Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, in the concluding portion of his speech yesterday evening the hon. member for Randburg gave a very good exposition of his standpoint, indicating why he would like the Black people in South Africa to have the best of both worlds. He wants them to have the best in the world of the Whites and in their own fatherlands. [Interjections.]

Yesterday in his speech the hon. member for Klip River referred to the CP’s ideological never-never land, thereby labelling separate development and its consistent application as an ideological never-never land. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Klip River whether it has not been the policy of separate development, the policy of the old NP, which has, for 34 years now, ensured the greatest degree of peace and prosperity for this country. Was it not this very policy which gave substance to the self-respect of the Black peoples? Was it not this policy which ensured that natural leaders came to the fore from the ranks of the respective Black peoples? And the hon. member refers to that policy as the CP’s ideological never-never land! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Klip River also referred to instant solutions. I want to put it to the hon. member that separate development is not an instant solution. Separate development, the implementation of separate freedoms, is in fact a permanent solution. It leads to peace and also eliminates conflict in a multi-national country like South Africa.

I want to know whether the hon. member for Klip River is aware of the reasons why the late Dr. Verwoerd did not want to allow so-called White capital to be invested injudiciously in the homelands. In this respect I should like to quote the following from the speech the hon. member for Klip River made yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, now I should like to know from the hon. member for Klip River whether he is aware of the reasons why the late Dr. Verwoerd refused to allow so-called White capital to be invested injudiciously in the homelands.

Yes.

But why is the hon. member criticizing Dr. Verwoerd in this regard, when he knows that Dr. Verwoerd said that if homelands were created for the Black peoples, homelands in which they would be led to self-determination, those peoples cannot be told beforehand who must and who can invest in their homelands? [Interjections.] After all, hon. members know that Dr. Verwoerd also said that those homelands should become independent, after which the Government of each separate Black people would be free to decide who it would allow to invest in its country. The hon. member for Klip River—and not only him, but some of his hon. colleagues as well—attack Dr. Verwoerd from platform to platform by saying that he refused to allow White investments in the Black homelands. This is what they are saying, even though they know what the truth of the matter really is. [Interjections.] I also want to ask the hon. member for Klip River whether he ever mentioned to Dr. Verwoerd personally, or in the NP, what his views on Dr. Verwoerd’s standpoint were. I want to ask the hon. member whether he ever did so. I should like him to give us a reply to this. I also want to ask the hon. member when he is going to dissociate himself from Adv. Vorster. He must also tell us that. We also want to ask that hon. member whether he is now in complete agreement with everything the hon. the Prime Minister says and does. I want to ask him whether he is in complete agreement with all of that.

Are you in complete agreement with Dr. Treurnicht?

I am asking the hon. member whether he is in complete agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister and whether he is also going to dissociate himself from the hon. the Prime Minister in a few years’ time.

Yesterday the hon. member for Venters-dorp asked a question in this House. He asked us whether the courts have the right to interpret laws of this Parliament. The CP wants to tell him: Yes, of course the courts have the right to interpret laws of this Parliament. I want to ask the hon. member for Ventersdorp what the background is to the legislation being debated here, legislation on which the courts have given a ruling. The Government made a law aimed at preventing Black contract workers from obtaining certain rights in White South Africa. The Government made that law to prevent Black contract workers, the citizens of Black neighbouring States who, in terms of a policy of separate development, have full and equal rights in their own fatherlands from gaining the same social and political rights in the country in which they are selling their labour.

Hon. members opposite are so fond of asking us: What are the realities? Even the hon. member for Rosettenville tells us we have to take the realities into consideration. What are the realities? After 10 years a contract labourer claims certain rights in the country to which he has come to sell his labour, in White South Africa. This contract labourer goes to court and wins the case. What does the Government do? The hon. member for Ventersdorp is quite happy about this. He is satisfied with this. The Government says the court has given a ruling. The Government is satisfied. It is now giving certain rights to thousands of Rikhotos, certain rights which the NP, under the leadership of Adv. and Dr. Verwoerd, was not prepared to give contract labourers. This is what the Government is doing. What would an NP Government which has remained true to separate development have done? It would have amended on put right inefficient legislation which was in conflict with its ideals. If the Government set itself the ideal of preventing Black contract labourers from obtaining certain rights in White South Africa, the legislation applicable in this specific case would have been drafted accordingly.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier also participated in this debate yesterday and he conveyed his thanks to the Government. He thanked the Government. He said: Mr. Minister, I want to thank you very much for not being prepared to rectify the mistakes.

He was expressing his thanks in connection with the Small Business Development Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier thanked the hon. the Minister very sincerely … [Interjections.] … for not being prepared to rectify the mistakes. [Interjections.] The hon. member said: Thank you, Bennie, thank you, Pietie, for not being prepared to rectify your mistakes. [Interjections.] I now want to tell hon. members opposite that the CP …

Order! To whom is the hon. member referring when he says “thank you, Bennie, thank you, Pietie”?

Mr. Speaker, It was a very friendly reference to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Ventersdorp. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must use the correct parliamentary terminology when referring to other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, but I really meant well. I should like the Minister to explain to me, when he replies, what he meant when he said a while ago that I should shove my friendly “dingetjies” (thingumajigs) in my “dinges” (whatd’you-call-it). [Interjections.] I should like him to say what he meant by that. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must say what he meant by that.

The CP will be voting against the legislation. The PFP will also be voting against the legislation; they have already indicated that they will be doing so. [Interjections] The choir in the back benches opposite will again be heard: Yes, you are voting with the Progs. [Interjections.] I should like to tell hon. members there in the back benches why we shall be voting against the legislation. We shall not be voting with the Progs; we shall be voting against the legislation. We shall be doing so because the new NP is doing what the PFP and the Black Sash want. [Interjections.] The CP will be voting against the legislation because the hon. the Minister is doing exactly what the PFP and the Black Sash want him to do. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister directs many snide and personal comments at the CP, but this behaviour is totally unworthy of him as a person. It is totally unworthy of him as a person, because normally he is a very friendly person. This is how I have come to know him over the years. However, now he is directing his very snide remarks at the CP. What he has just done goes to prove this. However, I do not want to make snide remarks at the hon. the Minister’s expense.

Let us consider the hon. the Minister’s track record as regards sport in South Africa. Under the pretext of clichés such as normalizing sport and taking realities into consideration, the hon. the Minister has taken separate sport in South Africa and “normalized” it into multinational sport. Then he “normalized” multinational sport into multiracial sport. When that hon. Minister was confronted, at NP meetings, with the fact that a few Indians were playing cricket with Whites at the Aurora Cricket Club in Pietermaritzburg, that multiracial cricket was being played there, the hon. the Minister said—hon. members must listen carefully to what the hon. the Minister said—that the Government did not want to enforce separate sport by way of legislation; the Government wanted to bring about separate sport by means of persuasion.

The hon. the Minister and I were on the same platform at Postmasburg. When questions were put to him about the multiracial Aurora Cricket Club, he said that the Government did not want to enforce separate sport by way of legislation; the Government wanted to bring it about by persuasion.

Order! What principle in the Bill is the hon. member dealing with now?

In clause 5 certain measures are being introduced to facilitate multiracial sport in South Africa.

When the hon. the Minister said, on that platform, that he was not going to enforce separate sport by way of legislation, but that this would be brought about by means of persuasion, he patted his briefcase and said: Here in my briefcase I have a Bill to enforce separate sport if they—viz. the sport integrationists—refuse to listen.

What did you say to that?

When he patted his briefcase like that, I was very happy.

And what did you start patting then? [Interjections.]

The Nationalists of Postmasburg were also very satisfied indeed. He said he had legislation in his briefcase to enforce separate sport if the sports integrationists refused to listen. But that hon. Minister continued to “normalize” sport into totally multiracial sport in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

His friend from Pine-lands is saying “Hear, hear!” to that.

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

Sir, I have too little time. [Interjections.] Clause 5 of this Bill gives firmer substance to the Government’s policy of multiracial sport in South Africa.

I now come to the matter of influx control. I should like to quote from the Cape Times of 2 June 1983.

I thought it would be one of those newspapers.

I shall be getting round to the hon. member’s own newspapers in a moment. I quote—

This newspaper, which had tried to contact the hon. the Minister, then went on to say—

That is what he has done.

I shall discuss how he patted his briefcase in East London in a moment. I also want to quote from the Evening Post. In this newspaper a report appeared under the headline “Koornhof Warning on Stricter Influx Control”. Let me quote from it—

I also want to quote from Die Burger, if that will satisfy the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

Die Burger is his boss.

In Die Burger of 7 October 1982—just after that congress—I read the following—

So the False Bay constituency objected, on that occasion, to the influx of Blacks to the Western Cape. I do not know whether that town was in exactly the same spot or whether it was Khayelitsha they were referring to at that stage. In the Daily Dispatch of 7 October I read the following—

Then he is quoted as follows—

At that congress the hon. the Minister again patted his briefcase and said: “Ons sal keer dat die Swartes na die Blanke gebiede toe stroom; ons sal verhoed dat Wes-Kaapland verswart.” He announced this year, however, that a new town would be built on the Cape Flats with an infrastructure costing R9 million. In the Cape Times of Thursday, 2 June 1983, one reads the following—

For that reason I do not find it strange for the hon. member for Klip River very subtly to attack Dr. Verwoerd and what he advocated. However, here the newspaper says that if the Government were to abide by the ruling of the Appeal Court, it would be breaching the wall of influx control in South Africa. After the hon. the Minister had finished putting his briefcase in East London, he said the following, inter alia, in his Second Reading speech on this legislation (Hansard, Thursday, 30 June 1983, col. 10731)—

Just as the hon. the Minister shelved the legislation he had in his briefcase, which he patted so fondly, he also shelved the ideas he expressed last year at the East London congress of the NP. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is breaching that wall, he is demolishing it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can laugh about it. He may find it extremely funny. However, he is turning influx control into a farce.

The hon. the Minister said many wonderful things about the Ndebele in his Second Reading speech, and I should like to quote from it (Hansard, 30 June 1983, col. 10735)—

This is wonderful and one of the nicest things the hon. the Minister has ever said in this House, because he was thus expressing the nationalism of the Ndebele. He went on to say—

These are wonderful things the hon. the Minister said about kwaNdebele. In this regard the CP supports the hon. the Minister’s efforts. The CP supports the efforts of this small people that wants to be free. The CP will support the Government in its efforts to lead this small people to freedom in its own geographic area.

Let us look at kwaNdebele and see what the fatherland of these Ndebele is like. On 27 April 1983 the hon. member for Berea asked the hon. the Minister what the present size of the national State of kwaNdebele was. The reply to this question was as follows (col. 1118)—

In other words, the fatherland of the Ndebele covers 349 000 ha. The same hon. member also wanted to know from the hon. the Minister what the total population of kwaNdebele was in 1981 and 1982, respectively. The reply was (col. 1120)—

Why are you taking such a roundabout route to get to your homeland?

The hon. Chief Whip of the NP is a very nervous man nowadays. I think he has very good reason to be nervous, too, particularly when he hears things of this sort. I want to tell him that on 3 500 morgen bordering on his constituency, and in the constituency of my hon. colleague for False Bay, the hon. the Minister is creating the infrastructure for a Black city in which 300 000 people will eventually be living. [Interjections.] The Government is creating the infrastructure for a city on the Cape Flats which will eventually accommodate 300 000 people. It will be mainly Xhosas from Transkei and Ciskei who will be living there. This is what the Government is doing. While we are faced with the realities of 1983, the Government is launching this scheme on the Cape Flats. This is being done with the approval of the hon. Chief Whip of the NP.

What is your point?

I shall tell you what my point is. [Interjections.] The Government is not prepared to say that 250 000 Ndebele are not a people in their own right and cannot become independent and completely free on 349 000 ha. However, the Government says the Coloureds and Indians are minorities. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister—I also put this to him yesterday—that he will be instrumental in the traditional residential area of Coloureds and Whites on the Cape Flats becoming a permanent home for at least 300 000 Black people.

You are telling a half-lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. Chief Whip of the NP say that my hon. colleague is telling a half-lie?

Order! The hon. Chief Whip must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. He is telling a downright lie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must also withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I want to invite the hon. Chief Whip of the NP to get up and say whether he has succeeded in convincing the hon. the Minister not to continue with the building of Khayelitsha.

And what would you say if I were to tell you I had convinced him to build it? [Interjections.]

What a fantastic admission. There are many things the hon. member seems able to achieve. He can even convince Dr. Koornhof of the need to build a Black city on the Cape Flats. I want to make it quite clear, however, that the voters, including the voters in the Cape Peninsula, will square accounts with the Government, because the Government is bringing together what does not belong together. By establishing a Black city on the Cape Flats, the Government is negating that wonderful idea the hon. the Minister had for kwaNdebele, when he said that what belongs together should be brought together. The Government is bringing together Xhosas, Whites and Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula. The Government says 250 000 Ndebele are not a minority group; they are a people which is being led to independence, and in that respect we agree with the Government. That is something we can understand. The Government maintains, however, that 800 000 Indians, people with their own language, their own culture, their own traditions and their own religion … [Interjections.] Those hon. members are extremely nervous. They must tell us why 800 000 Indians, who have been in South Africa for many years now and have remained true to their traditions, cultures and religion, should now be regarded as a minority group.

Do they have only one language and one faith?

They do not have only one language. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that the voters of Kuruman are going to deal with that hon. representative of theirs. He is a strange man, one who changes his complexion and attitude with remarkable rapidity. When he was still a member of the NP he did not want to speak a word of English, and now he is even quoting from English-language newspapers! He is an hon. member who makes long speeches by asking short questions. The hon. member spoke about the hon. the Minister who is supposed to have patted his briefcase so often, but I think someone should tap his head a little to find out what is going on in there. In my opinion the hon. member is the finest example of a turncoat, or may I say a hands-upper? When the hon. member was on this side of the House he was chairman of the study group on matters pertaining to the Blacks, and at the time he had a great deal to say about the good qualities of the hon. the Minister. He even asked the hon. the Minister to appear with him on platforms in order to attract voters. Now, however, he turns around and accuses the hon. the Minister of all manner of things and emphasizes the hon. the Minister’s so-called weaknesses.

