Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to record my thanks for the contributions of those hon members who participated in this debate. I also want to record my appreciation for their balanced arguments.

We do, of course, disagree fundamentally about issues and about solutions. The way in which we do so, however, is of cardinal importance in a debate such as this.

Unfortunately it is not possible for me to react to every hon member individually. I have therefore decided to reply to the most important matters raised.

I want to begin with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. He made specific statements and drew specific conclusions from my speech that I think require a reply. In regard to the group concept the hon the leader said the following:

Surely I never said that that would be the situation. I said the very opposite. I should like to quote to the hon member what I said about this on Friday:

I also want to quote, however, what I said on 9 February, because I elaborated on that on Friday:

What does that mean? It means, firstly, that the acceptance of free association does not abolish or negate the existence and natural formation of groups in our society. All we are saying is that group formation should not be enforced, but rather take place naturally, as it does in any event. Surely the hon the leader is primarily a member of the White group, not because the law says so, but because he wants to be. We are now saying that group formation should take place in such a way and that the State should protect those groups if they ask for protection.

Secondly group formation, natural group formation, is not a one-way street. The individual’s free choice about the group to which he wants to belong is supplemented or complemented by his acceptance by that group. It has nothing to do with racism. Groups simply accept members who comply with the qualities or characteristics of that group. That is part of the process of natural group formation. It is really not necessary for me to give the hon the leader a lecture on natural group formation. Based on the statements I have made, therefore, his fear that I have suddenly latched onto a “melting pot” idea is completely without foundation. [Interjections.] Therefore his suggestion that a Zulu or a Tswana will now have the right to exercise his political rights within the White group is palpably ridiculous and erroneous. The NP, however, believes that it should be possible for the individual to function outside a specific group if he so chooses. We consequently believe that enforced group formation should be replaced by freedom of choice.

The hon the leader also set up an Aunt Sally by asking whether free association would mean that the Whites would be forced to accept a mixed voters’ roll and a multiracial House of Assembly. Surely that it not what I said. Nor are there any grounds for such a conclusion.

I have already quoted to him what my views are in this connection. Those groups that want to participate as groups in decision-making—I accept that the Whites are such a group, and that is the one with which I associate myself—have the right to do so, and the State must protect that right. This means that our constitutional bodies must be structured accordingly.

The hon the leader says there is a contradiction in our planning in that we grant ethnic states to the Zulus, the Tswanas and the Vendas, but not to the other communities of South Africa. What is so strange about that? That is the essence of the difference between the CP and the NP. We are saying that those peoples that have traditional areas have the right to form states if they wish to do so. Those communities that are in the same land area and must share that area, must find a modus vivendi to live there together in harmony. That is and always has been our policy.

The CP says that all communities, whether they have their own land area or not, must be separated from one another by way of geographic partition. This utopian idea of partition, however, has not yet progressed any further than a mere thought process in the minds of the hon the leader and his party. It has not yet even reached the drawing-board stage.

Let me remind him of the question the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives asked him, during the debate on the State President’s Vote, about where his homeland would be. The hon the leader reacted by saying that he was sitting in his homeland. If that is true, I want to ask the hon the leader where my homeland is, because I stand in the same one, ie Helderberg. [Interjections.]

I am prepared to make the following statement. The CP will not be in a position to comply with the inexorable demands made upon them in the election to spell out their plans. The NP is placing its policy, its plans and its methods of operation on the table, and the CP will pay the price for its failure to do so.

We shall be informing voters about the fallaciousness of the CP’s policy of partition and about the fact that they cannot spell it out. Let me say at once that that is also their weakest point, because it cannot be spelled out and cannot be implemented. It is escapist gymnastics, and I do not think hon members will be able to escape the consequences.

A third point I should like to deal with involves the obsession, on the part of the hon the leader and his party, with the question of numbers. The hon the leader raked up an old argument illustrating his obsession with numbers. He asked whether I hoped that Black people would be satisfied with anything less than a majority system, and he clearly means, of course, that they will not. He then asked how one would obtain consensus if one wanted to grant Black people participation on any basis other than a numerical one.

According to him numbers must be the decisive factor if one does not want to discriminate. His colleagues argue with us in the same vein. The hon member for Losberg wanted to know whether a Black majority in the South Africa of the future was Government policy, whilst the hon member for Roodepoort asked whether there was going to be a Black majority in the Government. He argued that since the Black people were in the majority in this country, they would also be the majority in the Government.

Another hon member who holds the same view is the hon member for Border. According to him Black majority rule is inevitable owing to the numerical preponderance of Black people.

Apparently the CP cannot get away from the numerical basis when they speak about a democracy. They regard the system of one man, one vote, in which the majority takes all, as the only form of democracy. It is actually ironic that both the CP and the DP accept a majority model as their point of departure, and then do a lot of squirming around trying to escape the consequences.

It was the hon member for Randburg, whose policy—as the hon member for Caledon pointed out—boils down to Black majority rule, who pointed out, in fact, that simple majority rule was not the only form of democracy. Why did he feel it necessary to make that statement?

It clearly suggests that he is also floundering around in an effort to get away from the numerical aspect. It is specifically the NP’s standpoint that a numerical basis need not be the only basis in a democracy. It is also our standpoint that in our singular society a numerical basis does not have to be the only basis on which to avoid domination either. We specifically want to get away from a system in which numbers are the decisive factor because this would, in fact, boil down to majority rule by the numerically strongest group.

The hon member for Southern Cape argued this point very effectively, pointing out that wherever groups were equal and participated on an equal footing, majority rule was fair. If not, majority rule was unfair.

In the USA, for example, there are various minority groups, but how do they experience the American majority system and principles? I believe that is the gist of our argument. In South Africa groups are relevant in the political context. That is why groups, and not merely individuals, ought to be the building blocks for the political processes of the country.

Within groups numbers make a difference. Within the White group the NP enjoys the most support, and that is why it has the final say there. Within groups, therefore, the majority principle applies. In our view, however, at the inter-group level the majority principle does not apply, numbers not being the decisive factor.

Mumbo-jumbo!

I can understand the hon member for Brakpan not being able to comprehend that.

But who understands you? [Interjections.]

Groups must carry equal weight in decision-making, regardless of their size. Groups are equal and should have an equal say in the event of joint decision-making. We are very successfully applying this principle in various ways in different bodies, and that is something we can use as a basis for development. There are various mechanisms in democracy that can be implemented to get away from the decisive role played by numbers. There are quite a few examples of democratic systems in which the majority principle is not decisive, systems we can examine. Even in the so-called majority systems, mechanisms are employed which do not represent typical majority techniques.

In the composition of the American Senate, for example, each federal state is assigned two senators, regardless of the population differences in the respective federal states. The British House of Lords, however, is constituted on a totally different basis to a numerical one. I think that in our negotiations we can obtain consensus about a system and about mechanisms in which numbers do not play a decisive role.

The basic difference between us, the CP and the DP lies in that aspect. The CP does not perceive this possibility, but does not want to either. That is why they seek refuge in partitioned states as the only way of escaping Black majority rule.

There is, however, another statement about which I want to address the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, and I quote:

The hon the leader is entitled to oppose me in my views. He is not, however, entitled to argue about views I have not adopted, professing that I have done so. I challenge him to indicate, from any NP statement, that this statement of his is true. I challenge him to prove this from my speech last Friday. Where in my speech did I advocate Black majority rule?

The overall policy and plan I have spelt out is specifically aimed at avoiding, at getting away from, majority rule in this country. That is the essential criticism we have of the policies of the DP and CP. How can I advocate Black domination when I am specifically pointing to the necessity for equal group participation, decision-making mechanisms and other methods of avoiding domination? I did not even refer to a non-racial society. I do, in fact, believe that we should obtain a non-racial society, and I am making concerted efforts towards that end.

The existence of races is a reality, and therefore our country cannot be a non-racial country, but we can ensure that we do not use race as a basis for the discriminatory treatment of anyone, and that is the reason why we can build up a non-racial society. That is what the elimination of discrimination essentially implies.

I now come to the hon member for Randburg. I am going to deal with him briefly. The hon member said that through the process of negotiation South Africa would, through a transitional phase, be led into full-fledged, participatory democracy, a system which he defines as:

The hon member gave us greater clarity about his party’s objectives for South Africa. I take it that his co-leaders endorse this. With this vision this party is, in effect, advocating negotiation with the ANC by way of the “good offices” of Russia in order to achieve this system.

He says the DP also stands for security. The security of minority groups must apparently be guaranteed in “the best traditions of Western democracy”.

The hon member went further, however, and argued that simple majority rule was not the only form of democracy. I agree with him on this point. This is also the Government’s point of departure. This view of his, however, is in conflict with his vision for South Africa. His vision he has clearly stated as a system of one man, one vote in the best traditions of Western democracy.

My contention is that this party is not prepared to accept, or to spell out, the full consequences of its vision or its policy. I allege that the hon member has difficulty in circumventing the realities of the composition of the South African population. He must forget about all his qualifications, such as the recognition and the maintenance of cultural groups formed by free association in the Constitution, proportional electoral systems and federalism. Has he not accepted, as a point of departure, that the system of one man, one vote for South Africa should be negotiated with the ANC via Moscow?

It is not possible to ignore the realities of South Africa, particularly if one is committed to the establishment of a viable and lasting democracy in this part of Africa. The Government is committed to this. We do not, however, live in a dream-world, let alone a “traditional Western country”. The hon member for Wynberg effectively indicated that the DP’s policy was specifically rooted in typical Western liberal philosophy. Whether one wants to or not, the realities of South Africa modify one’s inclination to do so with realism and with the realisation of the importance of every step, however insignificant it may be.

We shall not achieve our objective by placing our hopes on so-called traditional Western democratic traditions. We must, step by step, build up a South African tradition. Traditions do not spring up overnight. They are shaped and established by people with the same interests, the same ideals, coming together and co-operating in circumstances in which they must jointly deal with a situation common to them all. That is what we are doing here, and that is what we must achieve in our processes of negotiation. This is no easy way out, no easy road. What we say we mean, we must implement, and there I agree with what the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development said in his speech.

The Government and the NP are committed to a process of negotiation and evolutionary change and want to achieve this in conjunction with others in this country. We cannot, however, achieve this objective, as the hon member for Randburg would have it, by way of Moscow. We must work out our salvation here in our own fatherland. Those who are on the outside looking in, and who want to share in this, must relinquish violence, commit themselves to peaceful solutions and divorce themselves from the authority of other countries or parties if they want to participate in the peaceful process of reconciliation and change. The mechanisms and the opportunities are there. If we are serious about democracy, human rights and negotiation, we must make use of these mechanisms and opportunities.

I should also like to refer to another statement made by the hon member for Randburg:

Government policy makes provision for groups that want to structure themselves, and if they want to do so, this desire should be protected by the State. These groups do not merely have to be structured on a racial basis. Racism is rejected by the Government as a basis for a future constitutional dispensation. We accept, however, that politically speaking the existence of groups is a relevant factor in South African society, a factor which must be included in the equation with a view to the efficient control of conflict.

The protection of groups is not an approach unique to South Africa; it is also found in other comparable societies such as those of Belgium and Switzerland and other Western democracies.

The hon member went on to say:

On the face of it the inclusion of self-defined groups in a system of power-sharing will of necessity be more expensive in the short term than a system of simple majority rule in a unitary state. My contention, however, is that the DP’s concept or model of a federal state would also be more expensive. The hon member will agree with me that mechanisms for the regulation of conflict are, however, cost-effective if their cost to society is less than the cost of the conflict itself.

The hon member went on to say:

I believe that our approach offers the best possible protection to the interests of minority groups, including those of the Whites, because it includes the realities of South Africa in the equation.

Our plan offers a basis for a compromise between the fears of minorities and the legitimate expectations of Black communities. Let me conclude with a last statement by the hon member for Randburg:

Nowhere have I said that we deny the existence of groups in our society. That is obviously the unrealistic approach of the hon member’s party. What I expressly stated was that we negated the enforcement of the group concept and wanted to include the existence of groups on a voluntary basis in our calculations.

The last aspect I should like to deal with relates to the fact that the Government has repeatedly stated that there should be negotiations, among all interested parties in the country, about the new constitutional dispensation. Last Friday I repeatedly said so. It seems as if the Government’s insistence on a negotiated future is now also a condition laid down by the DP.

If we are all in agreement about negotiation having to take place, why is it alleged that it is not taking place? I think that one of the reasons or problems in this connection is that there are divergent views about the concept of negotiation.

The Government accepts that for constitutional purposes one would have to move through various phases of discussion at different levels before a phase of negotiation on a new constitution can commence. We know that we are engaged in a process and that every step must be accepted by the participants before the next step can confidently be taken. This is the only way in which such important changes can be dealt with. The instant solutions advocated by some are recipes for chaos and anarchy.

Another factor that contributes to the perception that little or no discussion or negotiation is taking place in the field of reform is that every proponent of reform has his own ideas about who the leaders are who must negotiate our constitution. It is beginning to seem as if there are people who think that there are only two parties to the negotiations, ie the Government on the one hand and the ANC on the other.

The body contributing most extensively to the reinforcement of this incorrect perception is the “Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa”, or Idasa. This organisation is continually telling people that the Government and the ANC are the only two parties that have to negotiate a constitution. In reality Idasa goes even further in its endeavours to augment or disseminate this incorrect perception. In their communications the Government is consistently presented as a negative factor, an anti-social and inhuman oppressor of everyone, whilst the ANC is presented as an aggrieved, misunderstood and positive liberator of everyone.

One of Idasa’s objectives is:

Dr Alex Boraine of Idasa said in Durban, at a conference on 13 and 14 March 1989:

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, not at this stage. As far as my knowledge goes, the constitutional proposals of the ANC are the only constitutional proposals promoted by Idasa. It therefore seems as if they have already accepted the ANC’s constitutional proposals as the so-called democratic alternative for my future and that of hon members. [Interjections.] By its participation in the Idasa forums and safaris, the DP also implies its support for the ANC’s constitutional proposals. I want to quote what the hon member for Randburg said in Die Burger of 16 April 1989:

That is what the hon member for Randburg said.

Surely this statement must have some significance. Does it mean that the hon member places himself above the laws of the land? If that is really his intention, I sympathise with the hon the co-leader of that party.

Recently the hon member for Randburg has also started claiming that he and some of his colleagues deserve credit for the decrease in certain bombing incidents. In this regard let me quote from Die Burger of 3 May 1989:

Now listen to this:

Those are the words of the hon member for Randburg.

Let us examine these statements and try to determine why the hon the co-leader of that party is now claiming credit for this. Firstly he is saying that his discussions, those of his colleagues and those of the UDF and Cosatu, with the ANC resulted in the ANC changing its policy, in November 1988, about the placing of bombs in supermarkets and parking areas.

What is interesting is that that was the first time the ANC acknowledged its involvement in bomb attacks at supermarkets and in parking areas. Up to that stage they had never acknowledged that fact.

Be that as it may, after that hon member had held discussions with the ANC, and even while Dr Boraine and some other members of the DP were marketing the ANC’s constitutional proposals, on 10 April on Radio Freedom the ANC called upon its members to try to stop mutual conflict amongst Black people and to concentrate more specifically on their political work. “To intensify our political work” were the words they used.

In the same broadcast the ANC also called upon its members to extend the struggle to the White areas, and the following suggestion was made about the method to be adopted:

The ANC also called upon the so-called “White democrats” to become even more closely involved with the “broad democratic movement” by participation in the campaigns against national service, oppression, the tricameral Parliament, education and the presence of the SADF and the SAP in Black residential areas. I wonder who must be included in the ANC’s “White democrats”.

These co-called negotiations of the hon the co-leader of the DP sound like negotiations in which one party has a gun at its head, whilst the other claims that they are conducting very amicable negotiations.

Even if I were to concede that there has been a reduction in violence—which I am not—in examining the ANC’s policy statement of 10 April which I quoted, and also the statistics of terrorist attacks, I must logically conclude that the hon the co-leader of the DP is not concerned about the bomb attacks against his country’s police force or defence force, because it is very clear that his negotiations did not include that aspect. His negotiations only included supermarkets and parking areas. It is also clear that he is not concerned about the murder of Black politicians who legally want to take part in politics. He is not concerned about the murdering of families of Black policemen or about the Blacks and Whites who die in bomb blasts. He does not care about anything except the political aspirations of a bunch of strategists of terrorism in London and Lusaka. [Interjections.]

The hon member is now so smug about the so-called successes of his negotiations that he loses sight of the fact that there are other forces at work. We know, do we not—the ANC has said so—that the international community is bringing extraordinary pressure to bear on the ANC to relinquish its acts of violence and conduct negotiations aimed at achieving peace. We know, do we not, that the successes achieved by the SA Police and the SA Defence Force have made the ANC think again about how profitable its acts of violence are.

When the hon the co-leader—I sympathise with him—participated in this debate on Friday, he addressed us about the process of negotiation in such a way that one would be led to believe that his party had only very recently discovered this concept. Let me say, however, that the Government’s declared policy is that it negotiates solutions for the country’s problems with all people and all parties seeking peaceful solutions.

Nonsense!

It is therefore the ANC which is keeping itself out of the negotiating process with other leaders. Its policy is aimed at achieving power through terrorism and violence. It does not have a declared policy for participation in peaceful negotiations. The Government does not determine the ANC’s policy. If it wants to participate, it must decide for itself about participating in the process of peaceful negotiation.

This shows how naïve we are when we speak about supermarkets and parking areas. The hon member is living in a dream-world.

The ANC can also—like any other organisation that furnishes tangible proof that it seeks peaceful solutions in the interests of all the people of South Africa and is not acting as an agent in the interests of others—participate in the process of negotiation. I am now saying this for the umpteenth time.

I also want to direct my attention to the hon the co-leader and his present and former fellow-travellers. They, too, would do well to focus their attention on negotiation with leaders and organisations that seek peace. The ANC wants to negotiate a violent take-over of power. The DP does not have any power to transfer. Nor will they get any; they will not be allowed to do so either.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke like a man who was speaking before an election, and it is very clear that he was not at all serious about the type of speech which he made at the beginning of the debate on this Vote, and whereby he attempted to create the impression that the Government at least had a sort of open agenda for the future and that they were serious about reform in South Africa.

It was brought to my attention by one of the hon members on our left that it was interesting that the hon the Minister literally did not refer to even one of the policy standpoints of members of parties on our left. It was a speech which focused only on White politics. In that sense it is an indication of the shallowness which this hon Minister shows when he addresses these matters. The hon the Minister launched a very harsh attack against one of my hon co-leaders, the hon member for Randburg, and made a few pointed remarks to the effect that the hon member for Randburg wanted South Africa to seek its solutions through Moscow. It is very interesting to see the Moscow connections which the Government itself has nowadays. I find it strange that one can be so hypocritical as to refer to that in such a pointed way at this stage.

He referred to the perpetrators of violence and to the fact that one should not talk to people who used violence, not even to bring them to better insights. The Government does not have a principle with regard to violence. They do not have a principle with regard to violence. They are prepared to use violence, to finance violence and to encourage violence when it suits them. That is not having a principle with regard to violence. It is simply a question of whether they are our terrorists or their terrorists. [Interjections.] That is the principle which the Government is promoting. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member used the word “hypocritical” when he referred to the hon the Minister.

I withdraw it, Sir.

It is interesting to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about that. I would like to hear how he reconciles his approach with regard to negotiation or discussion with the ANC with the position which they have adopted with regard to Swapo. This Government is prepared to accept the probability that an organization such as Swapo will take over the Government in South West Africa, but they are not prepared to talk to the ANC. How does one understand something like that? Does it imply that the Government accepts that an organization like the ANC may take over the government in South Africa, but that they are not prepared to talk to them?

Where is the consistency with regard to the standpoint of the hon the Minister? In my opinion this once again underlines the point which I made that the hon the Minister tried to make an election speech. In the final analysis, because the Government has no direction or policy, it has to resort to scare tactics to retain its votes. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister told us that the DP could not accept the consequences of its own standpoint. That is precisely the problem with this Government. Clearly, here is a Government which knows only too well what it is trying to avoid, but it has no idea where it is going. The hon the Minister conceded that legislation which contributes to racial separation, is accepted as being racist by Black people in South Africa and that it is regarded as an obstacle in the way of negotiation. Apartheid therefore stands in the way of the process of nation building.

The hon the Minister conceded this, and we all know it. It is old news to all of us, but he deals with that dilemma, as he has done so often in the past, by trying to avoid it. He presents the idea that groups must define themselves and once they have defined themselves and formed themselves, the Government must protect them.

I want to say at once that that argument may be valid if a central gathering point or element of such a group enjoys the Government’s protection. For example, if the religion or language of such a group or another binding factor in that group enjoys the protection of the authorities, that argument is valid, but it is not valid if the hon the Minister suggests that he can determine or establish the parameters or boundaries between groups after the groups have formed themselves.

Indeed, group formation is a dynamic process. There are hon members here in this House who are proof that group formation is not something which starts at one stage and ends at another. It is a process which runs through the history of mankind. To therefore suggest that a group can form itself and that once it has done so, the Government will grant it recognition and protection, is nonsense. Neither can one built a constitutional system on such a self-forming group system, precisely because of the point which I made. The group changes itself and re-defines itself from time to time. All that it boils down to is that the hon the Minister’s solution actually suggests that one simply forms a new group because there is a Black group, a Coloured group, a White group or whatever group and then also a group which does not want to belong to a group. That is not a solution. It is not a solution for this country or for any country.

The hon the Minister is so desperate in his approach that he very nearly went so far as to say that numbers were irrelevant, and not even the DP wants to suggest that.

When we come to group areas in particular and the Government’s way of dealing with that, it is clear in what an inescapable dilemma the Government finds itself here. If one looks at the Government’s way of dealing with group areas and the dilemma which this is causing—the hon the Minister himself admitted that this stood in the way of negotiation and of reconciliation—one sees that their solution lies along the road of free settlement areas.

What do free settlement areas do? They simply create a new sort of group area, while attempting to protect the other old group areas in their old form. This is meaningless, because it does not solve the problem. It does not remove that racist sting from the whole idea of group areas. It is also practically impossible, because is there any person who wants to suggest to the Government that it would be possible to create a group area for every race group as well as a free settlement area in every city or town? If one is unable to do that, how can it be suggested that free settlement areas truly create the opportunity for all South Africans to have a complete and wide range of choices? It is simply not so and it is impossible for it to be so.

It is also true, when we look at the procedure which is prescribed in the Free Settlement Areas Act, that it is clearly very difficult to create a free settlement area. It is far more difficult to create a free settlement area than it is to create a group area. This once again indicates where the Government’s sympathy lies in the final analysis. It indicates once again that in the final analysis, the Government is a government of apartheid.

In the long run, this process is therefore not going to help the Government to escape its dilemma. It is not going to contribute towards the improvement of race relations in South Africa. It is not going to help the more meaningful development of living patterns in South Africa, and last but not least, it is going to make the whole management and administration of residential apartheid even more untenable and even more economically unacceptable than it is at the moment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point must excuse me if I do not follow on the argument he presented here.

There is no doubt in my mind that solutions for this country will have to be found in consultation with the ANC. No solution will be found otherwise. The ANC is a reality and no amount of wishing is going to wish them away. That is an absolute reality. It is a fact that they have a constituency in South Africa. Therefore, the sooner we realise it, the sooner we are going to address the problems of South Africa.

It is easy to condemn violence and I want to associate myself with those who condemn violence because I believe we will not find a solution to South Africa’s problems within a violent situation. I want to condemn all violence, whether it is perpetrated by the ANC or anyone else.

I am referring to the fact that we have institutionalised violence in this country. Apartheid is violent and it affects people violently. People have suffered because of apartheid. The enforcement of the Group Areas Act is a violent action because the denial of people’s free movement constitutes violence. One must therefore not only see violence as perpetrated by the ANC, but also by those who govern this country in a violent fashion.

*Therefore, if we want to bring an end to violence, we have to abolish all kinds of violence.

†There is no doubt in my mind that the existence of groups in this country is a reality. Ethnicity is a reality in this country. However, it has become a reality only because we have designed it that way. Group identification is not something which evolved naturally. Legislation placed people into certain categories.

In the first place I am proud of the fact that I am a member of the human race. However, I am also classified as a member of the Malay group, and I want to be proud of that classification. Hon members who know the history of this country will know that we did not come here of our own free will. There was no choice. We were forced to come to this country. We came here as political exiles and we came here as slaves.

There was no legislation to protect the Malay identity because it did not need protection. It was an identity that people were proud of. Therefore the identity was naturally protected. The sooner we stop protecting identities which are not even worth protecting, the sooner we are going to make headway in finding the true South African nation. It is important that we start building a South African nation.

*Mr Chairman, we have to become serious about this matter.

†The whole question of reform in this country is of paramount importance. We must be absolutely serious about this. I will talk about the political reform measures which are needed. Let us start with what we are doing in regard to local government. At this moment local government in South Africa is an absolute farce. It has become an absolute disgrace in terms of the cost of government in this country. In relation to the number of people we are governing, Parliament is overloaded. If one extends the situation right down to local government, one finds more local government representatives than people. We are talking in terms of Black local government, we are talking in terms of management committees for Indians and Coloureds and then we are talking in terms of city councils. This is not only a duplication, it is also a waste of effort. The sooner we get away from this absolutely wasteful system, the sooner we are going to find the solutions to South Africa’s problems.

However, no amount of reform at central Government level will have an effect on the thinking of people if it does not work at local government level. That is the contact level, the level where people are in contact daily with whoever governs them. Therefore, if it does not work at local government level it will not work at any other level. The management committee system has been an absolute failure for 25 years. The sooner we realize this the sooner we will be able to find each other.

If we can sit in one Parliament I cannot see why we cannot be seen to be sitting and taking decisions at local government level as well. I cannot understand the resistance to this. I cannot understand why South Africans cannot simply vote people onto a city council to look after the affairs of a specific geographic area instead of thinking on the basis of ethnicity and groups.

One can take the Johannesburg metropolitan area as an example. There is a council for Soweto, a South Western Management Committee, the Lenasia Management Committee and the Johannesburg City Council which has the final say. In other words the other three bodies are absolute dummies because no matter what they say the final decision will be taken at the level of the Johannesburg City Council. This just does not wash. We do not take it any more.

We have to be absolutely serious when we address the matter of reform. We have to consider seriously a form of local government which is absolutely representative of all South Africans. We do not want to hear about racism any more. We must stop thinking in terms of groups and start thinking in terms of the South African nation.

As regards security, my party is all for it but then security for South Africa. However, the easiest and cheapest form of security is reform within South Africa because then that which is worthwhile protecting in South Africa will be protected by all South Africans. That is where the security of the country lies—with the people of South Africa. Let us involve all the people of this country in the government of the country also in the local government of geographic areas. As long as we keep people out we will always be in as state of insecurity.

We hear people from all quarters talking about federalism lately. I welcome this new sound coming from the Government benches. Once again, however, one must consider this issue seriously. 1 believe the solution regarding a future government for South Africa is federalism. It must be a federal structure which will meet the needs, also for protection, of all South Africans.

*However, we can talk about federalism until we are blue in the face, but it will not help at all if we do not start talking with one another.

†It is about time we appointed a commission to investigate the federal structure that South Africa needs while appreciating the uniqueness of the South African situation. It is not impossible to find a federal structure which will suit the requirements of South Africa.

A great deal has been said about negotiation. Negotiation does not only mean that the NP must negotiate with the CP.

There must be negotiation across the board with all South Africans, and the sooner we realise that everybody is important in the whole negotiating process, the better.

*Seeing that the hon member agrees with me, I want to tell him that I am serious when I say that we must negotiate with the ANC. [Interjections.] Now the hon member will no longer agree with me.

