Mr. Chairman, yesterday I held out the prospect that I would deal with the one remaining major urban complex, namely the one in the Eastern Cape, today. As hon. members know, the Government requested Mr. Louis Rive last year to become involved in the Eastern Cape, just as he had done formerly in Soweto, in an attempt to improve the critical conditions under which tens of thousands of people in Black communities were living there, in accordance with our desire that everyone in Southern Africa should live in peace and quiet and under the most pleasant circumstances possible, as far as this is within our physical and financial means. I also hoped that in the process I would succeed in conveying the message that the Government is in fact engaged in an urbanization strategy which is already producing positive and good results. At the end of last year a Black Metropolitan Planning Council, under the chairmanship of Mr. Louis Rive, was appointed for the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage metropolitan area. Also serving on the council are Dr. J. Wessels, chairman of the Eastern Cape Administration Board—as vice chairman—Messrs. P. J. Tini, chairman of the Community Council of Uitenhage, W. Maku, chairman of the Community Council of Port Elizabeth, L. C. Koch, Chief Director of the Administration Board of the Eastern Cape, and G. Reynolds, Chief Commissioner of the Department of Co-operation and Development.

This Planning Council appointed a panel of experts to undertake in-depth studies and to advise the council in the various spheres. The following organizations were involved: The CSIR, the S.A. Association of Consulting Engineers, the S.A. Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Greater Algoa Planning Authority, the Port Elizabeth municipality, the Uitenhage municipality and the Eastern Cape Administration Board.

The panel co-operated closely with the two Black Community Councils, since both accept liability for the repayment of loans which may possibly have to be incurred in order to obtain the necessary finances. No decisions were taken without their prior approval.

The fruits of all this effort are embodied in a comprehensive and excellent report which is in its final stage of consideration by the Government. Permit me also, Mr. Chairman, to avail myself of this opportunity to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation of all who worked on this with so much zeal and dedication and in that way made a positive contribution. It will succeed, not only to the benefit of the people in the Black communities, but equally to the benefit of the White inhabitants and all other people in the Eastern Cape. It will also be beneficial to the entire country.

The primary objective of these efforts is to upgrade deficient infrastructures in the backward areas and to provide additional infrastructural services where these are necessary. I should like to make an appeal to the private sector, and in particular to employers in that area and surrounding areas to make their contributions to a generous extent, particularly in regard to accommodation, as soon as the basic services have been provided there. Apart from the general upgrading, the implementation of development strategies in, inter alia, the following areas: kwaDwesi, kwaMagxaki, Motherwell, the Zwide slum area, Red Location and kwaNobuhle is being envisaged.

In general the recommendations in the report are acceptable to the Government, and depending on the availability of money, a final decision will shortly be taken. The benefits which will flow from its implementation will be felt far beyond the metropolitan area itself, because it is the intention to channel the money which would in the normal course of events be appropriated for that metropolitan area to other problem areas now. Consequently the method we are adopting here is the same as the one we have already adopted so successfully elsewhere in South Africa, viz. to try to accomplish these tasks by way of loan capital, as was the case in Soweto. The following places have been identified as falling into this category: Beaufort West, Oudtshoorn, Grahamstown, King William’s Town, Queenstown, Stutterheim and Fort Beaufort. At a number of these places there are still problems which have to be eliminated, but the matter is nevertheless receiving urgent attention. In all probability upgrading activities will commence at most of these places within the next 12 months. A great deal of progress has already been made with the planning for this, and the administrative machinery for dealing with it is being brought into a state of readiness.

Negotiations are still in progress as far as Duncan Village in East London itself is concerned. I am going to address the Community Council in question on this matter soon, and I shall subsequently issue a statement in that connection.

Before I begin to reply to the questions which hon. members put to me here, I should just like to touch upon another very important matter. This is proclamation R293 of 1962, and R163 of 1974. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are at present two sets of regulations concerning towns in Black areas, on trust land in and/or adjoining the national States. These are the two aforesaid proclamations, promulgated in terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act, 1927, which is applicable in all 56 towns within the national States. Proclamation R163, promulgated by the State President in terms of section 30 of the aforesaid Act, is only applicable in two areas, Clermont, in Pinetown, and Edendale, in Pietermaritzburg. These are areas in which people other than members of Black communities only have dominium in regard to the land which falls within the jurisdiction of the two local authorities concerned.

I have already indicated that the Department of Co-operation and Development is revising and modernizing the regulations. A very strong need was felt, particularly after the passing of the Community Councils Act, 1977, and the Black Local Authorites Act, 1982, for the town councils in the national States to be converted into far more refined local government organs, which will be able to function on at least an equal level in conjunction with the local authorities which are to be established in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, and with even wider powers. Consequently I hope that the point is very clear, i.e. that in the national States we are going further in connection with this question by amending these two regulations than we are able to do in respect of Black local authorities in the White area in terms of Act No. 2 of 1982. This will entail that the existing regulations will have to be substituted, with the emphasis on bringing the regulations more into line with the structure and functioning of the more sophisticated and autonomous local authority institutions for which provision has been made in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. The powers must at least be competitive and, as I have now indicated, better in the national States. It is also the purpose to make the regulations more streamlined and to eliminate discriminatory provisions; to improve the quality of life in and the viability of the towns and to raise standards to a great extent, yet at the same time to accommodate the less well-to-do of these Black communities in the national States; to attract larger amounts of capital to those towns in the national States by inter alia attracting entrepreneurs to those places, not only for commercial facilities but also for the construction of houses and for the establishment and development of towns in the national States; to make land ownership by non-Whites possible, and to do so by way of 99-year leasehold rights which can then be granted to such outside entrepreneurs within the towns of the national States; and to make provision for the gradual handing over of the towns to the national States to be developed further by them and administered under their overall supervision as we have now done in the case of Phutaditjhaba in Qwaqwa. For this purpose it is necessary to establish a sound basis for urbanization prior to takeover. What I should like to accomplish, if possible, together with the department, is to establish urban and metropolitan areas in the national States without the characteristic slum conditions. In fact we should very much like to attempt to develop a set-up in these towns in the national States which will develop into cities in which everything will be neat and tidy, where it will be possible to accommodate people properly and happily and where they will then be granted local authority powers in order to have full autonomy over their own local authorities within the national States. It will therefore be a setup in which the people will be happy and satisfied, where it will be possible to live a satisfactory home life in the true sense of the word and where the community will be filled with pride in respect of their own environment and their own achievements. Hon. members will readily agree with me that this harmonizes very well indeed with our policy of people having a say over their own affairs. Surely it is clear that this will also lead to larger numbers of people being present in towns and cities within the national States instead of the opposite phenomenon, which I think all hon. members will agree with me ought to be counteracted.

In fact we should very much like to enable the private sector as well—I hope hon. members agree with this—to take the initiative with housing, and in other ways, within the towns of the national States and to help with the programme. What is needed for this in particular is security and consequently provision is now being made in these regulations which are being drawn up for the granting of leasehold rights to persons and bodies who are not able to obtain other forms of title. With security, building societies will then be able to make loans available for housing in the national States. I hope hon. members realize that this is a very important development which I am sketching here. This development will certainly speed up the creation of employment opportunities within the national States and for that reason it deserves our positive encouragement. The two amended sets of regulations will, if nothing untoward happens, be ready in August this year. In fact, they are already in the final stages of completion, and we are just negotiating with each of these various national States. I can only say that those with whom I have already negotiated not only welcome the regulations, but welcome them with deep gratitude and give them their full support. I also wish to mention that in the 1981-’82 financial year, an amount of R79 million was provided for township establishment within the national and independent states. In addition we are implementing community development very vigorously in the towns in the national States. I repeat that at present we are working on 59 towns in the national States. We hope that these can be developed into properly sophisticated cities within the national States.

I shall now proceed to reply to hon. members questions. In the first place I wish to reply to a few questions put by the hon. member for Houghton, with whom I crossed swords yesterday evening. I do not wish to do so again this afternoon. She raised the question of Winterveld. I want to point out that the inter-state committee of the RSA, Bophuthatswana, the CSIR and so on, has already achieved a great deal by providing 2 000 serviced premises in Shoshanguwe for non-Tswanas. There was also an upgrading of existing services in the Winterveld itself. If the hon. member would visit the area she would therefore see that apart from the approximately 27 000 kwaNdebeles who moved voluntarily from that area to kwaNdebele, this matter is receiving earnest attention from all the departments concerned and that we are finding solutions to this disturbing problem which has been with us for so many years.

Next I should like to say something about Alexandra, because she discussed it too. I have made announcements in connection with Alexandra, and I think it was very unfair of the hon. member to do what she did to me yesterday, specifically in connection with Alexandra. Personally I give a great deal of attention to Alexandra, and it is through my personal intervention and involvement that it was possible for me to make the announcement I made earlier this year. The entire planning of Alexandra has been completed. It was a huge task, as great as the one in connection with Inanda, on which I tabled a report yesterday. It takes time for the experts to draw up such a report. Work is therefore in progress with the utmost dispatch to develop the position in Alexandra to such an extent that it can become a city of which its inhabitants may be proud as the inhabitants of Soweto are becoming proud of their city. I do not want to repeat what I said previously, except that at present R10 million as loan capital is under consideration. We hope to have finality on that soon. The loan capital will soon get this planning programme, which is already there and in regard to which decisions have already been taken—it is merely a question of obtaining the necessary funds—off the ground. I remain in very close contact with Rev. Buti himself and with that council. I say again I think it is very unfair, if the hon. member has the facts at her disposal, to ruin (“verrinneweer”) me as she tried to do here yesterday, specifically in respect of Alexandra.

Did she ruin you?

She was very rude.

The first two primary schools in Alexandra were completed at a cost of R1,2 million and have already been occupied. In addition there is a secondary school under construction at a cost of R1,9 million. This will be occupied by September 1983. There is also another secondary school under construction at a cost of R2,1 million, and this is expected to be completed during March 1984.

The hon. member also raised a shindy about Driefontein, and with it, Daggakraal. A few weeks ago I dealt comprehensively in this House with the question of so-called forced removals. Consequently I refer the hon. member to the speech I made then. I do not wish to cover that ground again today. I pointed out that it was a very difficult problem; that it was a problem which was being seriously exploited. I charge the hon. member, and one or two other hon. members on that side of the House very vigorously with apparently having no concept of the complexity of the matter when it falls to one’s lot to have to move people.

Do not move them.

I want to make it very clear to the hon. member that in the case of Driefontein—I do not want to go into too much detail—we should consider what we find there. A few years ago the inhabitants of Driefontein established a lawfully elected Community Council and only last year talks were held with the Community Council in Driefontein on six occasions. More than 90 inhabitants of Driefontein also signed affidavits, which I have in my file, to the effect that they were prepared to move to the place offered, which they had inspected. The same applies to the other group. I am now stating the facts of the matter.

They were not the landowners.

The hon. member must give me a chance now. What happened then? Something which happens virtually all the time these days when we are dealing with these matters. Hon. members must remember that we are dealing here with a profoundly human problem. We have stated repeatedly that as far as it is humanly feasible, we are not going to force people to move. I can say with justification that if there had never been any movements of persons, there would not have been a single White person in South Africa. The first White people who came to South Africa, came across the ocean under extremely difficult circumstances to step ashore here. I wish to make another point, which is that there would not have been a single Black man in South Africa if people had not moved through Africa. The entire history of Africa is one of movement. The hon. member Prof. Olivier is shaking his head. I, too, know the history of Africa, Professor. [Interjections.] Let us look at the facts realistically. If the hon. member differs with me, let him make a speech and explain in what way he does so. I am now stating the historical facts. There would not have been any White people in this country if they had not upped stakes overseas and come to this country. There would have been no Black people either, if they had not upped stakes along the Gold Coast, in Sudan and elsewhere and migrated downwards to this country. Is that not true? Surely this is history. Why is the hon. member shaking his head so vigorously that I can hear it from here? [Interjections.]

We are all from the Garden of Eden originally.

This Government has to deal with this matter under extremely difficult circumstances, and in November or December last year I let the hon. members have a circular in which we had stated the rules that had specifically been laid down, rules which had to be complied with whenever this exercise was carried out. For example, it had to be development-orientated, and everything that goes with that. The hon. members of the official Opposition are kicking up such a fuss, but what could be fairer than that?

Not to move them.

We apply that as well, for example, through deliberation, through the establishment of planning committees and in all kinds of possible ways.

But what happened in Driefontein? In spite of the fact that the people there elected a Community Council and in spite of the fact that many of the members of that community voluntarily signed affidavits that they would move—I have them in my possession and the hon. member can come and inspect them—what happened then?

How many of them are landowners?

Before we and the people of the Community Council in Driefontein, which was lawfully elected, could say Jack Robinson we found that there was resistance to this move, a resistance which had its origin in Soweto at the instigation of the Black Sash and a few others which also took a hand.

Nonsense.

This is a move to better land and to better conditions than the people have at present. This is apart from the fact that a dam has to be built and that a large number of those people will have to move in any case to escape from the rising waters once the dam has been built.

Here I have the map on which everything has been indicated. I am merely singling out a few facts to give the House an indication of what is happening in South Africa. Then hon. members opposite do what they did to me yesterday—not that I care very much. As far as the R24 000 is concerned, they can do what they like. Just as long as there is peace in this country, I will be prepared to work for nothing. If one looks at this map, one sees that certain areas are outlined in black. All those areas will be under water within approximately 12 months.

What happened next was that people from Soweto went to that area, the Legal Aid Resource, and I do not know who else, with the result that the people rebelled against being moved. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and Land Affairs and I then had talks with the people there. There were clashes between the two groups. The group that had been elected said that they wanted to move and accepted the move. They accepted the authority of the Government. It was a good thing to see and it made a profound impression on everyone present there. There was also a small group that was wilful. They refused to move, and this happens time and again, not as a result of incitement by other Black people, but as a result of incitement by Whites, and this makes it absolutely impossible to do the normal and essential thing.

That this has to be done in this country, is absolutely unavoidable. A short while ago we had talks with that specific Community Council. I first had talks with the Community Council and at the same time requested that the so-called directorate of council members should also be present. Subsequently I had talks with them as well. Eventually I brought the two groups together and succeeded in getting them to reach an amicable agreement. It was decided that they would wait for a document from me. I am in the process of clearing this document with the Government. Once they have received that document the two groups will jointly appoint a planning committee.

This process has been in progress for several years now. It is absolutely impossible to allow the people to remain in that area since a dam is going to be built there in 12 months’ time.

This entire matter in regard to Driefontein has to a large extent been internationalized. The campaign against the removals is being conducted from within certain circles in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs can tell you, Sir, that the talks I had with both groups, namely with the planning council and with the directorate of council members which was opposed to removal, took place in a very pleasant spirit.

