Mr Chairman, I rise to make a few announcements and to make a few general remarks.

In the first place it is my wish that in the discussion of this Vote the watchword, if at all possible, should be constructive work. It is the desire of the Government that constructive work be done. We in the Department of Co-operation and Development try to be constructive. It is cause for gratitude that there are signs of positive and constructive work being done in all spheres in our country. The best constructive work is not necessarily always that which is accompanied by much fanfare and announcements. In this department, constructive work is often done in an unobtrusive fashion, and the department and its officials are not always accorded the recognition for that constructive work that in my opinion they deserve. I do not wish to discuss that now but I just wish to say that while it is true that they may not always be accorded the recognition they deserve in public, in my experience there is real appreciation among those who know and also among many well-informed Black as well as White persons and bodies, for the constructive work that is being unobtrusively done in various spheres. We are building good relations; we are doing constructive work on the rights of population groups and people in this country; we are working constructively on reform. Often our building work is not good. Sometimes we even build a wall completely crooked, and then we have to break it down again. We must just be prepared to break down such crooked walls and rebuild them properly. Thus it has happened more than once in my time that we have been compelled to break down a wall and build it up again because we were dissatisfied with the building work done in that regard up to that point. We are doing constructive work on the whole issue of removals, that is so much in the news at present. We take cognizance of the problems and, as will also be evident from the discussion of this Vote, we try to the best of our ability to find ways and means—here I could refer for example to the decision in connection with St Wendolin’s, and there are several other examples that I cannot mention here—to maintain peace in this country in the present circumstances and to do so in such a way that there will be good relations and so that all population groups within South Africa will prosper to the maximum extent. In this way I can single out innumerable spheres in which we are engaged in building work and for that reason I say that I shall be grateful if the discussion of this Vote is marked by honest building work, because that is what I myself, my colleagues, the Deputy Ministers and the officials of this department are engaged in, however deficient our efforts may be in the view of many bodies and persons. I am profoundly grateful for the degree of peace, goodwill and much else, about which I say nothing most of the time because after all, this is the outer manifestation of hard work and building work by a large phalanx of officials, my colleagues the Deputy Ministers, the Commission and myself in one of the biggest departments in the Republic of South Africa.

It is against this background that I want to extend a sincere welcome on this occasion to the new Director General of the Department of Co-operation and Development, Mr Gilles van de Wall. As a student he distinguished himself by obtaining all his academic qualifications cum laude. Since 1951 he has been attached to the Department of Co-operation and Development and he is really a man for development if there ever was one. As Director-General of the Department of Co-operation and Development he is now carrying on, in exemplary fashion, with the outstanding and brilliant work he has performed in various capacities for many years. He takes the lead in several fields, internationally as well, and I take pleasure in wishing him everything of the best on this important road ahead now that he has been appointed to this position. By the grace of Providence he has been giving our country and its people constructive work and unselfish service all his life, and he devotes himself unceasingly to the interests of the Black communities and inspires everyone attached to this department. There is profound gratitude and appreciation for this, and for me it is a privilege and an absolute pleasure to work in this Department of Co-operation and Development with Mr Gilles van de Wall as Director-General.

As an example of the building work that is being done I should very much like to single out the Eastern Cape, because the Eastern Cape is important to the Cape Peninsula and to the problems we are struggling with in the Cape Peninsula. At the same time, as I shall indicate, it affects Natal as well, where we are faced with thorny problems of a similar scale relating to housing and other social development problems. I also mention this as an example of the ripple effect of what we have, in all humility, tried to build in Soweto, on the East Rand, on the West Rand and in several other places in the Republic of South Africa. Hon members will recall that we appointed Mr Louis Rive to undertake certain work for us in this connection. He was my personal choice—and the Government gave its consent in this regard—to help us, first in Soweto, then in the Eastern Cape and now in Natal, after a brilliant career as Postmaster-General in this country. I should very much like to place on record this afternoon my highest personal appreciation and that of the hon the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for the outstanding services rendered by Mr Louis Rive in this field, particularly after his retirement.

In connection with the East Cape there is one announcement I want to make, since I have now received Mr Rive’s report, for which I am very grateful. Some time ago he was instructed by the Government urgently to investigate the position of Black housing in the Eastern Cape. Hon members are aware of the problems we were faced with and I need not, therefore, go into that now. Hon members are also aware of the results we achieved, due to the correct action being taken in this connection. For that Mr Rive deserves our tribute and appreciation. He was requested to investigate this matter urgently and submit recommendations to the Government concerning the nature and extent of the problem and concerning the timetable for and the nature of the action to be taken to alleviate the housing situation there. Hon members will also recall that as far as decentralization and deconcentration is concerned, the Eastern Cape area has been singled out as priority area number one with the highest allocation of points, viz 80 points. It is the only area where the number of points allocated was so high. After a thorough investigation, Mr Rive recommended that a programme be tackled in accordance with which Black housing in the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area specifically be singled out to be covered by way of financing from outside, locally as well as abroad, so that appropriated funds which would normally be used for this could be set aside to afford greater relief in other Eastern Cape areas.

†I repeat, I am using this as an example to bring home to this Committee what is being done in a wider context.

*After escalation over the construction period of five to six years, the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage project will involve more than 300 million in infrastructure spending.

†May I remind you that in Soweto we have now, in a relatively short time, expended over R600 million and it was started in exactly the same way. I do not want to go over that terrain again but that was the beginning of a success story which has benefited not only the country but Southern Africa and other parts as well.

*An amount at least equal to this R200 million in respect of the top structure will also have to be provided in the Eastern Cape, but it is expected that most of these funds will be invested from private sector sources. As far as the part for infrastructure itself is concerned, it has now been agreed to in principle by the Government that the programme as recommended by Mr Rive be tackled. Approval in principle has been granted by the Government in this regard. As far as the financing is concerned, the Department of Finance is at present considering project financing offers by various financial institutions with varying degrees of foreign participation. As soon as the process of consideration and negotiation has been completed, an announcement will be made about the successful offer and terms. I therefore announce that the decision in principle has been taken, that we have progressed a long way towards obtaining the financial resources in this way. I have personally cleared this statement with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. As soon as the process of consideration and negotiation has been completed an announcement will be made about the successful offer and terms. In the meantime an amount of R20 million has been provided immediately as bridging finance and therefore good progress has been made with the project. The final financing package will also duly fund this bridging finance. It is expected that as the infrastructure is completed, the private sector will contribute, via various channels at its disposal, towards completing the top structure of the project. There is already a considerable degree of local and overseas interest in this regard. Mr Rive’s report has been submitted and I do not wish to go into too much of the detail at this point, but I repeat that I am using it as an example of constructive work. As far as the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage metropolitan area is concerned, it is accepted that the development of this area is the top priority in the Eastern Cape as it has been covered by the Rive Report. Due to the urgency of the situation with regard to this metropolitan area, a synoptic report on that region and the infrastructure was issued as long ago as April 1983. I have already made an announcement with regard to certain aspects of the financing in this regard. The report emphasizes—and I think it is important that we take cognizance of this—two poles of socioeconomic circumstances that are encountered, viz communities that are relatively prosperous, as against others that are poverty-stricken in the extreme. There are a few large towns in the Eastern Cape such as Uitenhage. Port Elizabeth and East London and a whole phalanx of smaller towns. For this reason it is not regarded as desirable that the high standards that will apply in Soweto, for example, be applied to the small towns of the Eastern Cape. That would be impractical. As an example one could take the priorities set by members of the Black communities themselves. According to the Rive Report the following is the order of priority: Firstly, the provision of water. Secondly, the creation of job opportunities. Thirdly, provision of transport to such employment, and, fourthly, accommodation and the associated infrastructure. Parts of the Eastern Cape Development Board area fall under the Western Cape Coloured labour preference area. In this area the home ownership schemes and the 99-year leasehold scheme do not apply, and the Government has to provide housing to members of the Black communities in other ways. As a result the self-build concept could not come into its own in these areas. Where the 99-year leasehold provision and dispensation apply, it is logical that this scheme must be promoted to the maximum extent, for the simple reason that the responsibility for providing housing must be shifted away from the State to the individual, with the aid of employers and financial institutions.

The report makes the point that too little use is being made of, for example, the services of White municipalities, that possess technical skills with regard to the provision of services etcetera. Our department agrees with this view and closer liaison ought for example, to be sought by way of regional development committees falling under the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Moreover, development committees under Mr Rive’s chairmanship have been established in respect of specific towns, and these may also be able to make use of the technical expertise available locally, as proposed.

The Government understands that certain minimum standards have to be applied where large communities live in urban areas. However it is necessary to guard against an over-emphasis on standards in cases where communities cannot afford them. This is an aspect to which constant attention is being given by the departments responsible for housing matters. I want to end this part of my speech by stating very briefly; I shall make the report available to you—it is a very good report, in my humble opinion and in that of the department—that the report specifies the following areas in order of merit as priority areas for upgrading:

East London (Ziphunzana): It has been decided by the Government that although the settlement of families from Duncan Village proper be proceeded with, the Ziphunzana portion of the area within its borders be retained and upgraded as urban Black township areas.

Queenstown (Mlungisi): Originally the intention was that all the inhabitants of this township be resettled in Transkei and Ciskei. Due to the recommendation of the Linde Report in 1981, as followed up by Mr Rive’s Report, it has been decided that Mlungisi must be retained as an urban Black township area.

Can you give me an example?

I can cite you many examples on that subject.

*As a result of problems that have come to light in this connection, and owing to the involvement of other population groups, it has been decided that a State committee will investigate the residential circumstances in Queenstown. The recommendations of the State committee are at present being considered by the Group Areas Board.

Take for example a small place like Fort Beaufort (Kwatindubu). The report estimates that the upgrading of this area will involve R5,1 million, and this has been included in the total amount of just over R200 million plus R200 million which I mentioned to you a moment ago when I was dealing with the financing. I repeat that to use this as an example of constructive work.

Oudtshoorn (Bongolethu): It has been decided that the inhabitants of the township will not, as originally intended, have to be resettled in a national state, but that the Black community will be retained there. Additional land adjacent to the existing township has been obtained and the estimated cost of upgrading and expansion amounts to R4,6 million. This has been included in the financing that I discussed with you a moment ago.

Grahamstown (Rini): Good progress has already been made with the planning of new residential areas, and a master plan for the entire Black township complex has been drawn up which is to serve as a guideline for future development and upgrading. According to the report the estimated cost of upgrading is R6,6 million. This has been included in the amount I mentioned to you a moment ago. I can tell you that three years ago I, together with my colleague Deputy Minister Morrison went to some of these little places. I could write a book about our experiences there. On that day I really did not think it was possible that we could find solutions to these things. I am not exaggerating, but the experience gave me sleepless nights. We tackled this thing in a spirit of constructive work, and I honestly think that we did the right thing. Look where we stand now.

King William’s Town (Ginsberg): According to the report the estimated cost of upgrading is R6,6 million. This is also included in the amount that I have dealt with.

Beaufort West (Sidesaviwa): The replanning of the township area has already been approved and the estimated cost of upgrading is R5,3 million.

Stutterheim (Cumakala): On the basis of the report of the Linde Committee in 1981, as followed up by the Rive Committee, it has been decided that Cumakala be retained and upgraded as an urban township area. According to the report the upgrading is relatively simple and will be dealt with by the Development Board in the normal way.

An exposition is given of the cost of upgrading the priority areas discussed in the report. Overall it will amount to R53,8 million which, over a period of four years, may escalate at 12% per annum to an amount of R70 million. If one adds to this the amount of R160 million required for the upgrading of the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage metropolitan Black areas this involves a substantial financial burden for the Black communities living in the areas which, in our opinion, could not be dealt with in any way, save by way of the method I initiated when I made the announcement concerning the Rive Report to the effect that the Government had approved the financing as I put it to you.

Finally, in this regard we and the Government accordingly requested Mr Louis Rive and Mr Alan Henkinson to do the same thing in Natal—to establish a planning council and to tackle the job with a will, in the closest co-operation with myself and the Department of Co-operation and Development. I then received a letter from Mr Rive about which the Government came to a decision, and this, too, I should like to have placed on record. He said that he was doing this work at considerable inconvenience to himself personally, that it caused him domestic disruption and that, in addition, it indirectly caused him financial loss. As far as the Natal complex is concerned, he told us that he did not wish to become involved in Natal and that he would only do so if it was considered that it would contribute significantly towards greater stability in the region, that it was in the interests of the country and could improve inter-race relations, and if there was no one else available who, in the opinion of the Government, could do the task equally well or better. The Government discussed the matter, as well as point 5(2) of his letter, which is an important point, in which he describes the order of annual capital within which the implementation will have to take place and the number of years over which it should preferably extend, taking into account the fact that as long as things are being done and there is visible progress, it has a defusing effect. After due consideration the Government decided that we wished to use Mr Rive there, too, together with Mr Alan Henkinson, and with regard to point 5(2), which is a very important point which I have read to you, the Minister of Finance enabled me to say the following here. The Government sets special store by the task of upliftment in which Mr Rive and Mr Alan Henkinson are engaged in Natal, and will study the report in depth when it is completed. Depending on the decisions that the Government will take on the report at that stage, as in the cases of Soweto and the Eastern Cape that I have just discussed with you, the necessary funds will be made available to the extent that the financial resources of the State permit. I have cleared this with the Prime Minister as well.

It is a pleasure to be able to tell you these things as examples of constructive work being done unobtrusively. If you recall what things were like in the Eastern Cape two years ago, then you yourself will know what the result has been—I need not tell you. If you consider what the position was in Soweto four to five years ago when I was appointed to this position and you go and see what it looks like now—I can give you figures and indications later in this Vote—then you will see that there have indeed been results aplenty.

There are two more brief announcements that I wish to make. One concerns KwaNdebele, because it is the Government’s standing stated policy that we help to develop the national states, that we guide them, and that we do so all the way, but that they themselves have to take their own decisions in that regard. I can tell you this afternoon that on 18 November 1983 Chief Minister, Mr Skosana, handed over to the Prime Minister of the RSA a memorandum from his government in which he requested that the Government of the RSA co-operate with the KwaNdebele government in the process of development towards full independence.

Discussions between representatives of the Governments of the RSA and the Governments of KwaNdebele have taken place in connection with the request of the government of KwaNdebele to progress to the status of independence. It has also been agreed that a committee comprising four representatives of each of the two governments should be designated under the chairmanship of a person to be nominated by the State President to investigate and plan the independence process. I now announce that it has pleased the State President to appoint Mr Gilles van de Wall, Director General of the Department of Co-operation and Development, as chairman of this committee.

The name of this committee is the Working Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Van de Wall, and it will comprise members of the Departments of Co-operation and Development, Finance and Foreign Affairs on the RSA side, and four representatives to be designated by the KwaNdebele government.

The Working Committee is subordinate to, and reports to, a joint Cabinet Committee comprising Ministers of the two governments under the chairmanship of the hon the Prime Minister of the RSA. The Working Committee will begin its activities as soon as possible, because mindful of the fact that the investigation and planning of the independence of any state is not a matter that can be completed in a hurry, and mindful of the fact that the Prime Minister put it very clearly to the government of KwaNdebele—and we operate in accordance with this—that we must take these people by the hand and try to train them, so that when eventually they take that step the necessary spadework will have been done to enable them to govern KwaNdebele competently, this investigation that I have now announced will probably take some time. Nevertheless the process whereby to achieve the expressly stated ideal which these people wish to pursue, is under way. I want to emphasize that the finalization of such an investigation will take time, and the government of KwaNdebele fully understands this.

Who gets the casino?

Oh really, do not try to be funny now. Then, too, I should like to make an announcement in connection with the Bill, about which a great deal has been written. It is well known that the Government is at present considering rounding off the relevant recommendations of the Riekert Commission and the Government’s White Paper with regard to the report of the commission on the revision of influx control measures. The Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill was drafted in 1982 to give effect to these recommendations. The first reading was taken and subsequently it was referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution for consideration. The select committee requested interested parties to comment on the Bill. In the meantime the Bill lapsed due to the prorogation of Parliament on 26 January 1984. This same Bill that lapsed, was re-introduced in Parliament on 27 January 1984 and referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution after First Reading. Thereafter, on my personal request, the select committee directed the Department of Co-operation and Development to draft a new Bill under a new name and to cancel and do away with the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill, because it did not achieve the aims set. A draft bill was drawn up taking into account the guidelines contained in the White Paper as well as the regional development and decentralization policy implemented since then. This Bill, as you yourselves are aware, forms part of a trilogy, two of which have already been accepted by Parliament, viz the Black Local Authorities Act, Act No 102 of 1982, and the Black Communities Development Act, Act No 4 of 1984. I have given the undertaking that the contents of the Bill under discussion will be discussed with the representatives of the Black city councils and will achieve certain set aims. Since the Bill also affects the citizens of independent and self-governing states, it is appropriate that it also be discussed with the leaders of these states, particularly in the light of the special Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of my colleague, Minister Chris Heunis. Accordingly the Government has decided not to refer the Urbanization Bill, which was the new Bill to amend and replace the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Act, to the select committee before due consultation has taken place with all interested parties. Since the present parliamentary session has already reached the half-way mark there is not enough time to finalize this extremely important and current matter timeously and meaningfully to the satisfaction of all parties. For that reason this matter is standing over.

Now it is becoming a general affair.

Just listen to that.

Surely that is true.

I do not wish to allow myself to be sidetracked at this point, but we can argue about that in a moment, if the hon member wishes. The Government and myself are determined to achieve a meaningful solution of this sensitive matter on a reasonable basis and by consultation with the public—that includes all political parties—as well as the private sector and with the Black leaders, and do so with their co-operation, and by so doing achieve the stated objectives, namely improvement of the quality of life of Black people, including those outside the national states.

With these few announcements I hope that we shall have a pleasant discussion and I really hope that, if possible, the watchword will be constructive work, because we earnestly desire to act in a positive way with regard to this vitally important department and the matters we deal with.

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

The hon the Minister has, as usual, commenced discussion on his Vote on a super-optimistic note. He has, in fact, tried to sketch a picture of almost the perfect Government department which is only busy with constructive work, which is improving race relations around the country, which is getting away from discrimination, and which is trying to build peace and goodwill. It sounds almost like Utopia and one would hope that in fact this is what the department is dedicated to doing. I believe its effective function as a department will depend entirely on how tied it is to political ideology. If it can get away from political ideology then it may achieve some of the optimistic goals which the hon the Minister has set for it. As far as some of the comments to the hon the Minister are concerned, we will have other opportunities of commenting on the Rive Report regarding the Eastern Cape and the activities of Mr Rive and Mr Henkinson in Natal, but we, knowing the work which Mr Rive has done in the past, welcome that news and we hope that that will produce constructive and good results. I must also thank the hon the Minister for finally clearing up the mystery of the third Koornhof Bill which has been one of the great national mysteries for a long time. We now know that that is not going to see the light of day until a future session of Parliament.

I want to deal with various aspects of the Minister’s department and want to commence by saying that throughout this session we have been reminded in almost every debate that that particular debate is an historic occasion because it is the last before the new constitutional dispensation. The debate on this Vote is certainly no exception to that situation because we know next year Black affairs, which are classified as general affairs under the new constitutional dispensation, are going to be considered by the White Chamber, the Coloured Chamber and Asian Chamber though quaintly never by the Blacks themselves. What the effect of this will be on the department is one of the large question-marks which hangs over the department at present because it is an entirely new and different situation. But there are other question-marks, too. One of those is, what is the future of this particular Minister? What is the future of this Minister in this particular department? Is this perhaps the last time that this Minister is going to be dealing with the Vote on Co-operation and Development? When he took over this department he did so with great enthusiasm and he did so amidst the hopes amongst a large number of people that he would change the image of the department.

But surely I did.

We will deal with that in a minute. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he has seemingly retained his enthusiasm because he is capable of being enthusiastic about anything, but he has totally dashed the hope that people had that he would improve the image of the department. It was felt, when the hon the Minister started, that at least he had more empathy with the Blacks whose lives his department was to control, than his predecessors had and that he would use the department as a constructive instrument to improve their quality of life. But that has just not happened. Whether it is because of his own administrative failings, or whether it is because of the tortoises in his department whom he has failed and still fails to dislodge, or whether it is that he has been deliberately thwarted by the “verkramptes” around him, the fact is that he has failed to meaningfully change the image of this department. So the question-mark still remains: What is the future of the Minister? The other question-mark over the department relates to the whole future of the department itself. What is the future of the Department of Co-operation and Development? I hope that this debate might give us an indication as to the answer to that. In recent times we have seen and we continue to see signs that the empire of the department is being systematically whittled away and the department’s responsibilities drastically reduced. One can cite examples. There are seven of them I want to cite. Firstly, we have seen the functions of labour recruitment being taken away from this department and given to the Department of Manpower. Secondly, Black taxation has now been taken away and given to the Department of Finance. Thirdly, we have had the Hoexter Commission which recommends that the whole area of authority of the Commissioners’ Courts should be taken away from this department and given to the Department of Justice. Fourthly, we know that relations with Blacks in the TBVC countries are now the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Fifthly, the function of provision of urban infrastructure and housing will increasingly be performed by the Black local authorities and/or the development boards. Sixthly, the provision of services such as agriculture, financial administration and health services etc will increasingly be taken over by homeland Governments whether they are independent or not. Seventhly, the whole question of influx control which is presumably a matter which will be dealt with in the new Urbanization Bill, it seems in future will also become the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs if the Aliens Act and the Admission of Persons to the Republic Act are to be employed for regulating the coming and going of people from foreign States into South Africa. So, one looks at the department whose area of responsibility has been shrinking fairly considerably. But in the meantime this is a department which still, as the Minister has said this afternoon, controls and influences the lives of many millions of South Africans and it does so under the sometimes euphemistic name of Co-operation and Development because amongst a large number of those people, over whose lives this department has influence, the department is very much regarded as an ogre which interferes with and regulates Blacks in their daily lives on a massive scale. I want to say to the hon the Minister, and I hope I am going to have his attention, that nowhere is that more in evidence that when one looks at the whole very vexed question of forced removals where there is still total confusion and uncertainty internally and where there is growing international anger and condemnation in respect of this aspect of Government policy. The hon the Minister has spoken of the constructive nature of the department’s activities such as building houses etc but the question of removals is the other side of the coin because this is an aspect of Government policy which has done and is doing untold harm inside of South Africa as well as outside of South Africa. The hon the Minister is on record as saying last year and I quote his words:

Those were his words last year. What does he mean by “practical and possible”? Does he mean as far as is practical and possible within the confines of the political ideologies of the Nationalist Party, or does he mean as far as is practical and possible in terms of the interests and wishes of those concerned or in terms of common and simple humanity? There is a world of difference between the two. If the hon the Minister is going to look at the question of removals in terms of political ideology, then the parameters of what is practical and possible do not conjure up much hope for the future. The hon Minister must realize that despite his statement tens of thousands of Black South Africans are today living under the threat of forced removal. Week after week during this session of Parliament the hon Minister or his Deputy, in reply to a series of questions which we have tabled, told us of more and more contemplated removals. He referred to 3 000 people here and 6 000 people there and 10 000 people elsewhere whose future is under consideration by the hon the Minister and by his Department. The reason invariably given—and it is given in quaint, patronizing departmental jargon—is “in order to assist them to move to an area where they can share in a full community life with their own compatriots and where the potential exists to provide the necessary infrastructure to improve the quality of their lives”. This is the departmental jargon given as a reason for moving tens of thousands of people around South Africa. The fact of the matter is, however, that whatever language one uses they are being told that they have to move. That is the gravamen of the situation. Often they have been told that they have to move from areas where they have lived for generations and sometimes where they and their forebears have lived for hundreds of years. All this must be seen against the background of this Government’s appalling track record to date in regard to the uprootment and the unsettling of settled communities and their relocation elsewhere in terms of National Party ideology. Therefore, the hon Minister’s assurance last year that he would do everything possible to abolish forced removal is hardly comforting. The Government and the hon the Minister appear to be strangely indifferent to the research which has been undertaken and the findings which have been published of other organizations relating to population removals in South Africa. I refer specifically to the Surplus People’s Project which findings have received very wide publicity. This report was published more than six months ago, yet only a few weeks ago, according to the hon the Minister’s reply to questions which I have tabled in the House, have the Department acquired copies of the report. I find that very strange. It has taken the Government more than six months just to obtain a copy of the report, let alone start reading it.