†As I said right at the beginning of my speech, it is impossible to wish away the ANC. It is quite important that the ANC will have to be brought into the negotiating process. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to be speaking after the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives. He said that groups were a reality in South Africa. He also said that ethnicity was a reality in South Africa. However, he said that we caused it. I differ fundamentally with the hon the Deputy Minister. That is incorrect, because there is such a thing as natural group formation. [Interjections.]

What difference is there between you and me? You are just as brown as I am.

And I have not even been to the beach. [Interjections.]

The non-recognition of groups and ethnicity have been the result of the murder of millions of people throughout the world. I can prove that. However, I want to agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that the recognition of a group should not hold disadvantages for and discriminate against that group.

Based on colour.

I will fight alongside hon members to remove discrimination against a group. [Interjections.] The hon member says that federalism is the solution. However, it must not only be a geographic federalism; there must also…

[Inaudible.]

If the hon the Deputy Minister will just give me a chance, I will make my speech…

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister has already made his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. There must also be such a thing as a group federal element in a future dispensation, and hon members in the LP agree with me that groups must be protected.

Never. [Interjections.]

Of course. When I make my next speech, I will quote from the hon member’s programme of principles that this is a negotiable aspect of their policy. [Interjections.]

Spell it out now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo is also making too many interjections.

Mr Chairman, I had the privilege of studying the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly over the past weekend. It was interesting to see once again that the theme of “waking the tiger” and “not taking away” ran through this speech like a golden thread as a result of the use of words such as “enforce”, “force,” “stubborn little Boers” and, not least of all, “it smacks of revolution”. I want to tell hon members on that side of the Committee that this sort of language and these types of expressions are music to the ears of the Black revolutionaries in the country. They are music to the ears of the White revolutionaries in the country. These two groups—the one Black and the other White—have one thing in common, namely that both desire domination by means of violence.

The aim of the NP in its constitutional dispensation is precisely to avoid this violence by means of reform. That is what we are trying to do. I want to tell the CP today that they will have to make their choice quickly. Their day is coming.

I would like to refer to specific statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. He says that he regards the emergence of ethnic states of the Tswanas, Vendas, etc as an achievement because through their independence they have the guarantee that they will not be dominated by another people. That is a valid argument. The hon member then says that the NP does not grant the Whites, Coloureds and Indians this same right.

That is true!

Surely it is not logical. There is no such thing as a White people in South Africa. [Interjections.] An Afrikaner people does exist. Hon members speak daily of an Afrikaner people and those who associate with them, but there is no White people in South Africa. The hon member knows that as well as I do. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is not a member of the Afrikaner people or is he?

Go and read what Dr Malan said about that!

Hon members are not advocating an ethnic state but are inviting English-speaking people, Greeks, Portuguese, Lebanese and Jews to belong to their party.

And “Artificials”!

In other words, hon members are not advocating an ethnic state, but a White race state. That is what the hon members are advocating.

Let me sketch a scenario for hon members to see whether or not I am correct. I would like to do so. Let us say that the CP came to power, managed to remove all Blacks from the country and placed all the Coloureds and Indians in homelands. Let us assume that that occurred. A Portuguese from Portugal who did not speak English or Afrikaans, who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, but who was a highly trained civil engineer, applied to immigrate to this White South Africa. Surely hon members would welcome him, because he would be an asset. Just across the border there was an Afrikaans-speaking Coloured who belonged to the NG Church, who was a trained civil engineer and applied to immigrate to this White race state of the hon members.

He is not even permitted to swim at Kleinmond.

I am asking hon members whether they would consider him as an immigrant to their White race state. Of course they would not do so, because they do not have an ethnic state, but a White race state in mind. The hon members do not fear national domination, but racial domination.

What about you?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly objects to the fact that the NP in its constitutional plan does not pay attention to the preponderance of numbers in this country. The hon leader refers very cleverly to the election in the House of Assembly, the election of the leaders, etc, but he then uses a catastrophic example because he says that we must work with numbers. He says that if one looks at the Cape, one sees that there are twice as many Coloureds as Whites. As a result of these numbers, one may not grant equal representation to the Coloureds in the Cape. If one works with numbers, the hon member is correct, but he insists that we should work with numbers.

That is the point.

If we have to work with numbers, those hon members must also work with numbers in their partition policy. If the hon members worked with numbers, it would mean that, according to their partition policy, two-thirds of the Cape would have to be given to the Coloured homeland and the other third to the Whites. Surely that would be correct and fair. I want hon members to tell that to the inhabitants of the Cape before the following election, because hon members must work in terms of that point. [Interjections.] One cannot partition without using numbers, unless one has historical grounds for doing so. That is the same argument which was raised here.

If I had to draw a conclusion from the reply of the hon leader to a question from the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives to the effect that the Coloureds were sitting here in their homeland, I would want to ask him where the new Parliament of South Africa would be if it were not here.

I want to deal briefly with the Democratic Progressive Federal Party. I looked carefully at the constitution plan of those hon members. That plan is nothing new to those of us in the NP. It has been known to us for several years as Wynand’s Prog plan. We in the NP have come to know it as such. The hon member for Randburg attempted to sell this plan to us for several years, but he did not succeed in doing so. However, hon members must not underestimate him, because he is a formidable salesman. He went ahead and sold the plan of the Progs back to them under another name. What did he get for that? He got a place in the front benches, a one-third leadership for a while and a new name for this party. However, is it a new party?

Let us look at what this new party looks like. Someone once said: “It is a haven for stray dogs and lost cats”. The policy is exactly the same, except that they make the fact that there will be a Black majority Government clearer. However, the Parliamentary leader, the chairman of the caucus and the Chief Whip, are former Progs. When the troika comes to an end, the new leader is going to be a former Prog. Who does this party think it is bluffing? Even the hon member for Claremont is back in the party with his obsession with police brutality. He left the old PFP for one reason only, namely that they were not left-wing enough for him. It seems that he now feels quite at home there.

I want to conclude by saying that I want to venture a prediction with regard to this coming election. The DP knows that they cannot be the Official Opposition after this election, but they are going to try to reach an agreement with the CP. In conjunction with the CP, they are going to try to win as many seats from the NP as possible. Do hon members know why? They think that they will be able to form a coalition with the NP after this election. I say: “No ways”. Such a thing does not exist. After this election this old NP with its faults and shortcomings will come back stronger than before, and with the aim of bringing about reform which we will sell to our voters and which they will accept because it will be based on justice.

Mr Chairman, I take this opportunity to share with the hon the Minister and hon members some of my thoughts that I gained from intense self-reflection and from conversing with people from a broad spectrum of the South African society, including the hon member for Parow who spoke before me.

Before I proceed I think it would be relevant if I share with hon members the thoughts of a great prophet and sage who lived many thousands of years ago. I quote from the words of the prophet Isaiah, from the Old Testament:

I trust that the hon the Minister is listening.

Grasping the constitutional nettle is a challenge that awaits all of us. I have chosen the words of Isaiah because they have a tremendous bearing on the constitutional future of our country.

Living as we do, some thousands of years after Isaiah had written those powerful words, in a world which is currently characterised by rapid scientific and technological advancement, I find it pertinent and relevant that within the boundaries of our beloved country we are still frantically searching for governmental structures where the government rules with integrity and where the national leaders govern with justice. We hope that those governmental structures will also be a shelter from the wind and a place to hide from the storms for the majority of our population.

In order to command legitimacy, constitutional structures will have to be open to the needs of the people. A letter to the editor which appeared in the November issue of Time magazine asks:

Hon members will recall that in my opening remarks I made mention of rapid technological and scientific development. Unfortunately, developments in the constitutional arena have not as yet kept pace in comparison to the technological developments. The inability of the NP to change its policies to keep pace with the age of computers and Concorde—which we have recently had in South Africa—will, like the dinosaur, see itself becoming extinct, regardless of what the hon member for Parow had to say with regard to the DP and a possible coalition.

Our presence here in the precincts of Parliament must not be viewed as the end of our constitutional journey. I would be living a lie if I believed that for one moment we have made progress towards the realisation of political, social and economic goals. The present constitutional initiatives and the tricameral system as a whole have been plagued by doubts, misconceptions and controversies.

A close and unblinkered analysis of the present constitutional dispensation which boasts the tricameral system reveals that the majority of the population has rejected it. Instability in South Africa can be attributed to the failure of the present political system to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the people of colour. South Africa’s crisis of the present centres on political reform. It is a basic belief of the disenfranchised of today that large-scale improvements to the basic conditions of living depend directly upon access to political power.

Gross inequalities between Black and White still exist. The limited social and economic programmes of the Government have not brought relief. Structural discrimination in the areas of land ownership and occupation remains entrenched. Blacks outside the homelands have no direct or indirect voice in central decision-making. Even at the regional and local government level there has been a devolution of functions rather than sharing of power with people of colour. The present social realities point towards the urgency of reform. Blacks moving from a traditional society into a modern economy have generated a greater demand for political rights. The denial of full rights to Blacks has been viewed as the denial of human worth.

If the Government is serious about its desire not to prescribe solutions, it must first restore the freedom necessary for all groups to discuss formally and strive for the vision of a just political dispensation. With detentions running into hundreds—if not thousands—every year, with tens of organisations banned, with all open-air meetings being illegal—unless officially sanctioned—and with heavy censorship of opinion information, there is no room for the premise that the basic liberties of person, speech, assembly and association enjoy actual if not formal recognition in South Africa.

Governmental structures are seen as an attempt at co-optation and tokenism towards Blacks. Civil rights have been suffocated by the security legislation that is associated with formal participation in decision-making. The present constitutional dispensation is built on moving sand, rather than on the proverbial Biblical rock. We all know what happens to structures that are built on moving sand.

While one notes the moral outrage of the outside world in relation to sanctions, I must echo and support the words of Dr Chester Crocker when he said:

The South African Government is resilient and strong enough to withstand any additional sanctions. It can also pass on the costs—and we know that just too well—while the immediate consequences of sanctions have been the high food prices which arise from costly import substitution industries supplying the agricultural sector. These high food prices cause no suffering in the corridors of power. However, in the townships and homelands they mean the difference between life and death. For most people the end effect of sanctions will be mass unemployment and greater poverty. By lowering the rate of economic growth, sanctions will also slow down the pace of Black penetration of skilled jobs and weaken Black consumer leverage. Sanctions thus run the risk of destroying the Black power base. Just as Blacks forced policy changes in trade unions and pass laws, they are beginning to force policy changes in regard to the Group Areas Act. De facto desegregation of residential areas, so-called grey areas, is a reality which has compelled the Government to announce that it will amend the Group Areas Act to legalise such racially mixed suburban areas as open areas. Yet, not more than a few years ago it denied that grey areas even existed. Once again we observe the liberalisation of racial laws coming about as a result of change that has already taken place on the ground, and not the other way around.

Some time ago, in the City Hall of Durban, a great speech was made about crossing the Rubicon. The hopes of the nation were raised, but South Africa still waits for words to be translated into action. The recent recommendation of the Law Commission concerning a bill of rights is encouraging. However, words, rhetoric and great speeches alone cannot usher us into a new and peaceful South Africa. These noble principles need to be felt to be appreciated. The concept of reform at the fourth tier of Government must also be coupled with reform at local level. One regrets to discover that the Government has been slow in this respect. The cumbersome application of outmoded systems, such as the local affairs committee systems and ethnic management committee systems, must be replaced by a more judicious approach to the politics of local government. Inevitably a sense of pride and belonging will be felt at a grassroots level. The recent manifestation of “baasskap” by councillors in Boksburg displays a senseless disregard of democratic values. I therefore call on the Government to demonstrate its sincerity by scrapping the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. If it fails to do this, it will remain eternally wedded to the CP.

There have been whispers and orchestration in the corridors of Government about the appointment of a Black person to the Cabinet. The hon the leader-in-chief of the NP has made romantic calls for a great indaba. It would appear that the proposals of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba are no longer sacred cows for the Government. It appears as though the urgency and tension which characterised debates in the past on constitutional endeavours have been replaced by a relieved kind of bustle, business and purpose.

In his recent speech the hon the Minister made some very promising and encouraging sounds insofar as reform is concerned. From one point of view it has been positive. When he speaks about a single Parliament it is a positive statement. However, we, the people of colour, view the comment of a federation in South Africa based on a non-geographic ethnic base again as being prescriptive. I believe that while some positive comments have been made by the hon the Minister, the question about South Africa’s future insofar as a federal structure is concerned, must be the basis of negotiation. This has to be negotiated.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the hon the Minister to pay a lot more serious attention to the question of local government. I listened to hon members who spoke before me. In this particular regard I believe that we have made no progress whatsoever in the four years and more since I have been here in Parliament. I believe that the lack of progress at that level will indeed show the Government’s inability to bring about change at the primary level of Government.

Mr Chairman, after I had listened to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on Friday and again today, one point became clear to me. This is that we know that the Government is unsure whether it will ever achieve its stated objective.

Everything is subject to this question: Negotiation? The answer has to come through negotiation. When the day dawns that negotiations do not succeed and the search for consensus does not produce the answer, I want to ask where we will be then. [Interjections.] I invite the hon the Minister to say that he intends negotiating with them and seeking consensus but the day of no consensus will come and what is to happen then?

The hon the Minister is like somebody searching for an imaginary city in the desert but he ploughs up the roads and blows up the bridges as far as he goes. Nevertheless he does not know whether he will find that city because he does not know the way. If he should want to turn back, he will find that he can no longer do so because he has burnt the bridges in the interim.

The hon the Minister bumbles on and calls it daring. In plain language we call it folly. [Interjections.] We do not hesitate to say that the hon the Minister will not find that place and he will not find that consensus either through his method of search.

How are we to be given partition?

We shall get to that.

We say that this will not be found, but on that day the hon the Minister will tell us that the realities have caused them to capitulate. Then he will use the realities and say that they could not be attained, but the realities had brought him to that point.

In saying this, I do not stand alone. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid once said:

He continued:

I wish that hon Minister were here. I want to ask him where his common sense is now. [Interjections.] Where is it? Because it is his common sense which said this. The hon the Minister should try to instil a little common sense into these colleagues of his because they are doing exactly what he warned against. It is tantamount to capitulation. The NP has no other way out.

We shall be absorbed in a Black majority government because this undivided South Africa in which Blacks, Whites, Coloured people and Indians will be represented in one Cabinet and one Parliament and will participate in electing the State President means only one thing and that is Black majority rule. [Interjections.] This is the case because, underlying the assumed guarantees which the hon the Minister holds out to the Whites of this country, is the idea that numbers simply have to be put out of one’s mind. My hon leader explained this specious argument in a masterly fashion.

Secondly, I want to say that there is something irreconcilable in the hon the Minister’s point of departure. The essential requirement of the distinctive democracy he talks about, even if it is home-made as he calls it, is that numbers have to be recognised. In a democracy the majority rules. To argue on another tack, is to be guilty of evading reality.

Thirdly, I say that we are headed there because it is truly an illusion that a majority would subject itself to a veto. Whites, if they had had a numerical superiority in the proportion of more or less 8:1, would not have done this either. I want to ask the Government whether they think Whites would subject themselves to a veto. If they are not prepared to do this, I want to tell the Government that it is asking too much of Blacks to subject themselves to this on a similar basis owing to their numbers.

Fourthly, the Government’s entire case rests on the expectation that Black people will agree to participate in deliberations and ultimately also in the Constitution as a multiplicity of groups and not as a single group. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that this is an illusion too. It is also factually wrong. The fact is that urbanised Black people are in any case numerically superior to all the rest—Coloured, Indian and White—which currently form the Government.

I want to point out to hon members that their view is not realistic. It conflicts directly with Black people’s future vision of South Africa. Let me give hon members a few examples.

The Blacks say in statements—this applies to moderate Blacks—that Black people want majority rule as the fundamental principle in a united South Africa.

A second says: “Die Afrikanerdom en die Afrikanerkultuur sal nie in Suid-Afrika oorleef nie. Die toekoms is ’n Swart toekoms, en ons Swartes wil hê dat hul toekoms nou moet begin.”

A third says: “Geen mens kan aan die feit ontkom dat die kuituur van die meerderheid van die bevolking in enige gegewe samelewing uiteindelik die breë rigting van die hele gemeenskap moet bepaal nie. ’n Land in Afrika waar die meeste van die mense Swart is, moet onafwendbaar Swart waardes en Swart styl vertoon.”

This is what Black people say. Yet another says: “Die nie-Swartes is die gaste van die Swartes. Hulle moet hulle by die belange van Afrika aanpas.”

Tell us a bit about partition.

That hon little Minister who is sitting there need not worry about our being afraid to put our case.

The obvious deficiency in this Government’s overall plan as it has been set out is the issue of how the rights of minorities are to be protected. A superficial reference to regional services councils as a basis where numbers supposedly would not be decisive will not wash. The Government holds it out that Black people participate in regional services councils and that numbers are not the issue.

I want to tell that hon member that of course they take part in them because it is entrenched in the Act itself that the funding is to go to them in the first place. Of course they will take part in them. [Interjections.] That is another matter. [Interjections.] But of course! It is legally entrenched that the funds have to go to less developed communities in the first place.

In the second place, a proprietary right was taken as a basis. [Interjections.] This is nothing but the old United Party’s policy in terms of which a person has to receive representation in accordance with his contribution to the economic prosperity of the country. It is nothing but that. Now we know that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. We know that it is being rejected. We know the Black man will reject it.

It is clear that at the lower tier too, at municipal government level, the Government wants to go further now. The hon the Minister says that towns are also to be dealt with as mini-regional services councils. How does this fit in with what has always been held out to Whites in this country—in that sphere in particular in which they want to spend their everyday lives and have a community life of their own and it will be guaranteed—if they are to discover that there is to be a mini-regional services council, which is an affair of common concern? The Government is playing with the future of Whites in this country.

I think it is necessary for the Afrikaner to realise—and surely he determines the fate of the White in this country—that he has reached the crossroads. The choice which he makes on 6 September can be decisive for the survival of the Afrikaner people and the Whites in this country too.

In essence there are only two ways ahead. Relinquish one’s ethnicity—that is the choice—accept that one is part of a new nation which will be a Third World nation in character and type. In the long run, one will disappear in a Black mass and in the short term—among generations which are alive now—the Whites in this country will experience the fate of other White communities which landed under Black control.

The other possibility is that of the CP, which is to divide this country and to obtain a fatherland of one’s own. Even if it were smaller and with different borders from present ones. [Interjections.] Of course I am talking about an ethnic state. That is true. Surely that was and is nothing new to the Afrikaner.

In the past and whenever he has governed, up to the reform which is the present policy, the Afrikaner has governed this country as if it were his own ethnic state. Surely the NP explained in principle, in policy, in its documents, that it was the political national front of the Afrikaner. This is nothing new. It is not the creation of somebody else. It is not the creation of the AWB, Sabra, the Oranje-werkers or whoever. It is part of the entire progress of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.]

We shall also negotiate. We shall negotiate with others but we shall not negotiate on what we want to achieve using the approach of the Cape Liberal Establishment or the so-called Boland Afrikaners. We shall not negotiate using the approach of those who capitulate. We shall not negotiate from a mentality of surrender. We shall negotiate and we tell hon members this as the descendants of a proud Afrikaner people which established the borders of the Republic of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, what a pleasure, it was to finally hear certain truths and certain acknowledgements from the hon member for Ermelo! We are pleased to hear that the Boland has now been written off by the CP. The Boland Afrikaners are derogatively referred to as the so-called Cape Liberal Establishment or Cape Liberal Nats.

Order!

Allow me, as someone from the Eastern Cape, to say that the CP is writing off the Boland, but the Eastern Cape will send them packing. The hon member for Ermelo says that the NP would not know what to do if negotiations did not succeed. The CP, oh yes, the CP can negotiate! They can negotiate so well that in reply to an interjection, their hon leader simply gave away Cape Town and signed it away as a Coloured homeland. Earlier in the debate, the hon members back there simply gave away the Helderberg constituency as a Coloured homeland. That is the negotiating ability of those hon members.

It is very clear this afternoon from the speech of the hon member for Ermelo that the debate to the right should be conducted on a very basic level. The issue is that the watershed between what the NP advocates and what the CP advocates can be found on a very elementary level, namely the question: Do Black people outside the independent states constitutionally belong to the RSA? That is the question to which the NP says yes in principle and the CP says no in principle. The CP is also playing a game of small, smaller, smallest, because first of all, the hon member for Lichtenburg tells us that the borders have already been established, but a Coloured homeland must still be demarcated—so we hear—and here and there Black people will still be able to bargain for land. Then we have the various groupings to the right and we come to the point at which the hon leader has to admonish the old philosopher on their side and say, okay, perhaps not such a very small one, old friend. At least not the dry North-west as an ethnic state.

This type of game which is taking place to the right of the political spectrum, is nothing other than a very simple emotional answer which is being given to one of the greatest and most serious questions which is being asked with regard to the progress and future of South Africa. The question is: Where do Black people belong in the future? Do those who live outside of the independent states, constitutionally belong inside or outside South Africa as a republic? The emotional answer from the right: We are going to have majority occupation. We are going to have a White economy. We are going to play White sports in our purely White world.

I am telling the CP that before they obtain White majority occupation in the RSA they will destroy South Africa economically. They will not have the chance to achieve that, because they continue to react emotionally to the great realities of South Africa. They talk about the stubborn little Boers, the rebellion against the law which will become their law and of a revolution. These emotional answers will not allow the opposition to make any progress in South Africa.

Surely that is why their own supporters have already said that they do not accept that the CP’s plans are really going to work. Hon members should hear what Prof Boshoff says. After all, he says this himself. He says: “Vote for the CP, because that will give us the chance to have the alternative plan ready, because we know that the CP is going to fail.” Surely that is the essence of what he says. If the CP fails, then they can take over with their little ethnic state. No, even Prof Boshoff says—I am telling them this myself— that the Official Opposition has the heart but not the brains.

†They have the heart but they do not have the brains.

*That is what their own supporters are telling them.

The debate to the left is on another level, because the DP also says that Black people are part of our constitutional future. There we are conducting a secondary debate, because the issue is that of how we are going to work out that future. Let us say at once that just as the CP has been judged, the DP and their predecessors have already been condemned by the voters of South Africa. I said the CP had the heart, but not the brains. The DP may think that they have the brains, but they do not have the heart.

†The CP lack the brains and the DP lack the guts!

*The voters are not so stupid as to not ask themselves where South Africa would have been if the DP had been in power during the difficult years which we have just come through. I will tell hon members what the answer of the voters of South Africa is. The voters of South Africa say that the ANC would have been in power in South Africa, because… [Interjections]… an ANC dictatorship is not feared by certain members who have now joined the ranks of the DP, and the voters of South Africa know that.

Unlike the DP, the NP is prepared to look at the problems in a realistic way in the search for a solution, because we know that a responsibility rests on this party to devise a constitutional dispensation which takes into account the fact that we have a large number of Third World citizens in South Africa, which takes into account an unnaturally high birth-rate, low productivity and illiteracy and all the many deep-seated problems which are a result of the fact that we have a First World component in a Third World-orientated country…

They are the result of the apartheid policy!

I shall not react to that now.

As First World component, we accept the responsibility of taking upon our shoulders the task of ultimately leading South Africa as a whole into a First World dispensation. That is the reality and that is what South Africa’s people expect of the NP and what they will get from it. For that reason, after 6 September it will once again be the NP and the NP alone, within the White political dispensation, which has to negotiate with reasonable people in all groups to give expression to a new dispensation.

In this regard I would like to place a few ideas on the table for consideration. The time has come to pay urgent attention to the fine dividing line which exists between management, administration and government. We cannot afford to duplicate management action in South Africa, or in a new dispensation. I want to suggest that we consider central agencies in which management and administration can be dealt with, because we will have to accept that not every political functionary can create an administrative or management structure.

The same applies where we will have to work concertedly at the principle of the devolution and the delegation of powers. Where decision-making functions are delegated, administrators and management functions must not necessarily be delegated as well.

In conjunction with this, I want to make a further suggestion. We have already accepted the principle of privatisation. In my opinion, we could go a step further and also look at the principle of depoliticisation. I am not necessarily referring to the depoliticisation of business-orientated activities which are being privatised. We must also look at the removal of those activities which do not primarily need a political head or are political activities, outside the framework of politics.

I believe that after 6 September the NP will continue, with vision and force, to devise a dispensation which meets with the approval of all the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to react to the fraternal strife in the first part of the hon member for Sundays River’s speech, but I do want to support a second part of his speech and appeal for a thorough investigation into the whole question of management and administration, particularly where our people are affected by the Group Areas Act. In that regard we encounter problems with certain insensitive people in the provincial administrations under which these matters fall at present. I want to use this opportunity to express my strong disapproval of the cowardly attack on the house of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. I also had to contend with this sort of thing this year and I can tell hon members that it is a very traumatic experience. One can say thank the Lord that there was no loss of life. We wish his family all the best.

†I also want to react to a speech made by the hon leader of Solidarity in which he committed himself, his party and his people to accepting direct representation on local authorities by way of a compromise of some sort. I want to distance myself from that kind of compromise. There cannot be a compromise in respect of direct representation and there cannot be any second option as far as direct representation is concerned. Unfortunately, that hon leader with his hotchpotch political party can be expected to come up with hotchpotch suggestions.

*During April last year, on the occasion of a joint sitting of Parliament, the hon the State President said inter alia that the Government accepted a constitutional policy with both federal and confederal elements. Thirteen months later this hon Minister now tells us that the Government has committed itself to a single Parliament with a single Cabinet for all citizens of the country. A lot of time has passed since the hon the State President made his speech last year and the hon the Minister owes the general public an explanation as to what happened in the ranks of his party during this period. I get the impression that there was no consensus on this matter. In the next few weeks voters will want to know whether the policy is federal or confederal on account of what the hon the State President said last year, because the hon the Minister once again came to light with a vague and nebulous plan on Friday. I concede that a lot will be said about this during the period before the election in September, but we are entitled to demand more clarity, and I hope that we shall get it in the hon the Minister’s final reply and that he will not avoid the fundamental issues.

The hon the Minister must also explain to us how he envisages the constitution of the Parliament. Is it perhaps to become an extension of the present tricameral system with a fourth Chamber for Blacks? Which formula will be created to designate the State President? Will it once again be the type of formula that will entrench and guarantee a White State President? Should a non-White State President in fact be designated, will he have the same powers as the present executive State President or will his powers be limited? It is important for the voters to know how the formula is going to work. As regards the proposed federation, can the hon the Minister tell us how its geographical and group elements can be reconciled?

At the weekend there was a meeting of Black local authorities where the Black MECs were also present and involved in establishing a so-called National Forum to get the proposed National Council off the ground. Does the hon the Minister intend having his new plans negotiated by the National Council?

The hon the Minister will incur the wrath of many other Black leaders—even leaders who are now operating within the system, such as Mr Tom Boya and some self-governing state leaders—if he does not read the signs correctly.

†Mr Chairman, the Government’s problem with regard to negotiation is, firstly, that it has always set preconditions for talks. Secondly, it has attempted to establish the agendas and the forums for negotiation without first negotiating these with the elements that are to be brought in. Thirdly, Government has always assumed that because it is the government, it must be the institution with whom everyone will want to negotiate and must negotiate. Fourthly, it has not offered any political rewards for negotiation. In other words, it wanted to be perceived to “win” the negotiation without leaving something for the other parties.

Furthermore, the Government misunderstands the art of negotiation both in general terms and in the specific and most complicated South African context. The art of negotiation involves becoming partners in achieving a commonly desired end goal. How does the whole process start? It starts by inviting the participants in the negotiation process to become active and integral participants in negotiating preconditions, agendas, forums etc; by giving participants the space and time to consult with their constituents on every issue; by respecting confidentiality and by building trust and goodwill; by recognising that in South Africa’s peculiar circumstances negotiation will have to be about everything and that a great deal of initial distrust will have to be removed and a climate of mutual acceptance and goodwill created. One of the most effective ways of achieving this, is to negotiate the basis of a declaration of intent which sets broad goals for future negotiation by appreciating that negotiation will be a long and often difficult path, fraught with difficulties and frustrations. Furthermore, this is done by employing negotiators who have both the personality, skills and the mandate to negotiate and who enjoy the credibility and trust of the other participants; and by accepting that it is possible for both sides to “win” in a negotiation process and that a “win” for one side does not necessarily mean that the other side is “losing”.