As soon as one holds talks with these people alone, it is as if there is no difficulty and we understand one another. Then we make good progress. However, as soon as they find themselves in the clutches, if I may put it that way, of certain people, the trouble begins all over again. This afternoon I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that as a result of the interference of people like that it becomes absolutely impossible to cause these matters to proceed smoothly. We are trying as far as possible to eliminate so-called “forced removals”. This is really our aim and we are trying to apply it with all the means at our disposal. As a result of the interference in this situation, however, problems arose. The hon. member for Ventersdorp is a member of the commission and understands these matters. I charge hon. members opposite and their kindred spirits directly with it being as a result of their interference that it becomes impossible to move people without having to help some of these people to move and having to find methods of doing so. I should like to place this on record. Hon. members can cackle and croak and lay eggs, but I want to say this candidly to them this afternoon. The department and the commission and I did everything in our power to deal with this matter to the best of our ability. I said in the Ciskei in the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as it was practicable and physically and humanly possible—something which is now being omitted for the sake of convenience—there would not be forced removals. I did not say that there would be no forced removals. This afternoon I want to tell those hon. members that as a result of their interference, it is not humanly possible when majorities and large numbers of people are prepared to co-operate with the Government in this process, to allow other people who are absolutely stubborn and recalcitrant, to simply continue doing what they are doing. If it is impossible to carry out a development process in a normal way, as a result of the actions of these people, we shall have no choice but to find methods to encourage those people to join other members of such communities who are prepared to move. I hope I have now given the hon. members an adequate reply. If only they would meddle less and work through us, we shall solve these problems far more easily. Why do they not work through the right channels? I have repeatedly issued invitations to the hon. members of the PFP and told them that my door was open to them day or night. Why do they not use the right channels if they have objections? There are a few people from Legal Aid Resources who are now in fact doing so. Those hon. members would do well to go and ask those people with what good consequences they are doing so. Surely there are recognized channels. Whatever those hon. members want to do with me, they must remember that I am a Minister of this State. I am trying to deal with these matters to the best of my ability. It is necessary to work through me as a channel. If this is done, many of these problems will be solved. What is, however, being done? Behind our backs, all kinds of methods are found which make it absolutely impossible to carry through these urgent processes in a peaceful and evolutionary way.

I have already replied to the speech of the hon. member for Ventersdorp. I should like to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his particular contribution as chairman of the Commission for Administration, and I also wish to thank his commission, through him, for the herculean task they are performing and for the untiring zeal and dedication which they display in respect of this extremely sensitive investigation and these tasks on which they are engaged. The House and the entire country are greatly indebted to this commission. They work overtime, almost day and night. I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for Pretoria West for the very positive and carefully considered speech which he made here yesterday.

I also wish to thank other hon. members of the commission for their speeches. I am referring here to the hon. Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, the hon. member for Pretoria North, the hon. member for Vryheid, the hon. member for Newton Park, the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Virginia. They all made exceptional contributions, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their dedication and positive contributions. I wish to say that their sacrifices are not going unnoticed. I appreciate the way in which they supported me personally—far more than I could ever put into words.

I come now to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Yesterday he said that he was responsible for the last resettlement action which took place before he really lost his head and did what he did in fact do. The facts are that more than 1 200 families have since then been resettled from Woodstock Dam, Matsulu, the Limpopo buffer area, etc. One expects a person in that hon. member’s position to at least ascertain the facts first before making such allegations. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs replied to the idea which came to a halt and lodged in the mind of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, viz. that the removal of people has now come to a halt. I also wish to add something to the good reply which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave. Here on the one hand we have the PFP, and surely the CP are witnesses to what they are doing. The PFP are accusing me and this side of the House all day long of precisely the opposite of that which the CP accuses us of doing. According to the CP no removals are taking place, while the PFP lay into me because so many removals are taking place.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us what poorly situated areas have been relocated during the past two years on land that had been purchased.

I have just mentioned the areas of Woodstock Dam, Matsulu and the Limpopo buffer area to the hon. member. There are a further two areas of which I have the details with me and I wish I can give the hon. member the names.

Woodstock Dam is not a poorly situated area. A dam is going to be built there.

I have given the hon. member the facts. There are two further areas in which removals have occurred since then and of which I shall give the hon. member the names. I do not want to take the trouble of looking for them now. I shall refer to them at a later stage. What I want to say, however, is that the hon. member is telling an infamous untruth when he says here in this House or outside that the Government has put a stop to the removal of people from poorly situated areas. The principal fact which gives the lie to this is that he must just see what those hon. members are doing. The heaviest attacks they make are precisely on this point. Surely it is flagrantly clear that Some where along the line a downright lie is being told. I admit that it is in fact a difficult process, but from a former colleague one really does expect a more fundamental understanding of the problems which are being dealt with than the hon. member attested to here yesterday. I am saying this candidly to the hon. member now.

In respect of the Small Business Development Corporation, we find precisely the same thing. From that hon. member who was a Cabinet Minister, one expects that he will know two things. Firstly, the Small Business Development Corporation is a private corporation.

Yes.

Why does he then attack me in that regard? Secondly, the fact of the matter is, and that hon. member knows it, that in Soweto and such places there are no national corporations. Nor is there an economic development corporation. Purely as a result of that fact, on what are purely sound business principles, the Small Business Development Corporation itself decided—we have no say in this—to bring their businesses in the national States to the attention of the national corporation and also to the attention of the Economic Development Corporation. Now the hon. member is laughing, but he attacks me for ostensibly not implementing the policy any more, for having ostensibly become too weak to do it, plus all the other insults which he hurled at me. In addition he also questioned my credibility. Surely this is not fair. And from a former colleague at that! I have no objection if someone attacks me on political issues, but I simply ask that the truth be adhered to and that this be done in fairness.

The hon. member also stated that the consolidation process had come to a standstill.

Yes, I said that.

Let me now give the hon. member the facts. It is almost unbelievable that a former friend and colleague, because he now differs politically and sits in those benches, could come to this House with such a flagrant statement. What are the facts? Since that hon. member left us the consolidation of Ciskei has been disposed of. 82 000 hectares of land have been added. Is that, or is that not consolidation? Does that look as if consolidation has come to a standstill? During the present session legislation will be introduced in this House to give statutory effect and parliamentary authority to that rounding-off process. Then the hon. member will probably oppose it. The hon. member maintains that consolidation has come to a standstill. Does this look like consolidation that has come to a standstill?

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

When I am finished. The hon. member has now learnt that old trick from them. I now take the second State, the case of Venda. I am doing this because we are implementing the consolidation process as quickly as possible and in order to bring it to an absolute end in this country, and we are making excellent progress. When I say this, I am accused of speaking in superlatives, and all those things, but the simple fact of the matter—and this is not my achievement as such but that of these gentlemen who work with it, myself included—is that it is a wonderful achievement which is being accomplished in this country under our very eyes. The hon. member for Lichtenburg, who worked with Black people because he was after all our Minister of Education and Training, ought to know that these are delicate issues, as I told hon. members yesterdag evening, and that they affect that most delicate of all spheres, that of Black-White relations. I addressed a word of serious warning to members of the C.P. I said that they should be careful about the statements they made.

As a further example I wish to refer now to a second State, namely Venda. The consolidation of Venda has been finalized. Nevertheless the hon. member states that consolidation has come to a standstill.

I still say it.

In that case the hon. member is talking absolute downright rubbish. Let me say this bluntly to the hon. member. Let us look at the facts. I have already referred to Ciskei. I have just been referring to Venda. At midnight on Monday, the hon. the Deputy Minister announced the consolidation of Bophuthatswana which involved 262 000 ha of land. Does that look as if consolidation has come to a standstill? Sir, if the hon. member says that in this House, what does he say outside? Let us look at kwaNdebele. If the hon. member still reads newspapers, as he used to do when he was on this side, he would know that in February I addressed one of the biggest meetings ever held in Bronkhorstspruit in order to publicize the proposals for the consolidation of kwaNdebele. An announcement in this regard will be made shortly. 188 000 ha of land are involved. I have been dealing with four States. Never since the time when the hon. member was born has a Government progressed so far that a Minister could stand up in this House and say that under the leadership of the present hon. Prime Minister, the consolidation process in regard to four States has already been finalized.

Only on paper.

Surely that is untrue. But let us go further. As far as the remaining States are concerned, we have already received the commission’s proposals for the consolidation of Lebowa. It remains for the Cabinet to decide whether it is acceptable to it, viz. the Cabinet. That will be decided shortly. The other day I held discussions in this regard with the S.A. Agricultural Union. After that we are going to proclaim the finalized consolidation of Lebowa. The same goes for Gazankulu. Except for one aspect, which I do not want to go into now, proposals in regard to Gazankulu have been submitted to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has already accepted the proposals. They can be made public shortly. As far as Qwa-qwa is concerned, the commission submitted certain proposals. Subsequently the commission was requested to re-investigate certain aspects. They have done so, and since then the Cabinet has already taken a decision in regard to Qwaqwa. Notwithstanding all these things, the hon. member stands up here and states that consolidation has come to a standstill. Two States still remain, viz. Kangwane and kwaZulu. As far as kwaZulu is concerned, I shall reply to the hon. member for Mooi River at the same time. Consolidation proposals with regard to Kangwane and kwaZulu are already before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is prepared to take a decision on them immediately. However, due to the activities of the Rumpff Commission, and in view of the discussions we have conducted on this matter with Mr. Justice Rumpff, it is at present not possible to publish the consolidation proposals concerning kwaZulu and Kangwane before we have the Rumpff report before us. We hope to have it available before the end of the year. I shall react in due course to certain other details about which the hon. member asked me.

I should just like to react further to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He charged me with supposedly speaking the same language as the Rev. Hendrickse.

Of course, yes.

But, Mr. Chairman, where on earth does the hon. member get that from?

Do not say it is not so.

But surely, Mr. Chairman, that is nowhere near the truth. I stand, absolutely and uncompromisingly, by the approach and the policy and the principles of the NP. Yesterday, however, the hon. member for Lichtenburg charged me with advocating a federation. On what grounds did he say that, Mr. Chairman?

On the grounds of what you yourself have said.

On what grounds? Mr. Chairman, I put it to the hon. member that he is not entitled to draw any such inference. I hope he now understands me very, very clearly. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member has now said something else which, unfortunately, I cannot allow to pass. He said that I did not know whether, when the new dispensation came into effect, I would still be Minister. He is now trying to create the impression that a person of colour can now become Minister of Black Affairs. He is saying that in order to upset people. How ever, what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? Surely the hon. member knows that the Cabinet will be appointed by the President. Surely he knows, too, how that President will be elected. Therefore, is it fair of the hon. member for Lichtenburg—and I ask him this bluntly—to go around with a story of that nature?

Of course it is fair.

But that is gross exploitation, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member then takes this gross exploitation of his even further. It is for that very reason that I addressed a serious warning to the hon. member for Lichtenburg yesterday. He is playing with fire. [Interjections.] The hon. member is playing with fire, Mr. Chairman. I am warning him. However, he goes even further …

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

No, man. Please just let me finish speaking first. The hon. member goes even further and asks whether a national State will still become independent after the establishment of the new dispensation. He must know, Mr. Chairman, that these are the stories that those hon. members go around telling outside this House as well. Allow me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, just to deal briefly with them.

What is the position going to be in the new dispensation, once the three Chambers of Parliament—this White House of Assembly, an Indian Chamber and a Coloured Chamber—have been established? Say for example, the other two chambers differ with this House of Assembly on the independence of, say, kwaNdebele, on the question whether that State should become independent. What happens then? Surely in terms of the constitution the procedure is very clear. As soon as the two other chambers differ with the White chamber, the matter is referred to the Select Committee in question. Say for example consensus cannot be reached in the Select Committee. Then the matter is referred to the President, who in turn may refer it back to the Select Committee, at his discretion. Say for example consensus is not achieved as to the question whether kwaNdebele must become independent or not. The Act then expressly provides that the State President may do one of two things. He may refer the matter to the President’s Council. That is the first thing he can do. Surely the hon. member for Lichtenburg knows how the President’s Council is constituted, does he not? Or must I first explain that ABC to him as well? [Interjections] The matter is then referred to the President’s Council either for recommendation, or for a decision—it is at the President’s discretion. Let us assume that the Coloured and Indian representatives sitting in the President’s Council—surely it is spelt out clearly how the President’s Council is constituted—also argue that kwaNdebele should not become independent. Surely then it is obvious that the matter will be voted on in the President’s Council. What would happen then? Can the hon. member for Lichtenburg tell me what will happen then? Can he now tell me whether kwaNdebele would still become independent or not?

Can you tell me?

Yes, of course. My goodness, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member is being unfair. [Interjections.]

Order!

After all, they say we have to wait until they come to power before they tell us what is going to happen. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the hon. member for Lichtenburg at that. However, I must say that I would really be ashamed of myself if I had been in his shoes. We must not forget that that hon. member sat with us on this side of the House, that he also served in the Cabinet together with hon. Ministers on this side of the House. Let him, then, play his own political game now. But then he must do so in an honourable way, not as he is doing now, as I have clearly indicated here this afternoon. This afternoon I have shown hon. members here, quoting chapter and verse, that what the hon. member says is not true. [Interjections.]

Order!

To proceed, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for King William’s Town for his contribution to the debate. We shall take careful note of his remarks concerning the format of information in reports, and shall accordingly try to effect considerable improvements in this regard in the future.

I shall react to this further at a later stage. However, I first just want to reply to a few of the questions put to me by other hon. members. The hon. member for Klip River spoke about the possibility of the development of a township on the farm Modderspruit. In this regard it ought to be mentioned that this matter is being investigated. Therefore, the matter will be further discussed with the hon. member at a later stage. I now wish to say to the hon. member, and at the same time make it known, that the EDC is establishing an infrastructure for industrial development at Ezakheni at an estimated cost of R14 million, R3,5 million of which is to be spent in 1984. This is important. Planning for 14 standard factories at an estimated cost of R6 million has already been carried out. Construction of 5 of the buildings has already been approved by the board of directors, and 32 propositions in respect of establishment are pending. When all the projects have been approved, the employment figure will be 2500.

The hon. member’s ideas relating to the future handling of larger Black spots in Natal is a matter we shall take further account of, and I want to say to him at this point that I have no hesitation in giving him the green light in that regard.

I had also intended to cross swords with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, but I see that the hon. member is not present at the moment. He did not apologize for not being able to be present and I therefore take it that he will be present shortly. Accordingly I shall leave the hon. member at that for the time being.

I should now like to deal with the questions asked by the hon. member for False Bay. The hon. member made a very important contribution to this debate. I want to say to the hon. member that we shall immediately investigate the acceptability of imposing a minimum fine with regard to employers who employ unlawful persons. The truth of the matter is that the maximum fine is not working in practice as a deterrent and as an influx control measure. We have tested it, and we shall have to find a different measure to serve as a sufficient deterrent. What are the facts in this regard? Employers employ illegal persons, particularly here in the Cape Peninsula, because the people turn up here. They live in the bush and they offer their services at a third, or as much as two-thirds less than is paid for the services of people who are legally present here. However one looks at it, this is unfair. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member that we must investigate this matter, and I can assure him that we are doing so.

In the second instance, the hon. member said that we must obtain the co-operation of the leaders of the national States in facilitating this process. I just wish to inform the hon. member that together with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information we have conducted discussions on this matter with the Presidents of these independent States. This is a discussion which has made very good progress and I hope that we shall be able to reach a final decision in this regard and reach agreement with one another, because if we could indeed do so, this would be a very positive contribution. Considerable progress has been made with this matter and those discussions are proving fruitful. In fact, the next discussion takes place on 9 June.

In the light of the problems we are faced with here, the hon. member also asked us to consider whether passport control ought not to be introduced here. I have discussed this matter with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the latter, in the closest consultation with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, will investigate this matter in depth, and when this has been done we shall be able to report back to the hon. member for False Bay and the caucus in this regard. I think I have now furnished the hon. member with a full reply and I thank him once again for his contribution.