That is not true.

Well, that is the answer he gave to me last week. He said that he had finally managed to get the copies of the report and that he was looking at it. But it has taken him six months to get to that stage.

What do these investigations reveal? I want to read from the first volume. It states—

[Inaudible.]

The hon Minister mutters under his breath but that is not sufficient. The report is a well-documented one and if the hon the Minister would study it and look at it he will see that various categories are set out to substantiate the figure of 3,5 million which have been moved over the last 20 or so years in South Africa. Various categories are set up, for instance, removals from farms totalled 1 129 000, Black spot removals totalled 614 000, urban relocation totalled 730 000, informal settlements totalled 112 000, the Group Areas Act totalled 834 000 and other minor categories totalled 103 000 making a total of over 3,5 million people. Those are figures and the hon the Minister must look at those figures and he must tell us where they are wrong as I have said, it is a well-documented report. The project also estimates, in terms of Government policy, that those presently under threat of removal in South Africa total 1 700 000 in the future. I know the hon the Minister has stated that the figures are too high and that they are exaggerated but he must now be specific and tell us exactly where they are wrong and where they cannot be reconciled with his Department’s own records. I say this because whatever the actual figure, we know that people have been moved and have been uprooted from all parts of South Africa on a massive scale which I believe is a staggering indictment of the Government’s entire separate development policy. In my view it is time for the Government and the hon the Minister to call an actual halt to forced removals based on reasons of political ideology. It is no good fiddling around any more and one cannot leave these communities under threat of removal. If the Government knows what is good for good race relations in South Africa and what is good for our international image, it is time a positive policy statement be made that there will be no more forced removals based on ideological considerations alone. That is extremely important. This would bring relief to hundreds of thousands of South Africans and it would be an enormous relief to those people. It would restore some measure of security to those concerned and, at the same time, it would go a very long way towards relieving the tensions which exist around the country. In addition—and this is important—it will remove a major point of criticism and condemnation of South Africa from the rest of the civilized world. One bright spot in the dreadful saga of forced removals took place recently when the hon the Minister announced that the Government had reversed its decision in regard to the removal of people of St Wendolins in Natal. That was one of the bright spots and I congratulate the hon the Minister on that decision and I hope that he, his Department and his officials will show the same compassion and the same degree of sanity in his approach to other communities which are threatened with relocation and resettlement. The decision in regard to St Wendolins brought instant relief and hope to those concerned and I hope the hon the Minister will give us some details about what his future plans for the development of St Wendolins are going to be. I also hope he will give us some indication as to what his reasons were—and this I would be most interested in—for reversing his previous decision in this case and for returning to sanity. While this has brought tremendous relief to the people concerned I want to emphasize another point and that is that the whole situation in regard to St Wendolins did not go unnoticed outside South Africa. I want to quote here from a statement made by the press officer of the State Department of the United States of America which was issued on the 11th of last month in Washington. This statement was issued on behalf of the State Department and reads as follows—

The statement goes on—

I think that is a significant statement and it shows how an act of sanity on the part of the hon the Minister can, in fact, win approval from our friends outside South Africa, let alone what it does to those which it concerns directly. I want to know whether this is or was an isolated flash of sanity or whether it is really an indication of the future direction of Government policy as the State Department of the United States hopes it is going to be. I hope the hon the Minister will be able to clarify the whole question of removals, if not in this debate, then over the next few months because, again, one does not see any consistency in the Government’s handling of these matters. We have St Wendolins on the one hand and then also the whole question of the future of Duncan Village outside East London. In this instance the Government has taken a decision to upgrade a section of the area known as Ziphunzana adjacent to Duncan Village but to disestablish Duncan Village proper. It has taken this decision and according to the hon the Minister, in reply to questions which I have asked during this session, there are some 26 000 people who are resident in Ziphunzana and 12 000 in Duncan Village. The people involved in Duncan Village proper, according to what the hon the Minister has replied to me, are to be resettled not in the Republic but in Mdantsane in the Republic of Ciskei, some 20 miles away from East London. I know that the Minister has received representations by various organizations asking for the retention and upgrading of Duncan Village. The representations were made to him by the East London City Council itself asking for the whole matter to be looked into and seeking the upgrading of the existing Duncan Village. However, the Government stubbornly refuses to even reconsider the situation. The hon the Minister, in reply to my question, said that there was not even any point in meeting them because the Government had made up its mind and they knew the City Council wanted to talk about an upgrading of Duncan Village.

That is exactly what they asked for, to establish Ziphunzana.

The hon Minister must look at the question he answered the other day. The hon Deputy Minister has a bad memory. He said he was not prepared to meet them again because they wanted to talk about the upgrading of the rest of Duncan Village. They were not talking about Ziphunzana. They are perfectly satisfied with Ziphunzana. They want the rest of Duncan Village to be upgraded and to be retained. There is evidence of hostility on the part of those to be moved and they resent the fact that they are asked to leave the Republic and be resettled in Ciskei. What is needed here is a total reappraisal of the situation and I believe the Government should act quickly in order to avert what might be a critical situation. Why cannot this hon Minister and the Government discuss the matter again with the East London City Council and with the local community involved and approach the whole affair in the same way as they have approached their rethinking of the removal of people from St Wendolins in Natal? Why cannot they do that?

There is one other matter which I hope we can deal with and which also affects removals and that is the question of the future of Reserve No 4 on the North Coast of Natal. I have raised this matter before and it is an extremely important matter because here again we have a settled community which is viable—they total some 20 000 people—who with their forebears have been there for some 200 years and they are living under threat of removal and they do not know whereto. However, they are living under threat of removal, a settled and viable community with economic prospects. They are employing good farming methods and have timber mills. They are living well and are prospering economically but they are under threat of removal—and they have been for a long time—to another part of the North Coast of Natal. I believe that this is also a matter which needs to be replied to—and specifically replied to—in this debate.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by saying to the hon the Minister that we are pleased that he is present. Sometimes the hon the Minister hurts his foot and on other occasions he has to hitchhike, but the fact is that he is here, and in contrast to many other hon members he is not only here; he is also with us. We are very grateful that the hon the Minister is here today and that his expertise is still available to us. I think there are few departments who can say that their present Minister is a person who started out as a professional assistant to the late Dr Verwoerd and later became a Deputy Minister in the department, and is today the Minister who handles this particularly difficult department with great success. Mr Minister, I think the expertise and empathy—the sympathy and compassion—you display is the reason why we have peace and quiet in South Africa and why we are able to continue on the road of the constitutional development of the Blacks. We thank you.

I should also like to wish the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs everything of the best for the Vote. I think this is the first time he will act here in the capacity of Deputy Minister, and thus far this Deputy Minister has distinguished himself admirably in the performance of his task, and he is doing extremely well in a very difficult field. Hon members, like the hon member for Lichtenburg who is smiling so, will know that it is a very difficult field, and we wish him well for the future.

We should also like to associate ourselves with what the hon the Minister said in regard to the Director-General. We are grateful for the short period during which we had the opportunity to work with him on the Commission and otherwise. I want to thank him for his friendly and efficient co-operativeness. We sincerely thank him.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea has spoken at length and has mainly concentrated on three points. Firstly, he talked of the lack of empathy or the hope of more empathy on the part of the hon the Minister and he also referred to the image of the Department. He then stated that the empire of the Department is being broken down and he also referred to forced removals. I must honestly say that the hon member has little knowledge of what the image of the department really is. I can tell hon members that the image of the department is increasingly being appreciated. The work that is being done is extremely difficult. I was present during discussions which took place with leaders of the independent national States and the leaders are well aware of the difficulties. It is true that there are activists who would not like the Department to have a good image. For them I have no answer for nothing will satisfy them except a one man one vote unitary state but that, of course, is their problem. However, there is no question of an empire as far as the department is concerned. The fact of the matter is that if the hon member would take the time off and reflect upon these matters he would realize that the hon the Prime Minister has said a long time ago that a certain rationalization must take place in the framework of the State apparatus and that is exactly what is happening. It is a rational matter and not a matter of there being no confidence in the department because there is the greatest confidence in the hon the Minister and the department as well as the heads of the department.

He would then be a Minister without a portfolio.

Of that I do not know. Until the hon the Prime Minister brings these matters to a point, I think he should bide his time. There is nothing sinister about this at all and it is simply a question of pure rationalization in terms of the declared policy of the Prime Minister of this country.

The second point the hon member referred to, was the forced removals. The hon member will be aware that the hon the Prime Minister during the discussion of his Vote took time off to mention at least four principles which should be accepted as the policy of the Government as regards removals. I can only urge the hon member to read the statement made by the hon the Prime Minister and if that does not satisfy him I can only say that some people are very diligent in their ignorance.

That statement will bring no comfort to people who are under the threat of removal.

I beg to differ. However, on the other hand the policy of the PFP in this regard would not bring any comfort to anyone because the policy of the PFP, as I understand it, provides that no removals whatsoever should take place irrespective of the utterly adverse conditions these people are staying under irrespective even of the fact that there is not sufficient water available and irrespective of the fact that good sanitation is not possible. What then are we quarreling about? That is exactly what the hon the Prime Minister said.

Those are ideological removals.

No, illogical removals is something which is undefinable. I would like that hon member to spell out what is illogical removal and what is illogical removal.

I said ideological removal.

That hon member can kindly explain to us the ideology of his party and how they see the question of removals taking place.

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

Not at this stage, thank you. Perhaps at a later stage when I have had the chance to speak. I am asking the hon member to tell us when he thinks a removal should take place.

When they ask for it.

I am asking that hon member. Let him take his time and answer fully when such removals should take place.

When they ask for it.

I am asking that hon member. Let him take his time and answer us fully when he thinks removals should take place. As regards St Wendolins and Duncan Village, these are matters which fall within the ambit of the hon Deputy Minister here who will of necessity be able to give a very good answer to the hon gentleman.

*I now come to the speech I want to start with at this stage. At this stage I just want to say to the hon member for Lichtenburg that I still have a few turns to speak and that I shall deal with that. I want to begin by pointing out one or two aspects, and the first is the absolutely phenomenal progress that has been made in the field of Black affairs during this hon Minister’s period of office. It is not difficult to illustrate this; in fact, it is very simple. I should like hon members to look at the legislation that has been passed with regard to Black local authorities. The local authorities did not come into being by themselves, but after hours of discussion between this hon Minister and the Black leaders in the cities. That hon member suggested so glibly that there was no empathy, but I want to assure hon members that that legislation did not come into being in that way. It is a landmark on the road of success for the hon the Minister, Dr Koornhof. The development of Black communities has not occurred by itself. This was difficult legislation. The councils had to be converted and there were problems. All those aspects were resolved, and it was the hon the Minister who did it. However, when we come to the Black communities outside the national States, there are few people who can say that they have done more—and this includes the hon members of the PFP—than the hon the Minister, Dr Koornhof, and I want to say to him—I, who know what he does—and I say this on behalf of our country and our party: Thank you, because I do not believe this could have been done with greater sacrifice, more patience, more humanity and more enthusiasm.

When it comes to the evolution of our policy of separate development, the policy the NP has always pursued, I want to refer hon members to the announcement they heard today that KwaNdebele is in the process of becoming independent. This is a success story and that is not to mention all the others. Every now and then I went to speak to the leaders—including the leaders of the Ciskei—and those leaders have a positive attitude. They do not believe in the policy of the PFP, and the PFP must not blame me if the Black leaders do not believe in their policy. Even the chief minister of kwaZulu does not believe in their policy and sometimes I even wonder whether those hon members believe in their own policy because they have no reason to believe in it. Therefore I want to say to them that we are achieving successes here. Mr Chairman, do you know what the important aspect is? It is that all these successes are being achieved with an attitude of goodwill. It is very easy to adopt sledgehammer tactics and simply push through, but the Government does not do this and the hon the Minister does not do it either, because it is not his style. His style is to take the Whites with him, because the Whites are those who belong to my people. We are following this road fearlessly. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour. Firstly I want to thank the new Director-General, Mr Van de Wall, very sincerely on his appointment to this highly responsible post. I want to assure him that I think he is extremely well equipped, as far as training and experience are concerned, to carry out this task with great success. I should like to wish him and his officials everything of the very best as well as much success in the years which lie ahead.

I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs on his appointment. He, too, is a Western Transvaler and I also hope that he will be successful and that he will be able to save what there still is to save. I want to assure him that we on this side of the House will support him in doing so. Just to make very certain that no error creeps in, I want to take leave in advance of the hon the Minister for if he is replaced next year, when it is a general department, by a person who is better equipped and better qualified and has a better claim...

It will not be you.

No, I know that. In that new dispensation I have no chance whatsoever under this Government, and I am not interested either, but there are other people who qualify to a greater extent that the hon the Minister does to manage the department, and if the hon the Minister is no longer here next year, we wish him everything of the best now.

Thank you. Hamba kahle.

Mr Chairman, it is strange, but this place has a different at mosphere, probably owing to the fact that the greybeards sat here for many years with the result that it is not conducive to a nice fight, and so it is a little more difficult to discuss matters in a heated way here. [Interjections.]

I think the matter we are discussing here today in respect of the state administration of South Africa, namely ethnic relations as far as Black people are concerned, is quite the most important issue with which this Parliament can occupy itself. I do not think we need have any doubts on that score.

Are you now advocating a homeland again.

Yes, we are concerned about that, and it has been proved over and over again, not only in this country, but in Africa and in the rest of the world that the only way to ensure the peaceful co-existence of various divergent peoples is by creating states, so that each people will have its own state in which the maximum number of its own citizens can live and exercise their political rights. It has been proved by that policy, and if it were not for that policy there would have been a revolution in South Africa by now.

I just want to tell the hon the Minister in passing that he need not worry about this party on my right, because they are the mouthpiece of the international liberal community. If it depended upon them, no one in South Africa would have to move in the interests of all. I want to ask them whether it is not right to have an ideal for building a peaceful South Africa and to be prepared to make sacrifices for that ideal? That ideal will never be realized and nothing permanent will come into existence without sacrifice. It is not only the Black people who will have to make sacrifices, but the White people as well. The hon the Minister spoke about construction work, and if he is working towards that ideal, he will have our full support.

The question which came to mind while one was listening to what was said here today, was whether this was construction work towards that ideal. It would have been fantastic if the hon the Minister, while he was talking about KwaNdebele that has requested independence, could have announced such an imaginative development project for that area as the one he announced here. The project, however, is not on that imaginative level that the hon the Minister envisaged with his announcements. I am saying this because that State has the most favourable situation in South Africa to accommodate such a development programme. This hon Minister is undermining the ideal of state-creation and peaceful co-existence on various fronts, and I want to refer to a few important examples.

The first one I want to refer to is in respect of consolidation. States are the foundation on which this policy of separate development is based. It is based on the partition of land, the partition of political power and the exercising of political rights within that state. In terms of the 1975 proposals it was provided that the Black states would consist of 24 different blocks. That was not the ideal situation, but it was good enough as a starting point under those circumstances. We know that it is not always possible and desirable to aim for 100% consolidation because it is not the end of the world if that is not possible.

In terms of those proposals kwaZulu was to have consisted of 10 separate blocks. Last year we asked the hon the Minister how many areas there now were which fell under the control of KwaZulu and how many there were in which Zulus were living and which fell under the control of his department. He then said there were 29 areas which fell under the control of KwaZulu and 16 areas under the control of his department. He also said that the Black spots had not been included in the calculation. In other words, there are far more than 45 different areas. Last week, during the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Prime Minister said that only 80 000 ha of the quota land still had to be purchased. The consolidation process has two components. The one is the acquisition of land from Whites in order to consolidate, and the other is the excision of the Black areas. The hon the Minister is almost finished with the acquisition of the quota loan, but what he is doing in the field of the excision of Black areas is absolutely meaningless.

I have looked at the Department’s report for the period ending 31 March 1983 and on page 16 I see the following. The data furnished deals with land planning, and on the left-hand side of the page is a column for the type of plan, and there is a small heading: Settlement planning. After that particulars are furnished of the number of new plans and the total in that column is 63 886 for 37 000 people, which amounts to almost two plans per person. I want to ask the hon the Minister to give fewer people the task of planning, while he places more men on the job, because then he will make better progress.

But were you yourself not the Deputy once.

In my time I did not merely make plans. Believe me, we got things done, and the hon the Minister can go and have a look at the results. This programme has come to a complete standstill since I left, and the hon the Minister knows it.

If the hon the Minister would turn to page 35 of the report he will come to the results. There are 63 000 plans, but what results have these produced? The report states that during the year under review only two Black spots were cleared, namely Alsatia in which 187 persons were involved and the Venda corridor in which 319 persons were involved. In other words, a total of 500 people. During that period you removed far more White people from their land for the sake of this ideal, but on the other side you did nothing. I know it is a difficult matter, but you must not allow these people to lead you astray.

I read in The Citizen today that the NRP’s man in the Transvaal said that he was surprised to see that 70% of their supporters were dissatisfied because the NRP was moving to the left. And they are moving towards the NP. Mr Chairman, in respect of consolidation the NP is ruining the foundations of this whole ideal, and is ensuring that nothing remains.

The NP is destroying this ideal in respect of the economic sphere as well because they have decided to allow Black people to establish industries in Black residential areas in White South Africa. If they had come forward today with an imaginative plan to help Black people to establish industries—in the Black states, where entrepreneurs are scarce—I would have taken my hat off to them and said that they were imaginative people who were building. However they are not building now; they are breaking down. [Interjections.] That the Government decided to allow Black businessmen in the central business districts of the White towns and cities of South Africa is surely not construction work on Black ethnic development; surely it is a turning of South Africa into a territory into which an influx is going to take place. Just think of the Small Business Development Corporation which was established after the Carlton conference; think of that idea which was put forward by Dr Rupert, under the cloak of decentralization, precisely in order to establish small business developers in the decentralized areas and in the Black states in order to realize this very ideal. But where is he operating? He is not operating in order to bring about decentralization; he is here in Jabulani and in Port Elizabeth. Ninety-five per cent of his undertakings are in the White areas.

And in Khayelitsha.

Yes. Surely that is not a positive step. It is the destruction of an ideal which we all advocated. Think of the Rikhoto judgment which the NP accepted and in respect of which it did nothing to remedy the situation and to achieve the original objectives. Surely these are all economic steps which the NP are taking to destroy this ideal.

There is more. Think of urbanization: There are these plans which the hon the Minister announced today; and the plans which he announced previously to double the size of Soweto and also to bring about a development on the East Rand which would be just as large as the present Soweto; to bring about another development like that in the Vaal Triangle. Think of what the hon the Minister is doing here in the Cape. He is making provision, by those things he is doing in the economic and other spheres, to create accommodation for the large masses of Black people who are coming to South Africa. Surely those cities and towns should have been in the Black states, or in the border areas, so that they could still have formed part of those states. That is why we find that this Government, on a social level, has already thrown in the towel, because an inundation, an influx of people from the Black states is taking place. When that hon Minister became Minister there were 120 000 Black people in the Western Cape. In a few years’ time this figure increased to 300 000. Then he went and established another town for a further 300 000.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Mr Chairman. The hon the Minister is now going to build Khayelitsha for 300 000 people. [Interjections.] I want to make a prediction today—and the hon the Minister knows this from experience, just as well as I do—that if one begins with 300 000, you are very lucky if you end up with 600 000. And he is not going to move Langa, Nyanga and those places. They will all still be there. I predict this. We shall talk again in 10 years’ time, when we will already have taken our final leave of you.

Surely you will not be here.

If they are moved, you must know that the CP has come into office in the meantime. But those hon members will not move them.

Mr Chairman, that inundation is taking place and in the meantime the Government is depriving the Whites of their facilities. There has been talk of a private community life for the Whites. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister a question: What has remained of that private community life as a result of these steps he has taken? What do the beaches look like? What did they look like during the recent holidays? I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he thinks that what happened there is very smart. There is no longer a place left for the Whites where they can be private.

That is not true.

Of course it is true. It is absolutely true.

It is not true. Come and have a look at my constituency.

Mr Chairman, I say it is true. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say to the hon the Minister that it is true. Those public amenities of the Whites are congested and the Whites are being crowded out in their own fatherland. The hon the Minister is no longer fighting for a fatherland for the Whites.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member can say what he likes. The CP are championing the cause of ensuring that the father-land of the Whites is restored to them, and we shall not rest before we have accomplished that. [Interjections.] The NP is simply throwing open all these things—universities, public amenities, beaches—because they cannot accommodate the stream and they are too afraid of the hon members of the PFP on my right to stand up to them and to the rest of the world in the interests of sound ethnic relations.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, they are afraid of America and that poor hon member for Innesdal is more afraid than any of the others. [Interjections.]

I say that in that sphere the Government is undermining the ideal which South Africa had and which we worked towards with enthusiasm and dedication. However, they are already doing this in the political sphere as well. With the recognition of the permanence of Black people, the Government cannot get past that. Once one has made that admission, one must accept the inevitable

But surely you were part of that.

Mr Chairman, I was not part of that. That hon Minister is talking through his neck now. Under no circumstances was I part of a decision which boiled down to Black people becoming a permanent part of the White section of South Africa. That decision was taken by this Government without us. If one accepts that, one must inevitably accept the consequence that they must receive land ownership rights and voting rights and that is precisely what the special Cabinet Committee is doing. The hon the Minister should have been the chairman of that committee, but his colleague, “big brother”, is now chairman. They are specifically looking into land ownership rights and voting rights for the Black people outside the national states here in the same structure with the Whites.

Then there is the preparatory work which has been done by the newspapers and other branches of the media by telling us that the policy of Hendrik Verwoerd should finally be thrown onto the rubbish heap and that the Black people should be brought in.

Mr Chairman, I know what happens in that party. When they hold meetings the voters confront them. Then they say that that is mere newspaper talk from unimportant journalists, just as we used to do when we were still there. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Mr Chairman, I believed that it was merely the journalists who were saying things. Of course, because the government told us it was not our policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

Of course! When the voters asked us whether we were going to bring in the Black people and the Coloureds, we said that we were not going to do so, because the government had promised us that that was not going to happen. In the end, however, we left because the newspapermen had been right and the wrong promises had been made to us. We had committed ourselves to the voters and to sovereignty, and we were not prepared to deviate from that. Previously we had said that the journalists were simply making things up. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman. That hon member has only just had a chance to get his breath back. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there were also a few hon members, such as the then hon member for Moorreesburg, who said that there should be a tricameral Parliament. We said: “Oh, that is merely an MP talking, for look, the hon the Prime Minister has repudiated him”. Now there are hon members here who are talking like the hon member for Innesdal.

Now I know that when the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs addresses the people, he says that those men are merely talking. He says that it is simply a story. In the end the hon member for Innesdal will be proved right.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell you that the whole spirit and climate in South Africa is being prepared for bringing Black people into the same political dispensation as the Whites. In the Transvaal a questionnaire from the Human Sciences Research Council was circulated among certain people. I quote:

Then they go on to say:

Now I want to read out one question to you, Mr Chairman, Question No 33. It is stated there that if one replied “no” to the previous question, which meant that one had voted “no” in the referendum, one should not reply to this question. One should only reply to it if one voted “yes”. I quote:

1. (a) die Wet op die Verbod van Gemengde Huwelike herroep word;
2. (b) Nieblankes die reg verkry om in my woonbuurt te kom woon;
3. (c) Nieblanke kinders die reg kry om toegang tot my gemeenskap se skole te kry;
4. (d) Swartes in die nuwe grondwetlike bedeling opgeneem word;
5. (e) my dorp se openbare swembaddens vir alle rasse oopgestel word;
6. (f) my dorp by ’n Swart tuisland ingelyf word;
7. (g) Swartes die reg verkry om hul eie sakeondernemings in my dorp se sentrale gebied te begin;
8. (h) Kleurlinge en Indiërs toegelaat word om in my dorp se plaaslike bestuur te dien.
9. (i) Swartes toegelaat word om in my dorp se plaaslike bestuur te dien...