I want to conclude by giving the hon the Minister—who is much older than I—a little bit of good advice. I think that the voters of Helderberg intimated in 1987 how they felt about the hon the Minister as being the head of this flagship of constitutional negotiation. Earlier this year, when the hon the State President was ill, the hon the Minister was Acting State President. This placed him in a very satisfactory position to be able to win the ensuing leadership tussle in the NP. I think the hon the Minister should take heed of the results thereof. I think South Africa will benefit if the hon the Minister is prepared to move sideways and leave the door open for someone else to take over the negotiating mantle.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker did not say a great deal to which I want to react, but I must say that I really find it ironic that an hon member of the House of Delegates should have addressed us on the subject of internecine strife. [Interjections.]

There is, however, one aspect to which he referred with which I do, in fact, want to associate myself very strongly. Initially I was not to have taken part in this debate. This was to have been the turn of the hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys, who cannot be here today. Our thoughts are with him. I also want to associate myself with what the hon member for Toekomsrus said regarding the question of violence. Violence, whether it is committed against Dr Geldenhuys or Dr Webster, or whether it is a bomb explosion in a Wimpy Bar, is objectionable, and no compromise can be made with violence. That is why we must be very careful when we say that there can be no preconditions before negotiations take place.

That is why we say that we cannot negotiate with the ANC.

No compromise can be made with those who practice violence.

Lastly, let me say with regard to Dr Geldenhuys that if there is one hon member who does not deserve such barbaric treatment, it is that hon member. [Interjections.] I should like to deal with one aspect of the ill-considered actions of some CP town councils, namely the fact that CP town councils are invoking the principle of the devolution of power and assessing their position accordingly. I want to do so by way of an example. On 17 March this year, I made an appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, and I quote from Hansard, col 3204:

I went on to say that the temptation to drive them into a corner was great, but that in the interests of one’s own town, one would not like to do so. [Interjections.]

What has happened since then? Shortly after that it came to my attention that the CP councillors, the management committee, in particular, of Springs had been called in to the CP’s head office and taken to task because they had been so slow to implement CP policy. [Interjections.] Immediately afterwards the CP town council of Springs began to conduct an investigation into the methods by which CP policy, specifically their sports policy, among other things, could be implemented in our town.

When this came to my attention, the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and I issued a joint statement in which we made an earnest appeal to the town council of Springs not to go through with their plans, and pointed out to them the dangers and the implications for our town. We asked them to act in the best interests of Springs.

At the latest meeting of the Springs town council the councillors in fact saw fit to announce a sports policy. They said that they would henceforth strictly apply the CP sports policy in accordance with the instructions they had received. Amongst other things, they claim the right to approve the internal, domestic constitutions of sporting bodies before any facilities in the town may be used by that sporting body. They also arrogate to themselves the right to express themselves on both national and international sporting matters. They say, for example, that it is the standpoint of the town council that the choice of emblems and the awarding of colours to representative sportsmen and women must be left to every people and that this must only take place in respect of its own citizens. International participation in sport will be supported, provided that no demands are made on White sportsmen and sportswomen to adopt a stance on sport which is in conflict with the council’s sports policy.

Are hon members aware of the greatest irony of what is happening there? Mr Gert Parsons, the chairman of the management committee of Springs, admits in virtually as many words that he was driven into a corner by the CP’s head office and he accuses the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and myself—he blames us—of having forced them to apply their own policy. They are upset with us because they have to apply their own policy. How ridiculous can one be? [Interjections.] I did not interrupt that hon member.

If this party prescribes centrally to town councils, if it is its intention, through the hon member for Lichtenburg, to make use of town councils to sabotage the policy of the central Government, it can no longer claim that it wishes to make use of the devolution of power, because then it is violating this principle absolutely. [Interjections.]

Neither is that where it ends. That is not the end of the problem. With reference to what happened in Springs, the Springs Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on 5 May last week which pointed out, inter alia, that substantial investments by international companies which were destined for Springs, were now in jeopardy.

Neither is that where it ends. That statement also referred to the fact that some of these companies were being placed under increasing pressure to close their factories and to withdraw…

Like Caltex!

No, not to disinvest, if the hon member does not understand it, but to close down, to throw away the key and to get out.

There is no such thing!

If the hon member had been present during the other debate he would have heard what I quoted. He is welcome—I do not have the time now—to come and have a look at the statement. [Interjections.] Here is the statement. The fact of the matter is that thousands of job opportunities, including White job opportunities, are being placed in jeopardy. In other words, they are not only harming the interests of local councils or towns in which they have the power, but they are also undermining South Africa’s economy as a whole. They cannot lay claim under these circumstances either, to devolution of power which permits them to do as they like at the local level.

Under these circumstances I must come to the conclusion that the costs are simply becoming too high, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to devote some urgent attention to intervening in order to rectify this situation and to prevent this type of ill-considered action being pursued by CP councillors, if need be by way of an amendment to the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs has castigated the CP for carrying out policies which were for so long the policies of the NP…

And still are!

… and still are as that hon member comments, in that the Statute Book still has to be changed before we see any real reform as really being evident.

I want to change the direction of this debate and talk about planning—another aspect of the hon the Minister’s responsibilities and, in particular, about a very important aspect of planning which I believe is not given the attention it should be given, namely environmental planning.

We are in a nonsensical position at present in that the Department of Environment Affairs is separated from the planning function. They used to be together at one stage. I believe that this is a very grave mistake indeed in that planning without a thoroughly researched input on what sort of impact any development is going to have on the environment could well be disastrous in the long term.

The very delicate balance between necessary development on the one hand and environmental protection on the other hand is difficult enough to maintain for any government.

While this hon Minister’s Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is responsible for the planning of all development and a completely separate department handles environmental protection, the best interests of both functions are not going to be properly served.

The population explosion, urbanisation and industrialisation all mean that the face of South Africa is changing all the time. Worldwide we have seen in other countries the disastrous results of unplanned development and the resultant destruction of the environment. We hope in this country to be able to retain our natural heritage which is of course unique. Once this natural heritage is destroyed or even damaged, it just cannot be restored. It is something that one can never get back.

Future generations, I fear, will not see South Africa as we see it. The job of this Government is to see that this country of ours is not damaged beyond recognition by development that is harmful. Development which functions quite adequately in terms of providing jobs, transport systems for people, living areas, new industries, new towns or new roads is in the long run going to damage our quality of life, unless the planning process which plans these developments has environmental protection input. Environmental impact assessments must be carried out at the planning stage of every major project because without them, we just cannot foresee what impact they are going to have.

My plea to the hon the Minister today is, firstly, to try to influence his Government into rationalising the planning process by putting the Department of Development Planning in with the Department of Environment Affairs. Added to this I would like to see provincial bodies such as the various nature conservation departments having closer links with the Department of Environment Affairs. I am not sure that this hon Minister would not be quite pleased to see the end of his responsibility for the nature conservation departments at the present time. I do not think that I will upset him too much if I say that his major interests and his major responsibilities are not environmental right now.

Failing getting these departments together, which I think is the ideal, I must then ask the hon the Minister to ensure that all planning processes in the Department of Development Planning have environmental input. I was interested to see in the department’s annual report of preparations for the implementation of the National Regional Development Programme as part of a more comprehensive and integrated process of the promotion of regional development. However, no mention at all is made of any assessments of environmental impact or any processes or criteria which are applied for the protection of the environment.

I was on the other hand quite pleased to see that the Physical Planning Act of 1967 could be adapted. I see that the possibility is being investigated of discarding certain control measures still embodied in the Act or possibly including them in other legislation such as that dealing with the zoning of natural areas and control of specific land use. I hope this means that perhaps the undoubted expertise of the Department of Environment Affairs will be used in decisions controlling planning matters through other legislation.

I am not sure that the hon the Minister will be all that pleased with me but I want to raise another matter on a subject which has already been discussed in an interpellation debate a couple of weeks ago. The Cape Department of Nature Conservation issued a permit for the export shipment of cycads overseas. The hon the Minister might be interested to know that I am aware of another shipment of cycads. This time it is not going overseas though but from the Cape Province to Natal. As hon members probably know a permit for such a shipment…

Do you think that is a foreign country?

Well, it could well be a foreign country. It certainly generally has much more enlightened views than the rest of the country, particularly the hon the Minister’s part of the world. [Interjections.]

A permit is still necessary if it crosses provincial borders. My information is that a permit has been issued again by the Cape Department of Conservation for a shipment possibly valued in the region of a quarter of a million rand to be transported from the Eastern Cape to Natal. Now this shipment, which includes certain rare species which are actually only found in Natal and the Transvaal, has been described to me as having 80% of the specimens with trunks in excess of 2 metres high which puts them probably as being a 100 years old or more.

This means to me that originally they must have come from the wild and therefore have been obtained illegally some way or another. This is not always the case but it is possible, although it is highly unlikely that all of them were in private ownership before regulations for the protection of cycads were promulgated. What sort of investigation does the Cape Department of Nature Conservation carry out as to the legitimacy of such a shipment before they issue a permit? I believe that the transaction is a purely commercial one. I believe the shipment has gone from the Eastern Cape to a landscape gardener in Durban North. Before a permit is issued, what are the steps taken by the department to investigate the size, age and origins of the specimens involved? I can only say that the system is inadequate if the trafficking in cycads is allowed to continue on this scale. Who is it who makes the decision to allow the issue of such a permit?

On the subject of the previous shipment that went to Madeira, it appears to me that a fraudulent valuation was given to the financial authorities, and my authority for saying this is an answer to a question given to me by the hon the Minister of Finance on the subject of what one is allowed to donate overseas. A fraudulent valuation was given to the financial authorities who issued permission for plants only to the value of R22 300 to be exported. The normal limit for the man in the street is a donation overseas of a R1 000 without that special permission. My information is that those cycads were bought for just under R300 000 and have an international value in excess of R275 000. How is it possible that the exporter was allowed to get away with a valuation of less than a tenth of what he himself paid for the shipment? As I say, this appears to have been fraudulent and I would like to know whether the hon the Minister will see that the police are given all the information required for this investigation. I know a commission of enquiry announced by the hon the Minister will be investigating the whole affair, but perhaps the police should be advised because I believe that there might be grounds for urgent action before the commission commences its work.

I must say that I appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister did ask the hon the State President to institute the commission of enquiry. I think this is a necessary step. The ugly rumours abroad and here in South Africa—I am informed that the rumours are very prevalent in Madeira at the present time—concerning the background to this shipment need the fullest investigation. They need that investigation in the best interests of the people about whom these rumours are circulating. The hon the Minister knows to whom I am referring and what I am talking about. The big question to me still is who, if anybody, exerted undue influence on the Cape Department of Nature Conservation to issue a permit, and why. If nobody did, then I believe the department should explain what prompted it to authorise this infamous shipment.

In closing I may say that I have confirmed that the vast majority of the cycads imported did not go to the Madeira botanical gardens but were planted in the grounds of the Monte Palace, the huge residence being restored at considerable expense as a home for Mr Joe Berardo in Madeira. I also believe that this is possibly grounds for some sort of criminal action being taken because the advice given was that these were to go to the botanical gardens, but they did not do so. As far as the commission of enquiry is concerned, the sooner we know who the commissioner is, the better because I have various things that I would like to place before them. The sooner it gets into operation, the better. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, fortunately the hon member for Bryanston steered clear of party political matters. I think the hon member was very wise to avoid the subject completely if one looks at the battered state of his own new left-wing party, including the leadership turmoil there and the refusal of the hon member for Berea to give up his seat to Dr Worrall, who is searching frantically for a safe seat somewhere in this country.

He spoke about corruption in government!

However, as far as the other matter is concerned which he raised towards the end of his speech, I am sure that will be dealt with fully by the hon the Minister, as will be the case with some of the other good points that he made in respect of the whole question of environmental planning.

I would like to refer to something in a wider planning context, namely to the 1988 annual report of this hon Minister’s department, in which the following statement is made under the heading “Constitutional Planning”, and I quote:

The report goes on to say that reform should therefore be regarded as a comprehensive process of evolutionary change with the transformation of the whole society as its goal. I would like to deal briefly today with the transformation of our society and the socio-economic development referred to here.

It is beyond dispute that there is in fact a transformation taking place in South Africa today. This is being caused by a massive movement of people to the cities and to the job opportunities which they find there. To give but one example I refer to the greater Durban area, the so-called Durban Functional Region, which is the land area within 40 kilometres of Durban. At 6% per annum the DFR is growing at a rate comparable to that of Mexico City and it is estimated that the present population of nearly four million will almost double to 7,5 million within the next twenty years. The major increase will take place within the Black community.

In other words economic forces are irresistibly pushing people into the urban areas, irrespective of whether or not these areas are able to meet their needs. Consequently at this point it is estimated that some 1,7 million people in the Durban Functional Region live in informal settlements, in most cases without even the most basic and rudimentary services. We cannot escape the fact that this is potentially a highly explosive situation.

The needs arising from population growth resulting from this massive urban migration have been calculated as follows for this area. In regard to housing, approximately 10 000 dwelling units for Coloureds, 110 000 for Indians and 650 000 for the Black community are needed. As far as land is concerned, somewhere between 20 000 and 40 000 hectares of land is required. As far as job opportunities go, calculated on the basis of 40% of the population being economically active, approximately 1,4 million jobs will be needed.

The question now arises what the Government’s response is to this phenomenon, which is taking place not only in Natal, but all over our country. Part of that response is a positive strategy for urbanisation based on the White Paper on Urbanisation published in 1986. Another very important part of that response is the Government’s strategy of regional development aimed at achieving a better spatial distribution of economic activity with the emphasis on concurrent job creation. According to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning this strategy also strives to avoid creating duplicate structures and aims at the optimal utilisation of existing infrastructure and our scarce financial resources.

I would like to make the point that such a policy of regionalisation can only succeed if, firstly, there is an involvement of the communities on the ground from the word go. Secondly, a much larger degree of private sector involvement is required, not only in respect of capital funds, but also in respect of expertise and planning input.

"Structures for community involvement and contributions by the private sector do exist, largely by way of the national regional development advisory councils, the regional development advisory committees and the regional development associations. As mentioned in the latest annual report of this department, bodies such as the regional development advisory committees develop into independent private sector advisory organisations. To my mind this is a very gratifying tendency.

Today I want to advocate that contributions for these institutions always be regarded seriously and objectively. Wherever possible these contributions should also be implemented. The concept of regional development will only be successful if the State views it as a positive, non-ideological, social planning campaign and if there is a team effort involving the public and private sectors. The envisaged national regional development programme will only succeed if it is regarded as the product of joint negotiation and not as the product of a one-sided, desk-bound grandiose planning campaign on the part of the State.

†Much has been achieved in respect of decentralisation in the RSA in the past few years. It is said, for example, that 6 500 factories have been built under the Industrial Decentralisation Programme, and these have provided jobs directly for 430 000 people, with a spin-off effect which created work in small business enterprises for another million people.

The cost of creating these jobs has been very high—many people say too high—ranging between R10 000 and R20 000 per job. Furthermore it has been said that about half of the recipient undertakings of decentralisation concessions are still not viable. If this is true, it certainly is very worrying. The effectiveness of this kind of use of taxpayers’ money and the country’s resources will have to be looked at very carefully and as a matter of urgency.

It has been said that long-term economically self-sufficient development must necessarily be regionally oriented in order to satisfy the increased need for job creation in our country. This I believe can only be achieved by a joint effort on the part of Government and the private sector. Both business and Government have a basic interest in the general promotion of economic activity, in closing the opportunity gap and in creating job opportunities, because reform, to which the Government is irrevocably committed, as was so eloquently spelt out again on Friday 5 May by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, must be underpinned by a sound and growing economy. We all know that economic expansion is a necessary precondition for maintaining the momentum of change, but then it must take place in an orderly and not in a negative and destructive way, and must not have a negative effect on society as we know it.

For this reason I say that apart from a policy of positive urbanisation we need a policy of positive regionalisation which will spread economic growth as evenly as possible throughout our country. We must create alternative growth points before our major cities are stretched beyond their capacity to breaking point, which will not be in anyone’s interests. We must take jobs to the people rather than bring people to the jobs, and on a greater scale than ever before in our history.

I wish the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials every success in this extremely important and daunting task, and more specifically, with the implementation of the National Regional Development Programme which I understand has now reached an advanced stage and on which the hon the Deputy Minister might care to comment when he participates in this debate.

I have much pleasure in supporting the Vote.

Mr Chairman, after the opening of Parliament in February this year the major speeches in Parliament by the new leader of the NP and the then hon Acting State President, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, seemed to form a potential challenge to the foundations of apartheid. The test, of course, will be in translating the fine concept into action.

Both hon Ministers have gone a long way in setting a framework for change. They both tackled the group issue on which the NP policy is based. In effect, both these senior hon Ministers distanced themselves from the perpetuation of a political system based on statutory racial groups and spoke instead of a new deal in which freedom of association will play a more important role than race classification.

Both these hon Ministers have indicated a willingness to adapt or even scrap measures regarded as hurtful or discriminatory. The hon the leader of the NP said that the NP was not as ideologically obsessed with the group concept as had been suggested by many of the party’s critics. He called for the negotiation of a new realistic model for the non-discriminatory maintenance of community rights in the social sphere. He said that people had to try to find one another with regard to sensitive issues such as residential areas.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke of the need to allow free association and group formation, and said the State would then be duty-bound to protect such groups. This means the individuals who choose to do so must be allowed to exercise their political and community rights within a particular group.

On the other hand, however, it means that people who do not wish to exercise those rights within a group context must also be given that right.

However, it is significant that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning singled out three laws that he admits are widely regarded as the main obstacles in the negotiation process in South Africa. These are the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

In his address on this Vote on Friday, 5 May 1989, the hon the Minister made concessions which raised the possibility that the Government is willing to negotiate the disappearance of remaining apartheid legislation. He said the NP policy implied that all should have a say in the election of a State President and that a Cabinet representing all should be established.

Order! Those hon members should not talk so loudly.

One Parliament for all should decide on matters of national interest and he also said that the Government was aiming at a uniquely South African federal system. No matter what constitutional system the Government evolves it cannot satisfy the aspirations of all its people. There will never be any other freedom without economic freedom and that is where we should start.

When governments interfere with the natural conduct of trade and production they hurt a person’s ability to achieve his full potential and to earn a living. Who can blame a person for wanting to get around restrictions on his freedom by way of bribery and corruption?

The tougher the restrictions the greater the incentive to break the law. That is why countries with the most official corruption also have the most government. The vast majority of corruption cases revolve around the abuse of government power. Government regulations have artificially created whole new classes of criminals, for example exchange control. Violations cannot occur in a free market because such controls would not exist.

Another outstanding example is the Sol Kerzner episode. The envious have pounced on Kerzner’s mistake as an example of the evils of capitalism. The bribes occurred because of government power, not market freedom. Most people have ignored the cause of the problem. Instead of asking: Did Sol Kerzner pay a bribe, we should ask: Why did Mr Matanzima have the power to decide who could run a casino?

On this side of the border why does the Government have the power not only to regulate business but also to outlaw non-aggressive activities such as gambling and Sunday film going? We force people either to break the law or travel to another country to indulge in activities legally permitted there but outlawed here.

In addition, by making gambling illegal here South Africa has made Transkei’s gambling business even more lucrative. History is rife with meddling missionaries who impose their own version of morality on everyone and make life worse for honest people.

The well-intentioned ladies of the American Temperance Movement sought to save souls by pushing prohibition. The result was a windfall for the likes of Al Capone. Government claims to promote free enterprise but makes lawbreakers of people who operate cinemas on Sundays, make use of foreign exchange without permission or run an efficient telephone service. We should give priority to a constitution that prevents Parliament or bureaucrats from interfering in any economic activity.

Instead of babbling about power sharing we should be reducing power. I repeat: there will never be any other freedom without economic freedom. Were, we to remove all restriction on economic activity South Africa could be transformed into another Japan or Hong Kong.

Before I leave the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning under whose portfolio the consolidation of Natal-KwaZulu falls I want to say that on every outing that I go on in the North Coast region my people are concerned about what is happening with the consolidation of Natal-KwaZulu. The sooner this is finalised the sooner the uncertainty will be resolved and my people can settle down. The uncertainty to that has been hanging on for too long and the sooner the matter is resolved the better for all of us. I would like the hon the Minister to touch on this matter in his reply.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by expressing my shock and condemnation in respect of the explosion yesterday evening in my constituency. The CP has already issued a statement through its leader-in-chief in which he reconfirmed his policy rejecting violence as a way to achieve political objectives. I shall not pursue this matter.

It is a privilege for me to be able to participate this afternoon in this debate on Vote No 3: Development Planning. It is probably one of the most important Votes. Last Friday the hon member for Swellendam devoted his speech to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke and to me and chiefly made two points. In the first place he found us guilty of having certain racist standpoints because our photographs appeared in a publication which allegedly adopted racist standpoints. This is known as: Guilty by association. I really expected more from the hon member as a legal expert. I regularly see photographs of Government leaders in far left-wing radical journals and newspapers. Because they do not object to this in writing, does this mean that they agree with all those statements?

In the second place the hon member spoke about the so-called golden thread of racism which ostensibly runs through all right-wing parties and movements. This is an allegation which I reject with the contempt it deserves. Why does the hon member and his party accept that West Africa, North Africa and East Africa are not unitary states? However, when they come to South Africa it is suddenly a unitary state. The hon member spoke about racism. Is Mrs Thatcher a racist if she adopts the following standpoint in connection with a united Europe and says: “Let Spain be Spain, let Belgium be Belgium and let Britain be Britain.” Certainly not, because this is known as sound nationalism—a concept about which the NP no longer knows anything. This is a party which has a name which it no longer even understands. [Interjections.]

This is a bit more complicated than the hon member for Swellendam thinks. We are dealing with two main schools of thought which are diametrically opposed to one another. In the first place there was the standpoint adopted by the hon the State President and former leader of the NP at the NP’s congress in Port Elizabeth on 30 September 1985, on which occasion the NP finally crossed the Rubicon, that South Africa is an undivided unitary state. Die Burger of 1 October 1985 reported him as follows, and I am quoting:

We will see in the forthcoming elections what becomes of this standpoint. The hon the State President went on to say:

Then he tries to qualify this by saying—

In contrast to this one has the alternative that one sees South Africa, like North, East and West Africa, as a subcontinent which one divides into parts. The peoples then live in peaceful coexistence. The model for this is the CP’s model. The hon the leader of the CP contrasted this to the NP’s integrated unitary state in Parliament on 8 February 1988, and I am quoting (Hansard, col 39):

These are the two main schools of thought in South Africa and any constitutional effort with entrenchments and constitutional gimmicks is an intermediate step on the way to the final outcome.

On Friday we had the opportunity to listen to the hon the Minister’s standpoint and his speech, which was a keynote reform speech. Now I must tell hon members that having listened to the hon the Minister this afternoon I can only come to one conclusion. Somebody got to that hon Minister over the weekend. Somebody got to him, because this afternoon he tried to be explicit and to define this more exactly and qualify certain standpoints. I want to tell hon members that there are not very many people in the NP structure who are above the hon the Minister and who can get to him. There are not very many people—to tell the truth, I saw both of them here this afternoon. They both came to see whether the hon the Minister handled this correctly and then left. [Interjections.]

The NP has opted for an integrated unitary state however, and that is why, on Friday, the hon the Minister made his policy announcement, which is merely another logical step on the road to integration. What did the hon the Minister say? I am not quoting him; this is how the media interpreted him, and I think they were right. If hon members analyse what he said they will also come to the same conclusion. The NP’s policy is an undivided South Africa in which everyone—White, Black, Coloured and Indian—will be represented in one Cabinet and one Parliament and will share in the election of the State President.

In this a few aspects are evident, which I should like to give attention to, namely in the first place the fact that Blacks are now also being included in the same system and in the same Parliament and Cabinet. Because the NP has renounced the idea of multi-nationalism in South Africa, we find that a miracle has happened. Peoples have changed into groups, groups have changed into entities, and entities will soon change into individuals. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the hon the Minister took cognisance of the findings of the President’s Council in 1982. I am quoting from President’s Council report 3/1982, page 19:

The hon the Minister also agrees wholeheartedly with this. In 1983 the then Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, appealed for the inclusion of Blacks in the same political structure. How did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning reply to him on that occasion? I am quoting from Hansard, 2 February 1983, col 212:

As regards the possibility of the fourth Chamber of Parliament mentioned at that stage, the hon the Minister said the following (Hansard, 2 February 1983, col 213):

In consequence of these three standpoints I should like to ask the hon the Minister the following. What has become, in the first place, of the cultural differences; in the second place, of the relative numbers; in the third place, of the conflicting interests; in the fourth place, of the divergent political objectives; in the fifth place, of the conflicting political cultures; in the sixth place, of the unique African values; in the seventh place of the tendency towards centralisation of power; in the eighth place, of the pattern of ethnic domination; in the ninth place, of the denial of group interests; and in the tenth place, of the multi-ethnic nature of the population? Surely this all still exists. Surely this still exists as it existed then. However, the NP is saying: “Forward, forward to one Parliament and one Cabinet!”

All that has happened is that the NP has capitulated in the meanwhile. They have given up. That is why the NP’s policy for the 1989 election can be summarised in one concept, namely orderly surrender. It must simply not take place in a disorderly fashion. We are all going to surrender to a man in an orderly fashion!

Secondly, arising from the hon the Minister’s announcement last Friday, the idea emerges that we are now moving away from numbers. Numbers are no longer a factor. In 1983, when the present tricameral Parliament was introduced, when Blacks were excluded, numbers suited the NP. That is why numbers play a dominant role in the entire present tricameral system. Time and again the system was based on the ratio of 4:2:1 between the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. We find this in the composition of Parliament, the composition of the electoral college, the composition of the President’s Council, the joint committees, etc. This was done because it suited the NP, because, believe it or not, miraculously four is fortunately always more than two plus one, which equals three.

This is also one of the reasons why the Blacks could not be included in the same Parliament in 1983. There are more of them than of us. On Friday my hon leader very effectively pointed out to the hon the Minister what role numbers play and always will play, or does the hon the Minister think that he may have stood a better chance on 2 February in the NP caucus, when a leader-in-chief was elected, if he had been elected by means of consensus? In the integrated unitary state, which the NP is now advocating, the Whites only constitute 14% of the total population. Last year my leader effectively indicated that if the NP were being honest, the logical consequence of its point of departure would be a Black majority in one Parliament.

Last year the hon member for Turffontein asked in an interjection who was advocating one Parliament (Hansard, 2 June 1988, col 12368). The NP is now advocating it. There is no doubt about that, because its leader has said so. Has the hon member changed his standpoint or is the NP now too left-wing for him. We have already had two fine examples which speak for themselves. In both cases the approach was that of a unitary state with one legislative and one executive authority, full citizenship and universal suffrage and several attempts were made to protect minorities. However, in terms of this Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and South West Africa is now becoming Namibia and South Africa will soon become Azania. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have been on the political scene for some time now, and when I read what took place here on Friday and listen to what was said here today, I find that after the five years of our participation in Parliament there is great consternation in the political sphere. We heard that from the hon member for Randfontein too.

When one looks at the news coverage of events in Parliament, it is very clear that it concentrates on the so-called White section of politics. It is clear that to them it is a matter of the real power struggle between the White political parties in Parliament.

When one takes the CP, this consternation is taken even further. Anachronistic slogans are used in the discussion of objectionable archaic policies, and even implemented. We have been made acutely aware of the destructive snowball effect of this one-sided action recently.

