asked the Minister of Law and Order:

Whether, with reference to particulars furnished to the South African Police for the purpose of the Minister’s reply, he is considering taking action against persons and/or organizations contravening the provisions of the emergency regulations?

Mr Chairman, the answer is yes, as far as steps fall within the sphere of responsibility of the SA Police.

The SA Police has a statutory responsibility to maintain law and order, and this task is punctiliously performed. The final decision about whether someone should be prosecuted or not does not rest with the SA Police, however, but with the public prosecutor or the Attorney-General. The task performed by the Police therefore ends with the completion of their investigation.

The implementation of security and media emergency regulations also rests with the Police. Every contravention of these regulations which is observed by the SA Police, or brought to their attention, is therefore investigated immediately, with the relevant dossier being submitted to the Attorney-General for his decision at the conclusion of the investigation.

It would appear as if the case at issue here, ie the propagation of a consumer boycott in Carletonville, constitutes a contravention of the regulations. That is why it is being investigated, together with a number of other charges arising from the consumer boycott. Inter alia five charges of intimidation, one of public violence, one of robbery and one of deliberate damage to property are also being investigated. A number of suspects have been taken into custody and have already appeared in court.

The SA Police do not prescribe to anyone what he should purchase, who should purchase what or where it should be purchased, but they are nevertheless not prepared to allow the maintenance of public order to be endangered by conduct of this nature. I said recently that the SA Police are impartial in carrying out their activities. When a crime is committed, it is investigated in all fairness, regardless of race, sex or the political ties of those involved.

I want to reiterate and re-emphasise this view today. People who contravene these regulations must therefore be aware that dossiers will be opened and cases against them investigated. Where the interests of the community as a whole or those of individuals must be protected, this will be done honestly and impartially.

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Minister really wish this House to believe that when this document in connection with the investigation into the boycott came to his attention, it was the first time he became aware of it. Or had he perhaps previously taken note of the fact that something of this nature was happening? Did he not perhaps, at the beginning of November and in December, already know of activities of this nature in Boksburg, Carletonville and several other places in South Africa? [Interjections.]

I now want to make a few statements. Does the hon the Minister agree that the threat to the country, its people and their freedom today is greater in many spheres than ever before? Secondly, that the onslaught is no longer characterised merely by cross-border terrorist activities, but also, amongst other things, by sanctions and boycotts?

And CP policy too!

Thirdly, does the hon the Minister acknowledge the fact that a boycott is a boycott is a boycott, whether incitement to do so originates in Port Elizabeth, East London, Carletonville, Boksburg or wherever? [Interjections.] Fourthly, does the hon the Minister acknowledge that the ultimate aim of these forces promoting the boycotts is a Black socialist one-party government? [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister agrees with these statements, why then the pregnant silence, on the part of the Government, about the boycotts in CP-controlled local authority areas? This silence reinforces our suspicion that the hon the Minister is taking political decisions about these matters and not decisions based on judicial grounds and taken for the sake of maintaining law and order.

In this connection I want to refer to the release of strikers after 32 months of detention, and the fact that this only happened after they had begun with a hunger strike. We believe that that was a political decision.

Secondly, selective law enforcement. If clergymen encourage or incite people to participate in boycotts against local government elections they are not prosecuted.

Thirdly, double standards. What the NP abhors in regard to South Africa, it welcomes and gives its half-hearted or partially articulated blessing to when this could possibly prejudice the CP. [Interjections.]

Now we come to what is being discussed today. The four prisoners who fled to the West German embassy are suddenly being released now because it was supposedly decided in advance to release them. How is one to understand that? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as everyone knows, this kind of conduct, the organisation of boycotts, is illegal in terms of the emergency regulations, and it is also to a large extent illegal in terms of the Internal Security Act. That is the truth of the matter!

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that here the Government is acting with double standards, as the hon CP member rightly mentioned to them. [Interjections.] It was interesting to hear, in the course of this debate, one of the hon members on the NP side saying “but they are peaceful”. That is true! It is not enough for the NP to say, however, that the protests were peaceful when it is taking action against its own political opponents. It reserves the right to make all kinds of repressive measures applicable so as to have the conduct of other people declared illegal as soon as that conduct proves inconvenient to the Government.

