, and to make what necessary additional provision for housing that is going to be required in order to carry out the Appeal Court ruling.

The administration board officials, who, in the last instance, are the people who actually put the stamp in the book—that mighy rubber stamp which spells life or death to so many Black people—must be made aware that they cannot attempt to circumvent this decision. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that it is not only the Black people who are directly affected who are going to be watching this; it is also other people, both Black and White, who are going to be observing this. It is also going to have a considerable effect on, what I call, South Africa-watchers abroad. Those are the people who are keeping a keen eye on what is going on in South Africa.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the Appellate Division finding was unanimous. Mr. Justice van Heerden and four other judges who sat with him were unanimous in their finding. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no legal avenue now—since the ruling by the Appeal Court—whereby the State can overthrow this particular decision. There is, however, this sovereign Parliament, and that is what is worrying all of us. There is this sovereign Parliament, and there is nothing to stop the hon. the Minister from using this House. Indeed, I have a feeling that he was giving us a warning this afternoon that was exactly what he intended to do. He intends to come back to Parliament to change the law relating to section 10.

Section 10 was introduced by Dr. Verwoerd in 1952.

Of blessed memory.

To some people, yes.

When Dr. Verwoerd introduced section 10, he made an interesting comment. He said it was not the intention to keep men who were working in the area, from living with their wives if the wives were with them. He did not want the wives to be sent out. Part of the Rikhoto judgment, at least, applies to those people who are here illegally living with their husbands. Dr. Verwoerd made it quite clear—for any member who wants it, the Hansard reference is column 1276—when discussing the Black Laws Amendment Act, Act No. 54 of 1952, that he did not intend to separate families already living together in the urban areas if the husband was there and working. So hon. members should at least take that “tradition” into account before they make any attempt to circumvent the ruling.

If the hon. the Minister does in fact come back to the House with legislation to circumvent the Rikhoto finding, his own credibility, which is already well-nigh non-existent, will disappear altogether.

Thank you for the compliment! [Interjections.]

Don’t mention it.

That sort of personal remark is not proper. You are just being stupid.

The hon. the Minister himself admitted the other day that his promises were being regarded as a joke.

If you want to joke, joke; but do not be so personal.

I do not know how many hon. members were in the House at the time, but the hon. the Minister himself said with a smile from ear to ear, visible from some distance away, that he was not going to use the word “promise”. So he knows perfectly well that nobody accepts his promises.

You do not have to say my credibility is low.

Well, the hon. the Minister moves in a charmed circle if he thinks his credibility is high. It simply is not so.

The interesting thing about the Rikhoto judgment, which I have looked at over the weekend, is that Judge Van Heerden said, on page 13 of the judgment—

That is Parliament—

Is that not an extraordinary thing for the judge to have said, viz. that the legislators of this House could not possibly make a law which demanded a condition which could never, or hardly ever, be fulfilled? All I can say is that the judge does not know the legislators! If the practicability of the laws we pass in the House were in fact the yardstick, a great many laws affecting Blacks in this country would be declared invalid, because almost always there is a “Catch 22” involved where the rights of Blacks are concerned. So I believe it is also going to be in the wake of the historic Rikhoto case because to exercise the rights requires accommodation and all of us know the dire circumstances of the housing situation in every single one of the 14 Administration Board districts throughout the Republic. We all know there is an acute shortage of housing. The Viljoen Commission pointed it out and we know full well the tremendous shortage of housing in the Black townships throughout the country. Then one is not even considering the thousands of additional people who can qualify.

Now we really come to the bad news. We have had the good news about Rikhoto and now we are into the bad news. I want to say at once—and this is going to annoy the hon. the Minister even more—that I believe he has just completed one of the worst years in his term of office. It has been a year of utter and complete bungling. There is for example the hopelessly incompetent handling of the squatter problem here in the Cape and on the Rand, and practically everywhere else in the country. It has become a running sore. I do not blame the hon. the Minister only for it because it is part and parcel of the entire absurd policy which the Government has followed over 30 years in refusing to admit that Black people are in the towns permanently and that they require housing for themselves and their families. It is a running sore which the hon. the Minister has done very little to improve.

I must say it annoys me intensely when I read in the paper headlines such as “150 000 houses planned for Soweto”. I read that last year, because we get these promises every year, not only from the hon. the Minister, but also from the officials. However, when one asks questions the following year how many houses have been built, we learn that only 800 houses have been built in Soweto. That is really a record, because the year before there were even fewer. If we are going to provide 150 000 houses for Soweto in three years, as was stated, how on earth are we going to do it if we provided only 800 houses last year?

The hon. the Minister points to the private sector. I think that is a gross impertinence. It is not the responsibility of the private sector to provide housing for the citizens of this country. The private sector pays taxes, and these taxes are pretty high.

Who paid for your house?

I paid for my house. [Interjections.] But I can not only own my own house—I also have no trouble in raising a loan. Furthermore I can live where I like. That is the important thing. This Government has put every possible obstacle in the way of Black people choosing where they want to live and build their own houses. It is the Government that landed us in a mess with the ludicrous vicious circle which it has created of pushing more and more people back into the impoverished homelands, increasing the tremendous problems there, increasing the landlessness, and obviously thereby increasing the rate of illegal migration back into the cities. This is a vicious circle which the Government has created. And then it blames the private sector and expects the private sector to get them out of the mess in which they have landed the country over the last 30 years. I think it is a gross impertinence on behalf of the Government.

Now, what do they do? When people come here and because there are no houses—even for legal people—and provide rudimentary shelter for themselves, the Government takes away even that rudimentary shelter. That happens not only here in the Cape, but also in Orlando East on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere, as some of my hon. colleagues will show. What sort of behaviour is this in a country purporting to maintain Christian and civilized standards?

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he hopes to re-impose influx control by an amendment to the Black Urban Areas Act, it is not the answer. He has to evolve a strategy of urbanization. There are plenty of expert urban planners around who can assist him in this regard. It has taken us years and years to get the Government to agree to site-and-service. It is still not functioning properly. I do not know what the delays are. There seems to be bureaucratic delays about everything, even when decisions are finally taken. And they are decisions that should have been taken about 20 years ago.

We are now told of a great new plan for Inanda. I do not know how many years hon. members of this side of the House have been pleading for something to be done about Inanda. I know the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, and also other hon. members, have been pleading for something to be done about Inanda. I have been pleading for something to be done about all the areas which are really urbanized areas, for which this country is responsible, because the people who live there, although they are living in either the national States or Black States, are all employed here. Winterveld is an example in this regard. I want to know what is planned for Winterveld. That is a huge running sore some 30 km out of Pretoria. I am prepared to say that practically everybody living in the disgusting slum of Winterveld is employed in the PWV area. They are living there not because they want to travel that distance from their places of work but because there is nowhere else where they can live legally, and retain their jobs in the PWV area. These are all factors that we have brought to the attention of the Government over and over again, and very little has been done about it.

I want now to turn to the question of removals. Some years back the hon. the Minister told us that there would be no more forced removals. I want to know whether the 10 000 people mentioned in the departmental report who were removed between April 1981 and March 1982 went willingly. Did they go willingly? According to the figures given in the departmental report there were 10 000 of them. I see that we are now using the expression “badly situated areas” rather than “Black spots”. I do not know whether people think that it sounds better but that is the expression that is being used now. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what the difference is.

I would also like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s intentions are in regard to the unhappy people at Driefontein and Daggakraal. I know that the hon. the Minister met some of the community leaders recently, and I know that his officials addressed meetings at Driefontein and Daggakraal last Saturday. I should like to say for the information of the hon. the Minister that they did not use loudhailers. I cannot understand why it is that officials go out to address what is obviously going to be a large meeting—in this case there were between 700 and 800 people present—and they do not have any loudhailers with them. Therefore, hardly anybody could hear what the officials were saying. In any event, at least they went out and addressed the people there. As far as I can gather the only concession that has been made is that instead of being split as was intended originally, those of Zulu origin will go to kwaZulu, those of Swazi origin to Lochiel and those of Sotho origin to Qwaqwa. The Driefontein people are now going to be moved as one community to Pongola. That is the new solution to the Driefontein situation. Hon. members will note that ethnicity is no longer an issue. When the Government cannot cope with the situation, then it has to overlook the question of ethnicity. As far as the Driefontein people are concerned, it is a ridiculous situation in any event because they have intermarried, having been there since 1912. There are also about 300 landowners who have title deeds dating back to 1912. This is what they cannot understand—that their title deeds do not protect them from removal. I also understand that nobody wants to leave. They do not want to go to Pongola, even if they are going to go as one community. I want to know, therefore, how the hon. the Minister proposes resolving this impasse if he is not going to have a forced removal. In this regard I should like to make a suggestion to him. I want to suggest that he leave those people alone, that he leaves them where they are, the Daggakraal people and the Driefontein people. He should leave them alone. They are—or they were at any event—a peace-loving community until the shooting of Saul Mkhize, the community leader, which created hideous publicity for South Africa all over the world. I think it would be an act of grace on the part of the Government simply to announce that it is going to leave the people of Driefontein and Daggakraal alone.

I know that a dam is to be built in the vicinity. On the one hand the people are told that they are being moved because they constitute a Black spot and on the other hand because a dam is to be built at Heyshope. Water engineers who have studied the plans inform me that only about 25% of the Driefontein land is likely to be inundated by the dam when it is completed. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why the remaining people should not be permitted to stay there and why land in the adjoining area should not be given to them to compensate them for the land that they will have to give up when the area is inundated. I believe they should be left strictly alone.

Other hon. members on this side are going to discuss the question of removals as well. However, I want to say categorically that the net result is always the same. It makes no difference whether they are removals because of homeland consolidation or because of urban Black townships being relocated in the homelands or as a result of influx control being implemented or as a result of the removal of labour tenants from White farms or, of course, because of Black spot removals. In every case they are tales of human misery, nothing else, and they add to the impoverishment of the existing homelands. That is the point. Years ago the Van Eck Commission, the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission which sat in the 1940s, said the only way to save what was then knows as the Native reserves from utter impoverishment was to take people off the land; not to push back hundreds of thousands more adding to the land’s population and adding to the impoverishment. The Government, however, has not listened. Removals have gone on apace and an estimated 2 million to 3 million people have been removed over the last 20 years. I want to tell the Government that when the history of the second half of the 20th century of South Africa is written, I believe that the forced removals will be the darkest blot on the dark record of the Government.

I want to say just one word about Alexandra Township. We had an announcement the other day via a question from the hon. member for Randburg—obviously it was a question which he was requested to put to the hon. the Minister—about Alexandra. I first want to go back to July 1979. This was a news item: “30 000 hail Dr. Piet in Black town”. They would hail with something else if he went back now. “Redevelopment scheme under way with housing as its first aim. Urban renewal for Alexandra”. In June 1983, there is still no sign of proper urban renewal of any kind in Alexandra Township. It is the same teeming slum with garbage strewn over the place and with very few new houses. Now we hear that there are going to be 15 houses built this year as the balance of a 94-house project and 324 flats. We also hear that water and sewerage are to be provided.

All in all we believe that the hon. the Minister has failed lamentably in his job. We believe he should not be in the highly responsible position that he holds, in which he is responsible for the lives of millions of people. For that reason I move as an amendment—

The amount mentioned is the exact amount required to reduce the salary of the hon. the Minister to the salary of an ordinary member of Parliament, which we believe is all that he is qualified to be.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the hon. member for Houghton who today again proved herself to be a person who refuses to acknowledge the realities of life and who believes that a political solution is the panacea problems in SA. She has not suggested one single solution to all the problems. As a matter of fact, she refuses even to see problems. The situation is that her attacking the integrity of the hon. the Minister was completely unfounded. I can say that because I have had the privilege of sitting with the hon. the Minister while he conferred with the people of Driefontein. I can assure the hon. member that they have a high regard for the hon. the Minister. The same applied when the hon. the Minister conferred with leaders of the national States. They, too, have the highest regard for him. I cannot understand why the hon. member has seen fit to launch this personal attack upon the hon. the Minister. I shall come back to Driefontein briefly later on.

The hon. member said something very strange. She said that what worried her was that there was a sovereign Parliament. This really worries her. The fact that there is a sovereign Parliament worries her. How can one argue with a person who adopts such a point of view? If it is her attitude towards the existing Parliament, if she wants to negate the present sovereign Parliament, how can we possibly argue with her?

The second point is that she referred to the Rikhoto judgment. The NP abides by the judgments of our courts. She, however, has not dealt with the problems which are affecting Black people who are staying legally in South Africa. The overload on the infrastructure, the cost of housing and all those things which take time to administer and provide were not even referred to by the hon. member. She did not spend a second of her time to indicate to us what her approach is to solving these problems.

I would like further to refer briefly to the Driefontein-Daggakraal matter. I want to assure the House that the hon. the Minister spent hours of his time conferring with the whole spectrum of the people concerned. As a matter of fact, these people agreed to the meeting on Saturday referred to by the hon. member. This meeting was engineered by the hon. the Minister, and they agreed to it. More agreements are in the offing, but these events have been twisted in the Press. The hon. member should not believe everything that is reported in the Press. She should realize that those things have happened in agreement with the people of Daggakraal and Driefontein.

*It is not my intention to devote my whole speech to the hon. member. I should like to come to the Vote and point to the department’s task, which is—

This means that in regard to the department’s task as far as the Black man is concerned, there are two legs on which reliance is placed. The first leg is development at the micro-level, at the level of the city and the rural areas. The second leg is development at the macro-level, i.e. the level of the national states. Although there are two developmental legs we must, however, accept the fact that the NP has only one policy in regard to the Black people. I should like to refer briefly to this policy. In this time-slot in which we are engaged in constitutional development, it is essential for us to take note of the referential framework within which we have to judge the political development of the Black man, including the successes of the NP. Let us look at the parameters within which we have to move.

Although the policy relating to Blacks has two facets, there is only one policy in regard to the Black people. In this connection I should like to quote Dr. Verwoerd. On 5 February 1965, according to Hansard, he said the following—

The NP regards it as one policy.

The second important aspect, the crux of the policy of development, was made very clear by Dr. Verwoerd, and that is that it is not territorial separation, but political separation. As recorded in Hansard, he put it in the following terms—

It is important for us to understand these two aspects very clearly. The following aspect that we must take into account is one to which Dr. Verwoerd also referred. He said in March 1961—and today this is still part and parcel of our policy—

It is very important for us to obtain clarity about what Dr. Verwoerd said about this. Dr. Verwoerd said that the mere increase in the numbers of Black people in our cities did not invalidate our policy. In this connection he said (Hansard, 5 February, 1965)—

These are the parameters within which we move. Having said that, let me also say that we have obtained a referential framework, this referential framework of Dr. Verwoerd, at which I should like to take a closer look.

I want to look at the macro-level of the development of national States in that context. In dwelling on that for a moment, I should like to say that the policy of obtaining independence is making progress under the auspices of the NP. When one merely looks at the figures, one sees that in the TBVC countries, independent States, there are about 4,7 million Black people, approximately 23,3% of the total number of Black people in the RSA. If one looks at the Black people within the national States, one sees that there are about 5,31 million Black people there, i.e. 26,4% of the total number of Black people. Together this is approximately 50% of the Black people of South Africa. 50% are, at present, in the national States and the independent States. Good progress has therefore been made. When we have also succeeded in granting kwaNdebele its independence, as they have requested, it is clear that there will then be five national States that will eventually have become independent, whilst another five could possibly take independence at a later stage. That is tremendous progress along the road South Africa is taking, the road of the NP. This indicates very clearly the progress of NP policy as far as the Black people are concerned. We believe that these national States do become completely independent, just like Great Britain, Lesotho or America are independent. We also believe that the independence of the Black people can only succeed in practice if the citizens in the independent States meaningfully experience this in their everyday lives and if the citizens in the self-governing States perceive it to be significant constitutional development. That is why the NP is attempting to promote these aspects by way of meaningful consolidation, closer co-operation between States and the granting of socio-economic and administrative assistance.

The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that we are becoming increasingly development-orientated, and I should like to mention a few very interesting figures in this connection. This year we will be spending R375,8 million on development directed at the self-determination of States, a figure which is R118 million more than was spent last year. Let us now look at the assistance we give to national Governments. This year’s estimates make provision for an amount of R620 million, which is R108 million more than last year. The total contribution is therefore R995 million, which is R226 million more than last year. This is how, along the road taken by South Africa, we are creating new development so that Black areas can become independent in terms of NP policy.

Order! I am sorry but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to thank the hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition very sincerely for the opportunity to continue with my speech.

I have pointed out that at the macro-level, at the national level, we are spending R226 million more than last year, and the people can therefore have confidence in the fact that the NP will continue along the chosen path until the very end.

I think the time has now come for us to give attention to the micro-level as well, i.e. the urban level and the level of the rural Black people. In this connection I want to bring a few aspects concerning the urban Black man to the serious attention of this House. In the first place Dr. Verwoerd clearly stated that the crux of the policy of separate development was political separation. That is very clear. In regard to the Black people in the cities, however, he also made very interesting pronouncements. Amongst other things, he said in Hansard of 5 February, 1965—

These are aspects, Sir, which the present-day Government still adheres to. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

The NP is still on this road. In terms of NP policy there can be no political integration. After all, the NP has only one policy, not two. Surely this is clearly evident in the present-day situation. For example, no provision has been made for a Black fourth chamber in the proposed new constitutional dispensation. So everyone can see that the NP does not, in any way, advocate political integration. NP policy ensures that there is no integration at the macro-level and none at the micro-level either, because it is only one NP policy, and that is one of the separate development of independent Black States.

Sir, having said that, there nevertheless remains another practical problem, and I should like to dwell on that problem for a moment. This problem involves the increase in the numbers of Black people in our urban areas. Hon. members must remember that Dr. Verwoerd said that even the increase in the numbers of Black people in the urban areas would not essentially be a violation of NP policy. There are a few concepts we must have a look at in this connection. The first is urbanization; the second is over-urbanization and the third displacement or “verdringing”. I consulted a dictionary for the meaning of the word “verdringing”, but I could find no suitable definition of this word. I therefore drew up a definition for myself to indicate what could be regarded as displacement. It is the perception that exists amongst the Whites that in some areas there is over-urbanization on the part of the Black man and that this particularly manifests itself in the business areas of White towns and cities. If you agree with me that this definition is a reasonable and acceptable definition of displacement, Sir, please allow me to continue to build my argument up on that basis.

There is also the concept of over-urbanization, and here we must understand what is meant by over-urbanization. In 1957 a scholar by the name of Hoselitz said that the development of over-urbanization had three basic aspects. The first aspect was that the tempo or urbanization exceeded the tempo of industrialization and the provision of services, thereby establishing only marginal job opportunities. I think this is an important point. The second aspect is that an imbalance arises between the costs involved in urban growth and the maintenance of services on the one hand and, on the other hand, the income potential of the inhabitants living there. A third important aspect, in our defining of over-urbanization, is that the migration of people to the cities is not so much influenced by the force of attraction of the cities as such, but is rather stimulated by the repelling forces of rural and other areas.

When one looks at the processes of urbanization and over-urbanization, one sees that there are forces acting upon these processes. One has the centrifugal forces taking the people out of the cities for some or other reason, whether personal, economic, ethnic or political. Then we have the centripetal forces, those drawing people to the cities for the economic or other benefits involved. As long as these forces are in equilibrium, there is reasonable and actual urban growth. If, however, disequilibrium sets in and the centripetal forces exceed the centrifugal forces, the process of ubanization escalates. When a third force impinges, i.e. the repelling force of the rural areas and of the homelands, there is over-urbanization and the danger that people may perceive themselves to be in the process of being displaced.

If I have sketched the problem accurately, the answer is very obvious. We shall have to augment these centripetal forces and reduce the centrifugal forces. This brings us to the process of decentralization and deconcentration, and this is also the NP’s policy when it comes to urbanization. We can counteract urbanization in two ways. In the first place we can counteract it by legal authority. We can pass laws forbidding people to come to the cities. We can have passport control and set up road-blocks. The question, however, is: Has this worked in the past? Is it not merely a short-term solution, whilst what we are actually looking for is a long-term solution? Then it is clear what we have to do. We shall also have to do proper planning so that the forces that must counteract urbanization can operate automatically and naturally.

In this connection I should like to express some—hopefully constructive—criticism on the planning that has been done in the past.

The first problem is that past planning has frequently been planning in which, according to Raber, 1972—

In contrast we shall have to do some practical planning if we want to achieve our politcal objectives. We can no longer do planning merely for its own sake or for prestige. Our planning will have to focus on achieving our constitutional objectives. The hon. the Minister put this very clearly on 1 February 1983 (Hansard, col61)—

Having said that, we must ask: How can we do this planning? How did the planning in regard to consolidation take place? It took place on the basis of regional committees; there were central committees which each made an individual input to the Commission for Co-operation and Development, which subequently delivered its input to a Cabinet Committee. I suggest that the methods we should adopt here are mutatis mutandis the same. There must consequently be consultation with the Blacks at the regional level, in the cities and in the rural areas, including consultation on political rights and other political matters. In this way inputs must be furnished to a central committee, which in turn can furnish inputs to the commission. The commission, in turn, can make inputs to a Cabinet Committee. Such a Cabinet Committee already exists.

What I am saying is that in the light of all these facts, and with the NP’s policy as a basis, the future beckons to us. We can therefore move forward with great enthusiasm and with faith.

Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure listening to the hon. member for Pretoria West, particularly his exposition of the policy of the governing party. What he expounded is still, theoretically, the correct policy. The problem is, however, that policy is no longer purposefully implemented in practice. That is where the problem lies. The governing party has now reached a very important point, a very important phase in its existence, and what this signifies is that what is not said is more significant than what is said. The hon. member for Pretoria West quoted Dr. Verwoerd. We agree with all those statements by Dr. Verwoerd. However, there is one significant statement by Dr. Verwoerd which the hon. member did not quote, and that is that a stage must be reached when the number of Black people outside the national States remains constant. The hon. member did not refer to that. That is still the problem that South Africa is faced with. The Government is no longer implementing this policy as positively in an effort to achieve that ideal.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half hour.

I did have a suspicion that the hon. the Minister would introduce this debate with a speech. I knew that he had to do so, in order to cover up his own failures. The hon. the Minister may be sure that we are wholly in favour of his statement that 80% of the budget has been devoted to the development of the national States. In that regard he has our full support. However, I want to put it to him that the way he is spending the money is something we want to discuss with him. In our humble opinion the Department of Cooperation and Development is the department that deals with the biggest problem, the most important issue that South Africa is concerned with, namely, the relations between the various population groups.