... and so it goes on. Mr Chairman, this is a scientific opinion poll which is being carried out to determine how far it will be possible to go. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Mr Chairman. Read this question again and see how this matter is being taken further, one step at a time: If I open this up, I will still have the people with me; if I open that up, I will still have them with me. This is being done step by step to determine how far it will be possible to go while still retaining the support of the voters. [Interjections.]

Must we make surveys?

Mr Chairman, I want to tell you now that these surveys are being made with the taxpayer’s money. Do all the other political parties also have the opportunity to use the taxpayer’s money in this way to determine how far it will be possible to go with their respective policies?

Mr Chairman, in respect of this survey by the Human Sciences Research Council, I want to ask the hon the Minister: Are they doing this of their own accord, or are they doing it at the request of the Government?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg is the best example of a man who runs away that I have ever seen. He ran away from the NP which he helped to build and which he helped to establish. Today he was denying this completely. He is running away from the truth. But he did admit that, while he was in the NP, he told two different stories. Why should we believe him now, when he is in the CP? Why will he not now tell one story here and a different one outside? [Interjections.] He and his party are running away from the realities of South Africa. That is what they are running away from. They are clinging to the integrity of Dr Verwoerd as if things are still the same now as they were in his time. [Interjections.] We face up to the problems of the time as the situation develops. Those hon members talk about when the CP is going to come into power as if they were going to come into power. The CP cannot come into power in South Africa. The hon member says we should not take any notice of certain people to the left. [Interjections.]

Order!

Honestly, we shall always have those people who do not want to face up to problems with us in South Africa. They know how difficult the problems are. Today hon members of the official Opposition came here and said that we were influencing the lives of the Black people. Of course the Government influences the lives of the Black people, but we do so in a way that will be in the best interests of all the people in South Africa. This applies not only to Black people; we also have the interests of the Whites at heart. But hon members of the CP want to lurch back into the past. They say we must turn back and all Black people must be removed, so that there can be total separation. This is something that cannot become a reality.

Mr Chairman, in this country we realize that real urbanization is going to take place and is in fact already taking place. Of course this is going to happen. There are people who say that by the year 2000 75% of the Black people in South Africa will be urbanized. This is not only urbanization in the White areas, but also urbanization in the national states and the independent states. But there is only one measure to counteract the influx of Black people into the White areas, and that is that we shall have to spend money in order to make urbanization in their own areas a reality. Every time the Government wants to spend money in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the Black people of South Africa, we get the most vehement opposition from that party. They are the people who want to impress the general public. They do not speak in the interests of South Africa here; they speak here with a possible by-election in mind. It is not in the interests of South Africa; it is aimed at canvassing a few votes. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, they come here and tell the hon the Minister that we must save what can still be saved. Now I want to know: What has been lost? What this hon Minister has done is to save South Africa from the revolution and rebellion which would have come. He is a sensitive Minister who is attuned to the interests of all the people here in South Africa. I have the honour of serving on the consolidation commission and I should like to congratulate the Director-General and all the other officials for the contribution they are making and the hard work they are doing. When one has close ties with this department, one knows what work is and what these people are doing for South Africa and for the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, let me proceed; the hon members on that side of the House will reply. A good example of the progress made in respect of the interests of Black people in South Africa is liquor sales to Black people. This is a situation which was handled in a different way in the past. There was the old idea that Black people were not allowed to consume liquor in South Africa at all. Then the NP, because it is sensitive to the interests of the Black people, came along and made it legal for Black people to consume liquor. At that stage many people said that it would be the end of the world, but nothing happened. The NP, with its Government, got together in 1980 and brought about the orderly distribution of liquor by means of certain Cabinet decisions. The Government also decided that certain measures would have to be introduced in the interests of the people. They realized that it was only realistic that Black people had to have a share in this large industry, which had been established in the Black community over the years. They had to share in the distribution of liquor and it had to be to their advantage.

Mr Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the department, which used the profits it had made from liquor over the years in the interests of Black people in South Africa in respect of development. It must be borne in mind that we are living in difficult times. Money is not always readily available. In this way funds were made available. The Government decided that it was desirable for Black people to have a share in the distribution. They consented to certain financial institutions having an interest in the distribution and sale of liquor for a certain period. They decided that there would be a rezoning of premises in the Black areas, and that on those premises liquor could be obtained for on- and off-consumption. They also decided that no new rights or privileges would be granted to development boards and administration boards in connection with distribution. It was decided that there would be a phasing-out period in order to place this in the hands of the Black people. It was also decided that in the initial stages Coloureds and Asians could obtain a share, namely 49% of the 51% of Black interests in order to bring in capital and to get things started. The Government also decided that there would be a maximum period of 30 years for people of colour to have interests in this industry.

Mr Chairman, 11 of the 13 development boards have already offered their liquor interests by means of public tender. As far as “shebeens” are concerned, I can say that they are a reality in the Black areas. They have grown up over the years. Hon members will understand that some of those “shebeens” can in fact qualify for the legal distribution of liquor; but others cannot. The Government considered the matter and consequently some of these “shebeen” premises were zoned for distribution. Provision has been made for Black hotels and restaurants to be established for the distribution of liquor. So much progress has been made that 148 premises have been zoned and a further 125 premises are in the process of being zoned for liquor distribution. Fifty-eight distributors of liquor for on- and off-consumption are operating in the Black areas.

Community councils and Black local authorities are objecting vehemently to the fact that these liquor interests are being phased out, because they want to keep the income from it for themselves. There are other aspects which the Government also has to look into. It has to be ensured that no monopolies develop, so that other licences to which Black people are entitled may be issued to them. Wholesalers must be prevented from entering the retail distribution of liquor.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I want to tell you that with regard to all matters the Government and the department are dealing with, we are in every case still sensitive to the best interests of the Black people. We are taking many steps and we are not afraid to take steps to face up to the realities of South Africa in order to allow these people to share in certain privileges which they are entitled to in their own areas. We have to encourage this so that we can ensure that everyone can continue to live peacefully in this country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryheid will excuse me if I do not follow directly on his line. I should like to add our congratulations to the Director-General, Mr Van de Wall, and I wish him a very productive and fruitful stay in a very hot seat in a department which really stands at the interface of society in South Africa today. It is a department of which enormous solutions are asked in respect of the future development of all South Africa’s peoples. At the same time, Mr Chairman, may I wish the hon the Deputy Minister well on this, his first Budget and I wish him every success in his department as well. I am sure that, being a man of the land and one who understands the practical aspects of living amongst the Black people in the rural areas, one can expect a sympathetic ear as well as proper understanding of the reality of situations in the rural areas, some of which I shall deal with, as will my colleague during this debate.

Mr Chairman, I truly believe that the department has in fact shown a marked shift from pure control over the lives of Blacks to one of development and upliftment. Referring to the plans announced by the hon the Minister this afternoon, flowing out of the Rive report, the indications are there that they are wrestling with the problems that are facing the department. It is also reflected by the attitude of the staff. I should like to say that I think the department is understaffed and underfinanced. The latter aspect is of course no great revelation. We in this country are going to be faced with the enormous problem of how to cut the cake thinner and thinner with more and more people making demands. What we really must seek to do, is to make the cake bigger, because then we shall all perhaps get bigger slices. However, I say so, because in the constitutional development phase that we are now going into, we shall have the Coloured South Africans speaking for themselves, and the same applies for the Indians. The hon the Minister’s department and his officials are faced with the real great unsolved problem, not only of South Africa, but of Africa as a whole, of how to bring together the two great value systems and uplift people with limited financial resources in a very short space of time. Of course, the expectations rise with each step that they make forward. People will want more and expect more.

The department has no less a frontline function than the South African Police, because it is dealing on a day-to-day basis with the South African Black population. Its dealings and its manner of handling these affairs to a large extent determine the racial relations in the country and the passing down of the Government’s attitude through this department to people is very critical.

Mr Chairman, for a few minutes I should like to take a look at the Khayelitsha situation. This morning, the hon the Minister very kindly provided a quick information look at the technical aspect of Khayalitsha, as well as all the planning that goes with it. I believe that so much of the good that should come out of Khayelitsha, is undone before it starts, because of the limitations imposed by the ideological thinking that goes with it. The very first one is of course the question of 99-year leasehold in the Western Cape area. There is the question of the security of tenure, the question of ownership of whatever form and if the Government is sincere in wanting this transfer of people to take place willingly—whereby they will go there by choice—the attraction which is required must without any shadow of doubt be vested in ownership and the right to have security of tenure in such a way that they will in fact put themselves to the task of developing those homes. We have had experience in Kwamashu in Natal where the homes, the small initial units, for as long as they were rented out, remained exactly the same. There was no input in the way of improvement; there was no feeling of belonging and no development took place at all. I just pass it on to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister: The secret of the actual fruition of those plans, of people investing in homes and developing them, lies in ownership. The good parts of the plan, which basically consists of providing housing for people who have no housing, will fail because of the absence of that element of ownership. Already today, in the discussions of the NRP Transvaal constitutional committees with the Black community councils, 99-year leasehold is being questioned as if it were somewhat of a second rate type of ownership. I am not putting this forward as a party point of view; I am just putting it in to the debate as the sort of doubt that is brought into the situation. We know the advantages of 99-year leasehold in terms of cost, speed of survey and transfer. In fact, freehold title as such would be on a much longer, slower and more expensive basis. However, we have said from these benches that the best of two worlds would be to have freehold title, and 99-year leasehold. Then you remove the suspicion of 99-year leasehold and you cannot in fact be faulted for offering it as a very practical means for people to own their own homes. We see this as a very negative aspect of Khayelitsha and we believe that this aspect is going to have to be looked at very seriously.

Mr Chairman, the second point about Khayelitsha is that if one is looking at creating it and moving these people over a long period, the natural increase of the people coming into the Cape area will be such that the plan will in fact not be big enough to accommodate the population. For this reason and for the other obvious reason, the question of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu should be very seriously looked at again. The planners might have ideas about the administering of those areas, but the fact remains that the figure of 250 000 people that we are going to house at Khayelitsha over a long period, is already going to be passed by the time that scheme is completed. In that period, the lack of development in Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu will be another backlog that we shall have to take up.

I do not think that we can go into this debate without saying a word about the population explosion. We in this country have an enormous task in dealing with the existing situation, which is largely a backlog situation. To make that up, is going to cost us extremely dear and a great deal of head-scratching as to where the finance will come from and exactly how we can achieve it. Unless something very drastic is done in respect of the population explosion and unless there is a meaningful input into the areas which they control—I believe this should be part of the department’s responsibility as well—we are going to find ourselves fighting a losing battle. I do not see it mentioned in the report at all. I think that this should really be first priority as far as the social aspect of this report is concerned. I mentioned last year that I thought the report was inadequate. It is better this year. I still do not like its layout; I think that can be improved. It is not very readable. This is the department that is concerned with the lives of something in the nature of 24 million people. It should be a showpiece of how South Africa is going to cope with the great unanswered questions of the upliftment of Black South Africans. I believe that the report as such should go to a lay-out artist who should put it forward in a far more readable way and in a manner which indicates the sort of progress that is being made as well as the planning one is looking forward to in future. [Time expired.]

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Government Whip. The next point I should like to make, one which is also related to the Western Province area, concerns the question of those Blacks designated as “illegals”. I should like the hon Minister in his reply or one of his Deputy Ministers to say whether they entertain any hope whatever of moving these illegal people from the Western Cape area. The de facto figure has been put as high as 60 000 whereas other people talk about 30 000. I shall answer this question before they answer. That hope is a round nil. I think that there should be a more practical approach to this problem. The hon the Minister has said in previous debates that the two requirements for Blacks to come into this part of the country are employment opportunities and housing. That is the basis on which people are being allowed into the Western Cape. I would like to tell the hon the Minister that we in these benches believe that those illegals who are found to have employment should be considered for registration as permanent persons in this area. If a man has come and despite the plethora of laws, regulations and barriers put in his way, has had the wit and ability to find employment in that jungle and establish himself, I believe he could be a more useful member of society here than if we were to try to remove him and involve ourselves with the hassles and the negative effects which result from moving him out. Look for the people who have employment, register them and come to arrangement with the Ciskei and Transkei, who are largely involved with the people who are classed as legals. If one were to approach that problem in that manner one would create a new relationship between the department and these people. Instead of trying to avoid the Department and keep out of their way they would go out of their way to legitimize their presence and this would give the department far more control over the whole situation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town must forgive me if I do not react to his speech. I want to touch upon another matter which in my opinion is very important at the present juncture.

I want to refer to the question of the living conditions of Blacks in the rural areas. I realize that at this stage the position of urban Blacks is gradually becoming a major political problem, but in my opinion the position of the Blacks in the rural areas is equally important. It is a well-known fact that about 35% of the Blacks are at present urbanized and this means that statistically calculated about 65% of the Blacks are not yet urbanized and still have rural living conditions. The projection is that between 70% and as much as 75% of the Blacks are expected to have become urbanized by the year 2000, that is within 16 or 20 years. In other words, they will have been resettled in denser settlements in urban-type accommodation.

I should like to say a little more about this situation. In South Africa we have extremely strategical natural resources. Recently the Domoina floods we had in the eastern parts of South Africa caused tremendous damage in kwaZulu. In the Natal Mercury of Friday, 25 February, a report appeared under the headline: “Catchment area has too many people, warns Prof” I quote from the article as follows:

This problem is being experienced to an equal extent in the water catchment area of the Tugela Basin. The Tugela Basin is the most abundant water catchment area in the whole of Southern Africa. About 25 years ago Prof Thorrington-Smith conducted a survey and made a study that has been fully recorded. The report stated that if proper conservation of this area took place it would offer subsistence possibilities to 14 million people, that is—and this is stated in the report—twice the population of Greater London at that stage. This is an extremely strategic area.

Last year I had discussions with the Emnabiti Regional Authority, that is the Black leadership element in the vicinity of my constituency, consisting of elected representatives from kwaZulu as well as the paramount chiefs and chiefs of that area. I discussed this situation with them and the necessity of giving attention to it. I want to quote from an article that appeared in The Daily News on Saturday, in which one of the paramount chiefs of kwaZulu referred to this. It seems to me there is still no proper understanding of the extent of the problem. I quote:

That is a very good question.

That is correct. I want to refer to the photograph. I have brought it with me. It is the photograph showing the White area on the one side of the Tugela River and the Black area on the other. The Black area is being occupied under the tribal system and the White area is being occupied in terms of the laws relating to the conservation of agricultural land.

And the Land Bank...

The Whites are living there subject to the laws...

[Inaudible.]

I shall appreciate it if hon members will not interrupt me because I do not have much time. I want to point out that as far as the mountain locations are concerned attention should be given to alternative housing for non-gainfully employed family members while the economically productive people of this area are working 200 to 400 km away as migrant workers in order to make a living. In the meantime this land is being over-grazed, overpopulated and rendered completely valueless while it is the sponge and catchment area of the Tugela with its tributaries, namely the Small Tugela, Mnweni, Mlanbonja, Bushman, Small Bushman, Bloukrans and Klip Rivers. From Colenso almost all the way to the coast the Tugela continues to flow through kwaZulu. In other words, the practical development value of the Tugela, the river with the greatest abundance of water in South Africa, is situated in the area to the west of Colenso. Now one has to give attention to this matter and see what steps can be taken to ensure its proper conservation for economic utilization. We are not concerned about ideological considerations but about a strategic and economic territory that is of strategic importance to Black and White and with the fact that conservation has to be applied here. I would go so far as to say that I should like to see the Economic Committee of the President’s Council conduct a well-balanced investigation, make observations and hold discussions with the Blacks, the Whites in the area and the agricultural sector, taking the set-up in its totality and the economical situation into consideration and then make a recommendation on how this situation could be dealt with.

Tribal ownership without freehold and over-population will entrench a perpetual process of impoverishment because it simply runs counter to all development. The answer does not necessarily lie in compulsory resettlement but rather in planned and purposeful land reform and orderly urbanization. The history and the language of revolutionaries is interspersed with the concept of “agrarian reform”. In Cuba, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and African states the concept of “agrarian reform” has been elevated into a revolutionary slogan. We must give attention to this matter. We must not allow our natural resources to be utterly destroyed before we give attention to this and we must not say that we cannot give the same attention to the conservation and utilization of those areas falling under the national States because it falls outside our sphere of authority. We shall have to give attention to this together with the Blacks. I agree wholeheartedly with the subsequent statement Chief Zikalala made. He was reported as follows:

I do not agree with the idea of a federal state, but I agree with the idea that positive talks and co-operation have to take place here, and not only with the White government sector either. I have been pleading for years that Black representatives of the constituencies and the agricultural sector should be involved, as interested parties, in discussions and planning aimed at the development of these areas. I proceed from the standpoint that development has to take place in the Black areas, also in the Black areas known as Black spots, that is Black areas in areas that are normally White or Black areas in the national States, so that the land may be preserved and not destroyed to the detriment of posterity, Black and White, in Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klip River has spoken about over-population and environmental degradation problems, which we certainly acknowledge as serious problems. We also welcome the more positive and flexible approach he seems to be adopting to some of these matters. Colleagues of mine from Natal are likely to refer further to that during the course of this debate.

During the course of the hon the Prime Minister’s Vote, the hon member for Worcester made reference to Black people in his area. I am pleased that he is now taking some interest in their welfare. Some time last year the people of Zweletemba approached me about certain problems they had. In the first instance I suggested to them that they contact their local member of Parliament and in fact supplied them with his address and possibly his telephone number as well. This I believe they did and some discussions took place, but as far as they were concerned their problems were not resolved. The outcome of those discussions and meetings was that they were not successful.

One particular problem they had, a problem to which the hon member for Worcester referred, concerned their pension payouts. I went to witness one of these payouts on 7 March 1984 to see exactly what happened. In the past there were very long queues and it took a long time to pay people out. Sometimes when they closed on the first day—they pay out over two days—there were people in the queue who still had not been paid. I was pleased to find that since myself and other hon members of my party had taken an interest in this matter, an extra person had been allocated to assist in the pension payouts. On the day that I was there the people were paid out in about half the time they are normally paid out. Those people were certainly pleased about that.

The hon member for Worcester also painted a picture of peace and happiness in the area. It is interesting how his view of affairs differs somewhat from that of the officials in the area. The Department of Co-operation and Development informed us that “as a result of the unrest situation in the township”—this is as of December 1983, but it is obviously a longstanding situation—the local magistrate “is not prepared to send his staff into Zweletemba with large amounts of money” to pay pensions there, as opposed to in the centre of Worcester. “The local Station Commander of the South African Police also advised that it would not be wise at this stage to enter the township, not even with police protection.” That is the idyllic rural township the hon member was telling us about.

Housing is another one of their problems. There has been no additional housing provided for those people in Worcester for nearly 30 years. Only 56 family units were converted from single accommodation in 1981. However, during those 30 years the population has increased by 54%, or more than 3 000 people, but no new houses for those people have been provided. It is a story of neglect and the department should give attention to the matter. The hon member for Worcester should take more interest in what goes on when people approach him there.

Unfortunately neglect is not a problem only affecting Zweletemba. Militant neglect has been a characteristic of the Government’s approach to Blacks in the Western Cape for more than a decade. Blacks in the Peninsula do not trust the Government and do not believe what the authorities tell them because they have been misled time and time again.

I shall quote a few fairly recent examples to illustrate this. The New Crossroads Phase 2, consisting of 1 200 houses, was promised them and then abruptly cancelled. This affected something like 8 000 people in all.

One can also look at the situation of the squatters on the dunes. In April 1982 the hon the Minister promised that “the matter would be dealt with on merit within the next three weeks.” He did this to persuade the people who were fasting to leave the Cathedral. Now, two years later, the matter has still not been resolved. On 27 April I received a reply in the House from the hon the Minister saying that the Government was “busy with planning in this regard” and that “more particulars would be made known in due course”—two years after he said that it would be resolved in three weeks. People waited for this promise to be kept. They waited for months for permission to put up tents on those sand-dunes because no shacks were allowed there. They waited for months for latrines. After two winters, cold and wet, and two summers, hot, sandy and windy, the tents are disintegrating. These people are being left more and more to the elements. These people have been treated in a cruel and inhuman way. I call upon the hon the Minister to allow these people to build proper shelters and to be given temporary residence stamps in their passes so that they can live in more humane circumstances.

Then there is the question of the Crossroads Appeal Committee. It was decided on 5 April 1979, we were told, and re-established on 24 October 1982. In May last year I was told, in answer to a question, that it had not met yet. I was told that the appeal committee would “hopefully meet during the first half of June 1983” On 17 August 1983 I was told that it had still not met and that “matters relating to the functioning of the committee were still under consideration by the department.” On 8 February this year I was told that the appeal committee had not met and that it was “expected that the committee would meet during March/April 1984.” I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it has yet met. Has that appeal committee finally started meeting, as has been promised over and over again? The plight of the Memani supporters who have been driven out of Crossroads is another problem. There have been neglect and long delays before any real attempts were made to assist these people in a very difficult situation. Lodgers in their beds on the perimeter of Crossroads are a similar category. To any person looking at it objectively, it has seemed to be a policy of “let them suffer and hope they get sick of it and push off somewhere else”.

Last week I spoke about Khayelitsha in the hon the Prime Minister’s Vote. I do not plan to repeat what I said there. The matter is obviously of enormous importance to the Western Cape. I believe that unfortunately the hon the Prime Minister beat about the bush as much as possible but refused to give an assurance that the residents of the existing townships will not be made to move. In effect he has put his stamp of approval on the eventual forced removal of the residents of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu. That is a tragedy for us all and a devastating blow to any possibility of improved relationships between Blacks in the Cape Peninsula and the Government. We will all suffer.

I wish to return to just two points I made during that debate which require clarification. The hon member for King William’s Town has mentioned them today. The first one is the question whether the population projections of the department show that after Khayelitsha is completed and fully occupied by 250 000 people in the year 2000, there will still be 140 000 or so more people needing accommodation in the existing townships. The hon the Minister refused in the House this afternoon to give projected estimates, but how on earth can the department make plans if it is not projecting and making forecasts? I suggest that Khayelitsha will not be able to house everyone. The existing townships will have to remain for those people. Even now the current de facto population of the Cape Peninsula is 229 000. Any sort of projection, even starting with a lower de jure figure, will indicate that extra housing is needed. If that is so—and I believe it is and should like the hon the Minister to tell me if and why he considers my figures to be wrong—why is the question of removals even mentioned and why was it not just left because it is not going to arise? Was it merely to satisfy the racist ideological prejudices of certain Western Cape MPs, irrespective of the costs to racial goodwill? I believe that that is the real reason. It was given as the quid pro quo. I do not believe that it is going to come about but it is going to cause enormous damage in this area.

There is a second question I should like to ask. If permanence in the Western Cape is accepted, as it is by the Government, why not allow 99-year leases? I cannot see how that conflicts with the Coloured labour preference area policy. The fact that one gives somebody who one accepts is allowed to stay here permanently a 99-year lease does not conflict with that policy. It will get outside organizations, who have money, involved, which could only be of assistance to the Department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat made a speech in his usual negative way without smiling or forcing us to smile, a speech which was purely negative in intent. He did not put forward a single constructive idea. He was again riding his old hobby-horse of Crossroads and Khayelitsha, one of the finest developments which has taken place in the Cape over the past 100 years or more. He was over there this morning and I saw him, but my goodness, he ran out from there so fast that after the demonstration...

We had a special briefing a few weeks ago.

I am just mentioning a fact, that is all.

Do not distort facts.

He saw the fine development there but did not express a single word of appreciation in that regard.

I want to come back, however, to the speech he made the other day during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister. He had a question on the Question Paper this afternoon concerning the number of Blacks living in the Western Cape. The other day, however, he juggled with figures. I could not understand what he wanted to achieve by means of his question. For example, he said:

†I wonder where he gets this figure from, because the official figure that I obtained from the Chief Commissioner is a shortage of 5 882 units in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu.

Read your own publication. There are 8 000 families waiting.

You have already made your speech. Just allow me now to make mine. I did not interrupt you, did I?

You asked me a question.

I did not ask you a question. He went further in that speech and said:

Where does he get that from? I only spoke of people with section 10(l)(a), (b) and (c) qualifications and not about all the Black people in the Cape Peninsula. He knows it full well. Why this distortion? Why try to create the wrong impression of what I said?

