Mr Chairman, when the Committee adjourned last night, I had said that we are building up good relationships because I regard these as a cornerstone in combating our problems in South Africa effectively and providing our children with a good heritage. I do not want to take this point any further at this stage except to say that there is something that I should like to have on record. It deals with Mr Tshabalala, the mayor of Soweto. When I inducted him as mayor of Soweto some time ago, he told me the following story. During the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 his parents—this was before his birth—lived on a farm in the Free State in the vicinity of Vrede occupied by a Mr Lombard and his wife. During the war Mr Tshabalala’s father and mother took the three Lombard children, two boys and a girl, under their protection under very difficult circumstances, and they looked after those children for a long while in a cave under those circumstances and apparently saved their lives by so doing. They were particularly helpful to the children. After Mr Tshabalala’s birth, his parents told him what had happened when he was still a young boy. Later on, as a young man, he went to Johannesburg. He said that when he could not obtain work, there was nothing left for him to do but to return to the Lombard’s farm. At that time the eldest Lombard son, as is the practice, was farming the farm in that district. He was pleased to see Mr Tshabalala and Mr Tshabalala told him what his position was. Then this farmer, one of the two sons who together with their sister were treated so well by Mr Tshabalala’s father and mother during the war called his sister and brother and they discussed the matter. Eventually they gave Mr Tshabalala 48 head of cattle in order to enable him to see how he could get on in Johannesburg. He said that he trekked with the oxen from Vrede to Evaton. He also said how long it had taken him, and mentioned the pleasant memories that it had for him and so forth. He started a business with those oxen at Evaton. I do not know what Mr Tshabalala’s financial position is but at one stage he was listed somewhere as a millionaire.

Certainly not quite.

Yes, perhaps not quite. When he became mayor of Soweto, as one says in good English: “I robed him as the first mayor of Soweto.” That is a historical fact. There is a very nice background to this. For example, on that day he made a point about South Africa’s greatest enemy. He was talking off the cuff. He had a prepared speech delivered by the deputy mayor, Mr Dhlamini. He was adamant that he did not want to make his introductory speech as mayor in a small hall. He wanted to make it in Jabulani Centre before thousands of people. I spoke to him personally and he said that people had told him that he could not get the Minister along there because it would create problems. He said: “I am the mayor and I will take full responsibility.” When he told me that he would take full responsibility, I told him that it was a good thing because we had said that they would have to develop independently, and there it was. He did this and it was a great success. After I had robed him as mayor he also robed me. I like to tell this story because it is a good one. He robed me in a zebra skin which must really have cost him a great deal of money because it was a very fine skin. The black and white stripes are a symbol of good co-operation between White and Black. There were also thousands of Black children in Soweto on that day standing on both sides of the streets holding little flags of the Republic. That twinkle in their eyes...

Are you sure?

Of course. I do have eyes, you know.

But they are foreigners. What did they do with those flags?

Man, you must not try to be funny. We are discussing serious matters now. Those children’s eyes twinkle and sparkle when they see my nose and when they know that I am coming and am in the vicinity. Friendliness shines from those little eyes because they know I am their friend.

They know you smile a lot.

They appreciate it more than the hon member for Cape Town Gardens can. In discussing my Vote I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in this country with its multinational situation we must never forget that the simple things are always the finest and most important things. The simplest and the most important thing in this country, its foundation, is without the slightest doubt the creation and retention of good relationships. The wonderful story of Mr Tshabalala that covered generations, Bears witness to this. He was adamant that I should tell my sons about it that evening before I went to sleep so that it could be conveyed to my own generation thereafter. If this does not impress one as a historical fact, then I do not know what will make an impression. We must therefore build on good relationships as the foundation on which relationships among the population groups in South Africa must rest. I want to emphasize the fact that we are entering a new era of moving away from conflict politics in South Africa and moving towards consensus politics.

†I consider that to be one of the greatest privileges of my life.

Try that with us as well.

Yes, but you must try it with us, too, and we must try it with the CP and they must try it with us and we must also do it with the NRP.

*Lady and gentlemen, we must seek... [Interjections.] I really hope the hon member for Houghton is not going to make trouble today. [Interjections.] Since yesterday, we have been enjoying a very nice discussion. She will not. Fortunately, I know her well enough. She and I have been in politics for so long that we understand each other. If in this new era we seek more agreements—after I had finished speaking here last night I gave this matter a great deal of thought—we will find that human nature is such that we can rest assured that notwithstanding our search for consensus we are still going to differ very greatly on a hundred and one matters. Even though consensus is the aim, nobody need be afraid that we will agree on everything. That is not possible. However, we must reach consensus in regard to what is not right in certain spheres and then work from that. I want to make this point because we are going to be faced with challenges. This is also going to happen in respect of own affairs and general affairs of the Black people. This is a concept which we have not yet discussed well with one another across the floor. You know just as well as I do that there are also own affairs of the Black people, but in this country there are also general affairs in respect of the Black people. [Interjections.] No, it is very easy to say glibly that Black affairs are going to be a general affair. Fair enough. That is the decision and that is how it is going to be. It is going to be a general affair and it will be dealt with as such, but within that framework—the hon member for Lichtenburg who was Minister of Education and Training for a long time knows this as well—there are, as surely as I am speaking here, Black own affairs. Nobody can get away from that. Are you also not spurred on by and imbued with the exciting thought of the challenge that this contains?

I do not want to be funny, but I wondered whether those Lombards were liberals because they did what they did or...

They were PFP!

... whether they were Progs or whether they were bad farmers, bad Afrikaners.

On one occasion my father gave me a really good hiding. I only received one hiding from him, and that was the worst hiding that I have ever been given in my life. My father was not a man to hit one every day. He was 84 years old and he had five children. Do you know why he hit me? My father hit me because I came home from school one day and I was obstreperous—I do not know why—and I tried to be funny with “outa” Booi and “aia” Malat, and he had spoken to me about this before. He called me to one side and gave me a few good knocks. I have never forgotten that.

Was that a general affair then?

Yes, it was a general affair. Later on, I hung a little piece of wood there on which was written: Do not knock! The fact remains that one does not come to conclusions in regard to these matters so quickly. I should like to make an announcement.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask a question. In view of the fact that the hon the Minister has just said that this department is going to become a general affair in the new dispensation, how is the urban Black, the permanent inhabitant going to have a say or participate in joint decision making in that general department?

That is one of the matters that is being investigated by the special Cabinet Committee which is trying to work out the matter jointly with Black leaders, as has been done over the years. I shall have some more to say about this at a later stage, but I do not wish to be distracted from what I am saying now.

I should like to make an announcement in regard to the introduction of local authorities. Twenty-nine independent local authorities have already been established. As a second phase, 84 communities have been identified for consideration, and each of the community councils has in the meantime been provided with an organization and an establishment. The latter will serve as preparation with a view to the possible introduction of local authorities. The 84 communities cannot be investigated simultaneously, and the following have been identified in consultation with the Council of Chairmen and Chief Directors of the Development Boards and the Institute for Administrators of Community Affairs (IACA). There is Boichoko at Postmasburg. That is a fine example of what is being built, unobtrusively but of importance. There are also the following communities: Burgersdorp, Duduza at Nigel, Dukathole at Aliwal North, De Aar, Graaff-Reinet, Greytown, Hennenman, Huhudi at Vryburg, Itshokolela at Kokstad, Kutlwanong at Odendaalsrus, Khuma at Stilfontein, Langverwacht, Ladybrand, Meloding at Virginia, Mlungisi at Queenstown, Mohlakeng at Randfontein, Ntha at Lindley, Parys, Pabalello at Upington, Petsana at Reitz, Phiritona at Heilbron, Ziphunzana at East London, Sobantu at Pietermaritzburg, Sakhile at Standerton, Tsakane at Brakpan, eThandakukhanya at Piet Retief, Wesselton at Ermelo, Warmbad, Wepener, Zwelihle at Hermanus, 42nd Hill at Harrismith and Bultfontein. These investigations will begin on 2 April 1984, and some of them will be completed by 31 May 1984.

Hon members already know from previous discussions that judging is carried out according to a prescribed standard. Points are allocated, and on the basis of those points, they obtain full self-government. Hon members ask questions and it is necessary that questions be asked. Therefore, I am not opposed to that. I do not wish to go back too far, but I have personal experience of how the late Dr Verwoerd established advisory councils in this country as early as 1955. They caused a great deal of political upheaval at that time, and the late Dr Verwoerd had to endure a great deal of criticism as a result of the fact that he established advisory councils for Black locations, as they were known at the time, in this country. The process of advisory councils continued for more or less 20 years up to 1975. These then developed into community councils. The advisory councils had no authority, they were purely local government advisory councils. However, the process was in operation for 20 years. In 1975 the Community Councils Act was passed by Parliament in terms of which they received certain powers for the first time. They were minimum powers but they did receive some powers. Just imagine how pleasant it is for me to be able to tell you this morning in this fine place that the 29 councils that have been established are operating very well indeed. There are of course challenges, but they are working. I can announce this morning that there are 84 in the pipeline to receive this on merit, and the others out of the more or less 260, or however many there are in the country, are waiting further back in the pipeline to obtain it as well. To my mind these are the fine things about my country and people. Our nation is not an Ishmael nation whose hand is against everybody, with the jawbone and everything—I think you know that story. We do not wish to be an Ishmael nation. Let us also emphasize the fine things a little, and consider them, and then perhaps we can go far. So much then for that.

†I now come to the hon member for Berea. I want to thank him for the kind words which he spoke about me personally with regard to St Wendolin’s and in general. I appreciated the tone of his speech very much indeed and I thank him warmly for it. As I would also do with the Conservative Party because I really believe that it was a good debate that we had yesterday. We differed, of course. We differed, but we differed in a very fine spirit. I believe we have been building in the process.

As regards the future of the department, we are all clear on one issue and that is that the department must be rationalized. Why be derogatory when we are dealing with a good thing? It is not necessary. You are not scoring much of a point in doing that.

The question is what is the good thing?

The good thing is surely to rationalize. Do you agree? [Interjection.] By your very own submission you have made a nonsensical point.

When the Nationalist Party rationalizes it is a terrible thing.

Horace, just you wait a moment.

†Some of the questions raised by the hon member have already been dealt with and I will now deal only with a few of the more salient points by adding to some of the aspects which the hon member for Pretoria West and Chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development has already raised in respect of the rationalization of the department. There is not the slightest doubt that this department is going to be rationalized seriously because we are determined to rationalize it properly and we are doing it. We are, for instance, dealing with the Hoexter Commission. Let me deal with some of its recommendations now. In principle it has been accepted as the Hoexter Commission has recommended that there will be one judiciary system in South Africa. The principle has been accepted. If you now read, I have it here, what the hon the Minister of Justice said in the Other Place—it was a Cabinet decision—then you will know that the judiciary system is now going to be rationalized and that principle implemented in the closest collaboration with the Commission for Administration and with me and the Department of Co-operation and Development. That is the position. With regard to numerous other services and things with regard to the department, the department will be rationalized. We have the best co-operation from the Director-General and the officials in this regard.

*While we are rationalizing, we must also not lose sight of the fact that the image of the department with the public and particularly among the Black people is, contrary to general belief, surprisingly good according to research projects that I have seen. This is proved daily by the amity that exists during negotiations. I wanted to quote two letters to you as typical examples. You can ask my administrative secretary who said to me this morning: “Dr Koornhof, you must say these are examples if you do it”. I shall not do it now, but these are only examples of hundreds I receive showing true fellow feeling and goodwill. At the end of the discussion of the Vote, if the atmosphere is right, I shall read them to you because they are some of the nicest that I have ever received from anybody. Let us also emphasize those things now and again. I just want to quote two paragraphs from the letter:

And then he goes on. This is from one of the Chief Ministers of one of the states here in South Africa:

He concludes his letter with these words:

This is dated 4 January 1984. Would you want it any other way? Would you have wanted them to curse me or something like that? Would you have wanted that? After all, these are the nice things which we have to appreciate in the process. We must appreciate the virtue of this department and specifically under this Director-General who is a sensitive and sophisticated man, as I indicated yesterday, as well as the officials sitting here. They are people who really do this work with great devotion. We probably often fail, yes, but they try to do their work in a good spirit and in a way that must create the image of really good relationship. The officials in the department are devoted to their task, and the department itself is going from strength to strength. I think that important things must happen with this department: It must be well-rationalized. At the moment, the department is too large for one person to handle, I say that straightforwardly. There are possibilities of being able to do this in a sensible way. I am absolutely in favour of it. However, no matter what may be done with this department in the rationalization process, the department will continue to exist in one form or the other and it will continue to make a mighty contribution along the lines that I have tried to explain to you here.

What is going to become of the Minister? We are concerned about you.

On the following morning the cat was there again! They are trying now to exclude me from what I have been doing since the year dot. You have been trying to do it now for 20 years, you yourself.

For more than 20 years.

Longer. You started doing so when you were still a member of the SAP.

No, not at all. When you were still with Beyers Naudé.

I am sure I do not stand here as the epitome of one of your successes but rather as the epitome of your colossal failures. However, you try to exclude me, you try to exclude me in whatever way you can, but you are not being successful and I say that the following morning the cat was there again.

I have had problems with you since the days of your thesis.

Oh, leave it be.

This is a good atmosphere, Piet.

There was a time when you were such a nice chap that it just was not true! What good friends we were!

Do you remember? Yes, very well. You wanted to appoint me. [Interjections.]

My colleague here says that there was a stage when you were even decent, but I still have appreciation for the hon member. He will come right again. A person who is inherently good, comes right again.

As recently as 1 January 1984 the head office establishment was extended because of positive growth to two posts of Deputy Director-General by the creation of an additional post of Deputy Director-General. Two additional Chief Directors were also appointed. The fact that certain functions of the department were placed elsewhere as a result of rationalization in no way affects the image of the department or changes the task of the department to ensure the orderly presence of the Black people in the Republic and to lead the national states to full self-determination. Let me tell you again there is not the slightest doubt—and I want to say this to the hon member for Koedoespoort—that the general constitutional aim by decision of the Cabinet which was confirmed again in January of this year at a special Cabinet meeting lasting a day, is that while maintaining safety and stability and the promotion of the welfare of all, each one individually and in his group connection be given a say in the decision-making processes affecting his interests and expectations without the claim of any nation or group to determining its own way of life, survival and standards itself being affected. The hon member who was a member of the Cabinet, knows that if such a decision is taken, it is adhered to. In spite of what you and other gentlemen may say, this is the guideline that is being followed. I can quote further to you from those minutes to show that it is the highest priority of this Government in the first place to develop the national states. I will give you amazing figures just now to show just how much in earnest the Government is in this regard and just how much in earnest I personally am as far as this department is concerned. We have not deviated from the policy that these national states must develop and that they must be led the whole way as the late Dr Verwoerd always said. Kwandebele is an example in this regard. We do not force anything but we give guidance and we try to give effect to it. The department continues to be highly respected by the independent states, and there are at present in the independent states—those of you who so easily denigrate the department—347 seconded officials, at their request, to provide guidance and assistance. The statements of the hon member for Berea in regard to the function of the department that is being broken down, are moreover also not correct because the establishment of the development councils as well as the Black local authorities is after all an expansion of the functions of the department and not a curtailment thereof. No matter what may happen to the department in the rationalization process, those functions will have to continue.

†I hope I am as clear as I can possibly be on this question.

Will they not be autonomous?

What?

The community councils.

If you read the Act to which your party as well as the CP and NRP have made a tremendously valuable contribution, then you would know that the functions of the development boards have now for the first time been spelt out clearly and have been legalized. When these local councils become fully autonomous, the development boards move out. But there are other functions for the development boards spelt out clearly in the Bill. They will, for instance, be responsible for housing. If I were to start talking about housing and the tremendous housing shortages, you would know that is a massive task. They will have more to do than for which there are hours in the day. Apart from that they now also have the added function to act as an agent for any department in the country. That is a tremendous thing. They have only started on 1 April.

What will be the function of the department at that stage?

The department will carry on with its normal functions as far as the development boards are concerned. I put that Act through Parliament in 1971 and although these boards have a high degree of autonomy, in terms of the 1971 Act, they fall under the auspices of this department. If you now go and read the Act on local councils you will see that in the department you have a director of local government who more or less fulfills the role of administrator in the provinces because the Bill on local government is based almost fully on the Transvaal ordinance for White people. I just wanted to reply to the hon member and clear up some misunderstandings about the situation. I am not fighting with the hon member, I am just replying to his question.

As regards the Surplus People Project and removals—I must watch my time—this is a very important topic and I have had long reports from the department after they had the time and the opportunity to study that report as well the as the other one on reallocation. I had a good look into it myself. Here is the one report from the department, hon members can see how thick it is, and here is the other one. This is a preliminary one. I have not so far had the time to really discuss it with anybody in public. This subject is now brimming with so much potential on the one hand for good and potential on the other hand for bad. This Government and I will certainly opt for the good, of that I can now give hon members the assurance. The Prime Minister already gave, for those who have ears to hear, a clear indication to that effect when he spoke under his Vote. I cannot quote now what he said. Hon members should go and read what he said. That is a guideline which we will follow.

I have read it.

Perhaps you have read it, but read it again.

I have read it twice.

Then you know what I am talking is absolutely correct. The hon member for King William’s Town, made a valid point yesterday that of course there is a clear shift in emphasis in this country. There is not the slightest doubt about it. The hon member was absolutely correct. That is not what I want to talk about now. The fact of the matter is that, as far as the question of removals is concerned, I have given the assurance to the media about a month or five weeks ago that we are investigating the situation in depth and as soon as I am ready I shall have a Press conference where I shall speak my mind about it, with the necessary knowledge and background of the department. Then they can fire questions at me. I can now tell them that I am now ready for such a conference and it will be arranged if possible next week but surely in the next fortnight. The conference will be purely on removals. I shall much more in depth go into and reply to certain aspects of this Surplus People Project and other related aspects of removals. If I now do not reply fully to the question raised by the hon member, he must excuse me. I shall do it in the way I indicated, because that is just a more valid and better way of doing it. If one looks at certain general statements in that report then one finds that they were very biased, to put it mildly. According to the report they were evicted at gunpoint. I read another example: “Before they moved it seems they were promised equivalent land, but the great majority ended up with just a house or a plot, less land, fewer jobs, lower wages and poorer diets.” The report says it “seems”. Where is the scientific fact when it “seems”? That sort of general statement with no substantiation whatsoever is being sent into the world. According to the report the Department of Co-operation and Development have threatened that if the people do not sign, they would not get compensation. I can carry on with pages of that sort of glib statement which cuts neither here nor there except to say for any objective reason it is absolutely clear that this report is biased right from the word go. At the Press conference I will deal with it in more detail.

What about the figures of which the hon the Minister spoke?

I am coming to that. The hon member must just give me a chance. As will be noticed from the quotations, the report contains distortions of facts, one-sided and prejudiced interpretations of Government policy and so forth. The abridged report has been taken over basically just as it is from the main report. For all practical purposes one can deal with the two jointly. The report contains one-sided and prejudiced interpretations of Government policy, half-truths, untruths, unfounded accusations and obvious stirring up of feelings. In the excerpt from the main report there are pages of data to indicate how wrong they are, and also in the complete report which I shall deal with at the Press Conference. No mention at all is made of the absolutely voluntary move of more than 150 000 Ndebeles who because of a deep national awareness move to Kwandebele without any assistance. There is nothing about a similar movement to Kangwane. Nothing is said of the unbelievable voluntary movement of people to Botshabelo in the Free State. I do not want to elaborate on this now. As far as this aspect is concerned, I just want to content myself by saying that I learnt nothing from the people, who framed the report, about the happy family and community life of the Black people who have already been settled. One hears nothing about this in the report. I need only mention Soshonguve, Mahwelering, Seshego, Botshabelo, Itsoseng, Mdantsane, Umlazi and many other towns and cities which I shall deal with just now when I reply to the hon member for Kuruman.

†The Surplus People’s Project and the publication as well as the booklet Relocations create the impression that the authors have gone out of their way to paint a totally negative picture and in the process they avail themselves of innuendo, unconfirmed quotations from individuals who are in the minority, so-called estimated figures which have no sound base and biased reports on anything that the Government does or provides for the Black people. My conviction that these publications were compiled with ulterior motives is confirmed by the fact that the so-called background questionnaire for communities under threat of removal and I now quote from appendix 3 to volume 1:

*Good heavens! Who believes in rumours? This is the report that is sent into the world as an authentic document on South Africa.

†The unscientific approach adopted by the authors is aggravated by the admission in the general preface to this SPP report that—and I quote:

*The person who wrote this, was at least honest. How can a person allow a publication of five volumes to appear but in the foreword tell the world: Listen here, in advance, we cannot claim that this thing is uniformly reliable. I praise them for their honesty. These are honest people, for sure!

†And that is by their own recognitions in the sixth paragraph of page 20. I praise them for their honesty. What an indictment on the authors to make against themselves. Who can believe them? My goodness! But that is not all. On page 11 of volume 1—for these hon members who believe this thing so easily and pester us that we do not study the thing—the authors again admit that:

Do hon members blame me if I have grave doubts as to the authenticity, credibility and veracity of any of these accusations, averments and so-called facts contained in the five volumes concerned or in the booklet Relocations?

We all know that.

That does not change anything. I am not trying to run them down unduly; I am replying to a question of an hon member. The Committee has heard what the hon member said. It was not necessary for me to add those few words. It does not alter two hoots to what I said.

The hon Minister talked about detailed field-work.