I now come to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I think it is a well-known fact in this Parliament—and I say this in all honesty—that there is one reason and one reason only why I personally have no time for the hon. member. The reason is simple. One can be sure of one thing and that is that if there are good relations, whether between Afrikaner and Jew, between the Afrikaner and the English-speaking person, between White and Black, between White and Coloured or between White and Indian, and that hon. member can get his claws in and create poorer relations there and attack and undermine those good relations, then he will try to do so every time. [Interjections.] I know that the hon. members opposite think that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a terribly virtuous fellow. They also think that he is a brilliant champion of the PFP cause, and that he is making a very positive contribution for the PFP. Hon. members have already told me that.

Quite right.

Yes. There we hear it from the hon. member for Houghton. I just want to say this to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. Mr. Winston Churchill was recognized as one of the greatest parliamentarians in the Western World. As far as length of service in a parliament is concerned, there will be few people who could hold a candle to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections] The hon. the Prime Minister may be asked—he was in the Opposition for many years—and one can also read what Sir Winston Churchill wrote …

When was the hon. the Prime Minister in the Opposition?

He was in the Opposition as an organizer and in many other capacities. [Interjections.]

Order!

The point I want to make is that one can go and read what Sir Winston Churchill wrote. He wrote that when one was in Opposition, one naturally had to attack the Government, because that was one’s task. However, he also made the point very pertinently that one’s approach should be to do so in a positive manner, to make a contribution in the process of attacking, and not to act in a negative way which could lead to nothing positive, because then everything would be abortive.

The hon. member can carry on as he did once again yesterday—I shall refer to that in a moment—because he is entitled to do so. I have tried everything with that hon. member, whom I regarded as a young member. I berated him, I treated him nicely, I had him in my office, I pleaded with him, I tried anything, I asked him to come and speak to me and to bring matters to my attention, but—take note and you will see—time and again he will do exactly the opposite, as he again did yesterday.

Did you answer my letters? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member is doing exactly the same as the hon. member for Houghton did, and that is to question my credibility. He does so on the following grounds: He says that in the first place, in the case of the so-called “Cathedral squatters”, I had said that their position would be settled within three weeks, whereas it has still not been settled. He now presents this as an example whereby to call my credibility into question. What is the fact of the matter? I see the committee of the Cathedral squatters regularly, and far more often than the hon. member sees them. When I last saw them there was not a bad relationship between us. They will not tell him that I am dealing with them. What am I doing? Thus far I have looked after them until the position can be properly sorted out. I was unable to establish Khayelitsha any sooner than it is going to be established. Does the hon. member, or any other hon. member on that side, think he could perhaps have done it more quickly? I therefore object in the strongest terms to the hon. member questioning my credibility on the basis of such a statement in the Committee. However, it is something he does regularly.

The second example he tried to present was that according to him, I had announced that there would be 2 500 plots in phase 2 of Crossroads, whereas this had not happened.

But I did not say that.

Of course he said that; I have his Hansard before me.

I said 1 200 in phase 2.

Very well, let it be 1 200 then. The hon. member says that as a result of that, my credibility is in question. Surely I stated expressly in this House that in the fight of the fact that Khayelitsha is now being established, it would be absolutely stupid to proceed with phase 2 in the Crossroads setup, while one is ploughing money into that. Surely, then, to present this as evidence of my lack of credibility is not only unfair; it is malicious to the utmost degree.

I do not wish to be bad friends with the hon. member, but let me make an earnest appeal to him to refrain from making personal attacks of this nature. He must also stop the way he has of bedevilling good relations in every possible way. I say to him once again that he is not serving his party’s interests by acting in that fashion.

Let us be the judge of that.

Not only I, but many other people as well, are losing all their respect for that hon. member. Finally, I say to him that the least an hon. member can do in this House—particularly if he is a backbencher—is to obtain the facts first and to ensure that they are correct. What is more, he has a computer at his disposal. Secondly, he should at least show respect. I referred to this last night, and I wish to express it vigorously and harshly, that as far as I am concerned hon. members should rather accuse me of murder than question my word, because to question a Minister’s word and dispute his credibility is the very lowest form of parliamentary conduct. What is more, there have been hon. members who are no longer in this House because they told a lie in this House. That was fair and that was just, and I submit myself to that. If I tell a lie, I ought not to sit in this House.

Would you resign?

Order!

Therefore it is all the more utterly unfair of those two hon. members constantly to impugn the integrity of Ministers in this House, because the integrity of a Minister is of the utmost importance, certainly as far as my perception of a Minister is concerned. When hon. members impugn the credibility of a Minister, I say to them that they must refrain from doing so. Sir, I shall reply to other hon. members a little later.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister commenced his remarks this afternoon with one or two announcements relating to new regulations which are going to be introduced regarding what he termed the greater sophistication of the structure of local authorities in the national States. We will consider those regulations and we hope they will in fact bring about an improvement. The hon. the Minister also made the announcement that steps were being taken to try to encourage the private sector to invest in the national States by offering greater security. He mentioned in particular the building society industry. We would certainly welcome that. I understand that the relevant regulation is to appear in August this year. Certainly that matter has caused a great deal of concern in the building society industry in the past. They have sought greater security to enable them to play a part in these areas and we hope that the regulation will have the desired effect.

Then the hon. the Minister dealt at some length with the whole question of forced removals. I want to tell him that, having listened to him this afternoon again, we are still no clearer on what his attitude is to the question of forced removals. We want to know exactly where the hon. the Minister stands on forced removals. The indication one got this afternoon was that he was going to proceed with forcing people to move irrespective of what anybody else said.

I did not say that. Please! Go and read my speech. What you are saying is nonsense.

The hon. the Minister must not be so testy. Earlier this session, on 11 February, in the discussion of a private member’s motion the hon. the Minister said that he was on record as stating that he and the Government would do everything possible to abolish the forced removal of people “as far as is practical and possible”.

Yes.

What does the hon. the Minister mean by “as far as is practical and possible”?

Exactly what the words say.

Practical for who? Possible for who? Practical and possible for the people concerned or for the Government?

I elucidated that further this afternoon.

In the same debate the hon. the Minister went on to say that removal had to be development orientated. If it is development orientated, does he then presume it to be practical and possible? He also said he was always going to do it in consultation with the people concerned.

I will continue to do so.

With great respect, Sir, if one looks at his records in the past, one sees that he just has not done so.

You are talking nonsense.

I can quote innumerable examples. I can quote the example of Reserve No. 6 in Natal, where people were moved not in their own interests, not because the removal was development orientated, but in terms of Government ideology. I can quote the threat which hangs over the heads of the people in Reserve No. 4 in Natal at the present time, the threat that they will be forced to move. Those people have not been consulted and they do not want to be removed. Yet that threat still hangs over their heads. The hon. the Minister must deal with issues of that kind when he tries to establish his bona fides on the question of removals.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to deal with another matter. I want to react to the announcement made by the Minister yesterday afternoon on the question of the future of Inanda. I am sorry that I was not in the House yesterday, but I have read the hon. the Minister’s Hansard and I also read the Hansard of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Have you seen the report?

No. That is in fact one of the aspects I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister will know that I raised this matter during the debate last year. I raised it again earlier this year on 2 March by way of a question on the Question Paper. I want to say immediately that we on these benches and I in particular welcome the fact that the detailed report of all the consultants on the future of Inanda has at last been tabled. The hon. the Minister asked whether I had read the report, but may I ask him across the floor how he expects me to have read the report. Where is the report? Is it going to be made available to us, and when?

I only have a very expensive copy in my possession.

I know it is expensive, but it ought to be made available to hon. members of the Opposition. I would like to read it very much.

I will let the hon. member have a copy. That is why I have tabled the report.

I do hope we will have a copy made available to us.

Although the hon. the Minister has only now tabled the report of the consultants, he knows that many of the main recommendations in the report of those consultants have in fact been known for some 12 months or more. From the start the main and the underlying theme of the report has been one of urgency. They have stressed that urgent steps have to be taken in view of the situation in Inanda.

The history of Inanda is a long one and it is not unfamiliar to other urban areas in South Africa. If we look at the facts, we see that it is a history of neglect, a history of a laissez-faire policy to the housing and service needs of the Black community, a history of the resettlement of people, with inadequate regard for their living conditions and amenities. If one looks at Inanda, the history can perhaps be traced back many years to the removal of the slum area of Cato Manor in Durban during the late 1950s. The majority of the people there were moved to the new townships north of Durban, namely to Kwa Mashu and to the adjacent township of Ntuzuma. But not all the people were settled in those townships. The hon. the Minister will know that many people settled in the informal settlements in the outer area of Durban. One of those informal settlements was in the district of Inanda, north of Kwa Mashu.

Basically Inanda has formed into two parts, one part being a section falling within the kwaZulu boundary, the other part being released Area No. 33, adjacent to the boundary of kwaZulu. Generally speaking, it is an area which has been in a sort of administrative limbo for decades. Much of it was not part of kwaZulu; it was not an urban area; it was not part of White South Africa and had no local authority. It was in fact an area administered by the magistrate in Verulam. Its uncertain status meant that it became an appropriate place to live in for those people who could not get housing in the overcrowded townships in and around Durban, or for those persons who were ineligible for township housing, or those people who did not want to live in the townships or those people moving in from the impoverished rural areas of Natal. It existed as a necessity for the people concerned, but there were no services, no piped water. People relied on water from rivers and streams.

If one looks at that situation today and at Inanda as it is today, one realizes that it is a monument of neglect over a period of decades. It is a sobering thought that it took a severe outbreak of typhoid in the late 1970s—I think there were 60 cases reported in one year alone—before the various authorities really began to sit up and take notice of what in fact was happening on the outskirts of one of the largest urban areas of South Africa. So it was that in due course the Government appointed consultants to produce a plan for the future administration and development of the area. Again I want to stress that that plan has throughout lain emphasis on the need for urgency, and still does. The startling fact has emerged that on the border of the Greater Durban area there is an uncontrolled dormitory area with no adequate services, no basic health facilities, with no reticulated water, with no adequate sewerage facilities and with a present population of 200 000 people, which is expected to grow to 650 000 people within the next 20 years.

In their initial report the consultants drew attention to the need to establish a single authority to administer the area. They drew attention to the need to approve a structure plan by both the South African Government and the kwaZulu Government. They drew attention to the need to plan for Third World type housing with services such as water, sewerages and road and rail services. They also drew attention to the need to upgrade existing squatter settlements. The consultants also say in their report that the basic objective should be to provide housing for 450000 people at an average rate over 20 years. That is 22500 people annually. They say that this will require at least 3000 sites per year, or about 250 per month, to be developed. The consultants recommended a five year development programme which would involve the following costs. I think this is important and significant when one considers the hon. the Minister’s statement yesterday. The consultants recommended that in the first year the cost necessary would be R20 million; in the second year R22 million; in the third year R24 million; in the fourth year R27 million, and in the fifth year R30 million. The consultants also in their initial report used these words—

This is my concern. We are now in mid-1983. I will conclude my remarks on Inanda later. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Berea harped on the old theme of “forced removals”. I want to tell the hon. member that he has to see the problem in connection with Inanda against the background of the total problem of South Africa. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Berea, as well as other hon members of the PFP, cannot understand that we are dealing with a total socio-economic problem in connection with the Black people in South Africa. Today I want to state here that poverty is like a merry-go-round. It begins where it ends and it ends where it begins. This is the vicious and eternal circle that this Government has to systematically try to fight with everything at its disposal. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Houghton not to offer solutions here in this House as if they were final solutions. They should not present the problems as if they had the absolute solutions to them, because this is simply not true. There is no problem in South Africa for which a final solution exists, nor is there any problem in South Africa for which the PFP has the solution.

Today I want to address myself to the hon. members of the CP. I want to get it off my chest that it fills me with melancholy and sadness that those colleagues of ours, whom I consider to be my personal friends, have marred race relations here across the floor of this House with the kind of arguments we had here. Yesterday the hon. member for Lichtenburg absolutely astounded me with the things he said. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs was talking when the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the NP was giving land away. On the one hand we are giving land away while on the other hand we are not consolidating it. It is like that little tabloid they publish. I am referring in particular to the edition of 3 June. I am grateful for this little publication. I want to tell the CP: Carry on like this and put it in every post box in my constituency. From the outset I told hon. members of the CP that I was absolutely convinced that they were going the same way as the HNP. Let me refer the hon. members to page 9 of this publication. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik whether he agrees with me. In an article entitled “Blankes sal betaal” reference is made to the constitutional dispensation. The article concludes with a question: “Wie gaan daarvoor betaal?” The reply is that it will mainly be the White taxpayer. Surely that is HNP language. What is interesting is that the White taxpayer has to pay for our dispensation, which in itself is already a racistic, ridiculous and mendacious argument because tax is colour-blind. However, I wonder who is going to pay for their policy. If the Whites have to pay all the tax in South Africa, who is going to pay for the homelands for the Coloureds and Indians? I want to make an appeal to those hon. members—I know some of them are responsible people—not to bedevil relations.

I think this is the ninety-third minute I have been allocated since 1974 to be able to say a few words during the discussion of this Vote. In the time at my disposal I should like to discuss the solutions to the socioeconomic problems, particularly in the Pretoria area, as a basis for an improvement in human relations. Today I should like to tell the hon. members of the CP here that what is important to human relations is the things that are said. What is important to matters involving human relations is the things that are done. What is important to matters involving human relations is what one experiences oneself. In the final analysis the most important thing in the interests of race relations is the perception that other people have. One can say anything one likes to a person; one can do anything one likes to him and one can give him anything one wishes, but eventually it is what he sees and experiences which is of decisive importance, and it is in that spirit that the NP views race relations in South Africa. The tragedy of politics in South Africa, as far as I can see, is not that we occasionally made mistakes. The tragedy of politics in South Africa as regards this problem is that here and there our people do not intend to rectify those mistakes, and here I am referring specifically to the attitude and approach of the hon. members of the CP. Are there really people in South Africa who believe that we can assure a future for ourselves and for our children if we approach the future with tortoise power versus Black power? After all, we cannot be that ridiculous. When we consider the future, we have to analyse the problem in its entirety. About all else we as Whites in this country have to realize that we do not have much time in which to solve many of these problems, although the hon. members of the CP would seem to think that we have years in which to solve them. Instead of supporting our solutions to the problems, and this includes the attitudes that are adopted, they are bedevilling relations.