You said there were Blacks here permanently.

I said that the section 10(l)(a), (b) and (c) people were permanent.

You did not say that.

Do not be ridiculous.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue to continue in the Committee. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

He is one of those people who creates one big fuss about the possibility of the people of Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa having to be moved to Khayelitsha in the future. The hon the Prime Minister fully dealt with that in his Vote and I do not want to deal with it. He demolishes his own case when he says he does not think it is going to be necessary. Why criticize if one thinks it is not going to be necessary?

Because they are threatened.

Nobody is threatening them; that is also not true. Now I have really got a smile out of that. He nearly laughed. He also said:

With that I agree:

He said this with reference to the people of Crossroads. To me it sounds as if he is completely against the disestablishment of Crossroads.

I now want to make a couple of matters very clear.

*Crossroads is, as far as we in the Western Cape and any civilized and decent community are concerned, a pestilential place. That is all it is, a pestilential place. At this juncture I can give hon members the assurance that the Government is determined to clear Crossroads, not for ideological reasons but in terms of the very definition given here this afternoon by the hon member for Berea. He repeated two or three times that the PFP was opposed to removal of people for ideological reasons. He said that, not so?

Yes.

Please note that that is not the reason why we want to remove people from Crossroads to Khayelitsha. The people of Crossroads are being removed to Khayelitsha, and it must be understood very clearly that only Blacks with section 10(l)(a), (b) and (c) qualifications will be allowed to occupy houses in Khayelitsha. On this score there must be absolutely no uncertainty.

†Crossroads is a blot on the landscape. It harbours, amongst others, vagrants, criminal elements and is being ruled by so-called leaders, namely Mr Ngxobongwana and Mr Memani in a Mafia gangster type of operation. Of law and order there is no vestige left in that township. The Police cannot get in there to maintain law and order and to safeguard the people from violence for the simple reason that these people have erected houses in the streets. There is no planning about the place. It is a health hazard, crime is rife and law and order is absolutely nonexistent through the operations of those two gentlemen who set themselves up as leaders. It is a fire hazard of the first order. About a fortnight ago the whole place was nearly razed. I daresay that if a south-western wind had blown during that evening, the whole place would have burnt down with a loss of thousands of lives. This is the place the hon member for Cape Town Gardens does not want to have disestablished. No self-respecting community, be it Black or White—and let me tell you this: We have the support of the community council in disestablishing... [Interjections.] For the second time I made the hon member for Cape Town Gardens laugh. I achieved something with him. Even the community council is quite happy with the disestablishment of Crossroads. Actually they made representations to us about this matter.

Including the member who got eleven votes?

Yes, including that member. He is still a leader. He was not afraid to put himself up as a candidate. The others were afraid to do that. He, at least, had the courage to do that. The others lacked that courage. No Government can tolerate a situation like that and still retain its self-respect. There is no doubt whatsoever. I want to plead with these two gentlemen, Mr Ngxobongwana and Mr Memani, to get to terms with the Government. The Government is not looking for confrontation. We are not moving those people to Khayelitsha because we want to punish them, but we want to uplift their standard of living, give them decent houses and a decent chance to develop as a law-abiding community. What has happened to the people of Crossroads? They have developed a philosophy and that philosophy they have developed into a symbol. Crossroads today is a symbol of defiance and of anarchy. Those people do not want to abide by the laws of this country or even by the laws of their own people. Anarchy is the order of the day in that particular township. I want to appeal to the two gentlemen and their followers please to co-operate in this exercise to be moved to Khayelitsha. We are going to great expense. This year alone we are spending R20 000 000 there. We are creating 5 000 core houses in which these people can be established. I do not want to go into all the other particulars which were also given by the Prime Minister. But I really would also appeal to this hon member now to really try and assist us in getting order in this state of chaos that has developed at Crossroads.

The hon the Deputy Minister did nothing in reply to my letters. How can he now appeal for my assistance?

The hon member must not talk rubbish about me not replying to his letters. I get a letter from him practically every day and I reply to him every day.

Are you pen pals?

The hon member for Berea is quite right. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has no other diversion than to write letters to my department and then he wants a reply by the next day.

But you are going to smile this afternoon.

Well, I have smiled already. [Interjections.] The hon member will not resolve me to smiles.

As far as Crossroads is concerned, there must be no doubt that it will be disestablished as soon as possible and we are going to endeavour to disperse those people through the whole of Khayelitsha in order to squash that spirit of defiance, that unhealthy community spirit that has developed there. We cannot tolerate that any longer, because those people are in confrontation with us or they are seeking confrontation. We will do everything not to get into a position of confrontation but if that is what they wish, that is what they are going to get. I appeal to those people please to co-operate with us in this exercise.

The member for Berea spoke about St Wendolin’s. I was as happy as he was that we could decide through a very generous offer of a Catholic mission to retain St Wendolin’s as a residential area for Blacks. The fact is that the St Marion Hill Mission offered the Government R20 000 000 for a development of that particular township and they have also expressed a desire to develop an industrial area in order to create job opportunities for the people who are going to live there. As in the past, this land will, of course, be proclaimed as trust land under the South African Development Trust. The Blacks who have property rights there, will retain their property rights. Perhaps it is just interesting to note that there are at the moment 57 Black owners. The other properties belong to Indians and will of course have to be expropriated. However, there are another 89 plots belonging to Blacks on the register of the Pinetown municipality. They have not taken transfer of these plots and the likelihood that they will eventually be able to take transfer is very remote. In actual fact, we will have to deal there with about 57 properties that belong to Blacks.

It is a pity that the hon member also referred to the disestablishment of Duncan Village proper and the creation of the new township Ziphunzana. I want to read to him from a statement that was issued during June last year. This statement was issued by the hon the Minister and by me after consultation with various people and on the recommendation of Mr Rive who investigated the situation at Duncan Village in depth with technical people at his disposal. Mr Rive was asked to investigate and find methods to improve the living conditions of the Black communities of the Eastern Cape including the East London/Duncan Village area. The statement reads:

Just for the information of the hon member, I want to mention that in Duncan Village proper, there is a street called Ndende Street which has 40 houses. In those 40 houses more than 4 000 people live or exist, rather. We found people there with children for whom they dug tunnels underneath the houses where the children slept, because there was not enough room in the houses. We cannot tolerate those conditions any longer.

Why can it not be upgraded?

That is not possible. I have just told the Committee that Mr Rive went in there and he had technical people at his disposal who know about these things. They recommended that it was not feasible to upgrade Duncan Village proper. The statement continues:

And those interested bodies include President Sebe. This statement was issued after consultation and in concurrence with President Sebe. Mr Rive had discussions with the Ciskeian Government about this and they all agreed. The Government resolved as follows:

1. (1) That the Government abides by its previous decision that Duncan Village proper be disestablished and that the inhabitants be rehoused in Mdantsane with the full co-operation of the Community Council and the Ciskeian Government.
2. (2) That the inhabitants so rehoused will in terms of the existing agreement between the South African Government and the Government of Ciskei retain their employment rights in East-London.
3. (3) That the area will be systematically disestablished as and when accommodation becomes available in Mdantsane.

I know that the Progressive Party and particularly one member of the Progressive Party, is totally against this.

Is it the City Council?

No, it is not the whole City Council. I shall tell you the person’s name. It is Mr Card. He has been abusing me in the papers for a long time.

So is the whole council.

Yes, I know, but I take particular exception when he abuses me. The Ciskeian Government is absolutely adamant that Duncan Village proper be disestablished.

How can the Ciskeian Government be adamant about it if Duncan Village is in the Republic of South Africa?

We have an agreement with Ciskei. In our agreement of independence there is a clause which provides for the disestablishment of Duncan Village—and they accepted that—and that we could build 10 000 houses for these people in Mdantsane. So they have a certain amount of stake in this whole matter.

I wish to reply that I was very appreciative of the remarks made by the hon member for King William’s Town in regard to Khayelitsha. I really wish the member for Cape Town Gardens would take a leaf out of his book and just pick out the positive things we try to do. He need not agree with us in everything. I think he will agree that what we saw this morning, is really a potentially beautiful city. After it is completed, it would be comparable to Pinelands. Can you imagine that we give them their own seaside resort. That is something which very few people have access to at the moment.

And where there are no sharks.

The people of Bellville, for example, who are Whites, do not have access to a seaside resort. [Interjections.]

*The hon members of the Conservative Party should not lead me astray now.

The hon member for Bryanston was the one who addressed the hon the Deputy Minister.

At his congress the hon the Leader of the CP sounded a serious warning about certain things. Was the hon member for Barberton not the one who addressed me? I apologize.

†The hon member for King William’s Town had doubts about our ability to remove the—as he terms them—“illegals” out of the Peninsula. It is going to be a vast problem. I agree with that. I am speaking to the hon member for Bryanston. He should not sit amongst the CP members and mislead me in that way. It is of course going to be an enormous task, but negotiations are at the moment taking place on the highest level between the Governments of Ciskei and Transkei in order to create job opportunities for these people. There is no sense in just picking these people up and dumping them in either of these homelands. That is why we are endeavouring—and at the moment negotiations are taking place—to create job opportunities in these homelands for these people to be established on a family basis, with houses or a guarantee of a house and a job opportunity. The trouble is that people are bound to look at this matter from an ideological point of view. In the Cape Peninsula, it is just not an ideological concept any more. We must just face the fact that there is no land available in the Peninsula for housing these people. We shall just have to evolve. We are being criticized. We have to provide 2 500 houses in Khayelitsha at the turn of the century. We do not know whether that will be enough or will be insufficient. However, we can only plan that far with the land to our disposal. Land, unfortunately, does not get more. That is unlike people who get more and more and more. However, this Department is certainly giving attention to this whole matter of the Blacks in the Peninsula. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens also referred to Zweletemba.

*I just want to mention that at present 56 hostels have been converted into family dwellings. Families were placed in houses and refused to pay rent for those houses. The development board then had to obtain an order from the Supreme Court. Subsequent to that the residents paid their rent. Serviced sites—there are 28—are available and the development board is engaged in a self-building scheme with the inhabitants. With reference to the complaint concerning pensions, the Chief Commissioner is making arrangements to have the pensions paid monthly in the residential area.

Constitutionally speaking, a major development for the Blacks of South Africa has taken place in the past year with the establishment of the 28 management bodies, the local authorities. It was my privilege to establish 18 of them. To me it was an experience to see how enthusiastic these Black people were about their work. Since that time four months have elapsed and my information is that these people are hard at work identifying the problems facing them and trying to find solutions to those problems. Of course, like all White local authorities, they experience the problem of funds. It is not such a simple and easy matter to obtain funds, especially for local authorities. At present we are looking at another 80 of these local bodies, the community councils, to see which of them qualify for local authority status. Surely it is understandable that we cannot give all of them local authority status indiscriminately. The norms which apply in determining whether a community council qualifies for the status of a local authority are, firstly, the viability of the community or the potential to become viable within a specific space of time; secondly, the adequacy of sources of revenue so as to ensure the minimum service to the community; thirdly, the availability of suitable persons in the community for election as representatives. I can give hon members the assurance that the quality of the people who are elected is high. Let us not keep on harping on the low percentage poll. Even in White municipal elections there have been much lower percentages than the average of approximately 20 to 21%. The fact is—and the hon member for Cape Town Gardens must really bear this in mind—that there were in fact people, even though they were elected by eleven votes. Those people were prepared to come forward to serve their people. They did so in spite of fierce intimidation and threats. Those people stood up to be counted and said: We are prepared to render that service for the good of our people. This is the fact we should consider, and not the fact that only eleven people voted for him.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know in terms of what rule the Deputy Minister is deemed to be a Minister for purposes of the length of period for speeches in the Committee.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to the fact that under Standing Order No 76(l)(b) Ministers and Deputy Ministers are not restricted in regard to the length of time they may speak in Committee on an Appropriation Bill. A Deputy Minister may accordingly at any time take charge of a vote or head during the Committee Stage of an Appropriation Bill, the Minister remaining unrestricted in regard to the length of time he may speak.

When I was so rudely interrupted by that member, I was explaining the shortage of funds experienced by these local authorities. At present there are very interesting proposals before the Government, proposals put forward by the Croeser Working Group, in terms of which considerable extra sources of revenue will be provided to these people and to White local authorities. I cannot express an opinion on these proposals as I am not authorized to do so, but I believe nevertheless that with these additional sources the people will succeed to a large extent in tackling this major and very responsible task and performing it successfully. If I have to judge by the enthusiasm which I have experienced, I am convinced that the Black people living in the Black residential areas will be able to meet the demands made on them. I have already said this and I want to repeat it since it made such a tremendous impression on me: The spontaneity of these people really put fresh heart into me. What also encouraged me was the goodwill which these Black local authorities were shown at the time of their establishment by their neighbouring White municipalities. In quite a number of cases White municipalities donated chains to these Black local authorities for their mayors. They donated robes to them. This did not happen in all cases, but I mention it as the kind of thing which is extremely heartening. There will naturally be teething problems. Those teething problems, however, will only result in its being possible to do more efficient work. It goes without saying, of course, that the new development boards will have to be prepared to co-operate with these local authorities to a very large extent. The umbilical cord which always bound the administration boards and the local authorities or community councils has virtually been cut at the moment. However, these development boards do still have a functions in respect of these local authorities. The development boards make knowledgeable officials available and also train them. That is one of their basic functions. Hon members will realize that with this new development, knowledgeable staff are not available as yet to perform these functions of local authorities. However, there is no question—and I want to emphasize this—of these development boards taking over the function of the local authorities, except in exceptional cases which are not relevant here. In the normal course of events it will be the function of the development board to train staff, to assist local authorities by word and deed in respect of problems experienced by them and to assist in developing the Black residential areas. This department plays the role of catalyst with a view to giving content to local authorities and promoting their progress. At present the establishment of further Black local authorities is receiving attention. The establishments of 29 local authorities have been drawn up and the implementation process is well under way. As regards the filling of posts in local authorities, efforts are being made to fill those posts with Blacks. As regards the filling of posts involving a certain measure of expertise, these posts are being filled on a basis of seconding staff from the development boards. The development boards, too, are determined to supplement the shortage of Black staff for the Black local authorities. That is something we can only be grateful for.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that hon members of this Committee can criticize him about many things, but for his dedication to and sincerity in what he is trying to achieve in a very difficult portfolio he should receive only thanks and appreciation from this Committee.

I should like to confine myself to a matter I have raised in the past and which I should like to elaborate on, namely the socio-economic and social problems resulting from the presence of millions of Black people in our urban metropolises in South Africa. We can debate this among ourselves in any way we want to, but if we want to look for a problem we want to identify, we must look more closely at the problem of urbanization than at the mere presence of Black people in our urban areas. This is the one fact that I think we in South Africa must accept. Whether these people are legally or illegally present here, the reality we have to face up to is that of the 28 million Black people in the country 10 million are living in our White areas and in our metropolises in particular, and that by the year 2000 20 million of the 56 million Blacks in the country will be living in the White areas and specifically in the metropolitan areas. I want to maintain that any person who is not prepared to face up to this reality is living in a dream world. One has great regard and respect for people who, as the hon member for Lichtenburg did again this afternoon, plead for the realization of the ideal of separate national states. That ideal is also the ideal of the NP.

When the Government tries to realize that ideal, we have to accept that it is going to cost the White taxpaper of South Africa money. Now I always find it tragic when people say—one hears this particularly from that side of the Committee, as a matter of fact, an hon member on that side said this only a few days ago—that the R1 500 million granted by the Government in loans to TBVC countries are “soft loans”. Even if they are “soft loans”, we must nevertheless be prepared to pay the price of partition, if I may now use the word used by the hon member for Lichtenburg. But then those hon members must not criticize us if South African money is spent. This afternoon the hon member for Lichtenburg again pleaded for consolidation. The new word being used on that side of the Committee is “partition”. Of course this must be done, but it costs money. Today the hon members must tell me categorically whether or not the Government must spend money on the homelands.

The Government must spend money, not waste it.

If we are supposedly wasting money, I think this is the right time for those hon members to come here with facts and to confront the hon the Minister with proof of where money has been wasted and where things could be done more satisfactorily.

This afternoon the hon member criticized us about the establishment of orderly Black residential areas in the White area. If we accept the reality in South Africa, namely that almost half the Black people in South Africa are living outside the homelands, surely we have to realize that it would be the responsibility of any government to provide those people with decent housing. The hon members of the CP must also tell us whether we must not provide any more housing for Black people in the White areas. They must tell us if we must cease doing so. The people are here. We need not argue with each other about whether the people are coming to the White areas, because they are here. It is the responsibility of the Government to house these people decently. What surprises me is that the hon member for Lichtenburg said here this afternoon that this Government blows hot and cold. Then he himself admitted that while they were in this party they also did so.

No, I did not say that.

The hon member must go and read his Hansard. He went on to say that the Government told us to do that. But that hon member was himself a member of the Government. I have nothing more to say to the hon member.

I just want to ask hon members on that side that when we spend money on the Black areas of South Africa or on the residential areas for Black people in White urban areas they must at least be a little more realistic in their criticism, because the mere recognition of the problem does not mean that one is not going to make attempts to work in the direction of stricter control over Black people to keep them in the homelands. [Interjections.] That is what I want to advocate today. Those hon members are not the only ones advocating it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Lichtenburg entitled to say: “That is how false they are”?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

We on this side accept that the vast majority of Black people form part of a growing permanent community of people who have work and who have housing. But unfortunately there are thousands of Black people who are here illegally and who are without work and without housing, they form a group one can consider as a separate entity in the overall Black community in our metropolises. All the PFP says is: Throw everything open, there must be no control, as many of these people as want to must come here. They do not ask whether there are any houses for them, or work. The standpoint of the PFP merely amounts to a policy of throwing everything open. I say that this is where the challenge lies.

You were doing so nicely, and then you ruined everything.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston is sitting in the wrong place. He is being subjected to the wrong influence. He should rather go and sit among the members of his own party so that he can be influenced by them.

That is where the challenge lies for us. We shall have to begin seeking solutions to the problem of people who do not have work, housing or food crowding into the White area. If you have this category of people crowding into an area, you have trouble with a capital “T”. The question is: Where and how can these unattached people be accommodated socio-economically and socially? I have said this before and I am saying it again: There is a great deal of anxiety among the Whites of South Africa regarding the influx of Blacks to our White areas. In the long-term we know what the answer is. Here, once again, the CP must tell us whether they support the Government’s policy of deconcentration and decentralization, whether they support this entire plan the Government has announced. The CP must tell us whether or not they support it.

Yes, of course.

But then they must begin to say that purposeful steps must be taken in order to make a success of this ambitious plan in the long term.

But there is also a problem in the medium term. Unfortunately it is a fact that people will be drawn to where development is taking place. The people flock to where there are transport subsidies, clinic and hospital services, to where there is medicine, the hope of finding work and housing. Very serious attention will have to be given to this, because we cannot simply allow people to flock to those areas. I maintain that people without work and without housing in the White urban areas would have been better off where they came from than in the urban areas.

In conclusion I want to say that in the short term it is unfortunately a fact that the Government will have to consider a more stringent application of the laws, not only with regard to Black people, but also with regard to Whites. I am now referring to urban areas such as Johannesburg. I know that White people offer Black people housing as part of the compensation for the work they do in their homes or in their gardens for the convenience of those Whites. I think we must apply the law a little more stringently against Whites in this connection.

Mr Chairman, today the hon the Minister introduced the debate with the motto “We are building a future”. Then I noticed immediately that the hon members for De Kuilen and Turffontein, who have just taken their seats, had a twinkle in their eyes, because they once belonged to a party that had the trowel as its emblem.

I am not ashamed of that.

No, I know the hon member is not ashamed of that, because the policy he has supported throughout his life is now being implemented.

In the entire debate thus far very little has been said about the development of the Black national states. As a matter of fact, virtually nothing has been said about it. On the other hand, the hon the Minister announced that millions of rand was going to be spent in connection with the accommodation of Black people. I grew up in the North West and I saw a Black man for the first time when I was in Std 7. It was in the vicinity of Thaba Nchu that I saw the Barolongs for the first time. Now there are 6 000 Black people in Beaufort West and it has been announced that R5 million is going to be spent to accommodate them in Beaufort West. I know how I battled to have funds made available to create the infrastructure in Mothibistad in Bophuthatswana so that the local mines could accommodate their Black people. We did not get money for that, but today it was announced that millions of rand was being made available for the settlement and development of Black people in the White area. If I look at this, it seems to me as though the motto that the hon the Minister proclaimed here today, namely “We are building a future”, should actually have been: “We are building a permanent future for the Black people in White South Africa”.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation said today that Khayelitsha was one of the finest developments in the Cape during the past hundred years. I should like to say something about this. Leasehold does not apply in the Western Cape. By the way, I want to thank the hon the Minister for the information he gave us this morning about Khayelitsha. Khayelitsha is a city consisting of five towns in which 250 000 people—last year they said it would be 300 000 people—are eventually going to be settled. In each of these towns provision is being made for 250 plots on which, as was apparent from the information that was given to us—Blacks who can afford to do so can build a house of their own choice, with electricity. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: If this Black person builds a house on one of these plots with his own funds, is that house the property of this Black person? I wonder whether the hon the Minister could tell me that. It might help me.

Have you ever heard of the home-ownership scheme?

Is that house the property of that Black person?

Have you ever heard of the home-ownership scheme?

I asked the hon the Minister a question: Is that house the property of this Black person if he builds it on this plot?

The house is his property. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister does not want to reply to the question.

He says the house is his property.

Oh, the house is his property. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: Is this precursory to Blacks also being granted leasehold rights and eventual ownership rights here in the Western Cape? I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this question for us. The planning of the city of Khayelitsha is a wonderful piece of work. If the hon the Minister had told us in his explanation this morning about the development of a similar Black city within one or all of the national states, the CP would have said: Congratulations Dr Koornhof. We would have patted the hon the Minister on the back and said to him: You are on the right track, keep up the good work. That is my reply to the hon member for Turffontein. The CP condemns that hon Minister for building a Black city like Khayelitsha on the Cape Flats. History is going to pass judgment on that hon Minister and the governing party for creating that Black city on the Cape Flats, a Black city with 250 000 inhabitants which is going to be larger than the adjoining Coloured city of Mitchell’s Plain, a Black city with 250 000 inhabitants which is going to have the same population as kwaNdebele.

Today the hon the Minister told us that kwaNdebele had asked for its independence. We are grateful that this small Ndebele people would like to have self-determination, would like to govern itself in its own fatherland. We hope they are going to get it. We shall assist them to do so. We also hope that that homeland is going to be developed.

But the hon the Minister is at present engaged in building a city within the borders of the False Bay constituency which is being planned to accommodate 250 000 people, the same number of people as the total population of kwaNdebele.

The PFP, the liberal Press and certain Government supporters have kicked up a tremendous fuss about the Government’s present intention—and I emphasize “present”—to move the people of Nyanga and Langa to Khayelitsha. The hon members of the NP in the Peninsula console their voters by telling them: This is a wonderful solution, at long last we are moving the people of Langa and Nyanga to Khayelitsha. I want to reassure the hon members of the PFP and the other people who are concerned about the fact that the Black people of Langa and Nyanga are going to be moved to Khayelitsha. They need not be concerned because the Government is still going to decide that the people of Langa and Nyanga are going to remain where they are. Khayelitsha, as it is being planned at present, will not be large enough to accommodate the present Black population of the Cape Peninsula.

[Inaudible.]

I see the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning keeps on wandering in here. It almost seems as though he does not trust the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He keeps on coming to see whether the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is still doing his job.

If the Government party is going to allow Black people to stream to the Cape Peninsula at the same rate as they have been doing during the past five years, there are going to be 600 000 Black people within the boundaries of the False Bay constituency by the end of this century, the same number of people as the present population of Botswana. We hope and trust that the people of South Africa are going to get rid of a party like the NP which is allowing this influx of people. If the CP comes into power, we shall ensure that the homelands are developed and that the people can live and work there on a family basis. We shall do it.