We have seen that on the continent in which we live, wherever efforts are made to accommodate people’s aspirations and achieve sound relations among separate population groups, such efforts have failed 45 times on the continent of Africa. Moreover, it has always been the Whites that could not be accommodated. Only one success in this regard has been achieved on this continent, viz. here in the Republic of South Africa, due to the policy of separate development.

By whom?

By the NP. However, that was when … [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was when the NP still implemented that policy purposefully and consistently. At that time we too were in the NP. I want to point out that the policy of separate development, as implemented by the NP in the days when it was still a pedigree National Party, was the correct policy. Unfortunately the NP is weakening as far as its policy is concerned. The hon. the Minister said that the glue that had to hold the laminated wood together was good relations. That is true, of course. However, what he omitted to say is what is no longer being said by the NP nowadays. It is that those good relations can only be brought about by way of separate development. For that reason I believe it is important, very important, to take note of what is not said. What is not said is very important. [Interjections.]

I contend that the NP is no longer implementing this policy purposefully. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs who last year was still the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, said in this House—the date was Wednesday, 21 April 1982—that the process had temporarily come to a standstill. He was referring to the process of consolidation and everything that had to do with the national States. He said that process had temporarily come to a standstill. After all, we know that is the cornerstone of this policy. The national States are the cornerstone of the policy of separate development. When he was chairman of the Committee the hon. the Deputy Minister said that policy had temporarily come to a standstill.

A week later another hon. Deputy Minister, a man who is responsible for the Black people outside the national States, spoke at Stellenbosch. According to the Die Burger of 27 April 1982, he said the following—

A week after one Deputy Minister said that the policy had come to a standstill, the other one said that we could be proud of the progress made in this regard, but that equally good progress had not been made with regard to the urban Blacks.

They are proud of the standstill.

The standstill occurred; however, it is still continuing. It is still continuing as far as the development of the national States is concerned. However, as far as the urban Blacks are concerned the whole situation is in reverse gear.

The investigation ordered by the hon. the Prime Minister had two objectives; in the first place, a greater degree of consolidation than was suggested in the 1975 proposals and, in the second place, expediting of the whole process. The process had to be expedited and a greater degree of consolidation had to take place. Mr. Chairman, on 2 March this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister; I wanted to know from him how many parts went to make up kwaZulu today. According to the 1975 proposals kwaZulu had to be consolidated into ten units, and that process was to have been completed by 1985. The objective of the investigation was that the number of parts should be fewer than ten and that the process should be completed more rapidly.

On 2 March this year, however, the hon. the Minister told me that kwaZulu still consisted of 45 separate areas; that is, with the exception of the Black spots. Those are only the poorly situated Black areas and the trust areas. In 1983 kwaZulu still consists of 45 such parts, apart from the Black spots; and the hon. the Minister did not even want to tell me how many there were of them. However, I can understand that. Perhaps I, too, should have been ashamed if I had been in his shoes. I should also have been ashamed to publicize that figure. However, I must say that when I was in that department we made good progress—very good progress. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

There were a few hundred of them. Since 1978, when the hon. the Minister came there, we have had a strange phenomenon there. The programme of land purchases has been expedited, but no further consolidation whatsoever has taken place. In 1976-77 90 000 ha of land were purchased for the national States, and those 90 000 ha were utilized to bring about consolidation. People in poorly situated areas were resettled on that land so that they could be in their State and adjacent to the development there. In that year 40 000 people were resettled in this way. According to the report I have before me, 195 000 ha were purchased last year, but no people from poorly situated areas were resettled on that land. What is the hon. the Minister doing with this land that he is purchasing for consolidation? He is purchasing the land, but the people who have to utilize the land do not find their way there. A previous speaker mentioned a figure, but in the report ending in 1982 one sees that 251 000 ha were purchased for an amount of almost R100 million. However, how many people from Black spots and poorly situated areas have been resettled on that land? The enormous number of 470! The others to whom the hon. member referred, are people within that area who had to be resettled at other places because a dam had been built and for other reasons. However, there was no question of consolidation. In this whole process one small Black spot was cleared up.

Therefore I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we have now reached the stage at which the Government is persistently changing its consolidation plans. It sees that it is not getting them carried out, and in order to gain a breathing space, it comes forward with a new plan. For example, we were presented over the weekend with a new plan for Bophuthatswana which makes provision for 262 000 ha, over and above …

Is that consolidation or is it not?

… what was proposed in the 1936 Act. In my constituency there are two small poorly situated farms occupied by Black people. The hon. the Minister no longer has the courage to settle them on the land that has been purchased for them a number of times.

Why did you not do it yourself?

I was busy. I cleared up many Black spots and I did so in a decent way. I had the co-operation of the people involved because we dealt with the people in a decent way. If I had been there longer, this work would have been continued with. [Interjections.] Because the hon. the Minister no longer has the courage to resettle people of Braklaagte and Leeufontein, he now purchases 71 White farms in order to deal with the problem. However, not the slightest effort is made in terms of this proposal to consolidate Bophuthatswana more effectively. There is not even any indication that an effort is going to be made to exchange a poorly situated area such as Matanyane for the land that the hon. the Minister now wishes to buy. If the hon. the Minister had done that, then he could in any event have consolidated kwaNdebele more effectively and, in addition, he would have needed less land there. However, this is not even being attempted.

Therefore we are not going to achieve the ideal of putting the 1975 proposals into effect by 1985, although we were well on the way to doing so. When we come to 1985, the hon. the Minister will still be far from having put into effect the 1975 proposals. However, he is already making other plans.

In the field of development, too, an unfortunate trend can now be discerned. At the Carlton Conference an effort was made to obtain the co-operation of the industrialists and people in the financial and economic world to promote decentralization. Out of that was born the Small Business Development Corporation. Now that this corporation has been established, one would have expected it to stimulate small business enterprises in the border areas and the Black States in particular. The work being done is presented in the report in question, and in it one sees that only one project in the border area has been tackled, the one in Rosslyn. Where are the others? They are in Dube, Soweto, Port Elizabeth, Dobsonville, Atteridgeville, Orlando West and Katlehong. The money of this corporation is being used to establish enterprises in all the urban areas. There is not one in the Black States and only one in a border area. Is the NP satisfied with that trend?

Are you against it?

I say that for the most part it should be in the border areas and in the Black States. At present the trend is hopelessly wrong. Most of the development must take place in the border areas and in the Black States. However, the Government is starting a new corporation. It is still in the beginning stages, but it is going to develop. It is going to bring about development in the wrong places in South Africa.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the final test as to whether the policy of separate development succeeds or not, is the number of people from each ethnic group who eventually find themselves in their own State. That is the final test. What does the Government’s record look like at present? From 1960 to 1980 the Government had a fantastic record. In each of those two decades the number of Black people in White areas increased by approximately 15% to 16%. In the national States the numbers increased by 60% to 70%.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, then we were all there. We worked towards that and results were achieved. The hon. member was also part of it. Moreover, we thank him for the results achieved. However, what has happened since 1978? At that stage there were 120 000 Black people in the Peninsula. That number has now increased to 300 000. Many of them are here illegally. What has the hon. the Minister done about it? He has not taken steps. He has done nothing. There are no employment opportunities for them. It is a labour preference area for Brown people, but the hon. the Minister has allowed the number of Black people to increase to 300 000. The hon. the Minister has said to-day that another city is going to be built that will accommodate between 200 000 and 300 000 people. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in the light of his announcement, the number of Black people in the Peninsula will be 600 000 within five to six years. That is what this is leading to. That is what the hon. the Minister’s announcement means.

Recently, the hon. the Minister also made an announcement about Soweto. He said that he needed 6 000 ha, but he was going to build 50 000 dwelling units within the present Soweto and that he would then only need 4 000 ha. 4 000 ha is more than half of the present Soweto, and on top of that there is going to be further development in Soweto itself. That plan involves a doubling of Soweto by the end of the century.

In the same statement the hon. the Minister also referred to development on the East Rand. The development there is of the same scope as that envisaged in Soweto. It could lead to another Soweto.

The hon. the Minister also refers to development in the area of jurisdiction of the Orange-Vaal Administration Board, that will be of the same scope. The hon. the Minister is therefore envisaging three additional Soweto’s in the PWV area. Are hon. members of the NP still satisfied? They were so proud of the NP a moment ago; why, then, are they not acclaiming this plan?

One should never run away from realities.

I shall not run away from realities. The NP no longer has the courage to face realities and take the necessary steps. Up to five years ago success was achieved, but those hon. members no longer have the courage to achieve success. They are in the process of giving up. [Interjections.] The CP states that the process of urbanization is a fact, a reality. We accept it, but we say it can be controlled where it takes place. It must not take place in White areas. It must take place in the Black States and in adjoining areas so that they may be incorporated.

We also say that the decentralization policy must be carried out far more positively and vigorously than is being done at present. The NP, which created the decentralization policy itself, is neutralizing it by way of the excessive subsidies provided in White areas. I refer here to subsidies on transport, housing, etc. What is the sense of giving concessions on the one hand and cancelling them out by means of subsidies on the other? Those subsidies should also be granted to promote the development of Black States and national States.

At the beginning of the year the hon. the Minister made an announcement about an investigation by a Cabinet Committee. There has been such a Cabinet Committee. It appointed six regional committees and in additional it submitted a report. It was decided that the matter of the politics of Black people outside their States had been disposed of and would not be discussed further. Now a committee is being appointed once again, and if the Government has its way as far as the new dispensation is concerned—which I do not believe will come about—then this committee will have to perform its task under the new dispensation.

I want to ask a few questions about the new dispensation. My first question is this: Who will be the Minister of Co-operation and Development? I think the members of the Black Alliance can lay a more valid claim to the post of Minister of Black Affairs than the present hon. Minister. What will become of measures of separation in terms of such a dispensation, with the kind of Parliament we are going to have and the kind of Cabinet we are going to have? Will it still be possible for a Black State to become independent in terms of the new dispensation? The hon. members of the PFP have always voted against that. The other Chambers have intimated that they are not in favour of it. What will become of their standpoint? It will not be so easy for the Government to make a black State independent, and that hon. Minister may not even be the Minister [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Minister: What is to become of influx control? What will become of the decision-making process? The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West spoke about sovereignty and so on, and the hon. the Minister also made a significant remark when he announced the appointment of this committee. The Government’s policy as expounded here today is one policy, but all the parties of the Coloured and Indian population say that they have a different aim. They are striving to bring about a unitary State in which all will take part. Surely such a coalition Government cannot govern, because their points of view are totally different. Surely it cannot govern. However, what is important is that I say that hon. Minister and the Rev. Hendrickse are on the same wavelength, and that is why the hon. the Minister is not afraid of a coalition government.

When the hon. the Minister announced the appointment of the Cabinet Committee he made an important statement, and in five years’ time he is going to keep those members to that statement. That is how we have come to know them. He is going to tell them then that he referred on that day to the Swiss canton system. He said a long time ago that he spoke about the canton system while addressing an association, but it is a federal system. The Rev. Allan Hendrickse says that he, too, is in favour of the federal system. In an interview with the Financial Mail certain questions were put to him. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite think that when they say that there is no fourth Chamber, they have made the million-dollar statement. The Rev. Hendrickse was asked—

His reply was—

I repeat: That hon. Minister and the Rev. Hendrickse are on the same wavelength, and that is why the hon. the Minister is not afraid of this coalition government that is to come. For that reason we shall fight the Government wherever we can, because what they have approved in terms of the new constitution is a race federation. They are aiming for a federation, and we are going to stop them.

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing one can say about the hon. member for Lichtenburg and that is that he is able to defend a weak case well. The hon. member raised two basic points. His first point was the approach in connection with Black affairs in a new dispensation. This is not a matter I want to debate now, because I feel it should be discussed in a debate on constitutional affairs. The second matter the hon. member touched on was the policy of the NP. He made one very important allegation here. He said that the policy of the NP was still correct today, but that it was not being implemented. The hon. member made a very important admission in this connection, i.e. that the NP policy that the hon. the Minister is advocating at this stage, is the correct policy. When he said that it was not being implemented, he raised a few points. He referred, inter alia, to development within the urban complexes as against development in the rural areas. In this regard he made one important point when he said that small business undertakings were mainly being encouraged in urban areas. Surely it is an extremely important aspect that trading facilities should be created for city-dwellers so that they will have the necessary facilities in their own residential areas. If the facilities do not exist there, where else can they go? Surely they then have to make their purchases in the White area. When they make purchases in the White area, what is the reaction and the result in practice? Is this not in fact the major point of criticism hon. members on that side of the House have against the NP? I therefore regard it as extremely important that they emphasize the fact that too much is being done in the urban complexes as far as trading facilities are concerned. They say too little is being done in the rural areas in this connection.

There has to be the correct balance.

However, we maintain that far more has to be done in the urban areas as far as trading activities in the Black areas are concerned, although the rural areas should not be neglected either. This is in fact what is important.

When I come to the second point made by the hon. member, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. This concerns the removal of badly situated Black spots. Shortly after I came to this Parliament I discussed the Matopiestad question with the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who was then the Deputy Minister responsible for this. Were is Matopiestad today? He was unable to shift it. Why was he unable to shift it? He could not do so because for certain practical reasons it was not feasible. I do not really blame him for this, because it could not be done in practice at the stage when he had to do it. Since he was not able to do it, surely it is very wrong for him to blame the hon. the Minister because certain other places cannot be shifted. [Interjections.]

Should nothing therefore be shifted?

No, that is not the case, but we have to be consistent.

I think there is something else one should also consider. The hon. member for Pretoria West made a very important point. The third point he dealt with concerned the urbanization process and the reasons for this. It is a fact that the migration of Blacks to the cities is not influenced so much by the attraction of the city, as it is stimulated by the repulsion of the rural areas. In this connection one has to consider the policy expounded by the hon. the Prime Minister at the conference with the independent Black States.

One of the first points which arose was the establishment of a Development Bank for Southern Africa on 1 September 1983. The purpose of this bank is to provide capital so that industrial establishment can take place in the Black areas or adjacent to the Black areas. After all, the history of South Africa has taught us that the mineral and industrial development that takes place, attracts Black people like a magnet to work in certain areas. This was not only to the advantage of the Blacks, but also to the advantage of the industrialists and the Whites in general. We can only succeed with the policy of the NP as far as it concerns the emancipation of the Black peoples and the consolidation of Black States if the necessary infrastructure is created in those areas which makes labour opportunities possible there. Without the availability of that capital, this cannot happen.

However, one asks oneself: If one wants to lead those countries to independence, the first important aspect is surely territorial. That territory has to be consolidated, not necessarily into one geographic areas, but nevertheless in such a way that the Black people can build their constitutional structures around it.

I now want to put something to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. As regards these badly situated areas from which people have not yet been moved, we accept the principle that there has to be the greatest degree of co-operation from the people concerned. We also accept that if the compensatory land to which people in the badly situated area have to be moved, has already been purchased and is already in the process of being allocated for consolidation purposes, certain methods will at some stage or other have to be used to persuade the people concerned to move, if they do not want to do so voluntarily. Seen as a whole, one will not be able to implement this process if removals do not take place to a certain extent, even if this has to be done contrary to the wishes of certain people. We know the hon. the Minister. We know that there are certain forces that have a negative effect on people who have displayed a positive attitude and are prepared to move. One will have to take these negative forces into consideration in this process, but not allow them to dictate matters and cause the principle to fail.

I should like to say a few words about the development of industrial areas in Black homelands. If that development does not take place, we cannot give that State independence in the true sense of the word. Total independence depends on two facets. One is the political facet and the other is the economic facet. We recognise the economic interdependence of states. I maintain that if the economic facet does not receive priority from the Government at this stage, the independence process cannot really be accomplished and one cannot do justice to the satisfaction which exists in connection with independence. I am therefore of the opinion that this is a very important aspect which has to receive positive attention.

A further aspect in this connection is the development of Black areas in the rural areas. This development is also essential. The expertise for this development will have to be provided by the Whites and by the Government. This expertise will have to be developed among the Black people themselves because they will also have to be able to help themselves. If we can get this process to succeed, we shall eliminate the problem underlying the criticism of the CP and the HNP. The criticism coming from the PFP could also be eliminated in this way. Time and again they criticize a few aspects in connection with which there are problems. We accept that problems exist in connection with the urbanization process and in connection with the development of the homelands. However, one cannot solve the problems simply by criticizing them. One should rather seek solutions and approach them in a positive way. If one does not approach the problems in a positive way, one is not doing the people concerned or South Africa a service.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp about the question of certain homelands not wanting to become independent. I think he made a very valid point. It is going to be quite interesting to see whether in fact it is going to be possible at all in the final analysis to make some of them economically viable. I think this links up very well with the point made by the hon. member for Pretoria West when, quoting the late Dr. Verwoerd, he indicated the two legs on which the homeland development policy rests, namely political independence and economic interdependence. However, there are shades of this, and in fact if one looks at the word “interdependence” it would appear in an economic sense to indicate that each is viable economically but that they complement one another. On the contrary, I should like to say that in the case of many of the independent States they are going to remain economically dependent on South Africa for a very long time to come. That is why it has been said so often in this House by hon. members of the NP as well that we share a common economy. That is quite a different concept from economic interdependence. I think the question of the common economy is something that we are going to have to accept far more realistically and on that basis a far closer linkage would be necessary with our concept of a Confederation.

At the outset I should like to indicate that this party feels that the annual report of the hon. Minister’s department leaves a great deal to be desired. I would therefore ask him to develop a completely new format for this. This is not just an off-the-cuff criticism. We in this party have made an in-depth study of the report and we have considered it in the light of the whole problem surrounding the function of the department and the enormous pressures that are on it. We would say that a new format should replace the present one, which is inadequate, not only in respect of content, but because the second largest amount in the budget is appropriated to the Department of Co-operation and Development—if one excludes constitutional development and planning—the funds of which nearly all go to the provinces. The Department of Co-operation and Development is the second largest department. Its report has only 35 pages, yet it deals with the lives of tens of millions of people, with their social and economic welfare, their hopes and aspirations and their fears and political frustrations. Together with the other department dealing with Black affairs, the Department of Education and Training, it is the department that is really at the interface of two vastly differing but merging value systems which the fates of history and geography have thrown together to create a very diverse plural society which is both so ripe for conflict and yet so rich in possibility, not only for all of us in Southern Africa, but indeed for all the world.

We also believe that the department’s report should reflect the crux of the situation in respect of the information contained in the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council on demographic trends in South Africa, those aspects of that report concerned with Blacks and the challenges that face us all contained in the pages of that document. We would like to see the report broken down into provinces and regions. We would like to see it showing population statistics in respect of cities, townships and the housing in each case, with a clear linkage as to the availability of educational infrastructure as shown in the report of the Department of Education and Training. One should be able to see the situation in totality. While the report has the present format it is extremely difficult to be able to do it in that manner. In proposing the revamping of the style and image of the report we similarly believe that serious consideration must be given to the replacement of the influx control laws with an urbanization strategy. This must be negotiated at confederal level with independent, national and self-governing States and for a start the scrapping of the application of the Coloured labour preference policy as far as permanent Western Province Blacks are concerned should be urgently tackled because already the Department of Manpower has identified 80 categories of employment that are quite unfavoured by the Coloured people. With regard to the announcement by the hon. the Minister in connection with the Khayelitsha housing project we would attach to that leasehold rights at the very least. If one puts that together with the removing of preferential Coloured labour policies as far as these Blacks are concerned, one will have all the ingredients for the real stabilizing of the problem and we shall be able to build them up and accentuate the difference between those who are stable and have a vested interest in the area and the squatters. We accept in toto that the squatter problem is in essence a problem caused by urbanization. It is a fact, and that is, I believe, the way in which we should approach it in this hon. House in future. There are, however, other elements too, people who would abuse this phenomenon for all sorts of other purposes as well, and we are aware of that.

Some of those elements are sitting in this House.

The way in which this could be eliminated completely will be, I believe, by giving those permanent people maximum stability and vested interests because these things are essential to the stability and progress of those who are living permanently and legally in our urban areas.

The regional development and urbanization strategies are absolutely inseparable. In order for them to succeed, however, we believe that they should be negotiated, and striven for with one accord by all those who share the common economy. In this respect, of course, one thinks of the Cabinet Committee investigating the aspirations of non-homeland Blacks. We feel strongly however, that the status of that Cabinet Committee should be expanded to full Commission level in order to cover an investigation into the whole matter of Black urbanization and all aspects of influx control as well. The political and ideological stigma of influx control legislation must be for ever laid to rest as the new Republic, in its capacity as a member of the envisaged confederation of Southern African States, goes forward in its quest for stability and prosperity, for all its citizens who should become the holders of—let us call it—a supra national confederal citizenship of the confederation which is to be formed.

Seen in that context, we should strive to evolve an urbanization policy which will be negotiated in such a manner that it will not longer be a policy only executed in a unilateral fashion by the Government of the Republic of South Africa, but in co-operation with and with the consent of all other States involved in the shape of a masterplan strategy negotiated and agreed to by all. Then the hon. the Minister, I must say, will not find himself again in a situation similar to the one at KTC, with people being evicted and prosecuted.

We in these benches would further suggest the hon. the Minister and the department should take a close look at the possibility of converting this department into a Department of Confederal Affairs in order to seize the opportunity once and for all of laying to rest the ghost of the stigma of apartheid that has haunted the department for so long, and also in order to enable the department to tap the so often quoted vast reservoir of goodwill. The past is gone, and as we move into a new era, every possible effort should be made to get rid of every obstacle that makes it more difficult to accomplish the goals this department has rightly set itself.

If the Government sees fit to monopolize the powers of decision-making it is axiomatic that it must also be prepared to bear the burden of a monopoly of problems. Sharing power, as far as we are concerned, very definitely implies co-responsibility for the solving of problems and for the resolution of conflict. We cannot solve problems on our own. There has to be agreement negotiated on the best possible basis among all the members of the confederation.

Another point I should like to make, is one we in the NRP feel very strongly about. From the reports of the President’s Council it is quite evident that, when we take into account current demographic trends, the nation’s resources will be strained far beyond their limits in order to provide employment especially at the lower levels of semi-skilled and unskilled labour, and we believe that unless we urgently harness every possible human source of endeavour to enable the free-enterprise system to survive, and in the process make use of every method at our disposal, we are indeed heading for serious trouble.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity.