I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik: Let us consider the problems in Pretoria. I also want to say this to the hon. member for Kuruman. I respect the hon. member for Kuruman. I feel he is a person who has always seen matters as he does now. The whole of Pretoria is the result of White brains and Black hands, and vice versa. It is the result of a joint process of human ideas and human activities. It is in that spirit that we have to consider interdependence in South Africa. I do not consider it strange that people are worried. What I do, however, find most disturbing is the people in South Africa who are panicking, like the hon. members of the CP, and want to deal with human relations in a spirit of panic. Socio-economic evils such as those we find in Pretoria are, in my humble opinion, destroying human relations. Today I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give particular attention to the socio-economic problems of the Black people in the Pretoria region. Pretoria is the administrative capital of our country. As one of the representatives from Pretoria I maintain—and I say this in all modesty—that we feel we deserve something a little better. I can understand the overall problem, but for many people in the world Pretoria—wrongly—symbolizes suppression, oppression and all the things our enemies hold against us. In many respects Pretoria reflects the realities of South Africa: a Black State adjoining Pretoria; the problems of urbanization and squatting which we have in the Winterveld complex; the problem of sound relations and the problem of good neighbourliness in the midst of such problems. For that reason I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister for him and his department and the Administration Board to assist us in the Pretoria complex. I feel that we have to rectify the impression of failure which exists here and there as regards the policy of separate development. I feel that the poverty-stricken appendages we have in the Pretoria area have to be replaced and that the adjacent Black States and towns should become show pieces, rather than what we have now. I feel that we have to get the image of conflict which exists in Pretoria since the terrorist attack out of our systems, if one considers the total population of the two Black residential areas in Pretoria, namely 208 000. I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that it will not be possible now, tomorrow, or ever to resettle the Black people from those two residential areas in Pretoria. If we say that numbers are decisive, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, he should tell us what numbers he means. What numerical ratio should there be? Is it 50: 50 or is it 60: 40? What is it? I think this is a ridiculous argument. In Pretoria, as in many other places, we live with the realities. Just consider the business of the parks in Pretoria and the tremendous problem of black people living outside the Black residential areas. There are 53 000 of them. That is the latest figure given by the Administration Board. The presence of these people in the White residential areas and the sociological problems resulting from this are bedevilling race relations. Sir, it will avail us nothing to treat the symptoms. If we consider the business of the parks in the Sunnyside constituency as well, it will not help us to close the parks to the Black people who simply make use of an adjacent site. Today I want to ask in the first place that we be tolerant because we co-exist in Pretoria. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Innesdal should first clarify the matter of the parks in Pretoria which be referred to with the hon. member for Waterkloof. As far as I know the hon. member for Waterkloof has not yet adopted a standpoint in this connection. I should also like to know from the hon. member why he did not put his case, as he sees it, to the City Council of Pretoria and to Mr. Hein Kruger of the provincial council. It would seem as if the standpoints of the hon. member and of Mr. Hein Kruger are no longer the same, although they still belong to the same party.

Sir, the hon. the Minister repeatedly said we had to adhere to the truth. We are being accused here of telling lies and of bedevilling race relations. In the course of the hon. the Minister’s speech today he referred to certain removals. At the same time he referred to the objections from our side that badly situated areas were no longer being cleared up and that consolidation was no longer taking place. What were the hon. the Minister’s statements? He referred to removals at the Woodstock dam and at Matsulu, but what are the facts? The fact is that these areas are situated within national States. As such they have nothing to do with the clearing up of badly situated Black areas. In the annual report of the Minister’s department certain removals are reported, excluding badly situated Black areas, and as far as this matter is concerned, they refer to the cases mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I am the last person who would want to accuse the hon. the Minister of lacking integrity. But I do wonder why the hon. the Minister did not tell us that these removals were inside the homelands. When we say that the consolidation process is not progressing satisfactorily, I want to refer him again to his department’s annual report according to which 416 000 ha which had been set aside for settlement by Black people when the report was drafted, were still being leased to White farmers. Is this the wonderful success story with which the Minister regales us year after year with regard to consolidation? On 28 April of this year a question was put to the hon. the Minister about the removal of Black spots. The question was put to him by the hon. member for Berea. In reply to the question how many Black spots had been cleared up and how many people had been involved in this between 1 January 1982 and the date on which the question was put, the hon. the Minister said that only one small Black spot in the Cathcart district had been removed and that only 30 families had been involved. That is the success story of the hon. the Minister when it comes to consolidation.

But most astounding of all is that we learned from the hon. the Minister this afternoon that the consolidation of Bophuthatswana has been completed.

I said it had been rounded off.

Very well. I do not want to put words in the hon. the Minister’s mouth. According to him the consolidation of Bophuthatswana has therefore been rounded off. But the hon. the Deputy Minister released a Press statement involving preliminary proposals for the consolidation of Bophuthatswana. The hon. the Deputy Minister therefore maintains that the consolidation is not yet been rounded off. He referred to provisional proposals which would be submitted for comment to the farmers affected by this move. In this respect the hon. the Deputy Minister fortunately deviated from the distorted procedure which was followed as regards Venda. We are grateful for that. The hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say in his statement that as far as these provisional proposals are concerned, negotiations still have to be held with Bophuthatswana as well. If I remember correctly, it has always been our standpoint that in the cases of areas that gain their independence, meaningful exchange of territory may take place at a later stage between us and them and that this will take place by means of mutual agreement and negotiation. If we consider the proposals of the commission, what do they amount to? Are we dealing here with the rounding off of the consolidation of Bophuthatswana? Or are we dealing here with the simple inclusion in a greater Bophuthatswana of every Black spot which the Government is not prepared to clear up? No person in his right mind will be able to convince me that what we are dealing with here is the final rounding off of the consolidation of Bophuthatswana as the hon. the Minister so enthusiastically announced. How the Minister could even try to sell us this idea so enthusiastically as being the final rounding-off of the consolidation of Bophuthatswana, is beyond me. We have said repeatedly that we have no objection to the proper consolidation of the homelands. It has to be done, but it must be done properly. In the same way as we could not get any explanation from either the Minister or the Deputy Minister in the case of Venda as to why the areas of Senthimula and Kutama were not reproclaimed to be White areas, in this case no argument can be raised either as to why the Matanyane area cannot be exchanged for other land which now has to be given to Bophuthatswana.

But the greatest disservice which this hon. Minister is doing the Whites in South Africa is what he is now doing here in the Western Cape. He has gone ahead and with the greatest enthusiasm at his disposal he has paved the way for the establishment of a black population here on the Cape Flats which will be larger than the total population of kwaNdebele or that of Kangwane. He wants to settle this Black population here in the very midst of the Coloured and the White people of the Western Cape. This amounts to a total deviation from the standpoint which the NP has adopted up to now. I was witness to the standpoint adopted by every Western Cape MP here in this connection. I do not believe that a single member of Parliament worth his salt—including hon. members of the National Party—are satisfied with this new development now being undertaken by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am now going to do something which is not pleasant for me. However, I am doing so because we have no confidence in this hon. Minister and in his handling of the relevant portfolio. I therefore move as an amendment—

What I am therefore trying to achieve with this amendment is to delete the salary of the hon. the Minister in its entirety. We owe this hon. Minister nothing because he has not made any really constructive contribution to solving the problems of South Africa in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order!

Never mind, Piet. There is always the Salvation Army. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Bryanston has finished talking, I can call upon the next hon. member to speak.

Mr. Chairman, it was, of course, impossible not to hear the hon. member for Barberton’s speech, because he spoke as loudly as possible. What he had to say was a lot of nonsense, in any case, and he said all that in a singularly short time.

In the first place I want to put it to the hon. member for Barberton that his motion to the effect that the hon. the Minister’s salary should be reduced is not, as far as I am concerned, original at all. It is, in fact, as unoriginal as the contribution he made here. The hon. member for Houghton has already beaten him to it, because she moved a similar amendment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall be coming back to the hon. member for Barberton. Firstly, however, I briefly want to refer to certain other aspects. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has a very simple solution in regard to the removal of poorly situated Black spots. Her solution is indeed a very simple one. She advocates that the Black people be left exactly where they are. Actually, she does not even want us to keep the Black people there, preferring that additional White land be purchased for them so that the Black spots can be retained.

[Inaudible.]

I shall repeat it in English. The hon. member for Houghton’s solution for the problem of poorly situated Black spots was simply that the Black people should be left where they are. If the building of a dam was in the offing, something that would necessitate the removal of those Black people, the hon. member for Houghton suggested that White people’s land should be bought out and that those White people should then be removed.

[Inaudible.]

I must say that the logic of the hon. member’s argument completely eludes me. Because dams have been built and Black people have had to be moved as a result of it, White people must now—according to her, of course—also be moved under similar circumstances. [Interjections.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to turn my attention to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. At the very beginning of his speech the hon. member made an admirable statement. He said it was pleasant to have listened to the hon. member for Pretoria West. Up to that point I agreed with him. [Interjections.] According to him, it was particularly pleasant to listen to me whilst I was setting out the policy of the governing party. He said that as I set out the policy, it was theoretically still the correct policy. He then says, however, that the unfortunate thing is that that policy is no longer purposefully being implemented in practice. What an indictment of the hon. member himself! He is in full agreement with the policy of the NP, but because that policy is not being implemented, he has now become a deserter and has taken to his heels. [Interjections.] Is that a way of solving this country’s problems, Mr. Chairman? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lichtenburg was surely not an ordinary member of this House.

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

No, I do not have the time to answer questions now. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Lichtenburg was not an ordinary member of this House. He was chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. He was a Deputy Minister, and later even a Minister. He therefore had the authority to put his standpoint in the Cabinet. He decided, however, not to do so. He did not put his case there. Like a bad-tempered little boy, he does not want to play any more, even if he does agree with the policy. [Interjections.] Surely we cannot solve South Africa’s problems in that way, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] I want to go further, however, and allege that the hon. member has already run into problems. He began to run into problems when he came up against the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He is, after all, supposedly the man who forcefully wants to have people moved. I get the impression, from the hon. member for Barberton, that he and his party are going to use forceful methods. What happened in Matoepiestad? Nothing happened there, Mr. Chairman. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what happened at Matoepiestad after the hon. member for Ventersdorp had repeatedly held discussions with the hon. member for Lichtenburg, then a Deputy Minister? Do hon. members know what happened in connection with the removal of that Black spot? Nothing happened at all. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, what that hon. member actually decided was not to adopt forceful methods as far as the Black people were concerned.

He also ran into a further problem, funnily enough, when he came up against the hon. member for Pietersburg. Do hon. members know what the hon. member for Pietersburg said? He said, amongst other things—

The hon. member said that he wrote a letter. In his letter he wrote the following—

That is, of course, the hon. member for Lichtenburg—

That hon. member for Lichtenburg, therefore, did use forceful methods to avoid having a Black area turned into a White area. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that he did use forceful methods to preserve the status quo in the Vivo area.

That is wrong. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member for Lichtenburg has the temerity to charge the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development with not wanting to move Black areas.

We know it is true.

I was present when the hon. the Minister discussed the moving of Black spots. Let me now, however, offer the hon. member for Lichtenburg some consolation. I want to quote to him what Dr. Verwoerd said. He said the following—

We are following the very course charted by Dr. Verwoerd. We are busy with gradual persuasion. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

Those are the realities of the situation we are faced with. By a process of persuasion we are busy moving Black spots and completing consolidation. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development discussed the situation at Driefontein and Daggakraal. That was where Saul Mkhize was unfortunately shot. That completely internationalized the matter, perhaps giving it more publicity than the Biko case. Those hon. members do not, however, realize that, but it was with persuasion that those people were encouraged to move. They are engaged in negotiations and they are on their way to view a certain spot. I also talked to the people at Matoepistad and I know what I am talking about. There the hon. the Minister also spoke to the people, and the people are busy considering where they should move to. We are chieving some success in this connection, but not in the supposedly forceful way in which the hon. member for Lichtenburg failed to take action. We are adopting the course set by Dr. Verwoerd, that of persuading people to move.

I now want to discuss the question of consolidation in slightly more detail. We have heard a great deal about consolidation today. What is the CP’s policy in regard to consolidation? We have thus far had a long debate on this subject, but we have not yet heard their policy in regard to consolidation. I should now like to discuss this. In this connection I should like to quote, from Hansard, col. 242, what the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1979. He said, amongst other things, that there are certain broad guidelines that must be adopted in regard to consolidation. Let me quote the following paragraph—

When those hon. members were still in the NP in 1979, they endorsed that, but what do they say today? What is their policy today? Let me quote, from Konserwatief, a description of the policy of the CP—

What is the difference? The first difference is that they do not believe in the consolidation of peoples.

Oh, do not talk nonsense.

Why do they not believe in it?

Stick to the truth.

I do not gather from this that they believe in the consolidation of peoples. They must please change their description. The second point I want to make is the following important one: They do not believe in the economic consolidation of States. That is specifically the problem. I have hit the nail on the head, because now they are quiet. They do not believe in the economic consolidation of States. That is why we have them shouting about the consolidation of the States. They have not pointed out where we have been wrong in our consolidation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we have the full spectrum of South African politics here today with the CP suggesting an amendment for a totally conflicting reason to that of the official Opposition. The CP says that because the Government is not removing people forcibly, because it is allowing people into the urban areas and because the Government is moving away from the NP’s rigid ideology, the hon. the Minister should go on to drought relief for a year or so. The PFP says for exactly the opposite reasons—because he does not allow people into the urban areas and because he does carry out forcible removals—his salary should equally be reduced and his status should be that of most of the farmers today.

Which is that of MPs.

Yes, because we are also on drought relief.

I think it is as well to comment on that aspect as far as this party is concerned. Without being rude to the hon. the Minister, we in this party do not think he has simply been any more foolish or any more stupid than normal. We think he is a victim of having cast his lot in with the NP ideology. What is a fact, is that the hon. the Minister, as he so often says “in my hart en siel” when he gets worked up and gets into a state of euphoria with his vision of things which I think he really intends, is way ahead of his party machinery. He is also way ahead of his administrative capability and that is where there is a credibility gap. There is a yawning gap between what he would like to do and what he can do, or has done.

I think this is of importance. In the relatively short time that I have been in the House, there have been plans, committees, commissions and experts, but in the three years that I have been here very little has got going in respect of making up the backlog. In fact, we are not even keeping up with the normal rate. I think this must obviously worry the hon. the Minister a great deal. It certainly worries the country a great deal.

I read in a paper recently something about the American economy where the result of allowing it to run down to a very low level in order to combat inflation caused fear among the economists that when they set about trying to resuscitate it, there would be a tremendous lag. That is what has happened in this country. The NP’s former policy on urban Blacks allowed the situation to run down to such a level that the hon. the Minister is now having to cope with restarting this great engine and overcoming the inertia. It is unfortunate that we enter this stage and have this climate when we are faced with the decision of the Rikhoto case. It is going to be against the background of the backlog that the hon. the Minister is going to have to take a decision. Yesterday he indicated in the House the criteria for people entering the urban areas, namely basically work and housing. In view of the situation we face today we in this party would appeal to the hon. the Minister not to let this tremendous backlog lead him into a hasty decision on this matter. We feel that this is a matter the Government must consider very, very carefully. It must not pander to the vociferous right wing, but it must regard this as a most serious step towards making up the backlog of urbanization, because that is all it is: It is a backlog of urbanization which has caught up with the country. We in this party believe that the decision by the Appeal Court must be upheld and that for the Government to circumvent that decision with legislation would be a terribly detrimental act both in terms of reform and in terms of enabling the Black people of South Africa to have any form of confidence at all in the often-stated NP view that they view things realistically. The actual position is that the backlog of urbanization has caught up with us while the hon. the Minister cannot even keep pace as far as the current demands are concerned.