I am replying to the question of the hon member for Berea. If I look at individual cases I can quote numerous ones from the SPP report and Relocations. That I will do at the Press conference. In volume 2, page 76, of the SPP report in regard to the transfer of residents of Alsatia in the Cathcart district, it is said that:

That is the Government Garage trucks:

This is an infamous untruth. The fact of the matter is that several meetings were held with the landowners as well as the people residing on the land and the date of their departure was mutually agreed upon. With Kwapitela it was the same. I can quote more blatant untruths, but I do not want to take up too much time on this. We must try to arrive at something sound about these removals. My colleague, the Deputy Minister for Development and Land Affairs made a good contribution yesterday. We are really giving serious attention to this question. We realize that it harms us very badly internationally. I do not get any pleasure from moving anybody. My officials tell me exactly the same. What pleasure would they get out of moving people against their wishes and against their wills? We do not want to do it unnecessarily.

You are masochists.

Nonsense!

*I have already said that I do not know how I have sinned in having to bear such a cross of removals on my shoulders. I do not find it pleasant. If I were to give hon members a list of the places I have as it were saved in South Africa, they would see what I mean. I asked my officials to tabulate it for me. It is a list of a large number in the 20 that I can mention such as as: Matoks, Fingo Village, St Wendolins, Alexandra, and so forth. There are more than 20 places where many thousands of Black people have not been removed because of my intervention. However, the hon members of the CP take me to task because they say that I no longer want to rule in South Africa. The hon member says that I am undermining the policy. Why? It is because I try to act in a humane way and help where I can to ensure that people are not faced with unnecessary problems. I made changes. Ask the members of the department present here. I made changes so that nobody can be moved unless certain basic requirements have been complied with. That is how I try to do it. Let us place this matter on a permanent basis and let us at least also try to obtain consensus in regard to this matter. Let us also put behind us what I consider to be an unpleasantness in our community in a way that is acceptable to all of us.

Can the hon the Minister give us an indication what the department’s figures are as to the number of people who have been removed from 1960 to 1982 as opposed to the figures of the SPP report which he is criticizing?

I have already given a figure which is available to the hon member. I requested it from the department and I have no reason whatsoever to deviate from that at present. It is quite clear that the figure of 3 million plus, which they claim, is in terms of our submission completely out of context.

What is the figure the hon the Minister gave?

I want to be absolutely 100% sure that I cannot be attacked for giving wrong information. I will deal with that aspect of the figures fully later, because there one has to deal with definitions. Are we agreed on what they consider as a removal in this sense or that sense? It is not all that easy just to give a glib reply. Therefore, the figure I gave, which I have no reason to deviate from, is infinitely less than the figure they quote. I cannot remember the figure I quoted at the moment. I shall mention it just now, but it will bring us neither here nor there at this point in time.

*I come now to another aspect and that is the consolidation process. Let me say very clearly in connection with consolidation that the position is that we have made unbelievable progress with consolidation in the RSA. When one looks at the true facts of consolidation one sees that we have reached a point where in respect of the national states with the exception of kwaZulu, we have almost completed the 1975 proposals, therefore, the 1936 proposals. It has been completed but for 80 000 ha. It will cost about R70 million to purchase those 80 000 ha. Once this has taken place, we will have fulfilled the 1936 promise. This is a promise that has endured since 1936, namely to purchase 7¼ million morgen of land. That is a tremendous achievement. Over the past two years we have purchased more than 0,5 million hectares of land in connection with consolidation. That is an almost unbelievable achievement. Over the past two years something like 500 000 ha have been added to the independent Black states. The exact figure is 470 000. To this must be added 270 000 ha that are incorporated in the areas of jurisdiction of the national states. I should like to give the figures of the consolidation process and at the same time reply to the question of the hon member for Lichtenburg. This hon member has a good knowledge of these matters. He dealt with them for a long time. He will know that the draft of the statement on consolidation at the time was drawn up by himself and myself and two officials in my office. The hon member should look at point number 6 to see that he together with me and the Government undertook to purchase land over and above the quota in the 1936 Trust and Land Act in order to bring the policy of the freedom of nations to fruition. In Transkei, about 41 000 ha have still to be purchased, in Bophuthatswana, about 46 000 ha; in Venda, 4 000 ha; in Ciskei, 78 000 ha; in kwaNdebele, 164 000 ha; in Gazankulu, 13 000 ha; in Qwaqwa, 96 000 ha; in Kang-wane, 25 000 ha; and in Lebowa, 8 000 ha. When one adds these figures together, one sees that consolidation has practically been completed; that is, with the exception of kwaZulu. That is a great achievement. Over the past 14 days we have had exhaustive Cabinet discussions in regard to the undertaking given by the hon the Prime Minister that as far as the purchase of land is concerned, consolidation must be completed within four years. We are keeping to that undertaking. I can confirm again today that it is the intention of the Government to keep to that undertaking. We must understand that it will require certain sacrifices. The whole country must understand that. We want to dispose of this matter and we are going to do so. Quite recently I had discussions with the Agricultural Union, and the members of the Agricultural Union were amazed when I gave them facts in regard to how we had progressed in connection with consolidation. I want to draw your attention to kwaZulu. Only 80 000 ha still have to be purchased in order to complete the 1936 proposals. Then the hon member still says that we are doing nothing. He says I am doing nothing. History will tell a different story. With the exception of certain farms in Kang-wane the rest of the 1975 proposals in respect of land still to be purchased only affect kwaZulu. After the matter had been discussed by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister had announced it in the discussion of his Vote, the Government issued an instruction that we should dispose of consolidation as a matter of urgency. The 1975 proposals of 1936 must therefore be implemented urgently. We are going to do this.

I want in all earnestness to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees that consolidation has two aspects. The first is the purchase of land—we said that the Government had made good progress in this regard—and the other aspect is the excision of the poorly situated areas in regard to which no satisfactory progress has been made at all. That was what I was talking about with the Minister. The hon the Minister will agree with me that the positive development of the Black states is largely being frustrated in that these areas are not being placed where they should be placed and development cannot take place.

That is an important question and I want to reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg in that regard. These two aspects, namely the disposal of consolidation and removals, are most closely associated with one another. That is why I am still replying to the question of the hon member for Berea. At the same time I want to reply to the question of the hon member for Lichtenburg. Because of the advanced stage reached in the disposal of consolidation, it accordingly reduces the possibility and potential for removals. I can mention many examples from the reports of the commission which appeared at a later stage. There are many places where the commission recommended that people who previously were to be removed so that the Blacks would make way for the Whites, would now no longer have to be removed. Last year we moved 647 families. The SPP report makes terrible allegations of a million people who still have to be removed, but viewed against the background of the swift progress that is being made with consolidation, we are finding other solutions in the process to enable us, as far as possible, to avoid unnecessary removals.

It does not look like it to me.

The hon member must not be unfair. It is not fair to deduce from what I am saying here now that we simply throw our hands in the air...

That is so. That is my conclusion.

That is absolutely unfair. Let us discuss this matter soberly like adults. I want to deal with this point in greater detail when I discuss this matter with the Press and have more time at my disposal and am in a better position to give more details in this regard. All that I want to say at this stage is that if the hon member for Lichtenburg concludes firstly that we have changed our point of view of trying to bring people who belong together together in a sensible way, he is not correct. The hon the Prime Minister stated expressly in his statement what we must do: That where we can avoid removals, we must do so. The hon member cannot dispute that. Where we can do this in a developmental way, we must do it. We must effectively counter the unwarranted assault that is being made upon South Africa in this way. Can the hon member tell me what is wrong with that?

I hope the hon the Minister will produce proof at his Press conference. He has not yet done so.

I shall try to, to the best of my ability.

Does the hon the Minister not consider it to be an extremely unacceptable state of affairs that he has stated repeatedly during this debate this morning that he cannot deal with matters in detail here but that he will in fact do so at a Press conference? It is here that it should be done and not at a Press conference.

All I said was that to save time I had in mind apart from the detailed discussion which we are having here now, also to discuss these matters more comprehensively at the Press conference. I can discuss them more comprehensively here. Hon members are very welcome to ask further questions. All I can do at the Press conference is to give more examples and supply more figures. I have very much more time at my disposal there. I can set a whole morning aside for it. I am just trying to be fair to the Committee.

The hon the Minister has said that it will take four years to complete the purchases for consolidation. We are grateful to him for that. Can we accept that the land that is to become White land in the consolidation process will be given back to the Whites within four years?

We are doing that as far as we can. We did it in the case of Dendron. We did it as swiftly as possible there. I do not wish to give a blanket undertaking here should other cases arise because I do not have all the facts before me. What I can however say is that it is our intention within the financial ability of the Government to consider this as a matter of priority from the nature of things and to dispose of it as soon as it is possible to do so.

When the hon the Minister gives an undertaking that the consolidation process will be completed within four years, is it not also possible to give an undertaking that the process of the White occupation of land will also be completed within four years?

As far as it is within the ability of the department to do so we shall try to complete it as soon as possible. I cannot say more at this stage.

The hon the Minister mentioned the case of Dendron. Is it not so that the whole area that had to become White did not become White in the end?

There are the 30 000 ha within the Vivo/Dendron area. We are working on its reoccupation by Whites. You know that.

Will the hon the Minister and his department look again at the poorly situated areas or the Black spots, as we have known them, bearing in mind the fact that many of these areas are well situated economically? There are established communities there and with a little development they can serve a good purpose in making work and opportunities available to the people who have been living there now for generations.

I have already said that as far as consolidation is concerned we have made good progress with the exception of kwaZulu. I want now to reply to the question of the hon member for Mooi River. We have the problem that because of the Ingwavuma matter we have been compelled as long as the matter has been sub judice to proceed with consolidation in an unsatisfactory way. I discussed this in detail with the Agricultural Union. They are well aware of the facts. About a month ago the Commission for Co-operation and Development was instructed to work out two scenarios in respect of kwaZulu so that we could remain within the framework of the four years up to 1 April 1987 in respect of kwaZulu as well. We have therefore to give our full attention to kwaZulu and Natal now in this connection.

Can I assume that there is a link between the Rumpff Commission investigation that has taken place in the Ingwavuma area and the final consolidation proposals for Natal?

We have taken it up with the chairman of the Rumpff Commission. We have to be careful not to effect consolidation while the Rumpff Commission is still doing its investigation. Our advice was to stall the process until we get more clarity from the Rumpff Commission. Now that the Rumpff Commission takes longer time...

When is the Rumpff Report expected?

I am answering in a very candid way on these fundamental questions. To those people it is very important what they ask. I know how important consolidation is in Natal. I suffer with those farmers. That is why the Cabinet now instructed the commission to come up with two scenarios. We are trying everything in our endeavour in the light of the Cabinet decision on the consolidation processes to have everything completed by 1 April 1987. That is in a four year period. It is a tremendous challenge and Natal is obviously included in the process. We give every attention possible to it.

When does the hon the Minister expect the Rumpff Report?

It is not possible to say that at this stage. I replied to that pursuant to a question of the hon member for Berea a couple of days ago. I do not want the Committee to feel that I am trying to stall this debate on this very fundamental question of forced removals. Therefore, if there are any other questions from hon members, I am willing to reply to them.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? The hon member for Berea specifically referred to Reserve 4 at Richards Bay. Will the hon the Minister make a statement on the matter he raised?

That is the one point to which I still have to reply. In fact, I have my notes in respect of that point in my hand.

*The position in regard to Reserve No 4 at Richards Bay is that the Commission for Cooperation and Development is already drawing up a further report in connection with the consolidation of kwaZulu so that the Government can decide finally on the areas in Natal from which the people have to be removed. The hon member for Umfolozi expects me to discuss Reserve No 4 in this debate. I want to emphasize the fact that that hon member has discussed Reserve No 4 repeatedly with me. We have had wide ranging discussions in which other persons and bodies also participated. The hon member for Umfolozi is very concerned about Reserve No 4, and in my humble opinion he as the local MP is handling the matter very capably. As far as Reserve No 4 is concerned we are therefore also trying—this is also at the request of the hon member for Umfolozi—to bring about clarity as soon as possible. I hope that I have now replied to all the questions of the hon member for Berea.

I come now to the speech of the hon member for Pretoria West. I want to thank that hon member for his contribution in this debate and also for his friendly words to me. At the same time I want to thank him on behalf of the Government for the excellent work that he is doing as chairman of the Commission for Co-operation. I know what a sacrifice this task demands from him and the other members of the commission. That is why I really want to make use of this opportunity to pay warm tribute to him and the whole commission for the great task that they are performing. Consolidation would not have progressed as far as I was able to indicate this morning had it not been for the commission. Hon members must understand that very well. We have something here that is becoming a success story if ever there was one.

Because the hon member for Pretoria West is here, I want to mention a further example of building work.

†I want to refer to the national state of Gazankulu. I feel the approach adopted in respect of the relief programme in Gazankulu, namely to create jobs, is an excellent approach because the creation of jobs is one of the most fundamental things that have to be done. We will always have to be creating jobs in this country. I can think of very few things that are more important than the creation of jobs. Something else which is very important is, of course, the creation of housing. The third thing which is to my mind fundamental is the devolution of powers to local councils and regional councils in this country. These three things I consider to be vitally important.

*That is why I want now to refer to the creation of work opportunities as a symbol of building work. This is going to determine whether our children—this also includes the Black children—are going to have a happy future in this country. What is important is not the talking that we do here, although that is also necessary, but in fact that building work that we are doing. This will determine whether there will be peace for our children in this country.

†Gazankulu received a total of R3,5 million in drought relief. We have earmarked R20 million for such relief in the national states in the 1983-84 budget. As I have just mentioned, Gazankulu received R3,5 million in drought aid in the 1983-84 financial year. This amount was augmented from other sources such as donators and aid generation to a total of R4,6 million. Of this total R400 000 was generated in revolving funds through the purchase and resale or manufacturing of items such as bricks of which a total of in excess of 1,5 million was manufactured by hand at community level in the course of this drought relief programme. This was done in a matter of months. The main thrust of the programme in Gazankulu has been the role played by the tribes and communities in identifying specific needs and actions to meet those needs. 156 projects throughout Gazankulu testify to the involvement of tribal and community leadership in the identification of suitable projects in this area. At its peak the Gazankulu drought relief programme employed no less than 9 000 people. Bearing in mind that the programme was so structured as to ensure an allocation to each and every tribal area and community in Gazankulu commensurate with the impact of the drought in that area, through the successful implementation of their programme Gazankulu has succeeded in large measure to achieve the objective which it set for itself at the inception of its programme, namely to provide as many productive job opportunities as possible, to maintain development momentum by ploughing in funds in such a way as to contribute to tangible and lasting development at community level, to contribute as far as possible to satisfying basic needs as identified by the people at tribal and community level and to provide the potential of self-help in the communities.

I wish I had time to deal more fully with this example. However, the fact of the matter is that thousands of jobs have been created right across the country through the drought relief programme as well as the programme that was launched towards the end of last year with the specific aim of the creation of jobs in our national states. As far as this is concerned I hope I have also replied to the hon member for Kuruman.

*The hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs dealt with the hon member for Lichtenburg in a very nice way and reminded him that he was co-author of this consolidation matter, and our undertaking to purchase land over and above the provisions of the Trust and Land Act of 1936. The undertaking reads, inter alia, as follows:

That is really a completely different story.

The hon member for Lichtenburg bound himself to it.

To have it investigated.

Very well. That investigation has now been made. The hon member for Lichtenburg made certain allegations yesterday in regard to which we really owe the hon member a reply. The hon member made a dreadful faux pas when he spoke about 363 000 plans.

It was a little mistake.

Yes, very well. It is good of the hon member to make that straightforward admission.

I have dealt now with the consolidation process with the hon member as clearly as possible. I hope therefore that I have replied to the hon member by providing him with the facts. The hon member made many personal remarks about me and also blamed me for certain things. That is really not necessary. Among other things he said that I was subverting Government policy and all the rest of it. I am not a subverter, I am a builder, but while I am building, those hon members are stealing the bricks. They are carrying away the bricks with which I have to build.

You are building up the PFP’s policy beautifully.

Oh, no, go and jump in the lake. Until yesterday those hon CP members were building with us.

You are a master builder of PFP policy.

Only yesterday I proved the opposite. I said that we must seek consensus. Now the hon member for Lichtenburg says that I am destroying the foundations. I really thought that the hon member could have made a better speech than the one he made in the discussion of my Vote. The hon member must be a Rip Van Winkle because was he not in the Assembly the other day when details were given in regard to the number of applications that had been made to the Decentralization Board from 1 April 1982 to the most recent date for which figures were available to implement the deconcentration and decentralization policy? However, now you say that I am subverting the policy.

That is not all that you were doing.

Those figures are almost unbelievable. From 1 April 1982 to 1 March 1983 there were 861 applications of which 55 had been made by foreign companies. From 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983 there were 1 028 applications. Of the applications that were received during the period 1 April 1982 to 30 March 1983, 777 were approved and 816 of the applications received during the period 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983 were approved. During the first period only 55 did not comply with the requirements while 88 did not comply with the requirements during the second period. The amount involved in the first period was R2 459,8 million. During the second period an amount of R864,4 million was involved. How many job opportunities were created? In the first period 65 342 job opportunities were created. This is apart from the job opportunities that were created with the assistance of the drought assistance scheme and the other schemes that I mentioned. When the hon member talks about subversion then I say with all due respect that he must have his head examined. During the period 1 March 1983 to 31 December 1983 50 694 job opportunities were created. Information was also given in regard to the total value of the applications involving foreign applicants. I want to repeat that information. During the first period the amount was R142,8 million and in the second period it was R69,8 million. Hon members must remember that these figures which were supplied by the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism in the Assembly do not include applications for the establishment of industries in the independent national states because they are dealt with as autonomous states. The hon member can continue to play politics but it really is not necessary for him to make this sort of allegation, because we regard it as an absolute priority to try to canalize the urbanization process in such a way that deconcentrated and decentralized areas come into being. Here we have living evidence of it.

In the Vaal Triangle?

I can assure the hon member that that is also receiving the necessary attention.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also asked a third question, and I am going to reply to it now. I work well with the hon member.

That is as well because I am going to ask you a further good question.

No matter, I will reply to that question as well. He knows that I always reply to him.

The hon member made a great fuss about the research programme in regard to race relationships. We made inquiries from Dr Garbers of the HSRC and ascertained that it was the HSRC’s own project which it had initiated itself and paid for out of its own funds. It had nothing to do with the Department of Co-operation and Development, it had nothing to do with the Government; the HSRC decided upon it itself. I do hope that the hon member is not going to peddle that story in Potties of wherever it is he wishes to peddle it.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not prefer to reply in regard to those matters about which I criticized him rather than the matters in regard to which I agreed with him.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I have replied to the hon member in regard to those matters about which he criticized me, and in the course of the debate I am going to give him further replies. I replied to him in regard to the development in the national states. I replied to him in regard to the urbanization strategy and I shall come back to that again. To the best of my knowledge I replied to the hon member in respect of all the matters about which he questioned me. I also asked the hon member by way of interjection whether he had forgotten that one of the important things which he also had to deal with was the development of Ekangala with a view to kwaNdebele and the development that was to accompany it.

But I did not criticize it.

Well then I do not understand what your source of criticism is.

I note with great appreciation what the hon member for Vryheid had to say in regard to the distribution of liquor in the Black areas. This matter has already provoked a great deal of comment, and the Cabinet has laid down certain guidelines in regard to the phasing out of this liquor trade. The phasing out process is already in operation, but in the process a considerable number of problems have arisen in respect of which I shall have to deal with the inputs of various persons and bodies including the development councils and the Black local authorities. There are problems in connection with this matter and we are trying to deal with them to the best of our ability.

†The hon member for King William’s Town made two very important points with regard to the Western Cape situation. I can assure him that I take cognizance of these two points. I want to thank him warmly for his contribution which was a very valuable contribution. One has come to expect valuable contributions from that hon member. I also appreciate very much his remarks with regard to the finances and the manpower of the department.

*I can also tell him that we will certainly take to heart the suggestions he made in connection with the annual report.

The hon member for Klip River made an extremely important contribution to this debate.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also made a very valid contribution when he said that for the first time now we are getting off the ground with a proper debate as far as this question of the Tugela Basin is concerned. I sincerely hope that this debate will make some contribution as far as that is concerned.

*If that happens, we must thank the hon member for Klip River.

The protection of the catchment area of the Tugela is already receiving the serious attention of the Government. The Department of Agriculture was requested by the Government to draw up a factual report as a matter of urgency, and this was completed at the end of last year. Unfortunately the available facts were not adequate and therefore in the comparatively short period available to it the Department of Agriculture was only able to make a reconnaissance study. The Department of Co-operation and Development is presently elaborating on this by the collection of additional facts in co-operation with the Commission for Urban and Regional Planning of the Natal Provincial Administration. The investigation is showing considerable progress and development plans can be drawn up within a foreseeable period. This committee can discuss few matters that are more important than the Tugela basin. I could keep hon members occupied for a long while in discussing the potential of the Tugela basin. They should read the excellent report to which the hon member referred. I was in Ladysmith again last week and I was grateful to be able to see the progress and development there. If we do not find effective answers to the problem in the Tugela basin to which my colleague as well as hon members on this side of the Committee have referred, further development can be seriously affected. The plans for this area will have to be development oriented so as to make them acceptable to all parties as far as possible. As soon as the plans are available they will be discussed with the Government of kwaZulu to ensure that their full cooperation in respect of this matter will also be obtained. I have already discussed it once with the kwaZulu Government, and I expect to receive their assistance and co-operation provided we act fairly in the process. I must also emphasize that considerable conservation work was done previously on a portion of the Upper Tugela area. However, the hon member hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem is actually that the area is over-populated. I have a Cabinet memorandum here on the Tugela basin which I intend to place before the Cabinet on Tuesday week as a report back in regard to discussions that have been going on in the Cabinet since last year. This is an exceptionally difficult problem. If one does not succeed in obtaining the co-operation of Black and White, we are not going to have any success as far as this matter is concerned. I am very grateful for the proof produced by the hon member that there is co-operation on the part of certain tribes. We are also receiving good co-operation from certain tribes there but up to the present we have not received the co-operation of certain other tribes.