That point was made in the light of the question of giving people access to the common economy. If we are in fact going to make maximum use of the human resources, we believe it is absolutely vital that the further installation of the free-enterprise concepts must receive absolute priority. It is no earthly good denying people access to central business districts, to the very heart of our economic machine. It is no good denying them access to the areas from which expertise and knowledge flow and where training is given. If one does that, the process of settling people in their own areas and trying to get them to achieve the same thing without that background and without that feeling of confidence will be slowed down drastically. We cannot afford to waste time in getting as much expertise as possible carried across to these people.

In that regard this party feels strongly about the regional development strategy involved in the whole approach to the problem of urbanization. We believe that strategy should get every encouragement, not to bend the economy to suit an ideology but for the reason of preventing over-concentration. Over one-third of the population in this country is today found on the Reef and the population there is likely to grow at a tremendous pace if something is not done. Yet already in the current circumstances there is a serious water crisis which in itself imposes severe limitations on the development there. As far as that is concerned, we anticipate a population growth, particularly amongst the Blacks, which will require new cities and industrial centres. If they can be coupled economically to homeland development, well and good, but what is most important—and here I come back to the concept of confederation—is that it has to be a politically structured system. The Government speaks continually of an economic confederation and of bilateral and multiracial arrangements, but they do not give this the necessary impetus, nor do they introduce the conflict-resolving factor of joint decision-making which should take place on a regular basis. I have already referred to this today. We believe that the development of a dynamic confederation will speed up the development of homeland and national States because of the increased security to investors, the possibility of incentives for priority areas and the whole boundary position being relieved to the point where the White investor in going into a homeland has his fears allayed, sees opportunities and enjoys the protection of articles of a confederation or of a confederal authority.

I realize that we have a different approach to the confederal concept, but we in this party believe that it is of the utmost importance that a formal political structure, for instance a secretariat, should be initiated as soon as possible. In circumstances like the present drought, for instance, the Ministers of Agriculture of all the member States could get together to form common policy to deal with drought relief on a common basis. The same could be done in respect of other matters. When it comes to urbanization or any other matter requiring priority attention, one would then have a confederal secretariat and a formal situation through which one would get joint decision-making on policy matters and we believe that the results from that would be far more acceptable than the results obtained through multilateral or bilateral agreements.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow up on the subject raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town, because I should like to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department.

It is a fact that the relations between Blacks and Whites in South Africa is potentially one of the most problematic areas. The point of departure of all of us has to be that we have to attempt to defuse any situation of tension as far as is practicable. I maintain that Blacks are interested in improving the circumstances of their lives, that they are basically seeking opportunities to work and that they are trying to live decently. Generally speaking there is a tendency to seek work in the developed cities, in the metropolitan areas. In view of the historical situation we have in South Africa and in view of the philosphy of life and the old traditions of Blacks in terms of which they are committed to their tribal heritage and traditional areas, there are certain restrictive practices in this regard. My standpoint is that where it is possible to apply the decentralization policy more rapidly to make employment opportunities available where the workers are, we have to do everything possible to bring this about.

I maintain that the Tugela basin, which forms the heart of my constituency, is one of the areas where this is possible. I want to emphasize that after I had had discussions with the hon. the Minister on the industrial development potential of the Ezakheni Township area about two years ago, he had discussions with the Economic Development Corporation. The announcements made by the hon. the Prime Minister during the Good Hope Conference created considerable interest in industrial settlement in the Ezakheni industrial area, which can be developed as an industrial area virtually in partnership with the industrial area of Danskraal, because they are both situated in the same region.

It is true that there are quite a number of so-called Black spots in that region, Black spots that are at present partially owned by private individuals and where most residents have no rights of ownership or security of any kind. They are paying rent to a few individuals. There are no decent roads, health services, water supply or electricity, to say nothing of telephones. There is no sewerage system or garbage removal service. All these deficiencies in the Black spots of necessity lead to the inhabitants not considering their residence there to be permanent. The standpoint so frequently forced upon these people from outside, namely that they have to object to resettlement in properly planned areas, is creating a considerable problem. I am of the opinion that in my constituency, near the industrial areas of Ezakheni and Danskraal, there is potential to provide properly planned housing according to the freehold system. There have to be properly planned roads, water, clinics, sewerage disposal, business complexes and security services. However, we have the additional problem that because the town of Ezakheni is already developed and is under the control of the kwaZulu authorities and there is the possibility for Blacks to be granted housing loans—at this stage up to a maximum amount of R2 400, which is payable at 1% per annum over 30 years with a monthly payment of R7—we find that the kwaZulu authorities are reluctant to give Blacks from the White areas who want to settle in Ezakheni the opportunity to make use of these facilities. That is why I am asking that the farms Vlakplaas and Modderspruit—which are virtually within walking distance of the industrial areas of Ezakheni and Danskraal—be planned for development while the areas are still in trust and have not yet been transferred to kwaZulu, and that Blacks be afforded the opportunity to build their own homes on properly surveyed plots according to standards that they can afford. There will be more employment opportunities, not only at industrial level, but also owing to the development of irrigation agriculture which can also be established in the region. This area, namely the Tugela basin has the most water in South Africa, and this is the one area where there is no shortage of water at this stage although we are experiencing the worst drought in 200 years. That is why I am asking that these matters be solved by proper co-ordination, negotiation and discussion. The farm Modderspruit, which belongs to the Anglican Church, is a farm which can be developed. As the local MP I have already held discussions with the trustees of that Anglican Church farm and to a certain extent an understanding has been reached on the basis of which there can be co-operation between the department and the trust of the Anglican Church owning this property. I also held discussions with the relevant Black leaders and properly planned development can take place where the facilities for Blacks will be considerably better. The prospects and the development potential will afford them the opportunity to develop as people. They can also be given freehold. All this is possible, and I want to ask that negotiations be held on a larger scale with local White leaders and that the elected representatives be included in the discussion which has to take place regarding resettlement. This can be done and could result in an improvement of the position of everyone involved. I have photographs here which I have shown to officials, indicating that some of the Black spots are so badly eroded that there is really no future for any group of people living there. We are responsible for soil conservation and we cannot allow this sort of erosion and destruction of the soil to continue. There is an urgent need for orderly settlement and proper planning in these areas. I am convinced that this can be done, but the ministry will have to give the go-ahead for the negotiations and the practical implementation of this to be proceeded with and implemented with the greatest possible speed. It is necessary for employment opportunities to be created, not only for the men, but also for the Black women. Industrialists have already told me that they have found that Black women are far more reliable workers than Black men because Black women are interested in the future of their children. They stay away from work less often and fewer of them are interested in participating in strikes. For that reason I feel we can make a positive contribution to the development if we continue with these discussions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River made a perfectly realistic request with which the hon. the Minister will deal later.

This Vote is one of the most important, if not the most important Vote because it deals with the greatest and most pressing problem in South Africa, namely that of the Black people. That this has also been recognized by our leaders since the earliest times is apparent from the fact that four of South Africa’s former Prime Ministers, namely Gen. Louis Botha, Gen. Hertzog, Gen. Smuts and Dr. Verwoerd themselves held the portfolio of Native Affairs, as it was then known, for long periods. In spite of what the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Lichtenburg said here this afternoon, I maintain that South Africa is greatly indebted to the present hon. Minister for the expert way in which he has handled this thorny problem and the calmness he instills in the minds of Black leaders. [Interjections.] Those hon. members of the CP should all say “hear, hear” to the hon. the Minister in this connection. I maintain that it has been a long time since we last had a Minister who was prepared to work so hard, who is sometimes still engaged in these matters at three o’clock in the morning and who has done so much to ensure sound relations between Blacks and Whites in this country as this hon. Minister has.

Now that we have progressed so far with a dispensation in which the Coloureds and the Indians will also have a share in this country, greater momentum will also have to be given to finding solutions to the remaining problems revolving round the Blacks. Thus far we have achieved tremendous success with the independence of Black nations. There is no doubt about this. The people in the national States are imbued with a spirit of nationalism and pride and it is indeed heartening to see the order and the happiness in these States. One asks oneself what chaos there would have been if we had not given the Black nations self-sufficiency and independence. As a Black leader in Venda said to me: “Ons wil nooit teruggaan tot voor onafhanklikwording nie. Ons is uit minderwaardigheid opgehef tot trotse burgers van ons eie land wat in eie reg langs u as Blankes kan staan.”

Having said this I can almost hear the rhetorical question from the Opposition: What about the urban Blacks? The Opposition maintains that we do not have a solution for the urban Blacks. I want to tell the Opposition—and I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg in particular who referred so scornfully to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development here this afternoon—that this Government is engaged in the greatest, most comprehensive and most far-reaching strategy ever attempted to bring about the greatest degree of ordering of the Blacks outside the national States as well. In this process the hon. the Minister is determined to go to the root of the problem and to put right what went wrong as a result of historic mistakes.

We constantly hear the Government being accused by the far-right wing—the CP and the HNP among others—that Whites in this country are being crowded out by the Blacks. [Interjections.] This is an absolute distortion of the actual situation. The Government is in fact engaged in ordering the position of the Black man in the best possible way, to create better living conditions for him and to give him greater human dignity. However, it is not doing so at the expense of the Whites. The Government is actually doing so in the interests of the Whites. Although the Government does not begrudge the White man his own area, it has never been the policy of the NP to keep the Blacks off the streets of our cities and towns. We cannot do this because we know that to a major extent our economy depends on the labour of these people and that they are therefore indispensable in our cities and towns. However, we should also realize that during lunch hours and other times when they are free, these Black people cannot disappear into thin air. If Whites want to relax in parks of their own—this is a matter those hon. members in the CP are advocating so strongly—proper facilities and places of recreation will also have to be created for people of colour. [Interjections.] Local authorities who are reluctant to give attention to this will, if need be, have to be forced to do so.

Does Albert agree with you?

I shall tell you that in a moment.

This afternoon the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the hon. the Minister had opened the debate in a manner designed to conceal his failure. I want to tell the hon. member that the Government is engaged in an imaginative action to give the Black man a place in the South African situation. Excellent progress has been made with an urbanization strategy. The hon. member knows what I am talking about. Last year the important Black Local Authorities Act was passed by Parliament. The Black Communities Development Board and the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons’ Bill are also in the pipeline. All these pieces of legislation have one common object, namely to regulate and improve the position of the Black man.

As a result of the purposeful action by the Government and the hon. the Minister, greater calmness has been introduced in places like Soweto, the Eastern Cape and the Cape Peninsula. The announcement of a new Black township Khayelitsha in the Cape Peninsula attests to the courage and purposefulness of the Government. [Interjections.] The Government is already achieving tremendous success with its decentralization strategy. The only way to discourage the influx to the metropolitan areas is to take prosperity and development to the backward areas. That is why the Government’s decentralization strategy will continue to enjoy the highest priority. We also have to view the creation of the necessary infrastructure in Black States as a priority. We are all acquainted with the Chines proverb: Give a man a fish and he has food for a day, but teach him how to catch fish, and he has food for the rest of his life. Let us help the Black man to create a good infrastructure in his own country, because then he can work out a future for himself.

When one assists the Black man to create an infrastructure, self-help has to be the watchword and manual labour has to be used to the maximum. Dams can in fact still be built with wheelbarrows and scrapers pulled by oxen. This is cheap. It provides work for more people. It is in the Black man’s nature to work with these things. It is very important for us to begin creating this infrastructure in the Black States now.

In the emergency situation we at present have, in the Black States as well, as a result of the terrible drought we are experiencing, this can be of tremendous assistance to these people. Work can be created for them. If they can get such work, they can help in building their own infrastructure.

In conclusion, I want to point out that the Whites have to stop saying that the Black man cannot farm. Let us establish Black people as farmers on an economic basis and give them the opportunity to show what they can do; then we shall see what they are capable of. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I used an incorrect figure in my speech earlier. I said that 150 000 houses had been promised over the next three years in Soweto. I should have said 15 000. Unfortunately, I misread the quotation.

Mr. Chairman, I do not plan to follow the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, except to say that there is not much of what he said that I can agree with. He said that greater momentum was needed with regard to the solving of the problems of Black people in this country. I certainly agree with that.

I wish to speak about the situation in the Western Cape and how it has developed since the debate on this Vote last year.

When one looks at the way in which the Government has treated Blacks in the Western Cape over the past year, one is filled with dismay, despair and disbelief. That a Minister and a Government that profess to the Christian and civilized can do such things to fellow human beings, is hard to believe. The Nyanga Cathedral people, for example, have spent a year in tents and are prevented from erecting more substantial structures to protect themselves from the elements. Some 300 of them were forced to live for months in plastic dome shelters because the Government would not allow them to erect tents. For a period of longer than six months, they were not even able to obtain any toilet facilities at all. Then you have the group of former lodgers from Old and New Crossroads who spent months in the open, well into the cold and wet Cape winter. These people, legally in the area and victims of the Government’s delay in providing housing, were also not permitted to erect shelters.

Unpleasant incidents too numerous to mention occurred throughout the year, but in the mistreatment of the KTC people, this Nationalist Government sunk to new depths. The sustained terrorizing of those people by the Government had to be seen to be believed. Over a period of three months they were harassed in every possible way. Finally, we had a full-scale military-style assault on these poor people. There were police, officials, spotlights, barbed wire and tear-smoke—all to stop people sheltering themselves and their children from the cold and the rain.

That hon. Minister and his Government are responsible for this hounding, harassment and terrorizing. I do not accept that any Christian or civilized Minister or Government could instruct officials to go out in the middle of the night to take plastic sheeting away from mothers protecting their small children from the rain. It would be a crime to treat animals in that way. It should be a crime to treat human beings in that way.

This hon. Minister punishes Black people in the Cape Peninsula because his party’s policy has failed. No houses were built or even allowed to be built here for Black families for nearly a decade, and now the Black people themselves are being made to suffer the consequences. The callous and unjust treatment of Blacks in the Western Cape must be stopped before it destroys any possibility of peaceful co-existence in this part of the world.

Uncertainty is a feature of the lives of Black people in the Western Cape and, in fact, in most parts of South Africa. We should all do what we can to reduce that to a minimum and not to heighten it at every turn. This hon. Minister should stop making promises he does not keep. People would prefer to know the truth, however bad it may be.

I would like to illustrate this point by mentioning some of the broken promises in the past year alone. Firstly, at the beginning of April last year the Cathedral people were promised that their position would be resolved within a period of three weeks. A year later it was still not resolved. Then some 6 000 people from various areas in the Western Cape were promised that there would be an announcement on 20 September 1982 and that their position would be clarified. That, of course, did not happen. Then, more recently, it was announced that New Crossroads Phase 2, which was to provide an additional 1 200 houses, had been abandoned. In February this year the hon. the Minister announced that there were going to be 2 500 serviced sites provided at KTC, but only 200 were provided. The rest of the plan has apparently been scrapped.

To crown it all, the threat of being moved to Khayelitsha now hangs over the head of every single Black person in the Cape Peninsula. I do not believe that the words of the hon. the Minister today were sufficiently explicit to remove that threat and all these decisions have been taken with little or no consultation with the Black people themselves.

Finally, I wish to refer to the Langa commissioner’s court. I believe that the laws that govern the lives of blacks in this country are unjust, but even in terms of those laws, a black person cannot expect a fair trial when he appears in the Langa commissioner’s court.

In 1982, according to information supplied by the hon. the Minister, fines totalling R249 662 were paid as a result of sentences that were imposed in the Langa commissioner’s court. In 1981 sentences totalling 684 years of imprisonment were imposed in that court. In other words, R250 000 in fines or 684 years in jail for the crime of attempting to work and live together as a family.

In 1982, 9 393 persons appeared on average for 5 minutes 22 seconds per person for their trial. This included calling them into the court, entering the court, translating evidence and leaving the court. This can be compared with the Athlone magistrate’s court which dealt with a similar number of cases of which the average time was 20 minutes 25 seconds per case, i.e. nearly four times as long.

No justice is done in these courts. The attitude of the magistrates is unsatisfactory; often hostile and sometimes abusive. The atmosphere and proceedings change dramatically when a person is defended or when, for example, members of Parliament are present. These courts are a disgrace. They are instruments of oppression, not of justice. An inquiry into the functioning of the commissioner’s courts should be held as a matter of urgency. We dare not allow them to go on in the way that they are. I hope that the Hoexter Commission will be asked to give this matter some priority.

I wish to mention as an example the Langa commissioner’s court on a morning in March 1983. In the 35 minutes from l0hl0 to 10h45, 35 cases were tried, i.e. one per minute. Eleven of those cases were withdrawn. Of the balance of 31 charges, over 90% of the people were found guilty, one was cautioned and the rest were fined. At 10h46 members of Parliament arrived at the court. The next four cases before the tea adjournment lasted five minutes each instead of one minute each. One case was postponed and bail was granted. Of the balance of five charges, one was fined, i.e. 20% of the people, and the rest were suspended, cautioned or warned.

These courts tell the world all about apartheid. This Government makes hundreds of thousands of Black people criminals every year because they seek work and wish to live together as families. Nothing could illustrate the corruptness of apartheid more graphically.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to get the taste of this speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens out of my mouth before reacting to it. [Interjections.] That is not to say, of course, that the taste of the speech to which I wish to react is much better. I want to address my remarks specifically to the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon.

†The hon. member made a speech here today which was utterly lacking in argument. She resorted to personal invective; to personal and scurrilous attacks on the hon. the Minister and on this department. [Interjections.] I resent in particular—and so do all hon. members on this side of the House—the fact that aspersions and doubts were cast on the integrity of the hon. the Minister. I believe it is most irresponsible of the hon. member for Houghton, particularly in view of that fact that this hon. Minister is in charge of a very sensitive portfolio, and that his integrity must be seen to be above reproach at all times.

I spoke of his credibility; not his integrity.

No, you spoke of his integrity. [Interjections.] Well, whether you spoke of his credibility or his integrity, it is equally bad. [Interjections.]

There is a difference, you know!

There may well be a difference, but what the hon. member for Houghton did was equally bad.

*Mr. Chairman, those hon. members are laughing at this. That bald-headed hon. member has the temerity to point his finger at me. [Interjections.] Yes, he is trying to lecture me on credibility. [Interjections.]

My head is not as bald as your credibility. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s incredibility is beyond question. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I do not react to jokers. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, when my credibility is attacked, I consider it just as bad as when my integrity is attacked. Hon. members opposite will just have to swallow that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton said of the hon. member for Tygerberg, while the hon. the Minister was talking about the distance between Cape Town and Khayelitsha, that she could see that the hon. member was very worried. This is the first time I have had to listen to an argument in this House which is based on the expression which has been observed on the face of another hon. member. I think it is absolutely ridiculous. Therefore I say that the hon. old lady has no argument left. [Interjections.] She is simply relying on personal attacks. [Interjections.] What I particularly resent about her behaviour, Mr. Chairman, is … [Interjections.]

Order!

What I particularly resent, Mr. Chairman is the fact that she casts suspicion on our efforts to establish Cape Town’s Black people at Khayelitsha because, as she puts it, we intend to take away their section 10(1)(a) rights. Where does she get that argument from? Mr. Chairman, on what grounds does she say that? What possesses the hon. woman to make a statement like that? [Interjections.]

No sexism please! [Interjections.]

Why must she create a climate of doubt and suspicion while we are trying our best to solve this problem in spite of all the opposition we have to contend with from that side of the House? Why should she cast aspersions on our good intentions? [Interjections.]

Having listened to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens as well, I am convinced that what we have witnessed here today is a sure sign of the political insolvency of the PFP. They have one big fear. That is namely that the Government is in the process of solving the problem of the Black people in the Cape Peninsula. Once that has been accomplished, what will they have left on which they can attack us?

Are you talking about the final solution now?

It will probably be an Eichmann-type of solution.

Once we have accomplished that they will have no arguments left on which to fall back in attacking us. We shall carry through our plans, and we shall do that with success and with the co-operation of the Black people of South Africa. In another five years this will be one of the success stories of South Africa. Let me now tell this House …

You do not seem to know what the Blacks themselves have to say about this.

I do not know to whom you spoke. Since when have you been appointed spokesman on behalf of the Black people in this House? As far as I remember you have never fought an election in any Black township …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must refer to hon. members of this House as “hon. members”.

I shall certainly do that, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, since when has the hon. member for Wynberg been elected spokesman for the people of Guguletu, Langa or Crossroads? He simply goes there …

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

No, you sit down! [Interjections.] You do not even know anything about defence. Now you want to argue with me about Blacks. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw and undertake to abide by your ruling. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Sandton wants to put a point of order.

Thank you very much. Sir, you have just asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to address members as “hon. members”. Since then we have heard him shouting “jy” repeatedly. I ask you please to remind him of your ruling. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister has taken cognizance of it and has undertaken to abide by it. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I have just said that, as far as I am aware, the hon. member for Gardens was never elected as spokesman for Black people.

When did they elect you …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? [Interjections.]

No. The hon. member may sit down. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, the hon. members are really wasting my time. That hon. member is not capable of making a decent speech himself and now he wants to entertain the House with jokes.

I wanted to ask a decent question.

That hon. member is not capable of asking a decent question.

Order! I request hon. members to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to make his speech.

Then we heard the amazing statement from the hon. member for Houghton that the State should be held responsible for providing housing for all people. Since when, and in what part of the world, has this been the case other than in the welfare states and socialist countries? It so happens that this country is neither a welfare state nor a socialist country. It is the duty of the private sector and private individuals to provide for their own housing needs. The Government also provides for the subeconomic group. That we have always done and we have acknowledged that we do that. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, we have done just that.

However, I want to turn to the hon. the member for Cape Town Gardens who I think made a shocking speech, a speech unworthy of a number of this hon. House. [Interjections.]

Order!

His speech was completely lacking in arguments and consisted only of invective and personal attacks.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I have requested hon. members to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to make his speech. This applies to all hon. members, including the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, I do not want to stoop to the level of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens because I think his speech was shocking. I particularly resent his reference to the court at Langa when he said no justice was done in these courts. Those hon. members are the people who always tell us that we have to uphold the rule of law, that we have to uphold the honesty of our courts. Then, he has the ruddy cheek to cast aspersions on the court at Langa. I think it was a disgraceful speech and I do not intend dealing any further with it.

I now want to refer to a very curious phenomenon for which that hon. member is also responsible. In The Cape Times of 26 May Mr. Andrew said with reference to Khayelitsha—

I can promise him that Dr. Koornhof did not even bat an eyelid when he read about this warning—

40 km away from where?

From Cape Town.

Why did he not say from where? The impression he creates is that they are being re-established 40 km away from where they are now.