This consternation is like a measles epidemic in the overseas countries when one looks at the reports that are published. Such action is proof that the CP—and the hon member for Ermelo made this clear here this afternoon—does not believe in negotiation and does not care two hoots what damage is done to South Africa in this connection. To give an example, I can say that the CP has not tried even once to enter into discussions with any party in the other two Houses. I now want to ask them how they think their commodity can ever be made saleable under those two population groups.

The DP, on the other hand, was founded with great fanfare, yet also in uncertainty and in the midst of a credibility dilemma. The problems appear to reside in the three-headed leadership and also in the fact that the party wants to be all things to all men. The extraparliamentary group has to be buttered up, especially when it comes to Black politics. Groups within Parliament will only be tolerated, without angering anyone in that grouping.

Yet the LP is angry with the DP today and they say there is war between them. Three members of the House of Representatives were not accepted initially for completely absurd reasons. Subsequently they were accepted, but the DP dissociates itself from earlier statements that might conflict with the DP’s policy. What they are dissociating themselves from is not said. Yet this is not expected of other members who have joined the DP. Those hon members who have become members now, must remember that the DP will not support them as candidates in an election, unless they have consulted with the extraparliamentary groups. How does one reconcile these things? To me this looks like utter confusion. It looks as though hon members who accepted membership have given themselves the political kiss of death. Upon the instructions of our branches, I wrote to two of the parliamentary leaders of the DP and asked what would happen if any of our branches wanted to join them. I requested that they send us policy documents so that we could look at them. I received two answers. The one said that at this stage they were not interested in our joining them. My reaction was whether this was an exclusive…

Who wrote that? Mention the name.

Mr Wynand Malan. He said this in his office after I had written to him. [Interjections.] The hon nominated member Dr Zach de Beer wrote and said that the question was still under consideration. We are still waiting for the policy documents.

They do not want you.

I am not interested, brother. [Interjections.] It has nothing to do with that hon member.

Yet a public meeting was held in my constituency to launch the DP. This reminds me of talks we had with the PFP in the past. The same thing was said to us by the hon member for Sea Point. Subsequently we had talks with another group. Once again we received the same kind of answer. My advice to them was: Establish a new non-racial party and then it will be plain sailing. [Interjections.] This kind of loathsome paternalism of White politicians is like a pebble in one’s shoe. It irritates one and is totally unacceptable. If there is talk of paternalism towards the one side of the White spectrum, everyone must search their hearts.

The hon member for Houghton is not here now. I want to wish her a pleasant and well-earned retirement, however. She has made a praiseworthy contribution to South African politics. If she is going to chronicle her memoirs, I look forward to reading them. To the hon the State President I want to say: May things go well with you in future. You have unleashed a reform process which can no longer be checked. It is merely a pity that it has caused so much consternation. It is my prayer that your successor will build on this with might and main so that this country can experience the peace we all yearn for when everyone will be free and will participate in democracy as equals.

I now come to the hon the Minister.

Which party do you belong to?

I belong to the United Democratic Party. If that hon member did not know that, he knows it now and is the wiser for it.

I come to the hon the Minister. The Government announces reform bit by bit. Well-planned coordination of its plans of action is lacking, and it is here that the consternation comes into the picture. I told the hon the Minister last year that the National Council would not work as it had been composed. It was not a negotiated settlement. What is more, the ingredients for the project were wrong from the start. It is a pity that the LP supported the hon the Minister in this connection. Yet they do not want to support the hon the Minister today in appointing Blacks to the Cabinet.

The hon the Minister must tell us whether this National Council has fallen flat, like a pancake. He must also tell us whether or not the addition of some kind of leavening can get the National Council off the ground. A great deal has been achieved by means of foreign diplomacy. It is more than time for the hon the Minister to come forward with a hotted up internal diplomacy and to treat it as a priority.

Without spelling out any details, the hon the Minister announced new constitutional guidelines last Friday. In this regard I say: More later! The hon the State President held the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference with businessmen. In Namibia, South Africa was involved in war. One conference after another took place there with beneficial results. In South Africa the Government is not involved in war, and it should be easier to convene a conference.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he convene a constitutional conference even before the election. To begin with, the conference can be exploratory, but it must include the full Cabinet, Deputy Ministers, the Ministers’ Councils and other leaders both inside and outside Parliament, and it should also include Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, Dr Motlana, Dr Allan Boesak, Aggrey Klaaste and Sisulu. Plans must then be made, followed by announcements. A special portfolio should be created for dealing with such an important conference. That is important so that that person can concentrate only on the conference, and will not be caught up in the general day-to-day administration of the State. If the hon the Minister does that, the UDP will be unprejudiced in saying: “Well done!”

The hon the Minister must remember that our participation in the parliamentary process is concerned with power, power to determine both our fate and that of the rest of South Africa.

I now come to what the hon the Minister said on Friday. If his announcement with regard to democracy comprises what I have just said, in other words participation in the power process in South Africa, from Parliament to the Cabinet, the hon the Minister will not have many problems. If, however, it is a matter of what he spelt out here this afternoon, that the majority counts only in the group, but not among groups, I am afraid the hon the Minister will encounter problems.

What exactly does the hon the Minister mean by a non-geographic federation? I cannot understand that in terms of what I read during the weekend. The hon the Minister said all entities could take part in that democratic process. Does he include Azapo, Azaso, the UDF and the people who are not part of the system at present in that process?

Everyone except the UDF.

I am not interested in what that hon member says. He is not the Minister responsible for this Vote.

We do not have the power at present to do what I said. Most of us have been shunted into predetermined administrative functions. This hampers us as politicians and in reality we are still voices crying in the wilderness. Unfortunately this political impotence gives rise to protest here and there, and some confrontation here and there. Then it is a case of into the corner—the decision remains the Government’s decision.

Legislation has been passed on joint provincial structures in which Blacks can also be involved. The one in Natal-KwaZulu has been established, but not those in the other provinces. The question I want to ask the hon the Minister is whether this is as dead as a doornail, or can the hon the Minister tell us how much progress he has made in establishing such joint structures for the Transvaal and the Free State in particular, because the situation in the Cape is somewhat different?

I also want to remind the hon the Minister that on 9 February 1981 the national ad hoc committee, which consists of the association of management committees and local affairs committees, as they are known in Natal, submitted a comprehensive memorandum on local government with reference to a prior discussion with the hon the Minister, and discussed it with him. I am not going to quote the entire document here, but it would be advisable for the hon the Minister to take another look at this document. I shall quote only one paragraph from it, which reads as follows:

We also spelt out steps to the hon the Minister of how the ideal of direct representation on local government level can be achieved. At that stage it was early days politically, but our standpoint has not changed in any way.

I request the hon the Minister once again to make this memorandum the subject for discussion at a meeting of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, because all races have representation on that council, so that they can reach a decisive answer. Otherwise the hon the Minister should arrange by means of legislation that members of management committees, as is the case in the present set-up, and other local government institutions have sitting on town councils, so that they can participate in decision-making on matters of common interest. After all, that is what local government is all about, viz taking decisions together. One has the example of the regiona services councils, which can be applied ver beneficially in this regard too.

Firm action with regard to these aspects broached by the hon the Minister will contribute to his eliminating or largely eradicating the consternation in the political sphere. The hon colleagues who made interjections here a moment ago, viz the LP, also contribute to this political consternation.

One moment they support Black participation in a precarious national council. The next they reject Black participation in the Cabinet, but at the same time appeal for the appointment of Deputy Ministers in order to develop and give substance to own affairs. In an artless way they welcome the establishment of the DP. The next moment they declare war against the DP because certain MPs have been accepted as members. One moment the LP rejects consolidation of the self-governing states. The next they acclaim the consolidation. [Interjections.]

Now there are reports that Rust de Winter, which was incorporated into KwaNdebele, is one of those that was announced enthusiastically. It is said—the matter is being taken further—that this happened because two members of the LP collected money from farmers who were prepared to sell in Rust de Winter. If that is the case, the matter must be investigated on the highest level. [Interjections.]

That is nonsense!

It is easy to say that, but proof is on its way. I also want to ask that hon Minister why he does not make any attempt to get rid of ministerial representatives. This was approved initially, then rejected, and then enthusiastically approved by the LP. The hon the Minister must give a decisive answer with regard to this farce. I shall tell the hon the Minister why I am asking him to do this. What do they do? We experience them only as LP party organisers, who use official vehicles to do party organisation throughout the provinces in which they have been appointed, and who act as chief election officers during elections. The taxpayers’ money should not be wasted in such a way.

You are not going to win in the election!

The hon member for Addo Imust come to Reigerpark, then he will see. One minute the LP are welcome in the company of Chief Minister Buthelezi, Bishop Tutu, Dr Boesak and Jesse Jackson, but the next minute they are persona non grata when it comes to these very same people. That makes one think, and that is why I said that after these five years there is still consternation with regard to politics.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reigerpark touched upon many matters. There is definitely consternation at the station there. It appears to me especially as if there is consternation at the DP station because there are three stationmasters who have to decide what direction the train is to take.

The hon member spoke about Rust de Winter, which applies to consolidation affairs. I think that it was decided after due consideration that, if there had been irregularities, they were to be investigated. This hon member should bring proof of what he alleges regarding irregularities which supposedly took place.

The hon member for Randfontein said here today that NP policy stood for an undivided RSA. CP policy is in favour of a divided South Africa. In the process of implementing this division, we found from the Commission for Co-operation and Development that they were a stumbling block in the way of obtaining land for Black people in terms of the 1936 Act. They did not try to facilitate the process for us. I contend that they want to allow the process to take place without relinquishing land and that is impossible.

†The hon member for North Coast requested the hon the Minister to speed up the consolidation of KwaZulu. I have good news for him because the final proposals were made in June 1988 concerning some of the outstanding areas which were mentioned in the final report. We intend finishing that KwaZulu consolidation during this year if possible. Next year, in 1990, we intend finalising the complete consolidation as far as the last one is concerned and that is KaNgwane.

*I think that represents reasonable progress but hon members could well tell me that the process took place over a long period. I admit that the period was a long one and the process very difficult. Nevertheless I should like to point out that the Commission for Co-operation and Development was operative in the Department of Development Aid from 1920 to 1970 with the Minister as chairman. In 1959 it was decided that the Act of 1920 be repealed. This provided that the State President could appoint a commission with a chairman and determine the number of members and their term of office. It was an historic period which is now behind us. The terms of reference of the commission in terms of the Act of 1959 provide that consideration be given to every matter regarding the general managing of the administration of Black affairs and the submission to the Minister of their recommendation, so that means the commission is actually an advisory body to the Minister. In the years which followed the period which I mentioned, very little was done about the other matters or terms of reference because consolidation kept the commission fully occupied. It is a time-consuming process.

The composition of the commission is as follows at present: A chairman, a deputy chairman and five members. I thank the hon members of the commission for the functions which they have carried out. I want to tell the hon the Minister that this is perhaps—and the State President has the power to do so,—the right time to think of extending the commission so that one may include a member of the House of Representatives and one of the House of Delegates for the further activities of the commission—apart from consolidation in particular—to advise the Minister on matters which are still outstanding and regarding which the commission may serve a useful purpose.

The Act of 1936 provides that 7,25 million morgen of land be acquired in South Africa for Black people. The criticism is justified if one says a long period has elapsed. A great deal of time has elapsed but there were many good reasons for taking our time.

We see that the hon the State President reprimanded the commission in February 1979 and said that the pace had to be accelerated. He said the acquisition of land in terms of the Act of 1936 had to be completed. He spelt out that it had to be speeded up and said that the economic development of the states should be taken into account. He also said that the quota could be exceeded but that it should not be exceeded unnecessarily. He added that there was to be suitable compensation for the assets and interests of those involved, that we were not only to look at the geographic consolidation and that we were to carry out our consultations and negotiations with the Black governments. In 1982 the hon the State President recommended that the consolidation should be disposed of by 1987.

Hon members can ask me now why we did not keep to that target date. The fact is that we really have to conduct wide-ranging negotiations with those involved and, because we cannot ride roughshod over people, that is a good reason among others for the greater duration of time. I have already said that our target date is 1990 and hon members will be pleased about this.

One may ask how far we have progressed at present but I think I have already answered that question. Hon members will ask me whether we have exceeded the quota in the process. Yes, we have exceeded the quota but we have reasons for it. We have exceeded the quota by 900 000 ha but, if we are talking about KaNgwane for further consolidation, we shall exceed the quota by an estimated further 150 000 ha. That is to say—hon members are to take note of this—we are exceeding the quota by a million hectares. I think that it is an achievement to exceed the quota by only a million hectares if one looks at the number of people, their needs and the number of states to whom we had to relinquish this land.

I want to bring certain uncompleted tasks to the hon the Minister’s attention. I think that, because of the experience which the commission has acquired over the years, it should be put to maximum use as an advisory body to the hon the Minister on Black affairs. The commission should further examine neighbourliness and border relations which will be a very important factor in future. The commission should also look into poorly situated areas and black spots which definitely require negotiation and where we have to see whether we cannot improve the living conditions of those people. The commission should examine the question of excessive numbers of people and squatting in certain areas so that they can advise on this as well. The commission could try to find land for urbanisation too because we find that the urbanisation process is being delayed whereas it should actually be accelerated. The commission’s experience of these matters should be put to maximum use in assisting to promote this process.

The commission should make and retain contact and hold dialogue with Black leaders. We have found that Black people are more than willing to do their share regarding communication and dialogue. They have certain needs. That is why the commission should be the eyes and ears of the hon the Minister. It is not possible for the hon the Minister to reach all areas and to listen. The Black people would like to discuss certain problem areas with the hon the Minister and, if that is impossible, with a representative or an organisation of his, and they have valuable proposals to make. The commission should create a favourable climate for negotiation and we have acquired that expertise over a long period of negotiating with Black people. The commission can advise the hon the Minister on the exchange of land between states.

I shall close by saying that communication is the key to peaceful co-existence in South Africa with Black people and I think the hon the Minister should perhaps use the commission for that purpose in future.

Mr Chairman, I would like to quote with approbation a statement made in the annual report of the department on page 3. The words I want to quote are these:

Allowing for the fact that democratic institutions are organic and therefore in a continual process of change—this ought always to be for the better—these words cannot but be accepted by anyone who subscribes to the principles of democracy. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, we do not have respect for human dignity in this country which we can properly protect. We do not have the freedom of the individual which is part and parcel of democratic values, we do not have freedom of expression, since the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has decreed that there shall not be true freedom of expression in this country because the Press is gagged. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order, in terms of the Internal Security Act has gagged the Press and therefore the freedom of expression is curtailed. Discussion is permitted to a very large extent. Initiative is stifled to a large extent, but thankfully creative thinking is still permitted.

We accept the soundness of the statement, but the very antithesis of that sound statement of principles is contained in the first paragraph of page three under the heading “Democratic Development”, and I quote—

The last part of that sentence is gobbledygook. We cannot grant equal participation to all citizens if we do not have a proper system of democracy. The only system of democracy which is properly understood is the one man, one vote system, not necessarily in a unitary state, but certainly in a federal state. I am not speaking of a kind of federal state in which horizontal apartheid is replaced by the kind of vertical apartheid which the hon the Minister seemed to propound last Friday.

Any system which will separate and compartmentalise people on the basis of race, colour or even so-called miscalled culture and place their participation along racial or ethnic lines is vertical apartheid. It still creates separation and maintains the fundamentals of apartheid. That is not consonant with the beautiful words written on the latter part of page three.

I would like to explain this. The DP is an example par excellence in this Parliament of the choice of group by voluntary association. Nobody compels any member of the DP to belong to it. They belong to it because they want to, regardless of race, colour or culture. I have said in this House that I do not look upon the parliamentary leader of the DP, the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, as a White man, but as a man. The sooner we in this country get away from categorizing people in terms of race or colour, the better for democracy in the whole country.

He is a South African and I am a South African, and we are all South Africans. G H Calpin once wrote a book in which he said: “There are no South Africans.” He said people in South Africa called themselves Afrikaners or Jews or English. They call themselves Zulus or Tswanas or Indians or Coloureds, but they are not South Africans. They do not identify as South Africans.

That was probably true 60 years ago when Calpin wrote that book, but we have moved away from that kind of racial stupidity. We have moved away from that narrowness of mind. We are moving towards a non-racial society. [Interjections.] What the hon the Minister talks about is a multi-racial democracy.

What about the Zulu king?

The Zulu king is the king of the Zulus, and we have that kind of anachronism where there is a monarchy within a republic. We have all kinds of anachronisms in South Africa. I have heard of a republic being subject to a monarchy, but I was not responsible for that anachronism. It is the ridiculous position which we have in this country that has produced that kind of situation. [Interjections.]

The DP gives a preview of what the South Africa of the future must be like if we are going to be a civilised people in this country. I repeat: Own affairs in terms of constitutional structure is a monstrosity. It is far too grotesque to be permitted in a proper system of political development.

I am not unmindful of the fears of domination that many White people in this country suffer from. Many people in other groups have these fears of domination as well. I have had this fear of domination because I have been dominated all these years by a minority group. I am still dominated. Because I do not have the municipal franchise, I am dominated by the minority group in Durban. Therefore, domination of any kind is undesirable.

Fear, however, begets fear, and fear promotes fear, whereas generosity produces goodwill. Let us take other countries in the world where there is a majority of non-Whites in the population. I once invited the hon the Minister to go to South America. Except for Argentina, every republic in South America has what is called a Black majority population. Nowhere is there a Group Areas Act, or any other kind of racial discrimination, and yet, because of historical circumstances it is the Whites of either Portuguese or Spanish descent who really control the economy, the military forces and the political institutions of those countries.

Are they democracies?

Yes, Sir. Brazil is currently a democracy. Peru is a democracy, and oddly enough, the South African ally, Paraguay, only recently had democratic elections. If the hon the Minister wishes to say that that country is no longer the ally of South Africa simply because the dictator, Mr Stroessner, was ousted, then of course I leave it to him to say that.

I did not say that.

There are democratic republics in South America. The Argentine has become a democracy and is functioning very effectively. [Interjections.]

I now wish to deal with the situation in West Germany to give the hon the Minister an example of a country where it is not necessary to have either horizontal or the kind of vertical apartheid which he wants to substitute for the present system. In West Germany there are Germans who do not all belong to the same cultural group. As I understand it, there are five distinct cultural groups in West Germany. They have a federal system with proportional representation, which works beautifully. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege to follow the hon member for Reservoir Hills. It is a privilege because we used to serve on the Joint Committee on Constitutional “Develupment”, as he put it. I came to the conclusion that the hon member is a very clever man. Unfortunately, he lacks a lot of wisdom.

This he illustrated very clearly to us today and I would like to point out one or two things. The hon member said, inter alia, that the DP stands for voluntary association provided—and this he did not say—that it is approved even after pressure of the press in a country where there is no freedom of the press. I do not understand it. I just do not understand it.

I am very glad that the hon member is prepared to share this country with me of his own free will and to carry on in this country where there exists so little freedom.

*I should like to come back to what the hon member for Randfontein said. I see he is not present at the moment, but I am sure other hon members will stand in for him.

Policy is primarily shaped or determined by certain human motives. These are the basic causes underlying the creation or shaping of policy. Some of these underlying factors or causes are faith, perseverance, knowledge, freedom and loyalty. These are the positive elements. There are also a number of negative elements, but I shall only mention two of them. One is fear.

That is what you suffer from.

The other is hatred.

You have that too!

As far as fear is concerned, if one analyses the CP—the hon member for Lichtenburg is very talkative—one sees that there are only two motivating elements in their whole approach to their policy. The one is fear of reality, fear of any capacity to acknowledge realities, and the other their hatred of the NP’s courage and perseverance in dealing with the problems of this country.

For the rest of the time at my disposal I want to confine myself to the concept of urbanisation. Looking at the problems of Black urbanisation, I want to put it to the House that until very recently these problems were dealt with on the basis of specific ideologies, and not on any realistic basis.

I have the following to say in support of this argument. Black urbanisation has the following dimensions: Socio-economic, social and political. Up to about ten years ago the political dimension dominated the phenomenon of urbanisation. The political content of Black urbanisation can be traced back to about the time of Union, when a qualified policy of segregation with regard to Blacks was formulated. The idea was that Blacks should be prevented from becoming a majority in White South Africa. As long ago as that it was realised that if South Africa did not succeed in fully segregating Blacks, the Whites would have no choice other than to give them a say in matters of common concern. That was the case about 75 years ago.

In order to implement this policy, as far back as 1916 the Government appointed the so-called Beaumont Commission which made important recommendations in respect of the purchase and delimitation of land for Blacks. As a result of opposition amongst the Whites, nothing came of these recommendations.

Two years later, in 1918, the whole question was referred to the same commission a second time, and again nothing came of it. Consequently, the Government of the day, the South African Party government, and successive governments too, henceforth let political factors determine Black urbanisation.

Steps taken by successive Governments were motivated by the following considerations: Firstly the provision of a stable Black workforce, and secondly the removal of those Blacks, whose labour was no longer necessary, from the White areas.

In order to implement this approach, the Stallard Commission was appointed in 1921, and this commission came to the conclusion that the presence of Blacks in White areas could only be tolerated, because of their numbers, as this was justified by the needs of the White population. On the other hand it was the policy of the various Governments to allay the fears of the Whites. These fears in the hearts of the Whites are still to be found still in the ranks of the CP today. I am directing this at the hon member for Lichtenburg in particularly. One is the fear of the political consequences of Blacks being here on a permanent basis—the CP accepted this fact a long time ago, as stated by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. The other fear is that of the threat to White identity as a result of miscegenation. This is another fear the CP has. They fear this because they realise that they do not have the necessary will and perseverance to prevent it.

In 1921 it was still possible to implement the recommendations of the Beaumont Commission in respect of the purchasing and delimitation of land. As the historian, D W Krüger put it—and I give it to hon members in my own words—the Whites were opposed to this firstly because there would be a shortage of labour and, secondly, because they were not prepared to bear the financial burden.

I quickly want to come to the Fagan Commission of 1948 which found that total segregation was completely impracticable and which completely rejected the idea of Blacks only being present in White areas on a temporary basis. This brings us somewhat closer to something we are again seeing in the case of the CP—going back into the past and retracing our footsteps.

The then NP appointed the Sauer Commission, which completed its work even before the change of government in 1948, and which made its recommendations on the basis of ideological and party—political considerations, and now we are fully within the realm of the CP’s policy, Black patches must be removed, the crowding of Blacks into White areas must be prohibited and Blacks must never become an integral part of the urban population. Thus practical and economic realities were ignored and no consideration was given to the recommendations about the forces of urbanisation. No consideration was given to the potential carrying—capacity and development potential of Black areas. No consideration was given to the role of Black labour in the White economy either.

However, the change of Government in 1948 suddenly confronted the NP with the reality of the situation. They came to light with the Tomlinson Report, the results of which are well-known. The most important finding was that a reversal of the influx of the Blacks into White areas was essential, and secondly—a very important aspect—that White capital and initiative was necessary in Black areas.

I am not going to examine the history of Dr Verwoerd’s misinterpretation of this policy. I shall leave it at that because I want to deal with 1987, when the Government and those hon members in the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, who were then still part of the Government, acknowledged the permanence of Blacks. That was the same year in which it was projected that the Black influx into the cities had to be reversed. The 1978 projection about the Black influx having to be reversed was, for decades, a political factor in the formulation of South Africa’s urbanisation policy.

However, this Government established the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council, which investigated the matter of Black urbanisation, after which there was the White Paper on urbanisation strategy. Now we come to the last element where, in addition to the urbanisation strategy, there are also parallel strategies, namely a strategy for population development, a strategy for rural development, a strategy for employment and a strategy for economic growth.

Let me conclude with the following thought. The NP is doing the most monumental survey in the history of South African politics. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments. I should like to discuss certain aspects of development and of course the administration of the Group Areas Act.

Lately there has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the administration of this Act, particularly in our rural areas where frequent prosecutions are at present taking place. If one has to talk about the creation of a climate in which a new constitutional dispensation can be worked out, it is specifically the administration of this Act which ought to be dealt with.

On behalf of the thousands of families who live in uncertainty, I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister not to take steps against these people. These people are not where they are at present because they want to thwart the object of the Act, but rather because of economical considerations and the fact that there is a housing shortage. It is a fact that a great housing shortage exists around our metropoles. As a result of this people move into the White areas where quite a good deal of housing is available.

If the Government continues to take steps against these people, they are estranging thousands of families. Every family against which such a step is taken, has many other family members and it is becoming difficult for us to take these people with us on the road ahead to work out a new salvation and a new political dispensation.

With a view to the elections in September, the Government might deem it necessary to canvass White votes and consequently take steps against these people. However, in the process they are doing far more damage.

I want to ask at this stage—and I hope the hon the Minister will heed this in his reply tomorrow—for a moratorium with regard to such prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act.

The Act must be abolished!

The Act must be abolished but unfortunately we are dealing with prosecutions which are being instituted against people at this stage. Since that is the situation, I ask the Government to be compassionate and not continue with them while the possibility of abolishing the Act is being considered.

What is one psychologically doing to decent people, who have never seen the inside of a court, when one takes them to court? I am talking about educated people. They are highly educated people such as lawyers and medical practitioners. In the past we have lost many such people who left the country because they could not continue to live in such a situation.

For the sake of a better future for us all I appeal to the hon the Minister not to make it difficult for our children. I want to give hon members my own example. I grew up in a community in which there were Afrikaners, Black people and Coloured people. Those were the best years of my life. Then came the hurtful Act. During those years I built up a beautiful herd of Jersey cattle on the outskirts of Benoni where my father had a business and we had ten acres of land.

Then the bad Act came. All we received in exchange was an official who might have passed standard three or four, and he came and gave us a number in the new Indian township to which we had to move. [Interjections.] Of course he was a White official. He had no understanding of human relations. One was issued with a summons if one did not accept the house.

We immediately had to abandon the herd of cattle, which I loved dearly. I shall rather not say how many tears were shed that day. [Interjections.] Naturally it was sold for a song.

My children are the children of apartheid. I have understanding for all the other groups in the country, but my children grew up in an apartheid milieu. If anyone phones my house and speak to my children in Afrikaans, they will answer in English. When I question them about that the reply is: That is the oppressor’s language. That is what has been done to my children. [Interjections.]

My eldest daughter, who has a university degree and is married to an orthodontist, does not want to know about my political feelings. I want those hon members to know it. Her husband’s friends and colleagues are among those people being prosecuted according to the Groups Areas Act. [Interjections.]

I wish to ask those hon members whether they realise the situation in which they are placing those of us who now have to campaign for an election and help make this dispensation work.

I appeal to them from the bottom of my heart to cease those prosecutions. We should rather tackle the problem on another level. Prosecutions are not going to solve the problem because when one family is forced to move out, ten others move in.

One is thankful to see that a fair amount of land is being appropriated for Black communities. Just now I spoke about a similar problem in another committee. All our good intentions can be nullified if we do not guard against so-called developers who want to make a fast buck. When a Black man has to pay R40 per sq metre for a stand it is disgrace. [Interjections ] This is happening on the East Rand. Very close to that area there are White areas where one can still purchase an 800 sq metre stand for R12 000—R15 000, but in the Black area you have to pay R16 000—R20 000 for a 400 sq metre stand. [Interjections.]

I say that if we want to take those Black communities with us on the road ahead, it is necessary to appoint an ombudsman so that he can keep an eye on the developers who are solely interested in making profits. It is extremely important. Otherwise all our good intentions will come to nothing. Such an ombudsman would keep a watchful eye on these people.

As regards the Free Settlement Areas Act, it is correct to say that if all the rules had not been applied here last year to postpone the trilogy of legislation for as long as possible, we would have had many evictions before the municipal elections last year. Thank goodness those three Bills were not passed by us because we did not support it.