What came to the fore from the hon. member’s speech was not logical. It was a jumble of racism he has been mulling over. The hon. member has become mixed up with the PFP, because he has now become used to agreeing with them. We are used to them differing, but the moment they can get at their joint enemy, the NP, they are in agreement, they agree with each other and they forge ties of friendship. The hon. member attacked the hon. the Minister very unfairly, and not only the hon. the Minister, but also the hon. member for Klip River. It was most uncalled-for for him to attack the hon. member in connection with statements he made on which one could not fault him. The hon. member for Klip River said that we were all seeking peace and prosperity, and that that went for the hon. member too, but that our methods for bringing about peace and prosperity in this country differed somewhat. We are realistic. We have not remained in the sixties with Dr. Verwoerd. We acknowledge the realities of today’s situation. The hon. member asked us whether we agreed with the leader-in-chief of our party, Mr. P. W. Botha. Of course! There has never been a time in the history of this party when there has been greater unity in NP ranks than there is now. We are experiencing the greatest unity under this hon. Prime Minister because we are working with, and want to work with, the realities of South Africa. But, Sir, we are not perfect, and if a leader of the party makes a mistake as far as policy is concerned, we discuss it in the process of self-analysis. It is a good thing for us to tell each other where mistakes have been made so that we can avoid them in the future.

Sir, the party to which I belong and to which the hon. member for Kuruman fortunately no longer belongs, accepts urbanization as a reality. Urbanization is not simply a process we thought up. It is occurring throughout the world and is difficult to control. The hon. member should wake up and realize that at the moment 9 million people are living in the four metropolises in South Africa, half of whom are Blacks, and we have to accept that the process of urbanization will continue and that the 9 million people in the four metropolises today will increase to 13 million within the next 20 years. We do not want to tackle this problem in a desultory fashion. We want to see if we cannot solve the problem to the benefit of everyone involved. The PFP is inclined to say that everything this side of the House, the Government, does is to the detriment of the Black people. But surely that is very far from the truth. In actual fact there is no party that has done as much for the Black people of South Africa as the NP, in spite of the PFP’s scandal-mongering and denigration of the NP and of the Afrikaner. Recently I travelled through all the Black States and if there was one thing which struck me it was that it is the Afrikaner, the Nationalist, who is taking these people by the hand and helping them to stand on their own feet. In contrast, members of the PFP are too busy lining their own pockets.

The question I want to ask today is whether we should allow urbanization to take place only in the four metropolitan areas. Should we not channel the process to other centres as well? After all, this is in everyone’s interest, in the interests of both the Whites and the Blacks. Will the uncontrolled influx of people to our cities not cause greater misery? After all, there are many problems linked to this, problems in connection with the provision of water and other services and job opportunities. To allow people to stream, unchecked, to the metropolitan areas does not solve their problems. As a matter of fact it simply causes more problems for them. We should like to see balanced economic development throughout the country and decentralization of economic activities. For that reason we do not want to allow all our people in South Africa to converge on the metropolitan areas. If this were to happen who would produce our food? Who would defend the country and who would practise nature conservation? Who is going to do all these things if we all go to live in the cities?

Our department is a friend to the Blacks. There is no greater friend to the Black people than our Administration Boards. There are no greater friends to the Black people than the departmental officials, who are loyally devoted to improving conditions in Black areas. The NP is not opposed to promoting the interests of the Black people. We do not hate the Black man as members of the PFP sometimes try to suggest. We simply want to ensure that everyone’s standard of living is improved. The seeds of suspicion being sown in connection with the department are not in the interests of our country. The department does not mean anyone harm. However, there are problems in connection with accommodation and other matters.

Of course, we have to admit that the NP Government has made several mistakes in the past. Of course this is true. Anyone who is prepared to undertake something, makes mistakes at some time or other. However, the NP Government has also done several positive things, which have benefited the Black people. Yesterday one of the hon. members of the PFP alleged that Black people have had to go to court for every privilege they have acquired. Surely this is not true. If we just take note of the achievements of the NP over the past 35 years, it is, after all, clear that just the opposite of what the hon. member alleged is true. Hon. members of the PFP go out of their way to create tension between the Government and Black people in the country. Fortunately they do not always succeed. [Interjections.]

However, the NP is pursuing its task with idealism and realism. By maintaining law and order the NP is trying to bring about peace in the country, in contrast with the chaos which the PFP seems to want.

Of course, hon. members of the CP are living in an absolute dream world. They do not have the vaguest idea what is happening in South Africa at the moment; and even less what will happen in this country in the future. In contrast, the PFP is living in an absolutely Black world at the moment. This brings me to a question I have to ask. If we were to succeed in removing Whites from the metropolitan areas, the people who are the entrepreneurs and who have the capital, what would happen? I predict that the Black people would follow them wherever they went. That is why it is the intention and the task of the Government to bring about decentralization so that job opportunities can also be created elsewhere, outside the metropolitan areas. We have to attract White capital and expertise to the areas outside the urban complexes; irrespective of whether or not such areas are in the national States. Of course, this is by no means an easy task. However, we cannot allow squatting to continue uncontrolled, particularly in the difficult times we are experiencing at the moment. At the moment we are in a difficult economic period; a period of recession. Over and above this we are also experiencing extreme drought conditions. We know all these things act as a stimulus for people to move, particularly from the areas in which they are living under difficult conditions owing to the drought. Those people usually want to move to the metropolitan areas, thinking, of course, that they have a better chance there.

But we cannot house more people in the metropolitan areas than those for whom job opportunities can be created. For that reason I want to emphasize today that it is in everyone’s interest for people only to be accommodated where there are also job opportunities for them. If, therefore, there are accommodation and job opportunities for Black people, whether in the urban areas or elsewhere, no one will prevent Black people from moving there. However, the prerequisite is that there have to be job opportunities and accommodation for them there. It is therefore ridiculous to point a finger at the Government and accuse it of being responsible for the lack of accommodation for people. After all, it is not the NP Government’s fault that the rate of population growth in South Africa is as high as is the case at present. After all the population growth rate is a problem everywhere. At the same time the creation of job opportunities is dependent on capital and expertise. After all, the Government wants to improve the standard of living of everyone in South Africa, irrespective of race or colour. As far as I know, it is the desire of the NP to improve the standard of living of everyone in South Africa. Race or colour are therefore not at issue. If this could be achieved, I personally would be extremely gratified. The Government is not opposed to just treatment being meted out to other people, but it is a fact that at the moment there is a shortage of job opportunities in all the metropolitan areas, which is detrimental to everyone in those areas. The best example of this is the Cape Peninsula. If the Government were to allow a excessive number of people to squat here, this would be a threat to the Black people already living and working here. After all, this would immediately lead to an over-supply of labour in this specific area. It is for reasons such as this that the Government is concentrating on decentralization and deconcentration.

The Government is in favour of a process of orderly urbanization, and for that reason strict action must be taken in the future to exercise control over the number of people moving to the urban areas. At the moment the Government is encouraging people to decentralize, and this is being done in the interests of the whole of South Africa. The Government is encouraging decentralization by means of concessions to people involved in the process. However, if these concessions do not help, the Government will have to take more stringent action. We shall have to compel the provider of employment, whether he be White or non-White, to decentralize. At this stage we are already aware of the necessity for this, owing, for example, to the shortage of water in the metropolitan areas. If there is an emotional subject at the moment throughout the whole of Natal, it is the fact that, rightly or wrongly, water is being pumped from Natal to the Transvaal, although strict water restrictions have been in force in towns in Natal for a year or more owing to the drought. It is a well known fact that Natal has 40% of South Africa’s water. Now the Blacks and the Whites are objecting to our having to abide by water restrictions of 260 litres per family per day, and then one hears on the radio or television that in the Transvaal they may water their gardens on Saturdays and Sundays. During the past two years no one in my town has been allowed to water his garden. Is this not a good reason to decentralize? Is this not in the interests of everyone, not only the Blacks, but also the Whites?

Someone said that we were being influenced by the outside world in the formulation of our policy. The NP is not being influenced by the outside world. It is being influenced by the realities of today, as I have spelt them out. Development in South Africa is the NP’s top priority and we want everyone in South Africa, including the private sector, to co-operate to achieve our goal in this connection.

Hon. members of the Opposition tell us that we do not have the will to implement our policy. We do in fact have the will to implement our policy, a policy which is in the interest of all the people of South Africa, and not only the Whites. I have already asked why urbanization only takes place in the metropolitan areas. At the moment, approximately 9 million people live in the metropolitan areas, almost 50% of whom are Black. However, the reality is that by the end of the century they will number more than 13 million in the metropolitan areas alone. It is not true that we are out of touch with the needs or the interests of the Black people. In order to illustrate the present situation, I want to point out to hon. members that there are allegedly 34 000 illegal workers in the Cape. However, there are 6 500 permanent workers who have a right of residence in the Cape who are also unemployed owing to the injudicious influx of other Blacks. One can ask oneself the question: Is squatting to anyone’s advantage? It does not benefit anyone. However, when one observes the behaviour of certain hon. members of the official Opposition one gains the impression that they like squatting and that they want to encourage it. They want to benefit from the conditions existing there. I have also said before that squatting in the Cape also reaches a high point during parliamentary sessions. When we review the squatting situation in the Cape we find that three years after squatting begin in 1975, 20 000 people were involved. In 1979 the hon. the Minister, who according to hon. members of the Opposition treats Black people so heartlessly or harshly, tried to solve this issue. The CP accuses him of giving accommodation to people who have job opportunities in the Cape. We want these people here because, after all, we need each other. The hon. member for Kuruman will admit that he cannot run his farm without the assistance of Black people. The city dweller cannot do the work alone either. If there are insufficient Whites to do the work the Blacks or the Coloureds or whoever must help to get it done. The CP also says that all workers are interested in bringing their families along. I am now speaking on the basis of investigations which have taken place. If one considers the causes of the influx one finds that the drought and job opportunities are important contributory factors, but of course these are temporary factors which contribute to people streaming to job opportunities. However, a survey was undertaken in kwaZulu and on this basis it was found that fewer than 14% of the Zulus in Natal were interested in taking their wives and children to their places of employment. What was also interesting was that 25% of the non-Zulus were interested in taking their wives and children to their places of work. A survey on the Rand showed that 50% of the Black people were not interested in bringing their wives and children there. This is because they still have ties with their national States. It was found that 70% of Black city dwellers in Natal had family or dependants in the rural areas. It is a fact that 47% of them own land or cattle in the rural area. They therefore have interests there. The reason they went to the urban area was that there were job opportunities for them there. Economic reasons drove the people there; they did not go there of their own free will. If job opportunities were created for them within their states or near to their areas, they would like to become urbanized there and continue to live there.

A fact we have to take into consideration is that the shortage of accommodation is measured in hundreds of thousands nowadays—300 000 or 500 000. It is pointless expecting the State to simply wave a magic wand and make the houses that are needed, appear. The State cannot even find the necessary funds to have those houses built.

The aspiration to urbanize permanently is relatively limited among the Blacks. I am not suggesting this will continue to be the case in the future, but it is the case at present. A survey has shown that only 25% of Black people want to live permanently in the cities with their families during their working lives, whereas only 10% want to remain in the cities after they retire. It is a fact that 38% of Black people in South Africa are urbanized today, whether legally or illegally, as against 70% to 90% of the other population groups. For that reason we have to accept that the urge among Black people to urbanize will increase. In any case there are incentives for the Black people to urbanize to an increasing extent, because the highest degrees of expertise are to be found in the cities, and the highest per capita income is earned by Blacks in the cities.

That is why the Government is in earnest about creating a relatively comparable income and a relatively comparable standard of housing for people in areas outside the metropolises, because we cannot all live in the metropolitan areas.

For these reasons it is understandable that the hon. the Minister accepted the court ruling. It is not the intention of the court ruling to begrudge people their rights. South Africa, and the NP as well, have to face up to the realities in our country. We have to deal with them everyday. We do not want to deal with them by wishing any population group ill. As far as the NP and I are concerned we want all the people in South Africa, if possible, to be provided with opportunities. It is not in the interests of South Africa for everyone to be provided with jobs in the same place. However, everyone must have a job and everyone’s standard of living has to be improved within an ethnic context we have to reach agreement with each other and consult each other on problems, because we all want peace and prosperity. For that reason I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, normally it is not the custom in this House to differ with a colleague on one’s own side of the House when speaking after him, but permit me to differ very strongly with the hon. member for Vryheid on one point. The hon. member objected vehemently to water being pumped from Natal to Transvaal. I have consulted my bench-mate, the hon. member for Ladybrand. He is an authority in these matters, and he informs me that most of the rain that falls in Natal comes from clouds that have crossed the Free State. [Interjections.] I should like to suggest that the hon. member for Vryheid takes that into account when debating this point. He must also take into account that the water pumped to Transvaal is so well utilized in a generative, stimulating and developing economy, that Natal, too, is able to benefit from the large sums of money paid to the Treasury in taxes due to dynamic development in the PWV area. I want to round off this point by contending that the majority of hon. members on this side of the House agree with me that the PWV area must be developed dynamically.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke about the clause dealing with the normalization of sport and our sports policy. I am acquainted with the hon. member and I want to say that of all the hon. members of the CP I have the most respect for the hon. member for Kuruman. I have known him for many years now, and he is a person who has adopted a consistent standpoint on sport and separate development. On many occasions he and I have debated at great length with one another and he knows that the only point about which he and I differed drastically was that I said that he absolutized separate development, and one cannot do that. I now want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman to clarify one matter. On Saturday the Western Province is going to be well and truly beaten by Northern Transvaal at Loftus Versfeld.

Hear, hear!

On that occasion, before 60 000 people at Loftus Versfeld, we shall be seeing one aspect of the normalization of sport in South Africa in terms of NP policy. I want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether he and the CP approve, in terms of the sports policy of the CP, of Wilfred Cupido playing for Western Province against the Northern Transvaal at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday.

That does not bear our approval. He must play for the South African Federation team.