†Boycotts and sanctions are blunt political weapons. They penalise the innocent along with the guilty and, therefore, one must always question that kind of political style. There is no question, however, that in this instance one is dealing with a community which in many senses finds itself powerless, politically powerless, and therefore they use one of the few—if not the only—political means in terms of which they can defend themselves.

It raises three issues: apartheid and its untenability, not only morally but also economically and otherwise. It raises the question of the political powerlessness of Black South Africans and the fact that as long as they do not have decent democratic representation they will use that kind of political stratagem. Thirdly, it raises the question of repressive measures that the Government unilaterally applies—not through debate in Parliament, but in terms of the emergency regulations. They apply these measures highly selectively depending on the political convenience to themselves or otherwise.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan has just stated that when they mentioned this matter to me, this was the first time that it had come to my attention. That is not true. He was not listening to what I said. I said that we were already investigating the matter and that people had been arrested in this regard. The hon member is trying to tag the Police with a certain label. [Interjections.] The South African Police always act impartially. If the CP’s policy is such a rotten one that the public do not want it, he must not try to tag the South African Police with that label. [Interjections.]

We shall take action as the South African Police have always taken action. We shall not allow people to be intimidated into buying where they do not want to buy. I want to tell the hon member—and I give the House the assurance— that we shall take action in accordance with the guidelines we have set ourselves, ie impartiality and fairness towards all those who are affected by that. [Interjections.] As I said in my reply, we do not draw any distinctions when someone commits an offence. The race, sex or political convictions make no difference. We act against anyone if there is a contravention of the law.

The CP, however, asked certain other questions. They asked whether the threat in South Africa was greater and whether sanctions and boycotts were part of the threat. Of course they are part of the threat. That is why we are taking action against these people. The hon member says a boycott is a boycott. We agree with that, and that is why we take action when people propagate boycotts. During the violent riots of 1985 and 1986 we also took action against people who propagated boycotts. We took action against anyone—as we are now doing, too, against people who contravene the regulations and boycott CPs or anyone else. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has just said that the CP’s policy is such a rotten one that the public does not want it. Could the hon the Minister then tell us whose policy is such a rotten one that a state of emergency is necessary in this country? [Interjections.] Whose policy is such a rotten one that it is being rejected by the entire country? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister needs a state of emergency to maintain his policy. [Interjections.]

At the same time the hon the Minister must tell us whether the CP town councils were in any way acting unlawfully. If they have in any way acted unlawfully …

Pardon?

That hon member should wash out his ears—then he would perhaps be able to hear. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister must therefore tell us whether these CP town councils in any way acted unlawfully. If they acted unlawfully, we as the CP demand that he prosecute them. If they have not acted unlawfully, he should prosecute those who have acted unlawfully.

He must not try to place the blame on the shoulders of those who have acted in accordance with the law he himself has made and in accordance with the manifesto which his party gave to the voters during the municipal elections. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is intimating that boycotts against South Africa are being organised and promoted because South Africa has a rotten policy. Is that what he is saying? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the first question the hon member asked. He said that I was taking political decisions in regard to the release of detainees. There is only one question I want to put to the hon member. Does the hon member want the detainees to die in detention? He must tell us. [Interjections.] That is the kind of irresponsible thing the CP wants. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bethal asked me whether the town councils had acted unlawfully. That is not the question that was originally put to me. The question was whether the SA Police was taking action against people who had contravened the emergency regulations. I replied to it in the affirmative. Does the hon member think they—the CP town and city councils—acted unlawfully in terms of the emergency regulations?

Yes!

Does the hon member think so? He has just said that the town councils acted unlawfully.

No! They acted lawfully. [Interjections.]

I am saying that only if someone contravenes the emergency regulations is action taken, regardless of who the person is. [Interjections.]

Why was action not taken against Tutu?

The Police investigated the cases and referred the dossiers to the Attorney-General. The hon member for Green Point said that we maintained double standards. [Interjections.] He also said that we did not give these people an opportunity to participate in democratic activities. We have no one in detention who propagated a true democratic system. We have only detained people who have propagated violence. [Interjections.]