We do not believe one can turn back the clock. In fact, if the hon. the Minister tackles the task confronting him positively it will be a very good pipe opener for the real urbanization problem facing us over a relatively concentrated period in which we are going to have to achieve far greater things than simply to accommodate a few hundred thousand extra people spread over the entire land. We would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to look at the legislation in a positive light and see it really as a means of identifying people qualifying to go into the urban areas on a permanent basis. The opportunity then presents itself of turning what appears to be a tremendous crisis for his department into a triumph for his department. We believe that if these people are properly identified and if their employers are properly identified those employers can be drawn into a scheme in terms of which they commit themselves to provide housing for these people. If every available source can be utilized in view of the extreme urgency of the circumstances in which these people find themselves, we can in fact achieve what might at this stage appear to be the impossible. We would therefore urge the hon. the Minister and the Government to be extremely careful in their deliberations about this and not to try to circumvent the courts, or turn the clock back because that would make an absolute mockery of the highly regarded independent judiciary of which this country is so very proud. It would equally make a mockery of the commitment to view matters realistically as far as urbanization is concerned. Ibis country could face enormous labour unrest which could be used overseas by our adversaries to an extent hitherto unknown. I believe we have to be extremely careful in our approach to this matter. The Government must treat this matter as one of great sensitivity and approach it with extreme circumspection in order to achieve the appreciation and support of all groups who are concerned with reform. When one talks about reform in this respect, I just want to comment briefly on the amendment moved by the official Opposition. At a time like this political gimmickry is a sign of absolute bankruptcy.

It is the traditional way of going about it.

That party has not made one suggestion in this debate on how to overcome any of these problems. All they have done, is to go at this matter bald-headedly in a manner which I hope will indicate to people outside that they do not have any solution themselves. To approach this matter by resorting to political gimmickry simply shows how bankrupt they are. The PFP and the CP can clearly be linked together in their approach to reform. They can very clearly be identified as people who resort to rabble-rousing and who want to snuff out that small flame of reform and to wreck any possible process that can lead to greater things.

We in these benches will not support the amendments. We want the hon. the Minister to pay very serious attention to the appeal of this party in respect of the Rikhoto judgment. We are totally opposed to a circumvention of the judiciary. We appeal to the hon. the Minister to go about this in the most sensitive and practical manner possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town must forgive me if I do not follow up on his argument in the few minutes I have at my disposal. The hon. the Minister will, in fact, be furnishing him with a reply.

A good example of how blind the official Opposition and its Press is to everything the Government does for Black people is a disgraceful article, which appeared in the Sunday Times of 22 May of this year, regarding the large new town of Onverwacht or Botshabelo at Thaba ’Nchu. This article is just as negative and disgraceful as the undeserved attack on the hon. the Minister yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton. In this morbid article Onverwacht is presented to the world as a town of death, misery, of disease and of famine.

Have you ever been there?

I have often been there. I should like to quote a few brief sentences from this article. It is stated, inter alia: “Life is harsh on Onverwacht”; “No one knows exactly, but there could be 4 000 graves, half of them filled with children”; “Malnutrition and a myriad of diseases claim young lives”; “Onverwacht was established four years ago and today it is a treeless hell-hole”. It is a disgraceful article. What are the facts surrounding Onverwacht?

Onverwacht, or Botshabelo, which means “refuge”, is indeed a refuge for the 140 000 people living there. During the unprecedented drought we are now experiencing, people are streaming from the farms to Onverwacht because it is a godsend for them. Botshabelo is not a town of “misery”, as the Sunday Times alleges; it is a town that is developing nicely. Located as it is in such a beautiful spot, it can become one of the poshest Black cities in our country. Hundreds of Black families are living happily in that town, where conditions are good. They are people who previously had nowhere to go. In Botshabelo 1 500 new sound, conventional houses have already been built, while innumerable houses are still being built. During the current financial year almost R6 million will be spent on as many houses in Botshabelo. But the Sunday Times makes no mention of this. All they say about these houses is—

That is all they say. But if one goes there, one sees what beautiful houses being erected there. Why are these people so blind? They are just as blind as the official Opposition to the successes of the NP Government.

The impression created by the newspaper is that children are dying there because medical services are inadequate. In point of fact there are three clinics there. In addition there is an out-patients’ service, a dental service and a psychiatric service.

How many doctors are there?

There are three Black doctors. The Army also provides a number of doctors who help out there. A Community Health Centre is to be erected there this year. According to statistics the disease and mortality rate in Onverwacht is lower than the average for Black States in Southern Africa. The newspaper, however, does not mention this fact. The newspaper creates the impression that there is an full-blown crisis there.

In addition Pelonomi in Bloemfontein one of the best hospitals in Africa, is within a half hours journey by bus—there is a convenient bus service—for these people. The hon. member will know that hundreds of people from Onverwacht are at present receiving treatment there, something which is unequalled anywhere else in Africa. Some of the best specialists of the Universitas Hospital in Bloemfontein also work at this hospital. The hon. member for Parktown will know that.

In the short time Onverwacht has been in existence, 27 schools have been established, 19 of which already occupy permanent buildings. An international sports stadium is to be built in three phases. R1 million has already been voted for the first phase. You see, Sir, Onverwacht is not a sepulchre, as the Sunday Times suggests; for many people it is a city of hope and expectation, created by a Government that has the welfare of Black people at heart.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North will forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech. However, in the course of my own speech I shall refer to certain aspects of his speech.

†During the debate on the Agriculture Vote the House paid a great deal of attention to the effects of the drought on the country. Of particular concern was the effects of the drought on the White rural community the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to his credit, responded positively and constructively. I should like to spend some time during this debate in focusing attention on the effects of the drought on the Black rural community, and how this will ultimately affect us all.

At the outset, let us be under no illusions: What is happening in the Black homelands is nothing less than a disaster of major proportions. The homelands have been visited by drought, disease and death on a scale unparalleled in the history of this country. They have in fact become a charnel-house for man and beast. There may be those who will accuse me of overstating the case, but let us consider some facts. It has been calculated that this year alone over 130 000 head of cattle have died of starvation and disease in the homelands. The Transkei calculates that the value of livestock lost in that territory will be in the vicinity of R100 million. The Ciskei has lost 10% of its national herd since January. The position in that territory is so bad that Mr. Gary Godden, the Ciskei’s Director of Planning, has expressed it this way—

I estimate that if 10% of the cattle has died in the Ciskei before the winter, then at least another 20% is going to die during the winter. That will mean a loss of something like 40 000 head of cattle for the Ciskei alone. Dr. Carlos dos Santos, Director of the Transkei’s veterinary services, predicts that the worst is still to come. I agree with him.

What about the crops? Almost without exception there has been a total failure of maize and sorghum crops throughout the homelands. Mr. A. Johnson, who is regional director of the Border Red Cross, sees things this way. He says—

But people are also dying. Northern Transvaal hospital and clinic wards are full and overflowing with children suffering from kwashiorkor. The authorities there report a 200% to 300% increase in this disease. They warn that a winter of acute starvation and rampant disease lies ahead. Two months ago the Director-General of Health, Dr. J. Retief, warned that because of reduced resistance brought about by malnutrition infectious diseases would soon begin to kill. We have seen this happen in the Eastern Cape where more than 200 children have died of measles alone. In kwaZulu and the other homelands the situation is much the same.

The drought has also hit those homeland Blacks who are not dependent on farming. Many of these people are migrant workers who are dependent on seasonal labour. These people are out of work because White farmers have also not had crops and are not employing people to harvest. Nampo has warned of some 50000 Blacks who could soon be without work. In the cities and towns too there has been substantial retrenchment of labour and many of these out of work people have been forced to return to the homelands.

In all fairness I must say that the Government has responded by making substantial sums of money available for relief to the homelands, and this is to be welcomed. However, it has also been calculated that this will not be anything like enough, and that further vast sums of money will be needed if an even greater disaster is to be averted. In Gazankulu it has been calculated that some 300 000 people will need relief feeding this winter. In Lebowa the figure is 400000. At Onverwacht settlement alone some 200000 will need feeding, and so it goes on. Upwards of 1 million people in the self-governing States will be dependent on hand-outs from Pretoria and from White charities.

What is obvious is that, even making allowances for the severity of the drought, there are just too many people on land that is too poor to support them. If the going gets tough for White farmers, they can always move to town. In fact this happened on a large scale, as we all know, during the ’twenties and ’thirties. When drought and poverty drove White people into towns at that time, the Government of the day pulled out all the stops to solve what was then called the poor-white problem. Job opportunities were provided, self-help schemes were started, schools and houses were provided and every effort was made to absorb the displaced people into urban society. But what has happened in the case of the Blacks? We do not hear of a “poor-Black” problem, but rather of a “squatter” problem. They are the so-called “illegals”. Because they are deemed to be illegal squatters, an open season of persecution has been declared on them. The components of persecution are well known, i.e. dawn raids, armed police, dogs, search-lights, barbed wire, tear-gas, prosecution, fines and deportation. Their appearance in the urban area has elicited hostility rather than compassion. This Government has created territories that are incapable of supporting their populations. It has aggravated the position by forcing further tens of thousands of people to go to live in those territories. It then refuses to accept the inevitable consequence when these people flee as refugees from poverty and hunger.

Fortunately, there is the odd ray of light in the dark. However intransigent the hon. the Minister might be, at least there are those in his department who have an understanding of what is occurring. I refer, for example, to the Director of the East Cape Administration Board who spoke recently at a housing conference. He warned that the drought was likely to accelerate unbanization to a degree never before experienced in South Africa, and also pointed out that South Africa did not have a squatter problem but rather an ubanization problem. Of course, the director is right, Mr. Chairman. This is what we in these benches have been saying for years. Whether the hon. the Minister will heed our warning or not is of course another question. I sincerely hope that he will. The hon. the Minister must face up to the realities of the situation and not take evasive action behind clouds of tear-gas and rolls of barbed wire.

King Canute ordered the rising tide to recede, and he failed. This hon. Minister is ordering the rising tide from the Black homelands to return, but he too will fail. He underestimates the power of the forces which drive people to leave the security of their homes and to enter the forbidden White areas. A man might sit back placidly and watch his crops wither and his cattle die, but when his children begin to die he will move, and he will move to wherever he thinks he has a chance to find work for himself in order to save his family. People are not coming to the cities to seek their fortunes like Dick Whittington, or because they have heard that the streets of Cape Town are paved with gold. They are coming here because they believe that here is bread to be found to put into their children’s mouths.

Sending these people back will solve nothing. Rather will it build up an explosive situation in these rural areas. It is my great fear that the spark of a revolution in this country will not come from our teeming urban townships, but rather will it come from the poverty-stricken homelands. That spark, Mr. Chairman, will be carried into our cities by people who have nothing at all to lose.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few ideas which I should like to exchange with hon. members of the CP in the course of my speech. However, I first want to tell the hon. member for Albany that I agree with him when he says that we are faced with a very serious problem as far as the drought conditions in the Black States are concerned. This is a problem which exists not only in the independent Black States, but in the self-governing Black States as well. Nor is the problem restricted to the Eastern Cape; it is being experienced all over the country.

I should like the hon. member for Albany to know that I began to review the situation myself, together with the department, as far back as November last year. I am referring now to the situation in the self-governing States, the States in which this department is involved. We undertook investigations in cooperation with the Governments of the self-governing States and we laid down priorities with regard to the most important aid which had to be provided in the process. It very soon became clear to us that the most important form of aid we had to provide was clean water. This is one of the most pressing needs which have arisen in those self-governing States. Accordingly, we made a submission to the Cabinet in order to assist the Black people in those self-governing States. I personally helped to resolve certain situations in Ciskei, where we made trucks available for transporting water. We made trucks available to the Government of Ciskei for use in certain problem areas.

However, we also realized that, just as in the case of the Whites, this matter could not be solved in the short term only, and that the real solution would have to be a long-term one. In saying what I am going to say now, however, I am not blaming anyone. I accept that the stock losses are far higher than the official figure indicates. At the same time, however, I also accept that the official figures and the numbers of animals kept by the Blacks on their land were totally wrong in proportion to the available land. Therefore a large percentage of the stock losses in those areas was not necessarily a result of the drought. We have large stock losses in the self-governing States and independent States almost every year; in some cases the figure is higher, in other case it is lower. I want to tell the hon. member that we have gone out of our way to seek solutions to this problem in co-operation with the Governments of the self-governing States. In this way, for example, I may tell the hon. member that the Government has approved the following aid to Lebowa: 300 new boreholes have been sunk. In addition, R3 million has been spent on, among other things, pipelines, reservoirs, watering places, maintaining the supply of water to schools and clinics and providing water from the Loskop Dam area. We have also created job opportunities in Lebowa. Many of the people who are experiencing problems and who are unemployed in Lebowa are not inhabitants of Lebowa who are unable, as a result of the drought, to carry on with their farming operations. Some of them are inhabitants of Lebowa who have returned from the RSA because they have been laid off in this country as a result of the recession. We have created 7 473 jobs there on a temporary basis to tide them over. In this connection we are going to spend an amount of R5 million. One does not have to spend thousands of rands to create jobs. In circumstances such as these, there is nothing wrong with creating jobs in which manual labour is a strong factor—i.e. jobs which are labour-intensive. We are using the services of those people to maintain the roads and to embark on the other capital works which have been approved. We have also provided a subsidy on feed and we have tried in general—I am still referring to Lebowa; I am simply using it as an example, because I believe that Lebowa is one of the States that have been most seriously affected—to bring about parity, by means of the rebate on railway transport, with regard to the situation in connection with drought aid which is being made available to the White farmers in the RSA. We have also provided for the individual Black farmer who is a land-owner, who farms on his own account, but who does not have any loan facilities, to be assisted by financial institutions—in the way in which assistance can be obtained from the Land Bank, for example, in the RSA—to enable him to recommence his farming operations on a self-supporting basis. The hon. member put his case in a very positive way and I am grateful to him for supporting us in this process. I can assure the hon. member that we shall do everything in our power to help these people.

While I am discussing this aspect of the matter, allow me to say a few words about the whole question—the hon. member has mentioned it before, and so has the hon. member for King William’s Town—of the utilization of land within these Black territories. A new idea has occurred to us in the department. We have decided that we can no longer sit in Pretoria, as in the past, thinking that we can farm a million hectares of Trust land. The Trust still has to acquire the land in terms of the Act and the Trust must eventually dispose of that land in terms of the Act, so that it will come into the possession of Blacks. However, we have felt that because of its magnitude, the matter should be dealt with in a different way, as a result of the limited manpower available to us. It has been decided, therefore, that as from 1 April this year, a large percentage of the land which is owned or leased by the Trust, or whatever they are doing with it at this stage, should be transferred to the EDC, and that care should be taken to ensure that wherever possible, that land is properly developed, utilized and maintained. In this way, we have involved the EDC in this project. We are transferring some of this land to the EDC. They themselves will be in charge of the development and of the settlement there, irrespective of whether the people be Black or White farmers, or whatever the case may be. In the case of Bophuthatswana, we have decided to transfer the land to Agricor, the agricultural development corporation of Bophuthatswana. All this has been done in order to reduce our control over the area of Trust land which we have made available and as far as possible to entrust the development activities of the department to those organizations which may be better able to do something in practice on the land. I think this is a sound approach which the department is following. It is a refreshing approach which is being followed, because there are so many possibilities if one can involve the national corporations and the development corporations in the process of developing this land.

After all, when we have settled all the political disputes, it remains essential for us all that there should be development within the Black States. The basis of any healthy development in these States, in any State on earth, is healthy economic agricultural development. If there cannot be proper economic agricultural development, vigorous secondary and tertiary development will not be possible.

The fact is that whether we find ourselves in South Africa, in an independent State which used to form part of South Africa, in a self-governing State, or anywhere in the world, the Good Lord decided to stop creating land, but He did not decide to stop creating people. Because this is so, we must make proper use of every piece of land we have. I am not making any reproaches. We have made mistakes in the past. Some of the land has not been properly utilized. However, I can say today that we have persuaded all the independent States in South Africa to appoint commissions or committees to investigate their system of land utilization and of land ownership. There have been drastic departures from the traditional standpoint adopted by these people, because they are beginning to understand private ownership. I am not saying that this has been a spectacular success so far, but the fact is that every State has had to change its constitution in order to provide for such a possibility. This is encouraging and one hopes that it will lead to success.