I want every single member of the rugby public of South Africa who is going to see the fruits of the NP’s normalization of sport at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday, to take cognisance of the fact that the CP does not approve of the fact that a man like Wilfred Cupido is playing in the Western Province team. Everyone who cheers those teams on Saturday must know that they are cheering against the CP. Everyone who cheers at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday must know that Dr. Treurnicht and his party would undo those things in South Africa. Every member of the public who attends that match at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday must know that the CP, under the leadership of Dr. Treurnicht, does not approve of what we regard as developments that are in the interests of sound relations in South Africa; and that goes for the field of sport as well.

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

No, Sir. When I opened Die Burger this morning I was astonished when I read that in his speech in Pretoria last night Dr. Treurnicht had said that—

The hon. member for Kuruman is saying here that they are not in favour of Mr. Wilfred Cupido playing for the WP against Northern Transvaal at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday. Dr. Treurnicht says that they disapprove of that kind of normalization of sport. They say—

If the 60 000 members of the rugby-watching public who are going to be at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday cannot see how ridiculous, how irresponsible, how farcical this kind of politics is in South Africa, or that we are playing with fire with regard to such matters that are in the interests of good relations, then this is a sad day in the life of our nation. The NP tells the people that what they will see there on Saturday is the fruit, the product, the result, the ultimate goal that the NP has been striving towards in the field of sport in South Africa, viz. that in spite of political interference, sportsmen can compete with one another in accordance with their talents and abilities in the interests of good relations and in the interests of sport. What the hon. member for Rissik will see there on Saturday is also the result of the intervention in sport of the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster.

I contend here today that the hon. the leader of the CP is selling out the White man in South Africa with this kind of politics. This way of practising politics means only one thing for our children in this country of theirs, namely that they will be doomed to conflict. The NP will not allow the future of our children and our people to be threatened by this reckless political conduct. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht is undertaking a journey by ox-wagon in the space age. Can it really be true that a leader of a political party in South Africa can say, before a meeting of 1 500 applauding people in Pretoria, that the appearance of a Black person, a Brown person or an Indian person on television will lead our people towards, and condition them to, multiracialism? Is our sense of preservation of identity so shaky that the fact that a person of colour speaks to us on television, threatens our identity? What sort of nonsense is that? Where are we heading? Last night in his speech the hon. member for Waterberg demonstrated to the public of South Africa that he is only a refined addition of Mr. Eugene Terre’Blanche and his politics. In the world we live in it is not the applauding audiences that count. There is one man in history who drew applause from people from all over Europe …

You are drawing applause from the Liberals.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Sunnyside that if he gets such pleasure out of people applauding what he tells them, he must cast his mind back to Hitler and the hundreds and thousands of people who applauded the insanity of Hitler. I want to say to the CP that it is easy to tell people in South Africa what they want to hear. There is not a single politician in this House who does not know that people like to hear what they want to hear. One’s children like to hear what they want to hear, one’s wife likes to hear what she wants to hear and one’s voters, too, like to hear what they want to hear. After all, we on this side of the House also know what people would like to hear, but we have a real responsibility to tell people what the realities are and also why this legislation is before us. We are not opportunists. We can also tell people what the hon. member for Waterberg tells them. The dangerous thing about the hon. member for Waterberg is that he never says what he means. He never says what he means and he never means what he says. [Interjections.]

You are a liar if you say that.

The hon. member for Rissik says that I am a liar if I say that. He is welcome to say that. The hon. member and I are both going to speak on the same platform in our constituencies about these things. I invite the hon. member to dish up to the people everything I have said in my political career. He can come and say all the things they are so fond of saying, and I shall reply to him. The dangerous thing about the hon. member for Waterberg is that when he expresses his opinions on Black politics and the politics of colour, he never says what he means.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to know whether what the hon. member is saying now is relevant to the legislation we are discussing at the moment.

I have a whole series of notes of what the hon. member for Rissik said yesterday about integration and all kinds of other things during the discussion of this Bill. If one bears in mind the remarks made by the hon. member for Rissik himself, I think that what I am saying now is indeed relevant.

The political message of the hon. member for Waterberg with regard to Black relations is a message of death for the White man in this country.

Separate development.

It is the caricature of separate development and the scandalous caricature of the Afrikaner that Dr. Treurnicht is broadcasting to the world. Dr. Treurnicht and the CP must know that a weak point in the policy of the Government of the day—a government necessarily has weak points, because there are realities it is not always able to deal with, due to financial and other problems—does not mean that what one has oneself is a good policy. What does one achieve when one goes around telling people what the NP is doing wrong? Everyone who applauds Dr. Treurnicht must know that he is applauding something for which he does not bear the responsibility. That is the point in politics.

The CP nurtures parasitic conservatism in the country, a conservatism which preys upon the anxieties and fears of people, supposedly in their own interests. If we think that we can promote good race relations—just ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier—by preying on the fears and anxieties of our people, then we are on the road to disaster. The biggest mistake of the P. W. Botha era—I say this as an individual member of this House—is that in my humble opinion, this era, in a certain sense—I want to qualify this—began six years too late. Perhaps history will prove me quite wrong. I should be grateful if that were so. However, this is a feeling that I am expressing. Many of the things that are being done under the leader ship of the hon. the Prime Minister are things we should have made a start on a long time ago.

You were too much of a coward to tell that to Mr. Vorster.

I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that what he calls me does not concern me.

You did not have the guts to tell that to Mr. Vorster.

I want to remind the hon. member for Rissik that it is not a custom in this House to refer to what has happened in a caucus. [Interjections.] However the hon. member can start with the Synod caucus of 1977, and then he can tell me whether I had the guts to say things I had to say. [Interjections.] That kind of politics cuts no ice.

As far as integration is concerned, the hon. member for Rissik occasionally sounds dangerously authoritative.

You said the same about Fanie Botha and Louis Nel.

I am not afraid or ashamed of anything or any mistake I may have made in my life. I often tell my children that there is no such thing as a mistake in life. Every mistake in one’s life is a milestone along one’s road to success. I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that if we conduct the kind of politics he is conducting now and make the kind of remarks he is making now, I could find in my file several things relating to him as a person. However, that will get us nowhere. Let us rather rise above that. We cannot conduct macro-politics on the basis of micro-thinking. If we were to divide hon. members in this House into runners and stoppers (“hollers en stollers”), the hon. member for Rissik would be a stopper par excellence. [Interjections.] Or is he, perhaps, a stopper with an inclination to run (“hollerige stoller”)?

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke about Dr. Verwoerd’s views on politics. I should like to say to the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Kuruman and the other hon. members of the CP that today is 9 August 1983. As a young man I was standing in the lobby on 6 September 1966 and a man was carried past me, and I saw that it was Dr. Verwoerd. He was dead. He was a man whom I, together with other hon. colleagues in this House, honoured and respected. Just like other hon. colleagues in this House, and all the people in the country, I was shocked and shaken, because he was one of the leaders who really meant a lot to the country. However, Dr. Verwoerd is no longer here. I just want to make the following three points in this regard. Dr. Verwoerd’s time is long past. I think that the greatest injustice we could do a great intellectual thinker like Dr. Verwoerd is to make out that he would have advocated, in 1983, everything that the CP advocates today. That would mean that from 1966 to 1983 Dr. Verwoerd would have undergone no development in his thinking, that he would not have perceived any realities. To say that is the greatest insult to a man of the intellect of Dr. Verwoerd. Secondly, I want to say that Dr. Verwoerd made many mistakes. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, there is no doubt about that. After all, it is always easy to be wise after the event. Allow me to ask the hon. member for Sunnyside something. I can give him the name of a former official, to enable him to phone that official himself if he does not want to believe me. When I say that when, in the early fifties, this official approached Dr. Verwoerd and said to him that it would cost the Government plus-minus R150 000 to R200 000 to electrify Soweto, he told the official that we could not do so because we should be making the place too attractive, would the hon. member for Sunnyside agree with that? [Interjections.] Was Dr. Verwoerd right? [Interjections.] Every leader makes his mistakes. We are not disparaging him when we say that. I want to know whether the hon. member for Rissik agrees with the Black Local Authorities Act that we passed last year. Does he agree with the creation of Black local authorities in the urban areas? Does the hon. member for Kuruman agree with that? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Rissik agree with the introduction of Black local authorities in urban areas? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik a piece of history, and if he wants to know whom to check it with, I shall give him the name of the person he can ask. In 1959 Dr. Verwoerd issued an instruction for a Bill to be drafted to give full local government to Black people in urban areas.

You are taking things out of context.

The hon. member can go and ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Everyone throughout the country, from north to south, rebelled and made representations. Eventually Dr. Verwoerd’s instruction was watered down until, in 1961, we had the Urban Blacks Councils Act, the first section of which provided that “the Minister may …”. And in that first section Dr. Verwoerd’s personal feeling about Black local government at the time was totally lost. If the hon. member wants to speak about Dr. Verwoerd, he must not do so in the way that he has done so here. Many mistakes were made along the way. Let us recognize that. In many respects Dr. Verwoerd was a man who, if he had been living today, would have been regarded and branded by the hon. member for Rissik as a liberal.

There are a number of CP myths in the country that we must put paid to finally. One is that there is no interdependence between the economy and politics. Another mistake made by the CP is to think that human relations in South Africa can be promoted on the basis of certain CP standpoints. Sir, they think that the paternalism they display by prescribing to the Black man what is good for him, is conducive to good relations. They think that the stereotyped conception that they and many of their supporters have of the Black people is conducive to good relations. According to them a Black man displays a specific attitude with regard to work; he reacts in a specific way in regard to this and he reacts in a specific way in regard to that. The greatest foolishness that White politicians in South Africa can be guilty of is to prescribe to Black people what is good for them. That is in conflict with the NP’s image of the future. The CP are also fostering a myth if they think that we can ignore the aspirations of people and one-sidedly prescribe to people what is good for them. This Bill we are dealing with now also proves that this is not the path that the NP is travelling.

The hon. the Minister is often accused of only making promises. Today, however, I want to attest to the fact that there is one promise he made that he always keeps. It is embodied in this legislation too, and it is the undertaking that he will devote his energies to promoting good relations. On behalf of this side of the House I convey my sincere gratitude to him for his untiring zeal in promoting good relations between White and Black in South Africa. Eventually all our children will reap the fruits of that.

No one says “hear, hear” to what you are saying.

Oh, really, Sir, that hon. member and his benchmate, the hon. member for Rissik, are only concerned with being personal. If it is not the Minister of Co-operation or the Minister of National Education on whom a personal attack is made, it is the hon. the Minister of Law and Order or the hon. the Minister of Industries. What kind of politics is that? Does that not attest to political bankruptcy?

Another myth in South African politics that is fostered by the CP is that a person’s identity is dependent on laws. Let me tell the hon. member for Rissik that according to the NP, identity lives in the hearts of people. Because our people preserve their identity in their hearts with regard to everything that is precious to them, they do not suffer the anxieties and fears of integration that the CP is constantly conjuring up. The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Kuruman spelt this out afresh during the discussion of this legislation. What we need is not to flex our muscles. What we need is open eyes. What we need is not to talk, but to do. That is why we appreciate the fact that at the moment we in South Africa have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of thinkers and doers. Nothing is more important for South Africa in the time that lies ahead than that we should be doers. Therefore we are pleased that in this legislation the Government is displaying the attitude of recognizing the liberties of people and recognizing people’s opportunities in order to allow people, the Black people, Black communities and individuals, to come into their own. The hon. member for Waterberg is always talking about a person’s philosophy, his philosophy of life and way of life as a member of the people. As far as this is concerned the NP endorses two things. We see every person in South Africa as a member of a nation and an individual as well. How could we keep the free market system operating if we only worked on the basis of peoples and community activities, and if we over-emphasized the ethnic links of people and denied the existence of individualism?

Man, you are so confused that you do not even know you are confused.

We are going to have an opportunity together to show who speaks confusedly and who does not.

Sir, the CP is reckless. We come forward with legislation to promote ethnic relations. We come forward with legislation affording Black people the opportunity to establish and develop small business enterprises in their areas. Nevertheless the CP comes here and opposes so many of these things. In this way such a caricature is once again made of the Afrikaner that it simply leaves me speechless. Just take our language, for example. As far as the Afrikaans language is concerned, we have a major struggle ahead as far as Black relations are concerned. Recently we had the opportunity to travel through Lebowa and Gazankulu. What made me, as an Afrikaner, heartsore is that so many Black leaders, even those who are well-disposed towards us, do not speak Afrikaans. To us in the NP, this, too, is a challenge, viz. to instil in our Black people the correct image of the Afrikaner. When the leftists and the radicals says that the Afrikaner is the oppressor, we want to demonstrate that that image is a contemptible one, and we want to rectify it. If our language is also not spoken in shops and by our Black leaders when we talk politics with them and by our Black people in their daily lives, then surely that is cause for concern. We do not like the image that that conjures up. I want to know from CP members whether they honestly do not think that the Black politics they are conducting, with the kind of statement they make about Black politics, give rise to additional problems for our language.

To conclude, Sir, I wish to say that the NP strives to maintain order. Moreover, that is the aim of this legislation. At the same time we strive to give everyone the fullest opportunity to develop his talents in this country. I have perused the latest South African year book and I urge the members of the CP to consider the statistics relating to the metropolises in South Africa. With the best will in the world we cannot undo these realities. As far as the development of small business enterprises is concerned, we are faced with rules, regulations and opportunities. If the Black or the White person does not have opportunities and does not have the place or the freedom to operate a business enterprise—and here I refer to entrepreneurs in the urban areas such as the Black builder, the Blacks in the construction industry, the Blacks in the service industries—how, then, are we to develop relations? There are vast numbers of Black people with the potential to mean a tremendous amount for South Africa in the economic sphere. But there are so many rules and regulations in their path. Therefore I call upon the hon. the Minister to see to it that in our urban Black residential areas we make office premises available in the industrial areas so that the small Black entrepreneur can have a place where he can be contacted by telephone. Here I refer to the Black entrepreneur, the Black plumber, the Black electrician and people of that nature. In that way we would generate tremendous economic activity. There is hardly anywhere that Black entrepreneurs can begin an undertaking in urban areas today. Here we sit, therefore, with an enormous potential which has not yet been exploited because we do not have the premises from which these people can conduct an undertaking.