However, now the Free Settlement Areas Act is on the Statute Book. If one looks at the places which are presently being considered as free settlement areas, I want to say that we are once again looking for trouble. We are doing it at selected areas and if things go wrong, it will be said that the system does not work and that it must be abolished.

The Government is providing people, who want to cause trouble, with the necessary weapons by working so selectively. There are important areas, which require definite attention, which have not been included on the list that has been compiled so far. Unfortunately members of the public cannot come forward and request that a free settlement area be created. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege—and I say this with all honesty and sincerity—to follow on the hon nominated member Mr Abram. I think he made an absolutely brilliant contribution to this afternoon’s debate.

I was also worried when I did not see the hon member for Randfontein in the Chamber but I am pleased that he is here now. I believe that he misrepresented his contribution this afternoon when he referred to the Nationalist Party as being too left. In fact, one gets the impression from his contribution that the Nationalist Party is on the verge of handing over power. I want to say that this is certainly not true. If this was true, I certainly would have applauded it. Nobody in any position of power simply hands over power. Therefore I do not expect the Nationalist Party to hand over power. However, I am prepared to negotiate for power because the future depends on the powers of negotiation and the ability to share power.

The question of comparing South Africa with the European Economic Community was an absolutely nonsensical analysis of what is taking place in Europe. The European nations have a history over hundreds of years. Spain has been there for centuries. So have the Italians, British, French and so forth. One cannot compare their history with that of South Africa. They found commonality in their economic situation but because of centuries of differences, they have the right to be identified as separate nations.

What happens in England? There one finds the Scots with a Scottish culture; Welsh with a Welsh culture and the Irish with an Irish culture. However, all of them are British. This is what we are asking for in South Africa. Let all of us be recognised as South Africans and let our rights be identified as South African rights. [Interjections.] This is not entirely true when that sort of equation is used.

I also wish to set the record straight. I am not an expert on the ANC as some hon members tried to indicate by virtue of interjections. I have never claimed to be an expert on the ANC. I have never expressed the opinion that I am a supporter of ANC policy or of their strategy. However, what I do support is their democratic right to be recognised in the whole transformation of South Africa.

*Mr Chairman, I want to make myself very clear. I want to begin by stating that South Africa is one country consisting of South Africans. A White minority government is as unacceptable as a Black majority government.

Enough of domination.

If a non-racial South Africa is unacceptable to a minority of South Africans, then White political domination is also unacceptable to all South Africans. The greater majority of South Africans cannot and will never accept domination by a minority. The more we start to identify ourselves with the greater majority, irrespective of cultural backgrounds or difference in the colour of our skins, the more we become acceptable to the greater majority of South Africans. It is important for us to start thinking in terms of the interests of South Africa and its people.

*We have been caught up in this group idea for too long.

†The sooner we come back to the reality that South Africa and its people are more important than the individual, the sooner we will learn to find each other. I have absolutely no fight with a person who wants to be identified as an Afrikaner.

I believe it is his democratic right, and nobody can question that right. If a person wants to be identified with a cultural group, then there is absolutely no problem. However, the greater identification must be with the nation which is represented, therefore we must sort out the important issues from the lesser important issues.

Against that kind of background, we must create a climate for the new South Africa. The future South Africa is a place where every South African will find a place in the sun.

The NP undoubtedly has an important role to play in the creation of this new South Africa. There is no better time than now, on the eve of an election, to introduce a manifesto for the new South Africa. If we are making campaign speeches now, let us make those speeches in the interests of South Africa. I want to assure hon members in this Chamber that they will get more support within their groups for their return to Parliament if they use that approach in their campaigns.

We cannot afford the luxury of being part of the destruction of South Africa.

*We cannot continue with dissension in South Africa. South Africa is too dear to all of us in this country.

†Therefore I make an earnest appeal to hon members to make an honest approach to voters, and I almost want to guarantee that they will really find the support. When I talk about honesty, I am talking about the interests of the South African nation in the first place.

When I talk about creating a climate for a new South Africa and for negotiation, to my mind undoubtedly the release of Mandela must be pre-eminent and a top priority in creating that climate because without the release of Mandela one will never create a climate for peaceful change in this country. The sooner Mandela is released, the quicker we will get together around a table to sort out our differences.

I said it was an absolute privilege to have listened to the hon indirectly elected member Mr Mayet because he touched on a sore point, namely the Group Areas Act, what it has done to people and what it is still encouraging people to do. The Group Areas Act has only caused grief, particularly to people of colour. The Group Areas Act is now beginning to cause grief within the White communities as well.

In Sophiatown where I come from, people were just removed without any human consideration and feeling. I was there when the Saracens moved people out of Sophiatown. It was a traumatic experience. Those who did not see and experience this cannot have any understanding of the events of Sophiatown. People were just moved out of Sophiatown, an absolutely non-racial society, without any consideration. Do hon members know what the result was of this removal of people from Sophiatown? On the beautiful koppie at Sophiatown, behind an area now known as Triomf, there is a home for children in need with the name of St Joseph’s Home.

These children who live there have to grow up on an island without ever having the opportunity of associating with people. Hon members should see those children being transported in the mornings to school where they can have normal education and a normal environment, and then again being transferred back to an island situated on this beautiful koppie in this White sea where they have become totally unacceptable.

The same thing is happening now at Langlaagte. I have great feeling for this because I know the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home.

*I have known the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home for more than 50 years. I know what it has done for the Afrikaner children. I know the good work it has done. The very same thing that has happened to Sophiatown is happening to the Abraham Kriel Children’s Home.

†Can we allow these children to go through and suffer the indignities and problems that the children of the St Joseph’s Home have suffered? No, Sir, not because they are White, Black or Coloured. They are our children and therefore I am pleading for the normalisation of the South African society.

*If apartheid had been abolished years ago, it would merely have been a children’s home for children and it would have made no difference who lived in the area. The same applies to St Joseph’s Home.

†However, what have we created? We have created superficial barriers between people. This we cannot encourage. It is a pity that the hon member for Westdene is not here because I have feeling for the problems within his constituency. I seriously wish that I could solve that problem for him.

The Group Areas Act has caused us so much grief. However, it is also costing us so much money with the advent of this illogical bit of legislation. Vrededorp is the birth of education for the so-called Coloured community in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] Yes, I grew up in Vrededorp. I spent 30 years of my life there. On the same campus there was a primary school, high school and a teacher training college. It is closed today. This should be ever remembered in the annals of South African history. It is closed because the Government removed the people from Vrededorp.

*I would be prepared to give that up what is so important in my life if we could manage to create one educational system in this country.

†Coloured teachers are being trained on an island totally removed from the community and other educational institutions. How can one educate teachers in isolation? One cannot have higher education on an isolated basis. I do not want to profess that I am an expert on education. However, teacher training colleges should be in close proximity and in association with other educational institutions, like universities and other teacher training colleges.

*When one looks at the situation in Johannesburg, there is the Goudstadse Onderwyskollege on the one hand and the Johannesburg College of Education on the other, as well as the University of the Witwatersrand and RAU. They are all within a radius of one mile.

†Of course, the Government is producing good products from these institutions because there are healthy exchanges and interactions. We are living in the computer age now.

*However, our thinking still belongs to the days of the oxwagon. Now we find that there is a Rand College of Education there on an island among the mines. The place does not even belong to the House of Representatives. We are renting it from the mines. Permanent teachers are being trained there on a temporary basis.

†How can we equate ourselves with such a situation?

*When will we learn? Now the college has to be moved again to where it will be even further away from schools and so forth.

†This cannot make for successful education.

*Are we entering the future in utter darkness?

†We realise that the problems of South Africa will be resolved by an educated community.

*If we do not educate the educators, how are we going to prepare our children for the new South Africa? I am not saying this only because the Group Areas Act has become a dirty word to us or because it has now really become hackneyed.

†We are trying to convince the Government that they are not doing themselves a favour by retaining the Group Areas Act.

The Government is doing itself a disservice. It is most of all doing a disservice to those whom it represents in Parliament—the future South Africans—its own children, our children and grandchildren. They are the future of South Africa. If the Government is not going to resolve the problem of education, it is not going to resolve the problems of South Africa.

This is why I make this special appeal to those who are in positions of power today. The hon member for Randfontein said one true thing and that is that this tricameral system is a farce in the sense that all the power is still vested in the NP. The 4:2:1 still makes 2 + 1=3. Therefore the Government will dominate the situation. I do not even mind the domination if only that domination will lead to a democratic South Africa. The Government has placed itself in an awkward position where it alone will have to take the right decision that will put South Africa on the road where we will be in the position to take up our rightful place in the world community.

*This is a great responsibility. However, I believe that the Government consists of great people who are able to make great decisions. The decision to make this Parliament a multiracial Parliament was a great decision. That has been said here on many occasions. That decision led to a split in the Afrikaner nation. It was a great decision and we have great appreciation for it. However, this Government will have to make even more important decisions, and they are quite capable of making them.

†All we ask of the Government is please to listen to us because we have no other motives for coming to Parliament but to create a South Africa that all of us can be proud of. [Interjections.]

Debate interrupted.

The Committee adjourned at 18h17.

Mr Chairman, it has been my privilege to act as Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs for the past three months. I should like to inform the Committee on this occasion that my task in this regard has been facilitated considerably by the competent top management team in the department. I have received excellent support from extremely competent and well-equipped men under the outstanding leadership of the Director-General, Mr P C van Blommestein. The fine annual report, which has already been tabled and which hon colleagues have apparently all received, is in my view an indication of the high quality of work which the Director-General and his team strive to produce.

It is for this reason, too, that I actually find it a pity that Mr Van Blommestein has indicated that he is to retire on pension from the service later this year when his term expires. Since this is the last Vote discussion at which Mr Van Blommestein will be present in his current capacity, it is fitting to say a few words about him.

He began his career in the Public Service in 1946 in the then Department of Lands, and owing to his ability he made steady progress over the years until he eventually became Director-General in 1982. Over the years Mr Van Blommestein has always distinguished himself as an able administrator and a hard, dedicated worker. Many hon members and I have come to know him as a person of great integrity who dedicates himself to his task in an unselfish manner.

There are many highlights of such a lengthy career to which I could refer. I shall briefly single out only a few—contributions over the years which also illustrate the outstanding qualities of Mr Van Blommestein. There was the successful rationalisation of various departments into the efficient unit which the department forms today—a department which plays a decisive role in the field of housing.

There was the establishment of an Expropriation Act, which laid a generally accepted foundation for the determination of compensation upon the expropriation of immovable property. Then there is the example which is probably the best known to all of us, and that is the virtually impossible task, upon the establishment of the tricameral Parliament, the President’s Council and the office of the State President, of getting the necessary accommodation ready within a very short space of time. Thus, for example, the Marks Building had to be equipped for the 1984 session within a period of only four months and 173 residences at Pelikan Park and Laboria Park had to be planned and constructed within five months.

There was also the overall co-ordination of housing functions which are the province of various administrations, which Mr Van Blommestein handled with great competence. It was particularly the dynamic lead he took in this field that resulted in the Institute for Housing of Southern Africa nominating Mr Van Blommestein as Housing Man of the Year in 1987—a distinction which very few people have yet attained.

There was also the establishment of an interest subsidy scheme for first-time home buyers, which was largely the result of the initiatives taken by Mr Van Blommestein in this regard. I could mention even more examples, but I shall content myself with these few. There are so many monuments in South Africa that will remind us of Mr P C van Blommestein’s fruitful term of office as head of this department, as well as in the years before that.

On behalf of the Government and, I believe, on behalf of hon members here as well, I should like to convey our sincere gratitude to Mr Van Blommestein. We wish him, and his wife, who has supported him over the years with so much faithfulness and loyalty, good health and a very pleasant period of rest.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to express my thanks to Mr Pietie du Plessis, who was the former Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, for the good work which he did in the past. We cannot help the fact that he is not here today. Nevertheless he did very good work.

I also want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs for the assistance which he has rendered during the past year. I also want to express our thanks to the Director-General of Public Works, Mr Van Blommestein, as well as his officials, for the good work which they have done during the past year and for the assistance which they have rendered.

I also want to thank the members of the joint committee with whom we worked so pleasantly. I am sure that our chairman, the hon member for Caledon, will lead us to new heights.

I would now like to talk about the furniture in our houses in Laboria Park. It is regrettable that one sometimes has to notify the caretaker about the shortage of furniture in the houses, and three months later nothing has been done about the matter. The building materials of the houses are expensive and unless immediate attention is given to shortcomings, the situation will simply worsen and we will lose money unnecessarily as a result of negligence. I want to ask that attention be given to this matter.

Next I want to refer to the Annual Report of Public Works and Land Affairs, page 18, par 2.1.4.1 “Interest subsidy scheme for first-time home buyers.” I am asking that there should be no restriction with regard to people who buy houses which were previously occupied. In the non-White residential areas, the demand for land is greater than the supply. As our people are unable to obtain land in our areas, we are often forced to buy old houses which have been previously occupied. I am asking that the interest subsidy also be granted to those people as first-time buyers.

Furthermore, I am asking that the income limit of applicants for subsidies for a first residence should be increased to R1 500 per month. The cost of living is so high today that if a person has to support his whole family on an income of R1 200 per month, he has virtually no money left to pay that instalment on the house. For that reason I am asking that that income limit please be increased to a minimum of R1 500 per month.

I would also like to ask the hon the Acting Minister for the subsidising of the development costs and the service costs of new land. The costs incurred by companies who develop the new land and who provide the primary services, are so high that when that land has been serviced and everything has been done, it costs our people at least R8 000 per erf.

How can my people on the platteland afford those prices? My people on the platteland cannot afford R4 000 per erf. I am speaking about towns such as Grabouw, Villiersdorp and a little place such as Botrivier, in my constituency. I am talking about Kleinmond, Hawston and Stanford.

We are now in the process of developing land in Kleinmond. It has already been calculated that once that land has been serviced and everything has been done, the erven will be no cheaper than R14 000. How can the people afford that? The housing shortage in our towns is not going to be relieved if prices of land are so high. We know that the Treasury is virtually empty, but I am asking that the subsidising of newly serviced land be looked at.

Mr Chairman, I am now coming to a very sensitive matter, namely that of building regulations which are laid down for us if we wish to build homes. Building material is exorbitantly expensive today and new cheaper types of building material should be looked at—not of a lower standard, but a cheaper building material from which we can have our houses built.

On the platteland our people cannot afford to build conventional houses with bricks. It is too expensive to build these houses. Out of necessity, cheaper building materials for our houses must be looked into. We must remember that South Africa is still a Third World although we are striving towards First World standards. However, we must not strive for First World standards to the detriment of our population which cannot keep up.

I am now coming to another sensitive matter. The LP asked for the abolition of the Influx Control Act, and we now have the situation in which a reasonable amount of money is being spent by the Government on housing for Blacks in our towns and cities. It seems to me—I may be wrong—that we Coloureds are now being adversely affected by that.

It is said that surely we asked for the abolition of influx control, and they are now going to make sufficient money available for Black housing while the poor Coloured people come off second best. If I am wrong, then I must be proven wrong.

I see the enormous sums of money which are now being spent on Black housing, while the housing shortage of our Coloured people is so tragically high. We cannot obtain necessary funds for housing and eventually our people will be living in slums. The Black man lives far more comfortably than we do. His rental is also less than the rental of our people. For that reason I am asking that this matter please be looked into.

On page 23 of the report, the sale of hired houses is mentioned. The table actually shows a decrease, particularly among Coloureds. I now want to ask what the real cause is of this state of affairs. Does this not perhaps concern the point which I have just made? The table on page 25 indicates that Indians receive more funds for housing than Coloureds. If I compare the number of Coloureds to the number of Indians in the country, it appears to me that the number of Indians is less than half that of the Coloureds. Why then are Coloureds being neglected in this way? Are we really the step-children of South Africa?

I want to ask how the funds of the South African Housing Trust are being used to provide housing for people in the lower income groups? To what extent has this trust already helped our poor Coloureds? I do not have the figures in that regard, and would very much like to know how our lower income groups are being assisted with funds from the South African Housing Trust.

Furthermore, I really have a great deal of respect for the work of our professional land surveyors and technical surveyors. However, there is a great shortage of such specialists. We often have to wait a few months to have new land surveyed, because there are no land surveyors available to do this work. The chief director says the following on page 38 of the report regarding the training of land surveyors and I quote:

I am asking what the hon the Acting Minister and his department are prepared to do to solve this problem. If the necessary bursaries were offered to Coloureds as well, I am sure that our students would be able to quickly eliminate this shortage.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to congratulate my good friend the hon member for Hawston on his appointment as the chief spokesman of his party on this department’s affairs.

To start with I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether there is a reason why Pretoria had such fine weather yesterday and today and the Cape had such dismal weather.

It is really a pity—I should like to associate myself with the hon the Acting Minister in this regard—that a very capable man like Mr Van Blommestein also has to go on pension. As one prospective pensioner to another, I now want to quote a Scottish proverb. I cannot pronounce it, because their language is rather difficult. They have a proverb which reads: Lang may y’r lum reek (“may your chimney smoke for many years to come”). In this idiom I want to express the hope to Mr Van Blommestein that the Van Blommestein chimney will still smoke for many years.

I initially considered making a speech about two small screws. However, this department’s functions are so wide-ranging, because it is mainly a service delivery department which renders services to other departments, that one would prefer to take this final opportunity to make a few suggestions on how the functions of the department can be facilitated and expedited.

The first thing that comes to mind is that we must see—I know this is determined by legislation—whether we cannot rationalise works departments. The works function knows no geographic boundaries or colour. At present there are eight works departments. There are four provincial works departments, a central works department for public works and a further three own affairs works departments. This must give rise to expense and overlapping. My appeal to the hon the Acting Minister is whether these works departments and the authority cannot be centralised.

The performing of these works functions can be effectively decentralised by allowing control to vest in one authority. In the present situation this means that on a single day five inspectors from five different works departments can arrive in a town like Graaff-Reinet to inspect five different works being done for five different departments. I do not think our country, with a Treasury which is battling so much—which my good friend Adriaan mentioned—can afford such luxuries any longer.

One of the fine and good things the department is engaged in and which it has set itself the task of doing during the past few years is the keeping and drawing up of a central State property register. As many as 28 000 properties belonging to the State have already been identified and registered. These are over and above properties belonging to the four provinces, properties belonging to the SATS, properties belonging to the Post Office and properties belonging to the own affairs departments. When we say that we must centralise the functions, or some of the functions, I think that this State property register lends itself pre-eminently to being centralised.

The purchase of land is also a function of the department, as is its sale. If these different organisations each start buying land for their own administration, this cannot produce good results and can only be to the detriment of the State.

Since 1982 it has also been the function of this department to sell redundant property, and it has succeeded excellently in this. When we talk about privatisation, the sale of redundant State property to the inhabitants of the country—private initiative—is a wonderful example of privatisation. Since 1982 property to the value of more than R100 million has been sold in this way. Each of these different bodies have redundant property whereas, if it had all been on one register, this sales campaign need only have been launched once.

One of the fine things which happened in Mr Van Blommestein’s time, was that the rating of State property came into effect on 1 July 1988. This legislation, which orders the payment of rates on State property, is very much to the advantage of local authorities that are not having an easy time financially either. That is why R156,318 million has been budgeted this year for the payment of property rates by the State to the local authorities in which its properties are situated.

In the early seventies Pretoria—the city in which I live—was virtually bankrupt. The State gave Pretoria R400 000 in the form of property rates for the large number of properties it owns there. By 1990 Pretoria will probably receive an amount of R30 million from this property tax which the State pays on properties in that area. This is one of the achievements of this department and of the Government, and one which is of great benefit to our local authorities.

At the outset I said I had intended making a speech about two little screws. This concerns costs. I submit that if another man rents my house and must pay for it, I will definitely demand a fine house. That is why I want us to consider departments making provision in their own budgets for the costs of their accommodation, for the services like electricity which they use, and for maintenance.

Two loose screws in Acacia Park resulted in a telephone call to Cape Town, and a trip by two men to Acacia Park to tighten those two screws. I want to ask whether this department cannot give consideration to appointing a capable, senior cost accountant to the establishment. That person can look after and investigate costs, particularly hidden costs, in the carrying out of tasks and he can advise the department on this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to record my sincere appreciation to the hon the Acting Minister and his department for the assistance and co-operation that has been extended to us in the House of Delegates at all times.

We see the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs as an overall housing department and everybody referred to the fact that it should be the department most concerned with housing and land affairs. I wish to mention a few of its tasks. At present they look after the bookkeeping and the control of funds of all the Houses.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the hon the Acting Minister and his officials for making available the 127 hectares of land at the Louis Botha Airport for approximately 79 smallholdings. We have already allocated 38 of them. I also learnt, with regret I would say, of the retirement of the Director-General, Mr Van Blommestein. I met him at the time when I was dealing with the housing portfolio and other matters in the Indian Council. I wish him well. I think we have all learned from his experience and we wish him well in his retirement. We will possibly miss his expertise.

In the few minutes that I have at my disposal, I wish to make a contribution regarding two important issues. However, before I do that, I also want to say that I have learnt that the hon the Acting Minister has set up a working committee to investigate possible amendments to the Expropriation Act and these could have a far-reaching effect. However, I will come back to that, because I think it is important for us to resolve some of the issues that we were unhappy about.

I now move to a very important issue which I think is dear to the hon the Acting Minister and his department. The hon the Acting Minister is also the chairman of the Committee of Ministers concerned with housing. For some years we in the Government have been of the opinion that the private sector should be involved in housing and that the public sector, which is ourselves, should slowly start to move away. When I piloted the Housing Development Bill (House of Delegates) through, I also made provision in clause 23 of that Bill for township establishment on land which the board had an interest in. The famous old Housing Act, No 4 of 1966, dealt under section 74A with the approval of a township at the request of the Minister.

I want to read this for the record, because I want the hon the Acting Minister and all of us to get together to try and resolve this thorny issue of township proclamation delays. Section 74A(1) of the Housing Act reads as follows, and I quote:

Where it mentions the Minister, it referred originally to the then Minister of Community Development, but in the present case it would refer to the Ministers of Housing in each of the three Houses. It continues, and I quote:

1. (a) on submission to the Administrator of the plan or lay-out plan (in this section called the general plan) and the diagrams in connection therewith which the Surveyor-General may require (if any), and the conditions of establishment, of the township or portion thereof, he shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, approve such township or portion thereof;
2. (b) such approval shall be deemed to be an approval in terms of the relevant applicable ordinance; and
3. (c) the Administrator shall inform the Surveyor-General and the Registrar of the approval.

Before I resigned as Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates, I actually submitted a test case to the Administrator of the Transvaal on 11 December 1985. Eventually I was told that it was not possible.

The reason why I am raising this matter is that when we came into the House of Delegates, some of our townships had already been developed by the then Department of Community Development. I used this section to try and resolve the issue. Hon members will know that if housing costs are increasing at a rate of 1%—some say 2%—per month, that amounts to 24% per year. These townships had already been developed over a period of four years, even before my appointment as Minister. We have now spent five years in Parliament. It is therefore 9 years and some of these townships in Lenasia have not yet been proclaimed. The then Minister of Community Development had foreseen this problem and that is why this provision was put in.

Today we have the Administrators of the provinces and the Surveyor-General saying, “Sorry, we cannot accept this”. I want to read out this part which I submitted as a test case to the hon the Acting Minister. I said, and I quote:

I submitted the general plan, the conditions of establishment and everything that had to do with the township proclamation. Today the situation exists that none of the occupants of those townships can get a bond from a building society. At the moment not one of them can even initiate any development because the problem is that all these townships are being held up because the building societies are not prepared to lend one money unless the property can be transferred.

I also gave a certificate of undertaking. When the Government lays out a township, it has roads, water, sewerage, lights and everything else and to all intents and purposes it is a properly developed township. I see no reason why the Surveyor-General or the Registrar of Deeds should not accept the township as registered while the logistics and the documents are still being processed according to the normal procedure. However, one cannot wait nine years if the Government wants the private sector or us to build houses.

I am referring to places like Lenasia, Richards Bay, Savanna Park, Pelikan Park, Lenasia extension 4, Lenasia extension 13 and, of course, the two new ones, Villa Lisa and Lotus Garden. If this whole system of legislation is not deregulated we are going to have big problems. Every day somebody comes to the Administration: House of Delegates and wants to know when they can get transfer, because institutions are prepared to lend them money.

All I ask here today is that we must be prepared to help the hon the Acting Minister. In fact, the Ministers in charge of housing—although I now only deal with local government—have discussed this matter and we believe we should pilot a Bill through Parliament to ensure that townships are developed with the initiative taken by the Minister as if the Surveyor-General has already accepted the plans. That is what section 74A makes provision for.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to touch on another matter, which is the new rental formula. At the time when it was introduced it was believed that the only thing the Government could do—it was done throughout the world—was to allow a certain percentage of someone’s income to be deducted for the purpose of rent redemption and interest.

The housing formula has now been grounded because local authorities and the housing departments have been confronted with many kinds of problems. The hon the Acting Minister chairs the ministerial committee on housing and therefore I believe we can expedite the process.

I want to make the very firm proposal that if we want everyone to take the initiative in development and if we want individuals in South Africa to pay for electricity, water, education and clothing, we can only take a percentage of a man’s income for housing. We should peg it strictly at 25% or even less or otherwise the other economies will not be able to move in the desired direction. Housing is the only area in which we can help them to some extent and in our opinion the housing formula must be reconsidered. Whatever the amount, it should be pegged to a percentage which will enable people to be involved in all other fields.

Mr Chairman, this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking in this particular House. I do not really know whom to thank for that, so I shall thank you, Sir. It is also the first time that I have spoken so early in the debate.

While going through the 1988 report of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs I read inter alia the following in the preface on page ix:

That refers to buildings that are erected for State purposes. I welcome this because it is consistent with the policy of privatisation which is accepted not only by the Government but by all political parties in the tricameral system.

It is very encouraging to note that the Government is eager to get privatisation under way wherever it can possibly be implemented. I also welcome the internal investigation into ways and means of improving the services rendered to the public and of increasing the efficiency stimulated by the department.

I quote from page 2:

On page 5 it states:

This is very necessary. I welcome the reconstitution of the Departmental Training Committee. The academic training of its officers should always remain a priority since the rendering of an efficient service to the public is of prime concern as regards the image of the department and the service it has to render to the public.

I want to mention a few words on the control of stocks, which is referred to on page 6. I am glad to see that the department is concerned about keeping control of stocks because this is very necessary in regard to theft by employees, losses through carelessness etc. That certain measures of control of stock be introduced, inter alia with a view to exercising effective control of stock, is the right thing to do and I quote:

This is an important issue. What must they do with excess stock and stock that has become outmoded or even perhaps unusable? The report continues:

I am glad to see that they are getting rid of this redundant stock and at least have the money in hand.

The registration of deeds takes an extremely long time especially when people have bought property and are anxious to build, but still have to draw up plans and all this sort of thing. In the meantime they are hampered by the fact that they cannot start their building programme because they do not yet have the deeds of transfer. Because they cannot get deeds of transfer, they cannot get loans from banks, building societies etc. It is very necessary that this be speeded up. I note here again, on page 8, that a computerised system is now being brought in to expedite this.

I also want to talk about lost deeds of transfer. In many cases people decide, after many years, to sell their properties and those buying the property want to start renovations. Close to me in Elsies River we have a case of a man who has been waiting for six months or more to start renovating the building. Since the deed of transfer was lost by the previous owners and they are still advertising, they are still waiting to see what the result will be. This is not a very healthy state of affairs and I would welcome it if all these procedures were speeded up.

I would now like to discuss communication and liaison services, which are mentioned on page 10:

I welcome this as people will at least be able to see that when we talk about public works, it is work being done for the public. The first time I spoke on this particular Vote was in the House of Representatives where I told a story about what people used to think of the Public Service. They now however have a different idea of it.