The last point I want to make in regard to this important matter is that I personally am very much in favour of the hon member’s idea that we should see whether this is not a matter in respect of which we should ask the President’s Council whether it does not wish to make certain inputs if we think that further inquiries should be made.

The whole Tugela basin.

I know. I am also talking about the whole of the Tugela basin. I am not merely talking about a portion of it. I know that that hon member is also not only speaking about a portion of it.

In my opinion we have had a wonderful example here today of a good debate among all the parties in this Committee on a matter which is of great importance to the Republic of South Africa. This is building work as one would like to see it. My colleague replied in detail to the contribution of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, and I do not therefore want to say much about the matter he raised. I would however just like to say this to the hon member. I want to re-emphasize the fact that the Government has decided in respect of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu that employers who are irrevocably bound contractually or physically to providing housing for employees, will be permitted to complete housing projects at Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu on condition that there is evidence that the contract and construction work was started prior to the Cabinet decision of 15 March 1983 in respect of the restriction of further density. Secondly, that in terms of the housing improvement advice programme of the Urban Foundation, additions are made to houses on a selective basis in the existing townships in order to make them more habitable for the families living there. Every point that I am mentioning here is positive. Thirdly, that a community hall, library, clinic, post office and trading facilities will be provided at Cross Roads. Fourthly, that accommodation will be provided on a group basis for pre-school-going children in Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu. Fifthly, that pre-school accommodation will also be provided at New Cross Roads. The resource centre for education at Guguletu will also be proceeded with, the Uluntu utility company’s project at Mlunga Park will be completed, but that the other projects will be transferred to Khayelitsha. There must also be proven evidence in this regard that the projects were started prior to 15 March 1983. It has also been decided that the crêche at New Cross Roads will be provided by the Cross Roads Creche Committee, and that the erection of coolrooms and a workshop by Langunja undertakers at Nyanga will be proceeded with. I want to add here that the erection of an old-age home in Guguletu can be proceeded with on condition that there is also proven evidence that it was started prior to 15 March 1983. This is an important matter for my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Cooperation. I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Opposition is also here now because I want now to make an earnest appeal to hon members.

†There cannot be the slightest doubt that I went out of my way yesterday to show to members of Parliament who are interested in these matters all the plans for Khayelitsha. They are no doubt good plans. They are designed to resolve a human problem, a problem which cries out for solution. Nobody in this House will disagree. If there are hon members who have not seen these plans they can come to me and I will show them the plans. In the light of what I have now announced, can we not stop this negative approach with regard to Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu? Hon members can go and read the hon the Prime Minister’s reply. I have read his reply. I could not be there on the Friday when he gave his reply, but I was there on the Thursday. When hon members read the hon the Prime Minister’s reply they will see that it is certainly also his wish that this matter should now be approached in a positive way. From the side of the Government we will honestly try to dispose of these problems in the best possible way. Please, let us see the positive side and let us reach consensus on this matter. If there are further negative sides to the matter, let us establish some rapport and see whether we cannot thrash the problems out so that this matter can come to rest and so that we can carry on building something positive in the interests not only of the Western Cape but also in the interests of the whole country. Why can we not get some consensus in this regard? I really beseech hon members to assist me in this matter.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? I want to refer to two aspects of what the hon the Minister has just told us. Firstly, in terms of the projections his department has, when Khayelitsha has a population of 250 000 in the year 2000, is it not correct that there will be more than 340 000 Blacks in the Western Cape or does his department not have projections in this regard? If that is so, how can they possibly do decent planning? Secondly, the essential point to which the hon the Prime Minister also did not reply is whether the people in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, when the crunch comes, will be made to move whether they want to or not? That is the critical question.

Mr Chairman, it was made clear in the hon the Prime Minister’s statement—the hon member can go and read it again—that there would be no force as far as anything of this kind was concerned with regard to Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu. What does the hon member want more? I can only refer him to what the hon the Prime Minister said. Must I now go and delve for that statement and then read it to the hon member? Surely, he is grown-up enough to do it himself. I read it this morning again and I am absolutely sure that I am correct. The hon member must go and read it. If the hon the Prime Minister has stated that, why carry on in this fashion? I object to this behaviour.

Will they not have to move if they do not want to?

The hon the Prime Minister has indicated that whatever is done in future years as far as this problem is concerned he would like it to be done on a voluntary basis and through a development process. This is what I am also pleading for.

The NP will not move them.

Just listen to that.

†As far as the planning is concerned, we are in the hands of good planners. We have got the best planners at our disposal with regard to Khayelitsha. The fact of the matter is that the decision of the Government is that we must look into the question of maximum densities on the available land. As far as that is concerned, the hon the Prime Minister has also made definite statements in Parliament. I cannot speak with any authority on what the position will be in the year 2000. According to the planning we are on a sound base as far as Khayelitsha is concerned. I cannot say anything further as far as that is concerned. Within the framework of maximum densities and within the framework of the planning of Khayelitsha which that hon member could have studied yesterday but did not because he ran away...

No, I did attend the whole previous meeting.

I accept that. However, the plans are there for hon members to study.

The last question the hon member put to me was with regard to the paying out of pensions. I wish to confirm that the department is investigating the feasibility of paying out pensions monthly, keeping in mind that the department like other State departments is sometimes experiencing difficulties in obtaining sufficient staff for such an enormous task.

*I want to thank my colleagues, the two Deputy Ministers, very much indeed not only for their very fine contributions in this debate but also for the gigantic task that they are performing so well at great sacrifice to themselves.

I want very much to thank the hon member for Turffontein for his very much important and positive contribution. I should like to tell him something more about urbanization strategy but I do not have the time to do so now and I shall come back to this matter later this afternoon. Because I appreciate what he said, it will also give me great pleasure to give the hon member certain basic information in regard to the electrification of Soweto and housing projects in Soweto. I think he deserves it. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton must just be patient. She will have enough time to have her say.

I am not at all anxious. You can carry on until three o’clock if you wish.

The hon member for Kuruman knows very well what the policy of the Government is in respect of the 99 year leasehold system here in the Western Cape. I need not therefore say anything further in that connection at this stage.

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

No, I really must finish now. The hon member can put his question to me later. I do not wish to be unfair to him but I do have a problem with the time available to me.

The hon member for Kuruman says that if I were to come along here with an announcement in connection with the development of towns and cities in the national States...

Then we would support you.

Then the hon member would support me. The hon member must also be something of a Rip Van Winkle because the contribution by the South African Development Trust to township development which includes the provision of infrastructure like roads, water, electricity and school and community facilities, amounted to R29 million in 1979. That amount has now risen to R56 million in the one financial year. From 1979 up to the present an amount of R210 800 000 has been spent in this regard.

That is not much in comparison with Khayelitsha.

Khayelitsha does not make up half of that, in any case, not at this stage. Neither is that the end of the story. One can go and look at Ezabeleni, Msombomvu and Ngangelizwe in Transkei where we have ploughed in several million rand for urban development there. I can mention six names in Bophuthatswana where we have ploughed in millions of rand for urban development, for example Itsoseng, Pampierstad, Purimu and so forth. In Venda we are ploughing millions of rand into certain towns and cities such as for example Vleifontein. In Ciskei this year only at Mdantsane we have ploughed in R10 million in round figures and in Whittle Sea, almost R5 million. That is not even to speak of the large towns like Umlazi and Inanda where we have a project in regard to which we have tabled an information document. Inanda is in a national state. This is a program that was worked out by private enterprise and it will cost more than R1 000 million to develop that city within the national state of kwaZulu. I can therefore produce more than sufficient proof to the hon member to show that we are doing precisely what the hon member is asking for. If I could only help him in that regard, he would agree with us.

The hon member for Rustenburg made his apologies and I do not know whether he is here now. I want to thank him for the important contribution he made in connection with the question of social development in general which receives far too little attention. I thank him for it.

I have already replied generally to the hon member for Mooi River. An assurance was given recently to the hon the Minister of Agriculture, in connection with the agricultural land that is being utilized for agricultural purposes in terms of the Department’s policy. It is hoped that the hon member’s voters will be satisfied with the offers that are being made for their properties in the Elandskop area for which they have already been waiting so long and so patiently.

With that I have now replied to every hon member who has spoken up to the present, and later in the afternoon I will reply to the other members. I want to express my thanks for the patience with which hon members have listened to me so far. I apologize for perhaps having taken up rather too much of the Committee’s time in respect of certain matters, but I thought it was necessary to do so.

As far as this matter is concerned I want to conclude by saying that in my lifetime I have found—this is an absolute truth which we must tell each other—that there are no political miracles except in the imagination of political quacks. We cannot perform political miracles. If hon members therefore want me to reply to them in this Committee, I shall do so to the best of my humble ability and as fully as I can in the time at my disposal, because I know that there are no political miracles, not in South Africa, or in any other place except in the imagination of political quacks. There is only one way and that is to build stone by stone, and if you are not in agreement with that, then I want to tell you today that there is no other way to do it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has covered a great deal of ground and I am very sorry that I was not able to be here for the earlier part of this debate, but I was in the Assembly, busy with the Law and Order Vote. The hon the Minister has appealed to us to be positive, to assist him in his endeavours etc and he knows perfectly well that when he takes a positive step the official Opposition is prepared to encourage him as fully as we possibly can. We were glad to hear some of the statements he made this morning although I have to say that a number of them were highly ambiguous. Therefore, we are not 100% sure whether we are going to be able to support the suggestions that he has made. He is ambiguous about the real future of the existing townships in the Western Cape. We will have to wait and see. We do not know, as those houses become vacant for reasons of death or people moving out, whether they are going to be re-occupied by Blacks or what the Government’s intentions are. Is it gradually going to be transformed into a township for Coloured people or what is the significance of this “voluntary removal” idea? We want to know all about this because there is a great deal of uncertainty among the residents of those townships and I want to point out that it was not engendered by us. It was engendered by the Government’s own announcement that the declaration of a new area for Black urban occupation in the Western Cape was to be accompanied by the quid pro quo of the ultimate removal of the three existing townships. I think that matter has got to be put right. It has to be made absolutely clear that people are not going to have to move and that the townships are going to be properly maintained. I was glad to hear that the plans, such as those of the Urban Foundation and employer organizations in respect of schools, creches, etc, are going to be carried out because we had understood at the beginning that this was not to be so.

I wish we could share the hon the Minister’s enthusiasm about the decentralization plans on which he places so much store and about which he told us this morning, enthusing particularly about the number of applications that have been received from here and overseas firms. I can tell the hon the Minister that the repeal of section 3, I think it is, of the Physical Planning Act would probably do as much to provide employment and much more cheaply, than the decentralization plan he is going to put into effect to provide jobs. Because when the subsidies cease, what happens to those industries? The subsidies that are going to be given to the industries that are going to be set up, either on the borders of the homelands or within the homelands themselves, both independent and other homelands, are going to cost this country thousands of millions of rand. Whether it is going to be an economic undertaking in the long run is something that I personally and other members of my party have expressed serious doubts about, because it is all done on an ideological basis. It is nonsense to talk about South Africa’s having cities that are too large. We have one city that has more than 2 million inhabitants in this country, which is nothing compared to the metropolitan areas in countries like England, America, France, West Germany, etc. So we will wait and see before we get too enthusiastic about any of these plans although we are glad about the creation of jobs. We feel it can be done cheaper and more economically in the existing industrial areas. Listening to the hon the Minister this morning about “bouwerk”, consensus government and all the rest, one would have thought that everything in South Africa is fine, that everything is developing well and that the country is flourishing and that we have no problems. This Committee, I believe, should have been examining with interest the first interim report of the second Carnegie Commission into Poverty in South Africa. Maybe then people would not be so enthusiastic about the present state of affairs in this country. The interim report reveals a very alarming state of affairs throughout rural South Africa, in rural Black South Africa, the independent homelands and in the White rural areas as well. This, I believe, should be the major concern of the Minister and his Department. I was interested to read the comment made—I was not here when it was made—by the Prime Minister in his Vote about the Carnegie Commission Report. He wondered why politics had been introduced in this matter. But the whole question of poverty in South Africa is closely identified with politics. It is closely identified with the ideology of the Government which has attempted to separate the races and which is consolidating homelands and trying to prevent urbanization. The hon the Prime Minister also found that it was odd that Carnegie Foundation should be devoting so much time to poverty in South Africa when there was so much poverty throughout the rest of Africa. Of course, there is poverty throughout the rest of Africa. I might inform this Committee that the Carnegie Foundation, in fact, has a world-wide program of investigation into poverty. It is not only examining South Africa but, of course, it has a special interest in South Africa because of the first Carnegie Report on the poor White problem which, incidentally, was solved not by pushing Whites back into the rural areas, but by industrialization and by technical training and education of the Whites who came into the towns. Some comfort was taken by the Prime Minister in a figure which was mentioned by Prof Simkins of UCT who stated that there had been a material increase in the income of a percentage of the people living in the homelands. However, in absolute terms, the number of people who are desperately poor in the homelands has doubled because the population of the homelands has doubled over the last 20 years. The 15% to 20% who are better off, are better off because of the enlarged bureaucracy in those homelands and rural areas and because of the increased remittances which are sent back by migrant workers who are either working on the mines, where mine wages have gone up very considerably, or in the industries where wages have also risen. It is not due to economic development within the homelands itself. That is the point that I am trying to make. Interestingly enough, pensioners contribute to the increased welfare in the homelands and the pensions, of course, are paid by the South African Government. It is interesting that grandmothers and grandfathers have now become a decided asset to families. There are entire families who are living off the pensions of either the elderly man or woman in the family. The bottom 5%, the Carnegie report says, is totally destitute without income, land and jobs. What is being done about this abysmal situation of poverty? I say that to put people who are earning a living in the informal sector in areas like Crossroads and elsewhere back in the homelands where they can earn nothing at all, is a crime against humanity. We cannot go on doing that. We cannot do that because there is nothing for those people there. The drought relief program is a temporary thing and one wonders how long the decentralization programmes will be able to be carried out. There is widespread malnutrition in those areas and the infant mortality rate is extremely high for a country with South Africa’s resources. Worst of all is, of course, the comparison between the standard of living of Whites in South Africa and the standard of living of the Blacks in South Africa. We cannot, dare not and should not push any more people back into those areas. I hope that the hon the Minister will not worry about the harassment he is going to get from the Conservative Party if he slows down removal schemes. He has told us that it is his policy to re-examine the whole situation and we are very glad to hear that. We would like to have some positive statements from the hon the Minister that he is not going to go ahead with removal schemes such as that in Matopie-Stad and others where people have been under threat of removal for a very long time, that he is not going ahead with the removal say at Driefontein, except for that area where the land is going to be flooded by the Heyshope Dam. Two-thirds of the area is not going to be in any way affected by the new dam. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the minute or so available to me I want to say that one cannot object to the fact that the hon member for Houghton raised the issue of poverty among Black people. The argument, however, was not about the fact that a form of poverty and unemployment indeed exists in South Africa. The argument under the hon the Prime Minister’s Vote was whether this discussion in respect of poverty in South Africa should be singled out while we are most certainly not the only country in Africa where poverty prevails. The hon member for Houghton goes a little further. She says that it is actually the ideology that is the cause of the poverty. I want to ask the hon member what has happened to the north of us where the ideology of separate development and separate freedom is not followed and where extreme famine and the greatest degree of unemployment exists, something which the hon member cannot apply to South Africa with the best stretch of her imagination.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h30.

Mr Chairman, before the adjournment I was busy dealing with some of the arguments advanced by the hon member for Houghton. She again attacked the decentralization plans of the Government and she made the point that it is costing us a lot of money and that everything is done on an ideological basis and that she is not enthusiastic about the decentralization plans at the moment. However, if I can have the opportunity, I would like to quote the statement which appeared in the Business Times of the Sunday Times (31/7/83) last year. They made a survey of what was happening in the homelands as far as regional development was concerned. This particular correspondent made the following point:

Mr Chairman, one must bear in mind that this finance became available for industrial development at a time when we were having a downswing in our economy. One should look at the forecasts of some of our economists. In today’s Cape Times we find a statement made by Prof Geert de Wet that we could possibly have a growth rate of 5,9% next year. If this should come about I can imagine that we should have a terrific improvement in the decentralization programme. Mr Dougie de Beer who is the chairman of the Decentralization Board made this point as well when he said that he estimated that when all the approved projects are completed more than 65 000 additional jobs could be created.

*The hon member for Houghton, however, tells us that she is not enthusiastic about this plan since everything is being done for ideological reasons. She says that the people are enormously poor, but it is not only in the homelands that they are poor. One also finds Blacks without work in the urban areas today. It is not only here, but also in the rest of Africa that one finds that situation. If they allow all these unemployed who are in the national States to come to the White areas, how great would our unemployment figure in South Africa then be? Secondly, if one does not agree with decentralization because it is based on ideological grounds, for what reasons are they then prepared to do it? I say that it is wrong for any country to have industrial development in only a few areas, and there is vast space for expansion in South Africa. Why shall we not bring the work and the capital closer to the people? If it then fits into the national policy of South Africa to supply the Black areas with work and capital, why shall we not do it? Surely we are not the only country which is doing that. They tell me that in a country such as Taiwan they have for a long time been busy decentralizing industries to provide more employment for people. Why then should we in South Africa not do it? The hon member for Houghton is worried about poverty. We are, however, aware that we will have to provide more and more job opportunities for the thousands and thousands of Black people who are trained annually. Enough work cannot be provided in the existing metropoles and there is space for expansion in many areas of South Africa, and therefore I think that it is a good reason to be able to do that.

I do, however, want to come back to the hon the Minister and to assure him that we are grateful to him for the great diligence with which he works on the consensus idea in South Africa in order that it be made a reality between White and Black. It is after all preferable to find co-operation rather than to promote conflict. It is not the agitation by the official Opposition or by the CP that makes us aware of the legitimate political aspirations or the preconceptions or the fears and the expectations of both Black and White. We ourselves are aware of that and we have received a specific mandate to solve that question and to give direction to it. We realize, however, that it is not an easy task if one listens to the excessive language of some White and also some Black spokesmen. One can thank the Lord that those on the far right or those on the far left do not govern the country. Between these two extreme poles, that of intolerance and the lack of realism, the hon the Minister and his department are busy keeping the balance. The NP’s presence as a government is absolutely vital so that this country does not go up in flames. The excessive claims of some radicalists only confirm that we cannot take any chances with the future as far as White/Black relations are concerned. Sensible leadership in this country cannot be replaced by emotional slogans.

†The effectiveness of this department has been challenged and even its continued existence has been questioned. It is said that many of the functions are now performed by others and it has been systematically dismantled and stripped of its functions. That is the criticism. The department is too tightly tied to ideology. That is the criticism of the hon member for Berea. What is the main function of this department? It is certainly to lead the various Black groups, to train them and to generally prepare them for constitutional self-government and to make the national states economically viable regardless of how huge and formidable this task may seem. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister always amazes me with the exceptional enthusiasm with which he speaks. Today was no exception to the rule. Right at the outset I want to agree to a large degree with much of what the hon member for De Kuilen has said. I have often had the impression of the PFP that it is apparently their view that if we would only abolish influx control it would be heaven on earth and that employment will increase overnight, etc. The fact remains that there is a surplus supply of labour on the South African labour market at the moment. The economy and the private sector do everything in their power to provide for the need for employment opportunities for Blacks. To suggest that the implementation of influx control measures aggravates the unemployment situation to my mind does not hold water. The hon member for Innesdal accused the CP of being motivated and driven, as he put it, by fear and perhaps hatred as well for the Black man. I sincerely wish, Mr Chairman, that hon members on the Government side will refrain from such ludicrousness. It is, in any event, no argument. The hon the Minister said that we in this country should build, and that is correct, but one can only build meaningfully if the foundations one lays are laid correctly and properly. It is our view that one can only build meaningfully on this acre if the foundations are laid correctly on the basis of separate development. This is how we feel and we will fight all deviations from that basis by the NP tooth and nail. This action is not based on prejudice, or on hatred or on fear as he suggests, but to us it is a matter of principle that the settlement of the ethnic relations issue should also be carried through to its logical consequences on geographic grounds in South Africa. I say this, because if one does not get such a settlement on geographic grounds in this country for each nation, the only remaining alternative is the alternative offered by the PFP. There is no middle road.

Before my time runs out, I should like to come to a matter close to my heart and that is the question of the consolidation of Kang-wane. I was somewhat upset to hear from the hon the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs that he is of the opinion that in the light of the problems which arose in connection with the Ingwavuma affair further purchases—in particular those in respect of the consolidation of Kangwane—should be left in abeyance. I hope I understood him incorrectly, but I do not think I did. I did not understand him incorrectly. Mr Chairman, at the moment the department is busy negotiating with farmers who have already waited for a decade...

Are you referring to the 1975 proposals now?

Yes, the 1975 proposals.

There are still a few farms outstanding.

There are still a few farms and I should now like to know to what the hon the Minister refers when he says that further purchases can wait.

Can I reply to that briefly?