In conclusion I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this measure carries our approval because we know that it was brought before this House in accordance with the spirit of the NP to generate. Increasingly we are moving away from the concept of control, in the direction of a process of generation—of generating deconcentration; of generating industrial decentralization and also generating economic activity among our Black people in the cities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal, particularly for having brought hon. members’ attention back to the Bill itself. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that it will also give you pleasure if I give you the assurance that I intend discussing the Bill itself. I will come back to the request which the hon. member for Innesdal made to me in connection with the Small Business Development Corporation. Perhaps I should point out, right at the outset, that the economic development strategy for the Black communities is being accorded an important priority in terms of this Bill. One of the objectives of this measure is to expand that strategy by making provision to ensure that the Small Business Development Corporation can achieve its objectives without encountering any statutory obstacles. In this way, too, the free market system is being promoted among the Black communities so that they may be more self-sufficient and less dependent on the authorities and other organizations, ensuring their own progress. Consequently what we envisage is precisely what the hon. member wants us to do. In this respect I immediately want to associate myself with the hon. nominated member Prof. Olivier, who expressed his thanks to the department and to me yeserday for including this provision in the Bill. The implications of this step are, of course, important; very important. Those implications are summarized in the few thoughts I have just expressed here. Therefore we are trying to the best of our ability, to give effect to the request which the hon. member for Innesdal made to me.

However, this Bill has other objectives as well, to which I wish to refer briefly by way of information, and also in order to try to place the entire matter in its correct perspective. The Bill also seeks to give effect to the Rikhoto judgment, and to ensure that the principles of this judgment are applied in such a way that social stability will be promoted in South Africa, and so that it does not lead to the socio-economic deterioration of Black communities in South Africa. After all, the Government has obligations to those established Black communities, and at the same time an obligation to the Whites and all the other communities in the country; in fact, to all the communities in South Africa for the administration of whose affairs this Government is responsible.

When I point out these things, what we should bear in mind in particular, is that the development of squatting and slum conditions cannot be allowed, and that every principle emphasized by the Riekert Commission in its report, and accepted by the Government, is in fact being emphasized in the piece of legislation now before this House, the main one being that when we are dealing with the migration of workers and their families, accommodation for them is one of the cornerstones on which their admission is based. I honestly cannot understand how anyone in his right mind, anyone who has a sense of responsibility, can find any fault at all with this. If we do not do these things, and if we do not ensure that they are done, we are knowingly assisting in the creation of chaotic conditions, of which we have numerous examples in the Third World. All I am asking for, therefore, is understanding for a very simple truth. In this respect we do, after all, have the report of a very excellent commission at our disposal, a report accepted by the Government to serve as a guideline. One could almost say that I am, with that report next to me on my desk, trying every day to administer these matters in order to accomplish the aforesaid objectives under difficult circumstances. I therefore confirm unequivocally that the Government respects the Rikhoto judgment. I emphasize this once again so that there need be no misunderstanding in this regard.

While I am talking about accommodation, Mr. Speaker, allow me to make use of this opportunity to emphasize once again that the question of accommodation is a matter with which I have been dealing on a regular basis in one form or another since 1950. There were times, too, when this problem was more pressing and more difficult than it is at the moment. I can prove what I have just said. If I should succumb to the temptation to begin to discuss this matter freely, I could occupy this House with the matter in a very interesting way.

On this occasion, however, let me just make an appeal to people in the private sector by pointing out once again that the Government cannot accept sole responsibility for the accommodation of people. That is simply not possible. Since we are dealing with the Rikhoto case now and have also given attention to it in this legislation and also respect the court judgment absolutely, I issue an invitation to the private sector to react, under these circumstances in particular, and to come forward at this stage to take their place in the new dispensation and provide their loyal and stable workers with accommodation. A person who has worked for one employer for 10 years has, after all, proved that he is a loyal worker, and a person who has worked loyally for 15 years for more than one employer has surely also proved that he is a loyal worker. Since the Government is now playing its part—in a very realistic way, I think—I want to make an appeal to the private sector—and I thank them very much indeed for what they have already done and for what they are doing at the moment; I have great appreciation for that—to come forward under these particular circumstances and provide their loyal and stable workers with housing. It gives me great satisfaction to say that the Government itself is eliminating all possible obstacles in the way of any employer who wants to make this possible for his employee. I can prove this. I issue an invitation to any of the Opposition parties, if they find fault with what I am now saying, and they come across any impediment or problem which prevents an employer from doing precisely what I have now mentioned, to bring it to my attention and we shall then try to look into that as well. In this connection I want to reply at once to my friend, the hon. member for Randburg, who made a very good contribution here. As long as there are young men such as he, the hon. member for Innesdal and many others whom I could mention, sitting in this House, who take the realities of South Africa into account but who are at the same time inspired with an idealism and who also express their opinions fearlessly and make their contributions here, I have no fear for the future of the Republic of South Africa and its people. In reply to what the hon. member said, I want to say that the one major problem which still remains is, of course, the question of land. There is the problem of the availability of land and of expediting the availability of land. As soon as one begins to discuss this subject, one finds oneself in a major problem area, and my hon. colleague knows it. I am therefore asking for help. Let us support one another and let us see how we can deal effectively with this problem as well. We are working on it and we are dealing with it and we are trying to dispose of this matter as quickly as possible, for if any impediment exists in this connection then we have these problems. I want to refer the hon. members to only one success story in this connection out of many others I could mention, and that is the Bronkhorstspruit development where land was made available, the results of which we ourselves have seen. The results were absolutely wonderful. I therefore thank the hon. member very much indeed for his contribution.

In addition, this Bill seeks to regulate certain matters pertaining to sport with reference to the recommendation contained in the HSRC report. I shall elaborate on that later. I just wish to say in passing that the hon. member for Rissik on the opposite side, who is looking at me so piously now, levelled certain accusations at me. I have been Minister of this department for four or five years and I was Minister of Sport and Recreation for seven years. After I became Minister of Sport and Recreation—and I did my work in very close contact with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster—the hon. member for Rissik, with great relish, accused me at that stage already—remember, I am talking about 11 or 12 years ago—of placing this country on a slippery slope. This was 12 years ago, but I can trace it back even further than that. [Interjections.] I do not wish to become embroiled in an argument with the hon. member for Rissik now, but I just want every hon. member in this House to judge for themselves how long that hon. member had been walking around with a dagger in his hand in the ranks of the NP. [Interjections.] I can take the hon. member back to as long ago as 1951, when I came into contact with that hon. member for the first time. From that time onwards he considered me to be a renegade. He also considers the hon. the Prime Minister to be a renegade. He says it. He considers every Nationalist in this House to be a renegade, a subverter, and everything that goes with it. That is the hon. member who now comes here with his contributions. Sir, I could not resist the temptation to make these remarks, but I shall now return at once to the Bill.

The Bill also deals with the manufacture and distribution of sorghum beer. The object is to enable the industry to develop even further by meaningfully expanding the utilization of the research fund and also to eliminate an obstacle in the law to the distribution of sorghum beer in the area of jurisdiction of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas. These are all very positive things.

In addition, provision is being made for the State President to be empowered to increase or to reduce the area of jurisdiction of a development corporation when such need arises. I shall have more to say about this when I come to the speech of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

A few amendments are also being made to the Black Local Authorities Act, primarily to facilitate the operation of this law.

Next there is the question of the excision of Moutse, about which I shall have more to say in a moment because it is a very sensitive matter and I believe it is essential for this House to take proper cognizance of what the material and actual facts are in connection with this sensitive matter. In this connection I want to say at once that the hon. member for Pretoria West made a very positive contribution on this matter. For that I wish to thank him straight away. He is a worthy chairman.

The Bill as we now have it before this House contains a provision in clause 19 in connection with the National States Constitution Act, but an amendment in this respect already appears on the Order Paper. Clause 19 will consequently be withdrawn. I shall furnish more particulars in this regard in a moment because this is an important matter.

†The hon. member for Houghton spoke with some feeling on the matter of punctuation. Since manners maketh the man and since the hon. member is right in this instance, I shall arrange for the omission to be rectified. As it were, I shall meet her wishes to the last comma and in this respect it is even absolutely literal. This will mean that the position of unmarried daughters will remain the same. There was no intention to interfere with the status of the daughters, and the omission of the comma was merely an oversight.

Good.

The hon. member also spoke at length on the Rikhoto judgment. It seems to me that she will never be satisfied with any endeavours of this or any Government for that matter to ensure orderly movement of people in order to prevent the deterioration of the socio-economic position of the urban community. In that sense there is an absolute contradiction in terminis built into that hon. member. I want to remind the hon. member that although the Government has to deal in some measure with the problem by way of legislation, it has embarked upon a massive deconcentration programme which is at this early stage certainly already achieving a large measure of success.

Let me just report the latest figures. The hon. the Prime Minister announced at the Good Hope Conference the new scheme for deconcentration and decentralization which came into operation on 1 April 1982. Despite the slackness in the economy of the Western World and therefore also in the economy of South Africa, the fact of the matter is that now, in round figures, the Government has 800 applicants from all over the Western World who want to participate in the scheme for deconcentration of development, this to the tune of over R3 000 million. This has been achieved in just more than one year. No small wonder that the success is of such a nature.

*Those hon. members who are sitting there, muttering among themselves now, must surely take cognizance of the facts as well, but they are afraid of facts. They are mortally afraid of facts. They do not want to be confused by facts. They want to live in the blissful past and imagine that they will be happy there. Perhaps they are satisfied to do so. I was merely trying to attract the attention of the hon. members, so that I could bring the facts to their attention.

†In this morning’s Cape Times there is an article by Barry Streek. Most hon. members opposite know Barry Streek. He is by no means a supporter of this Government. As a matter of fact, he is sometimes very vindictive. This morning an article of his appeared in The Cape Times under the heading: “Decentralization offers major bearing on future of South Africa”. I recommend that hon. members read this article, because it concerns this programme of deconcentration and decentralization. I shall merely quote the following—

That is according to this journalist. I quote him further—

At what cost?

These are the facts of the matter. If ever there was a positive deed by any government in this country it is this. It has had the kind of result about which one can read in this sort of article in The Cape Times this morning. It is by chance that it appeared this morning.

The Opposition’s philosophy appears to be devoid of any principle, in my humble view, upon which the orderly development of South African communities can possibly be based. I honestly do not understand them when it comes to this question. If an uncontrolled influx of Black workers, and their families, were allowed into the already crowded urban areas, it would not only aggravate the employment and housing situations—and the established Black communities there would suffer most and would in any case be the first to suffer in the process—but it would also further strain education, health and welfare facilities. Let the hon. members just go and talk to the Red Cross and other people working in the field and they will tell them of the problems they are experiencing. It would furthermore also result in an atmosphere of discontent and dissatisfaction which would prove highly detrimental to the established community.

The hon. member for Houghton also raised the question of persons who have been in the urban areas for 15 years. I promised that I would reply to that today and I am now going to fulfil my promise, as I always do. [Interjections.] Well, it is true.

Your own side is laughing. [Interjections.]

I have already stated that the Rikhoto judgment will be respected, and the principles contained therein can also be applied to the case of a person who has been legally resident in an urban area continuously in accordance with section 10(1)(b) of Act 25 of 1945. My department, the Department of Co-operation and Development, and I am in agreement on this and the Administration Boards will be directed, as has already been done by me personally in the case of the West Rand Administration Board, to apply the Rikhoto judgment in such cases. There has never been any doubt that this was the position.

There was doubt.

I made a statement at the time and last week, when the newspapers were at me, I repeated that statement. Since then we have ironed the matter out completely with the Department of Cooperation and Development as well as with the West Rand Administration Board in this specific case. So I hope that this is very clear.

I hope it is clear to the officials who administer the Act.

Well, it is clear and it is in Hansard anyway.

The question of unpaid leave—in this connection a request was also put to us by the hon. member for Randburg—being considered as a factor not militating against continuous employment is being further examined in a constructive manner at my request with a view to the practical application of the Rikhoto judgment on an equitable and fair basis. In this respect also, as I emphasized right from the beginning, the judgment must be applied—that was the decision by the Government—but it must be done in a fair and just manner. Since this cropped up and was mentioned by the hon. member in Parliament, I have requested that it be looked at from all points of view and that, as I have indicated, it should be applied on an equitable and fair basis. I cannot say anything more about it, but I am sure that what I have said is sufficient to give a clear indication of what the guideline means in this instance. Why should we do it in another way?

*As regards the status of the TBVC citizens in the light of the Rikhoto judgment—this is the third question put by hon. members on the opposite side—I want to point out that the matter was referred to the Government law advisers in order to obtain a clear answer as to the position of those people. I want to remind this House that in the spirit of the acceptance of the Rikhoto judgment it should be ensured that the TBVC cases are dealt with on a sound basis in accordance with this legal interpretation of the legislation. Their position should be stated, not only in connection with section 10, but also in connection with the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, Act No. 59 of 1972, and the respective status acts of the four countries. The Department of Co-operation and Development and I consequently do not stand alone as regards our standpoint from the beginning on the position of the TBVC countries. That is why the matter is rather more complicated. After we obtained proper legal advice, one point was very clear, according to the law advisers, namely that if it was proved that section 10 was applicable to a TBVC citizen, that citizen qualified in terms of the Rikhoto judgment. There is no doubt about that. Consequently I hope that the guideline in respect of the TBVC countries is also very clear now. I must add that other laws are also applicable here. Other departments are also involved. There is no longer any doubt about the guideline, because the law advisers have given their decisions. They are entirely acceptable to us, and will be implemented in this way. However, I would be omitting to do my duty if I did not also tell hon. members that it is a complicated matter and also that some of the other departments are still doing certain research. There can be no doubt about the fact that if section 10 is applicable to a TBVC citizen, then the Rikhoto judgment is also applicable to him. In terms of the agreements with those countries and in terms of the accepted principles, as an hon. member explained very well yesterday, those countries surely cannot be worse off than the independent national States are. We must be very careful to ensure that the policy of the Government is applied. It should not be made difficult for Blacks to be integrated into the national States. That would definitely be the case if any doubts existed in regard to this matter and to how it should be implemented. Consequently I hope that there will no longer be any misunderstanding about this in future. I hope that hon. members will concede that I have now done what I promised to do.