There is something else I want to say about the utilization of land, and I want to put it like this: The Government regards its obligations in terms of the 1936 legislation as having been met as soon as the acquisitions in terms of the 1975 consolidation proposals have been made. Hon. members all know this.

I personally regard any additional land, whether or not it exceeds the quota, as bonus land which is allocated to the Blacks.

I really must level a mild criticism at the hon. member. The hon. member for Albany complained today that the people of Ciskei did not have enough land; their animals were dying every day. Earlier this year, those hon. members quarrelled with me in this House when I wanted to give Ciskei more land. I know that the hon. member for Albany was not the ringleader; the hon. members for Houghton and Berea were the fighters. I want to add in passing that the hon. members of the CP also quarrelled with me. They did not quarrel with me about Ciskei, but about Kutama and Senthimula. I shall come to that Venda drum of theirs presently. I shall give them a new drum to play on. They can forget about that Venda drum of theirs and try another tack.

The fact is that we must all give serious consideration to the state of agriculture in the Black States and in the self-governing national States. Therefore we are going to pool the agricultural knowledge which we have in our department and the agricultural expertise we can obtain, as well as the knowledge within the national States, in the course of this year or at the beginning of next year, and we are going to make a proper study of how we can best promote agriculture with the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural Division in our department, where the expertise is concentrated, and the development corporations. We shall make a concerted attempt to ensure that this agricultural land is properly maintained and developed. I think we should be grateful for what the development corporations are doing in this sphere. They are achieving a very great deal in the process. We should also be grateful for the activities of our department with regard to this aspect. It is not always easy to deal with these matters. Therefore it is essential to be careful and to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from a situation with the means available.

The hon. members of the CP—if the hon. member for Lichtenburg has an obligation elsewhere and has to leave now, I quite understand that—have accused us of not proceeding with consolidation. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also said yesterday that I was the man who had said that consolidation had come to a standstill. However, the hon. member did not say when I had said that. He only said it had come to a standstill. I have never said this since I became Deputy Minister. I was still the chairman of the commission when I said that, and I want to state that I said it right at the beginning, because consolidation did in fact come to a standstill at one stage. In 1980, we could not make any progress at all, for various reasons. Because there were consolidation proposals before the Cabinet, White and non-Whites in South Africa were telling us: “We are not interested in negotiating or in proceeding with the process if we do not know where the borders are.” The moment we were able to determine where the borders would be, there was progress.

I do not blame the hon. member for Lichtenburg for not being able to be present at the moment, because I understand the circumstances, but I want to go on replying to his speech in his absence. He used Bophuthatswana as an example, and the hon. member for Bareberton did the same. The hon. member for Lichtenburg went on to say that the two farms of Leeuwfontein and Braklaagte were just two small farms and that we were simply going to include them in the Marico Corridor. Surely the hon. member is not so ignorant. There are 20 000 people living at Leeuwfontein and Braklaagte. There are only two farms between Leeuwfontein and Braklaagte and one of the biggest districts in Bophuthatswana, namely the Lehurutse District. In order to solve another problem, with regard to the Geweer-fontein-Bloedfontein area at kwaNdebele, we negotiated with Pres. Mangope. We told him that we were prepared to give him the area between Leeuwfontein and Braklaagte as compensatory land for that area. The Whites on the few farms between Lehurutse, Leeufontein and Braklaagte cannot continue their farming operations in any case. Now the charge is being levelled at me that we are not consolidating. I can guarantee—and in doing so, I am not trying to intimidate the Cabinet—that if the essence of my commission’s proposals is accepted, more than 60% of all the Black people will be living in the Black States.

You must make them get a move on, Hennie.

Wait a minute. We must discuss this matter properly. Leeuwfontein and Braklaagte are going to be consolidated. This means that the 20 000 people do not have to be removed. The official figure is 20 000, but I have not yet found anyone who can tell me exactly how many people are living in those poorly situated areas. It is always a little difficult to ascertain the numbers, because people move about, they sleep in different places, etc. So it is somewhat of a problem. What is more, what the hon. member for Lichtenburg was unable to do while he was Deputy Minister—I am not talking behind his back now, because he knows this—was to remove the people from Swartrand to Pachsdraai. These people are being removed on 21 June. No one has complained about it. However, we have encountered major problems in these areas. The hon. member for Lichtenburg talks about Matanyana. The hon. member for Lichtenburg himself tried to have this area detached from Bophuthatswana. He also tried to have Thaba ’Nchu detached from Bophuthatswana. The hon. member for Lichtenburg established Onverwacht, right next to Thaba ’Nchu and Bophuthatswana. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North spoke about Onverwacht. The fact is, however, that we are removing the Swartrand people on 21 June, and what is more, we are introducing a new mechanism to make it easier to remove the people. Those people are land-owners who have mineral rights at Swartrand. We cannot give those people mineral rights at Pachsdraai, because there are no mineral rights available, since they belong to other people. We are going to let those people retain their mineral rights at Swartrand. We shall do the same in the case of the people from Houtkop and Dunbar, people whom the hon. member for Lichtenburg never succeeded in removing. We are removing them to Geysdorp with their consent.

Let us talk about Matupistat again. I inherited Matupistat. The hon. member for Ventersdorp addressed serious representations to the hon. member for Lichtenburg at the time. What happened there? If we had rushed in there and said that we were going to remove those people to Onderstepoort, I want to tell hon. members that we would have had a problem today. Onderstepoort has no water at the moment, while Matupistat still has some water left.

What have we achieved? The fairly rough treatment, if I may put it that way, the fairly callous attitude which was in certain cases displayed towards those people who had to be moved, led to a resistance to any removal. There are other factors which have made removals difficult. In a certain sense, these problems have acquired international overtones.

I now want to talk about Kutama and Senthimula, about Block 24 and related matters. Hon. members have asked why we are not removing those people. I just want to tell hon. members that it was decided in 1973 that people would have to be removed from Kutama and Senthimula. At that time, fewer than 7 000 people were living there. Why did hon. members not get angry when Mr. M. C. Botha failed to remove people from Kutama and Senthimula? Why did they not get angry when Dr. Connie Mulder failed to remove people from Kutama and Senthimula? Why did they not get angry when Dr. Connie Mulder, together with the hon. member for Lichtenburg, failed to declare the Nsikazi area a White area again, to the annoyance of the hon. member for Barberton? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that he was the man who had carried out the last removals. The removals he carried out are really no incentive to me. They were easy removals.

The Government has not yet decided on Block 24. The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to this. However, let us be practical about this. [Interjections.] Hon. members may find fault politically with what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development does, but I want to tell them one thing, and that is that he is totally committed to everything he does.

He makes mistakes with enthusiasm.

One cannot blame someone for being enthusiastic. One cannot blame someone who is working hard. I do not want to talk about how hard the hon. the Prime Minister works, but I know very few Ministers who work harder than this hon. Minister.

What about me?

I think the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is somewhat of a loafer. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development works very hard. I want to be honest and to say that I also disagree with him sometimes. We now have a wonderful arrangement in my department. Every Wednesday morning at seven o’clock we meet around a table, although some of the men have complained. Then we hold a proper indaba. This has worked through to our senior officials in the department.

However, I want to come to a practical example now and to talk about Block 24. The Cabinet has not taken a decision yet about Block 24. In 1973, Mr. Piet van Vuuren’s commission decided that Block 24 had to be removed. Up to now, however, it has not been removed. What has happened in the meantime? There has been the fantastic development at Ellisras. More and more Black people have moved to Block 24. Where do those people work? They all work in Ellisras today. I am not saying that the Government is going to decide against the removal of Block 24, but we have to take account of the practical situation. In 1973, Block 24—hon. members who do not know where it is situated must not worry; we shall manage—had fewer than 5 000 inhabitants. Today there are more than 60 000 people. Officially, I am told, there are approximately 30 000 people, but I believe that there are more than 60 000 people. More than 80% of them work in Ellisras and they are economically involved in the mining activities there. What does the CP say? They can advise me. Should those 60 000 people be removed, thereby endangering the entire economic development of Ellisras? We must not take an unrealistic view of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, unfortunately I have only five minutes left. Those hon. members say that we are not consolidating. Depending on one or two matters which have still to be decided by the Cabinet, we have progressed, as far as the consolidation of Bophuthatswana is concerned, to the point where we shall be able to transfer Thaba ’Nchu to Bophuthatswana on 1 August. Is this not consolidation?

It is incorporation; not consolidation. [Interjections.]

It is not incorporation. I want to tell all hon. members of all the Opposition parties that none of us in this House, not even the Angel Gabriel, could bring about consolidation today in the way in which it was done in the past. When we talk about consolidation, we must not talk only of geographical consolidation. We used the word “consolidation” when we were working with the 1936 quota. Henceforth we should rather talk about “border adjustments”. This concept is in line with the policy of all the parties in this House and is a much better description of what is really happening today. No hon. member, not even the hon. member for Lichtenburg, could bring about more geographical consolidation. It is simply no longer possible in South Africa.

As far as resettlement is concerned, I want to say that here, too, a new approach is being followed. I am saying this to the hon. member for Houghton in particular. The hon. member visited the hon. the Minister in his office last year, and he gave her the complete circular about the rules and regulations in respect of resettlement. The Deputy Director-General went to a great deal of trouble at my request, and together we investigated the matter to see whether we could not arrive at a completely new housing method with regard to resettlement. I am not in favour of these corrugated iron huts and tents. I have said so quite frankly. I have said that even if it costs more, we must provide better housing. We must resettle these people in a proper and humane manner. However, we cannot talk about providing core housing, permanent structures, while the additions will simply be made in squatter fashion. We shall be making a submission to the hon. the Minister shortly, in which we shall indicate the method according to which we are going to provide housing in the course of resettlement. In the first place, water must be supplied to resettlement areas, In addition, decent and acceptable housing must be provided. Then, I believe, the objective of development could really be made an integral part of the process when people have to be resettled. We must approach these matters with circumspection. These are highly emotional matters. If we approach them with circumspection, we shall make progress.

I have now spelt out the situation with regard to Bophuthatswana. In conclusion, I want to tell the CP that there will not be a single Black spot near Bophuthatswana. There is not going to be any forced resettlement with regard to any of those Black spots which exist there at the moment. They are doing it voluntarily. It is not possible to detach Thaba ’Nchu from the jurisdiction of Bophuthatswana. It is not possible to detach Matanyana from the jursdiction of Bophuthatswana. Does any hon. member on that side of the House think that President Mangope, who knows what lies under the surface at Matanyana, would give it up? I do not wish to anticipate matters, or to make any rash statements, but there are mineral deposits there which belong to those Black people and which South Africa does not have the money to buy out. If those minerals are going to be mined—and there are fantastic mineral deposits there—South Africa will not have the money to buy out those minerals. As far as I am concerned, we should then develop that Black State and we should sink drill-holes in Matanyana. Then we should undertake the development there and we should establish the mines there. Then we should develop that Black State. Then the process can be properly planned.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to pursue the unnecessarily defensive attitude adopted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should prefer to go on to refer to the hon. member for Pretoria West who tried yesterday to outline a Black policy for the Government on the basis of certain statements made by Dr. Verwoerd. The trouble is that as I see it, and as has become apparent from the debate, the Government is incapable of implementing a Verwoerd policy. It would appear from the debate that the Government has deviated from that policy and is implementing a different policy, a policy which fits in with the politically integrationist standpoints and views of the hon. the Minister. It is not the Verwoerd policy that is at fault. In my opinion, the fault lies with the person in charge of implementing that policy, viz. the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister formulates his policy on the basis of his thesis, which he has been hiding under a bushel for many years. He formulates his policy on the basis of his statement that “apartheid is dead”. He formulates his policy on the basis of his Cottesloe and Sacla views. He formulates his policy on the basis of the four statements he made at the Department of Political Science at the University of Cape Town. One cannot implement the policy of Dr. Verwoerd while adhering to a political view of that nature. That view is also having an inhibiting affect on a department and on Administration Boards which would otherwise be willing and prepared to carry out the Verwoerd policy, under the right leadership.

One of the results of the hon. the Minister’s policy is the increasing number of Blacks in White areas, and particularly in White cities. I want to say today that the hon. the Minister has no control over illegal influx and Blacks settling in White cities. His policy is one of concessions and condonation, instead of one of firm action. The hon. member for Turffontein agrees with me wholeheartedly on that score. Yesterday he said that the Whites felt uneasy about the influx of Blacks to the White cities. He said that more Blacks than Whites spent the night in his constituency. I do not think the word “uneasy” is the right word to use any more. Dissatisfaction and resistance to increasing encroachment is building up. This policy is grist to the mill of Rapport, which states—

It is a fact that cannot be reasoned away that this policy will result in Blacks taking over and occupying White facilities in White cities.

I want to refer in this regard to what the hon. member for Innesdal had to say. I maintain that this policy is creating endless problems for White city councils that are wrestling with the social problems which arise as a result of the presence of illegal Blacks. Since I am referring to the hon. member for Innesdal, I also want to get around to the matter pertaining to the Pretoria City Council. I should not really be defending the Pretoria City Council, since it is an NP city council. However, I am doing this for the sake of Pretoria itself. I am also doing this for the sake of good order and for the sake of the residents of Pretoria. The hon. member for Innesdal is always finding fault with the actions of the Pretoria City Council. He himself, however, never makes a positive contribution there. When 17 parks were recently completely or partially closed to people of colour, the hon. member for Innesdal once again rushed in heedlessly with his uncalled-for criticism. He said that the city fathers of Pretoria had made a mistake. He said that they were constantly treating the symptoms without due regard for the real disease. I want the hon. member for Innesdal to tell me what this supposed real disease is. The real disease is something the city council of Pretoria has no control over. The Pretoria City Council has no control over Black affairs. It does not deal with those matters. They have been taken out of its hands. It therefore does not deal with over-urbanization or poor influx control and the resultant inundation of White areas by Blacks. It does not deal with the failure to develop park facilities in the surrounding Black townships so that those people can have their own facilities.

Bryntirion is surrounded by high fences.

The Pretoria City Council, which has no control over there matters, is not, therefore, in a position to treat this disease. When the Pretoria City Council still had control over these matters, there was evidence of development in those Black townships. We could go and have a look at the development of parks there then. Today nothing remains, however. They have been completely neglected. Whoever wishes to do so, can go and see for themselves what it looks like there now. Hon. members must acquaint themselves with the facts instead of making all kinds of allegations here. As a result of a lack of their own facilities, Black people are now flocking to the White facilities in Pretoria.

They assault us there.

Surely the hon. member for Innesdal is well aware of the fact that the parks of Pretoria are being inundated, and that the Whites are no longer using their own facilities there, in order to prevent friction. They are now keeping to themselves.

I now wish to refer to the tragedy of a park in Pretoria that was specially laid out for the aged; a park which elderly people can no longer frequent, since it is inundated with Black people. Surely the hon. member for Innesdal is also aware that the finances granted by the Government to the Pretoria City Council are limited, with the result that that local authority does not even have the money to develop facilities for its own White people. Parks come last on the list of priorities on the city council’s budget.