I do not know if the rules make provision for that. The hon the Minister can reply to that later. This remark of the hon the Minister is going to cause a tremendous amount of dismay in my constituency, because in the past those farmers, who are totally cut off from the White areas, have been promised repeatedly that their farms would be bought. If, at this late stage, doubts are again created in the minds of those people, it can only have undesirable consequences. The hon the Minister spent nearly 1½ hours telling us that he does not have time to explain to us what his view is with regard to removals, forced or otherwise. I now want to come back to my own constituency and the hon the Minister will know very well what I am talking about. I want to refer in particular to the problem we have at Badplaas with Chief Dhlamini who has for years been refusing to move to the homeland despite adequate provision having been made for him and his followers. The hon member for Innesdal said that the NP will only move people if they are moved voluntarily. That is why I now want to know from the hon the Minister—and I want a straight answer—whether it is the view of the Government and of the hon the Minister that if Chief Dhlamini persists in his refusal to move, the hon the Minister is then saying to the voters in my home district that he is content to allow somebody who occupies public property illegally to remain there. I think that the situation in this particular case borders almost on the ridiculous. The hon the Minister and the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to the investigation by the Human Sciences Research Council and he said that we should not see anything sinister in that because the Government has nothing to do with it as it was a scientific investigation by that body. However, this investigation was launched particularly in the main town of my constituency, and what was asked of the people of Barberton, the major town in my constituency? The question is: Will you still support the new dispensation if your town should be incorporated into a Black homeland? Will you continue residing in your town if it is incorporated into a Black homeland? The third question is: Will you leave South Africa if that happens?

The department has nothing to do with that.

I accept the hon the Minister’s word, but for the inhabitants of Barberton the question of the incorporation or not into Kangwane is one of the most serious problems they have to deal with. In the past voices went up in the NP that the major town of my homeland, my constituency... [Interjections.] Yes, of my White homeland... and for convenience sake may be incorporated into Kangwane. I think that we should now like to get the assurance from the Government that the town of Barberton, one of the most historical White towns in the Transvaal, will under no circumstances be incorporated into Kangwane. The argument has been raised in the past that the Swazi homeland, Kangwane, should have a capital and that Barberton is the obvious place. Over the years, my view has been, and the hon the Minister is aware of it, that there are not two Swazi nations in South Africa, but only one Swazi nation and that their natural homeland is Swaziland itself. Is the hon the Minister aware that it has been my view over the years that that Swazi nation should be united if they so choose?

I am aware of it.

The handling of that beautiful ideal to unite the Swazi nation nearly moves one to tears. To put it mildly, a mess has been made of a beautiful idea. If it should fall through as a result of the incompetent way the matter was handled, then the Whites in my constituency would refuse to pay the price for those Swazis who live on our side of the border by giving the major town in my constituency to Kangwane. If possible, I should like to get a straight answer from the hon the Minister. If the hon the Minister is not prepared to give us the assurance that Barberton cannot be incorporated into Kangwane, I can come to no other conclusion than that the Government is still considering that step. I shall then tell that to my people.

Another matter which has been worrying me lately is that there is a big influx of Swazis to the Swazi homeland, but I have reason to believe that a large percentage of the Swazis who are coming to the Swazi homeland are not coming from the Republic of South Africa, but in fact out of Swaziland itself in that there is no proper control in the homeland over the emigration of Swazis from Swaziland to Kangwane. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I was glad to hear from the hon member for Barberton at the beginning of his speech that he agreed with us—because it is after all NP policy...

It was.

Not was... that like this side of the House he also believed that separate development was the cornerstone for sound relations among race groups in the future. I do not know whether Press reports were correct but here and there other sounds were heard at the CP congress to the effect that the CP should get away from emphasizing separate development since that was actually NP policy and they would prefer to call it “partitioning”. I shall, however, leave the hon member there because the hon the Minister will probably answer the pertinent questions which he has asked.

I am glad that building is the order of the day in the discussion of this Vote because that was the theme which the hon the Minister gave to the whole Committee. I feel one of the greatest challenges in respect of the development of South Africa’s Black populations is to make the traditional Black areas which today are national states, self-reliant again. I say they ought to be made “self-reliant again” because they have lost that self reliance as a result of various factors. Over decades we have had strong population growth in those areas, as well as over-grazing and over-utilization of resources. Furthermore, the growing populations in those areas have become increasingly dependent upon employment opportunities outside the areas, and this in turn has caused the influx of Blacks to White areas, which greatly contributes towards urbanization. When I talk about self reliance I mean that those areas ought, by way of an ideal, to be able to create their own employment opportunities for their own populations and that they also ought to be able to create income so that their economies can grow under their own steam within those areas. In this regard the NP Government has built up a fine record since 1948 since enormous amounts of money, have over the years been spent on, expertise applied and attention given to these states. In spite of very good results and splendid achievements in the field of development and possibly also as a result of our current economic downturn, unemployment still exists and still increases in those areas, and it often appears that little progress is being made. It appears that development does not really get going and therefore those national states do not yet offer a natural drawing power for Blacks from the White areas to them, and they also do not yet offer sufficient employment opportunities to the people entering the labour force within their boundaries. Another problem is that even where those areas accommodate their own Black inhabitants and provide them with employment, the buying power which is thus developed is drained to the White areas and is not applied within the Black areas themselves. The hon member for Virginia yesterday in his speech mentioned some of the very important bodies which the Government has established with a view specifically to encourage development within these areas. The Bantu Investment Corporation was established as far back as 1959 and it was followed by the Economic Development Corporation, which now also exists in a different form. There is also the Development Bank of Southern Africa which was established last year and the Small Business Development Corporation. There are many possibilities and possible solutions and steps to address this problem within the Black areas and there are also solutions which should be applied simultaneously. I do, however, agree with the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council that an active programme of small business promotion is the best instrument for the development of entrepreneurial talent within the Black areas.

That brings us to the Black entrepreneur himself. According to a researcher, Mr B N Mokoatle, they experience the following problems to start their own business undertakings. He has found that 24% of them experience problems to get a licence to start an undertaking. A further 21% experience problems to obtain suitable staff, while 18% experience problems in regard to capital. Furthermore, 13% experience problems in regard to having a business in a hostile environment, while a further 13% experience problems with the obtaining of credit. Lastly, 11% experience problems in regard to stock. In other words, Mr Chairman, a total of 42% of Black entrepreneurs experience problems with capital, if one takes into account capital, the obtaining of credit and stock. The question is how to bridge this problem. I believe experience has taught us that own capital creation—if one can call it that—among the remaining section of the population is not the answer. Loan capital will therefore have to be used, and it is precisely in this regard that the Small Business Development Corporation plays a very important role. Various prerequisites have to be met and I should like to refer to the necessary expertise and experience in operating a business. There is also the question of security which financiers expect from any businessman. There is also tremendous potential. All statisticians tell us that by the year 2000 the total Black buying power will exceed that of the Whites. Apart from those prerequisites I believe that we shall once again have to look at the application of the available capital made available by the Government so that we pay less attention to the strong application and creation of infrastructure and channel more money to the individual Black entrepreneur. I should also like to touch for a moment on the splendid role which the Small Business Development Corporation plays in this regard through financing by the SBDC Black entrepreneurs, who very often are newcomers to the entrepreneurial corps, are put in a position to progress in due course from the entirely informal business sector to the semi-formal and eventually the formal sector. In this regard I should like to draw attention to the assistance which the Government itself has offered by way of financing capital to the SBDC. In 1983 the State contributed R5 million to the SBDC’s Special Pioneers Project Fund and this year’s Budget provides for a further R5 million. That money will be utilized for mini loan programmes to the informal sector which, as we know, is essentially the Black sector. The work of the SBDC in regard to the building of a Black entrepreneurial business corps deserves great praise, and that body also deserves greater financial and moral support from everyone who has this problem at heart. In my view constructive criticism has also been expressed in the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, and I should like to suggest that the authorities take thorough note of that criticism. One matter that has been touched on is the interest rate structure which is too high and which has the effect that when a Black businessman raises a loan, he can never actually reduce it because the interest is too high. In other words, he therefore keeps on paying. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we all agree with the hon member that it is important to support and to develop small Black businesses. He made a constructive contribution and one can support most of what he said. As I see that matter, there are mainly two problems. It firstly concerns the rate at which it is possible to develop small Black businesses. It seems as if it is progressing too slowly and on the basis on which it is done now, the contribution which it makes to provide work is too limited to play a meaningful role at this stage. I think the word which the hon member used towards the end of his speech is the more important one. It is the “informal” as against the small business market. I believe the informal sector of Black business activities is the one which should be developed. I refer to the few machines in a bedroom, the manufacture of parts of something at home and the individual family which runs a business. I feel that the limitations and licence conditions should be totally simplified to enable those people to make a real contribution to their own economy. I believe this is an area where while the Government does encourage people, it does not take the necessary steps to abolish the limitations.

†Mr Chairman, I wish to return to the hon the Minister’s statement earlier during this debate on the withdrawal of the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill. I want to say that this party welcomes that announcement wholeheartedly; it is something which I think the whole of South Africa will welcome. The key issue in this regard—and what I welcome most—is the assurance that the hon the Minister gave that there would be consultation with the Blacks themselves before another bill was introduced.

In the few minutes that I have this afternoon, I want to turn my attention to this subject of consultation, starting with particular reference to the special Cabinet committee, which is to deal with non-homeland Black problems. I want to ask the hon the Minister how many and which non-homeland Blacks that committee has consulted since its establishment a year ago. We welcomed its appointment; a year has passed and I think we are entitled to ask now whom that special Cabinet committee has consulted. Whom has it talked to besides home-land leaders? We ask this because this is what one judges its success by. You must judge its effectiveness by what it has done, what it has achieved and not what it hopes to do sometime in the future.

Mr Chairman, my party took the initiative last year—in practice, we started at the beginning of this year—to instruct our constitutional consultative committee which over the years has consulted with other population groups to contact Blacks as priority—after having concentrated more on Coloured and Indian consultation over the last two years. We renewed our contacts with and resumed consultation with non-homeland Blacks. We have met the leaders of some four or five councils so far. There are another two or three meetings already arranged. Mr Chairman, I want to say to the hon the Minister that the overwhelming result of our talks with these Black leaders has been a sense of goodwill and a desire to find solutions.

However, we have found something else which is not so encouraging and that is that this goodwill is being eroded. Everyone of those that my committee has talked to has said that he has not been consulted yet by the Government. They asked when the Government was going to come and talk to them and consult with them. I want to list a few other things that emerged from those discussions. The first and overriding one, of course, from all the discussions is a desire to be included in the decision-making process in the Republic of South Africa. It is a desire not necessarily fixed or linked with a particular form of inclusion; it is the principle of inclusion in the process that they want. I must say this frankly: They are unhappy; most of the meetings that we have held have shown an unhappiness about the attitude of many officials towards them. They say the Government is sincere, the hon the Minister is sincere and they accept the sincerity. However, they believe that the barrier between them and the Government is the official administrative machinery of the Government. They say that anyone who disagree with the Government or with an official of the Government is immediately stamped as a radical. Mr Chairman, those people are not radicals. For instance, there are those who have publicly, on television, supported the need for a form of influx control. Those are the people to whom we should be talking; those are the people we should be bringing into the process of consultation. They are people who have their feet on the ground and who realize the problems that go with reform. They believe that the new system of Black local government can work, but there is an impatience which is eroding the potential goodwill which is there at present.

Mr Chairman, one of the major factors is a rejection of the 99-year leasehold system, because it is seen as an inferior form of ownership. We accept that we have to have this as a stepping-stone but I plead for a declaration of intent that leasehold will lead to freehold title. I believe leasehold is more valuable at this stage than freehold. However, the door must be opened to freehold when plots have been surveyed and they can be taken over because this is affecting the contribution Blacks can make to their own housing.

Mr Chairman, let me just quote you a few phrases from the minutes that we have kept of some of the meetings:

I do not have time to quote more, but there is a wide range of thinking going on and we should be bringing this into the process. One of the things that I believe, whilst most of them want a fourth chamber for Blacks, is that they will consider and discuss some other corporate body to which the non-homeland Blacks can be linked and thus be involved in the decision-making process. We should be encouraging that and creating that now. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I would most probably be failing in my duty if I, coming from the Eastern Cape, did not immediately tell the hon the Minister and the two hon Deputy Ministers that we have noted with the greatest appreciation the proposed programmes as regards housing and relevant matters which will be incorporated in the Eastern Cape and which will create a better life and a better housing situation for Black communities there. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he was correct when he said that this area should really enjoy the highest priority, as the worst drought in living memory, together with other world trends, has probably hit my area the hardest in South Africa. I want to tell the hon the Minister that these initiatives and efforts of his are greatly appreciated by the Eastern Cape and the members of our Black communities there.

Mr Chairman, when one evaluates the housing efforts of this Department, one should really do so against the background of world trends. These are world trends to which the direct housing needs throughout North America, South America, Western Europe and Africa can be attributed.

However, before I continue with that, I would like firstly to refer to the hon member for Durban Point who made a very positive speech. I believe his ideas regarding the importance of consultation and small businesses, in which he followed the hon member for Ermelo, constituted a positive contribution, and I cannot find fault with it. However, I want to deny something: Not that his information is incorrect; there may be exceptions as there are exceptions in every State machine, but with all the virtually hundreds of consultations that we have attended and experienced, I can only testify to the greatest appreciation on the part of Black leaders towards officials of our Department and the development boards. There may be an official or somebody here or there who does not always show the necessary respect or patience; that may be, it can happen. However, I want to assure the hon member for Durban Point that in so far as this hon Minister, these hon Deputy Ministers, the Department, the leaders on the development boards, the chairman of the commission, the members of the commission and everybody who has almost daily contact with the leaders of the Black communities are concerned, the highest respect and the greatest patience and the best, finest and most enjoyable association as regards consultation about matters that are important to our Black people, are the order of the day.

Including constitutional reform?

Yes, including constitutional reform, because it is also important.

Mr Chairman, I started by saying that if we want to make a proper evaluation of the programmes which the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Ministers and the department have launched as regards the development of our people, which really determine the wellbeing of the Black communities, it is important that we do so against the background of world trends. These world trends have resulted in the housing need throughout the world. Because we in South Africa are part of Africa and therefore part of the Third World, it is obvious and it was obvious that we had to counter that problem. However, South Africa is of course slightly different, because we have to do with a Department, an hon Minister and so on following on the initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister which give rise to the development programmes of peoples. There are development programmes as regards training, the provision of work, drought relief, regional development and ultimately, above all, a basically strong and healthy financial policy which co-ordinates these matters and which actually makes this country of ours different in the material sphere to the rest of the Third World.

Mr Chairman, we would, however, be very naive if we did not admit to each other that the Department, the hon the Minister and everybody who is interested in the wellbeing of the Black communities, did not have an onerous task in South Africa in the sphere of housing. Because this is so, it is a good thing that a new ideal is being set; an ideal in terms of which we say that the responsibility for housing a family rests in the first place with the father of that family. That however does not mean that the State denies its responsibility in this regard. The State will provide the basic infrastructure. As part of this ideal the self-build scheme has developed as one of the most important methods of countering the housing problem in South Africa. As with all other things in the times in which we live, this great project, this great ideal, has however also had to grapple with a few problems which were present in practically all the development board areas to a greater or a lesser degree. There was for instance a shortage of surveyed plots, a shortage of serviced plots, a shortage of development capital and, what is important, a shortage of technicians. However, these problems have been overcome and we can at last take pride in the fact that today no fewer than 30 000 self-build houses are already occupied in terms of this ideal. Mr Chairman, when one thinks of the impact 30 000 houses can have on a community, one is even more grateful that a further 32 000 plots have been serviced and are ready for use in terms of the self-build project.

Mr Chairman, for the sake of interest, I want on this occasion to refer to a few interesting self-build projects as a matter of interest, because I firmly believe that because of these models which have been developed, an answer can in fact be found to the housing need that exists in the Third World. In this regard I want firstly to refer to the Zenzela scheme at Grahamstown. I believe the hon member for Albany is as proud of it as I am. Research in this regard was already started in 1982. In terms of this model the traditional good and functional elements of the Xhosa culture as regards building methods were combined with modem and conventional methods as we know them in the modem world. This combination was necessary in order to achieve a high standard while at the same time continuing to keep the costs low. Mr Chairman, I believe that in this way a model has been developed which really provides an answer to the housing problem in Africa. What pleases one is that in record time 281 attractive dwellings were completed in which Black families are living. They stand there as evidence to friend and foe alike as to what can be done in this regard.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful that we can say today, without fear of contradiction, that with this particular project an answer has been found to the big question of how the homeless millions of Africa can be housed. However, each people and each environment has its own material or particular living habits, and therefore one project cannot simply be transferred from one place to another. I want therefore to refer to a second self-build project as an example. I refer to the North Eastern Cape. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am glad the hon member for Newton Park spoke about housing, because I want to deal with that matter as well.

During the course of the debate on the Minister's Vote last year, I raised the question of housing in general and, in particular, related it to the East Rand. I do not believe that we obtained satisfactory answers from the hon the Minister in this regard and I wish to raise this matter with him once again. Figures provided by the Unit for Future Research at Stellenbosch University indicate that a total of 125 000 dwelling units per year have to be built in the current decade and that in the ten years from 1990 to the year 2000, 145 000 houses have to be built each year. This means, in round figures, that 2,7 million houses have to be built in the current twenty year period. Of these it is estimated that 77 000 houses are required for Blacks in the current decade and 92 000 for the ten years from 1990 to the year 2000. A total therefore of almost 1,7 million houses which are to be built for Blacks before the year 2000. In addition to this, to eliminate the current backlog 350 000 houses are required, 240 000 of which are needed for Blacks. These are staggering statistics and it is of vital importance that the hon the Minister should indicate how he intends providing these houses before the turn of the century.

We welcome the announcements made about the Louis Rive investigation in the Eastern Cape and Natal but believe them to be ad hoc solutions. The hon the Minister is going to have to tell us what long term planning his department is doing. As the Government has accepted the permanence of Black people in the urban areas, it is no good saying that we will continue to break down their shacks, bundle them into lorries and send them off to the homelands.

Statistics provided by demographers indicate that the rural areas are almost saturated with people and will not be able to sustain large additional influxes. Planning is going to have to take place for these millions of people to be accommodated in cities and towns in South Africa. New urban areas will have to be established if necessary. Therefore the hon the Minister must take us into his confidence and tell us what his department is going to do.

In this respect, I do not believe we can continue to plan for the type of houses to which we have become accustomed. The fundamental need is to provide people with shelter and more attention is going to have to be given to the provision of site-and-service schemes and self-help schemes.

During the course of last year’s debate, the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation responded to questions concerning housing by saying that Blacks would have to use their “sweetkapitaal”—that was the phrase he used. Coming from that hon Deputy Minister, I regard it as a most disgraceful statement. He has been party to the decisions during thirty years of Nationalist rule to deprive Blacks of any rights to sell their labour on the best market, the right to move about without hindrance, the right to acquire the best possible education or to seek redress from injustices. That hon Deputy Minister sits in this House in a position of safety and security, representing a State with enormous powers. He personally is safe from harassment or from having his rights tampered with. He sits here well-nourished, housed in a property subsidized by Black and White taxpayers and then has the effrontery to tell millions of Blacks that they should use their “sweetkapitaal” to provide housing for themselves and their families.

I used my “sweetkapitaal”.

Mr Chairman, nobody shunted that hon Deputy Minister around. If someone did he might have been a bit more understanding about the problems of the millions of Blacks. This should happen while they are being harassed by board officials and shunted around from pillar to post. How can they possibly use their “sweetkapitaal” when they are in this position?

Mr Chairman, I want to turn my attention briefly to the affairs of the East Rand Board. I have mentioned this problem to the hon the Minister before and I want to raise this matter with him again, as I believe that it is important for him to give his attention to the activities of that board. There are no doubt problems with many of the other boards, but this one in particular appears to be needing his special attention. There is a long history of problems in the area relating to shack demolitions, deportations and confrontations between township residents and officials. He should fully investigate the operation of that board and not allow the tortoises, that he once referred to, to impede the implementation of progressive and enlightened policies. It is perhaps significant that the tortoise has become the symbol of the CP, as that poor unfortunate creature will be recognized and identified with all that is retrogressive and backward.

Figures supplied by the Minister show that in 1980 there were 158 000 people arrested for offences in respect of laws relating to reference books and influx control. In 1981 this increased by almost 4 000 to 162 000; in 1982 the figures increased by a further 44 000 to 206 000 and in 1983 there was a staggering increase of 57 000 to 263 000. It is obvious that these laws are being honoured more in the breach than in the observance and are causing a great deal of distress and unhappiness to a great number of people.

Mr Chairman, when it comes to people appearing in court, replies provided by the Minister show that less than 1% of all those appearing in court are legally represented. The great majority of them simply do not understand what is happening to them. They pass through a process to which they are foreign, not appreciating what is happening and ending up either paying a fine or landing in jail. Hopefully the Hoexter Report recommendation that the administration of these courts should be taken away from this Department, will be implemented as speedily as possible.

If one takes into account the awful details concerning forced removals, mentioned by my colleague, the hon member for Berea, the indifference displayed regarding housing, the often off-hand and frequently harassing attitude adopted by the board officials, the disgraceful way in which reference books and influx control regulations are implemented and the appalling way in which the Commissioners’ Courts operate, one can only conclude that the Department is not interested in co-operation and development at all, but is relentlessly pursuing a policy of misery and unhappiness.

Hopefully the rumours that the hon the Minister and his Deputy will disappear from the scene when the new constitution is implemented, will be accompanied by the disappearance of the Department as well. I can assure them that this will bring joy and happiness to millions of Black people throughout South Africa.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the remarks made by the hon member for Johannesburg North I will in my speech deal with certain aspects raised by him in connection with villages in Black residential areas. It is only ironic that that hon member should at this stage already reveal such a venomous approach to our judicial system when it comes to the execution of the legal principles laid down in this country, also in respect of contraventions on the part of Blacks. It may be just as well if the hon member for Johannesburg North should give a little more attention to the details and react more positively to the role of our courts of law in this regard.