†There is just one other point. We are not amending section 10(1)(b), and there is therefore no question of stopping the process of the acquidtion of 10 year or 15 year rights. I hope that is also very clear. I have made it clear before, but I want to put it on record in Parliament so that there will be clarity in this regard. The amendment to section 10(1)(c) comes into operation on the date of promulgation of this measure.

I think I have now replied to all the questions which I have undertaken to reply to. If there are still questions outstanding hon. members can raise them again later.

*I should like to deal with the Moutse question. The hon. member for Houghton again made it perfectly obvious yesterday that she only listens to one side of a matter and that she is not in the least interested—and I accused her of this by way of an interjection—in the audi alteram partem rule. This matter definitely has two sides. It is not only Lebowa that is involved in this matter, but kwaNdebele as well. The one is big and strong and the other small.

I have already referred to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria West, and thank him for it.

As far as the hon. member for Rissik is concerned, I want to say as little as possible about his speech. The Black people have a fine saying which in my opinion is applicable to that hon. member. They say that the more one heaps wood that cannot burn, onto a smouldering fire, the more smoke is given off. The hon. members of the CP are heaping up pieces of wood which are merely giving off smoke. They cannot burn. That is the accusation I level at the hon. member for Rissik here today.

There was a time when the hon. member was really quite different, but he has since become quite derogatory, on a personal level as on all other levels. The fact that he is an extremely frustrated man becomes so clearly apparent here in this House that it bodes only ill for him.

You are being personal now.

I am not being personal. I can be personal if I want to. So he had better not provoke me too far.

Do it by all means.

If he challenges me, I shall do it. I put it to the hon. member that he makes it too apparent here in this House how excessively frustrated he is. He must remember that he has a certain degree of influence as a result of the fact that he is a member of this House, but he also has a certain degree of responsibility. Last night and this morning I gave a great deal of thought to the hon. member. The hon. member must remember that he represents a constituency that has many students. He has a responsibility towards them. One of my children is also a student there. The hon. member must be extremely careful that a terrible judgment is not passed on him one day on the basis of the role which he is playing inside and outside this House.

Speak for yourself.

The hon. member has been accusing me for more than 30 years—he knows this—of ostensibly being a betrayer of my people. He said so again in this House yesterday.

You are informing against yourself.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it can be proved that in my career I have never been a betrayer of my people, but that I dedicate 24 hours per day, with everything I have, to the best interests of my people and those of all others in this country. It can be proved that I have virtually no other interests than these. I devote myself to this task with dedication. The hon. member for Rissik will also be condemned one day for the more than 30 years of denigration of my person, while he did not have a shred of evidence which he could bring to this House to prove the sordid things he said of me. [Interjections.]

In this way the hon. member is not only maligning me, he is also maligning the hon. the Prime Minister. A short while ago the hon. member maligned the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning by saying that he was a modern-day Hofmeyr. After that the hon. Minister Pik Botha was labelled as being worse than a renegade. I do not know what such a person looks like, but that is what those hon. members said of him. In the process that hon. member was also labelled a Hofmeyr. In the latest edition of Die Patriot, a third hon. Minister has been labelled a Hofmeyr, namely the hon. the Minister of National Education. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon. member for Klip River for his positive contribution. What he said was true; we are dealing with an important urbanization process in this country. We are in the process of identifying the needs which arise from that process. We are engaged in an important urbanization strategy which has already brought success, as I indicated a moment ago.

In this connection I should like to remind this House of my introductory observation on the success of the deconcentration policy. In addition, hon. members must also remember that this is the one matter in my life in respect of which all the leaders in the country, all the Black leaders of the national States, all the Black leaders of the independent States and all the other leaders of all population groups in the country stood together in absolute unanimity. That was the key to the success. This is really important because it underlies and forms the basis of what the Government is doing. I imagine that if this point is grasped, then the accusation levelled by hon. members of the CP at me personally, yesterday and today, falls away, the accusation that we are allegedly no longer applying influx control. Then the accusations of the hon. members disappear like the early morning mist when the sun comes up. We are engaged in a positive action here which is to an increasing extent producing positive results.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town, as usual, made a constructive contribution to the debate. I thank him for it. I appreciate his remarks in connection with the informal sector. However, I regret these endeavours to capitalize on the Rikhoto judgment. After I have given my replies to the questions that the hon. member put me I think he will have clarity on that matter. I shall have more to say in that connection, but I think I must leave the matter there for the moment. If the hon. member is not happy and satisfied I shall return to the matter because I want him to be as clear on this matter as I am capable of enabling him to be.

Regarding the proposed amendments to clause 4 I would emphasize that it does not affect the rights of persons affected by the Rikhoto judgment but only makes provision that they and their dependants can take up residence in a prescribed area on a family basis if the necessary housing has been provided. I hope I have made it quite clear what the position is.

The hon. member also wanted to know how many persons will have to move to the Saliesloot area. There is no question of a forced removal in this case and it is therefore not possible to state how many persons will move. At present the farms in the Saliesloot area are unoccupied. As a matter of fact, we are still in the process of buying farms there. The latest information that I have is that there are still four or five farms that have to be bought. There are still four or five farms because they did not want to accept the terms offered by the department. That is the reason. At present the farms in the Saliesloot area are unoccupied.

Regarding the question whether the Lebowa Government agreed to the excision of Moutse I shall give a full explanation in a moment.

*With that I think I have dealt with the questions asked by the hon. member for King William’s Town, and I come now to the hon. member for Ventersdorp. I have already written a note to that hon. member. He is coming along very nicely. I think one should say this frankly to him.

What about Moutse?

I am coming to that. The hon. member who actually spoke out strongly on the Moutse issue was the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Consequently I shall still deal with this matter in detail.

I said that the hon. member for Ventersdorp was coming along very nicely. Last night he made a very positive and fine contribution here. He always comes forward with something original, which proves that he makes a study of matters. He is a much esteemed vice-chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I should like to encourage him not only to carry on as he has been doing, but to go from strength to strength. I honestly think that he has the potential to enable him to accomplish great things here in this House and outside this House. The hon. member spoke with great insight about the sorghum beer matter. This is an important matter; we know how important it is.

I come now to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I am going to be very frank with the hon. member as well. The hon. member began in an objective and proper way, but then, for what earthly reason I do not know, suddenly did an about-turn and—to put it quite colloquially—became damned wilful. I do not know what came over him.

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir. I withdraw the word “damned”. He became wilful. The hon. member levelled criticism at the department. Now I know that in the first place he did not mean it to apply to me, as he will of course say. However, by levelling it directly at the department, he is, when all is said and done, also levelling it at me. It merely serves to cast suspicion on the department and its officials, and some of the organizations for which they work.

I now wish to put a simple question to the hon. member. It is this: How must the officials who read his observations, or get to hear about them, feel about him and his party? They are, after all, people who do not do this work without making sacrifices. In my opinion, the hon. member is marring relations and denigrating people, people who dedicate themselves and their lives to rendering a service, sometimes even under very difficult circumstances, and frequently, too, in regard to exceptionally sensitive matters. I think it is reprehensible of the hon. member to make use of his protected position in this House in order to bruit unsubstantiated statements abroad as allegedly indisputable facts, and to do so while those involved cannot come here and defend themselves. It was an attempt on the part of the hon. member to embarrass the Government by means of its executive organ, and I am saying this on the basis of my honest conviction. That is why I have also, in no uncertain terms, told the hon. member what I thought of it across the floor of this House.

The hon. member and his party profess to be speaking on behalf of the Black communities. However, I believe he is aware that the Black people, and particularly the leadership element among the Black people, in no way accept that the PFP is acting as the champion or guardian of the Black communities in South Africa. I can produce a great deal of evidence to prove this. However, I shall restrain myself from dragging the Black people into the White political arena here. I shall refrain from doing so, even if hon. members of the PFP provoke me. However, I must say that I really find myself sorely tempted to do so. However, I shall honourably refrain from doing so. I can produce evidence from the statements which I am now making here. I can produce clear evidence to prove them. Hon. members can take my word for it.

I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I regularly receive expressions of thanks from leading members of the Black communities for the unstinting service rendered by officials of the Administration Boards and of the Department of Co-operation and Development. Recently—as it happens, only yesterday—I received a cutting of a report which appeared in the Boksburg Advertiser of 22 June 1983. I shall quote only one paragraph from it, as follows—

In this way I would be able to quote quite a number of other examples. Of course I am not alleging that no criticism should be expressed. What I am suggesting, however, is that the criticism expressed should at least be responsible, and I do not think that the criticism which the hon. member expressed here yesterday was responsible.

The hon. member also asked me to furnish an explanation of clause 9. I should now like to do so. Clause 9 amends section 5 of the promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, 1968. With effect from 1 November 1980 the Moutse district was excised from the area of jurisdiction of Lebowa and the ratification of that excision by way of legislation is earnestly being sought. Consequently it is essential that the powers of the Lebowa Development Corporation in respect of this district be terminated, and that the task of the economic development in Moutse be transferred to the Economic Development Corporation. It appears that although the Lebowa Development Corporation was established in regard to the territory of Lebowa, as defined in section 2 of the Lebowa Constitution Proclamation, 1972, it does not mean that the powers of the Lebowa Development Corporation in Moutse are automatically terminated or will be terminated by the excision of that district from the area of jurisdiction of Lebowa, and all we have to do is make the necessary provision for that as well.

However, this is not the only case of this nature. There is no provision in the Act which empowers the State President to increase or reduce the area of jurisdiction of a development corporation. We are therefore encountering problems, of which I shall now present the hon. member with an example. In order to make it possible to amend the area of jurisdiction, in this case specifically that of the Lebowa Development Corporation, and to make provision for the solution of similar problems which may arise in future in connection with the excision of areas, it is being deemed necessary for the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, 1968, to be amended in order to make provision for matters of this nature for which we are now making provision in this legislation.

The hon. nominated member Prof. Olivier devoted himself primarily to the question of the Rikhoto judgment. However, I have already reacted to that. There is one thing I wish to add, though, in order to complete my reply to the hon. member’s speech. It deals with his reference to the regulations in the final paragraph of the Rikhoto court judgment. I have in fact taken cognizance—and so has the Department of Co-operation and Development—of the remarks in the judgment pertaining to the multitude of regulations and the complicated legislation. I want to make it very clear here this afternoon that we are deeply aware of this aspect, and I should also like to rectify the matter. In fact the Black residential area regulations, GKR.1036 of 1968, have already been revised and simplified to a certain extent on the basis of a need which was identified as a result of the Black Communities Development Bill, which it is hoped will be brought before this House and will be passed by Parliament this week. That legislation deals with this matter. There is also the need to review Black labour regulations. These processes are under way, but it will only be possible for the department and myself to finalize them when the Black Community Development Bill and the next Bill on the orderly movement and settlement of Black persons have been disposed of, and we hope that they will be successfully disposed of within the next eight months.

As regards the housing issue. I do not want to go into the arguments put forward by the hon. member Prof. Olivier in that regard. I have already replied to that and I do not think it is necessary for me to do so again. If any question should arise in that regard, I shall gladly reply to them. In regard to Moutse, the hon. member made it very clear that he and his party were not in favour of an ethnic policy. I hope this House and the country will take careful note of this. For the umpteenth time it has become apparent that they attach little or no value to the unique separate cultures and identities of communities. I am honestly convinced that what their political approach amounts to is that the Republic of South Africa should, internally and externally, be seen as one conglomerate, and in all respects as cohesive populations with no differences of any kind in identity, as brought about by the Creator and history. With reference to the allegations levelled at me by hon. members opposite, I want to say that this Bill proves once again how the only truly stable party in this country is the NP which, with consistency and determination, is doing what is in the interests of all the people of this country. This is proved once again by this legislation. This is proved through deeds; it is not mere empty words.

The hon. member for King William’s Town asked me whether the people of Lebowa had been consulted in regard to the excision of Moutse from the area of jurisdiction of Lebowa. I want to make it clear here that this is a difficult matter. It is an extremely sensitive matter. It is a matter which was before this House long before I had anything to do with it. This House resolved in 1973 that Moutse 1, 2 and 3 should be declared White areas. Subsequently my predecessors instructed the commission to investigate the matter again, and it was then brought before this House again in 1975. It was then decided in 1975—eight years ago—that Moutse 1, 2 and 3 should be transferred to kwaNdebele, after a thorough investigation by the commission had been instituted in that connection. Consequently, in reply to the question of whether the people were consulted in regard to the excision of Moutse, I want to say that talks were held with them on various occasions. I just wish to mention the most important of these. I have spoken to them about this matter so many times that I cannot count all the occasions. I am in very close contact with these people. On 5 September 1979 this matter was discussed with the full Cabinet of Lebowa, in the presence of the present Minister of Agriculture and officials of the department. On 28 September 1979, in Boagomo, Deputy Minister Wentzel and officials of the department held talks about this matter with the full Cabinet of Lebowa and two members of the Legislative Assembly and certain chiefs from Moutse. On 29 November 1979, in Akoro, talks were held with the full Cabinet of Lebowa and two members of the Legislative Assembly, chiefs from Moutse as well as other Black inhabitants of Moutse. On 11 June 1980, in Pretoria, talks on Moutse were held with Dr. Phatudi and five Ministers. On 16 October 1980, in Akoro, Deputy Minister Wentzel and I, personally, as well as Minister Hartzenberg and senior officials, held talks with Dr. Phatudi and his Cabinet members and others about the excision of Moutse. At the request of Dr. Phatudi himself, after these extremely long talks had taken place—and now I am not even referring to the cases where I had informal talks with him and certain of his Cabinet Ministers in my office in search of solutions to this problem—I went to Moutse on 6 November 1981 where I addressed 5 000 or more of the people from Moutse.

What did they tell you?

I shall come to that in a moment. I spoke to them at length about this matter. I listened to them. It is true that Moutse, which formerly formed part of the area of jurisdiction of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly, had to be excised from the Lebowa area in terms of the consolidation proposals of 1975 in order to be added to kwaNdebele. As a result of two reports of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, first under the chairmanship of the present hon. Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs and subsequently under the chairmanship of the present chairman of the commission, we had recommendations in this connection in front of us on which the Cabinet had to adopt resolutions. The pros and cons were exhaustively argued and debated.