Now I wish to ask a question. There are 300 or more parks in Pretoria. The Pretoria City Council has only reserved 17 of them, partially or as a whole, for the exclusive use of Whites. Is that wrong? Is it an offence for one to reserve 17 parks out of more than 300 for one’s own people? Nor must we forget that some of those 17 parks are only partially reserved for Whites. I wish to point out, however, that the Pretoria City Council has applied certain criteria in that regard. They said that there should be a park near an old-age home. They added that there should be a park near each densely populated area consisting mainly of flats, as well as near every sports complex. Furthermore, they said that there should be another park near the one to be closed, so that people of colour can have that facility. They have not closed a single park near the centre of Pretoria, about which so many liberals have had so much to say. They have, however, gone even further. They have said that if there is no park situated near the one to be closed because it is in the vicinity of an old-age home or a densely populated area or a sports complex, it will be closed only partially and a section will remain open for use by people of colour. I just want to say that when one criticizes the Pretoria City Council for its handling of Black affairs, one should be fair and acquaint oneself with the facts and not act like the hon. member for Innesdal, who always rushes in to criticize and find fault, and who makes no positive contribution to solving the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must reply to the hon. member at once. What has the hon. member done this afternoon? I think we have now come to the moment of truth. The hon. member has made direct allegations against me. He says, in the first place, that because, according to him, there is something wrong with the head of this department, and allegation which the hon. member bases on certain arguments, he has now come to certain conclusions, namely that I am responsible for the presence of Black people and for everything that may result from this in the White areas. In this way, these hon. gentlemen of the CP are now going from one place to another, casting aspersions on me and disparaging, criticizing and denigrating me personally on the basis of their statements.

On what does the hon. member base his statement? In this first place, he based his statement on the allegation that my behaviour was in line with my thesis. This is a story which the HNP began and those hon. members of the CP have now taken it up. [Interjections.] At the time of the completion of my thesis, Dr. Verwoerd personally wrote me a letter while I was still at university in Oxford, telling me that he intended to create two posts for people who could do ad hoc research for him and asking me whether I would be willing to accept one of those posts. At the same time, I was invited by the professor at the University of Oxford to continue my studies and research at that university and to occupy a position there. [Interjections.] I was asked to reply to the hon. member, because we have now come to the moment of truth. At that stage, I had not even seen Dr. Verwoerd. I only knew about him because he was a professor.

While studying at the University of Oxford, I was at the same time a Helpmekaar student, and the late Senator Danie van Zyl and the Speaker at that time, Advocate Conradie, were fully informed of the work I was doing, because I sent them reports from time to time. As a result of the reports which I sent them because I was a Helpmekaar student, the late Dr. Danie van Zyl brought this fact to the attention of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and then Dr. Verwoerd wrote me this letter. I still remember how pleased I was to receive the letter; so I received the appointment from Dr. Verwoerd. Not only did Dr. Verwoerd read my thesis very carefully; certain things also happened as a result of it. Certain matters which he had discussed with me at the time, in my capacity as a research officer who was on his personal staff for seven years, he implemented. I do not want to say too much about this today, because then I would be blowing my own trumpet. However, I indicated in my thesis, among other things, that if action were not taken in respect of housing for Blacks, the situation would assume serious proportions. I made a comparative study with regard to the revolution which had taken place in England, i.e. the Industrial Revolution which took place between 1838 and 1850 and subsequent events. I pointed out that if we did not seriously address certain problems in this country, the same fate was in store for us. If we could take effective action with regard to that problem—I have subsequently said so repeatedly in this House—we in South Africa could become what the British became in the previous century, namely the miracle of this century, just as Britain became the miracle of the previous century. Why? Because they underwent the terrible processes of urbanization and the terrible industrial revolution and because they were the only country in the previous century that was able to do so peacefully.

Let us examine the period of the ’fifties and the ’sixties, the period which saw the beginning of the housing programme which the late Dr. Verwoerd embarked upon and which I was closely involved with by way of the Mentz Committee and similar matters at the time when I was a personal research officer of his. I hope I am demonstrating the base and scurrilous behaviour of my own people sitting over there. Can anyone imagine for a moment that the late Dr. Verwoerd, who had the mind of a genius, would have appointed me to that position if a word of what that hon. member is saying had been true? Can one believe that Dr. Verwoerd would have kept me in that research post of his for seven years, where he trusted me with the most intimate things? I could produce letters written to me by Dr. Verwoerd after I had written draft speeches for him. I could table them in this House.

All I want to say this afternoon in response to these personal attacks that have been made on me, including the one by the hon. member for Houghton last night, is that I think that a stop should be put to this. Do the hon. members think that Dr. Verwoerd would have done this if he had been of the same opinion as those hon. members? That hon. member attacked me in a very reprehensible manner this afternoon, and I know that those hon. members are doing this all over the country like roaring lions, just as the HNP has been doing for years. Sir, do you think this is fair? Would Dr. Verwoerd have tried, after I had served on his personal staff for seven years, to have me elected MP of that constituency in the place of the late Mr. Jan Visse while I was still a very young man? These events can be verified from NP documents, so that the matter may be placed on record. As a young man, I stood down at the time. If Mr. Jan Visse had still been alive, he would have told us what happened. He remained a friend of mine to the day of his death because he so greatly appreciated it. His wife will be able to confirm this. These reprehensible, personal argumentum ad hominem attacks which are being made on me are really disgraceful.

I could say more about that thesis. I once spoke about it on television. If it is so important, we can talk about it. After all, those hon. members have not remained loyal to one party. I have remained loyal to the one party into which I was born, of which I am still a member and in which I shall remain to the day of my death. I shall do this in spite of the base and scurrilous attacks on my person, even though I find myself in a difficult position since I am dealing with extremely sophisticated and delicate matters. Therefore hon. members must forgive me if I speak in a very serious vein of the personal attacks that are being made on me. Such conduct is not worthy of the hon. member sitting over there at the back. He has never asked me a single thing about the facts of this matter, not one!

I can indicate the reason—I have dealt with it in this House—why I personally believe, with my whole heart, body and soul, that the only policy in this country in terms of which we can find a peaceful solution to our problems is the policy of multinational development. In my thesis I indicated quite clearly and beyond all doubt, on a scientific basis, that if this country became a one man, one vote country, and ended up by finding itself in an integration situation, a revolution would be inevitable. This country would then be an anomic society, a sick society with no hope of a peaceful future. The hon. members do not seem to have eyes to read it and a mind to understand it, but in spite of that, they make these personal attacks on me.

I could say more about the question of the thesis, but I come now to the hon. member’s second argument. He made another allegation which was just as base and which they are using against me in season and out of season, i.e. my alleged statement in America that apartheid was dead. However, what did I say in America? I said exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister has said in this House. Hon. members can compare the Hansard with my words. They were recorded on tape and they are available in writing, in any case. Surely that hon. member who is so bold and who used to be a clergyman really cannot make such mistakes. [Interjections.] He must stop his personal attacks on me. I shall not sink to his level by making personal attacks on him. I can assure him that I could, if I wanted to. I have certain things at my disposal which I could use. However, he can rest easy, because I shall not do so. As I said last night: “It is much easier for a flea to make things very difficult for a lion than it is for a Hon to make things difficult for a flea.” I address the same remark to him.

What did I say in America? I was talking about apartheid “as the world has come to know it”. Those were my very words, and they are recorded in writing. I said that apartheid “as the world has come to know it is dying and is dead”. [Interjections.] I could also remind the hon. member of a speech which Mr. Vorster made in Kroonstad and in which he indicated that our policy of separate development, of multinational development had had its negative aspects during its first phase, and in which he also dealt with the second and third phases. In the same way, I indicated in Parliament yesterday that we had undergone a development phase and that this had brought us to consultation and liaison. So in that respect, too, the hon. member is making scurrilous and unprecedented personal attacks on me. Do they believe that they are doing their country a service in this way?

Is your thesis available?

Then there is their third standpoint. This has been stated in particular by the hon. member over there who is now being so voluble, the hon. member for Rissik. For some reason—I do not know what the reason is, it is Greek to me—the third drum they are beating in order to cast aspersions on me is to say that I was a Cottesloe man.

Yes, of course.

I challenge that hon. member, as well as the hon. member who made the allegation and who is a former clergyman, to furnish one shred of evidence to prove that I was ever a Cottesloe man.

Go and read the speech you made last year.

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

If that hon. member is basing this scurrilous allegation which they are unfairly making against me on the speech which I made here in Parliament last year and in which I attacked his leader, I want to tell him now that this is an untruth. I have never been a Cottesloe man in all my life.

Then you were telling a lie last year.

Then I ask those hon. members to furnish proof, not only to this House, but to the entire country. If the hon. member is unable to furnish that proof, I expect two things of him. Firstly, I expect him to rise in this House and to apologize to me, and secondly, I expect him to have the courage also to say in public that he treated me unfairly.

Then the hon. member based his attack on me on the four points which I had allegedly made at the University of Cape Town. This is what the CP is doing and this is what the HNP has been doing to me for years. I am grateful for the opportunity which I have in this House this afternoon of furnishing the facts to a former clergyman. I do not want to waste the time of the House by discussing these facts, but they are available to anyone who takes an interest in the matter.

Is this off the record?

As far as I am concerned, I never spoke off the record there. Nor did I ever interfere there in any way. I believe that I did not say a single word there which I have not said in this House in the past or which I am not prepared to say here. As far as I know, Prof. Schrire is not a supporter of mine or of the NP. Hon. members can go and ask him whether he is. I am beginning to wonder now whether the CP was not behind those events. I am serious in saying this. In all the years I have been in public life, I have never encountered anything like the events that took place after I had spoken at the University of Cape Town. Because Prof. Schrire is an honourable man, he phoned me of his own accord and apologized to me. I was as surprised as anyone when he subsequently issued a statement in which he said that what they were trying to do to me was absolutely unfair. I have the statement here. Hon. members can read it. Only afterwards did I say to the Citizen that it was a pack of lies. What was said there had been sucked out of their thumbs. There was also a report under the heading “KP se slenter oopgevlek”. The principal of the University of Cape Town also intervened. I did not ask him to do so. As far as I know, he is not an NP supporter. I also take it that he is not a supporter of mine. Prof. Schrire expressed his surprise at what some students had done. He said that he could only surmise that those students had not been present when I delivered my speech. I spelt out to those students the policy of multinational development as I had personally experienced it since 1950. I did not say a word about the new dispensation all morning; this is confirmed by Prof. Schrire. They wrested my words completely out of context in a most reprehensible way. Arising from what the hon. member for Bryanston had said, I repeated what I have said before the Press Club in Washington. I repeated those four points in this House, and repeated them verbatim at the university. I believe with absolute conviction that the implementation of that policy in this country is feasible. If we can implement that policy, we shall indeed be the miracle of this century. Then we shall succeed in preventing revolution in this country. What I said there can only be attained within the framework of the policy of multinational development. It can only be attained within the framework of the policy of this party and not within the policies of the PFP or the CP. It is possible within the framework of our policy of multinationalism to provide for equal opportunity for all people in this country. The points which I have spelt out in Hansard and before the Press Club in Washington I repeated word for word before the students. These points are recorded in Hansard. In fact, I have dealt with those points in detail on two occasions in this House. The hon. member made a scurrilous attack on me on the basis of these four points and he portrayed me as a rogue. I am not a rogue. I have always believed that one should try to be a good person. I am not a rogue, and hon. members may take my word for that. Nor am I a liar, and hon. members may take my word for that as well. I have already dealt with the four things on which the hon. member based his scurrilous attack on me and from which he drew a series of inferences. Number one was my thesis; number two was that I was supposed to have said that apartheid was dead; number three was that I was a Cottesloe supporter; and number four was the points which I had made at the University of Cape Town. I want to tell those hon. members: Let us talk politics—we have every right to do so—but is it fair and justifiable to the people, to the Black people in this country and before the Almighty, our Heavenly Father, that there should be this kind of unreasonable conduct at a personal level? I believe that it is not. I very much wanted to state the facts in this House this afternoon. If the hon. member has ears to hear and if he has any understanding, he will rid himself of this attitude and we shall be able to put an end to this kind of thing, in this House and in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister replied very effectively to the attack of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I therefore do not want to detract from what he said by way of my contribution this afternoon. I must just say, however, that if there is one hon. Minister who undoubtedly is able to articulate the NP’s policy as regards relations among peoples, it is the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Anyone who is familiar with the political history of South Africa and who is well informed about the modifications that have been effected to the policy of separate development, viz. that separate freedoms have been established over the past 25 years, would know that the hon. the Minister is in no way deviating from the policy of Dr. Verwoerd.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort, in his attacks on the hon. the Minister, was not merely wanting to get at the hon. the Minister himself. That is only one aspect of the strategy of hon. members on that side of the House. They want to get at the hon. the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet, as far as this matter is concerned. They are trying to claim that there has been a dramatic departure from NP policy. That hon. gentleman is now claiming that their new policy is formulated in terms of the Minister’s thesis, which was written 30 years ago. I want to ask that hon. member a few questions. Who was the Minister of Co-operation and Development responsible when Ciskei became independent a few years ago? Under which Minister is kwaNdebele going to become independent in the near future? Under the leadership of which hon. Minister is tremendous industrial development taking place and a policy of de-concentration and decentralization being implemented? The hon. member for Koedoespoort, as well as other hon. members of the CP are trying to create the impression that White areas have become increasingly Black recently. I want to give the hon. member a few figures, however.

Let us consider, for example, what Mr. Gert du Preez, liaison officer for the Western Cape Administration Board, has to say. According to a report in The Cape Times of 17 March this year, he said that applications from contract workers from Transkei and Ciskei had decreased from 69 000 in 1981 to 60 000 in 1982. This represents a decrease of 12,5%. And then that hon. member still says that the whole world is becoming Black.

Recently a book was published by a University of Cape Town economist, a certain Mr. Charles Simkins (not our Charlie Simkin!) He has the following to say on the urbanization of the Blacks—

Proportionally therefore, there has been a decline in the number of Black people in the metropolitan and other areas outside the homelands. He also made other observations. The proportions of the total number of Blacks in the rural areas decreased from 35,1% to 20,6% in the period 1960 to 1980. He also said that the proportion of Black people in the homelands had risen considerably, from 39,8% to 53,1% during the same period of 1960 to 1980. Those hon. members, however, make the flat statement that the whole world is going Black. Of course there are more Black people today, but hon. members should bear in mind that the numbers of the other population groups in South Africa have also increased. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the proportion of Black people in the homelands has increased tremendously, from 39, 8% to almost 53, 1% in that 20 year period. Those hon. members, however, say that the whole world is going Black.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort was extremely careful in the statement he made. If we had listened carefully, we would have heard the hon. member say that everyone was concerned about illegal Blacks. He did not speak about other Black people. We ought all to be concerned about the illegals. However, the hon. member wanted to create the impression that in terms of their policy, South Africa would be completely White, and that there would no longer be any Black people around. The hon. member can forget about politics of that kind. If there is one thing we must accept, it is that there must be economic interdependence among the various groups in South Africa. We cannot develop unless we have that economic interdependence. That is why it is so important to us that the homelands should develop. I also find it odd that the hon. member for Lichtenburg saw fit to make the remark in this debate that nothing at all was happening in the Black areas at present. However, I have with me the report of the Economic Development Corporation. There is also the report of the Lebowa Development Corporation and the report of the Shangaan Development Corporation. One can see the tremendous progress being made in all the national homelands that have development corporations. It is clear from the latest report of the Economic Development Corporation that 31 more factories have been established in one year than in the previous year. Thousands of additional employment opportunities have been created. We should therefore maintain a proper balance in South Africa. The national homelands must develop. That is the only way to ease the pressure on our existing White areas. There is no other way. One could even think in terms of a wall of shame, like the one in Berlin, surrounding our existing White areas. If, however, there is no development in the homelands and in the national States, and if we do not pursue a policy of de-concentration and decentralization, the pressure on the White areas will continue. That is why hon. members of the CP are just as wrong as the hon. members of the official Opposition, who think that one can simply throw open the doors and provide everyone with employment in this area. It is absolutely impossible to do that too.