Mr Chairman, it was my privilege to serve as a member of the Venter Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters. We also went into the question of township establishment for Blacks. One important recommendation by the commission is to be found on page 44 of the Second Report, which has already been tabled. It reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, the private sector, and in particular the private township establisher, will have to become involved to a far greater extent in the establishment and development of Black residential townships. It will of course still have to be done in an orderly manner and on a well-controlled basis, and well as with the approval of the Department of Co-operation and Development because it is especially important that there should be a need for the establishment of such a residential township. Mining townships for example cannot be allowed simply to develop in places where Black mine-workers are needed. I want to stress that a need for the establishment of such a Black residential township will have to be a real one in the true sense of the word.

Hon members will also agree with me that if a constant need exists among Whites for the establishment of residential townships, such need is even more acute in the case of Black employees. Think for instance of the numerical difference between the White and the Black population groups. What one should also bear in mind is that housing in the shape of shelter and living space is such a basic human need that the non-availability of it creates the potential for a politically explosive situation. If we look at the number of dwelling units made available since 1981 to Black people in particular by the private sector in comparison with the number made available by the public sector—496 against 5 744—one realizes that in relation to the private sector there still exists considerable room for improvement.

Mr Chairman, let us look very briefly at the housing needs of Black people. Allow me first of all to point out that the term housing need in this instance implies the provision of an own home to each and every family and that it is not supposed to mean the dwelling together of families in the broader family context. In this sense it only includes the father, the mother and their unmarried children. The only reasonably reliable figure available at the moment indicates that there are now 585 670 dwelling units for Blacks in the urban areas of the Republic of South Africa. These have been identified by the administration boards. It indicates the need that exists, and in those dwelling units 3,544 million people are being accommodated. Preliminary figures taken from the 1980 census indicate that 5,324 million Black people are living in the urban areas. The remaining 1,78 million probably live in compounds or as lodgers with private families. Then one must also not lose sight of the fact that approximately 25 000 Black people find illegal overnight shelter in Pretoria alone.

The housing shortage in existing Black residential townships is partly responsible for this surreptitious sleeping. I say partly because it also happens in numerous instances that White people allow their employees to spend their nights illegally on their premises. In cases of illegal surreptitious sleeping and also in cases of landlords conniving at surreptitious sleeping the tightening up of action against these people will not at all be uncalled for. No one in South Africa today can say that he is not familiar with the legal stipulations in this particular regard. If it should then also become known that action against this type of transgressor is to be tightened up such knowledge will spread like a bush fire causing co-operation by the general public in this regard to be obtained.

Further comparative figures indicate a current housing shortage of 6 130 units, or 0,5% of the total need, in respect of Whites, and a shortage of 160 540 units, or 27,4% of the total need, in respect of Blacks. This need, however, was determined as long ago as April 1980. According to a broad survey undertaken by the National Building Research Institute, the housing shortage in respect of Whites can be as high as 18 000 units, and, in respect of Blacks, as high as 240 000 units.

One of the bottlenecks in relation to the establishment of townships for Blacks could be obviated by way of the early identification of land for this purpose. Administration boards and the Department of Co-operation and Development, as well as other departments of State, are currently involved in a process to determine, among other things, the needs in respect of Black township establishment until the year 2010. The development of Black townships is now moving into a new phase and the accentuation of a greater degree of Black involvement, particularly on an individual basis, will also stimulate growth in the informal sector. It is of extreme importance that a climate be created in which greater participation on the part of the private sector will be made possible. The Venter Commission also recommends that with the drafting of new regulations with regard to township establishment for Blacks cognizance should be taken of recommendations contained in this report in respect of procedures and other matters that should apply to township establishment for Whites. Accentuating this recommendation again here will certainly not be superfluous.

The influx of Blacks into White areas, particularly on Saturdays, should to a high degree be attributed to the fact that Black townships do not in general have a strong commercial base. Everywhere a backlog has accumulated owing to the fact that Blacks are allowed to trade only in certain products. In order to solve this influx problem definite attempts will have-to be made to strengthen the economic base of Black townships. Real provision will have to be made for the erection of sufficient numbers of dwelling units for Blacks. This should, however, be accompanied by the provision of services and of commercial, sport and recreation facilities. For instance supermarkets, modern bottle stores, restaurants etc, should be placed at the disposal of the Black man. We should also not ignore the fact that with the establishment of Black residential areas little or no attention has been given to the provision of facilities and to the beautification of the environment. The result is that Black urban residential townships and also cities and towns in the national states are drab and unattractive in comparison with the White cities and towns. Therefore, for many Black people a visit to a White town is a pleasant outing away from the dreary environment in which he finds himself daily. Black townships have in essence become only sleeping villages. If Black people are not provided with sufficient facilities they will of course overrun the facilities of the White people. In this regard the private sector can make a major contribution by establishing the necessary facilities for which there is a need and by placing them at the disposal of Black people in their residential areas. Hand in hand with this of course goes the process of the beautification and the renovation of Black residential townships. If Black people can do all their business in their Black residential township, and over and above that, can move around in the beautified and peaceful atmosphere of such a township, the need to visit White areas and consequently to overrun them will decline drastically.

Everything can, however, not be expected from the Government. Firstly the Government cannot interfere with the establishment of chain stores and other facilities. The responsibility is and remains that of the private businessman. In this process the Black businessman must be motivated to a high degree to take the initiative. There will also be nothing wrong with investigating the provision of capital on a ratio of 49:51 for example.

When reference is made to the inundation of parks, it is quite noteworthy that in the Pretoria area only 32% of employers provide their employees with eating facilities. In this respect it is essential that employers should provide their employees with resting or eating facilities or that they should make some contribution to the establishment of such facilities. When provision is made for resting and eating facilities the needs of visitors should also be taken into account. Finally I should like to stress again the fact that the establishment of Black residential townships should be allowed strictly in accordance with the needs but when such a Black residential township... [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg raised a large number of matters worthy of consideration. There are two that I want to emphasize. The one is the question of the sleeping in of thousands of Black people in White residential areas. If one watches carefully, it appears that the people not only sleep there, but that those places have become their actual accommodation. The hon member asked that attention be given to this matter, and we will be pleased if we can be told whether any steps are being taken in this regard. We are all aware of the fact that this is a very difficult matter, but the fact that it is a difficult, does not mean that it will not be welcomed if steps can be taken in this connection.

Secondly, the hon member referred to the urbanization of Black people. The fact is that the urbanization of Black people will increase towards the end of the century. Certain observers contend that about 17 million Black people may be urbanized towards the end of the century. On that basis, it has been estimated that a further 17 or 18 Sowetos will have to be built. We should like an assurance that that urbanization will not take place chiefly in the White areas but, where possible, within the national states. 17 Sowetos that will have to be built must not be built within White areas and also not by way of the extension of the existing Black residential areas within White areas.

I want now to refer to a matter affecting the constituencies of Waterberg and Potgietersrus, namely Block 24. I think it also has another name, namely Mokorong 2. Block 24, also called Seleka, lies along the Palala River in Northern Transvaal. If my information is correct, there has been agitation for two decades now that the inhabitants of Seleka should be removed. Definite efforts were made in the seventies. It did not end at efforts but it became a reality and compensatory land was purchased for Block 24. I can bear witness to the fact that that compensatory land is of the best. Some of our most proposerous and successful farmers lived in that area that was purchased as compensatory land. I am referring here to the Limburg/Gilead area, the so-called “White finger”. The area south of Steilloop in the direction of Marken was also purchased. If my information is correct, about R20 million—it could be more—was paid for that land. The well-developed land that complies with removal requirements has therefore already been purchased. The land of some of our most prosperous farmers was bought up. I am not arguing with the hon the Minister now but simply bringing it to his attention. In the light of present circumstances, it is not only necessary that a pertinent assurance be given but, if possible, a program of action or a time-scale should be announced in regard to when this project can be started.

I want to tell the hon the Minister why it will be welcomed. A story is being spread periodically in the area that is causing unrest among the farmers of Koedoesrand and farmers in the direction of Ellisras, and this gives rise to all sorts of speculations. The speculations boil down to the fact that it is no longer the intention of the Government to move Block 24, and this in spite of assurances which I gave them and which I had obtained from the Government a few years ago. However, this story is repeatedly doing the rounds. The speculation is to the effect that Black 24 will stay there in spite of the land that has been purchased. It is stated further that if Block 24 stays there, the only sensible thing will be to make the whole area between Black 24 and Lebowa Black as well and to consolidate it with Lebowa. The accompanying problem is that White farmers of that area will be isolated, and the agricultural and farming community in that area will be disrupted.

There is also other speculation which amounts to the fact that Block 24 will stay there thereby becoming or remaining the labour pool for Ellisras.

Another speculation again is that Block 24 will in fact be removed, but as a Black residential area of Ellisras. I find this idea quite ridiculous because it would mean not only that R20 million has already been spent unnecessarily in purchasing compensatory land at a place that is well developed and where these people can be decently settled but also that additional expense will have to be incurred to settle those people in a different area.

I do not think I need discuss this matter any further except to point out a further fact which will have to be borne in mind. If this block were to remain where it is and the people continue increasing at the present rate—it is estimated that there are between 70 000 and 90 000 people there—and, as is contended by the District Agricultural Union of Ellisras that those people obtain building materials below cost price which results in the fact that building is going on there much faster than would be the case at economic costs, it looks like being a concentration of people which is also going to create another problem namely the supply of water from the Palala River. This water supply amounts to about 38 million cubic metres per annum upon which a large number of farmers—they have the necessary permits—are dependent for irrigation and so forth. A larger population there will create problems as far as the supply of water is concerned. I believe that I have referred adequately to this matter and hopefully will receive a reply in this regard.

I should like to discuss various matters that had been referred to. The accusation is often made that certain things are done for ideological reasons. The National Party and ourselves are accused in this regard. Doing something as a result of a particular political philosophy or debate must not simply be written off as having been done for a negative or reprehensible reason. Another ideological reason is simply ranged against it. Liberalism is ranged against nationalism. Liberalism is shot down by various people, and I am thinking here particularly of two writers. The one said that liberalism was the death wish of the Western civilization. Burnham wrote a book about liberalism entitled Suicide of the West. This is also an ideology, and it is that ideology that is being propagated in South Africa, not only to the detriment of White self-determination, but also to the detriment of the self-determination of the various Black peoples and Brown and Asian communities. If liberalism is carried through—hon members know this just as well as I—one will eventually not have any group identity. Eventually there will also no longer be ethnic variety and ethnic political structures.

I also want to refer to the concept of human dignity. This is a word that is bandied around very easily. It is also used very glibly and has acquired a certain measure of popularity. I want to refer to what two Black leaders had to say about human dignity. Four years ago Pres Mangope said that one of the most important advantages that independence had brought for Bophuthatswana was the self-confidence and human dignity that this had cultivated among his people. His people therefore became more independent and really tasted success for the first time. For the first time there was keen realization of the fact that nobody would receive anything unless he provided for it himself. This is human dignity from another point of view, and I think it is a point on which we can agree. This is a human dignity which one experiences within one’s specific ethnic or group connection. It is also a human dignity which one experiences within a specific area of jurisdiction where one can establish one’s own government in a democratic way and be governed by one’s own people. It is not a human dignity that exists in the world community where there is the one man one vote point of view, even if it is only a once off thing. I should also like to refer to President... [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to express a few thoughts this afternoon on the development of Qwaqwa.

This is a Black area and ethnic state in the Free State which affects us specifically there. I am referring to this for two reasons. The important point is that we as Whites in the Free State together with the South Sothos of Qwaqwa, the Tswanas of Bophuthatswana and the Brown people have to share this central region in Southern Africa with one another. We have to work out a plan of this area for the future as has also to be done elsewhere in South Africa, so that one group does not dominate another and so that we can live in peace and harmony with one another.

I also want to refer to this matter for another reason, namely because Qwaqwa is often used as a parallel example of a Coloured homeland. The Conservative Party calls their Coloured homeland Hexania, the White homeland Orania and the Communist homeland of the ANC is called Azania. I do not wish to suggest for one moment that there were negotiations when these names were thought out. It is however interesting to note the likesounding names that are given these homelands in South Africa by radicals.

There are many important differences between the South Sotho people and the Coloureds in respect of homelands. Because Qwaqwa is often used as an example in this regard, I want to point out those differences. The South Sothos form a homogeneous cultural unit with its own history, unlike the Coloureds who are in no way a homogeneous unit. Secondly, the South Sothos want to be independent. They are already a self-governing national state. Neither the Whites, the Blacks nor any other population group in the Free State would want to force the South Sothos into Basotho-Qwaqwa and imagine that the problems of this central region in Southern Africa will thereby be solved.

We are in actual fact dependent upon one another for the development of this whole central region in Southern Africa. Basotho-Qwaqwa is a small country and covers only 50 000 hectares. It has already been decided to add 24 000 hectares of winch 10 000 will consist of the Black city Botshabelo. In a period of three years it has developed into a city with more than 200 000 inhabitants. I may say in fact that it is already the largest city in the Free State. The commission also recommended that a further 86 000 hectares in the vicinity of Kestel and Harrismith should be added. Once negotiations have been completed with the parties concerned in this connection, and if this land is added to Qwaqwa, the country will have a surface area of 170 000 hectares. The South Sotho people number approximately 1,7 million, which means a 100 people per hectare. The nonsensicality therefore of its ever being possible that such an area can be economically independent, is self-evident. It emphasizes the fact that the South Sothos are dependent upon the rest of this development region C for their own development, and we as Whites are also dependent upon them because they provide us with the necessary labour and help in establishing other development areas in this region.

Qwaqwa has a good agricultural potential. However, it cannot play an important role in the economy of this country and, even if the additional land is added, it can never form an economic infrastructure for the establishment of an own economy in Qwaqwa itself. The country also does not have a great mining potential. Only building materials such as clay and gravel are available for the making of bricks. It is clear therefore that the economic development within this national state will be dependent upon the industrial and service sector, the development of tourism and the development of commerce.

As far as industrial and township development is concerned, I want to refer briefly to what happened in the capital, Puthaditjhaba. About R40 million will be invested in industrial development during the next year creating about 4 000 job opportunities. This is very good progress but the industrial areas around Puthaditjhaba have already been utilized and further industrial development will therefore have to be investigated. If the proposal for the addition of a further 86 000 hectares is accepted, I want to advocate the development of a new Black city in the vicinity of Harrismith. The advantages to be gained from development at Harrismith can then be shared.

I want now to refer to Botshabelo, or the old Overwacht, situated near Bloemfontein. Great progress has already been made in regard to this township but a great deal still has to be done in respect of housing, schools and hospitals. Attention will have to be given to all the aspects necessary to provide a community with the requisite services. However, what is important, is that the whole area of Botshabelo, Thaba Nchu and Bloemfontein will in the future have to be seen as a large metropolitan area in which these places will develop closer to one another. Hopefully in this situation job opportunities will be created resulting in an improved standard of living for all the people in the Free State. This includes Whites as well as Blacks. It is also true that the people of Qwaqwa find many job opportunities on the gold fields and in the agricultural sector and township communities of the Free State.

The challenges in respect of the development of housing, schools, hospitals and job opportunities in Qwaqwa are enormous. We do not regard them as problems but rather as challenges. Up to this stage, we have already achieved a great deal, but we are aware of the fact that the pace will have to be increased enormously in order to comply with requirements in regard to job availability. Fortunately, a good relationship exists among these ethnic groups which has been built up over a period of more than a century. This will serve as a basis for good neighbourliness and development in the future. We will not allow radicals to bedevil the development and development potential of that area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Odendaal will excuse me if I do not reply directly to his speech.

The radical member.

If he is a radical member, the hon member for Kuruman still has a lot to learn.

I would like to refer to something which was mentioned by the hon member for Mooi River regarding the way in which people are moved and the effect which it has on the urbanization procedure. There should be a favourable comparison between the standard of living of people in the rural areas and those in the urban areas if we want to prevent the streaming of people to the cities. I understand that the modus operandi is that during the removal phase a house is loaned to the people concerned for six months, during which period they should endeavour to build their own dwelling. This does not compare favourably with the situation in the urban areas where people have a self-help scheme to assist them in building a house. Some of the technical assistance and knowhow regarding the building of these houses should be made available in the rural situation as well. I know this is complicated by the fact that these people are in some cases moved into an independent state and then fall under the authority of that state. However, I am sure that an offer by the South African authorities would not be spurned. In doing so, the goodwill and intent of assisting them to re-establish themselves would further enhance race relationships as mentioned by the hon member Dr Odendaal and which are so critical to this matter which has been mentioned over and over again today.

Having said that, I would like to be a bit more critical of the situation, particularly the situation in the area known as the Border corridor. I did not realize that there was another corridor in South Africa until I heard of the Marico corridor yesterday although there appears to be some doubt as to whether it will be established. There are situations in the Border corridor area to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister.

One point I would like to stress is the question of the relations committees which at this stage simply seem to be taking decisions around a table while the decisions do not go any further. If these committees are to do anything constructive at all, they will need to get down to grass-roots level. They will need to consult the local farmers’ association or whatever other organizations are concerned, take them by the hand and bring them together with their neighbours on the other side of the fence or border and physically implement a meeting between these people. This can be a commencement of liaison possibilities in the future for mutually solving problems. We need to get down to this now, we cannot wait until entire boundaries are permanently established and let the matter stand over until the flag is raised over a new state. As the boundaries are developed and finalized, certain actions must take place concurrently. We must perfect a system of easy liaison and good neighbourliness.

In this regard one feels that these committees and the activities of the neighbours concerned would be of great assistance in bringing about a far more satisfactory situation as regards fences. The question of border fences have been endlessly discussed and kicked around and I regret to say that it still passes through four departments, namely the Departments of Co-operation and Development, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Community Development. If that is not a recipe for disaster and delay, I do not know what is. The chances of these departments co-ordinating adequately, to really get on with the question of adequate fences and bringing about good neighbourliness and good relations, are not at all good. I would appeal to the hon the Minister and his Deputy Ministers to try to simplify the situation, to make decisions and to get some direction in this respect on a local basis by consultation with the people concerned to see if they themselves cannot assist. In some cases it is a question of the improvement of the standard of an existing fence, while in other cases it is a question of the erection of new fences entirely. But one hears from the SA Agricultural Union that the whole procedure is subject to a great trek via the Surveyor-General and that the process is a long and complicated one which is done at such an official level that the action that has to be taken about this serious matter—it is very definitely detrimental to the socio-economic situation in the area—is not progressing at all.

The hon member for Pretoria West, who has just left the Chamber, mentioned a vast distance of something like 75 000 km which is required, almost as if they deserve a little sympathy for this huge task. No sympathy is due, because this process has been going on for years. This sort of action should take place concurrently with each stage of development. The responsibility for the finalization of boundaries is one which rests fairly and squarely with this department. The initiation of the actions that should follow should come from this department. If it has to be done by other departments, it is a pity. Somehow or other, its implementation should be kept as close as possible to this department to facilitate negotiations between the people whom it affects as consolidation progresses.

The Government talks glibly about consultation and negotiation. I would like to say, particularly to the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, that in some cases consultation on a local basis does not take place and that the best interests of the people who are going to live with that boundary are not served. I refer in particular to a road which the hon the Deputy Minister knows about where in fact the wishes of the Department of Agriculture and of the people living in that area are being completely overruled, despite the assurances of the hon the Minister, when I first consulted him about this road, that he would back us if we could get the backing of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The point I want to make, is that this department is responsible for the finalization of boundaries. Where they have the opportunity to bring about the best possible boundary, they must exert their influence and authority to make that boundary the best one possible in the interests of the people who have to live in that area. When they ignore the people who live there and leave them holding the baby, they must expect a deterioration of the situation to take place. Far greater expense and unhappiness will flow from it.

With regard to the question of removals, I would like to make a specific point about the Border Corridor. The hon the Deputy Minister said that the question of those removals was something which was included in an agreement between Ciskei and the Republic at the time of the Ciskei’s independence and that Ciskei had agreed that those areas would revert to the Republic. That is a very narrow piece of ground which remains part of the Republic, but the actions of the Government in respect of that ground are going to spell success or disaster as to whether it is going to remain a viable agricultural area to fulfil its task, with an independent state on either side of it, of stabilizing the area, creating employment opportunities and giving assistance to others in the area. The Government has created a situation in which the Republic will have jurisdiction over certain areas, but which will be administered by Ciskei. This is a recipe for disaster. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to reply to what the hon member for King William’s Town had to say. To a large extent my speech follows on what the hon member for Standerton had to say.

A people which does not remain bound and faithful to its traditions will not endure for ever. As soon as a people starts losing its culture and becomes unfaithful to what is sacred to it, it will very soon lose its identity and will make it impossible for itself to remain as it is. I am convinced that it was the intention of our Creator that a nation prove and maintain itself through the medium of its culture and traditions. I am also convinced that a culturally aware people will always remain disciplined and usually obedient to the majority, and will remain a people having little mutual strife.

I want today to discuss the culture and traditions of the Black man, and specifically the Ndebele, more particularly because the Ndebele are the people on the brink of independence. The hon the Minister also referred to this this morning. I also want to do so because I know them and grew up with them.

It is only when one has grown up with someone else that one understands the language of his heart and knows how his thoughts and traditions hang together. It is generally known that there are diverse theories in regard to the origin of the Ndebele people. The most general and perhaps most acceptable theory is that the Ndebele originate from the Zulu people. Their language is also very closely akin to Zulu while the Ndebele’s written language is also Zulu. Among the Transvaal Ndebele we distinguish between the Northern and Southern groups. For the purpose of my speech I want to confine myself to the South Ndebele.