In terms of section 1(2) of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, the State President, after consultation with the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Cabinet of Lebowa, amended the territory in respect of which the Lebowe Legeslative Assembly was established by Proclamation R210 of 1980 by removing the Moutse district from the aforesaid territory. This was done against the background of what happened in 1973, which was again raised in this House in 1975. At the same time the administration of the aforesaid district was placed under the control of the Minister of Co-operation and Development and other competent organizations designated by him in terms of Proclamation R211 of 1980. Here I am referring to the consolidation proposals of 1982, as contained in the 23rd interim report of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, dated July 1982. In terms of those proposals, the excision of the Moutse district from the area of jurisdiction of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly and its addition to kwaNdebele was reconfirmed.

At the time of consultation, as well as after the excision of the Moutse district from the area of jurisdiction of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly, the Cabinet of Lebowa voiced a strong protest. This was the standpoint which the Cabinet of Lebowa consistently adopted in regard to this matter. Consultation with the Cabinet of Lebowa took place on various occasions in terms of the provisions of section 1(2) of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, prior to the promulgation of Proclamation R210 of 1980.

In the present case the firm decision in regard to the excision of the Moutse district and its addition to kwaNdebele was adopted in Parliament during 1975. In our humble opinion this decision was therefore preceded by consultation. Since the excision of the Moutse district in terms of Proclamation R210 of 1980, several talks in regard to the matter have been held with Lebowa in order to arrive at an agreement.

Our approach is to maintain co-operation and to try to deal with a thorny issue, such as the one we are dealing with here, in the most meaningful way possible. The Cabinet ratified resolutions in this connection pertaining to the consolidation of kwaNdebele in terms of which Moutse 1, 2 and 3 had to be incorporated into kwaNdebele. The history of the matter goes as far back as I have briefly indicated, but there is far more to say about this than I am able to say in the short space of time at my disposal. I have merely touched upon the most important points. After these decisions were taken by the Cabinet, Dr. Phatudi paid me a visit. In the first place, I informed him of the decisions. He then told me that he should like to speak to the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister immediately agreed to see him, and on 2 August of this year, the hon. the Prime Minister held talks with Dr. Phatudi. I shall quote briefly what was resolved on that occasion—

1. (i) visit the Moutse district and the nine farms in the Nebu district by helicopter after the termination of the parliamentary session commencing on 8 August 1983;
2. (ii) that in the meantime an in-depth investigation into the consolidation, planning and regional development of Lebowa will be undertaken by the Governments of the RSA and Lebowa; and
3. (iii) that against this background the Bill at present under consideration in the RSA Parliament will be continued with in order to confirm the status quo, i.e. the excision of the Moutse district from Lebowa and the administration of Moutse directly by the Department of Co-operation and Development, but will be amended to make the abolishment of the seats of the four Moutse members in the Legislative Assembly of Lebowa permissive and subject to further negotiation.

The amendment which I have on the Order Paper at present is therefore an implementation of these resolutions which were adopted in the talks held on 2 August between the hon. the Prime Minister, myself and other colleagues and Dr. Phatudi in regard to this matter. I quote further—

The reason is that we are doing everything in our power to bring this matter to a solution in a peaceful way.

These are the facts in connection with the Moutse issue as a whole. I hope that, now that I have given the House all the information; the hon. members and particularly the hon. members opposite will realize that we are dealing with a difficult problem here, which I am trying to solve as fairly as possible. From what I have announced here, it must surely be clear that we are doing everything in our power to find a peaceful solution to a difficult problem. If nothing is done to embarrass us and if this matter is not turned into a political issue unnecessarily, it will be possible for us to do so, and a peaceful solution is attainable. If it is necessary, I can give the House further information in this regard. However, I do not think that is necessary at this stage.

Your have not answered the question whether they said “yes” to the proposals. You have gone round and round it.

The fact of the matter is simply …

Consultation is not consent.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that we are still in consultation with the interested parties in order to find a peaceful solution to this matter.

Why do you pass this now?

Because it is necessary.

I think I have now dealt with all the matters which were raised during this debate. I want to thank the hon. members on my side of the House very much indeed for their positive contributions.

If an agreement is not reached with Lebowa, will you proceed with the implementation of this clause, or will you hold it in abeyance?

We have wrestled and struggled with this problem a great deal over the years. The hon. member must see that. Actually it is just that we are dealing with a difficult matter here, because there is Lebowa on the one hand and kwaNdebele on the other that are involved in it. We shall deal with this matter to the best of our ability. At this stage I can add nothing further. We are trying to obtain absolute consensus in the matter, and I am convinced that we shall be able to do so. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

I want to conclude by thanking all the hon. members on my side of the House sincerely for their positive contributions. I also want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for the positive contributions which came from their side. I think this is an important Bill which addresses certain problems. I have no doubt at all that it is a positive Bill which, in its essence, makes important contributions to the solution of difficult questions and problems, or which will lead to such solutions and, what is more, that it is a positive Bill which, in connection with the relations problem and the development of certain national States involved, will make a positive contribution to further development in this country of the sound Black/White relations which are so absolutely essential. Therefore, in general, I wish to express a word of sincere thanks and appreciation to all of those who participated in this discussion for the goodwill which prevailed here. I hope that we shall also be able to make good progress during the Committee Stage and the Third Reading. We are here to be of assistance if that is in any way possible. Consequently, to everyone who participated in the debate, I say thank you very much for your contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is before the House provides for an increase in the monthly pensions and special awards payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973. This increase was announced by me during the discussion of the Vote of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

On that occasion, some hon. members pointed out that an increase in benefits had last been granted in 1981 and that for this reason, a larger increase than the 12% and 16% should be granted.

In the first place, I wish to point out to those hon. members that compensation for an occupational disease has nothing in common with the idea of social care and therefore with social pensions. Although it is sometimes done, there is no rule or convention either which requires compensation for occupational diseases to be increased annually or every time that social pensions are adjusted. Compensation for occupational diseases is based only on the common-law principle of damages, which means that the amount of compensation is strictly in proportion to the amount of physical damage which has been done to a person’s health by an occupational disease, irrespective of his financial position or age. When widows and dependent children receive such compensation, they simply qualify, in terms of the pre-1973 dispensation, for that portion of the damages awarded to the deceased sufferer from an occupational disease which has not been paid out—again irrespective of indigence or the age of such a widow. The criterion which we must apply here, therefore, is not the need for social care, age, or indigence, but whether the person’s health has been damaged by an occupational disease and, if so, to what extent. Then we must simply decide whether the compensation awarded at any stage still represents a reasonable benefit in respect of the amount of damage done.

Allow me now to mention to hon. members that the standards which apply in the Republic for the determination of damage caused by occupational diseases to the health of mine-workers are as accommodating as is possible in terms of medical science. In the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, for example, a compensatory disease is defined simply as a diagnosable disease, such as pneumoconiosis, irrespective of whether it results in disability with regard to work. There is no further qualification or criterion—only that very first sign of the disease, which may even be a single radiologically detectable pneumoconiosis nodule or the very slightes impairment of the cardio-respiratory functions of the person as a result of such an occupational disease. This means that persons are certified in the Republic and that compensation is awarded to them while they may continue for many years to do their normal work and maintain their level of income and may often live to an advanced age after retirement. Furthermore, the cardio-respiratory organs of deceased mine-workers are pathologically examined with the aid of the best instruments in order to discover early signs of occupational diseases, and compensation is awarded to the widow, dependants or estate of the person if any indication of an occupational disease, no matter how small, is found. There could hardly be a more equitable standard for certification.

I am pointing out these facts to hon. members, not because I want to advocate a change in the standards of certification. On the contrary, we are proud of the fact that thanks to continued research, it has been possible to arrive at an extremely equitable certification standard for the worker in the mineral industry. I am doing so only in order to put into perspective the question of compensation for loss of health suffered as a result of the performance of risk work in the mineral industry. There are various degrees of compensatable occupational diseases and there are various compensation categories. Because of the historic development of the compensation situation, some beneficiaries are better off than others, and without going into the details and history of every compensation category, I want to assure hon. members that the Government is making a sincere attempt, with the funds available to it, to afford relief where the need is greatest. Excessive increases in the benefits of persons suffering from occupational diseases in the mineral industry would further disturb the balance between these and other sufferers from occupational diseases in the rest of the industrial sector, and I think hon. members will agree with me that we should not introduce any more unco-ordinated increases in benefits at this stage. Not only the amounts of compensation, but also diagnostic practices, standards of certification, medical control measures and compensation principles applicable in the mineral industry differ from those in the rest of the industrial sector, and uniformity should be achieved before any further attention is given to the amounts of compensation.

†This undesirable situation gave rise to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Occupational Diseases—the so-called Nieuwenhuizen Commission. The commission’s terms of reference required it to conduct an in-depth study of all the existing statutory provisions dealing with occupational diseases in the Republic of South Africa, as well as their history and application. Consequently the commission’s report, which was tabled in Parliament during March last year, is a comperhensive one containing a wide range of recommendations.

In broad outline the commission’s recommendations can be catagorised as follows: Firstly, as suggestions towards the establishment of an organisational structure and a statutory framework for a national occupational diseases dispensation, and, secondly, as recommendations pertaining to the underlying principles of compensation, diagnostic procedures, compensation formulae, the elimination of apparent discriminatory practices, preventive measures and matters incidental thereto.

Hon. members will appreciate the fact that the latter recommendations, which in essence have a bearing on the detail and practical application of existing statutory provisions, can only be considered meaningfully after arrangements have been made for a uniform dispensation and after guidelines have been provided for a statutory framework within which such a dispensation can be accommodated.

The Government therefore decided that, as a first step, the administration of the principal Act—the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. 1973—including control of the Medical Bureau and the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases, be transferred to the Department of Health and Welfare.

Secondly the Government decided that the principle of uniformity, not only in compensation, but also in the diagnosis, certification and prevention of occupational diseases, be accepted, and that the occupational diseases legislation, presently being administered by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, be accepted as a point of departure and a basis for a national dispensation under the auspices of the Minister of health and Welfare. Furthermore, the Government decided to appoint an interdepartmental working committee consisting of knowledgeable personnel of the Department of Health and Welfare, the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Manpower, with the assignment to establish a statutory framework for a uniform national occupational diseases dispensation based on the principles of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, and with due cognisance being taken of the remainder of the recommendations contained in the Nieuwenhuizen report.

There are further guidelines in the Government’s strategy for the establishment of a uniform dispensation for all workers in the Republic’s industrial sector. Such guidelines are embodied in a White Paper on the Commission’s report, which was tabled in Parliament on 28 June this year.

The Bill now before the House provides for interim relief to beneficiaries in the most deserving cases, only in the minerals industry. I therefore do not want to take up any further time in this regard, but would rather like to express the hope that the guidelines of the Government for the establishment of a national occupational diseases dispensation under the auspices of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare would ultimately satisfy the needs of the total labour population of the Republic of South Africa. In order to achieve such an ideal my department and I should like to offer our unqualified assistance and support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that the official Opposition will support this amending Bill.

I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister’s statement. He concluded his speech with a reference to the White Paper which I want to discuss in greater detail later on. I should just like to say that the history of this subject covers a period of approximately 110 years and now it ends in a White Paper. It is interesting to note that South Africa’s industrial development only really started with the discovery of diamonds in 1870 and the discovery of gold a few years later. Before these discoveries South Africa was a country with very few industries. Our people, for the most part, concentrated on farming activities and although there were many industries, occupational diseases were not a problem. Of course the position changed when mining operations began and new and unexpected health problems then arose. Diseases developed of which very little was known. Although the danger of silicosis was already known, little attention was given to dust and dust control. Shortly before the Anglo-Boer War open-cast and outcrop mining operations changed to underground activities where the ventilation was poor and there was a greater danger of inhaling dust. These mining operations were suspended during the Anglo-Boer War but when the mine-workers returned after the war they found that within one or two years many of their friends died from miner’s phthisis. A commission of inquiry into the health services of the industry was immediately appointed. Dust control was enforced by law and a health examination for mine-workers was introduced. A system was also introduced by means of which compensation was paid in respect of occupational diseases. This happened at the beginning of this century. Although occupational diseases were investigated, very little was done to investigate other aspects of the health of mine-workers. Black labour was introduced because these workers were considered to be very tough, and they were herded together in compounds. The food they were given was maize porridge three times a day and meat and vegetables twice a week, with the result that those mine-workers died like flies. In 1903 the Milner administration appointed a committee to inquire into the matter and the finding of that committee was that 54 out of every 1 000 of these mine-workers died every year as a result of diseases. These diseases were pneumonia, scurvy and meningitis. They were not occupational diseases. In 1905 a programme was initiated to import workers from the tropics, countries known to us today as Malawi and Mozambique. It was then found that 130 out of every 1 000 died annually on the mines as a result of poor health conditions. As a result of these figures pressure was brought to bear on the mines to take steps to improve housing, nutrition and the treatment of diseases. It was only in 1913 that the Chamber of Mines brought a Dr. W. Corgas of the United States to this country. He was an interesting person. When the French could not complete the Panama Canal because of the high mortality rate in that area he was the man who resolved the problem and made it possible to build the Panama Canal. Occupational diseases were then investigated and a certain Dr. A. J. Orenstein was subsequently appointed Superintendent of Sanitation by Rand Mines in 1914. That was the beginning of the acknowledgement the existence of occupational diseases in our mines and industries. He is regarded as the father of occupational disease control. Because of the work of this doctor the mortality rate of between 50 and 100 per 1 000 in 1907 dropped to 2,6 per 1 000 in 1913 which, of course, was a tremendous improvement. Since then the treatment of occupational diseases on our mines has been on the same level as that of any other place in the world. It is interesting to note from the White Paper—the hon. the Minister also referred to the White Paper—that as far back as 1917 he realized what was happening. He was involved in all aspects of occupational health on the mines. He was involved in occupational diseases, injuries, compensation, housing, legislation and administration. During the First World War he was also the Surgeon-General in his spare time. He was a very remarkable person.