He did not say that.

That hon. member, of course, cannot read; he can only make interjections. I quote further—

Where did he get this ridiculous figure from? From his computer?

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

No. You have had your time to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

Question 24, column …

Order! I kindly request the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to contain himself.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Deputy Minister asked me a question.

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

What are the facts? The hon. the Minister stated the facts earlier this afternoon. The facts are that there is an area of 3 000 ha which has the potential for development. [Interjections.] Which document is the hon. member showing me there? Where did the hon. member get it?

From the Minister.

The facts of the matter are that there is an area of 3 000 ha of land which can be developed. Of this area, approximately 150 ha is going to be converted into a nature reserve. Approximately 2 500 ha is available for development. We must not forget that the solution to the problem of Black housing in the Western Cape does not lie in this area. As has rightly been said by the hon. member for Ventersdorp as well as by other hon. members, the solution lies in the maximum development of our national States. That is precisely what this Government is doing; it is developing the national States in such a way that they will offer people attractive investment and job opportunities. In the development of this new residential area, Khayelitsha, very great emphasis should be placed on community development, so that this may contribute to the orderly and voluntary resettlement of the Black communities of Cape Town. The most modern principles of town planning and town layout are being applied in laying out Khayelitsha.

In brief, this means that we are thinking in terms of five central areas, each with its own essential facilities such as shopping centres, offices, and so on, constituting a happy community. In addition, an elite area will be set aside, which will offer some of the finest sea views to be found anywhere in the Peninsula, where those who can afford to do so will be able to build houses according to their own taste. The Cabinet has also given its approval for the Department of Co-operation and Development, in consultation with the Western Cape Administration Board and other interested organizations, to conduct a further investigation into certain aspects, including home ownership and sectional title ownership. However, the hon. member for Houghton, as well as other hon. members on that side of the House, are prepared to cast suspicion on this great scheme. It must be one of the biggest township development schemes ever been undertaken in the Western Cape. Because we sympathize with these people and their situation, we want to improve this quality of life. Our intentions are sincere, but all kinds of suspicions are being cast on these intentions.

†I want to refer to another statement made by one of these Black people. I quote from a newspaper report—

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we did some straight talking. These people were not averse to squatting in the KTC area. However, now that we provide a place for them where they can provide for their own housing, they demand that houses be provided for them. The time has passed that the Government is going to provide all housing that is necessary for Black people. As the hon. the Minister pointed out this is the first phase of a controlled self-build system. They can build their houses and eventually they can improve those houses and provide for themselves. However, the Government cannot—because it is no longer possible—provide them all with houses. It is time that the Black people took note of this attitude of the Government.

*The State simply cannot do this any longer, and Blacks cannot refuse to go to the places where provision is being made for them and where the rudimentary services are being provided for them so that they may look after themselves and where they may erect their own structures until such time as they can afoord to erect better structures there. It is their duty to do so. The capital and the sweat capital of the Black man must now be mobilized as well, and the Black man must become self-sufficient as far as this is concerned.

I also want to refer briefly to the situation at Inanda. The hon. member for Houghton as well as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development referred to this, and I want to say that the projects at Inanda are going well. During the 1982-’83 financial year, R1 250 000 was appropriated for township development alone in Inanda, and R135 000 for the management of the township. An additional amount of R5 million was made available, which brings the total appropriation for the year, for Inanda alone, to R7 million. The following five priorities were identified as projects on which the R5 million would be spent: water supply, acquisition of land, schools, clinics and pit latrines. As a result of the enormous demand for housing, school facilities and office accommodation, however, the priorities have been reconsidered. The R5 million will now be spent as follows: R2,3 million is being provided for a water network, R1,5 million for school buildings, R500 000 for self-build projects and R300 000 for office buildings, management, bulk water purchases and planning costs with regard to clinics. These amounts add up to R7 million. The amount for the building of schools has been increased because of the enormous need which exists, and the amount of R500 000 for loans for self-build projects has been provided in addition to the appropriated amount of R1 250 000 on the approved budget. What I am trying to say is that the Government seriously intends to develop Inanda as rapidly as possible and that this is being done within our financial means. Since 1980, 4 000 sites have been allocated on which people are erecting their own provisional structures, while waiting the granting of a loan to them which will enable them to build better houses. In spite of the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, who encourages these people and tries to persuade them that it is not the responsibility of Blacks to provide their own houses, only 200 of those 4 000 sites which have been made available for the self-build project have not yet been allocated. 610 loans have already been granted for 1982-’83. Since 1 April this year, 278 loans have been granted, and 1 147 houses have been built during 1982-’83. Those houses have been built by the Blacks themselves with loan funds, and it is important that they should realize this. The value of those houses is more than R3 million. The community centre has been built by the Urban Foundation and a R50 000 crèche has been built with money which was received as a donation and which the SADT did not have to pay for.

Rather than yield to the temptation to react to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, I should prefer to make my own speech, because if I began reacting to him, my whole speech could be spoilt by interjections and unpleasantness. I want to discuss influx control in the Western Cape today, and more specifically with regard to my constituency of False Bay, where the new Khayelitsha township is to be built.

We accept the fact that Black people come to sell their labour in the Western Cape, but what is unacceptable is that in terms of Prog policy, the situation must not be regulated on a proper and orderly basis. What is also unacceptable is the way in which Blacks who have entered this area illegally are taking over the jobs of those who have historically been present in this region, namely the Coloureds. Another thing which is unacceptable is the illegal employment of Blacks by employers in the Western Cape, which causes the system of control over influx and employment to be eroded. The influx of Blacks who do not work or who work only sporadically is a further problem to which we shall have to give attention in the Western Cape. It leads to social and financial problems and crime among people who have been ousted from their jobs because of this influx. It places an undue burden on our local infrastructure in terms of community facilities, hospital facilities, educational facilities and so on. In particular, however, it would be naive of any representative in the Western Cape to underestimate the long-term political implications of unchecked and uncontrolled influx from the Black States. This is a sensitive matter, and we are fully aware, in discussing and debating it, of the factors which are causing the urbanization of the Blacks, inducing them to leave their own areas and attracting them to the cities.

There are a few factors in this connection which we must not lose sight of. One of the most important factors is the effect of uncontrolled Black influx and the permanent over-supply of Black labour on the South African economy, and this must not be underestimated. I am saying this because it eventually gives rise to an inflation rate which is unacceptable to this country. If I had had more time, I should have liked to elaborate on this. The permanent over-supply of Black labour and the inflation rate in this country are two facts which we cannot separate from each other.

When we take action in this connection, we do so with the necessary respect for the culture and the customs of the Black man. However, if there is to be long-term stability, economically as well as politically, the Black leaders and the Black States will have to accept that this over-supply of Black labour from those Black States will eventually have to come to an end. I believe that in return for the aid given to those States in terms of any form of aid which we may offer them, including development aid, those leaders should be able to guarantee to us that there will have to be a clearly discernible abatement in this over-supply of labour. This is where the problem originates, and I think we should obtain the co-operation of the Black leaders in this matter.

However, the problem is now affecting the Western Cape and my constituency in particular. With regard to Khayelitsha, I want to say that I accept that the present areas of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu will eventually be moved to this Khayelitsha township with a view to the proper consolidation of the city and of the surrounding Coloured areas. In order to resolve the problem of illegal employment and, at the same time, the problem of illegal influx … [Interjections.] The hon. members of the CP should keep quiet; we shall come to them.

You are still a newcomer to politics.

I have been in politics just as long as that hon. member; only he does not know it. [Interjections.]

In order to guarantee that the system will be maintained and in order to restrict the illegal employment of Blacks, I suggest to the hon. the Minister, in spite of the legal implications and the arguments which lawyers could advance against it from a technical point of view, that minimum fines be laid down for such employers. I am making this suggestion in order to prevent the destruction of the system.

In the second place, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that Government contracts be withheld from employers who contravene these laws, in accordance with the practice in West Germany. If it can be done in West Germany, I cannot see why it cannot be done in this country as well. [Interjections.]

In order to deal effectively with illegal influx, it is necessary that we should introduce proper passport control on our borders with these neighbouring States. I cannot drive or walk around in Transkei unless I have proper travel documents.

You can.

We can expect the same of the citizens of that country. In addition, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should enter into a repatriation agreement with Ciskei and Transkei as soon as possible in order to resolve this problem. There is no other solution, no matter how we debate the matter. We shall have to enter into a repatriation agreement with those countries. In order to demonstrate how effective passport control is, I have only to draw attention to the events on our border with Lesotho recently, when we took strict action there. That proves how effective border control can be.

I come now to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He holds a brief for those persons who want to undermine law and order in this country.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to accuse another hon. member of holding a brief for people who are transgressors of the law in South Africa?

Order! The hon. member for False Bay must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it. Since the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens came to the Cape Provincial Council in 1977—I was already there at the time—every speech he has made has been on behalf of the Black people in the Western Cape. Seldom has he made a speech on behalf of the Whites or of the voters of the Republic of South Africa. Every speech of his has struck a discordant note, and taken together, they form a cacophony of discordant sounds with undertones and echoes of political activism which can be heard even by the untrained ear. This hon. member pays midnight visits to my constituency. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Conservative Party maintains that separate development is right. It is right to create homelands for the various Black peoples where they can be led to full independence. The CP says that all peoples should be established in their own homelands to the maximum extent. That is right. I hope and trust that members of the NP agree with me on that score.

I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the hon. member for False Bay concerning the proclaimed decision to establish a fourth Black city on the Cape Flats. The total population of Botswana is 600 000. The hon. member said that he accepted the fact that an infrastructure for a Black city, which will eventually accommodate 300 000 people, is being created in his constituency on the Cape Flats. This means that there will be 600 000 Black people in addition to the present Black population on the Cape Flats. The hon. member says he accepts that. I want to tell the hon. member for False Bay that he would have done the Western Cape a favour if he had stated here that he strongly opposed that decision by the hon. the Minister and the Government.

On 30 March the hon. the Minister said: “The Government is convinced that the Western Cape should remain the traditional abode and place of employment of the White and Coloured communities”. At the same time the hon. the Minister announced the establishment of this new Black city, with R9 million to be spent on creating an infrastructure. Today it was announced that the land area of Bophuthatswana exceeded the quota by 262 000 ha, yet 3 000 ha are being set aside for Black people on the Cape Flats. This Black city will eventually accommodate 300 000 people and will be situated 30 km from Cape Town. It will have its own railway line, its own beach and its own élite residential area. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is aware of how I have fought for the necessary infrastructure to be created at Mothibistad in Bophuthatswana so that the mining companies could establish housing and sports and training facilities for their employees there. This could not be done, yet then R12 million was spent on the construction of housing for Black people 60 km from the border of that homeland.

The hon. the Minister has announced the establishment of this new Black city, and hon. members have welcomed it. I wonder where the former hon. member for Moorreesburg is. I am convinced that if he were here, Piet Marais would have strongly opposed this plan. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for False Bay suggested that people be removed from the Western Cape to Ciskei. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, however, recently asked the hon. the Minister how many men, women and children had been deported from the Western Cape to Ciskei during each month of 1982 and how many men, women and children had been deported from the Western Cape to Black States other than Transkei or Ciskei during each month of 1982. The reply to both questions was “None”. What is the result of the Government’s attempt to remove Blacks from the Western Cape to their own national States? Nothing at all. The hon. the Minister said today that 80% of the budget is being spent on the development of the national States. During the past financial year, however, not a single Black has been removed from the Western Cape, which is the traditional home of the Whites and the Coloureds to Ciskei, Transkei or any other national State.

The NP says that it stands by its policy, and that is indeed the case. By establishing this fourth Black city they are, however, sabotaging the policy they adhere to. By establishing this city, the Government party is saying that it is not able to carry out this policy, or has no desire to carry it out. The governing party has a mandate from the voters of South Africa to carry out a certain policy. The Government’s mandate is a popular one. It is a policy the people want carried out. The Government, however, has done the opposite, since it is popular with their Prog friends; it is popular with the liberal newspapers and it is popular with their liberal foreign allies.

The Tomlinson Commission said in the concluding paragraph of its report—

That is separate development—

That is the choice. Nowadays we hear a great deal about intrepidity. What has become of the Government’s intrepidity as regards separate development? The Government is intrepidly destroying the foundations of separate development with steps such as those being taken here.

Let us now examine the history of the stated policy in regard to the Western Cape. Dr. Verwoerd announced this policy in 1960. He said—

In order to give purposeful effect to this policy, the Louw Committee was appointed. This committee’s recommendations gave rise to Cabinet decisions which were later implemented. A Cabinet Committee, under the chairmanship of the present hon. Prime Minister, was appointed to see that this policy was carried out. I vividly recall how the hon. the Prime Minister adopted a standpoint against the influx of Blacks to the Western Cape for which we were grateful to him. Interdepartmental committees and local committees were appointed, in co-operation with the erstwhile Department of Bantu Administration and Development to assist in carrying out the policy. What they had to do was very important. As regards the substantiated population of the Western Cape, the emphasis had to be placed on the settlement of these people in the homelands. They also said that emphasis should be placed on creating new Black residential areas and constructing homes for Black people in the Western Cape. As far as the Peninsula’s Black population is concerned, the following is extremely illuminating. From a small labour market in the docks in 1890, the Black population in the Peninsula increased annually, until it reached 111 000 in 1968. In 1969 as a result of these measures, Mr. M. C. Botha was able to announce that for the first time in 80 years there had been a decrease in the Black population to a total of 108 000. Minister M. C. Botha ascribed this to a joint, commendable effort on the part of all departments concerned, the local authorities and other bodies in carrying out the Government’s stated policy for the Western Cape as regards influx control and the settlement of Black people in their own national States. When did the trouble begin? Because of the actions of the officials of a certain local authority, illegal Black families descended on Crossroads during the Easter weekend of 1975 and squatters’ shacks sprang up like mushrooms. For humane reasons, and in the public interest, facilities were provided for these people. Encouraged by the squatters’ successful occupation of Crossroads, Black families, among whom there were the families of contract workers, flocked to the Peninsula and settled on Sate land such as Modderdam Road, Werksgenot and Unibel. They squatted there. After comprehensive negotiations, surveys and hard work, in the period between August 1977 and January 1978, these three squatter camps were moved by the Administration Board. After that, it was also decided to move Crossroads. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman made one statement to which I should like to react and on which I should like to base my speech. The hon. member’s statement was that all peoples should be settled in their own particular geographic areas to the maximum extent. That, after all, is still NP policy, as I shall indicate during the course of my speech.

Basically there are two measures that regulate the status of Black people in the Republic. The Blacks (Urban Areas) Act, 1945, regulates the position of the Black people outside the national and independent States, and the National States Constitution Act, 1971, regulates the change of status of a Black national State to a sovereign, independent State.

Now, with the forthcoming independence of kwaNdebele having been announced, a unique historical process is being finalized. With the independence of kwaNdebele, substance is being given to a nationalism that can be traced back historically to the year 1600. This will be given substance in an independent, self-governing State this year or next year. The process of the attainment of independence by kwaNdebele differs in one important respect from the attainment of independence by the other national States, in that the Ndebele have no geographic area with which they can be linked historically. In fact, the Ndebele have been alienated from the territory that has traditionally been associated with them.

This alienation began with the raids of Umzilikazi in 1825 when he fled from Chaka during the Mafekane, and the Ndebele were scattered throughout the Northern Transvaal, until Umzilikazi settled in the territory known then as Matebeleland, present-day Zimbabwe. The scattering of the Ndebele gained further momentum, however, by way of a proclamation issued by the Zuid-Afri-kaansche Republiek and dated 12 October 1882. For the sake of completing the picture, it would be very interesting to take cognizance of this proclamation. The proclamation reads as follows—

And finally, we read in that proclamation—

The relevant proclamation was signed by S. J. P. Kruger, M. W. Pretorius and P. J. Joubert.

These events, which gave rise to the issuing of the aforementioned proclamation, resulted from the fact that chief Niabel, acting regent in the place of Fene Maslangwu of the Ndzundza tribe, gave Mampoer asylum after the Sekunkuru had murdered the Chief of the Bapedi. If we took into account the fact that Niabel refused to recognize the supreme authority of the ZAR, we would understand what this is all about. Seen in its historical context, this proclamation gave rise to a battle which lasted nine months and which is described in reliable historical documents. I quote from the historical work I consulted in which this battle is described as follows—

The point I wish to make is that in terms of a decision of the House of Assembly of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek on 20 July 1883—this date is very important—the Mapoch tribe, the Ndebele, were deprived of their freedom and their land. The tribe was scattered throughout the whole of the Transvaal and adult members of the tribe had to complete a five-year term in the service of farmers in the Pretoria, Carolina and Middelburg districts on the Highveld.

Today, precisely 100 years after the Ndebele were alienated from their land, spurred on by their own nationalism, tens of thousands of South-Ndebele are returning to their own national geographical home to build canals and schools, thereby expressing their newly-found national consciousness. This proves that in the history of a people, time and space cannot dampen the will to survive. In this context the South-Ndebele are the Black Israel of Southern Africa, a people that have returned to the land of their birth from their diaspora. A proclamation by the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek on 7 July 1883 resulted in a Black people going into exile and a state of diaspora, and today, in 1983, precisely 100 years after these historic events, the NP has created the opportunity, through consolidation, for the Ndebele to return from diaspora and to exchange the yoke of exile for political self-determination and their own national pride. Here there is no Syria or a Palestine Liberation Organization that wants to deny the new State its right to exist, but, in fact, an NP wanting to create a place in the sun for all peoples in South Africa, thereby ensuring that only through the freedom of peoples can an orderly pattern of civilization continue to exist here at the Southern tip of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Bellville. I trust, however, that he will pardon me if I confine my attention to my own speech.

It has become fashionable to go back in history and dwell on a particular period in time, preferably the era of a recognized political leader, and to use relevant statements and events to justify present-day political statements or actions. I also want to retrace the steps of the NP and, on the basis of certain events I wish to single out, show that the NP is still on the same path. I want to go back to 1903. That was 80 years ago, just after the Anglo-Boer War. I shall commence with the farm Waterval situated approximately eight kilometres north-west of Johannesburg. A certain Mr. Tobiansky purchased a section of the farm Waterval in 1897 with a view to establishing a town. The war frustrated his plans and he was only able to establish the town, which he named after his wife, in 1903. He called his town, which had 1 694 plots, Sophiatown. This town was situated near Johannesburg, and the plots, although not large, had a beautiful view of Aasvoëlkop and the Magaliesberg mountains to the north. Tobiansky saw that this town had potential and named some of the streets after his daughters Edith, Bertha and Gerty. His son-in-law, Miller, and Queen Victoria were also commemorated. Everything pointed to this town becoming just as sought-after a residential area as Parktown was to become. Unfortunately, however, there were factors that dissuaded Whites from purchasing plots in Sophiatown. The municipality housed its Black workers in Martindale, to the west of Sophiatown. This deterred the Whites. Johannesburg’s sewerage works were also situated in Sophiatown, and that was another reason for the plots not being sold.

After the Anglo-Boer War, the Blacks began returning to the mines and Pimville, the only Black residential area, was fully occupied. Since the Whites would not purchase the plots, Mr. Tobiansky made them available to Blacks. Members of the Black community had freehold title to these plots, and because there was no supervision of the development of this residential area, this marked the beginning of the development of a slum area at one of the gateways to Johannesburg. It was the beginning of one of the largest and most dreadful slums in the country. Squatting was commonplace. Homeowners sublet houses and an average of four families lived in a four-roomed house. There were 18 or more people to a room. The tenants ruined the houses and squatters erected shelters. In order to save on expenses, home-owners cut the water supply to the plots. Tenants were therefore compelled to fetch water from public taps. The latrines were also dilapidated and unfit for use. Inhabitants were therefore compelled to make use of public facilities. The illegal sale of liquor flourished. Diseases were rife. Among most of the residents there was no question of morality. In his book African Opposition in South Africa, Edward Feit quotes what a certain Bloke Modisane, a writer and poet from Sophiatown, wrote about the way of life in this slum—

Residential areas developed west of this Black spot and the main highway of the West Rand ran between Sophiatown and Martindale. Serious racial unrest flared up every now and again. The United Party was in control of the Johannesburg city council when the NP came to power in 1948. The conditions in which the people lived in Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare deteriorated by the day. The NP Government realized that a speedy solution had to be found. Consequently, in 1953 it was decided to resettle the Black community of Sophiatown and the other adjoining areas. By that time, there were an estimated 57 800 people crammed together on the 1 855 plots in Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare. However, the official number of inhabitants, according to surveys done by the Johannesburg municipality, was 83 500. It was therefore clear that the Government, in the light of its policy of affording all inhabitants a better future, had an enormous task on its hands. At that time, only 350 of these plots belonged to Blacks. The Government realized that the resettlement programme could only succeed if property ownership by Blacks in the area was terminated. This decision on the part of the Government resulted in agitation from all quarters against the resettlement of the inhabitants, despite the conditions these people were living in. On 29 July 1953 Mrs. Ballinger, MP, warned this House of Assembly (Hansard, col. 561)—

A certain Rev. Huddleston writes in his book Naught for your Comfort—

The agitation on the part of the ANC, Rev. Huddleston and the members of the Johannesburg city council, Mrs. Ballinger and other members of the House of Assembly, compelled Dr. Verwoerd to say in the House of Assembly on 14 September 1953, and I quote from Hansard, col. 3448—

The clergy, the White resistance movement and the ANC were unable to deter the NP, however. The orderly settlement of communities and the improvement of the standards of living of all the inhabitants of the country still constitute the policy of the NP today, as they did 30 years ago. The voters of Triomf, Westdene, Brixton, Newlands, Delarey and the surrounding areas appreciate what the NP has done for them and know that the same party is still in power. The hon. the Minister and his department deserve the utmost praise for the way in which they deal with the problem of uncontrolled influx and try to find humane solutions within the framework of NP policy. The ANC, the clergy and the White resistance movement have been unable to divert the NP from its course, and they will not succeed in doing so in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maraisburg will forgive me if I do not follow directly on aspects of his speech. However, I do want to refer to a point which he made in regard to the removal of the so-called Black spots. I want to generalize in this particular field because those of us who represented the rural constituencies in Natal are well aware of the problems that have been created in many cases as a result of the removal of these Black spots. At the same time we are aware of the benefits that have accrued to some of those people who lived on these Black spots. I want to make it quite clear that while we on these benches do not support the removal of people from these Black spots for ideological reasons, we will support their removal if this means that they are moved according to their own wishes and provided they are moved to better conditions than those from whence they came. That is basically our attitude towards the whole question of Black spots.