I am giving hon members that assurance based on the evidence we have before us. People who act peacefully and democratically in South Africa are welcome to do so. They can hold meetings. Show me another government anywhere in the world which is subject to such vehement criticism as this Government. [Interjections.] Show me any other government which is as unfairly criticised as this Government, and we do not take action against those people, but the moment they use violence as a method of enforcement or implementation, we take action against those people.

Our action would be fair and equitable towards anyone contravening these emergency regulations if this were to be brought to our attention. [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

to ask the Minister of Law and Order:

Whether the Government is taking any steps to provide better protection for citizens, and especially elderly citizens, against crimes such as mugging, assault and murder; if so, what steps; if not, why not?

Mr Chairman, as a result of the unsatisfactory increase in crime over the past decade, especially crime against elderly citizens, the South African Police embarked on a crime prevention action.

The main objectives of this action were, firstly, to create a more visible police presence by enlarging the numerical strength of the Force in order to place the uniformed policeman back on the street. Secondly, the public had to be educated regarding their personal responsibility and the attitude towards crime. However, all this had to be done within the restrictive limits of available funds.

It is a known fact that uniformed policemen on patrol are a major deterrent in the combating of crime. In this regard I wish to point out that special constables were employed to assist in the combating of crime in the Black townships. Over the past two years crime in the Black townships has shown a constant decrease which can be largely ascribed to the presence of the special constables.

In an effort to establish a larger visible police presence in the major cities, the first so-called “business watch” was started on a trial basis in the central business area of Johannesburg during September 1988. A selected number of policemen in uniform daily patrol the central business area on foot. This action has contributed to a decrease in crimes such as robbery, pickpocketing, bag-snatching and theft.

At present the results of this project are being evaluated. First indications show that it has been extremely successful and arrangements are at present being made to initiate similar actions in the other major centres in South Africa.

In addition to this, neighbourhood watches were established country-wide and the general public has been involved in this major drive to prevent crime.

Remarkable successes have been achieved as a result of these ongoing crime prevention actions. During 1987 and 1988 there was a decrease in burglaries in White residential areas of up to 40%. Furthermore, there was a decrease in other crimes such as murder, car theft and theft.

Although the situation has still not reached the level that we would like to see, I am pleased to be able to say that we have made significant progress.

In analysing crime statistics for the past number of years, it became evident that the attitude of individuals was often one of the principal precipitating factors. People simply did not take care of their property and were often negligent in respect of their own personal safety. The prevalence of an attitude of uninvolvement gave reason for concern.

The South African Police utilized different means to address this problem. To mention but several of these, I wish to point out that we made use of seminars, lectures, speeches and discussions. These events were attended by a broad cross-section of the public, representing various population and age groups. In this regard I wish to mention that no fewer than 513 seminars for senior citizens were held. More than 32 000 senior citizens of all race groups attended these seminars. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset may I thank the hon the Minister for agreeing to take a second interpellation on a single day?

I listened with interest. While there is a good intention, the reality of this situation is that the Government is still failing in its duty towards the aged citizens of this country.

The Government has failed to keep down rising prices for the aged. It has failed to provide them with pensions and the reality is that it has failed to provide the elderly citizens of this country with the crime protection to which they are entitled.

The hon the Minister can tell us about statistics. Has he been speaking to the elderly people? Has he even read the daily newspapers and a series of headlines such as these:

Has he taken note of this situation? Has he taken note of the fact that, according to a police report, the majority of victims attacked in White residential areas are elderly people? Is he aware of the HSRC survey which found that an increasing number of elderly people were living in fear of attack? It may be so that many elderly people are more frail and lonely and more often at home than elsewhere when others are not about, but it is precisely for that reason that the hon the Minister must tell us what he is doing to provide protection, in particular for elderly people in urban areas.

The police ran a good campaign against child abuse. I ask the hon the Minister to make a point of running a similar serious and sustained campaign for the safety of the aged in this country by putting the bobby back on the beat, not in a few selected areas, but in vast areas; placing plainclothes policemen at selected points in business centres; co-operating with local councils that want to establish civic patrols; and co-operating with neighbourhood watch units.