When I was a little boy I one day watched the Public Works Department doing a job. Some little lamp had to be removed or something to that effect. The White driver with his Coloured assistant sat in front while his two Black assistants sat at the back. They stopped the bakkie and jumped out. The Black man put up the ladder, the Coloured man lit the fire and the White technician lit a cigarette. After that, tea was made by the second Black assistant. When the tea was ready, it was drunk. After they had finished their tea, the White technician or tradesman in charge started to smoke again. The Coloured chap carried whatever had to be taken up the ladder and climbed down again. As soon as the White tradesman had gone up the ladder, the Coloured man started smoking a cigarette or lighting his pipe. This went on until the White chap came down again. Then the Coloured man removed the ladder, one of the Black men lit the fire again, and the other one made some more tea. They eventually left after about three or four hours.

This was the poor image of the Public Service with which I grew up. However, after having found out more about the Public Service, I had to review some of my ideas about it. What I am trying to say today is that we should try to assist the hon the Acting Minister and the department in improving its efficiency so that we do not grow up with misguided ideas about the Public Service or the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs.

I feel that the launching of a communications programme to promote home-ownership among all the population groups is a very welcome step. If a man owns his own house, he is more or less in control of his own life. He can then make his own decisions and he does not have to ask anybody whether he can break down a door, whether he can keep the lights on late at night or whether he can switch on the TV early in the morning. When a place belongs to one, one can do what one wants within the bounds of the law. This is why all of us in the system—especially those of us who only became part of the system in the past five years—have always advocated home-ownership for everybody in the country.

I now come to the interest subsidy scheme for first-time home buyers and I quote from p 19 of the annual report:

We have many cases in my area where people are now selling their houses. The old people, who had paid for their houses, have died. Their children are now selling the houses. The person who buys such a house does not benefit at all from the interest subsidy scheme. I take this section to mean that such a person will now benefit. It states here that this will be at the discretion of the housing departments concerned.

*I would like the hon the Acting Minister to elaborate on this and to tell us which housing departments are being referred to. Is it the Department of Local Government, the housing department of the Regional Services Councils or who? To whom must one apply for the interest subsidy scheme? To whom must one go to obtain the benefits of the scheme? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister on his appointment, as well as the department on the fine report that has been given to us. Then, on behalf of the CP, I also want to wish Mr Van Blommestein and his wife a long and happy retirement.

I should like to refer to the sale of rented houses. When we look at the table in the report, we see that 10 825 houses have been allocated for sale to Whites. I do not know how long ago it was, but to date 3 891 houses have been sold. From 1988 up to now a small number of houses have been sold in comparison with the other population groups.

I should just like to know on what conditions and at what price the Whites are purchasing these houses from the State. According to newspaper reports, Blacks are purchasing these houses in Black areas for a minimal amount.

There was even some agitation a short while ago when they said that they had been living in those houses for so long that they had paid for the houses over and over out of the rent that they had paid. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could just tell me on what conditions these Whites are buying their houses.

Another point I want to make, and which is giving cause for concern, relates to plots that are being made available to Blacks. Up until December 1988, a total of 708 692 erven were made available and at the present moment 150 201 erven have been surveyed. We know that further land, comprising quite a few hectares, has now been allocated to so-called greater Soweto. We shall have to be careful insofar as the allocation of residential units to Blacks is concerned, because by the year 2020 there will be no more land left on the Rand to give to them. I want to make an appeal to the Government to start looking into high density housing. If other population groups can live in flats, then I think the time has arrived for these people also to realise this. They have one of two choices: They must either have fewer children or also go and live in flats. That is the only way in which we shall be able to provide for their needs.

Another cause for concern is the housing building on the corner of Volksstem and Schoeman Streets. We know that this matter was investigated by the Advocate-General, and according to the Advocate-General’s report many things definitely went wrong insofar as the lease of this building was concerned. When we look at paragraph 3.5.1 on page 28, we find that the Advocate-General says the following:

When one reads the Advocate-General’s report at greater length, one sees that contracts were not signed, that difficulty was experienced in obtaining the contracts and that photostatic copies of contracts were subsequently submitted. But at one juncture the Advocate-General said that the State had not lost any money. The State did not suffer any losses, but in the same breath the Advocate-General tells us that other tenders were not requested. Reference is then made to the R9,50 per square metre which Sanlam would have asked, and the R8 per square metre which was originally paid for the building, but nowhere are we able to determine whether the amount that would have been spent on upgrading the building, would have been the same as that which Mr Du Plessis would have spent. Furthermore, we see that the rental in terms of the lease is to be increased to R12 per square metre at the end of this year. In view of the fact that no tender price was requested, I cannot agree that we have, in fact, proved beyond any doubt that the State did not suffer any losses.

That is absolute rubbish!

Just as that hon member is talking rubbish.

The Advocate-General recommends on page 17 that the department should obtain a legal opinion as to the validity of the lease. I should now like to know from the hon the Acting Minister: Has an investigation been conducted into the validity of this lease? If so, what is the legal opinion, and what is going to be done to rectify this matter? I am very sure that R12 per square metre for a building in Pretoria which is not a new building, was altogether excessive and that it is probably one of the most expensive rented complexes in Pretoria. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to another matter, and that is the Boer prisoners of war who died in exile. We know that there are quite a number of graves on Bermuda, St Helena and other islands. Those prisoners of war laid down their lives for South Africa. They fought for White South Africa during the Anglo-Boer War and were subsequently banished by the British Government to the islands on which many of them died.

The Delville Wood Memorial was recently upgraded at a cost of over R6 million. I want to ask the hon the Acting Minister this afternoon to consider whether the time has not come for us to pay some or other tribute to those people who laid down their lives for South Africa. Could their graves not also be restored and upgraded? We must bear in mind that those people who died at Delville Wood did not lay down their lives for South Africa. However, those prisoners of war who were captured during the Anglo-Boer War and sent to those islands, were defending South Africa. I do not see how we can fail to take the trouble to pay tribute to them, too, by ensuring that these graves are maintained.

When we look at the money that is spent in South Africa, I feel sure that the money can be found to maintain the graves. [Interjections.] An amount of R12 million was wasted on a song, and we could mention other instances of money that has been wasted. [Interjections.] I am very sure that if the hon the Acting Minister feels the way we do about those prisoners, he will, in fact, find the money to maintain those graves.

Mr Chairman, I note that the provision of housing by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs appears to remain a matter of the highest priority. I also note the mechanism set up, which includes the committee of Ministers, the working committee of the heads of departments and the non-statutory South African Housing Board.

These bodies must seriously address the problem of a lack of suitable land for housing and the exorbitant cost of land, which particularly affects Indian South Africans. There is a chronic shortage of land, especially in Durban.

I suggest that the non-statutory South African Housing Board be made a statutory board. This board should be empowered to co-ordinate all land and housing matters on a national basis for all population groups in South Africa. This body should be representative of all sections of the population, experts in housing matters and interested parties.

This body should make its input by looking into problems such as the shortage of land and the provision of housing. The body should look at the particular problem of land being held by private landmongers for speculative purposes and other sentimental reasons. I would suggest that legislation be passed to get the land away from private owners who hold up good land that could be used for the larger masses of the people.

The board could also embark on a programme of self-help housing. Such projects were started some time ago, but they died a natural death. The board should also consider the involvement of the private sector. If one really wants to solve the housing problem in this country, some incentives must be given to the private sector to become involved in the provision of housing.

Suitable means of subsidisation should be given to low-income groups. Township lay-outs should include social, cultural and other recreational activity centres, because merely providing houses will not satisfy the social, cultural and educational needs of the people.

The problem of housing and the availability of land must be resolved immediately, as any delay will aggravate the situation. We cannot afford delay—the more we delay, the more the problems will escalate. As it is there is a chronic shortage of houses in South Africa.

The annual report states, and I quote from section 2.1.4.2 on p 19:

Since 1986, 38 356 ha has been set aside for Blacks. There is no mention of land available for Indians and Coloureds, especially in Natal. What is shocking is the fact that only 38 000 ha has been set aside for Blacks. Bearing in mind that we have a population of over 220 million, this 38 000 ha is equivalent to 20 km of land. That is really shocking, because that is the small amount of land being set aside for Black housing. The Housing Board must seriously consider more land for housing for the Blacks as well as the other population groups, because a lot of land is being held by a few people in this country.

There is another point I should like to raise. One of the vexing problems relating to low-cost housing schemes is the unrealistic cost of services charged by municipalities and local authorities. Running costs, rates, water and electricity charges, charges for sanitation and rubbish removal—all add to the overall cost of renting a house. Charges for municipal services sometimes, if not most of the time, exceed the cost of rentals. Some of the people in the low-income groups such as grant cases, welfare cases and recipients of welfare money spend as much as 50% to 60% of their earnings on these services and rentals. This is very sad, especially for those unfortunate people who do not enjoy all the facilities provided by the municipalities. In fact, they have to subsidise others. They do not own motor cars or use the freeways; they do not frequent the beaches and the parks provided by the municipality which are charged for in the form of rates. Nevertheless these people have to pay the same rates. We shall have to look into that matter, and the Housing Board is able to do this.

On the question of house sales, I suggest that the hon the Acting Minister consider the promotion and encouragement of home-ownership among all the population groups. The Government’s privatisation programme does afford the opportunity to sell houses on an agency basis. Agents could do a better job as there is the incentive of making a little money. Agents could sell Government stock, to the benefit of both the State and the prospective buyer.

I note from the annual report that by December 1988, 171 630 houses were sold, and there is a balance of 352 950 houses still available for sale. Although good progress has been made, there is scope for more deals in order to sell the balance of more than 300 000 houses, and as a result of such sales, the department could expect a steady inflow of capital to finance future projects.

I think that in view of the new stand the Government has taken as regards running the country in a more business-like manner, we should try to expedite the sale of these houses to generate more capital for use in solving some of our problems.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon members who wished the Director-General and his wife a long and healthy retirement. As the hon the Acting Minister rightly said, he accomplished a great deal for this department and we therefore wish him a restful retirement.

I do not wish to elaborate on the size of this department. For that reason I want to address three matters, all three of which concern my constituency.

First of all there is the possible upgrading of the department’s sub-office in George. According to the latest report 24 351 applications for guarantees for 100% home loans were approved during 1988. This is a noticeable increase compared to previous years, according to the department, and a big workload to deal with.

The department’s regional office in Port Elizabeth serves a wide area which includes towns as far away as George, Oudtshoorn and Willowmore. We are all aware that the Southern Cape is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. Together with this there is a tremendous demand for housing. Prospective home buyers experience long delays when they apply for guarantees for 100% loans, since these applications have to go to the regional office in Port Elizabeth. I take note of the existence of the sub-office in George, but these and other functions are not yet being performed there. The upgrading of this suboffice, so that the necessary departmental work can be done here, will ease the workload at other regional offices. It will also serve the Southern Cape region better. After all, the department’s motto is: The end justifies the means.

The second aspect which I want to refer to, and which at this stage is not the sole responsibility of this department, but in which it does have a say, is the accommodation problem which is being experienced at the police station and magistrate’s office in Knysna. It is possible that the hon the Acting Minister might tell me that this aspect should be broached with two other departments, but allow me to give a few details on the matter in order to try to demonstrate the department’s involvement.

The police station and magistrate’s office are housed in the same building. Both are struggling with impractical office and other spaces. It is not only the personnel who are affected by this but also the general public. The new prison in Knysna is nearing completion and without being prescriptive, I want to ask what the possibility is of the police being moved to those buildings? In this way the magistrate’s office can be converted to make more practical space available.

The last aspect which I want to raise is the expropriation of grazing land on Covie Common. The various owners of Covie have had grazing rights on this commonage for more than 80 years. During 1980 the department expropriated these grazing rights, paid the owners the amount of R50 and transferred the land to the Department of Environment Affairs. I am raising this matter again because the residents and owners in this area feel aggrieved about the expropriation; to such an extent that those who have been expropriated have not cashed their R50 Treasury vouchers. When this expropriation took place, no notice was taken of the public opinion of the residents. I believe that in a democratic community it is essential for public opinion to be taken into account.

I gladly support the community who are of the opinion that this land on which they had grazing rights, should be sold back either completely or partially to the owners who had previously had a claim to it. At the moment the Department of Environment Affairs has commenced the afforestation of that area. However, if one looks at the size of the area, there are smallholdings which were previously developed by the woodcutters of the vicinity with the possibility of grazing rights being granted to them. This expropriation of those grazing rights is restricting the whole community to those smallholdings, about 30 smallholdings in all. My request is that the department look into this matter again. If the entire area cannot be sold back to the owners who have a claim to it, a portion must be sold back to the so-called owners, so that these people can make a decent living in that area.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to associate myself with the words of thanks conveyed to Mr Van Blommestein by the hon the Acting Minister. I want to endorse every word the hon the Acting Minister said about Mr Van Blommestein. It was also my privilege to have worked with Mr Van Blommestein for a longer period than the hon the Acting Minister and to have been properly guided by him—also in this specific division in the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs.

I shall react later to quite a number of questions and ideas expressed here by hon members. At this stage, however, I should like to express a few introductory ideas.

In the first place the Land Affairs division of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs renders a vital service to all the communities of this country particularly in regard to, or by means of, the surveys they do and the registration of deeds. At some stage or another most people in our country buy or sell land, and they are then assisted by this particular department. I shall furnish more details about this later.

Another very important function performed by this department is the buying and selling of properties on behalf of the State. In this respect I want to tell hon members that this is a very sensitive division of this department, particularly when we are dealing with compulsory expropriations for the buying out of dam basins, of land for roads and for other town extensions. Because this is a very sensitive matter, the department deals with it with the greatest compassion.

During the past year we have given attention to land acquisitions amounting to approximately R23 million. The Surveys and Registration Division does an enormous amount of work every year, particularly since 1982 when a start was made with the surveying of Black residential areas and the registration of 99-year leaseholds. Up to and including 31 March of this year 728 276 plans were passed in respect of residential erven, and since 1985, 101 245 leaseholds were registered. This was a service which used to be performed by the old development boards.

The deeds office is one of the offices which is constantly subjected to a barrage of criticism because it is constantly being alleged—to a certain extent the same allegation was made again today—that this department is always behind with the registration of deeds.

I want to point out to hon members that there is a time lapse of approximately six days from the submission of a deed up to and including its registration. I can give hon members the actual figures for April. In Pretoria and Cape Town the time lapse was an average of seven days and in Pietermaritzburg, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, King William’s Town, Kimberley and Vryburg it was six days. This short registration period can only materialise if the documents have been submitted correctly.

Of course another time lapse occurs between registration and delivery. We must point out to hon members, however, that payments usually occur on the day of registration and that, in other words, there is no real loss to the person concerned. During 1988, 250 471 deeds of transfer were registered. There were 288 027 mortgage bonds, 51 851 sectional titles and 25 957 mortgage bonds on sectional titles.

A very important development has been the computerised deed information systems, which enable attorneys to obtain particulars in connection with deeds telephonically. They simply pay a small fee for this service. We believe that this new development will have been introduced at all the offices by the end of next year.

Since the Government decided approximately five years ago to sell up surplus State-owned property, State-owned property to the value of R105 million has already been sold and 411 000 hectares have already been made available to agriculture. The idea was that land that had not been or would not be reserved for a specific purpose should be alienated. There are quite a few reasons for doing this.

In the first place—as I have already indicated to hon members in regard to the R105 million—it is going to provide the central Exchequer with a considerable income. If the State owns certain land it is also responsible for the supervision, administration and control, which costs a great deal of money. Taxation, to which the hon member for Hercules also referred, is the positive side of the picture. The negative side is that the State in reality has to pay that taxation from the central Exchequer. During the past year under review an amount of R78 153 428 was paid, and as the hon member said, twice as much has already been budgeted for the coming year.

There are three ways in which the State has to alienate State-owned land according to law. It is done in the fairest way possible, in order to give everyone an equal opportunity to acquire this State-owned land. The first method is by way of tender. The second is by way of an auction. In addition direct sales can be made, particularly to provincial administrations, local authorities and charitable organisations. There are also cases in which, as a result of circumstances, there is only one claimant to a specific piece of land. Land may then be sold directly to such a person.

† A matter that was very often raised in the past is the acquisition of more land for Indian farmers. Hon members are aware of the fact that a committee has been appointed by the hon the State President, one of its primary objectives being to undertake an incisive investigation into the availability of agricultural land to the Indian community. Much progress has been made in this regard and some vacant State land has already been identified for this purpose.

As far as the proposed La Mercy Airport land is concerned, I have consulted with the Department of Transport, that indicated that they are not prepared to consider any disposal or long-term lease of this particular piece of land. In spite of this decision, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates will take the initiative to arrange further in-depth discussions with all the parties concerned. A more positive action that was taken in this regard is that 110 hectares of land, located adjacent to Louis Botha Airport, has been made available to 42 Indian farmers for the production of vegetables. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon the Deputy Minister, not only because he is a good Deputy Minister, but also because like me he is a native of the North West and grew up there. I know that he is a man to be proud of.

To begin with I would just like to ask him whether, when he speaks again later, he could perhaps refer to the Deeds Office in Port Elizabeth and perhaps make an announcement with regard to when it is going to be erected. For that reason we look forward to the reaction of the hon the Deputy Minister.

I would also like to associate myself with the words of congratulation to our good friend Mr Van Blommestein who, as I understand, will no longer be with us at the end of this year or at least quite soon. I want to tell hon members that it was a great pleasure to work with him. He is a person of integrity. He is a leader in his own right and he was really a shining light in this wonderful department which he served for so many years with so much loyalty. We wish him and his wife everything of the best, and we hope that they will enjoy the time of rest.

We are very proud of this department, which has done wonderful work under difficult circumstances in South Africa. For that reason I regret the fact that aspersions are being cast on this department and its top officials by frustrated politicians in particular and people who apparently have nothing else to do.

My advice to this department across the length and breadth of the country, and to every one of these senior officials here today, is to continue the good work which they are doing for South Africa. Their actions speak for themselves and they speak louder than anything else. We wish them every success. They can be sure that we take exception to the fact that aspersions are being cast on people of their quality and calibre in such a way.

I also want to say today that we think back with appreciation to our good friend, the retired Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. He is a person whom I know very well and for whom I have a very high regard. I want to convey our very best wishes to him from this side of the House. We hope that after many years of often hectic politics, he will enjoy the period of rest.

Why did you chase him away?

I will rather not reply to that, because there is very little time.

I would like to talk briefly about lease agreements and, in particular the lease agreements in Port Elizabeth. As a representative of that beautiful city, I take exception to the fact that we in that area are being singled out for investigation. I am therefore asking the hon the Acting Minister today, that if there are any enquiries underway, or any enquiries requested in the future, the rest of the country should also be investigated, and that Port Elizabeth should not be singled out as if we were the black sheep in the family of South Africa.

I am of the opinion that the lease agreements which have been entered into over the years in Port Elizabeth, are of the best when compared with those in the rest of South Africa. I think that we can be proud of the lease agreements which have been entered into in Port Elizabeth. I thank the department sincerely for the way in which they have entered into lease agreements in our city in the interests of the State.

One of the reasons that we were able to enter into good lease agreements with the State in Port Elizabeth, was as a result of the fact that we have businessmen in that area who are wide awake, in particular the Khan Brothers, who have been dragged into this enquiry. Along with the exemplary department, aspersions are now being cast on them in the public press as if there was something wrong with them and the way in which they do business.

It is therefore a pleasure for me to dwell briefly on certain of these lease agreements which were entered into by the department and the Khan Brothers. Of the approximately 13 184 square metres of buildings which are being leased to the State by the Khan Brothers and their groups of companies, 6 139 square metres make up the old Golden Mile Building.

The old Golden Mile Building is a building which the Khan Brothers bought in 1984 on the eve of the greatest depression/recession which Port Elizabeth has every experienced. They bought this building, and unlike others, they did not run away from Port Elizabeth. They started restoring the building. What is more—which is also only fair to say—when they bought the building, lease agreements which had been entered into by the previous owners with the State already existed. Since then they have expanded the lease agreements as the need arose.

Half of the approximately 13 000 square metres of their lease agreements comes from the Golden Mile Building which—as I said—was bought in 1984. There are 734 square metres which are being leased to the State at R3,75 per square metre. In the Golden Mile Building there are 540 square metres which are being leased to the State at R10,50 per square metre. It was originally rented from the Golden Mile Investments (Pty) Ltd. It had already been leased when it was bought. There are a further 142 square metres which are being leased today at R12,50 per square metre. When they entered into the lease, the costs amounted to R10,50 per square metre.

In the Golden Mile Building there are a further 88 square metres which are being leased at R12,50 per square metre and 460 square metres which are being leased at R12,50. The most expensive lease agreement, which comprises 1 237 square metres, is being leased for R13,91 per square metre. When that area of 1237 square metres was leased to the State in 1984, the rental was R9,50 per square metre. Since 1984 until today, the rental has increased from R9,50 to R13,91 per square metre.

Even the hon member for Carletonville will agree with me that that is definitely not exploitation of the State! [Interjections.] I do not know what the situation in Carletonville is today, but if that hon member says that R12,50 per square metre is too much for the State to pay for the rental of buildings in Pretoria, then all cannot be well in Carletonville.

[Inaudible.]

As far as I am concerned, R12,50 per square metre is a fair rental for the Pretoria area. I can continue in this way and tell hon members that with regard to Port Elizabeth all the contracts which have been entered into by the department with those lessors from Port Elizabeth are excellent contracts. They are really contracts of which this department can be proud.

I really hope that the Eastern Province Herald will have the frankness and the decency to publish the facts in the document or report which has been compiled and which has been handed to the Chairman of the Joint Committee and to its members, so that the matter can be set straight. [Interjections.] That hon member can say what he likes, but I say that it is wrong to cast aspersions on a person or persons or a group of officials as is the case at the moment. All that I am asking is that there should be fairness and justice in everything which one does. For that reason I am asking that this information be published in the Eastern Province Herald and in the Evening Post in equally large articles as were published when they initially jumped in to cast aspersions on this department and the lessors in Port Elizabeth.

I want to calm down a little and ask the department to take note of What I asked in Hansard: House of Assembly, 22 April 1986, col 3900. I asked:

Today we are in a situation in which every department—own affairs departments, the Cape Provincial Administration, the Department of Education and Training and so on—issues tenders. It now happens that in practice there are no tenders for a while and then suddenly the local people are overwhelmed with tenders. This creates problems. If we were to make a clinical analysis, we would find that the State loses millions of rands annually as a result of this modus operandi.

As far as I am concerned, this department is doing excellent work. They enter into contracts for the State on purely business principles and have an excellent record. I want to make an appeal and an urgent request again today to this department to pay attention to upgrading the issue of all tenders to the Department of Public Works, so that this can be controlled and coordinated in the future. I do not doubt that we will save a lot of money in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to endorse the fine words the previous speakers directed to the previous Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. I also want to wish the Director-General, Mr Van Blommestein—whose retirement was announcement by the hon the Acting Minister—and his wife a long, pleasant and happy period of rest. I should also like to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister and his department on a comprehensive and informative annual report. I also want to express the wish that the co-operation that we have received from the hon the Acting Minister and his department up to now will continue in the future.

On page 11 of this report under point 1.14.2, I see that the State Land Disposal Act, 1961, has been amended to allow the members of the various administrations for own affairs entrusted with land affairs to receive powers of disposal under the Act from the State President. I think this is a step in the right direction. It is a very good amendment. I think that problems which were previously experienced in obtaining State land for agricultural purposes in the rural areas can, in this case, be clarified with the relevant member of the Ministers’ Council of the Administration concerned.

There are cases in certain towns in the rural areas in which land has for a considerable length of time been made available for police stations, houses for members of the Police Force and for other public purposes. This land has been undeveloped for years. I should like to ask the hon the Acting Minister please to examine whether those buildings could not be erected. He will perhaps tell me that that is the responsibility of a specific department, for example the Department of Justice. However, I want to ask the hon the Acting Minister please to look into these matters, particularly at Steinkopf, Port Nolloth and Kommagas in my constituency. After all, he has a say here too.

I also want to refer to page 48 under 4.2.2., the second paragraph, and I quote:

Near our rural area, to the north of Steinkopf, there are thousands of hectares of State land that are completely uninhabited. This land is known as the Vioolsdrift-South lands. I want to ask that this land also be transferred to our administration so that it can be leased in economic units for grazing purposes, with the option for lessees to purchase. Such a step would not only meet the urgent needs of the inhabitants of that area, but would also prevent large areas of land from remaining uninhabited on the border between the RSA and Namibia where undesirable elements could create problems.

In the case of Vioolsdrift-South, if the hon the Acting Minister were to comply with this request, he would not only be assisting in making our people landowners, but would also be defusing a situation that has been smouldering for years now and which has now flared up for the umpteenth time. I know that the hon the Acting Minister can do this. In the times we are living in we cannot, in the Republic of South Africa, afford to make further enemies of our citizens. We must, as far as possible, get law abiding citizens on our side. We must prevent them from taking to the streets. We must prevent them from agitating against the State and from taking to the streets. I want to ask the hon the Acting Minister please to give the necessary attention to this request. It is a request that is made by the community at Steinkopf from time to time via our department. That is why I am repeating this request.

There is more State land, known as the Eastern Corridor, which is at present being used for emergency grazing. It is used as communal pasturage. We want to ask that that land be leased or offered for sale to individuals. Communal pasturage is an iniquity. People who have lived in such an area for many years and who still live there, regard such a system as a system that is the most destructive to land in this country.

It will have to be combated at all cost, and it is therefore gratifying to read in paragraph 4.2.9 on page 50 that State land that is used as communal pasturage will in future be offered for sale so that it can be utilised on a responsible and economic basis for agricultural purposes.

We make a serious appeal to the hon the Acting Minister to continue in this way as far as State land is concerned. We shall support him at all times.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to speak after the hon member for Steinkopf, but he will forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech.

I am referring to the hon member for Carletonville’s speech and his remarks on the South Africans who died in battle at Dellville Wood. Actually I cannot believe what the hon member said.

†The hon member for Carletonville claimed that those South Africans who paid the highest price in the Second World War did not do so for their country. I had family who paid that price and I consider his remarks here today an insult. They were loyal South Africans just as I am and they fought for freedom against oppression just as the Boers perhaps did years ago. We hope that we do not have to fight the CP for that freedom one day. [Interjections.] One could have oppression.

Firstly, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the outstanding work done by the former Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, Mr Pietie du Plessis. [Interjections.] I also give my best wishes to the hon the Acting Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the retiring Director-General, Mr Van Blommestein, and I thank the staff for the valuable work they do. [Interjections.]

Mr Du Plessis did much to promote team spirit and camaraderie in his departments which has clearly led to greater efficiency and devotion to duty than one normally could have expected. We thank him for that.

The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs fulfils one of the most important functions through the supply and maintenance of accommodation to almost all departments responsible for general affairs. According to the department’s 1988 annual report, the building programme for next year makes provision for services at an estimated cost of R4 543 million. A White Paper tabled for the 1988-89 financial year makes provision for an estimated expenditure of R2 647 million with regard to 600 services.

In spite of a limited allocation of funds for the continuation of its five-year programme of capital works the department should be congratulated for being able to fulfil most of the needs of the user departments during the past year. An investment of approximately R390 million was made in the building industry on tender through the construction of buildings and structures.

The department should be congratulated on particular projects that they ran in addition to a most comprehensive housing programme, especially as these concerned the conservation of our heritage. These included the restoration of existing dilapidated buildings and the old bakery and pond known as the Dolphin Pool at the historic Cape Town Castle. The new building, which is an accurate replica of the original building on the site, now provides accommodation which was originally provided in the Castle itself and has freed areas for the expanding needs of the SADF.

The department must also be commended for a restoration project upon which they have already embarked, namely the internal restoration and reroofing of the famous Union Buildings in Pretoria. When restoration of the roof has been completed it will be the largest tile roof ever restored in the RSA.