Before getting down to the aspect of my speech I also want to refer to certain points raised by the hon. member for Klip River whose approach I found very refreshing. He made certain comments in regard to land ownership with particular reference to planned development to which I also wish to refer in the course of my speech.

In the limited time at my disposal I wish to deal with the problems that are being experienced in many of the rural areas of Natal in regard to land consolidation. In the first instance I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the uncertainty that is being experienced in a number of districts in Natal as a result of a further delay in the finalization of the report of the Commission for Co-operation and Development in regard to consolidation proposals for Natal. From time to time we have received repeated assurances that the consolidation proposals for Natal and throughout the country were going to be finalized by certain dates. What has happened? Those dates have come and they have gone and still nothing has eventuated. Only last year we had assurances that the consolidation proposals would be finalized by the end of 1982 but we know all too well that these assurances have in no way materialized. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give an indication as to when it is anticipated that the consolidation proposals for Natal will finally be made public. I also want to ask him whether these proposals have been finalized. We are aware that the Rumpff Commission has been appointed to investigate the question of Ingwavuma and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Rumpff Commission will now be dealing with other aspects of consolidation in Natal and, if so, what these particular aspects are. It is essential that the consolidation of land in Natal be finalized as soon as possible so that those affected will know exactly where they stand. At the present time there is a sense of complete and utter uncertainty in many of the areas because people there are unsure of the categories in which they are going to find themselves. One is also very appreciative—and I wish to reiterate this very clearly—of the undertakings that have been given by the hon. the Minister that no amendment outside the 1975 proposals will be considered without reference to organized agriculture.

It must be appreciated, Sir, that the delay in the finalization of the consolidation proposals is compounding many of the existing problems. I refer specifically to those areas where there is no adequate planning in regard to housing and in regard to communications and where no general infrastructure exists. One appreciates the fact that the Government has burdened itself with an enormous responsibility if it is to succeed with its philosophies in the rural areas. Having set its course and having gained experience from the many lessons it has learnt to date, it is hoped that the Government will take cognizance of the mistakes that it has made in the past, the most important of which, as I stated earlier, is the undesirability of moving people for ideological reasons against their will. It is for that reason that it is so important that the designation of areas be finalized so that planning and infrastructural needs can go hand in hand so that they can be implemented without undue delay; in other words it goes back to the point that the hon. member for Klip River raised regarding regularized development.

I am particularly conscious of the problems that exist in the Klip River area, which are similar to those being experienced in the Indaleni area near Richmond, Natal, on which some 60 000 people are accommodated. The people living in these areas have no indication as to what their future status is going to be. They occupy large tracts of land without any system of planning and, without any sense of permanence, so the longer these people are allowed to occupy land over which they have no sense of security and the destiny of which is not clarified, the greater will be the problems that will ultimately have to be resolved.

Reference is regularly made to the question of the non-homeland Blacks and the accommodation of those people in the so-called White South Africa. One accepts that a Cabinet Committee has been appointed to investigate the status of the people who have no direct link with independent or self-governing States. One looks forward to a positive solution being found to accommodate this group. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that all aspects of rural life be improved in order to make life more attractive for people who reside in these areas. This is the best means of stemming the tide of movement to the towns which are already suffering because of overpopulation and which are being subjected to considerable squatting problems on their perimeters.

The Government is faced with pressures from all quarters to finalize its consolidation proposals with as little delay as possible, but at the same time it must be in a position to back the implications of its decisions. I refer particularly to the effects of the utilization of expropriated farms and the need for general infrastructural development in the rural areas. Here I should like to refer again to the suggestion, which I support, made by the hon. member for Klip River that serious consideration should be given to property rights for people who wish to take permanent occupation of properties that could be made available to them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in general the hon. member for Mooi River made a positive contribution in the sense that he advocated the consolidation of kwaZulu and wanted this to be speeded up. In this way, he is of course admitting that this will be to everyone’s benefit. This is a tremendous problem, but as members of the commission we are constantly working as fast as we can. The hon. member will know that recently some of the Black States have been eager to acquire independence. The result was that the commission had to spend a great deal of time on determining their territory. In this connection I am referring to the rounding off of the territories of Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and kwaNdebele. This functions is a slow process in which literally hundreds of people have to be given a hearing; we dare not overlook anyone who is involved. As has rightly been said, we consult organized agriculture and Black people from time to time. All bodies and many individuals are constantly consulted. However, this is a slow process. The hon. member said that the commission was still engaged in its activities and after it had completed its activities we would continue with the consolidation of kwaZulu because this is a very important matter.

The hon. member touched on a very important matter when he said that we had to try to improve the way of life of Black people in the rural areas so that it would be comparable with the way of life of Black people in the cities. In that way we could prevent the influx of Black people from the rural areas to the cities. In this connection we have to get back to the reality facing us. At present 90% of the Whites are urbanized. As far as Coloureds are concerned, almost 80% of them are already urbanized. More than 90% of the Asians are urbanized. We should not run away from the reality that while 38% of the Black people are already urbanized, according to the calculations of Dr. Flip Smit, their numbers will have increased by at least 15 million people by the end of the century. During the next 17 years 15 million Black people will therefore imigrate from the rural to the urban areas. Dr. Smit said that if there was strong enomic growth and employment opportunities were available, it could happen that up to 25 million Black people would have imigrated to the cities by the end of the century. This is the reality and the problem we have to try to solve. We cannot solve the problem by means of the methods the official Opposition wants to apply. I find it remarkable that the hon. member for Houghton does not solve problems for us but creates problems for us. It is remarkable that her presence in Cape Town during the first six months of every year leads to trouble here. I maintain that her presence here has something to do with this. In this connection she has selected the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens as her daddy. He does not have much courage while she is away, but when she is here the sparks begin to fly in the Cape. Then the protest marches, the sit-in strikes and the other problems begin in the Cape.

Hon. members of the CP are not helping us find solutions to the problems either. At some stage or other they stopped short and are no longer living in the real world. The reality is that at present we are experiencing the worst drought this century. For economic reasons and because people are seeking work, they are moving to the cities. This situation is making our task far more difficult. In the same way as the Afrikaners were forced to stream to the cities during the 1933 depression, the Black people are streaming to the cities during this recession and drought which is worse than the 1933 drought. The hon. the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are doing everything in their power to try to provide employment opportunities for Black people in the rural areas. They have said that this is the top priority. We are trying to desentralize and to encourage development in the rural areas. However, I want to mention that factors such as this drought will have an adverse effect on these things and we should therefore not cast stones at each other or make accusations against each other regarding the influx of Black people to the cities. What should, however, be the ideal? Today our main problem is that the largest number, namely over 60% of the urban Blacks, are settled in the metropolitan areas. Hon. members know what I am talking about. This is causing many difficulties at the present time. We know about the water shortage. We know that we cannot afford to speed up urbanization in the four growth-points owing to the circumstances prevailing at present. We have to discourage this and it is not easy to apply methods to discourage it. The Government is doing everything in its power to decentralize the distribution of welfare and prosperity. We must not politicize this matter. We have to do everything in our power to assist the hon. the Minister in carrying out the difficult task he has. It is not an easy task. This excessive influx will have adverse effects not only on the Whites, but also on Black people already living in the metropolitan areas. It is going to cause them untold misery. After all, it is not possible to say that one will use any means to stop these people. It is as difficult to stop these people from streaming to the cities as it is to eat soup with a fork. What we have to try to do is to bring about maximum development in the national States. We have to bring about maximum development so that the people living there can find employment there. Then they will have no desire to come to the White cities.

It is taking me a long time to get to the subject I elected to speak on. I now want to tell the hon. members of the CP that we have already introduced auxiliary measures. On 10 February the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs introduced measures in connection with drought conditions which have had an oppressive effect on the White residents of the rural areas so that Black people could also be assisted. In this regard the Cabinet has approved R20 million being spent on these people in order to assist them in this emergency situation, namely to provide water, to create temporary employment, to feed livestock and to assist the farmers there financially. This is really a commendable step by our Cabinet to assist these people in their distress and in this way to restrict the influx of Black people to the urban areas. The popular cry of hon. members of the CP to the voters is that the NP is doing everything for the Blacks. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid made a very informative speech and it was a pleasure to listen to him.

When one reviews the activities of the Department of Co-operation and Development, one realizes the tremendous range of their activities. Then one is also grateful for the tremendous successes already achieved in the long way it has come. When one listens to the hon. members of the Opposition, one is a little surprised that the hon. members of the PFP, Uke the hon. members of the CP, so frequently don the cloak of a Rip van Winkle of old and lose contact entirely with the realities we are faced with today. This is a pity, because we actually need everyone’s assistance in this task of keeping race relations in South Africa sound, improving great and neverending and strengthening them in the interests of all the people of South Africa. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Houghton completely absolve the private sector of any obligation to make a contribution to the housing of our people, particularly the housing of our Black people.

In an orderly country like South Africa the task of the official Opposition party cannot be narrowed down that easily to mere criticism. In an orderly State like South Africa the official Opposition should also make a contribution. Whether it is the CP or the PFP, and whether they are united in opposing the attempts of the Government, makes no difference; their first duty always remains to make a contribution. [Interjections.]

On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, I actually wanted to refer to the Eastern Cape and the people in that area. However, it is also a fact that when one refers to the Eastern Cape, one cannot do so in isolation from the rest of the country. After all, there are world trends which affect the Eastern Cape as much as any other part of the world. However, the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the world are major successful attempts being made to fight a losing battle against inflation, recession and unemployment, and their dire results. If we consider the Eastern Cape, and South Africa in general, it is of course also true, as the hon. member for Vryheid rightly pointed out, that the southern hemisphere is actually locked in a battle for survival, particularly as we are also experiencing a terrible drought. All this makes one realize how vast our problems in the Eastern Cape also are, considering the dire results of the world recession, world inflation, and a world-wide trend towards unemployment and a shortage of housing.

On the other hand, we must also take this opportunity to epxress our eternal gratitude to the Government, which has adopted such clear and strong measures in order, particularly as far as labour and housing are concerned, to render assistance to the Eastern Cape. In the limited time at my disposal I unfortunately cannot elaborate on this. However, I want to point out a few of these aspects.

In the first place, I want to refer to the unique concessions that have been granted to our industries there in connection with transport costs, electricity, training costs and so on. I also want to refer to the ambitious attempt there regarding the decentralization of Area D. When this is in full swing, we know it will not only mean development, but will also lead to the provision of work for thousands upon thousands of unemployed Blacks.

I also want to refer to the extensive drought assistance which is only assisting the White rural farmers, but has also led to many Black labourers being able to remain on the farms to work, to do their duty there and to render services. I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that the Government has seen fit to appoint Mr. Louis Rive to undertake an evaluation of our problems in the Eastern Cape. We are grateful that this is being done, and we also know that in the near future, after the Cabinet has considered this, it will publish the White Paper. This could make a major contribution to improving the standard of living of our Black people in that area as well. We are also grateful for the fact that Motherwell has eventually been purchased and that a large Black residential area is being planned there. When that residential area is eventually completed, Black people will be able to live there in an orderly manner.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I also want to refer to the important and ambitious task being performed by the Eastern Cape Administration Board under extremely difficult circumstances caused by the trends I have already referred to. In spite of these difficult financial circumstances, the Eastern Cape Administration Board has in the first place succeeded in budgeting for a capital programme for the 1983-’84 financial year of almost R73 million; a larger sum than any previous budget of that Administration Board.

I also want to refer to the establishment of an information and employment centre in every town in the Eastern Cape; an important institution, which is aimed at determining, during the evaluation of the workseeker, what work he is suited to and in which direction his interests lie, so that he can eventually be given the work to which he is best suited and with which he will be able to achieve most success.

I also want to refer to the Association of Community Councils which was established by fifty Eastern Cape Community Councils on their own initiative and with the encouragement of the Administration Board. This association was formally established by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development on 21 October 1982. One foresees that in the days ahead this association could make a major contribution to identifying problems and finding solutions which will also contribute to an improvement in the standard of living of the Black people in those towns and cities.

I also want to refer to the wonderful cooperation which exists between the University of Port Elizabeth and the Administration Board. The co-operation has been of such a nature that, in consultation with Senvo and lecturers of UPE, 165 officials and council members of the Community Councils have been able to attend courses and 66 White officials and 46 Black officials have already completed courses in public administration. This is an important milestone if one considers what a lack there is throughout the world and even in the old recognized Western States of officials with knowledge and training in the field of public administration. Our Administration Board has succeeded in training 112 people properly to continue with their very important task to the benefit of all the Black people in that area.

Finally, I want to refer to the wonderful self-help building scheme developed in the Eastern Cape. I am referring to the Zenzele scheme which initially developed slowly until the Administration Board itself built a few houses so that the Black people could see how the work was done and what the houses looked like. The result is that the houses built in this self-help scheme compare very favourably with residences built according to conventional methods using bricks, etc. In addition, in this scheme components of the traditional Black culture, in respect of building styles have been retained. This, therefore, suits the Black man. It is also neat and serviceable, and this self-help scheme is actually the only real solution to the unending shortage of housing for Blacks. One also wants to take this opportunity of paying tribute to all the Administration Boards for the major efforts they have made throughout South Africa from Klerksdorp to Steilloop, from Steilloop to Christiana and from Onverwacht to Kimberley to get self-help schemes off the ground in order to overcome the housing problem in South Africa. We pay tribute to them and tell them that we in the Eastern Cape are proud of our Administration Board which has not only done so much for the welfare and ordering of our South African communities outside the national States, but is also struggling day after day to serve these people that have been entrusted to it to the best of its ability and to see to it that Community Councils are established which in due course can play an important part in local government.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park will forgive me if I do not comment on the matters he raised. He made an interesting contribution to this debate. The matters that he raised dealt mainly with the Eastern Province, while I want to speak about other matters.

Two matters which I wish to raise initially with the hon. the Minister concern answers which he has given to questions in the House recently. The first is in respect of an answer he gave to my hon. colleague the member for Houghton on 23 February when he said that the formula for determining the number of Black domestic servants permitted to reside on flat premises was being reconsidered. I hope he will advise the Committee whether he has attended to this matter and what his decision has been. It seems quite crazy that people who buy flats under sectional title legislation are not permitted to house their servants in the room they purchased with their flat or apartment. I trust the hon. the Minister will consider abolishing the restriction on such domestics altogether.

The second query relates to an answer he gave to a question of mine on 27 May 1983 when he said that the bonus of R22 a month to Black old-aged pensioners would be made in July 1983. When the hon. the Minister of Finance presented his budget speech on 30 March 1983 he announced that the bonus would be paid in May. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain why there has been this delay of two months. If it is because of the large number of beneficiaries involved that it was not possible to issue the bonus payments earlier, I should like to know why this was not taken into account when the hon. the Minister made his original announcement.

It is my intention during the remaining time at my disposal to highlight certain matters relating to the townships which fall under the control of the East Rand Administration Board. The East Rand is a rapidly growing urban area and the affairs of the Administration Board there have received little attention, particularly from those hon. members of the House who represent constituencies in that area, and here I must include the hon. member for Primrose! My special interest in the East Rand is that I have been appointed by my party to keep an eye on the development in this area. I also have a special interest in and a knowledge of the area having lived there for 40 years. In order to bring myself up to date I asked a number of questions of the hon. the Minister recently. It is also my intention to spend some time during the recess visiting the townships, improving my knowledge of the problems that the Black residents of the East Rand have.

With regard to the answers given by the hon. the Minister to my questions it is worth noting that there are almost 700 000 legal residents in the 13 townships on the East Rand. If that is the official figure there must certainly be almost 1 million people living there because we know that a great number of people who are regarded as illegal by the present Government also live there but do not make the authorities aware of their presence. It is my intention, however, to discuss the East Rand situation against the background of the official figures. The answers reveal an increase of almost 6% in population in one year, which in itself is a staggering figure, particularly if one examines the answers relating to housing. 677 000 people, almost half of whom are children, live in 79 000 houses. It means an average therefore of almost nine persons per dwelling unit. This is another staggering figure.

A further mind-boggling statistic is that the East Rand Administration Board built only 1 508 housing units in 1982. This represents an increase over the previous year of only 1,9% while the population grew by 6%. One would therefore imagine that it is the intention of the board to do something about the situation. But what do the answers to my questions reveal? In six out of the 13 townships under its control the East Rand Administration Board has no housing schemes for development at all. In the other seven townships only 504 units are being built and 1 220 site-and-service stands are being provided. This is simply not good enough, and I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister is going to explain to us what his intention is in this regard. I must say in passing that one can say thank goodness for organizations like the Urban Foundation, who are providing a great deal of housing, particularly in places like Katlehong. I have mentioned that almost half of the Black population in the area of the East Rand Administration Board are children. The actual figure is almost 309 000. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies, he will indicate what forward planning he has initiated in order to provide these people with housing when they grow up.

A final statistic from the questions that I have asked over the last few weeks reveals that almost 60 000 persons were tried for and convicted of offences relating to influx control and identity documents by the commissioners’ courts under the jurisdiction of the East Rand Administration Board during 1982. This represents almost 10% of the settled population and is a disturbingly high figure. Why people have to be hounded and made criminals of in this manner, escapes me.

Now I wish to turn to another matter, and that is the demolition of shacks, particularly in Katlehong. Mr. Marx, Chief Director of the East Rand Administration Board, was recently quoted in an interview with The Star as saying that about 1 000 shacks had already been demolished and that they would continue to demolish them. Why demolish the shacks when there is an obvious housing shortage? In fact, this shortage is so serious that the Department of Education and Training persuaded the board not to demolish shacks in Katlehong, because the teachers have nowhere else to live. Apparently more than 120 of the township’s teachers live as sub-tenants in shacks in Katlehong. The figure is expected to rise to 250 next year. What an absurd situation when one department of State pleads with another not to knock down the houses of employees. What it should have been doing, was to demand what steps have been taken to provide adequate shelter for these people. Another incident in Katlehong involved the Transkei Government, when they too pleaded with the board not to demolish the shacks belonging to their citizens. The Mutual and Allied Workers’ Union has indicated that employers will be approached to ask them to intervene in an attempt to stop the demolitions. According to another report in The Star on 23 November 1982, there were more shacks than houses in Katlehong. There are 17 600 houses in this township while a survey conducted by the board itself towards the end of last year showed that there were almost 35 000 shacks in this township. It is quite clear that the board is not able to meet the requirements of the official population. One wonders then how they will ever cope with the actual population.

Of course, this raises a number of questions relating to the housing situation in these townships. For instance, one wonders how policy is formulated and who makes the decisions. Is it the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the chairman of the board or the officials? Who decides to pull down the shacks? Who actually gives the instruction? Is it the hon. the Minister or some official, and if so, what is the procedure? What is evident, is that the decisions appear to be arbitrary and they show the tremendous control that officials have over the lives of millions of Black citizens. I trust the hon. the Minister will explain in his reply and tell us whether it is more important to have a neat housing policy or to provide shelter and educational opportunities for the Black people on the East Rand.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North based his speech, firstly, on the questions he put to the hon. the Minister and the replies to those questions. Then he also busied himself telling the House of his investigations in regard to the East Rand Administration Board area. I commend the hon. member for keeping himself abreast of matters. It is, however, important—I do not expect the impossible from the hon. member, who has not been in the House for any length of time yet—if one is bringing oneself up to date on the problems that exist, that one should also attempt to suggest solutions. I would, of course, be the first to acknowledge that there is definitely a great housing problem. There is no doubt about that. That hon. member, however, takes exception to shacks being demolished. What would happen if those knock-up shelters were not demolished? Must we be saddled with the problem of a group of people squatting there and causing problems to the people living there legally?

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. That hon. member is probably one of the most senior hon. members in the House. She presented, for our consideration, problems we are fully aware of. She told us that the provision of accommodation was not the private sector’s responsibility, but rather this Government’s responsibility. It is easy enough to say that, but the hon. member did not get round to the solution of this problem.

I have been telling you for 30 years, and you have not been listening.

I think that the hon. member and other hon. members of her party, as responsible members of the official Opposition, owe it to this Committee to come to light with a workable solution to this problem.

I shall tell you once more tomorrow.

They must not simply say that the Government must supply this accommodation. We are faced here with a tremendously difficult problem. There is no doubt about that at all.

I just want to mention a few statistics from the 1980 census in order to highlight this problem. In the 1980 census the count was 16,9 million Black people. That is excluding Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. Of this total, 59,8% or 10,1 million are living in the White area. Of those 10,1 million there are no fewer than 5,3 million or 52,6% in the urban areas. Over and against that we find, in the 1983-’84 estimates, an amount of R117 million for housing. It would be very easy for hon. members of the Opposition to say: Double the figure, treble it, quadruple it. Where, however, does the money come from? If we were to treble or quadruple it, that money must be found somewhere. Do those hon. members want to tell me that we should simply increase taxation so as to obtain that money? Do they want us to do that? It is easy enough simply to say that we must make more accommodation available.

I want to go further. According to the annual report we are now discussing, the report covering the period 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982, the South African Development Trust has spent R56,7 million on township development in the national States. If one bears in mind that a house costs approximately R5 000 and that there is also an increase in building costs of approximately 2% per month, the problem is increasingly magnified, something we are fully aware of. Maintenance and administration necessitated R9,8 million in the period under discussion. So the problem is there, and what would be the ideal situation? The ideal situation would of course, be to have a happy worker in a convenient house in pleasant surroundings. The ideal would also be for such a worker to own something, in this case a house of his own which he would want to protect. That is the ideal, not only for the Black people, but also for the Whites. For the Whites too, however, that ideal has not yet been achieved, and I doubt whether it will ever be achievable. It remains a tremendous challenge.

One fact is as plain as pikestaff, and that is that the State alone cannot solve that problem. No matter what one does, to think that the State alone must do this is an ideal that is way beyond our reach. This is a joint task involving the Government, the employer and the employee. This does not only apply to the Black people or the Coloureds. Throughout the years it has applied equally to the Whites, and that will continue to be the case in the future. The Black employee also has a responsibility, and in the light of the fact that his total annual income is growing, that Black employee is also in an increasingly better position to assume his share of the responsibility for this. The approach must be to help a person to subsequently help himself. That is the approach. In order to achieve this, what is necessary is once again a contribution from the employee himself, but also a contribution from the employer, the private sector, the local authorities and, of course, the State. That the housing problems in some areas are particularly pressing, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has indicated, I am not disputing, because it is the truth. It simply cannot, however, be solved by way of State financed, fully completed, ready-for-occupation housing projects. The necessary finance is simply not available, and that is something we simply have to accept.