One of the experts tells us that if Black people were allowed to flock, uncontrolled, to the Cape Peninsula, for example, for the next 17 years, until the end of this century, we would have one huge squatter camp extending from the present Crossroads to Cape Hangklip. This is the kind of situation that would arise in South Africa if the PFP, with its policy of no protection of existing areas, no influx control, were to come to power in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the hon. member for De Kuilen’s argument was directed primarily at the CP, and his contention seems to be that he could execute their CP policy, and was in fact doing so, better than they could do it. [Interjections.]

If we take a step back from the tangle of problems with which this hon. Minister is confronted, what do we see? Problem No. 1 is the NP. [Interjections.] This has been tacitly admitted by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Both of them have found that their followers have been so long stuffed with a dangerous ideology that when they suggest some sort of a change they face complete rejection, and the extraordinary thing is that this pathetic situation is the best excuse given for proposing the grotesque new constitutional proposals. [Interjections.]

Problem No. 2, Mr. Chairman, concerns growth; growth from 21 million to 55 million in the number of Blacks over the next 37 years; growth of expectations; growth of bitter anger and resentment at years of exploitation; growth also of cynicism about the Government’s promises, and also about the Government’s commitment to the religious philosophies which they profess to abide by; and—very serious indeed—a growing identification of the free enterprise system with this NP Government.

The inevitable consequences of this explosive mood is the recruitment of many of the most gifted young Blacks to violence. We can talk of course about the outrage of the bomb explosion in Pretoria; and that is indeed an outrage. We could discuss the cycle of violence that led up to that incident, as if it started with that detonation, but it will not help us to seek out and put right the real causes of violence. These must be sought in the Government’s policies of repression. [Interjections.] Problem No. 2 is the question of the sort of policy this hon. Minister is expected to execute.

Previously, when the Afrikanervolk was united in a messianic determination to apply a doctrinaire apartheid, it was easy to describe their objectives. Now many hon. members on the NP side see disaster ahead; they would like to change but they still want to have their cake and eat it. Apartheid is being repainted. The old tart is decked out in new finery, but will not be respectable until she actually reforms.

She will still remain an old tart.

Molteno’s description of the situation is still the Nationalists’ credo. He says that what was central to the Bantustan strategy was the recognition that no political rights could be granted to Blacks within a common South African framework without provoking the demand for full political rights—a process that would inevitably result in open war or capitulation. The statement—either apartheid or war or capitulation—is a false dichotomy. The NP policy makers must put the question the other way around—either apartheid, war and capitulation or a massive restructuring of society on the concept of inclusiveness. In its essentials, Black/White policy remains directed by the dead hand of Dr. Verwoerd and, having heard the hon. the Minister reply to the CP just now, I can see it absolutely clearly. He remains programmed by Dr. Verwoerd. For Dr. Verwoerd influx control was essential because apartheid depended upon it. “If we could succeed in keeping the Native population in the reserves”, said Dr. Verwoerd, “then even if 2 million remained behind in our towns White South Africa would be saved”. The Government will not face the fact that it has to work with influx and not against it. Government policy remains therefore a South Africa divided into a White area and self-governing Black States. The Blacks in the so-called White area will all be citizens of one or other of these Black States, and that is where they will exercise their political rights. Blacks in urban areas will have municipal status. White South Africa and the Black States will have voluntary representation on some sort of confederal body. Coloureds and Indians will be neatly wrapped up in their own particular Houses in the so-called White Parliament. To the degree that there has been any adjustment it has been depicted by poor, tortured Dr. Wimpie de Klerk as reform. He says that there will be “medeseggenskap” at all levels, that discrimination will be done away with, that ethnicity as a compulsory social division will be largely removed, there may be some sort of overriding citizenship, there can be a sharing of amenities where this is desired—shades of the NRP!—but there will be recognition of the fact that ethnicity is maintained for the purposes of political organization and grouping. What is wrong with this scenario? It is an example of wishful, woolly thinking and intellectual cowardice—wishful thinking in that it succumbs to the delusion that this route offers comfortable escape from the consequences of decades of oppression; woolly, in that there is no consideration given to the practicability of such society; and intellectual cowardice in that it fails to face up to the legacy of hate that has been created, the problem of wealth distribution, the right to own land, the sharing of political power and the changes that must take place in our society. The Nationalist blueprint for South Africa fails to come to terms with the limitations of the homelands. Rural slums are worse than urban slums. That is where the children die of kwashiorkor and the other diseases of deprivation. To make the land productive agriculturally, people must be removed from it.

I was very interested to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say in this respect. This is the one constructive thing that we have heard. The only merit that a rural slum has over a slum in the city is that from the Government’s point of view it is out of sight. An urban slum can be a step to education, work and opportunity but a rural slum is the bottom of the sump—without food, without stimulation, without services, without young men, without hope. Its worst characteristic, however, is something quite different. Its worst characteristic affects us all in that 12 inches of surface soil is endangered by rural slums and over-population in the Black homelands and, if that is removed, it decides whether South Africa feasts or fasts. Verwoerd was right when he said that to save White South Africa the Black population of White towns must not exceed 2 million. He was right when he said that. The corollary is also true. If that figure has been exceeded—and it is already plus-minus 6 million—then the type of White South Africa that he was talking about has gone for ever in any event. The Government’s fixation with an aberrant dream is preventing it from coming to terms with the real world in which we live and to which we must accommodate if we wish to continue to live. To attempt to stop influx into our industrial cities is, in the words of Smuts, to try to sweep back the ocean with a broom. To attempt it by decentralization of industry to a multitutde of development points, many of which are in remote areas, by incentives so exaggerated that they warp economic judgment shows a failure to appreciate the dimensions of (a) the problem and (b) the resources which we have to meet that problem. The vast resources of the State are being used to prop up a failure and it is obvious that it is already failing. 200 000 were arrested for pass offences last year. What a background on which to build a future! In Port Elizabeth in 1950 there were 20 000 Blacks waiting for houses; in 1983, after the story of success which the hon. the Minister has described, there are in Soweto alone probably 100 000 people wanting houses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer accused the NP of in fact being the enemy of South Africa as a result of the policy it pursues. We have many problems in South Africa, but I think that one of the most important problems we have is that we have a far left official Opposition that has in its ranks people who pursue revolutionary objectives and try to implement them. The biggest problem in South Africa is that we have people with extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing views.

In the short time at my disposal, I wish to deal with an imported person who belongs to the extreme right-wing. I refer to Brendan Willmer, who serves on the Head Committee of the CP. He was elected to the Head Committee in March. He comes from England …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible to discuss Mr. Brendan Willmer under the Vote we are discussing at present? [Interjections.]

Order! I am listening carefully to the hon. member for Vryheid and if what he says is irrelevant, I shall call him to order.

I should like to link Brendan Willmer with what the hon. member for Lichtenburg had to say yesterday when he pointed out that good relations were very important to South Africa. I agree with that statement of his, since good relations are indeed, very important. However, there are people in South Africa who bedevil good relations in South Africa. We have enough people in South Africa who are bedevilling and impeding good relations in this country, and a good example of such people are the supporters of the CP, the AWB, which is in trouble at the moment as a result of their plan to assassinate the hon. the Prime Minister, or to blow up certain places, as the newspapers have stated. These are the people one finds in their ranks, but then they also accommodate this unemployed man, an immigrant from England. They accommodated him in their Head Committee at their meeting in the Skilpad Hall. That is what they did with Brendan Willmer.

I want to tell you who this imported man from England is who has come to bedevil our relations problems in South Africa. He is a person who is unwelcome in England at present, since he was an active member of the National Union there.

Order! The hon. member must make his point and come back to the Vote.

I shall do so, Sir. I am simply pointing out that people can adversely affect good relations in South Africa. To the best of my knowledge, this man is at present a member of the CP and he serves on their Head Committee. He is making matters difficult for us, particularly in Natal, where he moves among English-speaking people. Where good relations in South Africa are concerned, he is poison. He is an obstacle on the path of good relations in South Africa. If one examines his statements in Natal and if one looks at the methods he uses to get the Rhodesians who have moved to Natal to be hostile towards South Africa, then it is clear that he is fanning the flames of racism and bedevilling race relations. This is the kind of person who makes matters very difficult for us in South Africa. Allow me to say why I am mentioning him by name. He is living here on a temporary resident’s permit.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Very well, Sir. I just want to say that in terms of influx control, he is really an unwelcome immigrant in South Africa. [Interjections.] I think something should be done about cancelling this man’s temporary resident’s permit.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I really think the hon. member is trifling with the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan is raising a point of order and hon. members must afford him the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Chairman, my point is that the hon. member is trifling with the Chair. [Interjections.] Sir, I have once again been interrupted while trying to raise a point of order. May I address you now, Sir?

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Sir, I say that the hon. member is trifling with the Chair. You asked him to confine himself to the subject under discussion, and that is the Department of Co-operation and Development. Now the hon. member is referring to a White person whose application for a resident’s permit is being considered at present. Now it is being said that in terms of the influx control policy, such a person should not be allowed in South Africa. That has nothing to do with the matter that is before the Committee at present.

Order! I can assure the hon. member for Brakpan that I shall not permit the hon. member for Vryheid to make any further reference to that person. The hon. member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to conclude. Since that person’s temporary resident’s permit has already expired, I want it to be cancelled permanently. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to certain matters the hon. the Minister touched upon here today. History will also record what the hon. the Minister said and did—the way in which he presented his arguments—especially in the past few years. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of the speech he made here on Wednesday, 9 June, 1982. On that occasion he said the following (Hansard, col. 8843)—

He took the matter further and called in the testimony of the Cillié Commission. He then went on to say—

Then he said—

Is that correct? [Interjections.] No, hon. members must now leave the hon. the Minister to me. He must defend his own wicket. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said that when the hon. member for Waterberg was editor of Die Kerkbode, he was one of the greatest schismatists of the people.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In the discussion of the Co-operation and Development Vote the hon. member for Rissik is speaking about things which, in my humble opinion, have nothing to do with the Vote. I should like to have your ruling in this connection.

Order! I have been listening to what the hon. member for Rissik has said and request him to come back to the Vote. If he wants to make a point, he must make it and then come back to the discussion of the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House has moved for a reduction of the hon. the Minister’s salary. This debate concerns the hon. the Minister, what he said in regard to the leader of my party and what he said in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

Order! I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in saying that that is the reason for the proposed reduction in the hon. the Minister’s salary. I think it relates to the Co-operation and Development Vote and to how the hon. the Minister does his job. I think the hon. member must address the Committee on that issue.

I am talking about the Minister, who has to deal with relations between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. In that regard there was the accusation about the leader of the CP having been one of the greatest schismatists in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask, with great respect, for this side of the House to be given the opportunity to reply to arguments which the hon. the Minister, as Minister of Co-operation and Development, advanced in regard to the hon. the leader of the CP.

The hon. the Minister also said one could look at how controversial a figure the hon. the leader of the CP was at Cottesloe. The hon. the Minister says the leader of the CP is one of the greatest schismatists in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What was said about the argument of an hon. member sitting behind me over here, applies equally to what the hon. member for Rissik is now saying. The hon. member is now advancing an argument that really has nothing to do with the Vote. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to put his point of order.

If the hon. member for Rissik maintains that he wants to support his party’s motion, he must do so on the basis of allegations … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must restrain himself.

The hon. member must base it on allegations—I doubt whether he would be able to do so—concerning this hon. Minister’s handling of his Post as Minister of Co-operation and Development vis-á-vis the functions of the department. The hon. member, however, is now discussing matters that are completely unrelated to the Vote. Today we are discussing a serious matter here.

Order! Could I just ask the hon. member for Rissik whether the passage he has just quoted was something that was said earlier in the debate by the hon. the Minister …

Yes!

Order! I was asking the hon. member for Rissik, and I think he is quite capable of answering for himself.

In a speech after that of my colleague, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, in which he put forward certain arguments which you permitted, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister replied. All I am now doing is replying to the hon. the Minister’s speech.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: At no stage did the hon. the Minister refer to the hon. the leader of the CP.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may continue if his reply relates to what the hon. the Minister said in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, when he spoke a little while ago, the hon. the Minister said we could advance no proof about whom he had chosen to throw in his lot with at Cottesloe.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on a further point of order. I should like to point out that the point the hon. member for Rissik is now raising about the hon. the Minister’s involvement or non-involvement at Cottesloe, has nothing at all to do with the discussion of the Vote. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Brakpan entitled to refer to an hon. member on this side of the House as a milksop (“meid”)?

Order! I shall deal with that point of order in a moment. I first want to give my ruling on the point of order of the hon. member for Innesdal. In his reply to the speech of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, the hon. the Minister referred to Cottesloe.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman can leave it to me to give a ruling. I therefore think the hon. member for Rissik is entitled to react to that. As regards the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad, my ruling is that the hon. member for Brakpan must withdraw his statement that an hon. member of the NP is a “meid”.

I said the hon. member for Innesdal was one.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Standerton must also withdraw his reference to the hon. member for Kuruman being a blockhead (“houtkop”).

Mr. Chairman, I really did not say that… [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon. member said it?

Sir, I really cannot say. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I did. I was merely making a diagnosis. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Sir, I should just like to make a final point so as to give you an opportunity to keep order here. I want to state categorically, looking the hon. the Minister straight in the eye, that the hon. the Minister indicted himself by admitting where he stood in regard to the Cottesloe issue. The standpoint the hon. the Minister adopted is that the hon. the leader of the CP acted wrongly at Cottesloe and that in regard to the standpoints of such opponents as Beyers Naudé, Joos de Blank and Frank van Wyk, standpoints which they adopted there, the hon. the Minister … [Time expired.]

That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. Chairman, in all the years I have been listening to discussions of this specific Vote in this House, this is probably the one in which there has been the fewest attacks ever launched by Opposition parties. What is the reason for that? Why is it that hon. members of the CP, in particular, resort to statements proved to have been untrue by this side of the House. [Interjections.] I want to qualify that.

Name one example.

Give me a chance and I shall do so. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said, firstly, that consolidation had come to a standstill. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, gave chapter and verse to prove the very opposite. That is not all, however, because the hon. member for Barberton tried to embroider on that, and he, too, was given an answer, so much so that the hon. member for Kuruman commended the hon. the Deputy Minister on the fact that he was doing good work. That was in reply to criticism of the hon. member for Barberton.

When those hon. members could not succeed in that endeavour, however, they scandalously launched a personal attack on the hon. the Minister. We have just had an example of the hon. member for Rissik being ready and willing to raise a matter from another debate in an attempt at character assassination. That does not, in my view, befit an hon. member of this House.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.