There is a vast task which this Government should be carrying out. It can improve police surveillance. It can also educate the public—it is not doing so, however—by warning people not to carry loose handbags or large amounts of cash; warning elderly people not to walk alone in isolated streets or lanes; and warning elderly people in particular not to unbolt doors to strangers.

I put it to the hon the Minister that he is merely telling me of an intention. What is he actually doing? I want to suggest that if the hon the Minister spent less of his time detaining people without trial and more of it attending to crime against the elderly citizens of South Africa, we in South Africa would be better off. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt that this Government has become soft on crime prevention. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Minister cannot deny that in South Africa at present we are experiencing the greatest crime-wave in the history of this country. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members why that is so. The fact that the Government holds seminars is not good enough. The fact that the Government wants to educate people is not good enough. Yes, those things must be done, but for once the Government must examine the root cause. [Interjections.] The root cause is to be found in layabouts who are not working because there are insufficient control measures in South Africa in terms of which the police can act. The influx control measures, to take but one example, are something that should be re-introduced.

In the newspapers we read of an international hotel warning its guests not to go for a stroll in the city at night for fear of their being attacked. What picture does that create for our tourist industry in South Africa when it is specifically international five star hotels that have to issue such a warning to their guests?

The hon member for Sea Point pointed out that our old people were also living in abject fear of their lives. Surely the hon the Minister cannot deny that our Whites in White residential areas have, in their efforts to safeguard themselves, become prisoners behind bars.

The time has also come for the State to make sufficient money available so that our Police Force can be expanded in such a way as to afford adequate protection for our aged. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to complete my prepared reply to the hon member for Sea Point’s original question. He may then have answers to his many further questions.

During these crime-prevention actions, guidance and practical hints were given in respect of how to identify and minimise risks. Colour brochures regarding the safety of senior citizens and women who live alone were also distributed. School timetables with safety hints were distributed at schools throughout the country. Video programmes were made and shown to the public at private meetings as well as on SATV. The printed media also played a major role in publishing details and feature articles on these important issues. In addition to this, numerous elderly citizens were visited and even escorted to do their shopping and draw their pensions.

However, an analysis of crime statistics also reveals that during 1988 there were 552 instances where people were attacked in their homes. In 57,5% of these cases, unforced entry was obtained through doors and windows that had either been left open or unlocked. These victims took no precautionary measures whatsoever to ensure their own safety.

The South African Police are determined to maintain law and order and to combat crime in order to make this country a safe place for people of all races to live in.

I therefore wish to thank the general public for the co-operation and support we receive from them, but also wish to make an appeal to them to adhere to basic precautionary measures regarding their personal safety and the protection of their property.

*I merely want to ask whether the hon member is living in South Africa—or is he a Rip van Winkel who has suddenly woken up. He says we must wage a campaign for the benefit of the senior citizens of our country, as we did for the children. We have been doing so on a country-wide basis for three years now. Is he not aware of this? We have addressed 32 000 of these people. We have distributed thousands of pamphlets in South Africa which those people could read and in which we issued warnings to them. I merely want to tell the hon member that many of the people I have in detention, something to which he objects so strongly, are specifically some of those who have devastated and ruined the lives of these old people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has told us that he had an investigation in Johannesburg and that they tried a system there which has worked very well. The system appears to be serving a very old and ancient principle called the bobby-on-the-beat. He does not have to have an investigation into that. He does not need to evaluate the result. It was September last year that he instituted it and it has not been instituted anywhere else in the Republic of South Africa.

In Port Elizabeth, between 9 and 15 February this year, there were three people who were mugged and robbed in broad daylight. Where were the police on this occasion? If there had been a bobby-on-the-beat and if we had had police, it might not have happened. I am talking about 9 February. In Main Street, Port Elizabeth, at 3 pm, an elderly woman was mugged. There are not sufficient policemen being placed in the central business district of our major metropolitan areas while the hon the Minister is investigating the situation and analysing results, instead of doing what he should be doing by putting the policeman back on the beat and in uniform.