The State’s financial contribution must therefore be employed in such a way that optimum results are obtained and that the private sector’s entry into the housing field is facilitated. The State simply cannot pay for it all. It seems to me that the State must supply the infrastructure, whilst the individual, from his own resources, or with the help of the private sector and in accordance with free-market principles, provides the top structure. If we were to do this, we would at least be in a position, in the course of time, to combat the problem to a certain extent.

Apart from the lack of the necessary funds to provide for housing needs, there are also various other problems, a few which I want to refer to. The first problem I want to deal with, involves the fact that the majority of Black people do not yet fully understand the concept of proprietary right. Historically, over decades, they have only set store by rights of use and not proprietary rights as such. The result is that the urban Black man has not become familiar with home ownership and the financial benefits of increasing values. Together with the fact that we must inform them about the value of, and benefits involved in, personal ownership, we will also have to look at the present subsidy system.

The present subsidy system is more expensive than the leasehold system, because the leasehold system involves the Black man in a considerable deposit, and besides that, approximately R8 per month more than the subsidy system would cost him. Naturally, if he does not realize the value of fixed property, he would prefer to continue renting the building rather than owning it personally.

There is an imbalance between the incomes of Black families and the percentage spent on accommodation. From specific market research it appears that households with an income of more than R8 000 per year, spend only 5,2% of their income on accommodation, as against 17,8% by households with an income of less than R1 000 per year. The subsidy system therefore needs to be investigated. In my view one should move from the subsidizing of the house to the subsidizing of the individual concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Virginia has spoken. I think he did a thorough job in dealing with the criticism levelled at the East Rand Administration Board.

This evening I want to confine myself to the conversion of Administration Boards into development boards. In the past, Administration Boards have played an indispensable role in the country’s administration and have made a particular contribution to creating peace and tranquillity in the Black communities. [Interjections.] In the future these boards will still have an important role to play, though as development boards and no longer administration boards. Whereas the emphasis has fallen on administration up to now, there is now a shift of emphasis towards development, as embodied in the Black Communities Development Bill.

In the whole process of change, which is imminent, there is not only room to accommodate Black local authorities and Administration Boards, but each has an extremely important role to play in the interests of progress and the development of Black communities and the improvement of their living conditions. An Administration Board will therefore have a threefold role to play, i.e. that of local government, that of accommodation and development, and an agency role. I should like to dwell for a moment on the role of local government.

Up to and including the granting of fully-fledge local authority status, Administration Boards have an important and comprehensive responsibility to prepare local authorities, inform them, educate them and motivate them in regard to the duties and responsibilities embodied in their functions. In regard to certain functions they carry out at present, Administration Boards will lead local authorities, with dedicated guidance, through the whole process of decision-making to full and vital independence. This assistance will take the form of so-called creative withdrawal, i.e. assistance up to the point of independence. In cases where a local authority is not vested or entrusted with all the necessary rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations, such functions will be carried out by the Administration Board in consultation with the relevant local authority. There is no though whatsoever of establishing two parallel organizations covering the same functions, the essential aspect being mutual assistance and co-operation, i.e. assisting Black communities with those functions which the communities concerned are unable to carry out themselves in the best interests of the community. An Administration Board will also be empowered to act, within its development area, on behalf of a local authority when it comes to any of the activities or functions enumerated in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, and to do so on the basis of agreements that can be concluded. In regard to each town in its development area, though outside the local authority area, an Administration Board will also be vested and entrusted with all the rights, powers, duties and obligations of a city council in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. In this regard consultation with the local committees which are to be established will also be the watch-word.

From the above it is clear that Administration Boards will play an essential role in the promotion of local government for Blacks outside the national States. The accommodation and development role that will be played by these boards will make it possible for an Administration Board, with the approval of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to obtain land within its development area, but outside a local authority area, with the object of establishing a township or hostel for the promotion of specific undertakings or projects.

For the purposes of carrying out the above-mentioned functions, in terms of the implementation of the Housing Act of 1966 an Administration Board will be regarded as being a local authority. An Administration Board will consequently be in a position to carry out certain important functions. An Administration Board will be able to develop a township and will also be able to undertake housing schemes. It will be able to erect buildings, provide services and facilities, or have them provided, lay out streets and make public places available. It will also be able to provide facilities for the erection of residential homes and other buildings, i.e. water, drainage, sanitary services, lighting, recreational facilities, etc. It will also be in a position to allow or empower certain persons, employers, associations or township developers to obtain an interest in land in a development area for the erection of houses or other buildings. It will be able to sell, lease, exchange or donate any land belonging to it. Within a development area it will be able to initiate, plan, establish, implement and co-ordinate undertakings and projects for the promotion of the interests, the development and upgrading of Black communities in the economic, social or cultural spheres, or in the sphere of self-government, at local authority level, including the training of staff of any such authority, or grant financial or any other assistance in that regard and co-operate with any local authority, body or any regional welfare board or welfare organization in regard to such undertakings and projects. It will have the right of occupation of a residential dwelling or building or premises in a township or hostel area and can dispose of it, and can advance money or provide building material, on credit, for the erection of houses or other buildings.

As is the case at present, in future an Administration Board will also have, in its development area, an important role to play as an agent of Government Departments or other legally instituted bodies. An Administration Board will also, in its development area, be vested and entrusted with all the rights, powers, functions and duties of an urban local authority in terms of the Black Services Levy Act, 1952; of a local authority in terms of the Sorghum Beer Act, 1962; of an urban local authority in terms of section 100bis of the Liquor Act, 1928; and as far as Blacks alone are concerned, of a local government body or a Commissioner in terms of such Acts as may be promulgated by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development from time to time.

To sum up, it is clear that Administration Boards will be playing an important role in the future and will be exercising functions covering a wide spectrum. The non-beneficial functions that boards carry out on behalf of principal at present, are a cause for concern, but one trusts that where practical boards will be purged of such functions and will solely devote themselves to those functions so essential to happy, satisfied and prosperous communities. Seen in the light of the numerous functions that boards carry out on an agency basis, and also other possible functions with which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development can entrust them, the question that arises is whether the Government should not think along the lines of taking over the remuneration burden of Administration Board officials relating to certain functions.

I just want to conclude by saying, in regard to the concern that Administration Boards have displayed, particularly the officials connected with these boards, that I have pointed out that these boards still have a big role to play in the years ahead and that they can make a great contribution to peace and prosperity in this country in which we are living.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville must pardon me for not commenting on the futuristic vision which he gave us here this evening in connection with Administration Boards. I want to confine myself to a subject which affects Northern Transvalers very, very closely, and that is the problem surrounding the consolidation of the homelands and the Black national States.

With the shocking announcement today that 262 000 ha of South African land is to be alienated from its owners and ultimately transferred to an independent national State, Bophuthatswana, a question mark is placed against every farmer’s land tenure rights. This creates a precedent, a dangerous precedent. On the grounds of what principle are we now going to refuse similar transfers of land to other independent national States? [Interjections.] This creates a problem in the Transvaal in particular where we have experienced an erosion of White agricultural land over the years which we found alarming. In my constituency for example there are farmers who have had to move from their land three times, and this process is still continuing on an alarming scale. Apart from today’s announcement, I read in The Citizen on Friday, 3 June, the following report pertaining to the Bronkhorstspruit region, under the headline “Claims of drastic changes in kwaNdebele”—

This is a story which all of us in the Northern Transvaal are very familiar with. [Interjections.] Those people from Bronkhorstspruit need only come and ask us what happened to our farmers there. [Interjections.] So we are already familiar with this story, Mr. Chairman. Today the boundary runs along here, and tomorrow the Government has moved it. This happens repeatedly, unceasingly. [Interjections.] With the new point of departure of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development that he is no longer going to move any more poorly situated Black areas, red warning lights must be flashed for every White farmer whose land is situated between these areas. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he is acting in an irresponsible way with the land of our farmers. I want to state categorically that the voters of South Africa, and particularly our farmers, can no longer rely on the word of that hon. Minister. [Interjections.] In the Northern Transvaal there are scores of examples of this, of undertakings given by the hon. the Minister and by the Government which were subsequently changed. [Interjections.]

In 1979 the hon. the Prime Minister announced that the process of consolidation was going to be accelerated and disposed of a soon as possible. This is already four years later. In November 1981 for example the hon. the Minister no longer saw his way clear to moving the Matoks and Ramagoep areas, and the compensatory land that had already been purchased and from which White farmers had indeed been forced to move, had to be declared White area again. Now, some of those farms which were to have been declared White areas according to the hon. the Minister’s promises are no longer going to be declared such areas. For example there is Palmietfontein, and Dikgale. Then, too, I want to know what became of Block 24, for which compensatory land was purchased ten years ago. To this very day the farmers of the Northern Transvaal still do not know whether that area is going to be declared White. [Interjections.]

Earlier this year we witnessed the astonishing vacillation of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs over the Sentimula and Kutama regions, with the legislation on the extension of the boundaries of Venda. What did the hon. the Minister himself do last year in regard to this matter? He allowed the hon. the Minister of Manpower, for the sake of a little political advantage, to make the final announcement on the consolidation of Venda himself. That was on 7 July 1982, while according to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, the Cabinet only scrutinized the final plans on 19 July. What was the explanation given by the Deputy Minister for this contretemps when the hon. member for Lichtenburg asked him whether MPs now made announcements of that nature? The hon. the Deputy Minister said that in this case we were dealing with a very senior Minister, the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower is indeed a senior Minister; a person who also knows that area very well. That was consequently the reason which the hon. the Deputy Minister advanced. Now I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development whether that is indeed the reason, and whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower has the final say over the disposal of land of the S.A. Development Trust for leasing to farmers. We had a sworn statement from such a farmer. When he spoke to the hon. the Minister at Louis Trichardt on Easter Monday, the hon. the Minister said that he had seen to it that the areas at Vivo were declared Black areas. He added that he would make sure they remained Black areas. He also said that if anyone were to find another Minister behind his back to declare that land a White area, he would put a stop to it. Surely the other Minister to whom he was referring could only have been the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development himself. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower has greater powers than he does in regard to the declaring of White farms to be Black areas. Who has the final say over the disposal of State-owned land? Then the man who had made the sworn statement said—

I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he approves of voters being intimidated and coerced in this way with land belonging to the State. I think this is disgraceful behaviour and it is in any case contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act. [Interjections.]

While we are dealing with the consolidation of the Vivo area I should like to refer to a statement which the hon. the Minister of Manpower made at Soutpansberg during the election campaign. Here in my hand I have a manifesto of the Minister. It is entitled: “Fanie, die man van die daad”. In respect of the Vivo-Alldays area one reads here—

Hear, hear!

The hon. members can shout as much as they like, but all the farmers of Vivo think that this is absolute rubbish. They did not even vote for the hon. the Minister because they knew how many times I had been to the hon. the Deputy Minister and how many letters I had written. I want to quote from a letter which I wrote to a voter. This was in 1975, a month after I became MP. The hon. the Minister must know that the consolidation had already been disposed of in 1973. I wrote in my letter—

This is here in the Cape—

I also wrote—

Surely that is also true. It was a big mistake. The farmers said so to the Government, but they did not want to accept it.

You were sold out by Ferdi.

The hon. the Senior Minister of Manpower should at least have known that consolidation had already taken place in 1973. I want to state categorically to the hon. the Minister of Manpower that it is a blatant untruth which he told in this pamphlet, and, what is more, the farmers know it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I intend to reply only in part tonight to some remarks made by the hon. members of the CP, and then I shall deal with a few other matters tomorrow. I listened to the speeches made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg and by other hon. members this afternoon, and the suspicion which formed in my mind was confirmed after the hon. member for Pietersburg had participated in the debate. Only the other day, I visited a men’s residence, and there I saw an advertisement on the notice-board: “CP for sale for R1 000; AWB excluded”. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that he will not induce me to fight the election in the Bergs all over again; very definitely not. I am not so easily tempted; of that I can assure the hon. member.

I wish to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said this afternoon. In my time we usually held what we called the big brag on the Friday or Thursday before intervarsity. On that occasion one told one’s supporters how one was going to win the intervarsity that Saturday. Western Province may consider itself very fortunate in that the hon. member for Witbank was not in Witbank on Saturday to witness the thrashing of Western Province by the South-Eastern Transvaal.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg told us about the number of people he had removed.

Yes, a large number.

I have made some enquiries to find out how many people the hon. member actually removed. There are removals and removals, of course. The hon. member will agree with me that certain removals are easy to carry out while others are not so easy. Let me tell hon. members about the people that the hon. member removed in his time. At Kafferskraal-Rietfontein, he removed 300 families. At Rooijantjiesfontein he removed 500 families in 1976. I helped him to do so.

No, you are lying; I did it on my own. [Interjections.]

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

I withdraw it, Sir.

I assume that the hon. member was not being serious when he said that. Rooijantjiesfontein is situated in our part of the world. It was an easy removal.

Did you drive the truck?

No, I gave up a part of my constituency so that the hon. member could remove Rooijantjiesfontein. At Rietfontein, the hon. member removed 600 families in 1977. Let us take all these families together, assuming an average number of six members per family.

What about all the areas in Natal?

Let us say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg removed 100 000 people in his time. However, let us also examine the other side of the matter. He used a certain method of removing people, but we no longer use that method. The hon. member said that the reports indicate that we had not removed anyone. However, I want to say that the hon. member himself was instrumental in creating Onverwacht, near Thaba ’Nchu.

Yes.

The hon. member knows that we anticipated that the Sothos from Thaba’Nchu would have to move to Onverwacht. Approximately 25 000 people were involved.

No, there were far more. There were 66 000 people.

The number of 25 000 is on record. We now have more than 200 000 people in Onverwacht. We did not force them to get on a truck and be driven to Onverwacht. They came there of their own volition. This is the method we are using now. We are removing people on a voluntary basis. Does the hon. member mean to tell me that if we concentrate only on the so-called Black spots or poorly situated areas, these are the only removals that should take place? There is enough evidence in this connection in our neighbouring States to the north of South Africa. It has been said that the most dangerous situation which has arisen in Zimbabwe was due to the fact that the Government did not give attention to the Black people on the farms, in the rural areas. Before Onverwacht came into being, the White: non-White ration on White farms in the Free State was 1: 15. As a result of the fact that people have moved voluntarily to Onverwacht—at least 150 000 souls have moved there—we are reducing the ratio. At the moment the ratio is 1: 13. Is this not something which has been achieved? This kind of thing is not mentioned in reports in respect of removals, because the people go there voluntarily.

I want to mention a second example. During the period with regard to which the hon. member accuses us of not having done anything, 200 000 people entered kwaNdebele of their own free will. So 360 000 people moved of their own volition; we did not have to force them to move. Our methods are different. The hon. member for Lichtenburg knows that we had to change our methods. Circumstances forced us to change our methods. Therefore it is not correct to allege now that the Government is no longer prepared to remove people. [Interjections.] I have just proved that we caused 360 000 people to move. We caused them to move. They moved of their own volition. If this is not an achievement, I do not know what is. [Interjections.] Times have changed. We can no longer remove people by simply leaving them in tents in the veld. Everyone who is moved will be moved for a purpose.

Was it done for no purpose in the past?

I am not saying that it was done for no purpose in the past. There has always been a purpose. Now we have an additional purpose, however, and that is development. Removals are undertaken with a view to development.

The hon. member for Houghton suggested today that the salary of the hon. the Minister be reduced. I hope she is not going to suggest that mine be reduced too. [Interjections.] There is a serious drought in the Western Transvaal, so I really could not afford that. [Interjections.] However, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we informed her about removals, in the hon. the Minister’s office, to be specific. That afternoon she admitted that several of her facts were wrong. We explained to her, among other things, what the situation was at Driefontein. Now there is only one remark I want to make about Driefontein. She asked why we could not leave the people at Driefontein. 308 stands have been surveyed in Driefontein. 83 of those stands are below water-level. What are we to do with those people?

Let them drown, I suppose! [Interjections.]

We have to remove those people. The hon. member for Lichtenburg had the same problem at Bergville, when people had to be removed from the dam basin area. There are other cases of this nature. We had talks with the people of Driefontein the other day. We are going to help them. However, we have no alternative but to remove those people. Now, all of a sudden, the hon. member for Houghton says that we refuse to recognize ethnicity. However, the hon. member has not taken cognizance of that situation at Driefontein and the place to which they are going to be removed if they are in fact removed there. We are going to keep those people together as a group. We are going to remove them as a group. But if a Swazi wants to go to Kangwane, he can go, and if a Zulu wants to go to Babanango, he can go. We have already conducted negotiations. We have also explained the situation at Matoepestat to the hon. member. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also tried to remove people from Matoepestat in his time.

I was working on it. [Interjections.]

If we had removed or tried to remove the people from Matoepestat to Onderstepoort, which the hon. member himself designated as the place where they were to go, and where he bought the land, there would not have been a drop of water for those people to drink at Onderstepoort today. The Elands River is dry. Matoepestat is situated in Mmabatho. All I want to say is that it is easier to remove people from certain areas than from others. Tomorrow I shall discuss the method of removal and related matters.

I want to react very briefly to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I do not know where the hon. member gets his argument from that no White farmer’s farm is safe any more. [Interjections.] I think that is an unfair statement to make. [Interjections.] The approach of the hon. members of the CP with regard to the development of Black States, consolidation and related matters is in agreement with the standpoints of this side of the House. I want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that if he believes that we are not developing the Black States rapidly enough, I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, the hon. member knows that there are reasons for this. The money is not always available to do what we should like to do.

Why do you take the Cape Flats for development?

I do not want to talk about the Cape Flats now. I want to talk about the question of development. The hon. member for Pietersburg created the impression in his speech tonight that they were not in favour of consolidation.

No.

Then the hon. member must say so very explicitly. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also referred this afternoon to the 262 000 ha which we were going to add to the territory of Bophuthatswana. The hon. members did not pay attention when I made that announcement. I said that we were not simply adding land and that we were not giving land away. Everything we do in connection with consolidation is done for a purpose. If there is a purpose with regard to the consolidation of kwaNdebele, then it is concerned with the independence of kwaNdebele. If there is a purpose with regard to the consolidation of Bophuthatswana, then it concerns other aspects of constitutional development. We do not merely give land away. In order to deal with the quota situation, I need much more time. However, I just want to tell the hon. member that we are not simply going to exceed the quota in order to have the pleasure of exceeding it. We have a target and we have a purpose if we are going to exceed the quota.

What is that target and what is that purpose? Tell us.

Let me take kwaNdebele as an example. If we are going to exceed the Transvaal quota in order to make kwaNdebele independent, then I say that we can exceed the quota to do that.

What about Bophuthatswana?

If I say that we are going to exceed the quota for Bophuthatswana, then we shall exceed it for the purpose of promoting constitutional development in the form of our confederation idea. We are not simply going to give that land away. Neither South Africa nor any of the Black States can afford this. However, there is a purpose behind this whole process.

What is the purpose? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it if a man does not want to understand it. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that we had done nothing with regard to consolidation. What has happened to Ciskei? Has nothing happened in Ciskei? Has Ciskei not become independent in the meantime? [Interjections.] This kind of argument does not get us anywhere. While the basic philosophy of the CP and of the NP with regard to the Blacks is the same, we must not think that because those hon. members disagree with us about the Coloureds and the Asians, we can now drag the situation of the Blacks into a matter on which it has no bearing. We shall deal with these matters again at a later stage, but I just want to warn that we must not politicize this question of consolidation. If we made mistakes in the past, I admit that, but if we politicize this matter, we shall be placing a major obstacle in the way of the constitutional development of the Black States in South Africa, and neither of these two parties wants that at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister, not only on having brought home the true facts to the Opposition parties, but also on having recovered to such an extent that he has been able to take bis seat in this House again. We wish him a complete and speedy recovery.

Having listened to the Opposition parties, especially to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Pietersburg, I think it is necessary that we should come back to the basics in politics. One wonders why the Opposition parties are so superficial in their evaluation of the policy which the NP has consistently followed in respect of the Black peoples. Why are the policies of the Opposition parties themselves associated with boycotting, with pettiness and emotionalism? I think there are two basic reasons for this.

The first reason is that the Opposition parties do not have any vision with regard to the position in which South Africa finds itself with all its population groups in the maelstrom of international politics. The Opposition does not realize that not only the Afrikaner, but all the population groups in South Africa, are a target of a total onslaught. They refuse to recognize the fact that all the peoples and population groups of South Africa form a bulwark for Christianity against godless Marxism.

The NP is part of the onslaught.

In 1947, when the NP was not in power, and no apartheid policy was being implemented, Gen. Smuts returned from the UN and gave this view of the UN and of world politics (Hansard, Vol. 59, col0920)—

In column 10921 he says—

Listening to the hon. members of the Opposition, I want to say that the same applies to them.

You are talking just like him these days.

If the hon. members of the Opposition seriously believed that a total onslaught was being made on South Africa, they would not bedevil or ruin the NP’s policy of good relations between the various peoples. In fact, they would go further; they would support the NP’s policy.

There is a second reason why the Opposition is acting in such a negative way, and that is that their political and philosophical standpoints force them to adopt such a negative attitude.

The first question is: What is the political philosophy of the PFP which causes them to behave in such a negative way? The political liberal philosophy of the PFP has as its premise the libertas …

It is positive to react so negatively to your policy. [Interjections.]

… the freedom of the individual, which means that no provision is made for peoples. They advocate a unitary society in South Africa in which only the individual will be recognized. I must congratulate the PFP on having adhered to this standpoint so consistently through the years. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Groote Schuur on explaining the liberal philosophy of the PFP in such a clear and practical way. I want to read what he said in the Senate on 11 May 1976 (Senate Hansard, 1976, col. 2177)—

He went on to say—

A little lower down I read—

The hon. member for Groote Schuur has summed up the political policy of the PFP in a nutshell.

I now ask the hon. members of the CP what their political philosophy is. This is another radical school of thought which propounds the theory, in the name of conservatism, that the existence and aspirations of other population groups and other peoples can simply be wished away by the exclusive government of one particular people. The hon. the leader of the CP himself described the HNP in these damning terms in Zastron on 20 April 1981—

This comes from Die Volksblad of 21 April 1981. According to the hon. the leader of the CP, therefore, the HNP is radical, extremist and ridiculous. On 6 February 1983, the hon. leader associated the CP with this radical, extremist and ridiculous HNP by saying—

This was according to Rapport of 6 February 1983. The conclusion one must draw is that the CP is also radical, extremist and ridiculous. Just as in the case of the PFP, I want to congratulate the CP on having remained so true to their basic philosophy and to their kindred spirits, the HNP. This is the case to such an extent that they have taken over the electorate from the HNP and the HNP feels at ease with the CP, while the CP feels at ease with the HNP.