Ethnically the South Ndebele fall under the Nguni. The South Ndebele are spread throughout the districts of Bronkhorstspruit, Middelburg, Bethal and Belfast. According to the 1980 census, the South Ndebele numbered 166 477 souls. The South Ndebele are considered to be the descendants of Muzi. Muzi had five sons who were continually arguing about their heritage. As a result of this argument, the group split up into five subgroups each with its own chief. In later years we find that there were chiefly two main groups of descendants of this group, namely the Manalas and the Ndzundzas. Although the Manalas stem from the eldest son, the Ndzundzas are the strongest group, and they settled in the Middelburg district. They were the first of the Mapoch dominators. This tribe is known in the history of Transvaal primarily because of the war with Njabela, the son of Mapoch. The Ndebele are a particularly proud people and attach great importance indeed to the traditions of their forefathers and their customs. Their history and heritage are communicated very carefully to their descendants. It is also their practice to gather annually in large numbers at the statue of Njabela, which has been erected at the Mapoch Caves, for a festival towards the middle of December. The chiefs and the headmen gather there still in their traditional dress consisting of a loin-skin and kaross together with the people in their thousands in order to pay homage to their forefathers and to communicate the details of their history to their descendants. I attended the festival last year when the proceedings were addressed by the State President. One actually feels jealous when one notices the unanimity that prevails among those people and the traditions that live on. One realizes then that those people have a future.

The Ndebele place a very high premium on the authority of the spirits of their ancestors, and consult them in all their important decisions. They also believe that they should go back to the graves at the old Ndebele kraals from time to time in order to consult and satisfy their ancestral spirits. The Ndebele are exceptionally concerned about the proper adherence to protocol, and a breach of protocol causes extreme indignation and is punished accordingly. Accordingly, the question of showing respect to one’s superiors is highly regarded and is not lightly breached. We also find therefore that when a new village is built or even if an existing village is extended, the composition of the village has a specific pattern. In the kraal the main hut, namely the first wife’s hut, has a central place while around it at specific places are the huts of the second and third wives and so forth. A main entrance to the village is also provided for at a specific spot, and behind it there is an entrance for the women. The cattle kraal also has its particular place and also serves as a cemetery where members of a family are buried at a specific spot according to seniority. There are also huts for the sons in a specific order around that of their mother, namely the eldest to the right, the second eldest to the left, and so forth. In the kraal provision is also made for space for a court as well as separate areas for men and women. There is also a hut for unmarried sons and one for unmarried daughters. When a new hut is built it has first to undergo a ritual of protection, and a sheep is usually slaughtered for this purpose. Because of the belief of the Ndebele in regard to the sensitivity of a goat to thunderstorms, a goat is never used for this purpose. After the sheep has been fed special herbs and medicines, it is slaughtered at the spot where the hut is to be built, and the contents of the stomach are spread over the surface, after which the witchdoctor knocks a few treated poles or posts into the ground around the area where the hut is to be built. By carrying out this ritual the hut is protected against evil spirits. The Ndebele are very insistent upon a round type of house, and for a specific reason. A village is never static but is continually growing. Each family also occupies its own hut. The order of seniority in the house is strictly maintained. For example, the husband always enters the hut from the right, and the wives from the left. The wives also sit and sleep on the left while the husband sits and sleeps on the right.

Why?

It is also the custom for the young children to sit on benches and the men and women on the ground, with the young girls sitting to the left of their mother. An Ndebele will also never enter the house of somebody else or try to take it over. If it so happens that a wife leaves her home for some or other reason, that house is left exactly as it is until it collapses, and nobody will live in it. The house is also decorated very colourfully and there are also various decorations for various occasions, for example, for the everyday things, for special initiations, for marriages, funerals, the festival of the first fruits and so forth. I should also have liked to give details about the dress of the Ndebele which is quite exceptional. They also attach particular value to greetings. An inferior person will never greet his superiors first. There are also particular rituals that are carried out on the initiation of young men and young women. If one had the time one could make a very long speech in this regard. However, I should like to conclude with the quotation from the book by Peter Becker, Inland Tribes of Southern Africa in which he says:

He is talking about the Ndebele:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Middelburg will forgive me if I do not follow directly on his speech. I would like to associate myself with the sentiments of the hon member for Newton Park concerning the implementation of the Louis Rive scheme. As a fellow Eastern Caper, I am delighted that this scheme is going ahead. This is one of the good, positive and constructive things that the hon the Minister is responsible for, and we congratulate him.

I would like to deal with one of the less positive and constructive aspects of the hon the Minister’s department, something which has already been dealt with at some length in this debate, namely population removals, but I want to do so with specific reference to the Eastern Cape and Border area.

Whenever we in these benches raise the question of population removals, we are invariably met with the following responses. Firstly, that we are interfering with something that does not concern us and that we must keep our noses out of other people’s business. Secondly, that removals are necessary in order to implement separate development. Thirdly, that no forced removals in fact take place and that people are removed voluntarily. Fourthly, that other population groups, Whites included, have also had to be removed and have made sacrifices, therefore the policy does not discriminate against Blacks only. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that none of these objections is valid. Let me first take the question of interference. This is the most puerile of all responses. Every year this Parliament votes tens of millions of rand for the hon the Minister’s department, a great deal of which is spent effecting these removals. That alone validates our interest. In addition, any policy which seeks to denationalize millions of South African citizens and force them from their homes, is of direct concern to us. The attitude of those who would silence us, is very typical of many responses from that side. As long as the public is unaware of what is going on, an action is acceptable. The sin is not in the deed itself, but in being found out.

Right.

We do not accept that philosophy and refuse to become accomplices through silence. Secondly, there is the contention that removals are a necessary part of separate development. I submit that removals are not so much a function of administrative necessity, but some sort of Teutonic obsession with neatness and straight lines. If Black urban townships in White areas are to be given some kind of status higher than that of municipalities, why should these so-called Black spots, which are simply rural townships, not be given some kind of similar status? I submit that the only reason is because they are not directly attached to any White town. They are therefore not seen as acting as some sort of direct labour pool for a town and their presence can therefore not be tolerated. They are deemed to be an untidy blot on the landscape, a provocation which must be removed regardless of the consequences.

Then we have the contention that no force is employed in removals. This is a welcome departure from the crude tactics which were used up until a few years ago, and we welcome it. Until a few years ago dogs and guns and all the paraphernalia of force were at times used against people, e.g. the Fingos. What troubles us in these benches is that, these days, it would appear that whereas overt violence is being avoided, more subtle tactics are being used, for example, the dereliction of services. Schools are closed or handed over to tribal or homeland authorities. These people use their powers in order to pressurize or to intimidate people who are opposed to moving. I refer in particular to the recent raids made by Ciskei into South African territory. Another field is pensions. Pensions are made unavailable in a community and people have to travel some distance to a new locality in order to receive their pensions. In other words, a deliberate attempt appears to be made to make things so unpleasant that people are in effect compelled to move. The White South African authorities can then sit back and plaintively repudiate allegations that force is being used to encourage Blacks to move. This approach is in direct contradiction to what happens in White communities under threat of removal, where every possible consideration is given to keeping the people happy right up to the very last.

The final point is that Whites have also been forced to move. That is true, but there are certain important differences. Firstly, Whites did not lose their South African citizenship as a consequence of removals, nor were they forced to go and live in another country. This has happened and is happening with the removal of virtually every Black spot affected so far. Secondly, White land-owners were free to buy more land wherever they chose. Those who did not wish to continue farming, could live in any city or town of their choice in the Republic. This is not so with Blacks. Black freehold-owners lose their freehold and cannot acquire more land. The vast majority are without section 10 rights and therefore cannot move to a town of their choice. They must go to where the Government puts them, and that place is more often than not a rural backwater with no prospect of gainful employment and precious few essential facilities. I submit that to do this, is to further aggravate the poverty of those communities. Thirdly, Whites who are agreed about removals, can hold the Government which moved them to account. They can do this through the ballot-box at the next election. We have heard the hon member for Barberton tell the hon the Minister that people may do just that. Blacks have no such rights and must simply submit to the dominating force which dictates their lives.

As a result of these injustices, Black communities which are affected seethe with anger and frustration. Only the politically blind and deaf refuse to recognize this fact. Recently one such threatened community, Mgwali in the Border region, was illegally raided by Ciskeian security forces who illegally arrested and intimidated those opposed to being moved. As spokesman for Black affairs of this party, I made it my business to visit the community in order to gain first-hand knowledge of the situation. My findings were recorded in a report which I made available to the hon the Minister. I told him that I was gravely disturbed by what I had found at Mgwali and that in my estimation an explosive situation existed, which could have serious consequences not only for that part of the world but for the whole of South Africa. The hon the Minister gave assurances that the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs would be visiting the community before the end of the month and that he would keep us informed. As far as I am aware, that visit has never materialized. The hon member for Berea will bear me out.

It did materialize. You people just beat us to it.

Well, I will be interested to hear of it, because we were promised that we would be kept informed. As far as I am aware, the situation at Mgwali is just as serious as ever. Intimidation continues. I charge the hon the Minister, and he can correct me if I am wrong, with complacency in this matter and urge him to bestir himself in order to defuse a dangerous situation. I submit that the only way he can do this, is to prevent continued Ciskeian interference and to leave the community and others in the Border area to live in peace in the way they have done for the last 150 years.

Mr Chairman, because my time is limited, I hope hon members will pardon me if I deal briefly with a fairly large number of matters.

In pursuance of what the hon member for Albany said, I want to say at the outset that we agreed that in the process of the resettlement of the people in the Mgwali and Wartburg areas we would in fact negotiate with those people, but at this stage we are still negotiating with the Ciskeian Government in regard to what must be done at the places at which these people are to be resettled. Until we have done that, we cannot talk to the people of Mgwali. The negotiations at the moment deal with the infrastructure and the sort of accommodation and so forth that has to be provided. There must also be planning in regard to agricultural development. We can then negotiate with the people of Mgwali. The hon member has no right at all to accuse the hon the Minister of not having visited Mgwali at a specific stage. The hon member is not aware of all the circumstances which the hon the Minister has to consider in this connection. We assured the hon member that we would visit the area, but we did not say that we would do so within a day or two thereafter. The hon member must really see this matter in perspective.

The hon member for Rissik asked a few questions, and I wanted to start also by putting a question of principle to him. I accept the fact that any hon member can talk about anything at all, but it depends upon the way in which he does so. This also holds good for the hon member for Albany. He actually had a meeting with us, and I think that that is the right way to go about things. However, as far as I know, in regard to Thaba Nchu the hon member for Rissik never negotiated either with me or with the hon the Minister or with anybody else in regard to any problem that he had in regard to that area. Nevertheless, he has now raised that matter in this Committee. The hon member for Ladybrand in whose constituency this area falls has written and spoken to us repeatedly in regard to this matter. Only recently he has once again negotiated with us in regard to the problem that has arisen there. The hon the Minister has been criticized most unreasonably here in regard to the procedure he followed. The hon the Minister had discussions with the town council of Thaba Nchu and a deputation from the community and, as a result of those discussions, he realized that differences really did exist. From the agreement reached at that meeting it would appear that solutions will not be found through the medium of accusations or litigation. So as not to delay the recruitment campaign, the problems and stumbling-blocks that may be experienced will have to be considered individually on merit and in accordance with circumstances. The discussions were concluded after agreement had been reached that the valuations and offers be proceeded with, that possible disputes be settled on an individual basis and that no dispute would be conducted through the Press except to report that differences did exist. The process of land purchases and valuations in respect of individuals is always a difficult matter. Problems often arise. I want to make a friendly appeal to the parties concerned that in regard to the settlement of the Thaba Nchu question we approach the matter on an individual basis and also solve possible problems individually. The hon member for Ladybrand has had regular discussions with us in this regard. The leader of the NP in the Free State has done the same. I am aware of the discussion which Mr Schutte carried on through the medium of the Press on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. More than 200 offers have already been received for the plots at Thaba Nchu, and most of them have been accepted. I speak subject to correction but I think that there were about 20 cases in which people did not accept the offers because they were not satisfied with the valuations while 101 accepted the offers. In regard to the specific person and the specific business at issue here, a valuation was also made in this case. I contend that the accusations against the hon the Minister in this connection are unjustified, and that he did everything in his power to ensure that the matter was concluded smoothly. We are solving the matter peacefully. Attempts must not be made to politicize the whole question.

As far as senior citizens are concerned, we will give people renting houses the opportunity to continue to rent those houses for a further period of three months. If people wish to rent the houses for a longer period, we are prepared to allow them to do so, but then the basis on which the rental is calculated will be based on the valuation and the disbursement in respect of each specific house. If the rental increases it may do so because the disbursement and the valuation were higher than the realistic rental value of the property. Unfortunately, however, the department cannot deviate from this principle. As far as leasing in general is concerned there are a few problem areas and we are trying to solve the problem cases on an individual basis. There is also still the question of the payment of goodwill for certain business undertakings involved in this regard.

As far as consolidation is concerned, the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member for Barberton raised a few matters. In regard to Block 24, the hon the Minister has already said that he will investigate this matter specifically and reply to it himself.

I want to refer now to the point I made in respect of the principle of consolidation. The hon the Prime Minister said that 80 000 ha were still outstanding as far as the 1975 proposals were concerned. We are in the process of purchasing these 80 000 ha and this process will be carried through.

There is one matter to which attention will be given. It does not include the areas of Barberton and Kangwane but may however influence certain parts of Natal. The question that I asked in the House was: If there were recommendations in the new consolidation proposals that a certain block should not be moved, was it necessary then for additional compensatory land to be purchased? The problem is that compensatory land can be purchased which at a later stage again will have to be occupied by Whites. We shall have to answer this question before the final proposals are made. However, we are continuing with the consolidation process, and I do not want a feeling of uncertainty to prevail among the farming communities in this process.

I also want to add something in regard to the leasing aspect. The hon member for Queenstown also referred to this. We purchase the land. Once the land has been purchased, it is available to us—the hon member for Pietersburg must listen to this because I am also replying to his question—and it is leased to White farmers once again. The land is purchased with the intention of its being transferred to the Black Governments. This land must be developed. How long should leases be permitted? Some of this land—I say this with due respect—is so badly treated by the lessees that it is in a poor condition when it has to be transferred. Is that correct? Should we not recover this land at an earlier stage and develop it then? The hon member for Mooi River also referred to this. The land can possibly be developed within the milieu and according to the wishes of the Black communities, and can then subsequently be transferred and utilized effectively. In the light of this fact I shall negotiate with areas on an individual basis. If therefore we need this land for transfer, it will have to be withdrawn at an earlier stage. Any White farmer who leases land back at 2% of the purchase price is leasing a bargain, and he will not lightly wish to lose it. Unfortunately, in this process it will sometimes happen that we will have to take back land against the wishes of White farmers for development in the implementation of our policy.

What about the EDC?

The EDC and its counterpart can form part of the development in this process. It must be seen in that light namely that it is not a question of who owns the land or develops it but whether the land is being developed advantageously for the purpose for which it will have to be transferred. Our actions will be based on that. We have sorted out the matter with our members. I am also busy sorting out the matter with the SAAU and, once this has been done, we will handle the matter on an individual basis.

My time has almost expired. Many other matters to which hon members have referred in this debate have possibly remained unanswered, but I am prepared to take up these matters further in my office on an individual basis.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister appealed to the Opposition parties to co-operate with him to build. On behalf of the PFP I want to say that we welcome this appeal. We will gladly, energetically and with enthusiasm co-operate with the Government to build and to work positively and constructively on our problems in South Africa. I want to suggest that if the hon the Minister were to use the plumb-line of PFP principles and the trowel of PFP policy, he would build walls which were straight and stood firm and which would be in the interests of South Africa and all its people. The hon the Minister and the Government know that on each occasion in the past on which the NP accepted the policy and principles of the PFP they progressed and achieved success. When they were prepared to forsake and get rid of NP policy and principles they also progressed and achieved success.

I want to refer, for example, to the acceptance of the permanence of the urban Black population in South Africa. How many years did it not take the PFP to persuade the Government to do this? They have done it now. The hon the Minister is very happy with that now and, now that he has accepted it, he seems to be much happier.

I should now like to refer to the question of citizenship. In the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote a question was put to the hon the Prime Minister. During his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to this matter as follows:

Of course, this also means the children of citizens of Venda, Bophuthatswana, kwaNdebele and the whole caboodle. The hon the Prime Minister then said:

Thereafter, pursuant to a few further questions, the hon the Prime Minister clearly reaffirmed it. We should not beat about the bush now. With the acceptance of that fundamental principle of the PFP the NP made a big breakthrough. I only hope that all members of the NP clearly realize and understand the full implications of that policy statement of the hon the Prime Minister.

Progress has been made in many fields, although much has still to be done.

I should like to refer briefly to the Soweto area. This is the city with the largest population in South Africa. The Government and the hon the Minister are often criticized, but when it comes to the sale of houses in Soweto—I researched the latest situation the other day—there is progress. Out of a total of 104 000 houses in Soweto 16 356 houses have been either fully or partly sold.

Here we once again have the case where the NP has accepted the policy of the PFP after years of cultivation. What was the immediate result of this? [Interjections.] Improvements to these houses were immediately evident. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should listen now, because I am busy praising him. This home-ownership brings about improvement. They paint the houses and lay out gardens and a feeling of pride can be detected, while there is an upgrading of the whole area. Stability and peace is the direct result of the implementation of this policy of home-ownership. Why did it take the NP and the Government so long to adopt this policy?

My time is running out fast. Why should the Government continue with the leasehold system while they realize and admit that sooner or later they are going to introduce a freehold system for Blacks? [Interjections.] It does not matter how one puts it, because a freehold system is going to be introduced shortly. Do hon members know what officials tell Blacks when they explain the leasehold system to them? They are told that it is the same as the freehold system and that such a contract can be renewed again after 99 years and that they have title to their property just as in the case of the freehold system. They are also told that they have title rights, but when these people receive their accounts for their monthly instalments, those accounts include an account for site hire. Blacks can then not understand it, because they have title and ownership rights, but at the same time they have to pay site rent. They cannot understand this and work out this anomaly.

Do you not pay rates on your property?

Yes, but in respect of the Blacks it is not called rates but site rent which has to be paid by someone who has ownership of property. This is an anomaly. There are many other disadvantages related to this system.

At this stage I want to make an appeal to the Government. If the Government wants this system to be much more successful and wants the Blacks in Soweto and in other Black urban areas gladly and confidently to buy houses by the thousand, and wants the policy of the Government to appear to be successful in the eyes of the people of South Africa and people overseas, they should immediately abandon the leasehold system for Blacks and introduce the freehold system. If this is done, the Government’s work, changes and reforms that have been brought about to date will be crowned with further and greater success. Then the hon the Minister can boast about it in this House with still greater enthusiasm.

Mr. Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston must forgive me if I do not follow directly on his speech.

No, go for him.

No, the hon the Minister will be able to reply to him adequately.

The inhabitants of towns and cities are gravely concerned about the large number of young Blacks who lead an aimless existence. They can be seen idling away their time with games in the street or sitting around outside cafe’s and places of entertainment. These young people also have an inherent need for constructive involvement, and they also need a meaningful community life. Is there any attention at all being given to their education in this regard and what efforts are being made to prepare him in some measure for the tremendous adjustment he will have to make when he has one day to start finding a niche for himself in a strange and in many instances unfriendly world? How is the strong influence being exercised over him at the moment by agitators being countered? What is being done to channel the resistance which has been propagated against the existing order over the years towards the acceptance of and enthusiasm for an orderly community? Is any effort at all being made to engender in him a striving towards the improvement of his socio-economic position?

Like many others I am worried about this situation, and I want to know what is being done to educate these people within their own community context. Is something positive being done to give them a goal in life?

I was surprised when I searched for answers to these questions in the reports of the Department of Co-operation and Development. In 1979, after a visit to the national states where he saw the large numbers of young people who were not attending school and who were leading aimless lives in the most abject poverty, the hon the Prime Minister issued instructions that a youth program for young Black people should be instituted without delay. An interdepartmental committee was appointed, and the Department of Co-operation and Development was designated as the executive body. In 1980 the youth program started in all earnestness according to the guidelines laid down by the Cabinet.

I should like to refer to what has been achieved by means of this programme over the past four years. I want to start with a closer examination of the philosophy of community development in accordance with the policy of the Government, namely to give the youth the opportunity to have a share in the development and improvement of their own national state, community or themselves and, in that way, in their future. The general aim can be defined as follows, namely so to involve the Black youth in a meaningful way in the establishment of an ordered community by influencing their outlook on life and their way of life or behaviour that they are able to share in an independent, responsible and disciplined way in the development of their own and their community’s welfare in the interest of society as a whole.

I want now to refer to what the Department of Co-operation and Development has done to implement this instruction. To see the results in perspective one must first consider the money that has been allocated for this project. In 1981 R5 million was appropriated; 1982, R2 million and in 1983, R3,1 million, amounting to a total of R10,1 million. In 1981, 9 230 young people were involved in the disbursement of these funds; in 1982, 14 700, and in 1983 the figure doubled to 28 745. This gives us a total of about 53 000 to the end of 1983. It must be realised that initially there were no premises or any other facilities whatsoever available. A start had actually to be made from scratch. It must be noted that in 1983 twice the number of young people were involved with about the same expenditure. This means that productivity increased by 100%.

At the moment all the national states except Gazankulu have obtained sites, while the development boards all have sites and are busy with full time programmes. What do these youth programs involve? This youth work is programmed basically for the schoolgoing or non-schoolgoing youth. The schoolgoing youth attend short courses of five days on the site. It is, therefore, a field school approach. In the community these young people are drawn into youth club activities. The non-schoolgoing youth are involved in longer courses on the site and in service-oriented projects in the community. Some of the world’s leading authorities in this field, for example Gideon Sarig, have assisted with the planning of these programmes. Own experts went to Malawi and Taiwan to see how they operate. Information has been obtained from all amenable countries in Africa, the Middle East and South America about their respective youth programs and this has been adapted to the needs of this country.