The people of False Bay are worried. In 1982 False Bay sent a draft resolution to the NP congress, as follows:

Last year there were 11 such draft resolutions from the Cape Peninsula at the NP congress. Since then the influx control laws have not been improved. What will the position of the NP congress be this year if those same requests are made? The hon the Minister will say: We accept the draft resolution of False Bay and the other draft resolutions as well, but you must remember that Co-operation and Development is a general affair. We must first have the consent of Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, we must reach consensus with them before we can apply these influx control laws more stringently. At the NP congress that hon Minister will tell the hon member for False Bay: We accept your draft resolution, but you must remember that Khayelitsha is right next door to Mitchell’s Plain and we must first ask the Coloureds and the Indians for permission, we must first reach consensus with them, before we can change this legislation.

Before my time has expired I want to address a minor request to the hon the Minister. In my part of the world, south of the Vryburg/Kuruman tarred road there is an area belonging to Bophuthatswana, and this also applies to the land south of the Kuruman/Hotazel road. Recently the commission considered the consolidation of those areas and today I should like to ask that the areas I have mentioned be declared White areas.

The MPC made those representations long before you did.

It was the MP who made such representations and all the interested parties in Kuruman are agreed that the land south of the Kuruman/Vryburg tarred road should also declared a White area.

Does the MPC not also say so?

Yes, the MPC agrees with me that this should be done.

I want to ask that that land should eventually be utilized for enlarging the farms of White farmers who have uneconomic units so that their farms may be converted into economic units. My district ceded 633 000 morgen of land to Bophuthatswana. We are asking that this land be given back to us to enlarge and to help develop the White area here.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by extending my very sincere thanks to the hon members who congratulated me on my new position. This is the first discussion of this Vote which I am taking charge of here. I think it would be naïve of one to say that no criticism will be levelled during the discussion of this Vote and that we are not going to differ on certain matters which are being dealt with in this department. That is not important. What is important is how one differs. That is why the appeal I want to make is that our approach should be that we put South Africa first.

We can best serve the cause of South Africa if we put South Africa first and if we get the co-operation of all the people involved, all the people who are affected by this matter. On my part I shall try to deal with this matter in this way.

During the course of my speech I shall come to certain political arguments, but I want to begin by saying that this Government advocates an ethnic policy. In terms of its advocation of this ethnic policy, it established certain constitutional structures for the Black peoples. At this stage certain of those constitutional structures have not yet been fully established. We are still working on them. In this development process certain decisions will still have to be taken.

Shortly after he became Prime Minister the hon the Prime Minister instructed the Commission for Co-operation and Development to institute enquiries into the whole consolidation structure and to make recommendations in that regard. The commission has already made a great deal of progress with its enquiries. In fact, the whole matter has virtually been finalized. Certain recommendations have already been made in respect of certain states, and the Cabinet has already adopted resolutions in that regard.

The procedure is that after the commission has conducted negotiations and has finalized its enquiry, it submits recommendations to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet can submit a working document while the parties concerned are negotiating. Some of those submissions have already been made. We have already received feed-back in respect of some of the states so that it is now possible to take final decisions on the implementation of the recommendations.

When we come to the decisions that were taken, we see that there are certain resettlement actions that will have to take place in terms of those decisions. All the persons and bodies concerned made inputs during the enquiry. Private enterprise, organized agriculture as well as departments were involved. All of them gave evidence. Now recommendations are being made on the resettlement that will have to take place.

In this connection I want to make an appeal to hon members today. Whenever resettlement takes place, this is always referred to as “forced removals”, as compulsory resettlement. I can say in all honesty and fairness that when a resettlement action takes place, there will never be absolute unanimity on how it should be done and where it should be done. Therefore one can always accept that there will be certain people who will not agree with the resettlement and that one will therefore, in the nature of things, have forced removals to a certain extent.

But the question is what approach the Government and the department and its officials adopt in regard to this matter. Firstly, it has to be development-orientated. The people involved must be consulted to the maximum extent and their problems must be accommodated as far as this is practicable. The place to which the people are moved must be such that the people who are being moved will not be worse off in respect of the extent of the land, the agricultural value of the land and the infrastructure.

I think it is very important that we should be honest with one another in this process and realize that there are forces at work to discredit everything the Government is doing, even the good things. I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa that this should continue.

I accept that if one is able to conduct reciprocal discussions on this differences and see what the problems are, as is being done with the local communities involved, we will be acting to the advantage of South Africa and the constitutional development of South Africa. I just want to make it very clear that this matter should not be wrested out of its context for petty political gain.

The issue is why the people should be moved in the first place.

Surely it is very clear now—I did spell it out after all—that in terms of the consolidation proposals and all the inputs that were made, certain resettlement will in fact take place.

Exclusively for ideological reasons?

There are ideological reasons involved. That hon member’s party has never accepted the principle of Black states. That hon member and his party are doing everything in their power to bring into discredit abroad even those independent Black states which the Black people themselves wished to create internally. Those hon members wish to disparage them.

Although the hon the Leader of the official Opposition said that he would not do away with the Black states, his party has still not accepted the principle behind them. If that is the case, I want to tell you that the entire concept of NP thinking boils down to an ethnic policy so that these national states can develop to full independence if they so prefer. Some of these resettlement actions are taken in co-operation with them. Talks are held with them although they keep on asserting that they do not want to become involved in resettlement.

The people are moved, regardless of what they want.

No, we are trying as far as possible to do this in co-operation with the self-governing states and the local communities. We ought to commend the department for the way in which they are doing this.

But if the majority of the people in an area are opposed to resettlement, what do you do then?

What is the majority of a community? The PFP knows how difficult it is to determine the wishes of Black people in an absolutely impartial way. If you had accepted that principle which you are now stating, you should have supported the resettlement of the people from Magopa. One must expose all the double talk here.

Hon members on the opposite side are now saying that they will be in favour of it in principle if the majority is in favour of it, but in the case of Magopa the majority moved and those who remained were to a large extent intimidated into remaining—some of them also wanted to move—and when we made attempts to move them, to bring about peaceful resettlement in a better area, the Black Sash and the PFP and even one of the main spokesman of the PFP in Parliament criticized the Government and the hon the Minister.

All we are trying to demonstrate here is that it is a difficult process one has to go through. We differ essentially with the PFP in regard to the implementation of an ethnic policy and the granting of independence to and the development of the Black states. We are going to try to accomplish this in co-operation with the Black people.

There are other aspects as well which emerge in respect of the consolidation process that is taking place. It is a pity that the hon members for Lichtenburg and Kuruman, to a certain extent, wish to turn this into a political debate. I do not reproach them for doing that though. Certain decisions were taken in respect of consolidation and poorly situated Black areas within the White area. The economic development there and the migration of people out of those areas make it economically and constitutionally undesirable at this stage to resettle some of those people.

Tell us what areas those are.

We shall tell the hon members, but everything in its own good time. If the hon members would only give me a little time, I want to tell them...

But you are saying nothing.

No, I am saying a great deal, if that hon member would only listen. If hon members would give me the time, I should just like to say something in regard to the decision as to which of these people should remain. Let us take Lebowa as an example. The recommendation of the investigating committee in regard to Lebowa is before the Cabinet, which has to take a decision in that regard. In terms of the decision of the Prime Minister, once that decision has been taken all the interest groups will be approached so that they can make their contributions. Once they have done that, we shall give everyone an opportunity to have a say in the matter and we shall be able to take a fair decision.

Now the hon member is asking us to give him the reply today. Surely that is impossible. Nor is it fair to the people to whom we wish to give a say in the matter. That hon member does not want to give these people an opportunity to have a proper say in the matter.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister why he does not move the small group of people who are living on the Kuruman Crown Reserve, for example, and who were cut off in 1975 when Bophuthatswana became independent?

Mr Chairman, there are a few of these states, of which Bophuthatswana is one, in regard to which one would be putting the cart before the horse if one were to move one portion without the overall plan being accepted.

Bophuthatswana has been independent for five years already.

If that hon member would only keep quiet for a moment. It has been independent for five years already, but surely the hon member knows, as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned—the hon member for Lichtenburg also knows this as well as anyone else—that it held protest meetings in respect of the Marico corridor and that corridor is now in question...

I did not hold any protest meetings.

No, but the hon member was present. He was present there among those farmers. I know him, after all. He must not try to cover his tracks now. As far as those proposals are concerned, surely we know that the commission went back to the farmers and that they also went back to all the interest groups, and that certain inputs were made. I now want to ask the hon member this question: Does he want everything contained in those proposals to be implemented, or does he want changes in that respect.

We are only discussing the 1975 proposals now, and we are omitting Bophuthatswana.

Surely I have said that we are going to implement those proposals after the Cabinet has considered the report and after the whole proposal is there.

All you people do is make plans and put forward new proposals.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet when the decision was taken to go back to these people. He was part of that decision.

You are talking nonsense now.

Was that hon member a member of the Cabinet in 1979? [Interjections.] Surely the hon member was a member of the Cabinet in 1979. In 1979 the hon the Prime Minister appointed the commission to carry out the inquiry, and if he accepted the principle to institute an inquiry it proves that he accepted the principle that changes could be effected.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not true that in that plan which the hon the Prime Minister announced, it was expressly stated that it did not detract from the 1975 proposals and that they were being implemented?

Mr Chairman, let me come back to the 1975 proposals. The hon member has very neatly evaded the point I was making now. In 1979 he accepted the principle that there could be a change in consolidation. Once we had accepted that, we had made a great deal of progress.

Not that there should be less consolidation, but more consolidation.

That they should be given more land?

No, not more land, but greater consolidation.

That is in fact the point which the hon the Prime Minister did not make. The hon the Prime Minister said that consolidation should be considered within a framework of certain facets. As far as the 1975 proposals were concerned, all the land with which Bophuthatswana was involved, had already been purchased. As far as the Venda were concerned, all the land had also been purchased. As far as the Transkei was concerned, the farms to which reference had been made in the 1975 proposals had already been purchased, with the exception of a few farms in regard to which we experienced problems and are now obtaining revaluations when farmers are not satisfied. As far as the Ciskei was concerned, the remainder of the land had already been purchased with the exception of a few Coloureds in the Stockenström East area. As far as the national states are concerned, consolidation has already been finalized for the kwaNdebele.

There is still additional land that has to be purchased in the Ciskei.

We are now discussing the 1975 proposals, because after 1975 there was another commission, and then other proposals were made involving additional land. If you now say that more land is involved, you are thinking of the 1983 proposals. Everything has already been purchased as far as the kwaNdebele are concerned, and the same applies to Qwaqwa, Kazangulu and Lebowa. As far as KaNgwane and kwaZulu are concerned, we have not yet finalized everything. In this regard, though, there is a question mark in my own mind... [Interjections.] As far as the kwaZulu and KaNgwane matter is concerned, there is one thing I am deeply concerned about at this stage, and I think it is right that one should discuss it, so that one can get it out in the open.

The hon the Prime Minister said that we should purchase the land involved in the 1975 proposals so that the farmers could be relieved of this problem.

KwaZulu and KaNgwane are subject to the Ingwavuma matter, where changes could take place. In this connection I ask myself this question: If we are going to make changes or potential changes there is it correct to purchase land—I am referring to compensatory land—which one is perhaps not going to use later?

That, I think, is a question one should ask oneself in respect of the principle and whether it is wise, before the decision has been taken, to buy people’s land up and then subsequently not utilize it in respect of compensatory land. I think this is something which one will just have to decide for oneself.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to what extent the 1936 legislation has now been exceeded? The hon the Deputy Minister has now purchased all the quota land, and he has also purchased all the compensatory land, but only the minimum number of excisions have been made. It is therefore inevitable that the 1936 legislation has been exceeded on a tremendous scale, without the legislation having been amended.

Unfortunately I cannot at this stage furnish the exact amount that was bought out. There are two reasons for that. We are still engaged in the process of purchasing and specifying the precise amount of purchases could place me in a untenable situation. I want to put it to you, however, that we will in fact exceed the 1936 legislation. However, I cannot furnish the hon member with the figures here, and I do not want to furnish him with incorrect figures.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that we had plans, 63 000 new plans. He also said it was high time we stopped devising plans and did some work. He was quoting from the report.

Right at the outset I should like to say the following: I accept that if a member rises to his feet here, he will quote correctly and that the credibility of his speeches—in terms of other matters as well—will be gauged by that.

The hon member quoted from page 16, and from the table. There are 63 000 new settlement plans. If he looks a little lower down in that same column he will see that there are also reclamation plans and economic plans and, according to his argument, there are a total of 94 906 such plans. I want to ask him, however, whether he has read what is written in this portion of the report? I am quoting the following paragraph under the heading Agricultural Planning:

Six plans were completed.

Six settlement plans, and that hon member spoke about 63 000 settlement plans. He said it in this House. Mr Chairman, I now want to know how much credibility an hon member in this House has if he wishes to create the impression among the general public that there are 63 000 settlement plans. In reality six settlement plans were completed on 63 000 hectares.

No, no.

I shall quote again from page 16, and this is the fourth paragraph in the second column on that page—

But the hon member referred to 63 886 new settlement plans. In regard to this point, I now want to ask the hon members whether this is what we are doing in Potgietersrus? Is this the kind of thing they are saying there? [Interjections.] I am very pleased the hon the leader of the Conservative Party is here.... [Interjections.]

Order!

Does he agree, Mr Chairman, that this is the way in which certain factual data is being presented to the public of Potgietersrus by simply quoting half of it incorrectly? [Interjections.]

The hon member can come and see what I am doing in Potgietersrus. I invite him to do so.

I shall believe that, because that hon member was always, in my opinion, a very honest member until he now began to quote so incorrectly, and not all the people know it yet. [Interjections.] The hon member also criticized the hon the Minister “lock, stock and barrel” for everything he did here and announced here this afternoon.

“Voetstoots”.

“Voetstoots”, yes. He also said that nothing was being done in regard to rural settlement and development in the self-governing states, and the hon member for Kuruman sang the same song. He, too, criticized the hon the Minister. Now I ask: What about Ekangale in kwaNdebele. Why did the hon member keep quiet about that? [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman alleged that no funds were being spent...

He was part of this himself.

The hon the Minister must listen to me now. He must just give me a chance, for I shall soon set them straight. The hon member for Kuruman said that nothing was being spent on self-governing states, and that we were spending everything on Khayelitsha and in the cities.

That is not what I said.

What did the hon member say?

I said that so far today you had only spoken about development in the White areas, and that not a word had been said about development in the homelands. Take a look at my speech.

Very well then...

Do not twist my words.

Mr Chairman, if he said that, then I apologize for not having told the whole story. I would not want to give people that impression.

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

No, I am talking now. I should like to set you straight. Did the hon member see and read the report in the programme for the expenditure of money? Did he read it? Does he know in what programme he must look for the expenditure of money on self-governing states?

I do not even feel like arguing about it with the hon the Minister.

If the hon member wants to draw a comparison and level criticism, I ask him: In what programme does one look for the expenditure of money on self-governing states? [Interjections.] If he were to look in that programme, he would find that the total being spent is more than R1 000 million, but it is identified in three ways. There is a statutory allocation, and there is an allocation given by this department on the basis of a survey which is made and, thirdly, there is financing from sources. The second allocation is done in cooperation with them.

Mr Chairman, I think I have pointed out very clearly that these hon members wish to seize upon a point which really has no merit and turn it into a political issue. At the end I just want to say this: We accept criticism, and we can spar with one another over those points to our hearts’ content here, but the kind of criticism one expresses should depend on whether it is in the interests of South Africa when it is read by the public. What they did here today was not in the interests of South Africa, and I take that amiss of the CP.

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

No, I am too busy now. The spending of money and the development of self-governing states is one of the great problems we shall have to contend with in the years which lie ahead. Not only are we dealing with the way in which the money should be spent, but also with the people involved. They are also the people who should be trained in the milieu of a new economic agricultural climate. Problems of erosion are in fact occurring. However, I think that the way in which the hon member for Klip River presented those problems here, is a working method which the department has to a large extent adopted up to this stage. However, there are problems in respect of the implementation of the plans and the co-prosperity project. Precisely for that reason I think that the way in which the hon member for Klip River dealt with the problem was a good way because co-operation could be promoted in that way. The department is doing everything to promote an optimum utilization of agriculture and co-operation, and will continue to work towards this ideal in future. I should like to convey my thanks to the officials concerned in this matter.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in following the hon the Deputy Minister and I also want to congratulate him on a brilliant contribution. I should like to express an opinion on the speech of the hon member for Kuruman, who offered us a very simplistic solution here regarding the problem we have inter alia with Blacks here in the Western Cape. He said that they would ensure that these people would have work to do in their homelands so that they would live and sleep there. But surely the solution to our problems is not that simple. I want to ask the hon member for Kuruman whether he was being quite serious when he made that statement. I want to ask him whether thousands of Black people were not already present here in the Cape in February 1982, and I also want to ask him what he is going to do about those Blacks who will be here in the Cape if his party should come into power? After all, the Black people were already there when he was still in the National Party.

We have emphasized that we offered resistance whereas you people gave up.

Mr Chairman, in this connection I should like to quote from an article written by Prof Gildenhuys of the University of Pretoria. He wrote:

This morning we went to have a look at what we are planning at Khayelitsha, and we are doing this to prevent such a disaster. The PFP should also listen to this. But there is not a single word of appreciation for what we want to do there, namely to uplift people socio-economically. These are people for whom we have no other refuge because, together with the hon member for Kuruman, we decided long ago that in this country there were Black people outside the independent states who would have to remain here permanently because we needed them and because they would have work here and that we would have to face up to that problem and do something about it.

But I think the trouble with the Conservative Party is that they are suffering from political indigestion and then one suffers from flatulence and hears all kinds of noises. That political indigestion occurred after they swallowed up the HNP, but I want to tell hon members that I think that there are even greater problems awaiting other people. There are even greater problems awaiting Moolman Mentz and Alkmaar Swart because they are swallowing the CP.

We need not say a great deal this afternoon about the scope of the work being done by the Department of Co-operation and Development, because we know that those people are carrying a out tremendous task. As far as I am concerned it is not only the scope of the task that is important, but more specifically the sensitivity of and the problems associated with what we are doing and also what the people working in that department are doing every day. It is an almost superhuman task.

Many years ago the NP Government decided what goals we had set ourselves, goals we have reconfirmed repeatedly as an intention and an endeavour in the new Constitution and which I need not quote here. The Government accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the policy and how we are going to achieve those goals. We shall not shy away from them. One thing is certain, and that is that we have had enough of prophets of doom, people who pretend to know better and critics who do not offer feasible alternatives. We have had enough of people who do not want to hear and do not want to see. Naturally our critics—and that includes the Opposition parties—will not defend everything the Government does, but all we are asking for is an appreciation of the problem and recognition for the positive things that have in fact been achieved and for fair evaluations of what we are doing. What has been achieved thus far became reality under the most difficult circumstances imaginable, circumstances which, if they had not been handled correctly, could have plunged the country into chaos in an instant. The choice of the name “co-operation and development” for the department is of course a fortunate one, for only through cooperation by all the interested parties can we expect development and see the end result of socio-economic upliftment.

Let us concentrate for a moment on the definition of the aim of programme 4 of the Vote in which we seek to promote the social welfare of Blacks. Further on, in that part of the programme description of programme 5 which deals with the SA Development Trust Fund, reference is made to human development. I think that over many years of NP rule the Government has proved through the actions of the department that we are serious about not making human and community development possible only for a certain group of the population of the RSA. That is why the Government has always been—and still is—prepared to take the responsible decisions and to ask that sacrifices be made for the plan we believe is in the interests of the country and all its people. One of these is financial sacrifices. This means money that comes directly out of the taxpayer’s pocket, and I think that the taxpayer must know where and for what the funds that are appropriated are being spent. Let us look at the list of items that are enumerated in the annual report. There we see that the money is being used inter alia for social work, general welfare services, care of the aged, handicapped persons, blind persons, child care, adoptions, regional welfare boards, health services, youth work, community development, sport and recreation, etc. No one in this House would dare vote against the allocation of funds for these purposes. On the contrary, we could easily argue that more funds should be made available for this purpose. These deliberate efforts to make human and community development a reality, will bear fruit and we already have abundant proof that Black people are grateful and are gratefully reaping the benefits of socio-economic upliftment and are themselves making contributions towards this development process from funds generated in their own ranks.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Rustenburg will forgive me as I do not intend to deal with any aspects of his speech but at the outset I would like to refer to a point that was made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs. That was in connection with the consolidation proposals in Natal. I was surprised to hear that he had linked these with the Rumpff Commission which is investigating the Ingwavuma matter because when I submitted a question to the hon the Minister—a copy of which I do not have with me at the present time—it was clearly indicated that the terms of reference of the Rumpff Commission did not cover the question of consolidation of kwaZulu.

It was only a personal view that I expressed.

I see, thank you very much. Mr Chairman, there is only a limited time available to me and I wish to deal principally with aspects of resettlement of people in the rural areas which involves many different facets. In doing so I wish to emphasize that it is not correct to assume that all removals have been detrimental to all the Black people involved. In fact, I am aware of many instances where groups of people have benefited from having moved away from one area to another and would not consider returning to the former areas where they had lived originally, assuming, of course, that such an opportunity was open to them.

Give us some examples.

No, wait. You will have a chance to make your own speech. I must admit, on the other hand, that others affected by removals have expressed dissatisfaction and bitterness and have actually endured considerable hardship as well. It is well then to study the relevant implications at this stage. This is an appropriate opportunity to discuss the whole question of removals in the rural areas because there are many factors which come into play when dealing with this extremely controversial and sensitive matter. First let me point out that the removal of people in the rural areas does not affect Black people alone. What is generally lost sight of is the fact that many White farmers have also been subjected to extreme hardship as a result of having to relinquish their farms. It is not my intention to go into this aspect at length. However, I wish to make certain observations. The first being that the amount allocated in the budget falls dismally short of the amount required if the Government’s assurances are to be accepted that consolidation has been given a priority rating. This means that a number of farmers will continue to live under a cloud of uncertainty. When I say this, I underline the word “uncertainty”. They do not know when they will be paid out, they are unable to leave their properties and they are not able to acquire new properties to re-establish themselves. I wonder whether the hon the Minister really does appreciate the torture—and I make no apologies for using that word—that these people suffer. I know of cases where families have been split because of the uncertainty which has crept into their lives. It would be inappropriate for me not to express my thanks and appreciation though, to the hon minister for having finalized the purchase of farms in my constituency in the Elandskop/Boston area. I am pleased to say that I have received reports of fair valuations by the department as well as pathetic letters of appreciation from a number of farmers in this area that they have now—as it were—been put out of their misery. However, it is obvious that the scars of ten years of uncertainty will still remain with them. Pardon me, Mr Chairman, for referring to this particular area in further context but I feel that it can be used as a good example of highlighting certain aspects of the consolidation proposals. At this point let me make it clear that we in these benches are in favour of the movement of people for socio-economic reasons but we are strongly opposed to removals to satisfy ideological philosophies. We also accept the fact that the removal of people must be linked to a negotiated basis of voluntary agreement. This is an aspect upon which we stand very strongly. The NRP is strongly opposed to classified agricultural land being used for settlement purposes. Agricultural land must be used for agricultural purposes only and on this basis I once again wish to refer to those farms in the Elandskop/Boston area which are now in the process of being taken over by the SADT.

Business interrupted at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr Chairman, when we adjourned, I had just made it clear that we on these benches strongly oppose any suggestion of classified agricultural land being used for settlement purposes by virtue of the fact that we regard agricultural land as productive land and that this should not in any way be disturbed when settlement is finally contemplated.

If I may once again refer back to those farms in the Boston-Elandskop-Impendhle areas that are in the process of being taken over by the South African Development Trust, I want to stress that I think this is relevant not only to that area, but it is a relevant and classical example of how we think the various stages in the consolidation process should be carried out. Although I only refer to those farms as an example, it is obviously a basis which could be extended and accommodated as common policy. Let me point out that some of these farms, that have been taken over, have up to this stage been highly productive, well developed and very well cared for. It would be criminal at this stage if they were allowed to deteriorate and become run down as a result of the consolidation process. I am aware that temporary arrangements are made from time to time by the SADT in regard to the retention of occupation of acquired properties. This we fully support on the basis that it is of a temporary nature, because there is no doubt about it that if one leaves these properties unoccupied, one is faced with the situation where they are plundered, rifled and the buildings etc are even dismantled and materials removed.