Diametrically opposed to these political schools of thought is the political philospy of the NP, which takes cognizance of the rights of all population groups and all peoples in South Africa and not only those of the White man, the Black man, the Coloured or the Indian. True to this philosophy of political justice since 1914, the National Party provided for the rights of the Whites in 1961. Subsequently it has provided for the rights of the Blacks in the four independent Black States. Now it is doing the same in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. It is also looking after the rights of millions of Blacks who do not live in the national States, but in the RSA. I wish to ask the hon. members of the CP why they did not object on 17 January 1956 when the NP MP for Waterberg at that time, the then Prime Minister, had the following to say (Hansard, col. 43)—

I want to conclude by saying that the NP adheres to this philosophy of justice in terms of which it governs in the interests of all. The NP will weather the political times and storms because its policy is based on this philosophy. I want to ask the CP and the PFP, since we are dealing with these very difficult and sensitive problems of relationships in South Africa, to come back to the basically correct approach of the NP.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the practical utilization of areas that are expropriated for consolidation purposes. I refer of course in particular to areas in Natal.

It would be futile to proceed with a programme of consolidation unless there is a back-up in regard to the planned development of the affected areas. This is the one lesson that should have been learnt from past experiences where productive farming units were rendered completely unproductive as a result of incorrect management.

One important aspect and one which I cannot stress strongly enough is how important it is that consideration be given to the extension of property rights to those Black people who are desirous of developing their own agricultural units in accordance with accepted agricultural practices. This system could be set up in the process of the implementation of the consolidation proposals. The one problem that would of course be experienced, is the lack of technical advice and assistance that would be available to these particular farmers. It is therefore essential that the facilities for the training of Black agricultural extension officers and agricultural technicians be created as a matter of top priority.

It is well known that agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy in the self-governing and independent States, and it will not survive as a means of providing a living for people in the rural areas unless the system of agriculture that is presently practised is brought more into line with modern farming practices and technology. The final consolidation proposals in Natal will herald a period of transition. No time could be more suitable or opportune for the launching of such a concept. In fact this concept could be put into practice with little delay if use was to be made of some of the farms in Natal which were expropriated some five to six years ago and which continue to lie idle. At the present time these farms afford an ideal means of exploitation by those in close proximity.

My final plea to the hon. the Minister is to complete the valuation and the acquisition of farms earmarked some six to 10 years ago. I note with approval in reply to a question that I put to the hon. the Minister that in area 76 consideration will be given to valuations within the very near future. I want to express the hope that the delay between valuation and final acquisition will not be of a protracted nature.

A further point that has to be borne in mind is that in the process of consolidation new border farmers are established. This brings to these farmers problems that they have not previously encountered. It is essential that in cases of this nature a spirit of good neighbourliness prevails from the start between such farmers, the relevant State and their particular neighbours. The prerequisite for this being the adequate application of law and order in these border areas. There are areas in my constituency where considerable hardship is being experienced and where many problems have to be dealt with on an international basis. This in itself is posing many problems to the farmers who reside in those particular areas. This is where the confederal concept, as indicated earlier by the hon. member for King William’s Town, would play an important role in stabilizing a situation that could so easily get out of hand, by involving the relevant authorities of each neighbouring State with the responsibility for the preservation of law and order.

I wish to turn my attention to a point that was raised by the hon. member for Carleton-ville, one which brings to mind the Natal Agricultural Union Congress last year that was attended by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wish to deal with the question of the registration of employees and employers in the agricultural sector by the Administration Boards. We had a long discourse from the hon. member for Carletonville singing the praises of the Administration Boards. It is not my intention in any way to criticize the functions of these Administration Boards in the urban areas but I want to make it quite clear that those in the farming sector see no good purpose being served whatsoever by the registration of their employees through the Administration Boards. This is costing farmers money for which they get virtually nothing in return.

Absolutely nothing.

It is interesting to note that in the last few years we have been inundated with expressions of antagonism against this system of registration. We are told—and this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister reported to the Natal Agricultural Union congress—that the contributions from the agricultural sector do not even meet the costs of administration. These registration fees are obviously lost in the morass of administration network. What an excellent opportunity this offers to free the Administration Boards of this responsibility.

As I said earlier, farmers are expected to pay levies in respect of their employees, and they get nothing in return. The allocation that was in operation in respect of in-service training has now been abolished, and the only small return that can be derived is for recreational and sporting facilities for farm schools. The Administration Boards are not involved in the improvement of living conditions on the farms. They have no effective control over the labour movement, and I would like to point out that although it was originally intended that the Administration Boards would provide facilities where employer and employee would be able to negotiate terms of employment via a bureau, this has also failed dismally.

The replies that I received to the questions that I submitted some two weeks ago bear testimony of this.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the functions of the Administration Boards in the agricultural sector mitigate against the good relations that exist between farmers and their employees; I refer particularly to good relations that have been built up over a period of many years. Finally, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that Administration Boards have inhibited the employment pattern in the rural areas, particularly over recent years—at a time too when unemployment has been rife and when many unemployed could have been absorbed with beneficial effect into the rural work force.

It is on that note, Mr. Chairman, that I would strongly recommend to the hon. the Minister and his department that the time has come for the agricultural sector to be completely freed from the shackles of Administration Boards.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River referred to two matters: Firstly, to the consolidation of areas in Natal and, secondly, to the registration of workers by Administration Boards. I believe that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will furnish him with suitable answers.

The announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance in this year’s budget speech that all taxpayers in South Africa will be taxed on the basis of the Income Tax Act—Act No. 58 of 1962—as amended, will, it is to be hoped, mean that the hackneyed, contradictory statements and stories to the effect that the respective peoples and groups will then pay more or less, will come to an end. From the left it is alleged that Blacks pay more tax than the other population groups, whereas from the right, and in particular the far right, the opposite has been alleged for years.

The fact is that the taxes paid by Whites, Coloureds and Asians on the one hand, and Blacks on the other, cannot be compared by simply comparing taxation tables. The earnings of a married White working woman are added to the taxable income of her husband, on the understanding that R1 600 can be deducted. Furthermore, the membership contributions of women in respect of provident funds, aid funds and unemployment insurance funds are deducted from their income. In contrast, Black working women pay separately on the same basis as Black men.

The tax rebates granted to Whites are the following: Child rebates, which include own children, stepchildren and legally adopted children; dependants; assurance premiums; membership contributions to provident funds, aid funds and unemployment insurance funds; compulsory current contributions to approved pension funds and current contributions to approved retirement annuity funds; and medical and dental expenses. In contrast, Blacks can only be given tax rebates for contributions to an approved pension fund, an approved retirement annuity fund and the unemployment insurance fund.

Whites, Coloureds and Asians pay income tax according to the tax rate announced annually during the budget speech in terms of Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962, as amended. Blacks, on the other hand, pay in accordance with the Taxation of Blacks Act, Act No. 92 of 1969, which came into effect on 1 May 1970. At that stage it provided for three categories of direct taxation; firstly, an annual general tax payable according to prescribed deduction tables in respect of the taxable income; secondly, the general tax consisting of a fixed amount of R2,50 per annum payable by all male adults, and, thirdly a local tax of R1 per dwelling up to a maximum of R4 per occupant per annum. The latter two categories were abolished on 1 March 1978 and 1 March 1981 respectively. With regard to the annual general tax on income, the relevant scales have been amended twice since 1970. As from 1 May 1979 the threshold of tax liability was raised from R361 to R1 201 and as from 1 May 1980, the threshold was further raised to R1 801. At the same time a marginal scale was reduced by 20%.

I want to indicate by way of examples how taxation differs from one group to another within certain income groups. Let me take the 1977 tax year. An unmarried White with an income of up to R700 pays nothing whereas a Black with an income of up to R360 pays nothing. With an income of R361 to R750 a Black person pays more, but with an income of more than R750 a White person, in turn pays more. If married without children, a White person with an income of up to R1 200 pays nothing whereas a Black person still does not pay anything with an income of up to R360. With an income of R361 to R1 400 a Black person pays more, but with an income of more than R1 400 the White person pays more. If married with one child, a White person with an income of up to R1 700 pays nothing, whereas once again the Black person with an income of up to R360 does not pay. Between the incomes of R361 and R2 250 the Black person pays more, but with an income of more than R2 250 the White person pays more. If married with two children, a White person with an income of R2 200 pays nothing, while the Black person with an income of up to R360 does not pay. With an income of R361 to R3 800 the Black person pays more, but with an income of more than R3 800 the White person pays more.

With reference to the tax year 1979 I want to give two examples. If married without children, a White person with an income of up to R1 500 pays nothing, whereas a Black person with an income of R1 200 pays nothing. With an income of R1 201 to R1 800 the Black person pays more, but with an income of more than R1 800 the White person pays more. If married with one child, a White person with an income of R2 000 pays nothing, whereas the Black person with an income of up to R1 200 also pays nothing. With an income of R1 201 to R2 750 a Black person pays more. With an income of R2 751 to R6 350 a White person pays more. But then with an income of more than R6 350 a Black person pays more.

I want to quote just two further examples in respect of the 1982 tax year which has just ended. On an income of up to R2 850 a White person pays no tax, whereas a Black person pays no tax on an income of up to R1 800. With an income of R1 801 to R3 100 a Black person pays more. From R3 101 to R16 600 a White person pays more and then again, on an income higher than R16 600 a Black person pays more. In respect of the categories married without children and married with one or more children, a Black person always pays more if his income exceeds R1 800. Up to R1 800, of course, the Black person also pays no tax.

Therefore, it is true that anyone who generalizes and makes a general allegation that a Black person pays more tax than a White person or that a White person pays more tax than a Black person, does not know what he is talking about, or is doing so on purpose to bedevil relations in this country. In the interests of everyone in this country, therefore, it is to be welcomed that a uniform tax system be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, it is ironical that the debate on the Co-operation and Development Vote, which is probably the most important vote, is the one in which the greatest amount of nonsense is heard. It is a pity that the hon. member for Pinelands is not here at the moment. A short while ago he shouted to the hon. the Deputy Minister across the floor of the House: “If you were to abolish apartheid, there would be enough money for housing.”

That is an extremely interesting statement that has been put to the test in the rest of Africa. The question is now: Has the housing situation in the rest of Africa, where there is no apartheid, really improved, or was that also simply one of those senseless statements that we have been hearing in this debate? I shall be getting round to other hon. members in due course.

Matters that have dominated this debate thus far have been Black urbanization in the case of some speakers and influx control in the case of others. The question is: What is it all about in this specific case? What are Black urbanization and influx control all about? Is that not a question we should settle for ourselves in advance or take an honest look at? Is that not a question that we shall have to quantify in the future? If we look at that aspect, we have to tell ourselves that as far as Black urbanization is concerned, the influx control that is implemented must be such as to maintain civilized norms in the country. What are civilized norms other than one’s ability to switch off the lights in the evening with the utmost confidence that one will be able to switch them on again tomorrow morning, that tomorrow morning one will again be able to turn on the bath-tap and have running water? Surely that is what civilization is all about.

In order to determine how we can approach this matter, it is necessary for us to look at the present-day situation and give a projection of the future. Only then would one be in a position to lay down guidelines for approaching this problem.

The present situation is that there are 16,9 million Black people within our borders, 10,1 million of whom are in the White area, with the remaining 6,8 million in the national States. Of the 10,1 million in the White area, 4,8 million are in the rural areas and the remaining 5,3 million in the cities. According to demographers, by the year 2020 South Africa will have a population of 68 million. If one accepts the fact that 16 million of them will be Whites, Coloureds and Indians, one arrives at a total of 52 million Black people. If, again, one looks at the distribution of Black people and accepts that there is no Black urbanization taking place, one comes up with a few strange figures. One would then find that in the national States there are 21 million people, in the independent States 14,3 million Blacks and in White South Africa 16 million Blacks in the cities and 14,7 million Blacks in the rural areas. Hon. members may ask me why I am meddling so with these statistics. The argument, however, is that the national States comprise a surface area of approximately 4,5 million ha. If one takes that surface area and the figure of 21 million people in the Black States as given, and one makes a projection based on the fact that the present situation will continue, one finds that in the year 2020 there will be three people per hectare in the national States. If one were to do the same calculation for the independent States, with a surface area of 9,4 million ha and a population of 14,7 million, one would find that there would be 1,5 people per ha.

What have I just told hon. members? Do they think one can accommodate so many people on such a small land area? Is it possible? If it is possible, on what grounds is it possible? There is only one way, and that is urbanization on a massive scale. [Interjections.] There is, however, a problem. Those hon. friends of ours sitting there …

Do not call them friends.

Pardon me, the hon. members opposite—I think it is more correct to say that—are saying, in the rural areas, that we are giving everything to the Blacks. In other words, what they are saying is that no additional money must be spent to bring about Black urbanization, because one can only bring about Black urbanization by investing massive amounts of money.

In the homeland.

It is on record that the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that in that heartland of theirs the Coloureds would have to make their own headway. In other words, what he is saying is that no money must be voted for that purpose and that they will have to buy land for themselves. That is what those hon. members are saying. I am telling hon. members now: Go to our constituencies and find out if they are telling the same stories there. There they are saying that, but here one of the hon. members said: “We advocate the concerted development of the national States.”

Of course.

We shall have to take another look at the question of the land apportioned in terms of the 1936 Act. Every Nationalist here swears by that. [Interjections.] I am talking about the 1936 legislation. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with that.

It goes even beyond 1936.

That does not matter. The fact of the matter is that in this country we have to ensure security for all of us. That is the ideal we must pursue. Hon. member could point out to me what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1952, Dr. Malan in 1942 and Gen. Hertzog in 1914, but let me say that today we have reached the stage of being able to make certain sound predictions. We must unfurl our sails to meet the storm that lies ahead. It must not be possible to say of us that our injudicious and hard-boiled attitude put Soweto to the torch. When my time comes, I must be able to say that I was prepared to face up to the new facts for the sake of the security of my children, instead of relying on the old politics that I dug up somewhere. I would rather lose votes and ensure the security of my children, but engaging in double talk and separating the milk in dairies into black milk and white milk is not what we should be doing. We shall have to persevere in telling our voters that it is senseless to propagate a political philosophy that cannot bring about peace for South Africa. In the future we shall have to adjust the overall planning of the country to fit in with the colossal sums of money needed to meet present standards of urbanization. We cannot want to implement a First World economy, a Rolls Royce economy in this country of ours. I think the time has come for us to acknowledge that the majority of people in this country live in Third World circumstances. Soweto taught us a very important lesson, if we would only be prepared to carry it through. In Soweto we have managed to survey the erven that are for sale at less than one-tenth of the price it would normally cost to do so. Has something gone wrong just because we have done this?

Absolutely nothing has gone wrong. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Heilbron. In general I have appreciation for his analysis of what is probably the predominant problem we are going to be confronted with during the next few decades.

I also wish to react for a moment to the statement by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East in connection with what the hon. member for Groote Schuur had allegedly said. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East ought to know that the policy stated by the hon. member for Groote Schuur in 1976 was PRP policy. [Interjections.] At the same time the hon. member spoke as if it were PFP policy. [Interjections.] I want to make it very clear that there is one thing which the PRP and the PFP policy have in common, and that is that we do not believe in discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. I want to make that very clear.

However, I want to go further. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East became excited here about the question of a Black Prime Minister. I just want to tell the hon. member that neither the 1976 proposals of the Government nor the present constitutional proposals statutorily contain anything which prohibits a Coloured or an Asian from being elected Prime Minister. [Interjections.] That is correct. Consequently I cannot understand why the hon. member for Bloemfontein East became so excited about the question of a Black Prime Minister.

But you people believe in one man, one vote.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East and his party believe in one man, one vote. All the Blacks, all the Coloureds and all the Indians have the franchise. [Interjections.] How many times have we not said that one man, one vote is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in the constitutional structure in which that vote has to be cast. [Interjections.] That is the heart of the matter.

I want to come back to the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. In the limited time at my disposal I want to say that the hon. the Minister is probably right to expect appreciation to be conveyed to him for the good he is doing. He has the right to expect that. There are certainly things which the hon. the Minister has done which justify appreciation. [Interjections.] At the same time the hon. the Minister must, however, not be oversensitive if it is pointed out to him where he and his department—I am not referring to the hon. the Minister personally; I am referring to the office of Minister of Co-operation and Development—went wrong in the past. He must not be touchy about that.

As regards his statement here, we took cognizance of his observations on Inanda and we look forward to studying that document. We also took cognizance of his communication in respect of Black local authorities and elections, as well as Khayelitsha. As far as Khayelitsha is concerned, I think that development could mean something positive for the Blacks in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] However, it would be a complete blunder if the hon. the Minister and his department did not pay heed to what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said here. I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister now that the compulsory removal of Blacks from Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu is going to cause major problems. There is no doubt about that at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation became very excited about this kind of situation, but if he had listened to the hon. member for False Bay, he could have asked himself why he became excited because the hon. member for False Bay merely confirmed the fears to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had referred. He was perfectly correct to point them out. One will simply have to decide for oneself who is speaking on behalf of the Government: Is it the hon. the Deputy Minister or is it the hon. member for False Bay? I think the hon. member for False Bay did the department of the hon. the Minister an injustice, because this afternoon he gave further confirmation of all the fears which exist.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the Rikhoto verdict. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is approaching the matter calmly. I want to point out to him urgently that there is no necessity for any hasty action in regard to this case. I shall be pleased if the Rikhoto verdict is properly implemented. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that this matter is so sensitive and has such important consequences that I wish to express the earnest hope that the hon. the Minister will not act over-hastily in this connection. I hope that we will be given an opportunity to deliberate calmly on this matter before the Government arrives at some hasty decision or other.

This year it will have been 70 years ago that the 1913 Act was passed. If I have time I should like to dwell on two aspects of the hon. the Minister’s departmental policy over the years. Firstly, there is the question of the constitutional process, and secondly, the question of the urbanization process.

If we look at the application of the 1913 Act, we find that quite a number of things are happening which may certainly be considered by the hon. the Minister and the NP to be positive. I am thinking here of the creation of independent States—at this stage I shall leave aside the merits of the matter—which is definitely considered by the Government to be an important bonus point, based on the 1913 Act. This has also led to the establishment of self-governing national States. In addition, there was also—this has nothing to do with the 1913 Act—the creation of Black urban local authorities.

What were the implications of that? Thousands of Black people who lost their South African citizenship! They were automatically deprived of that citizenship. No matter how much merit there may be in the establishment of independent States, it cannot compensate for the injustice that was done to those Black people in depriving them of their South African citizenship. I want to predict—I hope I shall still be here then—that the hon. the Minister and the Government will have to revise that policy of theirs, because depriving people of their citizenship against their will is something which simply cannot continue.

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

I really have very little time at my disposal and the hon. member must pardon me for not allowing him to put a question.

We are now creating a new constitution and what are we doing in that constitution? We are excluding Blacks from participation. Not only are we excluding them from participation, but in addition it is impossible to accommodate Blacks within that constitution by way of a fourth chamber. It is also impossible in terms of the 4:2:1 ratio. The hon. the Minister maintains—he said this recently—that it is wrong to allege that the Blacks have been excluded from the constitutional processes. Surely that is not the point. The point is not that they are being excluded from the constitutional processes; the point is that we are creating a constitution which can never at any stage accommodate Blacks.

I ask the hon. the Minister in all honesty: If he were in the position of a Black man permanently resident in South Africa—he and his children are here permanently; they are not going to leave—what would his reaction be if he had to live under a consitution which could not ever make provision for his participation in the political process? [Interjections.] They must please not tell me that they still believe the tale that a person and his descendants living here permanently can satisfy their political aspirations with the political possibilities created for them in the independent States. It does not work and the hon. members know it as well as I do. Then we go further. I am now talking about constitutional development. The Government refused to comply with Kangwane’s request for self-government. How is one to understand that? The allocation of land in terms of the 1913 Act and the 1936 Act definitely created a measure of security for some Blacks. However, if we take cognizance of the hundreds of thousands of Blacks who have been removed against their will …

May I put a question to the hon. member now?

I have no objection to replying to a question, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so now. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs said that the methods of removal had now changed. I am grateful that other methods are now being adopted, but I want to say that the injustice done to those hundreds of thousands of Blacks who were removed against their will—there are also Coloureds and Indians to whom this happened—will be recorded in the annals of this country as one of the blackest episodes in our history. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the start of his speech the hon. member Prof. Olivier championed the cause of the inhabitants of Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa. He championed the cause of those people and tried to create a certain climate which will have to be taken into account in the event of their having to be moved at a later stage. It is unnecessary for the hon. member to champion that cause.

The hon. member also criticized the fact that certain Blacks had lost their citizenship. In essence, this is criticism of the philosophy of the party governing the country—the philosophy that there will be national States for the Black peoples with full citizenship, a complete infrastructure and their own constitutional dispensations. There are Blacks who look forward to such citizenship with longing. The hon. the Prime Minister has appointed a Cabinet Committee to investigate the problems of urban Blacks who no longer have ties with the national States.

I should now like to come back to what the hon. member for Houghton said. She ought to be extremely flattered that so many hon. members on this side of the House pay attention to her. We on this side of the House are decent men. The hon. member for Houghton said that the function of Administration Boards was supposedly purely that of a mighty rubber stamp. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that there are rubber stamps in her own party. I shall mention an example. Two members of her party served on the Select Committee on the Toll Financing of Roads. They signed a unanimous report and concerned with it. One of those members was relatively junior member, the hon. member for Walmer, but the other was the hon. member for Berea. While they were in the caucus they listened to Mama, and because they were only rubber stamps, they had to do what she wanted them to do. I want to go further, however. There is another hon. member in that party, the hon. member for Wynberg, who has made certain allegations and statements to the Press over the past few days concerning an apparatus, an aircraft, shot down over Maputo. These are sensitive areas. The hon. member would not have asked that question, but he is the rubber stamp of that party opposite. He had to do it, and it cause him a great deal of embarrassment. That party is the rubber stamp of another power that acts against our country. We see the symptoms of it.

What power is that?

They are people outside our Parliament and possibly outside our country, too, who use those hon. members as a rubber stamp for their own purposes.