Other special projects include the conversion of Oliewenhuis in Bloemfontein into an art museum and a long overdue upgrading at Jan Smuts Airport which includes an improvement and adjustment in the lighting system. The capital expenditure of R70 000 on the lighting alone will bring about a running cost saving estimated at R65 000 per annum. The department must be congratulated on this, as well as on other energy saving innovations through the compilation of an energy saving manual named Energy Auditing about which inquiries have been received even from West Germany and the USA.

While on the subject of renovation I would like to bring particular problems which concern me to the attention of the hon the Acting Minister.

Pietermaritzburg was most fortunate indeed, some five years ago, to obtain the use of a superbly constructed modern new Supreme Court building. The old Supreme Court building, a striking historic red-brick building, which is adjacent to and which should complement the magnificent Pietermaritzburg city hall—the largest red-brick building in the southern hemisphere—has over the past ten years, in view of the pending move, been allowed to fall into a tragically dilapidated state of repair.

Because of a lack of funds since vacation, the building has deterioriated even further and the city of Pietermaritzburg, which has taken over the financial responsibility, has been unable to fund the essential restoration. After many years’ delay, receiving limited funds in a grant from the province and from the city budget, the builders went on site in January 1988 and began the restoration and conversion of the old Supreme Court into new accommodation for the permanent collection of the Tatham Art Gallery.

However, this project is severely under-funded and in many respects threatens to be a failure. The education wing and training centre are being left totally derelict. No climatic control whatsoever exists and no external renovation of this beautiful historic building, whose fabric is crumbling, is possible. While the province of Natal has given a limited grant, this will in no way cover the estimated essential but not total renovation costs of some R5 million.

This building too is part of our heritage and if allowed to deterioriate further, will be lost forever. Just as other buildings of historic value are nurtured by the department, I ask that urgent consideration be given to providing funds to assist in saving a structure which I believe is just as important as many others already attended to.

While the hon the Acting Minister may well be tempted to pass the ball or kick for touch, I would like to refer briefly to the maintenance of school buildings and security provision at state schools which is provided through the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs in conjunction and co-operation with the agency of the Provincial Administration. At certain schools routine maintenance has been allowed to decline to an alarming degree and an urgent review of the position is required with all the responsible bodies co-operating. We must heed the maxim “a stitch in time saves nine”.

Regarding security arrangements at our educational institutions, and more particularly boarding establishments, it is an accepted fact that they are extremely vulnerable in respect of security. Girls’ schools are probably even more vulnerable but no special security measures are provided such as security fencing, burglar alarms or security services. For instance, the school committee of the Pietermaritzburg Girls’ High School, a school with 1200 pupils and accommodating over 200 in their boarding establishment, have over the past few years repeatedly expressed their alarm—no pun intended—to the Department of Education and Culture because of break-ins into the boarding establishment at the school, only to be advised that the department is unable to fund any improvements.

I believe that the position at all schools is generally far from satisfactory and some basic improvements could.be implemented at minimal cost. Security lighting, burglar guards on windows of boarding accommodation and emergency intercom systems are essential. While security fencing and guards can be costly, these are an essential at some educational institutions, depending on their strategic siting, and flexibility in the policy of such provision is absolutely necessary.

In closing, a most pleasing development this past year has been the implementation of the Rating of State Property Act. In past years cities which were the centre of State or provincial government, such as Pretoria or Pietermaritzburg, were placed at a severe disadvantage because of the high proportion of exempted property. Local authorities are still not totally compensated and in view of the few cities which are placed at a disadvantage, it is essential that this be corrected as soon as possible. Figures show that over R78 million was paid in assessment rates to the local authorities in respect of State owned properties during the 1987-88 financial year and R191 million was provided for the 1988-89 financial year. I hope that the position will continue to improve.

Mr Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal I want to raise a number of matters, but to begin with I want to join those hon members who have wished Mr Van Blommestein a long and happy retirement. I hope that he and his wife will have a happy time and I wish them everything of the best.

I want to say a few words about buildings and I will start by saying something about the gardens at Tuynhuys. I think the gardens on this side of the building are very attractive and well-maintained. I think the department should be congratulated on this. It is appropriate that the gardens should be maintained in that manner.

I cannot, however, say the same for the other side—that is the paved side—of Tuynhuys. I raised the matter last year and suggested that tubs should be acquired and flowers planted. An attempt at doing that has been made but really, I think it is quite pathetic. Those little “stinkblommetjies” or marigolds in those large cement tubs simply do not fit in. It is the main entrance to Parliament, to the State President’s office and to the Eternal Flame. I think that Stalplein could be made a lot more attractive. Some serious effort should be made and somebody with some ingenuity should give attention to the matter.

Staying with buildings, I want to say a few words about the State Archives on the Roeland Street Goal site. I think it is an ugly building and it is unfortunate that that site has been developed to the extent that it has. The wall which is more than 100 years old has been maintained but the building itself could have been much more attractive. Unfortunately no effort has really been made to make it attractive. It could have been an asset to Cape Town and to that area. The area has an air of decay about it but a building showing evidence of some original thought could have been a magnet for additional development in the area. I think it is a great pity that that has happened. I hope the hon the Acting Minister can give us some idea of what the final costs for the State Archives will be and when he expects the completion of the project.

I now come to the head office of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is to be built to the west of the Union Buildings in Pretoria. We were told about that last year and I hope that whoever is responsible for the building is not the same architect who was responsible for the State Archives. I hope that Meintjieskop will be preserved and that the buildings that will be erected to house the Department of Foreign Affairs will be in keeping with the other buildings in the area. I do not think that the building should be lavish—I do not believe in buildings being lavish—but I do think they should be dignified.

Then, while in Pretoria, I want to refer to the banqueting hall that is going to be built on the side of the Presidensie. In connection with this matter the hon the Acting Minister did answer my question—it was question no 90—earlier this year. I would like the hon the Acting Minister to tell us to whom the tender was awarded. I did ask that in the question but he replied that it had been awarded to the lowest tenderer. I had asked for the name of the tenderer and I hope that he will now tell us to whom that contract of R2,35 million was awarded.

I still feel that that is an extravagant addition to the building and I am not sure that we need it. I do not know when last the State hosted a banquet for 600 people in Pretoria. I actually doubt whether the State has ever had a banquet for 600 people in Pretoria and I am not sure that we need to proceed with that project.

Coming to the memorandum on the building programme, I note with disappointment that R92,5 million is to be spent on building and extending prisons throughout South Africa. This comes at a time when we have decriminalised many aspects of the South African way of life. Passes are gone, influx control is gone, mixed marriages are legal, a section of the Immorality Act has been repealed and many other pieces of apartheid legislation have been repealed—although not enough in my view. We should be in a position to reduce the prison population.

I know the hon the Acting Minister acts as an agent for the hon the Minister concerned with prisons. I feel that he should have a word with his colleague and tell him to calm down with regard to the number of prison buildings we are erecting at the present time. He should tell him that he does not have to continue building prisons as though there is no tomorrow. [Interjections.]

With regard to the prisons section of the memorandum I would like to ask him about two items on p 9. Three houses for prison officials are to be built in Springbok at a cost of R265 000—that is an average of R88 000 each. Six houses are to be built in George at R1 075 000—that is an average of R179 000 each. The houses for prison officials being built in Springbok cost half of what they cost in George. This I cannot understand.

It shows what you can do if you come from George!

Yes, it may be that the former MP for George has a special input with regard to the department. I hope the hon the Acting Minister will tell us more about that.

A further item in the memorandum is that King’s House in Durban is to be upgraded and that it will cost R1,845 million to do that. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions in the past and an appeal has been made that that house be made available to the people of Durban. Would the hon the Minister please tell us what the intention of the department is with regard to King’s House after they have spent almost R2 million on the building?

I would like to say a few words to the hon the Acting Minister in his capacity as chairman of the committee concerned with housing that has been mentioned here today. Unfortunately I do not have the time to discuss this complex subject in any great detail, but I personally have a great interest in the matter and particularly in the provision of housing for Black people. I am concerned that the problem is not being approached in the proper manner. I have raised this on a number of occasions in previous debates over the last few years, particularly when we discussed the Slums Bill last year. We also discussed this matter in the Transvaal provincial debates up in Pretoria earlier this year and again in the debate on the Constitutional Development Vote in the other Chamber last Friday.

I have no doubt that there is a crying need for a housing Bill and I have made this appeal on a number of occasions. I would urge the hon the Acting Minister to study the evidence presented to the joint committee by the Urban Foundation last year. The Urban Foundation is the largest provider of low-cost housing in South Africa and I believe the hon the Acting Minister should take their views into account. I trust the hon the Acting Minister will study the memoranda submitted by the Urban Foundation and act on their recommendations.

I wish to refer to the previous hon Minister and the allegations made in Rapport on 4 December of last year. I am not referring to the matters referred to the Advocate-General, but to the allegations that members of the hon the Minister’s staff were involved in matters designed to enrich Mr Johan du Plessis, the son of the former Minister. Reports that Mr Du Plessis made R6,5 million out of a contract with the department are very serious allegations indeed. It is not a reflection on the present hon Minister or the Director-General that former Minister Du Plessis used his influence as a Minister as well as his departmental personnel to expand and enrich the companies belonging to him and his son.

When the hon the Acting Minister replies to the debate I would like him to reassure the Committee that he has investigated the matter and inform us what steps he has taken to ensure that any allegations of corruption have been dealt with. I am not referring to matters being dealt with by the Advocate-General. I want to know whether individuals within the department and mentioned in the newspaper articles have been cleared of any allegations of corruption and if not, what the hon the Acting Minister intends doing about it.

Would the hon the Acting Minister also tell us about the special audit initiated by the Auditor-General… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the Director-General of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, Mr Piet van Blommestein, and his staff for their helpfulness and friendliness. This is certainly one of the departments from which we receive every co-operation, and the staff go out of their way to grant assistance.

There are numerous matters that I should like to broach. In the first place I want to thank the department for the fact that tenders will be invited for the erection of a new police station in Grahamstown shortly. Our Police, who watch over our safety, worked under very difficult conditions in Grahamstown. The environment and one’s working conditions are very important, because anyone who is happy in his working conditions is also more successful in carrying out his task. Then there is the police station at Komiteesdrift, which really requires serious attention. It is a border post on the Fish River between the Republic and the Ciskei. Urgent attention will have to be given to better office and housing facilities there.

A matter that must receive attention is the better co-ordination between Government departments in order to effect the better utilisation of Government buildings, for example between the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, the provincial administrations, education departments, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the South African Transport Services and Government corporations such as Eskom and Iscor.

It is common knowledge that there is a shortage of office space in Grahamstown. In the process of extending the Victoria Girls’ Primary School, a block of classrooms, which are in excellent condition but do not fit into the extension and renovation programmes, will have to be vacated. The present police station can be utilised by other Government departments. Many families are moving to suburban areas, and as a result some of our schools in the older residential areas are losing pupils. These classrooms, which are standing empty, could perhaps be better utilised by Government departments. I should like to propose that we appoint a committee from the different institutions to investigate the matter. This could save the Government millions of rand.

The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is in the process of privatising many of its properties. After the identification of unutilised properties, such properties are offered to the private sector. In the constituency of Albany, the department owns certain beach properties which are controlled by the regional services council, for example the beach resorts at Riet River and the Fish River mouth.

As far as I could determine, these beaches have developed over the past hundred years in that they were visited by the farmers in the surrounding area who built holiday homes there. Over the years many of these farmers started enlarging and improving the holiday homes so that many of these houses are modern houses today. Some of the stands have been handed over from one generation to the next, and these holiday-makers now have vested interests.

The fact that these home-owners do not have property rights handicaps the development of these beach resorts. Roads are poor and no services are rendered. The owners of these houses have made request upon request to the regional services council for the purchase of these stands. The regional services council is not keen to do this, because it is a source of revenue as far as they are concerned.

At Riet River, the home-owners formed a company and bought part of an adjacent farm, where the same situation had developed. This section is undergoing a metamorphosis. I should like to appeal to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs to give serious attention to this and similar properties for possible alienation that will lead to upgrading.

In an article in the weekend’s Evening Post, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made a certain statement among others, concerning the lighthouse at the Fish River mouth. He said inter alia that the negotiations for the building of a road from the lighthouse to the beach had been stopped. I know the owners of this farm, the Moolman brothers. They were shocked about the article, because according to them, negotiations are still in progress and they had made the land available to the Department of Transport Affairs for the building of such a road.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was also the member for East London North, but he ran away from there.

He did not run away!

I understand he is going to run away from Port Elizabeth Central now too.

You are going to lose there in September!

Unfortunately he is casting suspicion on the department and he is casting suspicion on Port Elizabeth. The way in which this hon member carries on is a disgrace.

There was a negative spirit in East London at the time, and no one wanted to invest there. Fortunately that hon member left and unfortunately he is trying to do the same thing in Port Elizabeth now. When one has a farm to sell, one does not tell people every day in what poor condition one’s farm is, and for that reason I am actually pleased that the hon member is leaving Port Elizabeth. I only hope he is going to “pack for Perth”.

Mr Chairman, I want to react briefly to the speeches made by a few hon members who referred to a number of land affairs. The hon the Acting Minister will deal with the rest of the speakers.

The hon member for Hawston referred to the shortage of land surveyors and the fact that they are behind with their work. I want to point out to the hon member that the work of a surveyor is hard, tiring work. Those people have to work in the cold, in the heat of the sun and in the teeth of the wind. In addition they need a great deal of training to be able to do their work. Usually highly-trained people are given desk jobs in offices and become so-called white-collar workers, but fortunately this is one of the professions to which the following applies: The more highly trained a person is, the more he gets burnt by the sun.

We sympathise with the things the hon member mentioned, but this problem has already been brought to the attention of the people concerned. The principals of the universities at which surveyors are trained, and at which these courses are offered, are at present considering the rationalisation of training. We hope that this situation will improve.

The hon member for Hercules addressed a request here in connection with the establishment of a State land register. I just want to point out to the hon member that a decision has already been taken to introduce a computerised register which will contain all the particulars in regard to State-owned property. In other words, this hon member’s request has already been complied with.

†The hon member for Matroosfontein referred to delays in deeds offices. I think I dealt with that in the course of my speech. However, as far as the lost deeds are concerned I want to point out to the hon member that there is no need to advertise again. All that is required for a certified copy to be issued is an affidavit from the owner.

*The hon member for Newton Park referred in passing to the possible deeds office in Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape. The hon member is aware that in 1986, at the request of the former Minister of Land Affairs, a committee was appointed to investigate quite a number of matters. They also had to give attention to the possibility of establishing a deeds office in Port Elizabeth. This committee completed its investigation and drew up a report, which was submitted to us. We saw fit to circulate the complete report among the hon members who were involved in that specific area. The invitation to those hon members stands, namely that before we take a final decision with reference to those recommendations contained in the report we shall discuss matters with them and hear what they have to say. We should like to hear their further motivations in this connection before we take a final decision.

The hon member for Steinkopf elaborated at length on two pieces of land—Vioolsdrif-South and the Eastern Corridor farms. This entire farming area is now in jeopardy as a result of the national park which is going to be declared there, as well as the migration of people and so on. I think that the department, with a view to giving greater satisfaction, will contact him directly so that we will be able to identify the specific lands to which the hon member referred, and give attention to them.

I just want to point out to the hon member that the agricultural potential of that land is extremely poor. In some of those areas they determined that the carrying capacity was approximately 15 ha for a small-stock unit. One day in Upington a magistrate, when we told him that the carrying capacity was 6 ha per small-stock unit did not know exactly what it meant, and he said: “Then a sheep has to walk a long distance in a day to pick up any weight!” [Interjections.] Now I do not know how far a sheep has to walk if it is a case of 15 ha per small-stock unit! In any event we shall negotiate the hon member’s request with him personally.

I think that disposes of requests by hon members in connection with land affairs.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in sharing the sentiments of previous speakers who congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment as Acting Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. I know the hon the Acting Minister as a thorough man, and we are also aware of the successes he has achieved. I want to wish him everything of the best in his new portfolio, and I hope he will be just as successful as his rugby blazer—his Springbok blazer—which fetched a large sum at an auction!

I also want to convey my congratulations to the Director-General, Mr Van Blommestein, and thank him for the time we could work with him and for the fact that he was always prepared, when representations were addressed to him, to listen to us and to try to find solutions. I want to take this opportunity to wish Mr Van Blommestein a well-earned rest.

It is difficult when one has a turn to speak towards the end of the speakers’ list in a debate, because one is prepared to speak about certain aspects and one has to change them time and again. I have just listened to the reply the hon the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs gave the hon member for Hawston in connection with the ideas he raised regarding the shortage of professional land surveyors and technical surveyors. Allow me to underline that idea, particularly as regards the execution of projects in our constituencies, specifically the Suurbraak constituency, which I represent.

Projects are frequently delayed owing to the fact that these specialists are not always available for the surveying of land for housing and township development. Although the hon the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs has now referred to rationalisation here, I merely want to say that I consider this shortage a real problem, particularly in my constituency. I want to ask the hon the Acting Minister to give serious attention to this and eliminate those shortages.

I also want to ask the hon the Acting Minister whether any information documents of the department are sent to our Coloured high schools and training colleges with a view to giving guidance to Coloured students who can study to be land surveyors and technical surveyors. I am not sure whether this is being done, and if it is being done, I am not aware of it. As I said a moment ago, the shortage of these specialists is really a problem throughout the country.

I also see, according to the information in the annual report, that as regards the issuing of new guarantees for housing loans to officials and employees in the public sector, we Coloureds are still getting the short end of the stick. I should like to know from the hon the Acting Minister why new guarantees were only issued to Coloureds for 1 494 new houses, as against 9 074 to Blacks. I want to make so bold as to ask whether this means that Coloureds are less informed about this guarantee scheme for housing loans. I should like to hear what the hon the Acting Minister’s reply to this is.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon the Acting Minister and the department, also on behalf of the inhabitants of Laboria Park, that specifically in the period since the hon the Acting Minister took over the department—I am saying this without casting any reflection on the former hon Minister who is no longer here—definite attention has been given to the complaints by members of Parliament about Laboria Park. It is gratifying to see that repair work is being done to some streets in Laboria Park. As a member of that committee I want to convey our thanks to the hon the Acting Minister. When I left Laboria Park a little later than usual one morning—it was just before nine o’clock—I noticed that the hon the Acting Minister and some of his officials were making an inspection. I again want to thank him for this.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Suurbraak will forgive me if I do not react to him because my 10 minutes is very short and I should like to discuss a matter this afternoon.

If I were to choose a name for the speech which I want to make, I would probably call it the “Unspotted Vulture”. Hon members will wonder what this has to do with this department but the hon member for Carletonville again referred to the hon the Acting Minister’s predecessor, ex-Minister Pietie du Plessis, in connection with the Housing Building issue.

I want to tell the CP with all due respect today that they are a vulturine party. They want to pretend that their hands are so clean and unspotted but, if one looks at their recent statements concerning ex-Minister Pietie du Plessis closely, they are really distasteful. I honestly want to tell hon members this.

The fact is that the Advocate-General found that the transaction in question to which the hon member for Carletonville referred had benefited the State. Those of us who are in the property business regarded it as a fantastic rental which was valid for two years and which did not escalate annually like other leases. I understand it meant a saving to the State of something in the region of RO,5 million per annum in rent. They keep quiet about this. They run away from this because that carcass will no longer be as tasty if they mention this. They want to keep it as tasty as possible.

The second matter which the Advocate-General found was that the former Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs had not been guilty of a criminal offence. I think that it is important for us to endorse this but the CP will not publish this outside either because it does not suit them.

I want to tell hon members that I think they hate him just as they hate the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that is why they are behaving toward him in this way. Every time, debate after debate, he gave them a bloody nose in this Parliament because he was an effective debater.

That is a load of rubbish!

It is not a load of rubbish and the hon member knows it is true. That is why they are so vicious.

I want to tell the CP that, when that same former hon Minister was the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and he negotiated on oil imports, he saved this country R2 billion per annum, which still applies today. Did they thank him for that? No, they did not. They very conveniently forget that.

Did the CP thank him at the time when, in the same capacity as Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, he was unhappy about events taking place at Eskom and appointed the De Villiers Commission. Dr Wim de Villiers produced an excellent report with enormously positive consequences for South Africa. No, they did not thank him.

Did CP farmers thank him at the time when he was the Minister of Agriculture when, after the largest maize harvest in our history—a harvest of 1,3 million tons—he succeeded in persuading the Cabinet to let the maize price remain the same?

Did they thank him? No, they did not. They forget that.

Did they say thank you for the Labour Relations Act which he introduced and which resulted in an enormous decline in strikes? Did they thank him for the labour peace which he brought about in contrast to conditions a few years before? No, they did not. They conveniently forget this because they are only searching for carcasses. A vulture is not a bird with a purpose. It merely flies about to see where it can find a carcass. That is what they are doing and I really think it is a disgrace.

I want to add that he was apparently an excellent Minister because, when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was still with the NP during the 1981 election, he asked this same Pietie du Plessis to address three public meetings in Waterberg—and with great success. I assume in all fairness that he actually thanked him at the time.

The same applies to the hon deputy leader of the CP. He held a meeting for him there too and he was good enough then.

All this is suddenly being forgotten because it is distracting attention from the little carcass they are searching for. I want to say to ex-Minister Pietie du Plessis here today: “Let the vultures fly and search for their little carcasses but we on this side of the House thank you very much for what you did for South Africa. We appreciate it highly. You saved our taxpayers millions of rands. You accomplished a gigantic task and we appreciate it.” The CP had better continue their scavenging.

I think we should take a look at why the CP is behaving like this. I shall tell hon members why they are doing this. It is because they are politically bankrupt. In every respect, they have a problem in selling the “Blanke Afrikanervolkstaat”, as it is currently known, to thinking people out there. They have a problem in doing this. The Carel Boshoffs and the Eugène Terre’Blanches with their borders of their “volkstate” are also not making it easier for them either.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What does a White “volkstaat” have to do with the Vote before the House today?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the CP wants to gets away from its policy. That is the truth. That is why it is battening onto carrion politics. I want to venture a prediction here today. In the coming election we shall get only carrion politics from the CP. There will not be a single scrap of politics of policy. Let us see whether this will happen. Are they going to indicate their homeland borders to us? We have to tell the CP today: “You are wearing an indecent see-through political dress.” Let us tell one another this. I think they had better acquire a petticoat and start indicating the borders for a “volkstaat” so that we may place this on the debating table and start debating on how acceptable it will be to those of colour, instead of occupying themselves with carrion politics and the search for carcasses.

As regards the officials of this department, I want to say only this. We are sorry that opposition parties—this includes the DP—are creating an image out there that a cloud of suspicion is hanging over all the officials because it was supposedly only “the tip of iceberg”. I want to tell hon members that we on this side of the House object strenuously to this because we greatly appreciate what those officials are doing. If one or two or three officials have made mistakes or tripped up somewhere, the CPs and DPs should not create the impression among people out there that this includes all the officials. I am not implying that this is their purpose but this is the impression which they are creating among people out there. We ask them to stop this. These people are doing good work in the interests of South Africa and we really do not need this impression.

My time has almost expired but I want to thank Mr Van Blommestein for the great work which he has done. We wish him a pleasant retirement.

I want to close and in a friendly spirit tell the CP today that we are all people and people can make mistakes. I am felling them this in a friendly spirit. Would they not like to read Luke 6, verses 37 and 38 as well as John 8, verses 7 to 11? They might then adopt another tone which I believe is necessary in our country.

Mr Chairman, it is good to see, under the heading “Labour Relations” on p 5 of the annual report, that the Cabinet has taken a stand on this matter. Labour relations are to be monitored at all levels in the public service.

This is good, as I said, but the scope should be broadened to include organisations that are State-subsidised. It is to be lauded that such relations will be maintained continually, but sometimes we are so concerned with monitoring and investigating unfair labour practices and labour relations in corporate bodies, nationally and internationally, that we completely overlook the malpractices that often take place in small organisations in our midst and in buildings leased by us. Usually these organisations are run by private, church or State-sponsored bodies.

A case in point is one in which a well-qualified matron of a nursery school in one of the suburbs on the Cape Flats was pressurised into breaking her relationship with the institution. According to information at my disposal the reasons given for the conflict between the matron and the manager of the school, who is also a minister of religion, arose apparently because she could not start working at seven o’clock in the morning and she refused to expel those children whose parents had not paid their fees in advance for any particular week. This is a distressing situation, especially in the light of the fact that this institution, like others of its kind, is subsidised by the State. It is with sadness coupled with disappointment that one encounters a situation where a person who devoted 14 of the 30 years of her life to nursery school administration should be caught up in the intricacies of the politics of others and end up the loser. How disgusting! It is more disgusting when one considers that unemployment among Blacks is increasing.

As individuals we try to give assistance to such persons in diverse ways. We give them jobs when and as often as we can. This, however, is a drop in the ocean and the assistance soon dries up. My party would like to see a more lasting solution to the problem. We think that one of the possible solutions would be to make farm land more freely available to all bona fide farmers. Every person in the country should in any event have the right to engage in economic activity and to own property. We must, like Taiwan, put idle land—especially that belonging to absentee landlords—to beneficial use in an equitable way.

*It would only be fair if the Government would now begin to return the ground to those from whom it was taken. The best farmers in the Gamtoos Valley were the Coloureds. Go and ask the McCabes, the Ferreiras and the McCarthys and hear what they have to say about farming. They provided job opportunities to many people on their farms. Then their land was expropriated in terms of Act No 63 of 1975. Why could the agricultural land that now belongs to the State, not be made available to the farmers who do not own any land? This will at least contribute to the combating of unemployment.

†Why is it so difficult for us to become owners of smallholdings? This is another closed-shop area which must be done away with so that the person who wants to farm on a small scale can have the freedom and right to do so. It is not only the small-scale farmer who has to obtain his rightful position in the economic sector of this country, but also those involved in small and home industries.

The Department of Manpower is at the forefront of training people. The question remains: What happens after the training? Is there no way in which these people can be gainfully employed in State-funded building projects? Is it not possible for the State to erect buildings or to acquire buildings in which these people could practice their trades? Can the hon the acting Minister tell me what the use of this department, the Department of Manpower, is if they train unemployed people to become efficient in certain crafts when there is no market for them? What is the use of training people to make certain articles and then not providing a place where they can make the articles? What is the use of my being trained as a welder or a panelbeater if I do not have the necessary place to work?

It is obvious that those who can generate employment in their small industries have a problem with affordable space. I think it is the duty of the State to assist such cases where they possibly can. There are several examples in the self-governing areas, where the State has provided buildings to house industries run by the small businessman.

A colleague of mine recently mentioned the old railway sheds in the harbour area of Port Elizabeth and the uses that they could be put to. He is right! Is it not possible to make this area the vibrant hub of small industries in Port Elizabeth? I think the hon the Acting Minister should get his department to have a proper go at this. Let us assist Port Elizabeth by assisting these small-time operators. Let us for once forget about permits and other racial restrictions and get down to business. It is about time that all loyal South Africans realise that business is business and not the plaything or toy of racial and ethnic philosophers.

Many industrial giants of today had their origins in humble beginnings. So, for many of these informal sector manufacturers this may be the start of greater things to come, once they have been provided with the necessary space.

Finally, allow me a comment or two on the South African Housing Trust Limited. This is one of the most important components, if not the most important component, of the department, and yet how little is known of it! I do not think enough prominence has been given to its aims. The result of this partial obscurity is that it is not as effectively used as it could have been.

The Trust, which started business in May 1987 with R400 million, interest free, from the State and loan bonds worth R800 million to be obtained from the private sector, is aimed directly at housing for people in the lower-income groups. Local authorities should be compelled to make use of the finances and services of the South African Housing Trust Limited, which has been created especially to provide jobs for those unemployed who were trained to be part of the building industry and to provide houses with plots in the R20 000 bracket.