However, one views with alarm the deterioration that has taken place on so many farms that were highly productive originally and which are now ugly, over-grazed and eroded areas. It is essential that, in the interests of conservation, development and ecological protection, the SADT undertake a careful planning exercise of areas destined for consolidation before they are transferred to the relevant state. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Mooi River. It is a pleasure in the sense that I want to compliment the hon member on his balanced speech, in which he put the problems in their correct perspective. I think the majority of the hon members will agree that most of the problems he touched on are indeed problems. When one is dealing with consolidation it is quite impossible to arrive at the ideal situation, as is the case with many things in this life. But it is undoubtedly true that on the other hand attempts are being made to eventually arrive at the best situation possible. I repeat: I praise the hon member for the balanced way in which he touched on this matter and the perspective he gave to it—not only in a negative sense, but also in a positive sense. Now that he has pointed out the problems, I think that the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister will refer to them and give him a reply.

But, Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself to a greater extent with my colleague, the hon member for Rustenburg, and I want to put forward a few ideas in connection with the theme of development. Within the name of this Department of Co-operation and Development there lies a wealth of meaning. Surrounding the concept of co-operation, which is very closely linked to the idea which the hon the Minister began this debate this afternoon, namely the idea of teamwork and construction work, there is one truth with regard to the Republic of South Africa, namely that we shall have to accept it as a fact that different peoples find themselves here in the same geographic area within South Africa and Southern Africa and that the future of peace, progress and stability—one which we would all like to utilize—lies in that concept of co-operation. Whether we like it or not, we have become dependent on one another in many fields. We have become dependent on one another in the sense that it is by means of co-operation that we can ultimately, too, ensure the survival of everyone separately, according to his own will and wishes. This co-operation not only applies within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, but also within the borders of the national states and the independent states in South Africa, the neighbouring states and then also in the whole of Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, around the concept of development there are equally important matters that come into prominence. The first of these is surely that over the centuries development has been an important component in every country in the world. Particularly in the Republic of South Africa, with regard to the situation in which we find ourselves at present, emphasis is falling to an increasing extent on the idea of development. One can never hold back development; one cannot hold any country and any people back with regard to their development—just as one could not hold back the White people in the Republic of South Africa with regard to their development either. But today it is becoming far more important because it is being realized to an increasing extent that it is in fact this development which holds the key to a future dispensation for which we are all striving. This is a dispensation in which one will endeavour to find the solutions over a wide spectrum of national activities, in the constitutional, economic, military, scientific and educational spheres. In all these spheres one needs development and development ought to solve the problems in those specific spheres.

There is a vast amount of literature on the concept of development, to which I shall also refer. Over a hundred different definitions are given of the concept of development. Allow me briefly to mention just three of them to you. Firstly there is a definition from an economic point of view: It is a movement towards a state of maximum industrialization, towards a state of the highest possible Gross National Product and towards a state of the highest material standard of living. I think everyone will agree with this. Secondly there is a definition from an anthropological point of view: It is the development which implies progress and which must eventually lead to a state which is preferred to the present one. I want to leave it at that. Thirdly there is a definition from a cultural point of view—and this is very important to me because I want to associate myself with this definition: Development is the progressive ability of people and communities to progressively control what has been created. These are big words, but the meaning is quite simple and clear.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Barberton would do well to listen. It means that one must have cultural development. I also want to say that under all circumstances—in the Republic of South Africa too—this cultural development is stimulated by a higher culture. It is precisely in this way that we can therefore have an effect on the cultural development of each people and also of the various Black population groups. But what is very important to me is that an opinion on the development of the values of a people can only be expressed by those peoples themselves. In other words, to be brief: One community cannot therefore develop another community in its totality; the most it can do is to establish a climate and framework which is conducive to the development of another community and give assistance on the same basis.

Mr Chairman, when I say this I am consequently saying that development requires the availability of knowledge, resources and opportunities. Of course it is the State that deals with and controls those scarce resources and that is why the State has a very important role to play in the development process. Fortunately the Government of the Republic of South Africa realizes the importance of the role it has to play and in the entire process it is also trying to share it with all the various population groups in the country.

As far as the socio-economic and political development of the urban Blacks are concerned, I want to say briefly that the Government is endeavouring to establish a comprehensive dispensation, in full consultation with the leaders of the people concerned. What is more, if we take note of the development of the independent national states, there is one component in particular which is very important, namely that training has to be developed, because training provides the basis for development. Training is necessary so that they will acquire the maximum expertise in all the various spheres—economic, constitutional, agricultural and so on. Of course there are problems in this connection to which I also want to refer briefly. It will be of no use assisting in the development of an independent state if this leads to manpower and brain power being drawn out of that particular state into another state. In the second place, there is an inherent danger in this, because it is hardly possible for a state to be a national state if the vast majority of its citizens find themselves outside that state. The opposite is equally true: It will of course be very difficult for a country to be a fatherland for its citizens if an overwhelming number of citizens of another state are present within its borders. Consequently this factor will always have to be borne in mind in this development.

Mr Chairman, the historic development of assistance to the independent states in the Republic of South Africa goes as far back as the missionaries who in the early days gave assistance in hospitals and schools, as well as in connection with agriculture and handicrafts. Since the ’fifties we have launched development programmes, particularly as a result of the consequences of the Tomlinson report. Various institutions have been established since the ’fifties. Towards the end of the ’seventies we had Government services in the various national states, which assumed responsibility for education, agriculture, health and welfare. We also had the various development corporations in the national states, excluding industrial projects, agricultural projects and mining development in those states. Then we also had various Government departments in the Republic of South Africa charged with the development function such as the Departments of Co-operation and Development, Education and Training, Foreign Affairs, Health and Welfare and so on. In addition development bodies of the South African Government were also established. In this connection I am thinking of the IDC and the EDC.

But it is also true, Mr Chairman, that various factors led to rationalization in this connection. These are factors such as unemployment, which increased in this development programme, the fact that the economies of the various national states did not begin to grow under their own steam, the fact that insufficient job opportunities were created, and self-governing countries which became independent states. There was also a new concept, namely that it was accepted that the whole of Southern Africa formed a single economic system, consisting of developed and developing regional economies. That is why the allocation of development functions and the organization of development institutions are being reconsidered to bring them into line with the devolution of political powers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, my friend the hon member for Virginia will forgive me if I do not follow him in the arguments which he offered.

I want to quote a few paragraphs from what the Hoexter Commission reported on pages 28 and 29 of its Fifth and Final Report. Paragraph 3.4.3.1 reads as follows:

Paragraph 3.4.3.2 reads as follows:

That was the finding. Paragraph 3.4.3.5 reads as follows:

Paragraph 3.3.6(b) reads as follows:

[Inaudible.]

Casper, please. I quote further—

Mr Chairman, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies of the University of the Witwatersrand recently produced a document pursuant to a study which they had conducted on the Johannesburg commissioners courts. Allow me a few quotes, and I have the document if the hon the Minister has not seen it. On page 29 it says:

Pages 30 and 31:

And lastly I quote from page 40:

Mr Chairman, in replies given to three questions that I put on the Order Paper three weeks ago, the hon the Minister said the following: Firstly, that legal aid was in fact available in these courts, that notices to this effect were posted at the courts, and that no one had applied for legal aid. Secondly, that prosecutors in these courts required no specific qualification at all, nor any specific practical experience. Thirdly, that presiding commissioners had to have achieved the Lower Civil Service Law Examination, though no practical experience was laid down at all. Further, that fully one-quarter of the commissioners acting had not achieved even this minimal qualification.

Mr Chairman, on 18 April 1984 I attended the Johannesburg courts for the first time in quite a few years and I was there for several hours. On the front door of each court were affixed absolutely brand new Legal Aid notices, rather strangely rubberstamped with the date 24 February 1978.

Is that 1978?

Yes, 1978. I checked them all. They had obviously been lying in a drawer for the last six years. The court orderly told me that these notices had been put up about a month previously—thus some days after the question I had asked was answered in Parliament. He said that prior to that no such notices had been displayed at all. Ironically, these signs can only be seen at the courthouse doors by court spectators, but not by the accused persons, who of course come up from downstairs as they come from the cells, so they obviously do not have the benefit of these notices. Though I sat in on all the courts operating, the time that I am allowed to speak here does not allow me to relate the entire experience. I will therefore limit myself to what I saw in F Court, which is court No 6. This is the court that deals with offences in terms of section 10, curfew offences and the arising trespass offences. It is one of the courts that deal with this. During February of 1984 this court handled 1 755 cases relating to curfew and trespass offences at the average rate of 84 per day. When one realizes that these courts only start sitting at 11 o’clock and later and usually adjourn shortly after three, one will realize how quickly these offences are dealt with.

Mr Chairman, the presiding officer was relatively young. He lolled on the bench, often pointing at the accused. He wore a legal gown, without a jacket underneath, and a short-sleeved shirt. His collar was loose and his tie was askew, brought halfway down his chest. His hair had not seen a barber for several months and his whole appearance was sloppy in the extreme.

He must have been a Prog! [Interjections.]

Order!

What a picture of White man’s justice for all to see. I saw it with my own eyes.

Why do you call it “White man’s justice”?

I do so because he is the only White man sitting in a court dispensing what he calls justice.

Mr Chairman, what a picture of White man’s justice for all to see. His attitude towards accused persons was, to say the least, grossly unsympathetic. The charges were put to the accused rapidly in an almost unintelligible manner. [Interjections.] Please stop interjecting; I am trying to put a case.

The accused were then required without any further explanation to plead immediately. On a plea of guilty, no evidence was heard and the conviction was immediately confirmed. Sometimes evidence in mitigation was asked for; on other times no evidence in mitigation was asked for at all.

Have you ever been to a traffic court?

Mr Chairman, I am not going to worry about interjections, because I have a story to tell the hon the Minister.

The general level of sentences handed down was R20 or 40 days. On a plea of not guilty, the inevitable result was a postponement of two weeks. This was obviously to enable evidence to be brought before the court. Sometimes the prisoner was asked whether he wanted bail. Of those that were asked, all wanted bail. Those who were not asked, were just sent back to the cells for a further two weeks. They were not even asked whether they wanted bail or not. Those who asked for bail, were invariably granted bail of R50, which is more than double the amount of the probable fine. They too just went back to the cells, because they did not have the money. Of those sent back to the cells on postponement, I have ascertained that a large proportion, upon returning two weeks later for trial, are summarily set free, because the arresting officer very often does not even turn up.

Mr Chairman, now we wonder about the crowded state of our prisons! If the presiding officer wanted any information from the accused, he told the interpreter to ask “the man” what he had to say. He said: “Ask the man what he has to say.” No accused person complained at this treatment, but then of course no one was legally represented, nor did any accused even seem to properly understand what was going on about him. However, the judicial conveyor belt never stopped to help him. Mr Chairman, what I witnessed, confirmed my very worst fears. This is not justice; it is administrative racial persecution!

I have only two questions to ask the hon the Minister, and I ask the first to his face: Are you not ashamed? Having heard this, can you sleep easily in your ministerial bed? Secondly, forgetting about the eventual transference of these courts, what is the hon the Minister going to do about it now? What is he going to do about it this week? This month? What is he going to do about it? Or is he going to leave it and permit injustice to reign supreme? Will he allow massive ill-will between the races to continue to build up? Those are the questions that demand answers.

Mr Chairman, after having listened to all these discussions, I want to quote the hon the Minister a verse from Boerneef:

Mr Minister, this is what is in store for you. [Interjections.]

I have already said that Job did not have it, otherwise we would have read about it in the Bible. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not a jurist, but I want to discuss something with the hon member for Sandton for a moment. It has been announced that a single structure is going to be established for all courts under the Minister of Justice, subject to certain administrative arrangements. The hon member levelled severe criticism here at the practices of commissioners’ courts in the past. But I can also give the hon member an example. I was a school principal in a specific community. Sometimes matriculants acted as interpreters in the commissioner’s court because they could speak the language of the Black people in that area fluently. On one particular occasion an old Black man appeared before a court in which one of the matriculants, a boy, was acting as interpreter. The charge against the Black man was that he had hunted illegally. He was charged under the Act, ordinance or regulation on illegal hunting. I do not want to tire this House with a long story and I shall consequently be brief. The old Black man had killed a grey rhebuck with a knobkierie. He had slung the buck over his shoulder and set off for his hut with a song in his heart, because he was a hunter and that evening around the fire, when they cooked the meat, he would tell his wives that he was still a hunter. That is the culture of the Blacks. But on his way home, to put it bluntly, Flora and Fauna caught him. That is what we say, but actually it was the officials who caught him. He was charged and appeared in court. That hon member is now complaining about the way in which the presiding officer tells the interpreter to ask the accused what his problem is. But I shall tell you what happened on that particular day. The interpreter then asked the Black man to tell the court what was troubling him. After all we understand that language; I was born in Bophuthatswana; I should actually be entitled to apply for citizenship there. [Interjections.]

That was not so; it was another matter I was referring to. [Interjections.]

Order!

The old man then said:

Mr Chairman, this is a sad story. Then the presiding officer said that they should release him, but that the boy should explain to him carefully what the new arrangement was. In gratitude he then said to the boy, referring to the exhibit in the court:

Mr Chairman, there are certain customs we have to respect and this evening I want to say here that there is certain progress and development we cannot get away from. But we must express our appreciation and be grateful for a whole series of officials who have done their duty in that connection in an exemplary manner.

I should like to address this House briefly on the indigenous law of the Black people—the indigenous law as part of their cultural heritage. My father was nicknamed Kgoré. This is the Tswana word for the grey lourie; he who calls from afar. For many years my father sat as an invited guest with the Lekgotla of the Tswana tribe of Chief Pulané at Muroleng—Saulspoort. From an early age, growing up in such an atmosphere, I had respect and appreciation for and developed an interest in the fairness of the legal practices applied by those Black people. For that reason I am delighted that on page 349 of the Hoexter report provision is made for the retention of the courts of chiefs, etc. I am delighted about this, because from the earliest times this simple legal system has been the structure within which the people of the tribe have embodied their existential rules and prescriptions. The administration of tribal justice is also incorporated in this jurisdiction of the Lekgotla. In more general terms it is still an important part of the culture of the tribe and through the tribal authority a cultural possession of the specific ethnic group.

In this connection it is important to read what Prof R A Coertze, head of the Department of Social Anthropology and Applied Social Anthropology, at the University of Pretoria, said in evidence at one of the sittings of the Hoexter Commission. I should like to quote a single paragraph to the committee of what that learned professor had to say:

This is the evidence of this professor:

This opinion applies to both the Blacks living in the homelands and those living in the RSA area, because the mere physical movement of people does not cause them to change their attitudes towards patterns of life, value judgments and valid legal rules.

I also want to say that in another research document it was also proved how attached and devoted these people are to their cultural customs irrespective of where they live and irrespective of the degree of westernisation and acculturation that has taken place among these people. Justice Tshungu, who is a well-known figure, once said:

I want to refer to other interesting statistics. I want to refer in particular to a research document of Dr C F Swart of the Rand Afrikaans University. He undertook certain research and furnished statistics. The headings of his columns are, inter alia, “lifestyle according to residential milieu”, “traditional”, “more like Whites” and “hard to say”. In Soweto 30,1% are “traditional”, 55% are “like Whites” and 14% are “hard to say”. I am only referring to one example, viz Soweto; there are also other units.

The hon members there must just listen to the caption to the next paragraph, namely “it is no longer necessary to pay lobola”, that bride-price that has to be paid. This is a primitive custom. The reaction from the different residential areas is then indicated. In Soweto 15% agreed fully with this, namely “that it is no longer necessary”, 4% agreed partially and 79,9% did not agree with this, in other words they want to pay lobola.

The caption to the next paragraph is: “Worship of ancestral spirits.” In Soweto 75% were in full agreement with this, 8% in partial agreement;...

The CP agrees 100%. [Interjections.]

I want to quote from the next paragraph. These are interesting statistics. The hon member for Kuruman is listening attentively. It is also educational for him. I am quoting;

In Soweto 85,8% agree fully with this.

From the tables it is clear that there are forces in the soul of Black Africa which after centuries of living with the Whites, of acculturation and of the dissemination of Christianity still have deep, unique, traditional roots which will quite possibly take a long time to change to any appreciable extent.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Standerton on a very good speech. He furnished interesting statistics and facts in connection with our indigenous legal systems for Black people. I also want to join the hon member in paying tribute to the officials of this department. I want to agree with him, because I think if there is one sector of our officialdom which has really struck a major blow for the ideology of separate development through the plan of eventually settling different peoples who cannot live together in peace in one territory in a specific area, it is our officials who were themselves inspired with that ideal, because they could see the sense in it and realized that this was ultimately the only solution in a multinational territory like Southern Africa.

I want to refer to what the hon the Deputy Minister said in connection with the entire matter of consolidation. While I was listening to him at one stage I honestly thought that we belonged in the same party, because the statements he made in connection with the ideals of establishing a people in an area was what we had been saying all along, but we lost each other when we did not want to apply this ideology and this standpoint consistently.

As far as consolidation is concerned, I want to say that the other day the hon the Prime Minister announced in his speech that only about 80 000 ha still had to be purchased to complete the 1936 quota, but, as the hon the Deputy Minister also indicated, what happened in the process was that in many areas—and I am thinking in particular of the Northern Transvaal—there is now, in effect, more land available for occupation by Black people than the 1936 quota. The hon the Deputy Minister also indicated that it was now the Government’s policy to exceed that 1936 quota. The CP is opposed to that. I want to ask the hon the Minister what norm he is now going to apply in order to determine the limits. Is he going to take population figures, infrastructure or the value of land into consideration?

The norm you sold in the 1981 election.

If we exceed the 1936 quota, one will not be able to set down a further limit. The standpoint of those of us on this side of the House is that one has to reach a stage where one puts a stop to the only way in which any people has ever given land to other peoples, namely by purchasing some of the land of its own citizens and handing it over to other peoples. We cannot continue to do this ad infinitum. Our standpoint is that when we reach the 1936 quota land will have to be dealt with from then on in the way in which peoples usually negotiate with each other on land. In other words, they will buy from each other, agree on an exchange, or get into conflict with each other. These are the only ways in which land can be dealt with.

In the Northern Transvaal we have the situation that in areas like Matoks and Ramagoep, for which compensatory land was purchased, the Black areas were not shifted and that the compensatory land purchased has to a major extent also become Black land. Senthimula and Kutama are still where they were, and they were supposed to have been shifted.

I want to remind the hon the Minister about Palmietfontein, just outside Pietersburg, on the road to Dendron. The hon the Minister still remembers it very well. It consists of approximately 5 000 ha where Lebowa crosses the tarred road. In 1981 the hon the Minister told the divisional committee of the NP that he would work his fingers to that bone to have that land declared White land because it would be meaningful to do so.

But surely that matter has not yet been finalized?

Is the hon the Minister really trying to tell me that he is still considering shifting that area?

Yes. I am saying this now across the floor. I am a person who keeps my word.

We take the hon the Minister’s word for it.

He knows it just as well as I do.

But may I remind the hon the Minister that at one stage the previous Deputy Minister came to us and said that for economic reasons, which the hon the Deputy Minister also mentioned again, it was no longer possible to shift that area? They made an alternative suggestion.

What area is that?

It is the area of Palmietfontein. I do not know whether the hon the Deputy Minister knows where it is.

That is not my business; it is “chicken feed”.

Yes, it is “chicken feed” to you, but to the farmers of the Northern Transvaal it is of great importance.

But just remember now that the matter has not been finalized.

Just give me a chance. You spoke for a very long time this afternoon. The suggestion then came from the department, via the previous Deputy Minister, that the Soetdoring road should be tarred. One of the most important problems being experienced at present is that a tarred road to the north runs through a portion of Lebowa. The farmers were led to believe that the removal would not take place. The earth-works part of the construction of that road was then started. That was a few years ago. I want to tell hon members that that road is still as it was. The earth-work was done, but by now it has been used so much that the work will have to be redone if they ever want to tar the road. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he wants to implement that offer and will now have the Soetdoring road tarred.

I am thinking of another area causing major concern in the Northern Transvaal and that is the entire matter of Block 24 for which the Gilead-Limburg area was purchased. I want to ask whether that area is going to be relocated. I want to ask this, because as I understand it, the last plan was that it still had to be declared a White area, but as we have come to know the standpoint of the hon the Minister over the years, this will not happen. For that reason I want to ask whether the hon the Minister could perhaps tell us—the plan is with the Cabinet—what the final borders of Lebowa are. Every day he asks us to tell him immediately where the borders of that area which we propose as the area of jurisdiction of the Coloureds are.

Decades ago they began to consolidate and tried to lay down borders for Lebowa inter alia, and to date we still do not know where those borders are.

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

No, there is no time. In conclusion I just want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we greatly appreciate that in this period of drought he showed great goodwill with regard to land made available to farmers for leasing purposes. I think that in this way he did a great service to many of our farmers who were really in a desperate position. I just want to ask him whether it would also be his standpoint that he would refuse to lease those so-called released areas, which belong to the South African Development Trust, to large bodies or semi-State institutions to farm there, in many cases in competition with the farmers, because this is causing great concern in the farming community and is something which would cause all manner of problems as far as labour and the entire harmony of farming in that specific area is concerned.

I shall still come to the question of leasing. If I have time, I shall reply to that question.

We would appreciate it, because the farmers are concerned about this, because they had unpleasant experiences with the old ECD in the Dendron area, where they went and farmed with potatoes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this evening the hon member for Pietersburg told us of errors that had allegedly occurred and referred to things that were causing the farmers a great deal of concern. I should like to tell the hon member that it came to our attention that there is tremendous dissatisfaction among a large number of farmers in the Northern Transvaal and that these are things which are also beginning to work through to their own people. I am referring now to the spirit and the climate which the CP people on this Committee are communicating as far as the Black people are concerned.

On a previous occasion I made a point which I should now like to make very emphatically again to the hon members of the CP, because it is very material. The hon member for Pietersburg should read the periodicals Drum, Pace, The Sowetan and every other periodical of the Black people he can get hold of.

I want to refer to a brief article which appeared in the periodical Bona. In it blankets made from mohair produced by farmers were being advertised. They were being advertised for sale in a Black periodical. I also want to refer to an advertisement in Pace in which clothing was being offered for sale which was manufactured from cotton produced by farmers in the Northern Transvaal. This was also being advertised in a Black periodical. I also want to refer to another advert in which poultry products produced by farmers were being offered for sale. I am referring now to an article in the periodical Drum. I should like to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that an advertisement appeared in the periodical Pace in which milk was offered for sale. The farmers are advertising in a Black periodical in order to promote their milk product. So one can continue. [Interjections.] I do not think Cinzano comes from Pietersburg.

The point I should like to make is that the hon member for Pietersburg and other hon members of the CP are turning Black-White relations into a political game. With this absurdity of a White homeland they are playing the kind of political game which must inevitably lead to confrontation. If they talk in public about a White homeland, they are disregarding the co-participation of all people in South Africa in the economy. Firstly they are being directly offensive to the Black and the Brown people, who will never leave their so-called White South Africa. They are insulting and humiliating those people simply by telling them that they want a White homeland, in spite of the fact that there are some of those people who have, for many years already, not only been living on the farms, but also in our White cities, people which neither we on this side of the House, nor the CP, nor any other party will ever expel from a White South Africa, unless the hon members for Kuruman and Pietersburg perhaps mean with a White homeland what Prof Carel Boshoff said about a White homeland. I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg whether he means with a white homeland what Prof Carel Boshoff said about it.

[Inaudible.]

Does the CP differ with Prof Carel Boshoff over the homeland which he proposed? [Interjections.] They are not going to get away with it. Does the hon member for Pietersburg differ with Prof Boshoff over what Prof Boshoff has for a long time been propagating as a White homeland, that is to say the homeland of the “Orania-werkers”?

Would you not rather make that speech in Potgietersrus, and make your own speech now?

Then I would rather ask the hon member for Kuruman whether he agrees with Prof Boshoff’s concept of a White homeland.

Yes.