Up to and including the Second World War the mining industry was the main industry in the country, but during the Second World War South Africa found itself in another position. Then we were no longer able to import everything into South Africa; we had to start producing in our own country products we had previously imported. Then another industrial change took place in our country. New factories were established and money started flowing in from overseas for the development of new factories in South Africa. Many soldiers returned to South Africa after the war and they contributed a great deal towards getting this industrial revolution in South Africa under way. Very little was done about occupational health in those industrial sectors which had nothing to do with the mines. There was little pressure on the part of workers and the trade unions to combat occupational diseases and unskilled labour was freely available and cheap. The factories concentrated on making money and paying out dividends; there was very little money for the health of their workers.

In 1956 the mining industry and the CSIR established a research institute for pneumoconiosis with the same person—hon. members will be surprised to hear this—Dr. Orenstein in charge. This research institute later became the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases.

This was very important because as a result of this development, three new ideas emerged. The first was that industrialists and employers had to be made aware of occupational diseases. This was very important. Secondly, hygiene teams were appointed to investigate working conditions. This, too, was very important. Thirdly, workers could undergo X-ray examinations as well as tissue and blood tests in order to establish their state of health.

However, the people were not satisfied and subsequently we come to the history of 1975 and the commission of inquiry known as the Erasmus Commission which conducted a thorough investigation into these circumstances. The result of this investigation was the stressing of the fact that organized occupational health services were in a bad state. There were health hazards in our factories, ignorance and evasion because of financial reasons. Standards for the protection of workers were poor. Few staff members were available to do this work and moreover the demand for such services was slight. There was also a lack of explicit legislation.

†The next step was the appointment of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission of Inquiry to which the hon. the Minister also referred in his speech. People employed in the mines and who contract an occupational disease as a result of the conditions under which they work receive compensation in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973. This dispensation which provides for the payment of compensation formed the subject of investigation by the commission of inquiry. I think the findings of this commission as contained in the report are well-known. Legislation is needed to rationalize the whole aspect of diseases, both occupational and non-occupational, and accidents which occur in our factories and mines.

I am sure that I do not stand alone when I ask that such legislation should be enacted. As a matter of fact I can quote the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs promising in 1981 that as legislation was urgently required, it would be introduced into the House during 1982. I accept that it is very difficult to draft legislation in this connection. I have tried to study the problem of occupational diseases and I find that it is a very intricate problem. I still find it difficult to put each part into the right compartment.

The industrial revolution of 1950 caused us to realize that there were completely new occupational diseases. New diseases were caused by the manufacture of plastics and by radio-active substances used for research in connection with medical treatment and sources of energy. We read in the newspapers a few days ago that radio-isotopes were lost. These are all diseases that we have to look at.

Occupational diseases are not only related to mines. People refer to pneumoconiosis and think that that is all. They talk of the dust-related diseases like silicosis, diseases related to asbestos is an anthracosis from coal dust. The hon. the Minister referred to the respiratory functions test. The conditions referred to cause chronic obstructive airways disease. There is carcinoma of the lungs and mesothelioma. It is said that 50% of lung cancers are caused by asbestosis in America. We talk of progressive systemic sclerosis caused by these conditions. Asbestos is not only found in mines. It is found in industries as well. There are many other diseases related to industry and caused by chemicals. There is, for instance, lead poisoning. I know that my hon. colleagues from Port Elizabeth Central and Constantia have thoroughly discussed lead poisoning with both the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. Lead poisoning is an industrial disease. There are diseases derived from gases and tar. Deafness from noise is one of the most feared and important industrial diseases. Then I am not even talking about leukaemia, Hodgkin’s disease and aplasia caused by radio-activity. Therefore, the White Paper to which the hon. the Minister referred, is very important. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House support it and will do our best to make a contribution in this regard.

It is very difficult to understand the position. First of all we have the compensatable diseases related to the mines. These fall under the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Then, of course, there are the industrial diseases occurring in other industries. These are not compensatable because, as I understand it, they fall under the hon. the Minister of Manpower. Then there is Workmen’s Compensation covering accidents on the mines and other industries. I believe that that, too, falls under the hon. the Minister of Manpower. As regards compensatable diseases, there is racial discrimination between Whites and Coloureds. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister said that the Commission would set about removing discrimination in salaries in so far as that affects compensation and that the nature of the work one was doing and the salary one was earning as a Coloured person or a White person would not play a role. A White receives approximately twice the compensation of a Coloured. I should like the hon. the Minister to expand a bit on this. I believe that compensatable diseases amongst Blacks also fall under Workmen’s Compensation and therefore under the hon. the Minister of Manpower. Therefore, I think it is very important, that the health aspect should be taken away from the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Manpower and given to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, because this concerns diseases and not accidents. I wonder whether the aspect of accidents should not also fall under the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare because, if one loses a limb or an eye, that is also an aspect of health. As regards hygiene in the mines and in industry, I am quite happy that that should fall under the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in the case of mines and under the hon. the Minister of Manpower in the case of factories. I accept that.

Sir, this is a very important subject. We can have new constitutions and lots of changes in South Africa, but the well-being of our workers is very important to South Africa. When I speak of the welfare of the workers, I must stress that that includes Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. I believe that the compensation paid to these people, as the hon. the Minister has explained, is not really a true pension. It is rather a way of saying that due to a person’s work he has incurred an extra penalty and that he will therefore be paid a lump sum to compensate him for what has happened. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the very excellent report of the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases and the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases. I enjoyed reading them. It is important to note what the Director of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases has to say in the report of this bureau. He goes into detail about the nature and purpose of the different types of medical examinations. The worker first undergoes an initial examination to see whether he is fit for work, and if he meets the medical requirements he is issued with a certificate of fitness known as the “red ticket”. Then he undergoes periodical examinations to see whether he suffers from any disease. He can also have special periodical examinations or can ask for a benefit examination. In this regard I would like to quote one paragraph on page 1 of the report, as follows—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has been any response to this report. In the mines to lose one’s red ticket is basically to lose very good employment. The miners fear losing their red ticket. What happens is that they receive compensation if applicable but their income is drastically reduced because they do not have employment paying that type of remuneration. Group insurance would be a way of protecting a worker who suffers from chronic heart disease or any other disease not compensatable which causes him to lose his red ticket. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to look very carefully into this.

We will support this Bill. We are dealing with a very important matter here. The hon. the Minister will agree that this Bill deals with a subject which has caused a lot of problems that are very difficult to solve. I believe that we should have a thorough discussion on it. I have asked the hon. the Minister a few questions and I hope he will be kind enough to reply to them. This matter goes back 110 years and two commissions have investigated it. However, we still do not have the right legislation to look after our workers as far as their health and safety are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown made a long detour, but he did give us an interesting history lesson. As regards the Nieuwenhuizen Report, I think we shall have sufficient time to discuss it, and I hope the hon. member will pardon me for not reacting to that. I do not think it is really relevant.

The main issue in this Bill is the increase of specific pensions, as the hon. the Minister pointed out. After having listened to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, one has no choice but to say that this Government has once again proved, as it has so often in the past, that it is a true friend of the worker. Not only is the Government the friend of the mine-worker, but of all workers. I just want to give one example in this regard. The legislation on work reservation was introduced years ago to serve a particular purpose. Due to certain circumstances, that legislation and work reservation as such were phased out in due course, because of the very fact that the Government regards the worker as being very important and wants to protect him. Although the Government is not the employer of the mine-workers to whom this legislation pertains, it still guards the interests not only of mine-workers, but of all workers in the various sectors. I regard it as the duty of every responsible Government to look after these people in recognition of the exceptional service they render under very difficult circumstances.

The mine-worker plays an extremely important role, particularly in the South African set-up. According to the latest budget for 1983-’84, one finds that no less than R1 430 million has been collected from the mines for the Treasury, which constitutes approximately 7,3% of the total State revenue. Although everything possible is being done, by the Government, as well as by mining houses, to improve the working conditions of these workers, their finances also deserve our goodwill and benevolent consideration.

This Bill once again demonstrates the Government’s goodwill. It is important to point out that a distinction is made between pensions awarded before 1973 and those awarded thereafter, when the so-called principal Act came into being. This Bill deals mainly with pensions awarded before 1973. As the hon. the Minister indicated, there are different categories of pensions. This particular Bill is concerned mainly with meagre pensions. There is a significant number of mine-workers and widows who receive these meagre pensions. These are mine-workers whose cardio-respiratory functions are or were impaired by not more than 50%. Due to the high cost of living, these people are really struggling. There is no doubt about that. It is for this very reason, and due to the sound understanding displayed by the Government that it was decided to assist these people by increasing their monthly pensions by 16%, and in certain other cases, by 12%. These pensions were last adjusted in 1981.

I want to explain my statement further. It is interesting to note that this year’s adjustment is the seventh since 1973. The Government is therefore continually keeping an eye on the circumstances of the workers. As a matter of interest, the monthly pension was R50 in 1973, whereas it will amount to R144 after this increase. Of course, I am well aware that this amount does not keep abreast of the rise in the consumer price index. The fact is however, that the Government’s policy of financial discipline simply has to work. I am convinced that there are few, if any, sectors in which salaries have been adjusted to such an extent that they have, in fact, kept abreast of the rise in the consumer price index. There is a very good reason for this, viz. because inflation simply had to be combated. We would all agree with that.

In conclusion, this adjustment must therefore be regarded as a temporary measure, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated. It must assist people who are really struggling. This applies to all workers who fall under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. Unfortunately, however, this does not apply to those who fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In my opinion, this matter must be rectified so that it applies to all workers in the industrial sector of the Republic. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the Nieuwenhuizen Report and to the White Paper. Many good things are mentioned in that report, which will most probably make it possible for all workers to have a share in this in the future. I therefore take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia has made a few statements with which I agree and to which I shall react in the course of my speech. Among other things, he pointed out that many people were struggling as a result of the high cost of living. He also pointed out that the increases of 16% and 12% did not keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. I agree with that as well. However, I shall come back to it in the course of my speech.

The hon. member said that this legislation demonstrated the sincerity of the Government and proved that the Government was a friend of the worker. In the course of my speech I shall also react to these statements made by the hon. member.

When one thinks of money magnates, one thinks of mining companies, whose success is due to people, namely mineworkers. It is due to mineworkers who toil to fill the coffers of the big mining companies. These people do dangerous work and every working day they are exposed to many dangerous situations. The great risk attached to the work of the mineworker cannot be over-emphasized, therefore. That is why the CP says that the mineworker deserves special attention when consideration is given to the labour force of South Africa.

During the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, the hon. member for Langlaagte quoted statistics concerning the dangerous work done by these people. I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Hansard, col. 5709)—

The hon. member went on to say—

That is when this Bill will come into operation—

This illustrates the risk to which the mine-workers are exposed. The hon. member also indicated that the increase of 16% did not even approach the rise in the cost of living, and that is why I say that I agree with the hon. member for Virginia.

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs recently paid a visit to Kuruman, but he did not invite me to accompany him on a visit to the mines there. I hope that under the new dispensation, he will invite his colleagues in the Coloured and Indian Chambers who will represent these mining areas to accompany him on these visits to the mines there. [Interjections.] The mining managements may be the hon. the Minister’s friends, but the people who do this risk work, the people who do this dangerous work, the people who are exposed to these diseases, do not support the Government. [Interjections.] I know the hon. the Minister did his best to change the minds of some of the CP members during his visit there, but his attempt was a complete failure. [Interjections.] I assume that the hon. the Minister took cognizance, during his visit to the asbestos mines at Kuruman, of what is probably the most dangerous occupational disease, namely asbestosis. [Interjections.] Now that the hon. the Minister is conversing with the hon. member for Rissik, I am reminded of the fact that when they were both attending the University of Pretoria and the hon. member for Rissik was working for the NP, the hon. the Minister was conspicuous by his absence. [Interjections.]

Order! The matter which the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Rissik are discussing has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Minister took cognizance of it. Asbestosis must be one of the most dangerous occupational diseases of all. It is a mining disease which constitutes a danger, not only to the workers in the mines, but also to people living and working in the vicinity of the mines. In the Northern Cape, for example, asbestos is mined, and there are towns surrounding and in close proximity to the existing asbestos mines. Incidentally, I am very grateful for the fact that the Government has decided in its planning over the years that future mining towns should not be located at or near mines, but that provision should be made in the planning of such towns for the people who live and work there to be accommodated at a greater distance from the mines themselves.

At Koegasbrug, for example, there was a mining town right next to the asbestos mine. A policeman and a teacher could not refuse to go and wok there. They are not mine-workers, but they were also exposed to the danger of asbestosis.

What on earth has that to do with pensions?

The Bill does deal with the increase of certain pensions and awards to mineworkers. While this aspect is receiving attention, however, I want to urge that attention be given to the position of the teacher and the policeman, for example, who are forced, because of their conditions of employment, to live and work right next to an active mine, where they are also exposed to the asbestos dust, just like the mineworker himself. Surely this is inevitable. I want to advocate, therefore, that we should try to ascertain whether it would not be possible for these people to qualify in some way for an award, in the light of their particular circumstances. I believe that we should award some form of compensation to them as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very sincerely for having allowed me briefly to venture beyond the framework of the Bill itself and to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Now I must confine myself to the Bill again.

As far as the White Paper is concerned, I just want to state unequivocally that we in the CP are most dissatisfied with the delay in bringing about a new and better dispensation for the mineworker in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Virginia said that the NP Government was the friend of the mineworker in this country. However, when we consider the delay in the whole process which I am talking about, I firmly believe that with such a friend one does not need any enemies. [Interjections.] Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. It is my conviction that with such a friend, the mineworkers of South Africa have no need of enemies.

You really are talking absolute nonsense now!

No, it is the truth; it is not nonsense at all. [Interjections.]

I say you are talking absolute rubbish, Jan!

Mr. Speaker, the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Occupational Diseases in the Republic of South Africa commenced its activities almost five years ago. The appointment of the commission was announced on 22 December 1978. The report of the commission was tabled in this House on 18 March 1982, more than three years later. The Government produced this White Paper more than a year after the report had been tabled in this House, and only then was the relevant legislation introduced. I want to make it clear that we in the CP are not satisfied with delays of this kind.