Much confusion is still experienced by the public with regard to the handling of housing functions by the various bodies to which these functions have been devolved. I know that pamphlets have been issued by this department but it is to no avail. There is still confusion. Some management committees give priority to more expensive contractors when considering tenders for low-cost housing, instead of making use of what is supposed to be one of the special building programmes, which can satisfy an urgent need in the community. This is something which I hope the hon the Acting Minister will look into and I hope he will use the big stick on these recalcitrant bodies if necessary. This may just be what they need, for it appears that there are still people in the housing field who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the housing shortage for the low-income group is pressingly urgent, that it has in fact reached crisis proportions in all Black areas and that it needs to be tackled with honesty, promptness and determination. They need to rid themselves of the apparent lackadaisical attitude which they seem to have adopted.

Mr Chairman, I firstly want to apologise for being late but I was participating in a debate in another Committee.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp will pardon me if I do not follow on the excellent argument that he made out for a large part of his constituency. I think that that is what hon members of Parliament are here for, namely to fight for the people whom they represent. I trust that the hon the Acting Minister will react positively to the very positive suggestions made by the hon member.

I would like to start off with the comments made by the hon member with regard to land and homes for our Black community. I am pleased to note from the report that some 38 000 hectares of land has been made available in the past five years in terms of an Act of Parliament which provided for the acquisition of such land.

There is just one other matter which is bothering me and that is the fly-by-night developers who are cashing in on the tremendous shortages which we find in the Black community. I want to give one or two examples.

I shall speak of the region which I know best, namely the East Rand, where there has been a great deal of development, particularly in the Vosloosrus-Natalspruit-Katlehong-Tokoza area. This is where the new township of Spruit View has been laid out. I visited this area recently and I think that the structures that have been put up there are truly a credit to our Black fellow-South Africans. They were given an opportunity and the structures which have been put up there would be a credit to any suburb or community in South Africa. It is proof of the fact that if people are given the opportunity, they are prepared to do something with it.

However, there is something that bothers me. When one hears of the prices that are being charged for land, it boggles the mind. I understand that serviced erven in Spruit View are being sold at anything in the order of R40 per square metre. Even in some of the best White suburbs in the country one does not pay that kind of price. I think what one will have to do is this: Whilst one is creating more land for people—this is vital and necessary—Government’s function should also be to monitor the price structure. One grants private enterprise a reasonable profit, but not the exorbitant profit which seems to be the order of the day on the Reef.

*I notice that a special committee of the CSIR is presently investigating the possibility of using dolomite soil for housing. In this connection I wish to enquire of the hon the Acting Minister whether the committee has made any progress in this connection. I can only mention to the hon the Acting Minister that large parts of Lenasia, the large Indian town to the south of Johannesburg, are built on dolomite soil. The show town, Laudium, near Pretoria is also built on dolomite soil. Recently a group area has been proclaimed on the East Rand for Indians. Although there was speculation that the largest part of that land was not suitable for development, it was found that it was only any Tom, Dick and Harry who made these statements for personal short-term political gain. Fortunately it was found that the largest part of this land was suitable for development. However, this study can serve as a basis for future development in such areas.

I also see in the report that seven Ministerial houses were developed in the Walmer area. What worries me here is that when one passes that complex in the morning or in the evening, there is no life. One is told about the beautiful outlay to be seen there. That is so, but there is definitely no life in that complex. I understand that the Ministers’ Council and the hon Ministers for whom these houses have been developed, have actually long ago indicated that they are not in favour of living there. If that is the case, I would like to know why the taxpayers’ money has been spent to build those houses. Why were the hon Ministers who were to be housed there, not consulted? I do not believe that those houses and all the luxuries associated with it, could have been built for less than a quarter of a million rand. R1,75 million of the taxpayers’ money has been used there and it cannot be utilised. I think this is an aspect that deserves an answer, especially because it is well-known that the hon Ministers for whom the houses were built, long ago indicated that they were not prepared to live there.

†I now come to the question of housing and subsidies to first-time home-owners. Here we have a problem. The problem is that we have compartmentalised housing in terms of the Constitution into racial entities.

I want to tell the hon the Acting Minister that the example I gave him of the kind of homes that have been put up at Spruit View by our Black community, is an example I can give him of all other communities in this country.

The housing needs of our people, particularly in the urban areas, are by and large of a First World nature and First World standards and conditions need to be applied. I feel that the question of the payment of subsidies to first-time home-owners with respect to old homes—it is now being allowed in White communities—should have been co-ordinated and that such an announcement should have been made for all communities in this country. I would like to know from the hon the Acting Minister whether any progress is being made in this regard and whether it is the intention to extend this privilege of subsidy payments on old homes to the other communities as well.

The legislation which deals with State land disposal is another sore point. I would like to give the hon the Acting Minister an example. In the House of which I am a member we have developed a new political culture. If one looks for carrots where I come from, one will find them at 50 cents a bunch. Over here they are very costly. They cost hundreds of thousands of rands per bunch.

In 1985 a site was allocated to an hon member of this House without the site having been advertised or put up for tender. In response to a question asked in this House the current hon Minister of Housing replied that the site was not allocated for the resettlement of a displaced business. It is a prime site in Pretoria’s Asiatic Bazaar. The gentleman got it for a mere R110 000 and he is currently negotiating its sale for something of the order of about R350 000.

This is the sort of carrot-dangling that takes place in this House where, in order to gain political numbers and in order to remain in power, such favours are done hon members in this House. I want to make it very clear that no such favour has ever been done for me in this House. Other hon members are more fortunate than I am. I believe that it is necessary to look at the kind of powers that are going to be delegated to certain people.

Order! The hon member must now please come back to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am discussing the Vote.

Order! I shall not allow any discussion of my ruling and secondly, the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, after approximately three months in an acting capacity in this department I shall not pretend to be an expert on housing matters or a person with intimate knowledge of the activities of this department.

I should, however, where possible, like to furnish replies to hon members’ questions. Many requests were made. Some hon members addressed requests of a specific and local nature pertaining to their constituencies. I should like to undertake, together with the department, to give attention to all these requests, and also where possible to supply in writing any information that I am not able to provide today.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not take this opportunity to thank my predecessor for the good work he did in this department. In that respect I want to associate myself with several hon members who referred to my predecessor. In various spheres he made an exceptional contribution. As chairman of the Committee of Ministers involved in housing he took the matters that came before that committee further with great enthusiasm, and I think hon members need only enquire from their respective Ministers to learn for themselves with what dedication and enthusiasm my former colleague did his work there.

My predecessor also displayed great sensitivity for the detrimental effects which rising interest rates had on the financial means of people and their ability to acquire affordable accommodation. The pleas that he made in this connection, in various places and on various occasions, have been placed on record and redound to his credit. This former colleague also took over this department at an important stage when it came to the construction of the new wing of the parliamentary building. He was responsible for and involved in many decisions that had to be taken at short notice in order to complete the building in time for the 1988 session. The fact that little criticism was levelled in regard to the construction of the building is surely another demonstration that this colleague of mine took the right decisions under pressure.

I could continue by referring to the construction of the South African Mission building in Maputo, as well as King’s House, to which the hon member for Johannesburg North and other hon members also referred, just to indicate that this colleague of mine did very good work in this department. For that reason I should like to thank him for the excellent way in which he served here.

Before I react to specific points which hon members raised, and in view of the limited time I have at my disposal, there are nevertheless a few aspects of the activities of the department to which I want to refer, and I also want to make a few announcements in this connection.

The activities of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs are summed up in the printed estimates, where the objective is spelt out, and I quote:

†The main function of the department is the provision of buildings, structures and equipment to satisfy the accommodation requirements of certain government departments.

A matter which has recently been reported on by various newspapers concerns the hiring of accommodation. The procurement of accommodation for government purposes is subject to the directions and regulations of the State Tender Board. The State Tender Board has also delegated certain powers, allowing the department to negotiate leases where the accommodation is less than 1 000 square metres. In cases where the accommodation exceeds 1 000 square metres tenders are invited by the State Tender Board. In certain circumstances the department is, however, granted special permission to negotiate leases without tenders first being called for.

The intended circumstances are firstly, where accommodation is situated in a particular area and/or is required for a particular purpose and the department is in a favourable position to negotiate a reasonable rental. During the past three years accommodation in six newly-erected buildings in Pretoria was hired in this manner.

Secondly, offers are sometimes invited by way of advertisements in the local Press and the State Tender Board is then approached for approval to negotiate with a particular owner. The underlying principle remains that of a market-related rental, namely a rental that is decided by supply and demand. The term of lease is generally for five years or nine years and 11 months. Uniform terms would not be practical.

I do not want to debate that point here this afternoon. For obvious reasons a uniform term would not be practical and would not be to the benefit of the State. Rental adjustments are mainly limited to two methods, namely a market-related adjustment every two years during the term of the lease or a fixed annual percentage escalation. We can debate both methods—there are certain advantages and disadvantages to be found in both of them.

Whilst the market-related rental is primarily determined by supply and demand there are other factors which also have an influence on the determination of the rental. These factors are for instance the situation and nature of the accommodation, the term of lease and any contribution the lessor makes towards adaptation or maintenance in the building.

*Rented buildings form a significant component of the accommodation utilised by specific departments that are responsible for general affairs. As far as Pretoria is concerned, it is interesting to note that 23 head offices or portions of head offices of departments are accommodated in 93 rented buildings. The surface area involved is 567 000 square metres and the average rental is R10,72 per square metre per month. In Greater Pretoria a total of 839 000 square metres are leased at an annual rental of approximately R100 million. This applies only to Greater Pretoria. That comes to approximately R10 per square metre per month.

The method and the procedure by means of which departments acquire leased accommodation is a subject that has been quite widely discussed in recent times. Various proposals have already been made as to how this system can be improved. The Joint Committee on Finance said the following in its report dated 5 April 1989, in paragraph 5.9, and I quote:

Arising out of this recommendation of the committee I held talks with the Auditor-General and reached an agreement with him to the effect that he would make an immediate start with performance auditing in the department. This includes all aspects of its activities. At my request he also arranged for routine investigations in respect of contracts.

In view of this decision of the committee the Auditor-General indicated that he was going to begin with an investigation into leasing agreements in the Port Elizabeth regional office. I want to tell the hon member for Newton Park that this is therefore not an investigation which will be directed at Port Elizabeth only. It is an investigation relating to the acquisition of all accommodation, and it will also be extended to cover those activities in the national economy as a whole.

I have already pointed out the extent of leased accommodation by using Pretoria as an example. All over the country the private sector is an important partner in meeting this need so as to enable the authorities to perform their functions properly. I believe the time is ripe for the government sector and the private sector to deliberate jointly once again, in an organised way, on all aspects in regard to leasing agreements. In view of such an investigation consideration can then be given to whether the present systems and procedures are still effective or whether specific improvements should be effected.

†It has accordingly been decided to appoint a committee to investigate as a matter of urgency certain aspects concerning the hiring of accommodation. The committee will be under the chairmanship of Mr Ronnie Masson with Mr Gert Hugo as deputy chairman.

Both gentlemen are well known personalities in the property field, one from the Cape and the other from Pretoria. The committee will further consist of representatives from the Department of Finance, the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, the Department of Justice and the South African Property Owners’ Association. The terms of reference of the committee will be: To enquire into and make recommendations concerning Government policy, procedures and methods regarding the acquisition of hired accommodation as applied in the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, with special reference to the acquisition by way of tender, offers or otherwise of existing accommodation which is available on the market; the negotiations involved in the hiring of buildings; the inviting of tenders for the erection of suitable buildings for hiring to the State; the terms of lease, especially in so far as it concerns contract periods and the periodic adjustment of rentals by way of a fixed percentage escalation and/or a market-related rental; the methods of calculating the extent of the area on which rental is paid; the role played by user departments in the process of acquiring hired accommodation; the general principle of competition; and any other related matters.

*There is another important announcement I should like to make, which is also connected with the acquisition of accommodation in general. As hon members know there are two methods of acquiring accommodation, namely the self-construction of State buildings on the one hand and the leasing of buildings on the other. The departments responsible for the provision of accommodation are also responsible for the financing.

The Government has now decided that this matter should be re-examined fundamentally and in depth. An interdepartmental committee under the direction of Mr Pieter van Huyssteen, chairman of the Privatisation Unit, will carry out this investigation. A representative of the Property Owners’ Association of South Africa will also be asked to serve on the committee. The committee will institute an investigation into the possibility of affecting greater involvement by the private sector in the provision and maintenance of government accommodation, to ensure that the provision of government accommodation is properly assimilated into the priority determination process, to effect a meaningful cost allocation of all aspects of government accommodation on expenditure programmes and functions essential for sound managerial decision-making and to ensure the proper evaluation of the total costs of the various financing alternatives.

I trust that the findings of this committee will contribute to the optimum utilisation of our country’s scarce resources, particularly capital. Various hon members also referred to aspects which link up with the terms of reference of this committee. After a proper cost allocation has been made, the best priority determinations will be made in terms of the scarce means we have at our disposal.

This discussion of Vote No 11—Public Works and Land Affairs—also affords me an opportunity to inform hon members briefly about a few aspects of the performance of the department. Since the introduction of the personnel economising measures in April 1985 the department has given its full co-operation in achieving the objectives. As a result of that a total of 476 posts have for example been abolished on the permanent establishment since 1985. Establishment expansion is only applied in highly exceptional cases, and is usually accompanied by the sacrifice of other posts. The net result was in fact a gradual reduction of the personnel in this department. On 31 December 1988 the total number of posts was 13 497—including the labour force. This is 405 less than the total at the end of the previous year.

As part of the economising measures the department, on its own initiative, launched various projects to stimulate the process. During 1985 a comprehensive project was launched to train officials in work simplification procedures. During 1986 it was decided that the functions of the department should be subjected to a function evaluation investigation. The entire function evaluation programme has already been disposed of, except in respect of the Chief Directorate: Deeds Registration. The Commission for Administration is expected to furnish recommendations for the implementation of this programme soon.

The function evaluation investigation confirmed two aspects, namely that the department’s functions, including certain privatisation investigations that had already been undertaken and on which I have already made announcements, have been privatised, contracted out and scaled down to the maximum extent. Consequently the department is not over-staffed.

The privatisation projects which are at present receiving attention are those in regard to cleaning services, horticultural services, nurseries and workshops, to which I also referred on Friday in my discussion of the Privatisation and Administration Vote.

During 1988 the department also began to introduce small group activities, the so-called productivity circles or quality circles. The initiative of the 13 groups that have already been established is conducive to greater efficiency.

It is clear that the personnel in this department are doing their utmost to cope with the increasing workload. As hon members know, more personnel are not always the solution to more work. For that reason we decided to make use of the services of the National Productivity Institute to provide the department with advice on how to cope with the situation further.

We shall perhaps be able to solve the two screws problem of the hon member for Hercules if we call in expert advice of this nature. I thought the hon member for Hercules would tell me that he did not actually want a cost investigation in Acacia Park, but merely a screwdriver. Then he would quickly have tightened the two screws himself. [Interjections.]

The investigation which will be conducted by the National Productivity Institute, to which I referred and from which I believe the department will benefit greatly in order to improve the rendering of efficient service and enhance productivity, will commence at the regional office in Pretoria. Depending on the progress that is made there and the success of the investigation, it will also be expanded to other regional offices.

In the remaining time at my disposal I should like to react to further observations and contributions by hon members. The hon member for Hawston made a very good contribution. He spoke like a man thoroughly acquainted with the problems. He spoke like a tiller of the soil with callouses on his hands and mud on his feet. He spoke about the housing of his people. The matters he raised are of great importance. Naturally the department is also giving attention to them.

The interest subsidy scheme for first-time homebuyers, to which various hon members referred, has already been expanded to include existing dwellings. However, it is now in the sphere of responsibility of the respective housing departments to arrange for the application of the scheme. I can therefore reply to the hon member for Matroosfontein as follows: The respective housing departments of the respective administrations control the implementation of this scheme.

I also want to point out to the hon member for Hawston that there is no income limit. There is merely a limit on the cost of the dwelling, namely R40 000.

The hon member made valid observations about the cost of building material. I have been told that the building technology division of the CSIR is looking into cheaper substitutes, building materials and methods on an ongoing basis. The Agrément Council of South Africa, under the auspices of the CSIR, was of course specifically established to afford entrepreneurs the opportunity of obtaining an agrément certificate if they want to make use of innovative building methods. If the builder has such a certificate, the local government cannot refuse to authorise the construction of cheaper houses. That aspect, too, is receiving constant attention.

I can assure the hon member further that the matter of funds for housing, to which he referred, is receiving urgent-attention from the Committee of Ministers. We are holding another meeting soon, and that is an item on our agenda.

The hon member for Hercules welcomed the Director-General—he is with us again. I also want to make use of this opportunity to welcome him. The hon member did not make a farewell speech, but did in fact indicate that he, in the same way as Mr Van Blommestein, has decided to retire. I think we are all in agreement that we will miss his calm and penetrating contributions to debates, in the same way as we will miss his warm personality.

The hon member conveyed a few interesting suggestions to us, which we will most certainly follow up. Centralisation has great advantages, but smaller functional units also have advantages. It is possible for one works department to do work on an agency basis on behalf of another governmental institution, and I think we should take the trouble of ascertaining whether the principle of an agency basis cannot be expanded. In respect of the costs of these tasks I believe that the hon member will be satisfied with the decision to approach the NPI to help us to increase productivity.

†My hon colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates referred to a test case. In view of the representations he made this matter will be attended to further. The affordability of housing—I refer to the 25% income level—is a matter of concern for all involved in the housing field, and it is on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers, which he will certainly attend in future. We shall discuss the matter in that forum. I accept his complaint about the long delays in the proclamation of townships, and I think we can best deal with this matter if we take it up as colleagues and work towards solutions in that field.

The hon member for Matroosfontein referred to various aspects of the department’s report and commented on a number of issues. The hon the Deputy Minister dealt with the matter of the registration of deeds. I am glad to hear that he changed his mind about the public service. It is not the service it used to be when he was a child; I think that today it is a very efficient service. Of course, there is always room for improvement and I am sure that he will welcome the decision to involve the NPI to improve quality and productivity in the department.

*The hon member for Carletonville has already been dealt this afternoon. I think the hon member for Benoni dealt very effectively with the political aspects. I just want to reply to the questions the hon member put. He asked: What is the formula according to which dwellings are sold? What are the conditions and the price?

The answer is short and succinct. The formula in terms of which dwellings are sold is the same for all population groups. It is determined on the basis of a percentage of the income, which must then be paid as monthly rental. This percentage is calculated on a sliding scale and increases progressively as the income rises. There are also favourable offers for cash.

What I do want to cross swords with the hon member about is that he always wants to imply that Blacks are being favoured at the expense of Whites. We in this country cannot afford to be constantly trying to stir up racial emotions. It is not a case of benefiting one more than another! It is a case of serving the best interests of South Africa by addressing poverty, handicaps and misery, wherever they may occur, so as to provide people with the basic necessities of life. Surely housing is a fundamental aspect of a person’s life. If we eventually want to establish peace and prosperity for everyone, including the Whites, it is necessary for us to give attention to the backlogs in housing, particularly when they occur among our other population groups.

The hon member was not satisfied with the investigation of the Advocate-General. Now he wants to cast a shadow over the department. The hon member for Benoni dealt with this, but allow me to quote two passages from the report of the Advocate-General. The first is on page 20. It reads:

No, the department is above suspicion! A few pages further on, on page 23, the Advocate-General reported as follows:

The department is above suspicion. Why must the hon member again try to cast a shadow over the actions of this department? The hon member can make a better contribution, on this important sphere of housing, than to try to improve on an investigation that has already been disposed of by the Advocate-General.

†The hon member for Merebank asked that we propagate home-ownership. I think that is a very good suggestion and we would like to expedite the sale of houses as far as possible.

He also made the proposal that the South African Housing Advisory Council should become a statutory body. I am told that Act No 104 of 1984 provides for such a statutory body but its activities would be restricted to housing matters and housing funded by the State. The scope of a non-statutory body is much wider and the comprehensive field of housing is currently being addressed properly, so I take it that the hon member will be satisfied that we leave it as it is.

*The hon member for Outeniqua discussed the upgrading of the sub-office at George. At present this office consists of an artisan and three labourers who see to the maintenance of the State-owned buildings in the George vicinity, and also perform other minor tasks. It is simply not economically justifiable to expand that office at this stage, since it is at present possible to do larger works effectively from Port Elizabeth.

Unfortunately it is the case that the economic aspects of these matters must constantly be taken into consideration. On the one hand hon members can criticise us, and rightly so, if the State were to spend funds unnecessarily. On the other hand we should like to serve the various communities, including our rural communities, as well as we possibly can.

As regards the police station and magistrate’s office accommodation, as the hon member knows we must deal with these matters in the light of the needs of the respective departments.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to a police station but he asked the question and immediately gave the answer. It depends on the priorities.

Not the hon member for Johannesburg North.

Not Johannesburg North? I thought it was. It is for the user department to indicate its priorities. The Department of Public Works is a works department.

Prisons.

I thought it was something like that. It is a works department and we can then assist them in putting up the building.

*We shall consider the suggestions made by the hon member in consultation with the department—including those in connection with the Covie commonage.

The hon member for Newton Park discussed the leasing agreements in Port Elizabeth. I think I reassured the hon member that it was not a case of Port Elizabeth being singled out, but that it was an investigation which included all leasing agreements.

The hon member for Steinkopf discussed the transfer of State-owned land, and the hon the Deputy Minister has already replied to that. I think I have just replied to the hon member in respect of the construction of other State-owned buildings.

It is simply the case that it is not for the Department of Public Works to determine what police station should be constructed first. We must simply allow ourselves to be led by the priorities of the departments in question. If the police station in any other town is of greater importance to them than the one the hon member was pleading for, then he must understand that we as a service department must accede to the request of the consumer department in question.

Surely there are no dishonest people in Steinkopf!

When the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to schools he said I should not pass the ball. My problem is that I am not even playing on the same field. The education departments have their own works sections in the various provinces and I think that although he is trying to promote his case—and he did that very well—he must keep on going and try to get the message across in the education debate as well.

He states that local authorities are not properly compensated. The department pays the full account of rates according to the Act which provides that 80% of the evaluation should be paid. For the 1988-89 financial year an amount of R142,5 million was paid to local authorities.

1 will take up the issue regarding the Supreme Court Building with the department and we will furnish the hon member with a reply.

The hon member for Johannesburg North raised many issues and I will respond to a number of them. Tenders for the Presidensie in Pretoria were received from four companies and were considered. I do not know if the hon member wants the other names as well, but the tender was awarded to the firm Michielsen and Hofman.

There was also the hon member’s question regarding the report in Rapport about the staff of the former Minister. The office of the former Minister—that is my predecessor—was staffed by the Department of Manpower and no official of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs was involved in any irregularity, even according to that report.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee now and I will furnish the hon member with the information regarding King’s House. It will take us too long to go through that now.

Concerning the State Archives building in Cape Town, I do not regard myself such an expert as to be able to judge the building. Fortunately, tastes are not all the same. However, the final cost of the building is estimated to be R19 million.

I think his suggestion regarding the flowers is a sound one. We will have a look at that and follow it up.

He also mentioned the difference in the cost of the houses at Springbok and George. The department invites tenders for the building of houses and various factors influence the tender price, for instance the availability of municipal services, the interest shown by tenderers, the distance from towns where building materials are available, the cost of labour and so forth.

If the hon member wishes to get more information regarding those two places, I will follow it up and furnish him with the necessary information. I also will take up his recommendation and study the memorandum of the Urban Foundation and consider their recommendations. I think that takes care of all the matters raised by the hon member.

*The hon member for Albany also brought a few matters to our attention, which we should like to follow up—including the possible alienation of land. However, I should like to go into these matters further before I give the hon member an answer.

As regards the hon member for Suurbraak, the guarantee scheme for the 100% loans is a service benefit and the particulars are available from the personnel officers of departments. They are also available in information documents on conditions of service. I can make these available to the hon member. This scheme has included Coloured people for a long time. However, ownership has only been available to Black people for the past four years. Before that time it was therefore not possible for them to participate in the scheme.

Concerning the information which is furnished to colleges and schools, I think the suggestion the hon member made is a good one and we should like to give attention to it. I also thank him for the kind words about the attention we were able to give to Pelikan Park and Laboria Park. I found the visits I paid to those areas very instructive. I think we are clearing up most of the problems there.

The hon member for Hawston also referred to the problems in connection with repairs to furniture and the long delay before attention is given to these matters. I can assure him that we are giving attention to the matter and I hope that it will soon improve.

The hon member for Benoni—as I have already said—dealt effectively with the CP.

I want to suggest to the hon member for Bethelsdorp, concerning the land which belongs to the State, that he could perhaps supply us with a little more information. My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, will gladly look into the details and to the extent to which the availability of the land can receive attention. The construction of buildings for small business development activities is not a function that falls primarily under this department. If there are buildings which we have at our disposal and which can be made available we can always give the matter sympathetic consideration. At present, of course, the Small Business Development Corporation is a body which makes buildings available for smaller business undertakings.

†The hon member also referred to the SA Housing Trust. The Housing Trust is not a trust of the department; it is really a joint venture between the private sector and the State and is managed by the private sector. After the death of Dr Fred du Plessis, Dr Simon Brand of the Development Bank of Southern Africa was appointed chairman, and I am sure that he will also consider the mission and goals of the Trust. However, it is basically a trust of the private sector in conjunction with the Government and is run by a board of trustees from the private sector.

*The hon member Mr Abram raised one matter on which I should like to comment. What the hon member alleged was not correct, namely that the Ministers’ Council intimated that they were not prepared to occupy the houses in Walmer. The information the hon member has is not correct. The houses have now been completed and the landscaping around the buildings, which took a little extra time, has virtually been completed. We are in contact with the Ministers’ Council on the utilisation of the houses, but when the move will take place will be determined by practical considerations, of which the election which takes place within a few months is an important one.

The reference to corruption which the hon member made I want to re-emphasise here in this House, so that every hon member and the general public can take cognisance of this: If any person has information which he thinks is of such a nature that it may possibly point to corruption or maladministration, it is his duty and responsibility to bring it to the attention of the Advocate-General. Consequently there is a mechanism which the hon member can use to deal with the complaint to which he referred here.

The challenge in the sphere of housing is enormous. In contrast to that we have limited means, particularly when it comes to capital. It is of the utmost importance that we use that scarce resource, in regard to housing as well, as effectively as possible to the best advantage of this country and all its people. In this connection the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs has an enormous task, and as the co-ordinator of the housing policy among the other housing agencies and ministries, it is also important in the initiation of new activities and the co-ordination of housing matters.

Although the challenges are great—so great that they sometimes make one feel despondent—I am optimistic. I am optimistic because great progress has nevertheless been made in recent years. I have no doubt that in the housing sphere we are observing one of the greatest changes in South Africa. It is a basic necessity of life and it is not possible to try to satisfy people culturally and politically if one has not succeeded in effectively supplying their basic necessities. Consequently we are facing a great challenge. We shall have to do everything possible to remove the obstruetions that stand in our way, because adequate affordable housing can probably contribute more than any other factor to the establishment of an orderly, stable and peaceful community. For that reason we should elevate these matters above politics and, regardless of our differences of accent and other differences, join hands to further the provision of housing for the people of South Africa.

In this spirit I should like to thank my hon Deputy Minister. It is pleasant to work with him. He does his work and I do my work, and occasionally he puts me in the picture, but things are going well and my working relationship with him is very pleasant.

Apart from the words of thanks that I have already conveyed to Mr Van Blommestein, I also want to thank all the other senior officials and other officials of the department very cordially for the great dedication I have found in that department. Despite the fact that the allegations that were doing the rounds also reflected on the department, these officials held their heads high. They had confidence in the way they were managing their affairs, and I think that that confidence has been proved correct. They are all gentlemen with great loyalty and competence, and I thank them for the excellent way in which they do this work.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 17h38.