What the hon member for Kuruman has now said is one of the most significant admissions one can get. What did Prof Carel Boshoff say? Prof Carel Boshoff, with his “Orania-werkers”, has already capitulated. He said that they would never get the rest of South Africa to be exclusively White because they will never get the Black people or the Coloureds out, and therefore they will have to move way up there, to the Orange River. However, I give them credit for having drawn their homeland on a map. I say that if he agrees with that, it is the course they should take. Even if he only half agrees with that, I want to tell him that it will be a way in which the White voters will tell the Black people and the Brown people in South Africa that they, who are the White people in their own right and who ought to be proud of what is theirs and who ought to be grateful for everything they have worked for, are now sorry that they have lost in their own country and are going to move to a little homeland. Why? I shall say why: It is because the CP has a fear for Black people and Black numbers.

You have that fear.

No, sir. They are suffering from a neurosis and from anxiety. In their heart of hearts the hon members of the CP tell themselves that all Black people in South Africa are by implication opposed to the White people. On that score we as the NP disagree with them entirely. We say that we co-exist in a country with peoples and groups with whom we are able to maintain sound relations. Therefore those people inspire no fear in us; certainly not such fear that we want to run away to a homeland and, as the hon member for Lichtenburg has said on many occasions, that we get the shakes if we just think of the question of numbers. If it should be true, as conservative people think, that the Black people in this country are our enemies, I want to state here this evening that my children and those of hon members on this side of the House do not have any chance at all.

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

No, I do not have the time now.

In the remaining time at my disposal I should like to exchange a few words with the hon the Minister. I should like to wish Mr Van de Wall and all the officials of his department who are here, everything of the best on the road ahead. It was my privilege to have been able to work in that department myself, and to this day I still feel honoured, grateful and enriched by what I was able to learn there. I want to tell the hon the Minister that they can quarrel with him if they like, but that little dog that he saved, told me something about Dr Piet Koornhof. To me it was typical of a person with a compassion which he has displayed in all the years he has already been dealing with this portfolio, and for that South Africa thanks him, for it is only a person like him who can perceive and seize upon the keyword in relations politics, namely human dignity. That is a word which covers everything. I can refer the hon members of the CP to the documents of all the Black organizations, including Azapo, Azaso, the ANC, the Black Consciousness Movement, the Committee of Ten and the UDF, etc, and to every word spoken by every Black leader in South Africa. The hon members of the CP will not be able to point out to me one occasion on which any of those people ever spoke about human dignity. If it is so that there are people who are angry about those things, the NP says that it will rectify them. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I only have a minute left, although I have things to say that would take an hour. In conclusion I want to ask the Minister and his department to make a dramatic effort to take a further look at the entire development problem. The human individual is central to the development problem, because the interaction between the human individual and the raw materials, between the human individual as labourer and as entrepreneur and between the human individual and capital is what will ultimately bring about success. I am convinced that the Black people in South Africa have an enormous development potential. I do not share the stereotype image that Black people cannot develop and that they are backward and have no chance. If that had been the case, I would have told my children that there was no future for them in this country. I share the standpoint that Black people have the potential to develop, but people who have no opportunities, cannot develop.

I should like to raise a general point. I know it is an explosive political subject, but it is no use running away from it. I am referring to land. I should like to ask the hon the Minister and his department to institute enquiries in future into the extent of the land needs everywhere, and also into the occupation of land by people, the expansion of certain larger Black residential areas, which is absolutely necessary for stability, and the utilization of initiative. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, once again I find myself on my feet, but this time very briefly. I should just like to comment on the speech made by the hon member who has just sat down. I must say that I compliment him very much on his stand in regard to the private ownership of land which inevitably must come and must become part of an accepted practice within our livelihood in this country.

I was relating the various stages involved, as I saw it, in the consolidation process at the end of my previous speech. I just wish to carry this a stage further, because I feel, as I have said earlier on, that there are essential guidelines that must be adopted in arriving at the final picture of the consolidation process.

I appreciate that the SADT endeavours to provide essential structures before the settlement of people takes place. This is most important, but what is being done, is insufficient. The Government must not run away from the idea that it is solving one problem if on the other hand it is creating another by the inadequate provision of basic requirements for rehabilitation. It is no good on the one hand feeling that one is solving one problem and yet creating another on the other hand. It is also not sufficient to provide such facilities such as water and to build schools and clinics in the settlement areas and then to feel that that is the end, as it were, of one’s responsibility. This must again be taken a stage further to include the availability—and I want to repeat this very clearly—in loco of adequate building materials which could be acquired and utilized by the people involved. By “adequate” I do not mean poles and thatch-grass alone. The trend in the rural areas is moving away from what was a conventional type of hut to a more sophisticated construction based to a large degree on houses in the urban areas. We accept that the improved quality of life is a concept which must be expanded to all sections of the community. The starting point in this regard is a high standard of housing and we must not get away from the old adage that an Englishman’s home is his castle. This applies equally to any individual of any race group. If one accepts this as a measure, it is all the more essential that the standard of housing in the rural areas be improved considerably. And what better opportunity can be found to launch such a project than that which presents itself when people are being settled in a new community. At this stage I also wish to warn that the pressure on the trek to the towns will increase substantially if the living conditions in the rural areas are not upgraded. The temptation of improved living conditions in urban areas will render influx control regulations absolutely unmanageable. People will stream to the towns if they can see no better prospects, and this applies particularly to the youth. Thus the standard of housing in the rural areas bears a direct relationship to the migration or movement of people to the urban areas. The planning of homes in rural areas must be carried out so that it will take care of the long-term requirements of the communities in order that such infrastructural facilities as electricity can be provided at a later stage. I would like to draw attention to certain aspects which concern me regarding the movement of people, particularly in my own constituency. There is an area, I think the farmers refer to it as Roberts, where people have been moved from as far away as Ladysmith and settled in that area, without any having had any relationship or connection with that area at all. In other words, they are strangers in a strange land. In my view this is undesirable, and I wish to warn the hon the Minister that there is friction in this area caused by the fact that there is no connection whatsoever between the area to which these people have been moved and what existed in Ladysmith.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Mooi River said, particularly when in his previous speech he made this evening, he touched upon a very important matter, namely the land of White farmers which is being bought out for Black people. I also want to say a few words to the hon member for Berea who complained about the uprooting of Black people. He asked that we: “Call a halt to forced removals”.

The official Opposition is constantly protesting and complaining because people in South Africa are being moved, but I have never heard a word of sympathy from them for White farmers who had to give up their land for the sake of the ordering and liberation of Black people. From 1975 until March 1983 approximately 5 000 transactions were concluded in regard to the purchase of land for Blacks, involving primarily the farming units of Whites. This means that the land of thousands of White farmers was alienated and that they had to move, but that hon member has never complained about that. The Opposition is not shedding a single tear in that regard. But when Black people in this country are moved in their own interests, they cry to high heaven in a chorus, together with the pink liberals.

I want to tell the hon member for Berea that we as members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development have had to listen to many heart-rending tales of farmers who had to give up magnificent farms or family farms because the land had to be allocated for the development of non-Whites. White farmers had to move so that the Government’s ordering pattern for Black people could succeed.

Black people in this country are not being moved because the Government is heartless, but because it is in the best interests of the Black people. People are being moved so that those who share common interests will ultimately be situated together in communities in their own national states, where they fit in together ethnically and where a permanent infrastructure unique to that particular ethnic group can be built up for them. I do not want to take this matter any further, because my colleague, the hon member for Queenstown, will add to what I have said in this connection later.

I want to talk about squatting. According to a recent country-wide survey made by the chief commissioners, the lengthy drought was the cause of illegal squatting in most of our cities and larger towns assuming disquieting proportions. As a result of the effective counter-measures adopted by the Government, squatting in South Africa is not assuming nearly the proportions it is assuming elsewhere in the world, particularly in the Third World, where explosive situations frequently arise. According to UN statistics, urbanization and the resultant squatting in the less developed countries increased from 27% of the population in 1920 to 32% of the population in 1940, to 42% in 1960 and to 54% of the population in 1980. Today the figure probably stands at 60% or more.

According to the 1980 census only 38% of South Africa’s total Black population had been urbanized, far less than in Third World Countries. Projections for the future indicate that this percentage will probably increase. If these forecasts are correct, it means that 20 million Black people will have to be accommodated in the metropolitan areas of South Africa during the next 20 years. This Government is determined to ensure that this urbanization will be led into the right channels and that it will take place in an orderly way.

The squatter problem can only be solved by developing the areas from whence the Blacks come, whether they come from the national states or wherever it may be. This problem can only be solved by keeping the people in the places from whence they come, and by creating the necessary employment opportunities for them there.

As a result the Government’s policy of deconcentration and decentralization must receive the highest priority. The process of urbanization must be reversed by ensuring that cities are, as far as possible, developed in the national and self-governing states so that Black urbanization can be concentrated there.

During the drought the Government acted very correctly by creating employment opportunities on a large scale in the Black states. An amount of more than R6 million was spent on creating more than 50 000 employment opportunities there. This ensured approximately a quarter million people of a livelihood during the drought. If the Government had not done that, far more of those people would probably have come to our White cities as squatters.

The magnitude of the squatter problem would undoubtedly have been far greater if it had not been for the Government’s decentralization plan which gave regional industrial development a tremendous boost. Since the announcement of the decentralization concessions in 1982, 1 593 applications for the establishment of industries have already been received, representing an enormous capital investment of R3 324 million. This created a potential of 116 322 new employment opportunities, of which at least 90% are for Black people. What is particularly gratifying about this is that during the second year there was a progressive increase in the number of applications for the establishment of industries within the national states, for South Africa, like other countries of the Third World, has an urgent need to create more employment opportunities.

The Government is being accused by the Opposition of being unsympathetic towards squatters and of dealing harshly with these people. But it is not the intention of the Government to expel or to remove squatters who have been in an area for years. Families who, according to reliable information, have already been living for four years or longer on land belonging to the South African Development Trust, are settled there and receive sites on which to erect self-built units.

But action is being taken against new squatters, and we make no apology for that. If this is not done, chaos will prevail around our cities. Our standpoint is that prevention is better than cure. There are many countries in the world in which more merciless action is taken against squatters than in South Africa. Morris Juppenlatz writes about the squatter problem in his authoritative work Cities in Transformation. He says inter alia:

We in South Africa are sympathetically disposed towards these people, but in other countries of the world far less sympathetic action is taken against them.

I also want to tell hon members of the Opposition that squatter conditions in South Africa are far more favourable for squatters than they are in other countries of the world. The same Morris Juppenlatz has the following to say in this connection in his book:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat will excuse me if I do not follow him directly in what he said. I have very little time at my disposal and I should like to bring a specific matter to the attention of the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister began to speak here today about building together while the hon member for Innesdal spoke about human dignity. In the time at my disposal I should like to elaborate on the subject of building together while I also want to ask the hon the Minister and the two hon Deputy Ministers whether they would not like to see the people for whom I want to make a plea, retain their human dignity. Obviously I am going to speak about the Black people and in particular about migrant labour and handicapped people. This is an important matter in which politics do not play a role. I believe that these people should be helped.

†I believe that every responsible South African will realize the responsibility of the State and of society towards the physically disabled. I also believe that we all agree that this is even more important in respect of job placement of Black disabled people. I would like to motivate—I would like the hon the Minister and his deputies to listen very carefully—the granting of a special permit to remain in the area where a suitable job is found to be given to, firstly, migrant and contract workers who are physically disabled, who have lost their previous employment and therefore do not qualify to live and work in an urban area. This is a common occurrence. These people spend long periods in hospital, as a result of which they lose their jobs. I am talking about Blacks who do not qualify to be in an urban area, but who are physically disabled. I think my request can be easily granted, because the permits should only be issued to those who can produce a doctor’s certificate stating that they are permanently disabled, together with a report by an occupational therapist stating their functional abilities with reference to the particular job, and a letter from the employer verifying his willingness to employ the disabled person. This will be sufficient to have such a person qualify for such a permit.

Secondly, I want to plead for disabled people requiring periodic medical care and follow-up treatment and who are often unable to find employment in the open labour market. However, many of them can partake in a home industry. I want to make an appeal that these people be granted the right of residence in urban areas so that they can remain in areas where they have access to rehabilitation centres.

Who are we talking about? We are talking about people who are disabled and who can be placed in the work situation so that they can be productive and contributing members of society. These are the people we want to help. However, many are affected either by influx control laws or contract work laws and are obliged to return to the homelands or to an independent state on discharge from hospital. Charles Simkin reports that in 1980 approximately 135 000 Blacks between the ages of 20 and 39 gave as the reason for their being economically inactive the fact that they are disabled. Of these approximately 26 000 lived in the metropolitan areas. More than 60 000 were resident in the homelands.

Is the hon member aware of anybody who applied for this particular kind of permission and was refused?

Yes. I will give the hon the Deputy Minister the relevant documents I have in my possession. Unfortunately my time is too limited to go into individual cases now. After this debate I can come and see either the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister to discuss this matter more fully with him.

In addition, returning workers, especially when they are disabled, have very little chance of finding employment. A migrant worker who works as a miner or a labourer generally often have a very low level of education. It has been established that approximately only 5% of migrant workers have a matric qualification, while more than 35% of the Blacks working in the homelands themselves, usually for government institutions, have matric. When a disabled migrant worker goes back, he therefore also finds it difficult to get employment because of his lack of education. It is therefore clear that the facilities are lacking to utilize the residual function of the disabled who requires shelter or protected work, as well as in respect of those who can function in the open labour market. I do not have the time now to go into detail about the shortage of doctors. I have information in my possession about the lack of rehabilitation centres in Black areas. In an area like kwaZulu, for example, there is no institution for the blind, only one homecraft centre for 80 people and three institutions for the physically disabled which can accommodate 250 people. In Qwaqwa there are none of these institutions. Disabled people therefore do not even have a chance of being admitted to one of these institutions. It is therefore obvious that any disabled person returning to the homelands has very little chance of sheltered employment or to compete with workers in the homelands for employment. There is also very little chance of subsistence production due to the effects of the drought and the increasing number of people in the homelands. These facts come from the Department of Agriculture.

I therefore make the appeal that these people should be able to obtain urban rights and be given some chance of employment. This will allow them to provide for the basic survival of their families and themselves. The hon the Minister says he is a sensitive person. By being able to do this, it will assist these people to justify their existence in spite of their disability, to find their role in the family and to gain respect. It will also contribute towards alleviating unemployment, which leads to apathy and can result in alcohol and drug addiction and the total degradation of human beings.

I want to repeat that these people exist. I have evidence here from occupational therapists who are desperate about how to treat these people. They want to help them to be proud workers, able to provide for themselves and not having to become a burden on the State. All I ask is that they be allowed to remain in the urban areas so that they can find employment and be properly cared for.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown discussed a subject towards which most of us probably feel sympathetic. I think we have understanding for the situation of a person who has a physical disability and that we should like to be of assistance to him. This does not really fit in with what I want to say this evening, and I trust that the hon member will pardon me if I do not react directly to his speech.

This evening several hon members referred to my constituency False Bay, and to what is going to happen there, namely the establishment of the Black city of Khayelitsha. I want to begin with the hon member for Kuruman, whom I have known for many years. He referred to the NP congress and to the draft resolutions submitted to it. He said that on that occasion concern had been expressed in regard to the Blacks in the Western Cape. In a certain sense the hon member is quite correct, because we are concerned about the influx of Blacks to the Western Cape.

However, the draft resolutions that were discussed at the congress—the hon member must pardon me if we are not interpreting him correctly—did not refer to the establishment of Khayelitsha, because we in False Bay accept that Blacks will come to the Western Cape to work here. We accept that those Blacks who are working here and who in terms of the existing legislation are legally present here, must live somewhere. That is why we also accept that space must be made available for them in which they may establish themselves. As it is, the vast majority of the Blacks are already established in my constituency, namely at Crossroads. I shall come back to this later. Our objection is not to the fact that Black people come to work in the Western Cape. Our objection is that there are such a tremendous number of Blacks who are streaming into the Western Cape illegally.

I do not know whether the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is present at the moment. I do not see him here now.

Here I am.

Oh, there he is. I should like to talk to him for a while. A few days ago the hon member for Cape Town gardens was given a drubbing because he went around prying into the affairs of the Worcester constituency, which has nothing to do with him. That is not the only constituency in which he has stuck his nose into things that had nothing to do with him. He does so regularly in my constituency, and I also object to the hon member doing it.

During the years when we sat across from one another in the provincial council, the hon member was already showing his true colours. He is still doing so. This evening I made the discovery that he holds different viewpoints to the ones he held at that stage, a few years ago. When the hon member for Turffontein spoke here earlier this evening he made the statement that Prog policy entailed the throwing open of all doors and the elimination of boundaries, and that the Blacks could come to the Western Cape without restriction and without paying any heed whatsoever to their numbers in this area. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens then said that that was absolute nonsense.

No.

Yes, that hon member said by way of interjection that it was absolute nonsense. I want to suggest that whatever government happens to be in power in this country, influx control will constitute an integral part of its policy, also that of a Prog government. That hon member, too, whether he wants to admit this or not, will perforce have to be an advocate of influx control.

This evening a great deal has been said about influx and Khayelitsha as well as the presence of Blacks in urban areas, but I think that the heart of the matter has not been discussed yet. I am now raising an exceptionally sensitive matter, but I do so with the necessary sense of responsibility and with an awareness of the practices of Black people, their culture and customs.

The heart of the problem is the exceptionally high population growth in Black communities. This is a factor we must take into account. It leads to an excessively high supply of Black labour, and also forms the basis of the urbanization process. If we bear in mind that 60% or more of all Blacks are under the age of 16 years, we realize that the urbanization process we are experiencing today, is merely the precursor of the pressure that is still going to arise. This, in turn, means that growing pressure is going to be exerted on our people and financial resources and that the entire economic structure of Southern Africa is going to come under pressure, and that the personal welfare of every inhabitant of the subcontinent is going to be jeopardized.

Our sources of trained manpower are being overloaded and ultimately this has a direct influence on our inflation rate. It is clear that the water reserves of Southern Africa will, within 40 years from today, no longer be sufficient to supply the needs of the population if the present population growth tendencies continue.

Because my time is limited, I do not want to dwell on this subject for long. But if one takes all these things into account it means that the population growth is going to become one of the most important single factors influencing long-term economic and political stability in South Africa.

We can discuss decentralization now, something I agree with, but we must decentralize to the Black areas and the Black states. We have ascertained that during the next 30 years another 20 cities the size of Cape Town will have to be established. Why cannot those cities be established in the Black areas?

Hear, hear!

The members of the CP need not say “hear, hear!” to me. It is our policy.

Not one of your members said “hear, hear”.

It is not a new discovery of the CP, but something we have always advocated. These are things which we and they both advocated when they were still with us. For the information of those hon members I want to say that I have the absolute co-operation of the hon the Minister in this connection. If those hon members had remained with us, they would have seen what the fruits of proper talks within a caucus connection with the hon the Minister could mean. They tried to cast suspicion on the hon the Minister, but I want to tell them that in the process they made a big mistake. They will still come to realize, within the next few months in fact, that the NP is not merely a government of words, but also a government of deeds. They will see this manifested in the things that are still going to happen in the Western Cape.

In conclusion I want to say that this matter of population growth, while I have said that it will in future influence our economic and political stability, will also put any government to a tremendous political test. However, Black leaders will also be expected in this connection to demonstrate their goodwill in order to establish economic and political stability and prosperity in Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for False Bay. I have no problem with much of his speech. Indeed, as far as that is concerned, he speaks the same language as I do.

You could just well have stayed Nationalist.

The hon member for False Bay should not be so quick to become excited. What he said, I also say, but I am not responsible for his having said it. I sympathize with him. He is concerned about the fact that the Western Cape is being flooded by Blacks—he does not want them here—and about the fact that his constituency should have been singled out as the area in which a large Black city is to be built. The hon member wanted to know from the hon the Minister why large Black cities were not being built in the Black states. However, the hon member permits one of the biggest Black cities to be built in his constituency. How does one make sense of that?

You are being wilful.

I am not being wilful. I am not distorting the hon member’s words; I repeated exactly what he said. I support him wholeheartedly in this. [Interjections.] If I had been in his position I, too, should have been concerned about it and should have objected.

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

No, I have only ten minutes at my disposal and the hon member has already had his turn to speak.

The major problem I foresee is that the Government’s policy with regard to Black people in the RSA will ultimately be determined by two factors. Firstly, it will be determined by the Government’s decision concerning the permanence of Blacks in the RSA and, secondly, by the extent of the political rights granted to those Blacks within the RSA. At this stage there are still important questions with regard to these two matters. As a result there are still many unanswered questions in respect of many matters concerning the Black people as far as the policy of the Government is concerned. The problem is often being experienced now that when answers to these questions are requested, one is referred to the special Cabinet Committee appointed under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. However, the answer ends there and nothing further is said about it. Therefore one has to wait for the wonderful answer, and until then everything is still in question. In the meantime statements are being made and things are being done that clarify this questioning.

Firstly, an article appeared in Die Vaderland on 8 March 1984 in which reference was made to two matters relating to the linkage policy. In the first place, it is said that this idea is dying a slow death in the thinking of many National Party politicians. Secondly, it is contended that this policy of linkage is a myth. The hon member for Lichtenburg asked the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in this House whether he agreed that it was a myth, and he replied in the affirmative. That statement is being questioned. [Interjections.] I shall prove that he said that, it is in Hansard. [Interjections.] Very well, I accept the challenge. Since I do not have a turn to speak tomorrow, one of my colleagues will quote it.

A second factor which places a big question mark over this entire matter is the statement by the hon member for Innesdal, who has a great deal to say about these matters. I quote from Hansard of 13 March 1984, col 2894:

What column is that in Hansard?

Column 2894 of 13 March 1984. I made a special note of this because I knew the matter would come up again. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members cannot all speak at once.

Thank you, Sir.

In other words, the Black people must obtain political rights in South Africa. The only question is how. Everyone is now waiting for that “how”.

Another situation is now arising, in that these statements comprise one of two things. Either they are a softening-up process for what is to come, or else they are the preparation for what is going to come. This kind of thing creates doubt and confusion.

Unfortunately my time is limited and therefore I now wish to refer to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler on 6 March 1984. Reference is made in this report to what the hon the Minister said. He has been quoted on several occasions this evening, but hon members did not refer specifically to the source of the quotation. I quote from the report:

If the report in the newspaper is correct, and the hon the Minister said that the Blacks will have to be accommodated in the metropolitan areas, I am worried, and I want to ask a few questions in this regard which, in the fight of this statement, are reasonable questions. Will the 20 million people who are drawn to the metropolitan areas and who will eventually find themselves there, become part of that group that, according to the hon member for Innesdal, must obtain political rights, and what will be the nature of these rights? In what metropolitan areas will these 20 million people, for the most part, establish themselves? Will it be the PWV area or the Western Cape? There is no more room in the PWV area and if they are drawn there, a dangerous situation could arise.

I want to ask a further question with reference to the speech of the hon member for Bloemfontein North. The hon member made a speech which I quite liked. He used CP language. [Interjections.] Can the process of urbanization of the Blacks not be reversed so that these masses of people return to the Black independent and national states where they belong? Their fatherland is there and they can perform an important function in building it up. Must it be permitted, without further ado, that these people come and establish themselves here? The process must be reversed and they must return to where their nationhood is and to where provision is made for them. Therefore infrastructures must be built there so that they can be attracted to there and kept there.

The other problem is that if 20 million of those people are established in the metropolitan areas in the next 20 years, job opportunities must be provided for them. After all, they cannot live on fresh air. Then, too, there is the question of housing, to which the hon the Minister also referred. The State, even with the aid of the private sector and the individual’s contribution, will not be able to provide housing for all those people in the metropolitan areas. The money will not be available to make provision for 20 million people over the next 20 years.

There are other important matters as well. These people also have to be educated and have to go to school. Schools, hospitals and clinics for 20 million people have to be built. These people cannot simply be left to their fate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Koedoespoort referred to a number of question marks. He said that there were question marks hanging over this and question marks hanging over that, but he did not say what the question were really about. He only wants to know how things are going to turn out, but he has nothing that he can question. He is uncertain about what is going to happen in the future. However, he need not be concerned, because we know where we are going. He did not ask any question or refer to anything in regard to which I can reply to him.