These days the programs for the schoolgoing youth revolve basically around the establishment of youth clubs and activities in the club context. Clubs can participate in any activity of a developmental and constructive nature in which they may be interested. For the purposes of motivation, competitions are held, and provision is made for four categories of competition, namely sport, cultural activities such as singing, dancing and music, skills and hobbies and community projects such as the rendering of service. For the non-schoolgoing youth in the national states orientation courses are offered with a view to employment. These courses run from 1-2 years and are aimed at preparing a person for life as a well-adjusted citizen to discover and develop his own potential and interests.

At the moment, the development boards have a number of sites. On the East Rand, there is Zandspruit at Cullinan; on the West Rand, the Trust farm La Boheme in the Brits district; in the Western Transvaal, Ramosa Riekert at Zeerust; in the Eastern Transvaal, the forestry land at Nelshoogte; in the Northern Transvaal, the forestry land at Agatha forest in the Tzaneen district; in the Central Transvaal, Rietgat in the Pretoria district; the Southern Free State Development Board uses Roodewal at Thaba Nchu; the Orange-Vaal Development Board has a site in Qwaqwa; the Northern Cape uses the common at Barkly West; the Eastern Cape has the Loerie forest land; the Western Cape has a temporary site at Hermanus; the Drakensberg and Port Natal Development Boards use Mimosadale, and the Highveld Development Board the farm Thionsville in the Lydenburg district.

It is interesting to look at the youth programs of other countries. I want to refer firstly to the China Youth Corps. Social and national evils are combated by means of a program emphasizing patriotism. National pride is an integral part of their youth course. The schoolgoing and non-schoolgoing youth have separate programs. Uniforms are used to ensure solidarity, and good work is rewarded in all instances.

I would have liked to have given hon members an insight into the activities of the Israeli youth movement Nahal, the Malawian Young Pioneers and the Brigades of Botswana, but it should be evident from the aforementioned that the Department of Co-operation and Development in co-operation with the national states and the development boards as well as other well-disposed persons and bodies has achieved much. With more funds at their disposal the Youth Action Division can of course involve more young people. However, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Director-General and his staff, inter alia, Mr Lilley, on their fine achievement, and express the hope that in the near future still more money can be appropriated for this very deserving cause.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister was rather surprised yesterday when I referred to the Lebowa Development Corporation. As I understand the position, the hon the Minister actually invited me to discuss it. It is a pleasure for me now to comply with that expectation of the hon the Minister.

Since February I have asked a number of questions in regard to the cost effective spending of taxpayers’ money, inter alia, by a development corporation of a national state because there is considerable public concern in this regard. I had periodically to wait some time for replies to my questions, but I am satisfied that there is sufficient reason to put certain questions to the hon the Minister now. If he places a high premium on clean administration and the proper spending of funds, he ought to appoint a commission of inquiry in this connection.

I want to refer to a report that appeared in The Citizen on 12 April, and I quote:

I do not think, for example, that the hon the Minister’s reply to Question 25 which appeared on the Question Paper on Wednesday, 4 April, was good enough. This deals with loans granted to directors and officials of the corporation as well as to Cabinet Ministers of Lebowa. The hon the Minister makes little of it in his reply in that he simply says that the LDC is an autonomous body functioning under its own board of directors. Does the hon the Minister not think that the taxpayer who contributes towards the financing of the corporation has the right to know these things?

On 25 April in reply to a question the hon the Minister said that he would Table an auditor’s report if he found that it was necessary to do so. However, the day before yesterday he replied to Question 853 dealing with loans to companies involving directors of the corporation and amounting to in excess of R1 million, and refused point blank to Table an audited report. Is the hon the Minister satisfied and is it acceptable to him that certain VIP’s, inter alia directors of the LDC and Cabinet Ministers of Lebowa, are alleged to be some of the people who have obtained personal loans? They have absolutely nothing to do with development in Lebowa. What is more, according to my information some of these people are at present six to eight months in arrear with their instalments. Is the hon the Minister satisfied that a Cabinet Minister of Lebowa should obtain a personal loan for the establishment of a certain industry, and then on a second and third occasion obtain further loans for the purchase of stocks, namely liquor stocks for the same business, that is to say, a beer garden and a restaurant? Is the hon the Minister further satisfied that an official of the corporation should obtain a loan to operate a small industrial undertaking after hours? Is the hon the Minister satisfied further that eight loans were granted to six members of the Cabinet of Lebowa, five of which loans had to do with the liquor trade?

What is more, the wife of a Cabinet Minister of Lebowa, apparently on the grounds of her family ties, was entitled to a loan from the LDC. It was obvious in this case that this had nothing to do with the development of Lebowa but was apparently purely for personal needs.

According to my information these loans amount to about to R236 000. This may not be an astronomical amount, but I cannot agree that this is in conformity with the proper management principles that certainly should hold good in these cases. This has to be seen against the background of Question 850 that appeared on the Question Paper and to which I only received a reply yesterday evening. Bad debts written off by the LDC increased from R28 000 in the 1981-82 financial year to more than R466 000. During this period only two industrialists were established in Lebowa with the assistance of foreign capital—in other words over a period of four years. According to the information supplied by the hon the Minister, in one year it cost the corporation an amount of R52 664 for foreign travel in respect of visits by directors and Cabinet Ministers inter alia to Japan.

I want immediately to relate this to two water condensation machines that were purchased, and a further two that are to be purchased. If these facts are correct, there is reason for doubt. Over a four year period the corporation made grants amounting to R64 000. These machines apparently cost R130 000, are petrol driven and produce between 1 260 and 1 330 litres of water every 24 hours. The hon the Minister told us in the Assembly yesterday that the unit cost of water per litre was 15 cents but that he was not sure whether the capital expenditure was included in that figure.

I was not sure whether everything had been included.

Very well. I contend that that is not the whole picture. The amount of 15 cents is calculated on a petrol consumption of 300 litres per day. What about the 450 litres of diesel that are used for the generator that is needed for the operation of this equipment? This raises the unit cost to 37,5 cents per litre. The capital cost of the machine, the generator with its modifcations, water tanks and a large lorry to transport them have also not yet been added. The training costs of technicians who had to be trained in Japan in order to operate the machine have also not been calculated. This is apparently involved electronic apparatus. According to my calculations, the capital cost of this apparatus then amounts to R250 000. What is the position then as far as the unit cost of a litre of water is concerned? It may possibly then be equal to the cost of a litre of fuel and possibly costs more than a litre of cooldrink.

Was there proper consultation and planning in respect of possible alternatives? It must be remembered that this is simply a question of obtaining clean drinking water in order, inter alia, to combat the cholera problem. There is no lack of water in Lebowa because there are large rivers and a great deal of subterranean water. In fact, some of the largest subterranean water resources in South Africa are found here. According to experts one can buy sufficient chlorine for slightly more than R1 000 to chlorinate the same quantity of water that it will take a unit of this nature 22 years to produce.

The hon member for Lichtenburg stated very clearly yesterday that the Conservative Party was not opposed to development in the national states. On the contrary, we should like to see this taking place on a more intensive scale. Decentralization must be tackled positively so that the optimum settlement of people in their own homelands can take place. Certain hon members on that side of the Committee still think the same way today, but it is just a pity that they do not want the White population of South Africa to have the same. [Interjections.] How can it be achieved when last year those hon members had already accepted the principle of the permanence of Black people in South Africa and joint decision making by these people in the new dispensation? How are hon members going to achieve it? I want to quote from a report that appeared in Beeld in which the hon the Prime Minister said:

Is this a sort of DTA that is foreseen for South Africa, and is this part of the plan which the National Party has for the so called urban Blacks in South Africa? Earlier today I asked the hon the Minister what the plan was, but up to the present he has still not replied to my question. I hope that the hon the Minister will refer to this matter in his reply this afternoon because we have been waiting for many years now for the result of the enquiry by the Cabinet Committee investigating this matter.

As far as the LDC situation is concerned the hon the Minister owes it to the public of the RSA to remove all uncertainty in regard to any possible maladministration of State funds in this extremely important development process of the national states in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, for the sake of the hon member for Pietersburg, I just want to reply quickly to two questions.

I did everything to satisfy the hon member on the questions regarding the LDC. I discussed the matter with him privately. He contends that there is gossip about this and that we must obtain clarity in this connection. I have here a long letter from the Chairman of the Lebowa Development Corporation satisfying me in regard to all the accusations that have been made up to this stage that there is nothing wrong, and the Department of Co-operation and Development has come to a similar conclusion. However, I do not wish to hide anything and I also want nothing to do with any matter in regard to which there is any doubt. I have therefore dediced that the Commission for Co-operation and Development be instructured to investigate the whole matter including the question of the water machine, and submit a report which I shall then table in Parliament because I am thoroughly sick of this whole question.

Will the investigation be in secret?

No, no matter what the findings may be, I shall table that report. The investigation will be in public, and I invite that hon member and anybody else who wishes to do so to give evidence. I also want to make it clear that if it is found that anything wrong has been done, the person responsible for it, no matter who it may be, will be brought to book, and he will also have to pay for his indiscretion. [Interjections.] Do not distract me now.

I also want to reply briefly to the hon member for Koedoespoort. I appreciate his having telephoned me this morning to give me the Hansard reference in pursuance of what he said yesterday namely that in the discussion of his Vote on 3 April, in reply to the question: “Does the hon Minister of Transport Affairs agree with this columnist that homeland ties are a myth?”, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs replied: “Yes, it is”. (Hansard, vol 10, col 4293.) The hon member subsequently asked the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs again whether he agreed with the allegations of Dr de Klerk, and at column 4294 the hon the Minister replied:

Read the whole quotation. [Interjections.]

Hon members must please give me a chance. I certainly did not begrudge them that.

The fact remains that I asked the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to be present here today because I wanted to remove any misunderstanding in regard to this question. He denies that he ever contended that the homeland ties between citizens in the Black state and those outside were a myth.

That was what he said.

But he says that he denies having said it, so then the Hansard report must be rectified. I wanted to put this matter beyond all doubt in the presence of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. [Interjections.]

I think that I should be given a turn to speak so that I can give them what for.

Mr Chairman, a great deal had been said in this debate about the removal of people, and I do not intend to follow previous speakers in this connection. Unfortunately, the hon member for Lichtenburg is not here now, but one of my first exposures to politics was about six years ago when that hon member came along to my constituency to explain why it was that he as Deputy Minister and the previous Minister under whom he was serving could not move certain people. However, this debate is a sign of building work. When a person develops, one builds, and I should like to devote my speech to research in the Department.

Research in this department must always be development oriented, and building work must take place on this basis. Development is a multi-dimensional matter and therefore also has many facets. Development implies a change that must be an improvement whether in the sphere of economics or in the sphere of education, constitutional affairs or social welfare. Because development is multi-dimensional it must also take place on a co-ordinated basis. It must bring about a moulding process resulting in the existing need being better served. In order to succeed, development must therefore also be co-ordinated, and in the course of my speech I shall ascertain whether this is in fact so.

It is necessary for the recipients of the aims of that development to accept it, and a great deal of care must be devoted to this matter if one wishes to achieve success. It is also self-evident that they have to be involved in the planning and the implementation of that development, and with this in mind a development research committee was established by the then Minister in the seventies. Research is initiated, evaluated, coordinated and monitored from time to time by this committee. The Subdirectorate Research of the department acts as the executive arm of the department. This committee has a very broad base and consists, inter alia, of the lectures at Black universities.

I have already said that development must be accepted by those at whom it is aimed, and I believe that that purpose is being achieved in this way.

Other members of this committee are among others the Rector of Medunsa, Dr Leistner of the Africa Institute, functionaries of the HSRC, officials of the Department of Education and Training and also of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, and officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development. Also involved in this committee are leading scientists of all Black and White universities, the Human Sciences Research Council, the CSIR and a variety of research institutions. These scientists serve on a variety of advisory committees, and advise the main committee in specific and special directions. They are divided up into various sub-committees.

About 40 disciplines and part-disciplines are represented on the Department’s research program, and are of both a human scientific and natural scientific nature. At the moment there are 150 research projects registered on the department’s research program and, since its inception, the committee has received more than 500 reports financed wholly or partially by the department or which have been drawn up on behalf of the department, other Government departments, administration boards and national and independent states. In 1982-83 the budget of the department was R300 000; in 1983-84 R270 000; and for the present financial year an amount of R383 000 has been budgeted for. The procedure normally followed by the committee is to identify problems that influence development and to ascertain whether they can be rectified through the medium of research and investigation on the basis of scientifically viable recommendations. A researcher or researchers who are qualified to research the problem are recruited by tender to do the research on a contract basis. The Subdirectorate Research receives the application with the budget and submits it for evaluation. The applications and comments are processed and submitted to the specialist subject advisory committee. The application together with the comments thereon is considered by a committee and, if the committee so recommends, it is sent through to the hon the Minister for approval.

The committee always allows itself to be guided by the following conditions upon which research is supported: In the first place it must be practically oriented; secondly, there must be a client (there must be a user who can derive benefit from it) and, thirdly, progress has to be reported half-yearly and it must also not cover too long a period.

If cognizance is taken of examples of research done over the years, hon members will realize that this is a necessary service that has been rendered over a very long period. It can be divided up chiefly under the headings educational research, stock research, agricultural research, fresh water research, motivation studies, planning and others. I should just like to mention a few under the various headings in respect of which very good work is being done, namely, educational research, for example by the HSRC, such as school readiness programs for writing, mathematics, reading and languages in the initial class. Research by Potchefstroom University includes, inter alia, the prediction of scholastic achievements and the determination of factors contributing towards poor scholastic achievements on the part of Black pupils. This university also undertakes the development of models predicting the academic achievements of particular groups of Black pupils in various Std 10 subjects. The University of the North has undertaken a project entitled “The teaching of English literature to African students”.

There is a particularly long list of research projects falling under education.

Stock research is concerned chiefly with improving the strain of the indigenous cattle breeds and the improving of our indigenous herds. The University of Pretoria has done particularly good work in this connection. The University of Fort Hare instituted an investigation that was necessary for all meat products, for example the social consumer value of cattle, communal grazing, overgrazing, poor planning, extension services and so forth.

There is also a very long list of research projects in regard to agricultural research that have been undertaken by the Universities of Natal, Fort Hare and others.

One of the spheres in which probably the best achievement has been gained, is fresh water fish research. The Fisheries Development Committee was brought into being some time ago, and the heads of department of the departments of zoology of the following universities have a seat on that committee: The RAU, the University of the North, the University of Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of Transkei. The head of the J L B Smith Ichthyological Institute also has a seat on the committee. These people gather annually at the invitation of the respective rectors. Fish breeding stations have been established at the Universities of Transkei and the North. The first honorary doctor’s degree in zoology awarded to a Black man was in this specific direction. A degree course in this direction has been instituted at the University of the North, and a diploma course in fisheries management has for some years now been offered at an agricultural college in Lebowa. Various reports have been produced to the very great advantage of the industry.

However, the best results that have been obtained have been in regard to motivation studies. This deals with the promotion of achievement motivation. The post-graduate management school of the University of Pretoria has undertaken research on behalf of the department to motivate the Black man in a variety of spheres towards higher achievements through the medium of achievement motivation. Pioneer work is being done in this regard, and it has been found that Blacks who have completed the courses have been motivated appreciably towards higher achievement. Black supervisors at a well-known motor company have become so motivated that sales complaints and complaints in regard to repairs have dropped by 90%. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I believe that the Committee owes a debt of gratitude to the hon member for Nelspruit for the information that he gave us in connection with research projects. I think too that we all agree that it is necessary for us in the present circumstances to continue with scientific research and that it should also remain a prerequisite.

I appreciate the announcement made by the hon the Minister in regard to the investigation affecting the complaints or accusations regarding Lebowa, because in my opinion it is necessary for the air to be cleared.

Furthermore, I urge the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs not to take the accusation regarding the myth so seriously. I was in the House when the episode took place, and I was under the impression that it took place during the course of the debate without the implications of it actually having been realized. However, the hon the Minister must not be so sensitive about it because as far as use of that political affiliation to the Black man outside the national states is concerned it is nothing but a myth. In fact, the hon member for Durban Point also made this fact very clear today, and so it is not necessary for the hon the Minister to backtrack as far as this matter is concerned.

But that is not our policy.

Mr Chairman, there are actually two matters I wish to discuss in the very limited time at my disposal. The one aspect to which I want to refer, is a reflection of the impressions that I have obtained from this debate, and in the second place, I also want to refer to the Hoexter Report which thus far has not been mentioned in this discussion.

I have taken note with appreciation of the attitude adopted by the hon the Minister, and I welcome particularly his appeal that we should build together on these matters and so forth. I also appreciate his reference to the Louis Rive Report and the Government’s reaction to it as far as the Eastern Cape is concerned. There are many things for which I am grateful including the interview which officials had with members of our caucus in regard to Khayelitsha.

If I have to epitomise my general impressions, I can do so as follows: Firstly, as far as Khayelitsha is concerned, it is not the intention of the Government to compel the people of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu to go to Khayelitsha. That is my first impression and is one that I want to state positively in that form so that there can be no further doubt in regard to this matter.

Furthermore it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the normal development services in these three Black residential areas, as was made clear by the hon the Prime Minister and here too this afternoon by the hon the Minister.

The meaning of the last paragraph of the statement on the resolution of the Cabinet of 10 April dealing with the investigation of the density of population will have to be explained to us by the hon the Minister at some or other stage. It is not clear to me whether that paragraph refers to Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu or to Khayelitsha.

Mr Chairman, if we hope to achieve stability in the Peninsula, it is necessary for the Government to reconsider its policy as far as the 99 year leashold system for the Western Cape is concerned.

The second matter to which I want to refer, is the removal of Crossroads. I am afraid that I feel very much less happy about the attitude adopted by the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation in this regard as reflected in his statement. The hon the Deputy Minister made it very clear that irrespective of what may happen, the so called illegals will be removed from this area, and that only those people who qualify in terms of 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) will be moved to Khayelitsha or be provided with housing.

It appears to me as though the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation has anticipated the decision of the Cabinet Committee and also the Bill which will flow from it. I am referring now to the statement of the hon the Minister in regard to the consultation that is going to take place with Black urban and local authorities and others. The Grosskopf Committee recommended, inter alia, that a period of five years should be accepted as the period after which a person should be acknowledged to have become permanently urbanised.

With retrospective effect as well.

Yes. With a view to that recommendation I think that the hon the Deputy Minister is going too far at this stage. If it is the policy simply to send people back to places where there are no job opportunities—the hon member for Houghton also referred to this—in my view it will achieve nothing. I am not at all happy about the way in which the hon the Deputy Minister has described the situation at Crossroads. He used shocking terms, because after all people are living there under those circumstances. If terms of that nature were to be used abroad and it were to be said moreover that this was a description given by the hon the Deputy Minister of the conditions there, one can imagine how it would be used against South Africa. In pursuance of this the allegation can also be made that this is a reflection upon Government policy.

However, I want now to refer to the Hoexter Report. I should also have liked to refer to the question of urbanization and other matters, but unfortunately my time is too limited. I welcome the recommendation in the Hoexter Report that there be a single hierarchy of courts in South Africa. In my opinion this is a good recommendation and I am pleased that the Government has accepted it. From the nature of the case I also agree that it is advisable at this stage to think of the abolition of the commissioners’ courts, the divorce courts and the appeal courts for commissioners’ courts. I must however admit that I accept this with a large measure of nostalgia because in spite of what is stated in the report, the appeal courts particularly have rendered valuable service. Through the medium of their judgements they have enabled us to properly record and understand the system of indigenous law. As far as this is concerned, I miss an appreciation for those services in the Hoexter Report. Leading men have served as chairmen of those appeal courts, for example, people like McClachlan, Steenkamp, Sleigh and others, people for whom I have the highest respect because they knew the indigenous law intimately.

Where magistrates’ courts are now going to have to take over the work of commissioners’ courts, and as the Hoexter Commission has indicated, inter alia, that commissioners’ courts ought to be abolished on account of the criminal work that they have to do as a result of the policy of the Government of influx control, I must point out that if the magistrates’ courts now have to undertake that same work, we will not have progressed at all because then the magistrates’ courts are going to follow the same road as that followed by the commissioners’ courts. In my opinion the Hoexter Commission should therefore have gone further and recommended that in order to avoid this, it was necessary that all those measures which as the hon member for Johannesburg North indicated have over the past four years led to the fact that 800 000 Blacks Have been arrested, ought to be fundamentally reviewed.

There are a few other recommendations in the Hoexter Report which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon the Minister because I am concerned about them. I shall however discuss some of them under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Justice if I have an opportunity to speak. The fact that the Supreme Court will not take note judicially of the indigenous law is in my opinion a mistake because, as recommended by the Hoexter Commission, the indigenous law has on each occasion to be proved in a case. I believe that this will be unfair in respect of the Black people. I also want to suggest that attention be given anew to the proposed small claims courts, and particularly to the proposed family courts in order to make those family courts more acceptable and available to Black people, particularly in the light of the abolition of the Black divorce courts and commissioners’ courts. If the magistrates and the judges want to do their work properly in respect of the Black people—I am not talking now about the application of the indigenous law—then proper training in the indigenous law will be a prerequisite. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer briefly to certain matters regarding consolidation. Consolidation of course creates new border situations and affects the lives of those involved in it. Therefore, any uncertainty which exists regarding consolidation, eats like a cancer at their souls, and we are aware of it. I want to remind the House that consolidation needs to be finalized within four years, in other words in 1987, to allay the uncertainty among people. How does the commission go about finalizing matters swiftly and establishing permanent boundaries? In the first instance the commission submits suggestions to the Cabinet Committee. The Cabinet Committee makes certain recommendations to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet then releases these suggestions for discussion and consideration and for the hearing of evidence. Public hearings take place, as well as hearings in camera, and a wide spectrum of the public gives evidence there.