Yes, but in the interim Pietie had had to find time to ruin South Africa’s agriculture as well. Do not forget about that!

After the commission’s report had been tabled, it actually took more than a year before it suited the Government to publish a White Paper, in which it was said that pneumoconiosis would henceforth be dealt with by the Department of Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Manpower, and that these departments would decide jointly on comprehensive legislation in which all cases involving pneumoconiosis would be embodied in a single piece of legislation, but with the Pneumoconiosis Act as a basis.

Our evidence before the Nieuwenhuizen Commission was to the effect that mine-workers should be entitled to a gratuity upon having served in the mining industry for a certain number of years.

Whom do you mean by “our”?

All of us. After all, the hon. member for Virginia was also supposed to be in favour of it. Why did he not say so in his evidence before the commission, then? Surely he could have done so there on behalf of the NP. [Interjections.] Why did he say nothing about it, then! [Interjections.] That is precisely why the CP is taking such a strong stand on this matter. [Interjections.] We in the CP believe that upon completion of a certain period of service in a mine, when he has been performing this dangerous work for a certain number of years, a mineworker is entitled to a gratuity. Up to this stage, however, the Government has adopted absolutely no definite standpoint on this. The Government’s White Paper on the report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission is also completely unsatisfactory, in our view. We in the CP are by no means satisfied with it.

I should like to inquire whether the hon. member for Virginia has brought any pressure to bear on the hon. the Minister to persuade him to consent to the payment of such a gratuity. [Interjections.] If the hon. member were to do that, he may be assured of our support.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP gladly support the principle contained in this Bill. It involved an improvement to the existing situation. However, we still believe that the further increase of certain benefits, as contained in the measure which is before the House, is hopelessly inadequate. In the light of the dangerous and risky work done by the mineworker in this country, and in the interests of South Africa, there should not be any delay in promoting his interests, and better benefits, for the moment at least, are due to the mineworker of South Africa.

We in the CP support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was surprised to discover that a person could also try to turn something like this into a political issue. I really feel that when the health of people is at stake, politics should, in fact, be put aside. [Interjections.] At the outset, I want to refute some of the allegations that have been made. It has been said that the mine-workers do not support the NP.

Of course not. Only the mining magnates support the NP.

The CP also fought the recent by-election in my constituency. 90% of my voters are mineworkers, and the NP retained that seat. I am merely giving the facts; the hon. member can make his own inferences.

But the NP won that seat with a minority vote.

A minority vote? The CP is therefore including the votes the HNP gained with those gained by the CP.

Yes, of course. [Interjections.]

Then why not also include the votes the NRP gained?

No, we include those votes with the ones gained by the NP.

Then the CP and the HNP do not have the majority vote, and I want to set that to rights immediately.

I feel that many of the things that have been said here, by the hon. member for Kuruman as well, are, in fact, true. Today I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs for this legislation. As a former mineworker, I am sure I am speaking on behalf of everyone who receives this pension.

Today I want to confine myself mainly to those persons who have been retired on a first degree disability basis. [Interjections.] We have already heard that it is not so serious if someone has been retired on a first degree disability basis, but I maintain that someone who claims that, has never spent 24 hours with such a person. If one considers that only the fittest people are admitted to the mining industry, and men of approximately 40 years of age are retired from the mining industry due to ill health, one can well imagine the effect an occupational disease has on such a person.

There are four institutions contributing to the pension of the mine-worker. Contributions come from the State, mining, industrial and research accounts. People who retired after 1973 receive a lump sum, whereas those who retired before 1973 are the only people who still receive this pension. They are phasing them out rapidly. I also want to associate myself with those who appealed to the hon. the Minister and asked whether these people could not be given a better dispensation.

As has been pointed out, it is true that seven increases have been granted since 1973, but if one considers that that pension only amounts to a little more than R100 per month, one can deduce what a meagre pension those people received initially.

Today I think it is necessary for me to describe briefly the condition of someone who suffers from this disease. He cannot walk very fast. He cannot walk long distances. He can only walk a little way and then he has to rest. Unlike a normal person, he cannot go and lie in his bed and sleep at night. He spends his life in a sitting or standing position. Often he is in his early forties. He still has a family he has to care for, and because it is assumed that he is still able to continue to work, he is, in fact, compelled to go to work every morning to support his family, regardless of how he feels. This afternoon I want to make an earnest plea that it no longer be necessary for such a person to work if his health does not permit it, and that he be granted a proper pension to live on and not be compelled to go to work each day under those circumstances.

The hon. the Minister may say that I am asking him for a bigger pension today. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister and every hon. member in this House today to make that 16%, 25%. It would still not be such a large amount, but it would mean a tremendous amount to the person receiving this compensation.

Mr. Speaker, like hon. members in this House who spoke before me, the NRP have a considerable amount of sympathy for the people who are in receipt of these pensions. We want to say right at the outset that we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister and his department have seen their way clear to granting pension increases this year. Like everybody else, we also agree that the amount is insufficient and that the timing of the increases could well have been brought forward. I think the hon. the Minister did intimate earlier this year that he would consider the possibility of bringing the pension increases into effect earlier than 1 October. However, no doubt the hon. the Minister has his own reasons as to why he was not able to make them payable earlier this year.

When we look at the history of the increases in respect of these three categories of people we see that since 1975 when the increases were first calculated as a percentage, in two categories the actual pensions have increased by some 73%. That is on an uncompounded basis. It is a straight 73%. During the same period, however, the cost of living has increased by 112%. We do, however, recognize two facts. Firstly, we realize that these pensions are supplementary income. In the majority of cases they do not represent total income and, secondly, we recognize the fact that the compensation must equal the degree of disability. In so many cases, of course, the disability does not mean permanent incapacity and therefore one cannot compare these with a full pension as such. However, the fact that we must take into account is the purchasing power of the pension when the person received it originally prior to 1973. R1 then would be equivalent to R1,73 today although the total purchasing power would in fact amount to less than R1 as compared with the position in 1973. I think that this is a factor that must be taken into account in determining what the maximum pension increases will be.

I should also like to point out to hon. members that in the case of section 115 pensioners, the Commissioner still has a discretion in regard to the amount that is actually granted to the people who qualify under that particular section and that the percentage stated is in fact the maximum permissible increase and not the actual increase. As far as the other two categories in terms of section 101 and section 102 are concerned, the individuals are given a specific percentage increase. When we have the opportunity to discuss the matter it will be interesting to learn from the hon. the Minister whether it is anticipated that the working committee about which the hon. the Minister told us today will also be examining compensatory principles in the various categories. I am sure that at a later stage we will have an opportunity to discuss the merits and demerits of the Government’s stand as reflected in the White Paper. I do not think that this debate is the proper occasion to go into all the pros and cons of the Government’s stand. Let me just say that in principle we believe that it is correct that this type of compensation and pension payment should fall under the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. That does not, however, necessarily mean that we agree with the Government’s perception of how those pensions should be paid, how the disability should be calculated and what pension increases should be given. However, we agree with the principle of housing this in one department. After all, this concerns people’s health, their physical capacity to work and the compensation for that.

Then I should just like to say that I hope that the working committee, which the hon. the Minister spoke about in his Second Reading speech, will not just be a further mechanism for delaying the Government’s proposed legislation to bring uniformity into occupational diseases and compensation for that. I hope that that committee will, as they say in the classics, get a speed on, that it will really move at a pace commensurate with the urgency of the need to find a lasting solution in this particular field.

The hon. member for Parktown went into the history of occupational diseases. We found that very interesting indeed. For once I found the hon. member and myself in agreement about what are important priorities in South Africa. I am not so sure that I would agree with him that the Milnerite approach in South Africa was always appropriate, but in this particular case it was of benefit as the hon. member demonstrated.

In conclusion may I say that the whole question of workmen’s compensation for occupational diseases does require considerable overhand and restructuring. I hope that the hon. the Minister will fairly shortly be able to give us satisfactory progress reports in this particular connection. We have pleasure in supporting the pension increases despite the fact that we think that, as regards timing, they should have been granted earlier and the fact that the percentages are too low if one takes into account the fact that the purchasing power of the original pensions has decreased considerably. Nevertheless, we do not wish to deny the recipients the benefit of these increases. We shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking hon. members for the contributions they have made today, especially those hon. members who made positive contributions which were in the interests of the workers. Then I also wish to thank those hon. members who tried to make a contribution, but who were less successful. After all, we are not all equally gifted. Some of us received only one talent… [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Park-town that the review he gave us of the way in which occupational diseases have been dealt with over the years was very interesting. He indicated that with the commencement of mining activities in South Africa, the question of occupational diseases, especially on the mines, assumed great importance. I want to thank him for having made such a study of the matter, because it was very interesting. The hon. member also referred to the historical phases we have gone through in dealing with occupational diseases in South Africa. I believe that the passing of this legislation is in actual fact an historic moment for workers in South Africa. The point which emerges here is that over the years, a dispensation for sufferers from occupational diseases has been developed which compares favourably with any other in the world. We have made phenomenal progress in this field in South Africa, also with regard to research and the involvement of the Government. The Government considers it to be its responsibility to provide for the occupational health of more than just one group of workers. This legislation implies that the Government should extend measures for the protection of the worker to other sectors as well and should make them applicable to other sufferers from occupational diseases. Therefore we wish all workers to enjoy the benefits of these measures with regard to occupational diseases.

In my opinion, this is an historic event, and it is a wise decision that this matter should fall under the Minister of Health and Welfare, because an occupational disease is in fact an illness and should therefore be the responsibility of that Minister.

And on top of that he is a good Minister too.

Yes, he is a good Minister too.

I want to thank the hon. member for Virginia very sincerely for his very fine contribution. One can see that he knows the subject and knows what he is talking about. He is one of the members who made a positive contribution.

When I was given the portfolio of Mineral and Energy Affairs …

That was a mistake.

Yes, for you it was. The hon. member is quite right. It has cost them thousands of votes since I took over this portfolio. When I took over this portfolio, I took one decision. I lived in a mining town for seven years …

Johannesburg.

That hon. member’s frame of reference only extends to the borders of Johannesburg. Beyond that he cannot go.

Looking at the mineral industry in South Africa, one realizes that it is the one industry which must not come to any harm. It is the most important primary sector in our economy and we must not allow that industry to be harmed. That is why I believe that the interests of the workers in that industry should be protected. Those workers should not be exploited by small opportunistic political parties to further their own political interests. I am not prepared to betray the mineworkers of this country for the sake of political expediency, as the hon. member for Kuruman is doing. If the hon. member for Kuruman wants to use the mineworkers to make cheap political capital at the expense of the interests of those mineworkers, I say that I reject that standpoint of his. Unlike him, I shall not betray the mineworkers. [Interjections.] I shall not allow the position of the White mineworkers, or any other mine-workers for that matter, to be prejudiced as a result of political exploitation which is aimed at deriving political advantage from it in the short term. These are people who try to earn their bread in an honest way in the bowels of the earth and by the sweat of their brow every day. It is reprehensible to try to exploit a matter such as the health of our workers.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Stilfontein says that my hon. colleague here is a rogue.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and I say that he is an enemy of the truth.

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

I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr. Speaker.

We listened to the hon. member for Carletonville. He is a person who can discuss these matters with authority, because he worked on the mines for almost a lifetime. I visited him in his constituency. He was present the day I arrived there. He told us about the suffering of the people afflicted by these occupational diseases. Surely it is tragic to say this kind of thing. I think it is absolutely inappropriate to try to exploit such a situation for petty political gain, as the hon. member for Kuruman did. When I visit Kuruman again—I shall be going there one of these days—I shall say so to the mineworkers there. The last time I was there I did not talk about the hon. member, and no one blamed me, but this time I shall talk about him.

You had an enormous audience!

I received a full motion of confidence that night.

Tell us how big the audience was.

The hon. member said that when the hon. member for Rissik was working for the NP, I was conspicuous by my absence. Of course! I was not a United Party supporter. I could not have worked with him. The hon. member is descended from a line of staunch UP supporters in Ermelo. I do not blame him for having been a UP supporter. It could have happened to anyone of us. [Interjections.]

Mention has been made here of delays. Sir, there are two ways of going about the matter when one wishes to deal with a problem. What is the course followed by a person with a scientific approach? Firstly he identifies the problem, and having identified the problem, he tries to find solutions to it. His approach is systematic. The NP is not prepared simply to throw overboard a dispensation which according to the hon. member for Parktown has been in existence for 110 years, and which to a large extent satisfactorily accommodates the needs of the mine-worker. It is the specific intention of this Government to work out a meaningful dispensation for all workers, for all who are subject to occupational diseases. That is why we are planning properly. We are carefully consulting those very mineworkers. One of the reasons why this matter has taken some time is because the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and I had the decency to have long discussions with the Mineworkers’ Union and with Mr. Arrie Paulus, my good friend. [Interjections.] We are not prepared, without having investigated the matter scientifically, simply to proclaim a homeland in the North-West. Before establishing a homeland we first ascertain whether it will work. Therefore we cannot do with the mineworkers what the CP wants to do with South Africa. We cannot act so irresponsibly.

Do you still remember the time when you wanted to give Stellenbosch to the Coloureds?

I shall have a very fruitful discussion with the hon. member one day about that matter. I should welcome it. I did wonder at one stage whether a homeland would not perhaps be the solution to the Coloured problem. [Interjections.] I shall reply to the hon. member. I was very young when I came to this House and I wrestled with the problem in all sincerity. After the analogy of the problem which the hon. member has with delays, I went to see the Transvaal NP leader at that time, Dr. Connie Mulder. He convinced me that this was a wonderful ideal, but that it was impracticable. [Interjections.] It happened in the office presently occupied by the Chief Whip of the NP. He really convinced me of that.

Order! I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would rather convince this House that the Bill should be read a Second Time!

Sir, the point I want to make in conclusion is that this is a matter which has been thoroughly considered and planned. We shall have to act with circumspection in order to bring about a better dispensation for all workers in South Africa, instead of consigning them to a homeland in the North-West.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.