In addition to that, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that, in Port Elizabeth his police have issued the following statement, and I quote:

What I am saying to the hon the Minister is that he can blame the elderly citizens for their deteriorating condition as much as he likes. It is the taxpayer who is paying for his police to protect the elderly people in this country. I submit with respect that that is not happening.

Mr Chairman, my criticism is not of the police. The police have shown that they can do it, as was shown by a statement made by the hon the Minister:

If he can do it by 60% in that area, what is the Government doing to see that South Africa as a whole, and the older people in general, are protected. Selected area patrols can bring crime down by 60% and yet the hon the Minister says we are the Rip van Winkels. He is the Rip van Winkel who does not want to realise that the older people in South Africa are living in fear when they should be enjoying their lives. There are a number of factors of which poverty, unemployment, broken family lives and broken communities are part. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he expects ordinary citizens to respect authority when there is corruption in Government? Does he expect people to respect the sanctity of other people’s homes when homes are being flattened by bulldozers? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member has managed to drag in corruption and bulldozers. That really has nothing to do with the original question. I want to tell the hon member for Sea Point that I am more concerned about the security of the inhabitants of the country than he is. This Government is more concerned than he is. [Interjections.] At least we are doing something about it. There is one point I do want to concede to the hon member, however, and that is that we have too few policemen. I say that repeatedly. In my reply I said that we could only have as many policemen as we could afford. Now all hon members sit here every day— I include the CP too—lodging a plea to the hon the Minister of Finance for more money for this and that. They have every right to do so. They must tell us here today, however, whether they want South Africans to pay more in taxes or whether they want us to take money away from some other quarter. [Interjections.] They must tell us. [Interjections.] Those hon members are extremely indignant now, but that is the choice. [Interjections.]

They sit here saying we must have more policemen. I also say, yes, let us have more, but we can only have as many policemen as we can afford. We must achieve a balance. I could employ policemen more cheaply, and here I am referring to special constables. What do I then find? These hon members of the PFP and their fellow travellers outside attack these special constables … [Interjections] … and denounce and revile them at every turn. [Interjections.]

This Government is concerned about the security of the inhabitants, particularly the senior citizens, of this country. We are doing everything in our power to improve this situation. I want to tell hon members that today we can be proud of what the SA Police have managed to do to guarantee the safety of South Africa’s people. During the past three to four years we have had major incidents of unrest which have made extensive demands on the SA Police, and in spite of that we have succeeded in reducing the increasing crime rate. [Interjections.]

Does this look like a bad government? Oh, no, the Government is doing an excellent job of carrying out its task in this regard. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the reply is:

1. (1) No, there is no intention to acquire any land at Thornville from a private developer.

My department was approached by private consultants who compiled a lengthy report on the viability of establishing a township at Thornville for the Indian population group. These consultants requested that my department support their application for the proclamation of Thornville as an Indian group area.

After carefully considering the proposals contained in the report, the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates gave its full support to the proclamation of Thornville as an Indian group area.

As far as my department is concerned, this is a totally private development with no financial commitment from State funds.

1. (2) No.

Mr Chairman, I have heard the hon the Acting Minister of Housing indicate that it is not the intention of his department to acquire any land in Thornville, but that it has supported the application of a private developer in that regard.

The question that arises in my mind is whether the hon the Acting Minister fully investigated this private developer and whether any hon member of this House or relatives of hon members of this House were in one way or another involved with such private developer.

I merely want to say that as a consequence I would like the hon the Minister to give me a commitment that companies doing business relating to land with this administration are fully checked as to directorships and shareholders so as to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the past. I want to say that it would be highly irregular for a member of Parliament or members of his family to be involved in any deal concerning land with this administration. I would like to get a commitment from the hon Acting Minister of Housing this morning that this is in fact the policy which the administration will apply. I ask this in the interest of clean administration and so as to prevent a recurrence of the past. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think that when one talks about hon members of this House being involved, one must be more specific and clear. It is evident that this is a private development and the hon the Minister has made it abundantly clear that the House of Delegates is not involved in this development. I think that just to chase spooks and shadows is not the object of the exercise. I believe that what we need to do here is to be clear. If a private developer is providing housing which will alleviate the need for housing, I believe one must encourage this. The more housing stock we have in South Africa, the better it is for the community at large. I agree that one must not abuse one’s position, but unless and until one can establish that, one cannot go around speculating.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has certified that he had no intention of buying land from a private developer, but I would like to find out whether his department intends to build homes in Thornville. If so, have they identified any other land, and if so, can the hon the Minister tell us who owns the land now?