I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that the staff and officials of the administration boards stand in the front line as far as the establishment of ethnic relations is concerned. As the hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for Newton Park said, those people deserve the appreciation and support of everyone in this House, including hon. members opposite. The peace and order enjoyed by those hon. members are also largely ascribable to the work of those people. I invite that party to pay a visit to the Highveld administration board. I invite hon. members to come and pay a call on Mr. Thys Jonker, the Chief Director, and to look at the functions of his staff. Come and look at the communities they have established there. Come and look at the facilities that have been created there and the new towns that have been established. Come and look at the new town at Tutuka power station where, for the first time, there has been co-operation between the new Denmark mining groups, Escom and the Administration Board to create of a new, modern town. I invite the hon. members to come and look at the town Langverwacht. They are gems, the work of the Administration Board together with its officials and its instruments. Hon. members of the Opposition are, however, blind to those achievements. Those hon. members prefer to harp on problem areas. They seek to condone irregularities. They are fully entitled to criticize, but the people who work with the highly sensitive structures deserve our unanimous support.

The hon. member for Pietersburg accused the hon. the Minister of dealing with land belonging to farmers in an irresponsible way. This is an outrageous allegation to make. I challenge the hon. members of the CP to go and implement their policy of a Coloured homeland without affecting farmers’ lands. I challenge them to do that. The farmers will tan the hides of those hon. members if they make inroads on their land.

The hon. member speaks about kwaNdebele, but what does he know about kwaNdebele? Sir, there sits the chairman of our group; there sit the members of the commission and there sits the hon. the Minister. All of them devote their energies with great enthusiasm to dealing with these matters and trying to preserve good relations, because one cannot work with people if the attitudes are wrong. One does not speak to someone while holding a gun to his head. The commission took a great deal of trouble to listen to the people, and did so with great appreciation, patience and compassion. What the hon. member says is quite right, viz. that the proposals announced by the hon. member at Bronkhorstspruit in February differ from the proposals we presented in May. However, this is a process of negotiation. It is exactly as the hon. the Minister said in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, viz. that this is not a rigid line that has been drawn. It is a process of negotiation that continues until the final plan has been worked out. However, the hon. members of the CP also do not know that if the commission had accepted the land offered by the farmers, there would have been thousands of hectares more at the disposal of kwaNdebele than is the case at present. [Interjections.] That is the truth. During the last week alone interviews have been conducted with 46 groups and individuals; people who have been received and given an audience with great understanding and compassion. After all, we ourselves are farmers who were born on farms. Now, however, the hon. member for Pietersburg makes an allegation here which can only unsettle and disturb farmers further. If I were to quote to him that Press statement by our Chairman which preceded those interviews, the hon. member would realize what a fine attitude he created there by. In the meantime the hon. member for Pietersburg contends that the hon. the Minister is reckless. There will, of course, be people who are concerned about the fact that they have to leave their farms. We can all understand that. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg makes allegations here whereby he is bedevilling relations between people outside. This commission and the hon. the Minister have sought, with all the instruments at their disposal, to pursue the discussion with the utmost goodwill and in a spirit of mutual respect, in order to consolidate land and attempt to establish borders that will be acceptable to both the Whites and the Blacks and in order to create a State, as the hon. member for Bellville put it, that would be entitled to be proud of its own vigorous nationalism.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege to speak after the hon. member for Standerton. One always has great respect for the hon. member’s contributions in this House, and of course, great appreciation for his presentation as well. I believe that if there is one hon. member serving on that commission who is really worth his salt, it is the hon. member for Standerton. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I, too, must tackle the hon. member for Pietersburg. However, he made the statement here—to which the hon. member for Standerton also referred—that every White farmer now had to place a question-mark over his right of ownership of his farm. I now want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg to tell us in what areas the farmers now have to place a question-mark over their right of ownership in regard to the effect of the CP’s policy with regard to the Coloured and Asian homelands. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. member for Pietersburg must tell us, Mr. Chairman. He and other hon. members of his party must tell us where those proposed homelands of theirs are to be established. [Interjections.]

I now level at the hon. member for Pietersburg the accusation that they will be the cause of all the farmers in Natal and all the farmers of the Western Cape having to put a question-mark over their right of ownership of their farms. After all, that is what the homeland policy of the CP implies. [Interjections.]

This evening I should like to confine myself to the socio-economic and social accommodation of the urban Black man. The mere fact that over the years, employment opportunities have become concentrated in our metropolitan areas, where intensive economic development occurs necessarily entails that people, whether they be White, Coloured or Black, move there in order to seek a better living. However, I want to add at once that an unlimited and uncontrolled influx, particularly of Black people, to the White urban areas could result in chaos in this country. That, too, is why I have great respect for the hon. member for Pretoria West, who made the one statement in regard to a third leg which, according to him, is the cause for the people becoming urbanized. It is that they are compelled to do so due to circumstances in the rural areas themselves. Therefore, what the hon. member said to us was that people end up in urban areas because they think there is work for them there. However, when they get there, they may or may not find employment, but they will discover that they are unable to obtain accommodation, and moreover that they cannot be assimilated on a socio-economic and social basis.

Let us not try and bluff one another: The majority of the economically active Black people living in our White metropolises are there because we need them there. Therefore, simply to speak in general terms about crowding out is, of course, absolute nonsense.

Unfortunately, however, there are thousands of Black people in the metropolises and in the developed economic areas of South Africa on an absolutely free-floating basis; people who have not always been assimilated in a community in the socio-economic or social sense. Some of them are economically active, but thousands of them are not productively oriented on a firm basis. I want to say at once that in the long term there is sufficient cause for optimism that the influx of these people will either level off or decline. In the long term, of course, steps taken by the Government to promote the economic development of the Black national States, deconcentration and decentralization will yield positive results. This evening I wish to confine myself to our immediate problem in the White urban areas. It is very easy to become hysterical, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg did, but one cannot take a decision in regard to these people on an ad hoc basis. The whole problem must be properly re-evaluated. The Cabinet Committee and in particular, too, the enlarged Commission for Co-operation and Development, have taken upon themselves a tremendous task in giving this matter very serious consideration.

It is a thorny issue because—let us say this to one another—the Whites in South Africa are uneasy about the influx of Black people to White areas. The Rikhoto appeal in respect of Black migrant labour, and the finding in the case of Romani concerning the settlement of Black families, are contributing towards the restiveness among our people. It is cause for gratitude that the hon. the Minister made the statement this afternoon that the finding of the court is in conflict with the interpretation of the measure, that it is not the accepted intention of the Government that these migrant labourers should be free to enter the White areas of South Africa. It is very easy for the hon. member for Houghton to say that the people have to come. After all, it does not matter what happens in the rural areas. All the Blacks simply have to come to the cities.

They are there already.

They must simply be accommodated there, and it does not matter whether they sleep in a sack at night or whether they have a roof over their heads.

They have been here for more than 10 years.

The question is: How do we accommodate these people in an orderly and responsible way? There are various categories of people, but one has to warn that one cannot keep creating additional categories of people in urban areas. Already there are the Black people who are in the White area on a permanent basis in terms of section 10, there are the migrant labourers who are there on an annual basis and then, of course, there are the illegals, who ought not to be there. They are either part of a Black residential area that is socioeconomically regulated, or they are a loose, floating community away from the stable socio-economic community that we would like to transform them into.

This latter group of people constitutes the real problem we have to deal with. I want to say, in all piety, and with a very troubled heart, that I am convinced that at night there are more Black people than White adults in the Southern areas of Johannesburg. I say this without fear of contradiction. It is a fact. Instead of the Putco buses offloading Black people in the White residential areas to come and work, and picking them up in the evening, it is just the other way round. In the morning they come and pick them up and in the evening they drop them again. In this way these people infiltrate into, and find their homes in, the White residential areas. The immediate question one has to ask is: Why are those people there? I contend that there is no alternative housing available for these people. That is why they are seeking a place for themselves and why they come and sleep in White residential areas. The majority of the people who infiltrate in the evenings in this way are Black males. The number of Black women who come and provide their services in the normal course comprises a small minority of these people. If one goes to a café or a small shopping centre in a White residential area, one will find more Black people than White people there at any time of day. I wish to state very clearly that the mere presence of these people does not constitute crowding out. However, we have cause for grave concern. In the final two minutes at my disposal I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 26 August 1981 during the discussion of his Vote. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 94, col. 1963)—

He went on to say—

The hon. the Prime Minister also said—

He then concluded as follows—

These are very hard words on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. All we try to do in this country is at least to create a community life of its own for every people in South Africa. Of course we must say to one another that the majority of Black people in White residential areas are either domestic servants or people working in the gardens of Whites. It is those people that we must try to regulate and accommodate in some way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as other hon. members on this side and on the opposite side of the House, raised the question of influx control, and related matters. This afternoon I made a statement on the Rikhoto verdict. The question of influx control is a matter which this country has been dealing with since the earliest times, since gold and diamonds were discovered. Indeed, I wrote my doctor’s thesis at the University of Oxford on this subject. Consequently it is a subject in which I have been interested for many years. I have great appreciation for the positive contribution made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

When all is said and done, the fact of the matter is that the best influx measure is a positive one, viz. the development of the national States, a policy of decentralization and deconcentration and the creation of employment opportunities in those areas. There is no alternative to that. I do not expect any “hear, hears”, because that is not what I am working for. Let me say, however, that there is such a thing as recognition for good results produced. I have been in this House long enough—I have seen great men come and go here—to know that there has always been recognition for really good results produced. I hope that this practice will not disappear during my time in this House. Let us indulge in politics—we have every right to do so—but let us also take into consideration the dignity of this high Chamber. I want to make a plea for this to be done. Truly, I am not over-sensitive. I am described as an “affable fellow” and so on. I crack jokes, at my own expense too, and those are the jokes I enjoy most. However, the line must be drawn somewhere.

The fact of the matter is that last year and the year before last I rose in this House and stated as a fact that on one occasion 12 000 employment opportunities had been created in the Ciskei with R9 million and on another occasion 13 000 employment opportunities with R11 million. Surely this is a great achievement. It does not come out of the blue. The other day I made a statement in regard to drought assistance. What did I say? This was after long negotiations. Surely this is no easy matter; nor does the money grow on bushes. Now, while we are speaking here, 7 473 employment opportunities are being created in Lebowa, 4 076 in Gazankulu; 6 794 in kwaZulu; 1 902 in Qwaqwa; 545 in kwaNdebele and 1 360 in Kangwane. These represent 22 150 employment opportunities involving an amount of R8,15 million. Show me a place in Africa that can emulate this achievement of ours. Show me any place in the world that can do so. We are after all part of the Third World.

How many people have you forced back into those areas?

Surely these are facts. Let me mention the other facts as well. I do not want to lower the tone of the debate. I am trying, to the best of my ability, to keep it on a positive level. To those hon. members here who also tried to do that this afternoon, I convey my sincere thanks and appreciation. After all, we are not playing with dolls in this Vote, as that hon. member ought still to be doing. We are dealing with difficult and delicate matters. This should be understood.

The hon. the Prime Minister took the initiative with the Carlton and subsequently the Good Hope Conference. In my time no other Prime Minister took such an initiative. What result did this lead to? On this occasion I do not even want to talk about the envisaged development bank which has reached an advanced stage and has enormous potential. The other day we spoke about R1 500 million which is at present coming out of amounts appropriated here and which, when it is possible to establish and successfully launch the development bank, will no longer need to be appropriated. I just wish to furnish the facts now concerning the success achieved since 1 April 1982 until 31 March 1983 with our deconcentration and decentralization policy. Hon. members are aware of the incentive measures announced at the time. These were described as among the best in comparison with incentive measures elsewhere. Over that period 777 applications were approved. These are applications based on these industrial incentives. These include the expansion of existing industries in areas already decentralized. I am referring inter alia to industries that have moved out of the PWV area, the Durban-Pinetown area and Cape Town. Surely that is the answer, is it not? Furthermore there are several foreign enterprises that wish to establish themselves here. I do not have the facts now, but they are from a variety of countries. Of these 777 applications that have been approved, 207 are for self-governing States and 570 for the remainder of South Africa in those eight deconcentrated areas. They represent a capital investment of R1 460 million during a 12-month period during an economic levelling-off period. Surely this is an unprecedented achievement. If all these enterprises were to establish themselves in this country, the expected capital investment over a 12-month period during an economic levelling-off period will amount to R2 460 million. The total number of employment opportunities which would be created—if these enterprises were all to establish themselves here—is 65 342 and that over a period which, as I have said, is not a long one. Of this total 27 629 are for the self-governing national States and the remaining 37 731 for the remainder of White South Africa. The average number of employment opportunities per application amounted to 133 for the self-governing national States—this is high—and 66 for the remainder of South Africa.

I can remember well how a former hon. member for South Coast made a terrific attack on me in a debate here when I was still a backbencher. I had risen to my feet—I had only just been made a Deputy Minister—and said that I was convinced—possibly the other hon. members will be able to remember this—that it would be possible for us to establish 200 factories in the national States within the next 20 years. I can still remember the scornful laughter which rose from those benches. Not only have we succeeded in doing so, but we have done far more than a young man then envisaged in his over-eagerness perhaps and in his enthusiasm, as these facts which I have now given you very clearly demonstrate.

I come to the hon. member for Houghton. I am an honest and straightforward person. The hon. member has been sitting in this House for 20 years now, and I must say that this afternoon I really felt hurt by the personal attacks which the hon. member made on me. I now wish to take issue with her. I want to say to her straight away: “A flea can make it ten times more difficult for a lion than a lion can make it for a flea”. Consequently I do not expect to make things difficult for the hon. member. [Interjections.] The hon. member still does not grasp it. I would be pleased if hon. members could explain it to her. I take the strongest exception to any person who questions my credibility. The hon. member quoted the meaning of “credibility” to me from a dictionary. I can look it up in the dictionary myself, but I am old enough to know what credibility means. I also know what integrity is.

They are not the same.

Of course they are not the same. [Interjections.] The facts of the matter are these. A few years ago I had to appear as a witness before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and I raised the question of reflecting on an hon. member’s credibility in the House. I did so because I felt very strongly about this matter. As an honest politician I want to say this evening that a person may accuse such a politician of murder or of anything else, but if anyone questions his credibility as a politician, his head and feet are severed simultaneously. It is absolutely unfair. [Interjections.] I am being very serious now. I have mentioned examples of what happened here to predecessors of mine. I do not wish to mention any names. It is a very serious accusation if anyone implies that the credibility of an hon. member in this House should be doubted, particularly if it is a Minister and particularly if it is a person dealing with such sensitive matters as those I deal with.

I just wish to say one thing to the hon. member for Houghton and hon. members opposite. I have devoted my entire life to working with Black people and trying to understand them. I have also studied them, but I do not wish to go into that any further at the moment. It has always been a sheer pleasure for me because I thought that I was serving my country with whatever little talent I might possess—I am deeply conscious of how meagre and how poor it is—and I am very grateful for the opportunity that I have had to be able to do so. Over the years I have built up a certain credibility among the Black people in this country. There is no doubt at all about that, and I can produce the evidence to prove it. The reason why I feel so earnestly about this matter and the reason why I charge the hon. member for Hougton with this so strongly, that I can take anything in politics, but what happened here was unfair. What is really happening here? After I rose to speak this afternoon and took the initiative in this debate, the hon. member for Houghton knew of no better method than to lay her little egg, because we know a lot about her cackling in this House. This afternoon, however, she thought to lay her egg, and that was to question my credibility in this Committee on a personal level and then to go further, as she did here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Let the hon. member and I cross swords with a vengeance now. I am not satisfied with this—nor shall I be in future—and if she has no better method of advancing arguments here, then I must point out to her that I learnt in my philosophy classes many years ago that argumentum ad hominem is the poorest argument that can be used. It is only used when one has no other argument at one’s disposal.

Years ago I sat in that back bench in the corner—that is where the hon. member for Helderkruin is sitting at the moment—and then the hon. member for Houghton was also carrying on in the way she does. I subsequently rose—and I am saying this in a lighter vein—and said that all the hon. member needed was for a man to pull her over his knee and give her a devil of a spanking. [Interjections.] At the time I was compelled to withdraw that expression and to apologize. I hope it will not again be necessary for me now to withdraw it and to apologize. I shall leave the hon. member at that for the time being; tomorrow I shall deal with certain questions which she asked.

Next I wish to have a few words in general with the hon. members of the CP. I shall, God willing, reply to their questions tomorrow. [Interjections.] If I can help it, I do not wish to descend to a personal level of debating.

Are you therefore going to speak ad hominem now, as you did that day?

No, I do not wish to speak ad hominem, nor was I doing so that day. In passing, however, I must say that they definitely got hurt that day.

I have frequently thought about this and eventually concluded that there is no other sphere in which the CP is skating on such thin ice and in which its performance is so poor than in the sphere of White/Black relations in South Africa. One must remember that the interests of the country are at stake here; not only those of the CP. I am a person who moves about among Black people frequently and who tries to understand this delicate matter of relations in our country. I say that they are very delicate and on some occasions they are more delicate than on others. The CP must be very careful in this regard. The CP has the poorest track record of all the political parties in this House when it comes to the question of White/Black relations in South Africa. There is no political party which has a poorer record. The CP must remember that. When hon. members of the CP discuss this matter, I request them to be careful and to speak about it circumspectly; they must not do—I shall take issue with them on this score tomorrow—as they did this afternoon. This is something I badly wanted to say to them. They must take care that their leader does not become the bird of ill omen of South Africa.

When that hon. leader sat here, his colleagues gave him a nick-name. The hon. members of the CP must see to it that name does not turn out to be prophetic. He was called the Ayatollah. This country cannot afford a Khomeini. Hon. members must please be careful. I am speaking earnestly, and I mean what I say. They must be careful. [Interjections.]

Is it not a question of argumentum ad hominem now?

No, it is not a question of argumentum ad hominem now; it is the truth.

I come now to a matter which one speaks about with difficulty, but one which lies at the heart of the question of whether we are going to succeed or fail in South Africa in respect of peaceful development.

†That is the question of community development. Questions posed by the spectacular failures of so many development initiatives, launched particularly in the course of the first United Nations development decade, have brought about a world-wide reassessment of the state of the art of development theory. The result has been a general movement away from the more traditional approaches in which physical capital played a central role towards an approach which centres more directly on people themselves as the primary change agents in the development process. The approach based on this philosophy has become known as the community development approach. According to a United Nations document published in 1971, the term “community development” has come into international usage to denote the process by which the efforts of the people themselves are united with those of governmental authorities to improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of communities, to integrate these communities into the life of the nation and to enable them to contribute fully to national progress. This complex process is made up of two essential elements, namely the participation by the people themselves in an effort to improve their level of living with as much reliance as possible on their own initiative—in Africa this is terribly difficult—and the provision of technical and other services in ways which encourage initiative, self-help and mutual help to make these more effective.

In 1978, I as Minister of Co-operation and Development appointed a committee to investigate the relevance of and the possible approaches to community development as a development instrument in the South African context. This committee reported back to me in 1980. In consequence of the findings and the recommendations of this committee, the Department of Co-operation and Development has affirmed its acceptance of the community development philosophy as the cornerstone of healthy national growth based on the total involvement of communities in their own local, regional and national development. It pleases me to inform the Committee tonight of what has taken place in this regard. I want to give one example of a success story which is not always easy to trace, but which is there for all to see in our country. In an address at the opening of the annual session of the Gazankulu Legislative Assembly, the Chief Minister, Prof. Ntsanwisi, declared 1983-’84 as the community development year in Gazankulu. That is certainly a very significant development and is evidence of the Gazankulu Government’s real desire to work towards its own development.

*I should now like to indicate to the Committee a few of the successes in this connection. When all is said and done, this is part of what I referred to this afternoon, viz. to build this multi-layered structure in South Africa soundly and well. The then Deputy Minister, who is now Minister of Agriculture, was also present when this co-prosperity committee was established in Gazankulu. The Commissioner-General concerned was appointed chairman of the committee. Although this committee has not been functioning for a long time, I wish to refer briefly to a few successes it has achieved. An agricultural co-prosperity project involving R80 million was launched by this co-prosperity committee. One must bear in mind that this co-prosperity committee is composed of representatives of the Government of Gazankulu who include chiefs on the one hand and White farmers representing the S.A. Agricultural Union and other organizations in this region on the other. This agricultural project includes primarily cultivation as well as attendant agro-orientated industries. A new tarred road which is being constructed by the Transvaal Provincial Administration to make the above-mentioned co-prosperity project possible, will cost R5 million. I think this is an unbelievable and wonderful achievement. Then, too, there was a joint assignment to the Manpower Research Institute of the HSRC to investigate the labour problems in connection with farm labour. This report will be ready by the end of June 1983. No problems of any kind were experienced with the enquiry and everyone involved gave their full co-operation in this connection. During August 1983 a seminar, a sight-seeing tour, is being offered to 200 industrialists to introduce them to the agroorientated industrial potential of the lowveld subregion of Region E, and to market it. Hon. members can therefore see how this co-prosperity committee is geared to the so-called SADC and how this regional development in eight regions, which is the only real final answer to the proper establishment of people in this country, has been wonderfully synchronised, the one hand washing the other, and that these results have already been achieved in a relatively short time. The seminar is to be held for 200 industrialists in August this year in connection with the agroorientated industrial potential of that lowveld sub-region. I now recall the appeal which I made this afternoon, namely that major industrialists and entrepreneurs must help us to bring forth this kind of production within the national States, and I do not want to repeat what I said this afternoon. The Chief Minister of Gazankulu, Prof. Ntsanwisi, has stated repeatedly that his goal was that highly productive consolidated agricultural lands should not be neglected and would not be dealt with on a communal land tenure basis either. Furthermore, it would be welcomed by the Gazankulu Government if White farmers would continue in a normal way with their farming practices after consolidation. So I can continue to enumerate to hon. members other very interesting successes which this co-prosperity committee is achieving there. The result of that is not only development in that region; the result is not only development in Gazankulu. The result is also the establishment and the creation of employment opportunities there, not for hundreds, but for thousands of people, because if these employment opportunities are not created in this way, there is only one place where they can go and that is to the White urban areas where it costs three times more, in the Western world, to offer the necessary facilities while we are in fact caught up in this Third World and First World situation. I am merely mentioning this as an example, and I am pleased to be able to do so in this House this evening. Example is better than precept. Is it not then possible to have co-prosperity committees established throughout South Africa in all these regions? Here is the proof of what can be done in a relatively short time to address one of the biggest problems of this country effectively and bring it closer to a solution.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.