The hon member referred to the linkage policy. The hon member can go and look in Hansard for my speech during the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister. If that is not good enough, he can go and look at the reaction to my statements by the hon the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon member will be satisfied with that. The hon the Prime Minister said that he had referred that matter to the Cabinet Committee on the Constitution. If he has moved away from linkage—I specifically requested linkage to be further investigated—then he would not have done that. Therefore the hon member is fishing on dry land and is sowing doubt and suspicion. However, he failed to come up with a single decent statement and question. That type of policy is too simplistic in South Africa in these times. He must become more responsible and state his standpoint. [Interjections.]

I now wish to refer to the position of the border farmer because there have been several references to consolidation. The Government’s consolidation programme is making tremendous progress. However, the fact of the matter is that as soon as consolidation takes place, new border situations are created for the border farmer that are beyond his control. In fact, the border farmer has no control over this. There are circumstances that are being given our positive and earnest attention and the Government is fully aware of the problems surrounding the border farmer situation. The border farmer is uncertain as to where the borders will run, and when there will be a target date by which he will know exactly what the situation is. That is very important to everyone.

The hon the Prime Minister eventually gave us a target date. He said that consolidation had to be finalized within four years, in other words in 1987. Therefore there is now a target date and this shows how seriously the National Party is approaching the problem of the border farmer. This also shows that we have sympathy for these people and that we want to eliminate uncertainty. We are working at full speed in this regard so that firm borders can be established and so that these people may know where the borders are. We are working as rapidly as possible. The Commission for Co-operation and Development is working at tremendous speed because we realize that uncertainty must be eliminated. Attention is also being given to Block 24. In due course proposals with regard to the consolidation of Lebowa will be made public. Witnesses will be heard in this connection. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I have a problem because I am struggling to hear myself speak.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please co-operate now, and afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, did you hear what this little man at the back said?

Order! The hon member must refer to another hon member as “the hon member”.

I am referring to the hon member for Umfolozi. [Interjections.]

With regard to the 75 land...

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can you give a ruling in respect of the hon member for Turffontein, who is making so many interjections that one cannot hear the hon member for Pretoria West.

Order! The Chair will decide when too many interjections are being made. Hon members must now please cooperate so that the hon member for Pretoria West may proceed with his speech.

Due to the interruptions I cannot say much more about this, except that tremendous progress has been made in respect of consolidation and that all the land earmarked for inclusion in 1975 has already been bought out, save in three instances. With regard to the Transkei, negotiations are proceeding, and with regard to Kangwane and kwaZulu, the Rumpff Commission is at present investigating certain matters.

The fact is that the border farmers are in a very difficult situation. When one hears their pleas one realizes what their situation is. For example, a border farmer has to incur extraordinary capital expenditure to protect his home in the circumstances in which he finds himself. He also has major financial obligations with regard to border and security fences. For that reason positive attention is being given to these matters. However, before this can be considered the extent of the problem must be appreciated. I want to sketch briefly to the Committee the extent of the problem. In terms of the 1975 consolidation proposals approximately 12 333km of border fencing has to be erected. The amount involved is estimated at R55 million.

The guidelines with regard to consolidation have already been laid down. The hon member for Lichtenburg formed part of the team that laid down these guidelines. One of the guidelines—in reply to a question by the hon member for Pietersburg—is that although it is not Government policy to exceed the land quota unnecessarily, the investigating team is not limited to this in its recommendations if it is found to be essential for the achievement of our aims. It is imperative—I think that all hon members will agree with me—that the border farmer must be retained and that there ought to be a permanent corps of border farmers. This is an absolute prerequisite for stability on the borders of South Africa. We must preserve stability and sound interstate relations between the RSA and its neighbouring states, because that is essential for the progress of all. Therefore we must secure the borders and motivate and encourage the border farmers to remain on their farms. It really is cheaper to keep the owner there than to establish a person there who is paid by the State.

With that in view, two things have happened. The Commission for Co-operation and Development has, firstly, requested all MP’s to submit to it all problems with regard to the border farmer.

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

I do not have time now.

We requested organized agriculture to come up with proposals. [Interjections.] I myself did not do the circulation work.

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

No, you may not.

We have received proposals and we are in the process of collating them. At this point I want to ask hon members to address any further proposals to the commission within 14 days.

To what address must they be sent?

Send them to me.

We went even further, to show in what a serious light we regarded the problem of the border farmer. A small committee is to be appointed from among members of the commission to negotiate and speak to the farmers affected by the consolidation. The aim is to give him the assurance of guarantees and so on, so that they may be persuaded to remain on the land after consolidation as well and to maintain the productivity of the land, and so on. This is a very important matter. I want to assure the border farmers of South Africa that the Government is giving its full attention to their problems. We are working at full speed on this problem because they are our people and ultimately we all have the same interests. This is our country and the hon the Prime Minister has stated very clearly that no one must be worse off after consolidation than before consolidation. We intend to stand by that.

Mr Chairman, the whole question of border farms and consolidation and the problems created by them, show to the House and the people outside that we shall have to proceed very cautiously. The prices of border farms, for example, have skyrocketed as a result of the low interest rates on loans offered. More and more borders are being created and the consolidation problem has not solved anything in relation to our political problems in this country.

I want to state our policy in respect of commercial agricultural land and consolidation very clearly.

†We as a party believe that commercial agricultural land which is productive should be able to be bought by any South African regardless of colour, provided he farms it in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. I do not believe that by buying productive commercial land and giving it to peasant farmers—not because they are Black—is in the interests of this country in any way. We must find another solution and consolidation is not that solution.

The ownership of land should be depoliticized because the ownership of land does not necessarily resolve political problems.

I want to refer briefly to the question of resettlement which has been a theme of this debate. I believe that for the first time we have the beginnings of a positive and constructive debate. I want to refer in particular to matters raised by the hon member for Klip River because he dealt with an area in the Upper Tugela region which highlights the problems of our Black rural areas. We will have to come to terms with these problems. The PFP accepts that many of the so-called Black spots are disaster areas. They are eroded, over-populated and in a very bad state. Some of them, however, are not like that and are delightful areas. However, we will not resolve these problems by simply moving people away. We need to endeavour to see what the problems are. In many instances they are exactly those to which the hon member for Klip River referred. These people are dependent for their economic life on urban and industrial areas 200 and 300 kilometres away. If we could give people security of tenure in urban areas with systematic and controlled urbanization, the populations in these rural areas will be reduced. We should reconsider our approach to these areas, particularly in terms of the population explosion and the needs of agriculture. We all agree that the Upper Tugela catchment area is a vital asset to all South Africans and a place of national importance. We need to deal sensitively with it and to adopt an ecological and total approach to this problem.

I want to refer to an example of which I believe was a bad situation in this area. The Department of Water Affairs built the Woodstock dam in the Bergville area in order to pump Natal’s water to keep the Vaal Triangle alive. Millions of rand were spent on this. However, what was done with the Black people who were moved? Instead of using the opportunity and putting them in decent villages, we simply used the closest settlement system. This is a “erfen plakskema”. That was used instead of spending a little extra money—a few million which would have been a drop in the ocean compared with the costs of the water works—to give these people a decent village with schools and other facilities.

I want to refer briefly to another matter to which the hon the Minister should give his attention. He is aware that the kwaZulu Department of National Resources has recently taken over certain game reserves, including the one at Kosi Bay. When people want to visit this game reserve at Kosi Bay they need to apply for a permit to enter this Black area. They have to fill in form BA 1183. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to scrap this requirement. If somebody has a booking at one of the reserves, it can surely act as prima facie permission to enter that area. It creates the concept of simply having a visa for visiting an area where this type of formality was not required before. The people of Natal like their reserves and would like to visit those in kwaZulu as well.

In the brief time left to me I want to refer to a very serious problem which I believe highlights many of the problems which exist in Black affairs in this country. I am now referring to the hospital at Edendale which is the fourth largest hospital in South Africa. It is a very important hospital and serves as a training centre for doctors and specialists. It employs over 1 200 nurses and 140 doctors. It consumes more than one-quarter of the kwaZulu Government’s health budget. There has been a lot of trouble at this hospital. Some of it could have been avoided and some was because of certain people being unnecessarily difficult. What concerns me is that it highlights the difficulties at administrative level.

If somebody wishes, for example, to be appointed as a doctor at Edendale—hon members should listen to how this happens—he has to apply to Ulundi. This application is then referred to the Department of State Health which in turn sends the application to the Departments of Community Development and Co-operation and Development and the South African Police for a security check. There is therefore another few months’ delay and it sometimes takes up to nine months for a White person to be appointed permanently. By that time, if he is a doctor from London or Cape Town, the person will not take the job. The hospital therefore finds itself in a difficult position.

It has a great shortage of money. The ambulance service is in a very poor condition. I do not have time to refer to all the difficulties, but my concern is that there is an administrative nightmare associated with this hospital. If the Department of State Health could deal directly with the kwaZulu Government, instead of going through this hon Minister, the situation would be much easier. This applies to many other aspects of State administration, with regard to the Departments of Co-operation and Development and the self-governing homelands, not only kwaZulu.

Mr Chairman, I must apologize to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North for not following his reasoning, but he spoke about a matter in Natal which I cannot follow. In the course of my speech I shall come back to his remarks concerning resettlement.

*Just as the whole plan of the creation of homelands is intended to create order in the community to the benefit of everyone in this country, the resettlement of people, too, is not based on inhuman cruelties. I recognize that the resettlement of people, to whatever ethnic group they may belong, is a matter that can easily be blown up as an emotional issue. That is why the enemies of South Africa and the Government go to such lengths to exploit this as a means of propaganda. I want to make an appeal this evening to the people who are kicking up such a song and dance—as we heard again today—to take a realistic and practical look at our country’s problems as far as this sensitive matter is concerned.

In order to create space for the Black peoples and give them the privilege of independence, many White farms throughout our country had to be bought out. In my constituency, too, Whites had to make a sacrifice. This is not a sacrifice involving one cow, a pig or a few sheep, but one involving all their property. These are farms that have been in the hands of one family for up to seven generations which they have simply had to leave so that they could be incorporated in the Black states. Often bonds of friendship and family were broken, and even lifelong religious links could not be retained. In this process of sacrifice many farmers, in the past and even today, have for months had the experience of a sword of uncertainty hanging over their heads. At one stage they could not even consider drawing up a will, because they did not know what might happen the following day or month. I do not wish to elaborate at length this evening on the heavy financial losses suffered by some of these farmers with regard to State securities, but I am grateful to hear that negotiations are in progress with the Department of Finance about the extremely sensitive matter of State securities.

Then there is another fact that I should like to single out. In the process of consolidation the State has created many new border farmers. Not only has it required a great deal of adjustment from these people to adjust to their new neighbours; suddenly they have been the victims of trespass, theft and even assault. In many instances the loss of the good farm labourers they had before, as a result of intimidation and threats, has often been part of the sacrifice they have had to make. It has happened in my constituency that people who all of a sudden became border farmers in this process have been called in by their commercial bank managers and informed that their normal credit was being curtailed as a result. If we were to investigate all the sacrifices in detail we could write a long book about the human drama and tears involved.

My question now is: How much sympathy have these Whites received from the bodies and persons, and also the religious bodies, that are now coming forward as the great benefactors and foster parents of the Black people who have been removed? Who has ever, for one moment, concerned himself with how and where these uprooted White farmers are going to resettle? After all, the good farms they had to leave are not simply on the shelves waiting to be bought. There are several farmers who travel thousands of kilometres in their search for comparable land where they can re-establish themselves. Land prices are increasing almost hourly, and there are several farmers who can no longer purchase land for the money they received from the State for the farms they sold.

The patience of these farmers to whom I am now referring, is rapidly wearing thin. They contend that they have now complied with their side of the bargain and they demand of their MP’s and of the Government that the State and the Black people should now pay their part of the price as well. The resettlement of these Black people in the poorly situated areas is, after all, part of the independence agreement with the Black states. The Black people know it, and most of them are awaiting and looking forward to this because they know that because of the Government’s compassion, they will enjoy improved circumstances.

In the poorly situated areas the Black man will lose nothing for which he will not be fully compensated. The churches are being fully compensated for their property and can immediately proceed to build new facilities which, in the normal course of events, will be better than they had before. The same applies to schools and other similar facilities.

Before any resettlement takes place a proper infrastructure is created on the compensating land, in the sense that water is laid on, sanitary facilities provided, etc. Moreover, every home owner is provided with a temporary house until he can build a new house with the money he received for his house. In addition, school and clinic facilities are usually created in the new residential areas.

In cases where Black farmers are transferred to new areas, the department itself provides convenient corrals for their cattle. In the process of physical transfers every family is dealt with individually and is given every assistance. At the new residential area, food if provided for at least three days, and in deserving cases they receive provisions for longer than three days, at least until they have unpacked their furniture and luggage and are ready to look after themselves again.

An important fact in this regard that is overlooked by the Opposition is that the resettled people immediately become part of a Black state in which they enjoy full political rights as well as several other constitutional privileges.

This evening I should like to request the Department of Co-operation and Development, on behalf of my constituency, to see to it that this matter is expedited so that we can reach the end of this process as soon as possible.

Finally, I should like to raise a matter affecting my constituency and myself. I want to assure the ministry and the Committee this evening that I constantly have my finger on the pulse of consolidation in all its facets and do everything in my power to handle, in a responsible way, every issue affecting every population group. Therefore it is unnecessary for hon members of the Opposition to slip into my constituency, as they did in Worcester, for example, and conduct interviews with people who do not belong to the recognized organizations of the Black people.

†Mr Chairman, I think this action was most unethical and unparliamentary, and I must say that I take a very poor view of it.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Queenstown, and I should like to accompany the hon member on a visit to his constituency and point out a few things to him. For example, there is a major development for Black people very close to the border of the Black homelands in the hon member’s constituency, Queenstown. The hon member in front over there need not look so worried; I think he is a little uneasy. I must point out to the hon member that the Coloureds may not live in Acacia Park, but they are to come to sit with him in Parliament. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Virginia is always very uneasy when I speak, but I am specifically addressing him and the other Free State members, because the Free State no longer has members that represent it here and look after the interests of the Free State. [Interjections.] That hon member does not even want the Coloureds to walk on his porch.

In Die Volksblad of 1 March 1984 the following report appeared:

Later in the report the Kamer van Koophandel said:

It is, however, impossible ever to restore the credibility of the NP in this country. The public can no longer have confidence in the NP.

Either this evening or tomorrow I should like to give the hon the Minister the opportunity to clarify for this Committee the events surrounding Thaba Nchu. I do not wish to take sides at this stage but I request the hon the Minister to clarify this matter for us as well as those interested parties who discussed the affairs of their community with him. I should also like to hear whether the home-owners of Thaba Nchu are satisfied with the money that was promised them to compensate them for their properties. Apart from that I should like the hon the Minister to give us a clear exposition of the state of the business in Thaba Nchu. I should also like to hear whether those who are prepared to move are satisfied that the hon the Minister is looking after their interests, particularly the interests of the small businessmen who had to build up their businesses from scratch and now have to leave them and establish themselves elsewhere and try to make a living.

Then, too, I should like to know whether the hon the Minister is satisfied with the situation in which lessees in Thaba Nchu find themselves. These are people who rented houses in the previous dispensation, often at very reasonable rates. However, after the incorporation of Thaba Nchu they are now faced with the situation that the new owners of houses require considerably higher rentals than were previously paid by the lessees.

I also wish to make a friendly request to the Minister to look after, in particular, our senior citizens living in Thaba Nchu. Many of them went to settle there at a time when there was not as much prosperity and when they were already in the twilight of their lives. One of the considerations was quite probably that living conditions were far cheaper there, but it now seems to me as if many of the senior citizens are no longer able to move, or their rentals have been increased to such an extent that they are finding it extremely difficult to make a living. I should therefore appreciate it if the hon the Minister would give attention to these matters.

Liberalists throughout the world have adopted a very critical, negative and hostile attitude in regard to the so-called resettlement of people in South Africa. As far as the Black people are concerned the CP recognizes that there will be more removals of Black people in South Africa, and quite probably of White people as well. However, the removal of people is something that has taken place over the centuries, and here in South Africa we are faced with the situation in which we seek to establish borders among a diversity of peoples. However, the world, and particularly the leftists who are so critical of South Africa, never take a look at their own fatherlands and communities. The borders of Europe, and those of many other countries of the world, have been drawn by blood and war. Many of the most sanctimonious outside critics point a finger at South Africa but neglect to look at the history of their own countries. The CP is prepared to help the Government in its effort to create fatherlands for the various peoples and to establish borders. However, I think that we must adopt a far stronger standpoint and be far more critical about people abroad who seek to make matters difficult for us.

I now wish to put a question to the hon the Minister concerning the situation of Qwaqwa. I should like to hear whether the finalization of the borders of Qwaqwa has been disposed of and whether there is to be any further expansion of borders. The relationship between the Whites and the Black peoples in South Africa will improve a great deal, and we shall have a great deal more certainty, once the borders are finalized. I should also like to know whether the hon the Minister will be prepared to give independence to the leaders of Qwaqwa if they should request it.

The final questions I want to ask the hon the Minister concern the Black people in White areas. Leftists, as well as those who belong to the left wing of the NP, today place a greater emphasis on the Black people in White areas. Moreover, over the past few years my experience of the Government has been that when they do not have a standpoint to state to the public, they appoint a commission. Or, when the Government wants to prepare the public for a further shift to the left, they also appoint a commission. The majority of NP members then tell their voters: “No, do not ask me that question because it is a very difficult question and a commission or a Cabinet committee is investigating the matter”, as if that commission or Cabinet committee will come by the great wisdom needed to find a solution for the specific problem.

My experience of the NP is that the public, as well as the members of the NP, are being led by the Cabinet Committee along the path of acceptance of the Black people in White areas as a permanent institution. Due to the pressure from the left the so-called urbanized Black people will be alienated from those who live in the Black states, as the hon member for Innesdal said. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the end of a long day, and after a very interesting debate, I firstly want to thank hon members who participated in the debate for the high level of debate maintained here today. In fact, this has really been one of the best debates under this Vote that I could possibly have shared in, and for that I want to thank hon members very sincerely. I also want to thank all those hon members who participated in the debate for the high level maintained in the discussions.

I should like to respond to the questions the hon member for Rissik put to me. Firstly I want to tell the hon member, who alleges that the Free State no longer has any members in this House to look after its interests, that there is a terrible shock in store for him. As he himself knows, at one stage I was forced to hitch-hike to Frankfort, but I nevertheless got there.

How many young people were there?

Would the hon member for Heilbron reply to that question?

Mr Chairman, there were 75 members who were specifically invited. [Interjections.]

That was by invitation. Let me tell the hon member of my experience at Frankfort. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I sat listening to the hon member in complete silence. Why does he not do the same for me now?

I was not attacking you. [Interjections.]

It seems to me as if he is hurting even before one really gets going. What I saw with my own eyes, what I experienced at Frankfort, made a deep impression on me. The calibre of young people present there, the type of questions they put and the extent to which they were conversant with what was going on in politics, are all nails in the coffin for those hon members. The hon member for Heilbron also made a positive contribution there, and his dedication particularly impressed me. He was on the go as early as five o’clock that morning, and late that night I could still see how busy he was. So the hon member for Rissik’s statement is devoid of any underlying substance. If one looks at the Free State leader, the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare, and the way in which he looks after the Free State’s interests—he is certainly an asset—and if one takes the hon the Minister of Justice, certainly one of the best Ministers of Justice this country has ever furnished in my time, one sees that that hon member does not have the right to make such a statement, there being no truth at all in the statement that the Free State no longer has any members in the House to look after its interests. I am not worried about that, however, because I should like to pursue the debate on a different level. The hon member made a personal attack on me. That is something I am now beginning to grow accustomed to. I want to refer to the report in Die Volksblad that the hon member for Rissik quoted. I am not going to react to that, however, because my colleague, Deputy Minister Ben Wilkens, who is there and who does, in any event, deal with those matters, will furnish a reply. I think he is more objective than I am and will therefore duly be able to inform the hon member about that aspect. So for the moment I shall be leaving the hon member at that because it is on a lighter and more positive note that I want to come to matters that I really regard as being of great importance. Either Deputy Minister Ben Wilkens or I will, however, reply to the hon member’s questions in more detail tomorrow.

There is something I should like to tell the Committee because it is a matter of deep concern to me, and that is that I am convinced—I may, of course, be wrong—that one of the most important things to which we should devote our attention in this country is the creation of sound relations between the Blacks and the Whites and also between the various peoples. What one sows, one will reap. If one sows discord in one’s relations, one will reap the negative effects of that, perhaps not personally, in one’s own lifetime, but certainly as far as one’s descendants are concerned.

†We should therefore bear in mind that the maintenance of good relations between the various population groups is of vital importance. Indeed, it is more important in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. I often quote Arnold Toynbee because I have a very high admiration for him as an historian. Towards the end of his life, after he had scanned the whole world, he wrote:

Toynbee did not even say “might be” or “could be”; he was so sure of himself at that stage of 79 years that he wrote “is the fate of entire mankind”.

*In saying that, I am not referring to anyone specifically. I am merely saying it as one who comes from good farming stock and is a good South African. We in South Africa must not forget that. It is easy to speak of sound relations, but maintaining such relations makes the highest demands on one’s humanity. On that note I should now like to quote a letter here that means a great deal to me because it does, in a flash, open up a whole world, and I hope I can share in the experience with hon members. It is a short letter from one of my ex-teachers who taught me in Sub A, Sub B and Std 1. It reads as follows:

I received this letter about two weeks ago. [Interjections.] Hon members might well be surprised at the fact that there is anyone who is fond of me, but, confound it, it is the truth. That is not, however, the reason why I want to quote the letter. [Interjections.] It reads:

Hon members must please not laugh at what follows, because it is serious—

[Interjections.] It goes on to state:

Then she addresses my wife:

The world does not really change—

The word “dankbaar” is underlined—

Last Sunday this teacher of mine turned 96! [Interjections.] I have quoted this letter in order to open up a whole world of experience. She is a lady who realizes what loyalty means. One evening on television, a year ago, she said that Van Zyl Slabbert—the hon the Leader of the Opposition—was also a pupil of hers, adding: “Pietie (referring to me) was cleverer than Van Zyl Slabbert.” [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that sound relations are of cardinal importance. Let us never forget that. One cannot buy sound relations; nor can one even acquire them. Sound relations come from deep in one’s heart, are the product of an attitude, and one must ask for God’s grace to be able to promote sound relations from one day to the next. If one no longer pursues that goal, it often takes a very long time, in fact sometimes generations or a lifetime, to rectify the damage that can be done in a matter of minutes or in the course of a single day. That is something we should not forget either.

I know hon members on both sides of the House because I have, after all, been in Parliament for many years now, to tell the truth for 20 years, and in my heart of hearts I know that in this Committee there is more unanimity between us “than meets the eye”, as the English expression has it, and I am grateful for that. So on the eve of a new dispensation, which we all know is going to be based on consensus, there is one thing I want to advocate in the discussion of my Vote. Each and every hon member does, in fact, know that the new dispensation is going to bear the stamp of a consensus approach and not one of conflict. The majority of hon members have made contributions to this new dispensation, including hon members of the CP. We have all made contributions in an effort to move away from a conflict type of government towards a consensus model of government. And I believe that in future this will pay great dividends. If we would only take positive action when it comes to creating sound relations and reaching consensus, making the best of this opportunity, I cannot see why we cannot produce something great, in spite of there being certain differences. In fact, that there should be some differences is a good thing, because that is surely why a conflict model of government came into being in a homogeneous country such as Britain. In South Africa, however, it has been proved that in such a heterogeneous country we should pursue consensus. I therefore cannot see why we should not also, as it were, allow a new political spark to ignite in our hearts.

Compromise.

No, not compromise. Tomorrow I would very much like to reply fully to that aspect. If necessary we can disagree with one another, but we must all be imbued with that basic element of creating sound relations, because one thing is certain, and that is that that would pay great and wonderful dividends for each and every one of us. Tomorrow I should like to continue on a different note, for I want to discuss other important matters that are just as dear to my heart as the question I have just spoken about.