I want immediately to come back to the question of Gilead Limburg and the question of Block 24. The process will shortly be set in motion and certain recommendations will then be made public on which evidence will be heard. The hon member for Waterberg, all the farmers in the community and the others involved will therefore have a golden opportunity to state their cases.

Although we regret that there is uncertainty, this should not be the case as this matter is handled speedily and efficiently. We will also give interested parties every opportunity to state their case before final recommendations are made to the Cabinet for its decision.

The hon member for Barberton was also a member of the commission and knows exactly what the situation is, but I do want to say to him that the National Party’s guardian MP for Barberton, the hon member for Ermelo, is a member of the commission and will therefore handle Barberton’s interests properly, of that the people of Barberton can be certain.

Another matter to which I want to refer briefly, is that of Mgwali.

†I wish to refer briefly to Mgwali because I want to tell the hon member for Albany that in this regard we are faced with a factual situation. At the time of independence, agreements were entered into in terms of which, amongst others, the administration of Mgwali was in certain respects transferred to Ciskei or was already in the hands of Ciskei, while the aspect of law and order was the responsibility of South Africa. These are factual situations. Anybody is free to go and look at these agreements. The point is, however, that the hon the Minister is not complacent. I am also the chairman of an implementation committee and the intention is to implement the agreements entered into at the time of independence. We are doing our utmost to solve this rather serious problem. I agree with the hon member that one cannot afford to be complacent about this matter because it is indeed a very serious matter.

We have, however, a problem in that there are agitators who show no respect for the authorities, and if I could suggest one thing that would help us to solve the problem or the problems prevailing in areas like Mgwali, it would be an appeal to the agitators to respect the authorities in control. Should they heed that appeal it would in my view help us tremendously to solve the problem very expeditiously. I am sure the hon member can make a contribution in this regard as he is well-known in that region, and I therefore appeal to him to help us. I can assure him that everybody concerned, each and every state concerned, and especially the hon the Minister, is certainly not complacent but very serious to reach some solution to this very vexed question.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pretoria East has dealt briefly with the situation in Mgwali. I think he ought to know, as the hon the Minister told him, that the hon member for Albany and the hon member for Walmer and I had an interview with the hon the Minister on the situation at Mgwali. The two hon members did some very valuable research into the precise situation there and their plea to the hon the Minister when we interviewed him was that the Minister should realize that there are two sides to the story. The undertaking was given that the hon the Deputy Minister would visit Mgwali and we would be kept in the picture as to what the situation was. We had the assurance that he would try to listen to both sides of the story.

We can still see you about that.

I do not want to take it any further at this stage but I want to put it on the record. In the very brief time at the end of this debate I want to say that I am grateful to the hon the Minister for the reply he gave this morning to some of the issues I have raised yesterday although I must say that there still are a number of matters which remain unresolved. The Minister endeavoured to deal with the Special Report of the Surplus People’s Project, but he did so—if I may say so—very selectively and very superficially. It is true that he complained that he did not have enough time and he told us that he was now ready to have the Press conference which he promised us some weeks before. I trust that when he has that Press conference he will be able to go into great detail on the criticism he has of the Surplus People’s Project and also on the whole question of forced removals in South Africa. What did strike me as decidedly odd was that while he could be selective in quoting and identifying some minor items of comment in the Report of the Surplus People’s Project, he was not able to deal specifically with the gravamen of the Report, namely the massive numbers of people alleged to have been moved.

I shall give you the number in a moment.

That is what I want the hon the Minister to say, because I think it is easily identifiable. If the hon the Minister looks at the first volume of the Report, apart from comment which he may be critical of, there are tables and numbers as well as references as to where these numbers come from. Some of the numbers come from the hon the Minister’s own department. I think it is quite easy for the hon the Minister to identify the actual figures. I think it would have been very easy for him at this stage to tell us that according to the records of his department this is the number of people removed during a specified period. The Report mentions three and a half million people who have been removed since 1960 in South Africa. Even if it is out by one million that would be considerable. That means that there are still two and a half million people removed during that period. I do not think that that makes the situation any better. The fact is though that removals are still taking place although one takes a little bit of heart from the more benign attitude which one detected in the hon the Minister’s approach this morning when he said that he was going to look again at removals or threatened removal areas. The fact is that removals are still taking place. We have had evidence of this from replies to questions we have put on the Question Paper throughout this session. There has been comment on the subject of removals from a number of members on the Government’s side to the effect that the PFP is opposed to any form of removal of people. The member for Bloemfontein North said that we had said nothing about Whites who were affected by population removals. That is simply not so. Firstly, I should like to put on record that we are opposed as a party to forced removals based on ideological grounds when these removals are against the wishes of those concerned. There must be no doubt about that at all. Secondly, we recognize that there are circumstances when it may be necessary to remove people if there is to be economic development, if there is to be infrastructural development or it is in the general public’s interest for building of dams, roads, etc. These things happen to Whites where expropriation proceedings take place. It is necessary sometimes to unsettle people, but not for purely ideological reasons. Certainly, we acknowledge that some Whites are affected and that considerable uncertainty and unsettlement is caused to those farmers who know their farms have been earmarked to be taken over for Black occupation. We do recognize that and the hon member for Bloemfontein North mentioned that some 5 000 contracts have been involved involving White farms. That was responded to by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North who dealt with it. He said that the necessity was to ensure that when agricultural land was taken over it was allowed to remain productive. That is the attitude of this side of the House to that. When the hon member for Bloemfontein North talks about 5 000 contracts involving Whites farms we take note of that. However, he should recognize that that has to be compared with whether it is two million, three million or three and a half million Blacks who have in fact been affected by removals. We are perfectly justified as a party in expressing concern at this situation involving the Black population of South Africa.

Another question which arises when one deals with removals is how can we oppose removals if they are designed in the interest of the people concerned. I referred yesterday to the jargon of the department who invariably gives the reason that these people have to be moved to an area where they can share full community life with their own compatriots and where the potential exists to provide the necessary infrastructure to improve their quality of life. Who are they bluffing? This is not always the case with many of the removals nor was it in the past. It certainly is not or was not the case for example when the people of Reserve No 6 in Natal were removed from one area to a grazing area near Heatonville having been taken from agricultural land. It certainly is not going to be the case if the people of Reserve No 4 are going to be removed. I wait with interest to hear not what the hon member for Umfolozi is going to say, but to hear from the hon the Minister what the future of the people of Reserve No 4 is going to be. These are communities, as I have said, where there are probably some 20 000 people involved. They and their forebears have been living there for more than 200 years. They are a settled, economically viable community. Part of the territory is prime agricultural land. There is forestry land, there are sawmills, economic activity is taking place. They do not need the sort of jargon one gets from the department that they need to share full community life with their compatriots. This is a settled community. In fact, there are people from the tribe moving into that area from the urban areas which I would imagine the Government would have welcomed. The hon the Minister must also tell us what is happening, because rumours are rife, where does he intend to move these people, if he intends to move them. I hope to goodness that he does not, because there is going to be a major problem if he was so ill-advised to unsettle these people. He must tell us where does he intend to move them to. There have been rumours that they may go to an area near Nthambanana. There have been other rumours that they may go to an area near Nkanthla, but basically it would be a criminal act if these people are to be disturbed of the occupation which they have had of this area for many many years indeed. There is no way in which the Government can compensate these people who are under threat of removal. In reply to a question which I put on the Question Paper the other day, the hon the Minister said he could not specify or go into this matter at this stage, because it was linked to consolidation of kwaZulu and the development of Richards Bay. That still does not mean that he cannot answer the question to whether these people have to go on living in the uncertainty of believing that they are going to be removed. If there is going to be consolidation or if there is going to be development of Richards Bay they could be incorporated into that sort of development. There is no way in which they could justly be removed from an area which they have occupied for over 200 years as a tribe. I believe this matter has to be cleared up and it has to be cleared up as soon as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I come to the hon member for Berea, I just want to make a remark in regard to consolidation. It was my intention to ask today that the consolidation of kwaZulu be proceeded with irrespective of the Rumpff Commission. I was pleased to learn that two plans will now in fact be proceeded with, and I want to point out in a friendly way that the fact that we have been waiting for so many years now for a final decision has resulted in a great deal of uncertainty in an area as far as planning, development and investment are concerned. We want to make an urgent appeal that the consolidation of kwaZulu be proceeded with capably and swiftly.

An aspect which also gives cause for concern is the fact that while there is still no final decision in regard to the consolidation of kwaZulu, many people are doubtful if regard to the future of the Empangeni/ Richards Bay growth point. Accordingly, I want to make a friendly appeal to the Government if it can see its way clear to do so, to make a statement in connection with the future of this important growth point which is of national importance, not only of importance to those of us in that region. As far as decentralization is concerned, it is a dynamic, realistic and practical policy that the Government is following which is very important for both Black and White. The negative and problematical effect of job opportunities away from home and away from families causes many problems. A very good example of the successful implementation of the policy of decentralization is the Empangeni/Richards Bay growth point. I am certain the hon member for Berea will agree with me that the development of this growth point has created many job opportunities for Black people accommodated within kwaZulu. I am certain the Opposition will agree with me that it was important and that the planning and the development of Richards Bay was also in the interests of kwaZulu. Does the hon member agree with me?

Yes, of course.

He agrees. In order to do this, we had of necessity to move Reserve 6. It would otherwise not have been possible to bring that growth point into being. The hon member for Berea says he agrees that it was necessary for the planning and development. After all, we could not build another storey on Reserve 6. However, I cannot understand the hon member’s reasoning. He says that the PFP agrees that where it is necessary for removals to take place, this should be done. Here we have a living example of where this was in fact necessary. The planning of the Richards Bay growth point’s infrastructure also included the removal of Reserve 4. I have never heard the hon member objecting to the planning of the initial stage of Richards Bay. [Interjections.] It is very clear to me that the PFP are approaching this matter from only one angle. The voters in my constituency will take note of that fact. The factual situation is that the development of this growth point has created more job opportunities for Black people. As far as Richards Bay is concerned, a projection has been made in regard to the necessity for the further development of residential sites for the Whites in the area. The factual situation is now that by 1990 plots will be required in Reserve 4 for occupation...

By whom?

Whites. I hear the hon member saying: That is the old story. I know the history of Reserve 4. I know that area very well, and apparently the hon member also knows it very well. However, it is quite clear to me that the hon member has no knowledge of the planning of the framework of the growth point, that he has no knowledge of growth projections, and that he has no knowledge of the guideplan in respect of this growth point which was drawn up by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon member is approaching this whole matter from only one angle.

I want to mention a further point. Compaction is taking place in Reserve 4. It is important to note that Black people from Esikhaweni are settling there. There are Black people who have already been paid by the Government to move and who are settling there again. What is happening now? They are settling near the municipal boundary of Richards Bay and on the Msingazi Lake, and a squatters’ township has arisen there now. There are unhygienic conditions. There are no sewerage facilities or fresh water supplies of any kind. However, the hon member wants them to be able to stay there. Therefore, when we talk of resettlement, it is also development-oriented on a planned basis—that one will settle them elsewhere where the necessary development services and infrastructure are available. At this stage, I do not wish to speculate on where they should go. There is not sufficient time for that, but it is in the interests of Greater kwaZulu and in the interests of the inhabitants of Reserve 4 that these negotiations should be conducted as soon as possible. I should like to put a question to the hon member. If one is opposed to the clearing of poorly situated spots, what are the implications of this in comparison with clearing these parts and including them in Greater kwaZulu? In the long run, one will find that overpopulation takes place in that spot. Moreover, that spot is isolated and does not form part of greater kwaZulu. The hon member does not take that into consideration at all. Our approach is that any removal must from the nature of things take place with a great deal of sympathy. Negotiations must take place. However, the hon Opposition are inciting people against removal. As a result they are doing our country a great deal of harm. I think it is extremely irresponsible. It is also not in the interests of these Black people for whom we wish to make many job opportunities available at this growth point.

I am very grateful to the hon member who has just sat down and who also did not use his full speaking time. I want to tell him that the Commission for Co-operation and Development will be ready in a month’s time to make the investigation he asked for. Subsequently, a statement will be made in that regard.

I also want to reply immediately to the hon member for Berea. I have already made the figures available that they want so much. According to the figures of my department, during the period 1975 to 1982, 243 019 people were resettled. This was made up of 34 713 families. From 1975 to 1983 the figures were 247 537 people or 35 385 families. I do not as yet have the figures from 1960 because it is very difficult to isolate them. At the conference I will explain as best I can what a time-consuming process that is. One has to know by definition what is meant in that report and what the department means, otherwise misunderstandings will arise.

I also want to make use of the opportunity to say that up to 31 March 1984 no fewer than 83 864 houses were sold under the home-ownership scheme for Black people. I know that I do not merit the friendship and the sympathetic approach of my own people and all three of the opposition parties as far as the discussion of this Vote yesterday and today is concerned. That is why I appreciate it so much. I am very grateful for it.

I want particularly to thank hon members on my side. They were well prepared because they knew that this discussion made it clear: “We are building.” Each made his particular contribution very well indeed. I want to thank the hon member for Virginia for having highlighted development in his speech so well. The report of the University of Pretoria on development in Lebowa as well as the report of the Rand Afrikaans University on development in Gazankulu was submitted to me some weeks ago. What a pleasure it was to listen to the hon member for Standerton in regard to indigenous law. He did not disappoint us. It is always a privilege to listen to him and we are grateful to him. The hon member for Innesdal who also discussed development, is a young member who for many years was connected with the Department of Co-operation and Development, and I have a very great appreciation for him in spite of the denigration that he has sometimes to endure on the part of some hon members. I am very grateful for his positive contribution. The hon member for Bloemfontein-North highlighted a matter of fundamental importance, not only for the present but also for the years to come, namely squatting. He dealt with this matter in a very nice way. I also want to thank him for his contribution to the work of the commission and I also want to thank the members of the commission for their contributions. I have a great appreciation for the hon member for False Bay who is a wonderful example to members of Parliament under difficult curcumstances in that in those difficult circumstances he goes ahead of his voters and stands by the Government although he has to pay the price for it. The Government will not disappoint him and the Government may not disappoint him. As far as the hon member for Queenstown is concerned—what an old fighter he is; he is not here now, he asked to be excused—I agree that it is not fair if members of Parliament go into another man’s constituency without informing the MP. Therefore, I subscribe to the request that he made and I respect him. He is a man who really does his best in the service of his constituency and represents the interests of his constituency very successfully. I can bear personal witness to that. I also want to thank the hon member for De Kuilen very much indeed for his positive contribution and for the work that he does on the commission and elsewhere as well. He is a man whom I have respected over many long years. The hon member for Ermelo is a strong man. He is also making a contribution on the commission under difficult circumstances. I also want to thank him very much indeed. We have great appreciation for the hon member for Newton Park because he acts calmly and also because of his considered opinions as Deputy Chairman of the Commission. I thank him very much indeed. I want to thank the hon member for Losberg for his contribution in regard to the Venter Commission and the recommendations to which he drew attention and, inter alia, the fact that the hon member for Langlaagte of the CP subscribed to the recommendations of that commission. I want to thank the hon member very much indeed for his very positive contribution and express my deep appreciation to him. I also want to thank the hon member Dr Odendaal very much indeed. I want to tell the hon member Dr Odendaal that it is very pleasant for me to be able to say that in pursuance of his request in connection with the industrial and urban development at Harrismith, I can state that the planning in this regard has already reached an advanced stage. After the consolidation boundaries have been announced, it will continue to enjoy the highest priority. I am personally interested in it. It is extremely important. I should like to tell the hon member for Middelburg that he made an exceptionally positive contribution, and did it exceptionally well, in regard to the culture of the Kwandebele. We have all been enriched by it and we thank him very much indeed for it. I have already thanked the two hon Deputy Ministers for their contributions. I want to thank the hon member for Maraisburg very much indeed for his contribution in regard to community development and youth work. This caused me to say to the Whip: It is a pity that we cannot discuss youth work more because there are so many positive and fine things in connection with youth work among the Black people that can be said here. The hon member for Nelspruit spoke about research. He is a researcher himself. How many hon members know the basic facts in regard to the research that is being done by the Department of Co-operation and Development and the great contribution that is being made in that regard? Many thanks to the hon member for having drawn our attention to this matter. I must thank the hon member for Durban Point for what he said in regard to consultation. I am sorry that I have to hurry along with this but hon members must please understand my position. The hon member is quite right when he says that consultation has become an extremely important key word in this country. I can assure him that a great deal of consultation is taking place with Black leaders, not only the leaders of national states but also leaders outside of the national states. I have also had discussions with a phalanx of leaders outside of the national states and others on behalf of the special Cabinet Committee. This is an ongoing process and I can assure hon members that positive results will flow from it. I am sorry that I cannot join issue for a moment with the hon member for Sandton. The action of the commissioner concerned on that particular day will be investigated. Corrective steps will be taken if necessary. I must say that the hon member was not completely fair, but I leave the matter at that. I want to tell the hon member for Parktown that I am very sympathetically disposed towards his request.

†I give him the assurance that my department will at all times whenever possible accommodate the problems described. He is welcome to bring individual cases to our notice and I shall try to deal with them as I told him also in private. I express my sincere appreciation for the sympathetic way in which he put his case.

*With that I have replied to most of the speeches of hon members except that I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that Chief Minister Mopedi has on two occasions now in his legislative assembly objected strongly to the comparison that is drawn between a CP Coloured homeland and that of Qwaqwa. These are things which we do not always realize. I am just bringing it to his attention in a friendly way. The other gentlemen have replied in detail to the hon member’s questions. I wish that I could reply more fully to the speech of the hon member for Houghton. I want to tell her that any person who contends that the more than R8 000 million that has been invested in the development of Black areas since this Government took office, has not made a great contribution towards development in the national states and the combating of poverty, must really think again. As far as the hon member for Barberton is concerned, I believe that his speech has already been replied to. I have now replied to the speeches of hon members as far as I have been able to. Further replies will be given in writing.

Is Barberton going to be incorporated or not?

The hon member for Barberton was a member of the commission in regard to the incorporation of Barberton.

That is my difficulty.

I have absolutely no recommendation of any commission before me in connection with the incorporation of Barberton in Kangwane. At the moment there is no reason to try to make political capital out of this matter. The hon leader of the CP was replied to in regard to Block 24.

Release me from the Official Secrets Act.

We will shortly be making a statement in regard to the consolidation of Lebowa. Great progress has already been made in this regard. In the meantime the people there can feel absolutely at ease about it. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mooi River has already been replied to. Unfortunately, I cannot reply any further to hon members. I have replied to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I come now to the hon member Prof Olivier. I am very sorry that I have to be so hurried. The hon member Prof Olivier raised a few very important matters here. In connection with population density I want to mention specifically that I will be making further statements in this regard as soon as possible. As soon as possible after this debate I shall be furnishing the hon member as well as other hon members to whom I have had to reply hastily with written replies. I have the replies here, but unfortunately time does not permit me to give them.

Before my time expires I do want to mention one point. I want specifically to thank the leaders of the national states, Prof Ntsangwisi, Dr Phatudi, Mr Mopedi, Mr Mabusa, Chief Minister Buthelezi and Mr Skosana and express my appreciation to them for the way in which they are co-operating in order to try to find solutions to difficult problems. They are often the target of abuse, and I feel that it is my duty to mention with appreciation the positive contribution that they are making. I also want to thank my officials very much indeed and I want to mention specifically the officials of my Ministry. Those people work overtime, over weekends, sometimes including Sundays. I know of their devotion to duty and the hard work that they put in, and I want to thank them very much for this. Many thanks to the officials of the department. I want to express my thanks to the Commissioners-General namely Mr Hans Meyer, Mr Johan Mills, Mr Kobus Jordaan, Mr Piet Pretorius, Mr Punt Janson and Mr Vlooi van Rooyen. When one has people to lean on such as these in the national states the number of one’s problems is reduced. Many thanks for their great contributions. People do not know what sacrifices these officials make, and in this I include too the officials of the development councils and the directors of those bodies. Everyone connected with this great, mighty and comprehensive department must know that there is true appreciation for what they are doing. That is why I want to conclude by removing all possible misunderstanding in regard to a certain matter. That is the question of the rationalization of this department. I do not want anybody not to sleep peacefully in this regard once the discussion of this Vote has been concluded.

In the context in which I use rationalization, here today as well, it means the arranging of the implementation of the work more efficiently. If in the process it becomes necessary to delegate certain functions to other persons or bodies in the spirit of the Government’s policy of the maximum devolution of power, it does not at all mean that the department will thereby be fragmented or that the status or quality of its functions need necessarily be affected in the process. It means rather that minor tasks can be disposed of voluntarily by way of delegation and/or on an agency service basis in order that the major tasks can be dealt with so much more efficiently. From the nature of the Government’s policy in regard to the constitutional development of the Black people within and outside the national states, it is self-evident that, generally speaking, the delegation of functions and the process of the devolution of power will take place primarily to Black persons and bodies and local and other authorities within and outside the national states. This process is an evolutionary one that is growing and developing from the department with great responsibility and also great objectivity. I do not in any way wish to disturb this process by allowing any misunderstanding to arise in regard to this matter. These people, these officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development, are particularly sensitive because they are so devoted. Therefore, I want to conclude by saying that in this discussion that has been a sign of “we are building” I am really grateful to be able to say that I believe that good building work has been done over the past two days. That is why I am truly able to say with the poet: “Hoe breek die toekoms van my land, Suid-Afrika, stralend oop”, as long as we continue to build positively and to seek those things in regard to which we can find consensus with one another such as the building of good relationships. Then all will be well with our children and our descendants within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.

Vote agreed to.