Mr Chairman, this item which is being discussed affects my constituency. This investigation arose from a firm of consultants in Johannesburg purchasing large tracts of land from White owners in the Thornville area. I received a full report of the investigation and I gave it my full support, because we are very short of housing in the constituency of Southern Natal.

I can give this House the assurance that as far as my knowledge goes, no persons from the House of Delegates or their families are involved in this.

Mr Chairman, I believe, in fairness, that nobody should make imputations. Nobody is making any imputation, but I believe it would have been better if the hon the Acting Minister had given us the name of the company, its directors and so on. I am sure that the future Minister of Housing will in fact look into that and I ask him to do so and to give us that information so that it can be laid on the table.

Mr Chairman, I want to assure the hon member for Springfield that I understand his message quite clearly, but also that this administration is committed to clean administration and will not involve itself in any complicated business where it feels it is dangerous to tread.

I am not aware of any hon member of the House or any MP or any member of the family of an MP being involved in this development. It is a private developer. That is our information.

The hon member for Tongaat asked whether we have identified any other land. I want to tell hon members that at this stage we have not. This is all I have to say.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, yes, from 1 August 1988.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased with the information given. What invariably happens is that the public and persons affected, those who have an interest in a particular proclamation, are not aware of the announcement. Invariably they are disadvantaged. What I want to know specifically is whether attention will be given to the matter so that people who are affected or interested will be informed of the benefits that will accrue from this new dispensation?

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that this situation does in fact obtain. However, I am a little unhappy that the administration did not take the trouble to advertise the fact fully. I support what the hon member for Cavendish has just said, that it is the responsibility of the hon the Minister to tell the community exactly what the advantages that will accrue to them would be. I would still expect the new acting hon Minister to do just that.

Mr Chairman, I would like to tell the hon the Minister that he can, on these issues, take up the matter with his colleagues. The Ministers of Housing do get together on a group basis, as a committee, and when an announcement of such a nature is made, then it could come as a collective announcement so that it will affect all the Houses. The Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives said in the media it affected him. However, it seems to me that when the decision was made by the Treasury, it was not filtered down to the House of Delegates. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether this decision was reached in such a meeting, because it is a Treasury decision taken on this particular aspect.

Mr Chairman, I think this particular question arises from the fact that there appears to be some confusion. I believe the confusion is as a result of having different own affairs departments with regard to housing. If it was centralised, we would not have this type of confusion. Then it means that we could work towards that ultimate objective. I would also like to suggest that this question of subsidy be universally reviewed constantly. When an announcement is made, it must be made in respect of everybody—every citizen in this country.

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that there is absolute confusion as far as this question is concerned. I want to make it clear that I am answering a question relating to first-time home owners. I am not answering a question on what my colleague in the House of Assembly has announced. That question has not been asked. The question asked was whether the amendment of the first-time home-owners’ subsidy scheme, which permits the purchase of flats and houses under R65 000, will apply to purchases made by Indians. If so, from what date? That is what I have answered. If there is an answer required for the other matter, I want to state quite categorically that this administration is seriously thinking about that question.

However, it has not made a decision. The decision will be based on various factors. Firstly, our White counterpart—my colleague in the House of Assembly—has a problem. His problem is that he has too many new houses on hand. We have not reached that stage. Therefore he is encouraging the first-time home-owners to buy secondhand houses, if I may put it that way.

Do you buy two houses?

No. A second-hand house, an existing house, can be bought. If a first-time home-owner buys an existing building which is not new, he will be given a subsidy.

Will you support only Whites getting that benefit?

We have not arrived at that position. Our policy is to build more and more new homes to meet the demand. We have not met the demand yet. I hope that is clear. [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.