Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon the State President began by saying that he did not have any clarity about South Africa’s constitutional future. He said that he did not have a plan for the future. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

That is precisely what he said. I am quoting him. [Interjections.] We can consult Hansard if hon members are not quite certain.

The hon the State President then accused others of not having a plan either and said that they merely made use of clichés and slogans. According to him there is only one group not making use of cliches and slogans, and he was referring to the foreign ideology of the socialists or that of the Marxists. [Interjections.] The hon the State President spelled out every possible constitutional model—confederal, federal, a racial federation, consociation—and then said that perhaps South Africa’s constitution could develop in such a way as to embody elements of all these models.

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly in the Committee.

What the hon the State President actually said was that we should present for inspection all the possible ingredients with which a cake could possibly be baked. What people want to know, however, is what the cake is ultimately going to look like. No wonder that after yesterday’s speech it was said that the hon the State President was also simply using clichés and that no one knew what was being said. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said so. Chief Buthelezi said so. And no one is, in point of fact, any the wiser.

Is it true, however, that other parties do not have plans? Let us look at the Official Opposition. As far as the constitutional model is concerned, they simply say: “Partition and that’s it”. In other words, South Africa consists of many nations, and every nation must have its own territory. That is the simple fact of the matter. The National Party heartily agrees with that, but states, however, “as far as is practicable”. And the NP, of course, is prepared to spend enormous amounts of money to ascertain precisely how practicable or impracticable it is.

The second point in connection with which the NP has something of a problem with the CP, is that of acceptability. Although the NP agrees with the policy of partition as one of the options—in other words, the confederal idea of the hon the State President—the NP is prepared to lock up quite a few people who do not want to accept that, for example in KaNgwane and elsewhere.

As far as ideology is concerned, it is also very clear where the CP stands. They say that the basis is race and self-determination for each race or nation. The NP also heartily agrees with that, regardless of whether this is within or outside a confederal, federal or consociational system. The ideological point of departure is one of race. The NP, in contrast to the CP, proposes that in so far as partition is possible, general affairs should be dealt with on a consociational basis. The CP does not agree with that at all, because it knows, of course, that in a consociational system in an ordinary democratic situation there will ultimately be one White group and twelve or thirteen other groups, and then it is once more simply a case of one against thirteen. In the long run, if one understands democracy, there has to be a head-count.

As far as representation is concerned, the other element of a constitution, the CP once again is very clear on this score. They state that within each of the nation-states people can participate in the political process. It is very clear where the CP stands; here there is no question of clichés. There are very clear guidelines, and any second-year student of political science can flesh out that skeletal framework.

As far as the form of government is concerned, the PFP advocates federation, and as far as representation is concerned, individual representation. What is more, it advocates the protection of human rights and, in its ideology, places the emphasis on the individual and not on the group. Once again this is very clear. There is nothing obscure about it. The student of political science only has to flesh out the skeletal framework.

The NDM also says, in regard to reform, that we live in one country. One can discuss devolution, because we are not tied to a federal form. From the very nature of the case the important decisions, even in the federal system, are taken by the central federal government. I think that is why the Government does not like a federal system, because once again, if one understands democracy, there is only one end result. In the long run there simply has to be a head-count. As far as representation is concerned, the NDM is in favour of equal rights for all, and as far as ideology is concerned, we say that we acknowledge the existence of various cultural groups in South Africa. We believe, however, that a greater overall patriotism focussing on one country will ultimately fuse South Africans into one proud nation, with the acknowledgement of the cultural diversity within that nation.

What is more, we believe that all social forces, demography, the economy and everything is moving in that direction, and to oppose that, is simply an attempt to delay the inevitable outcome.

The hon the State President falls between two stools, the concept of many nations and that of one nation. He is trying to accommodate both concepts simultaneously, but he is not succeeding at all. In his endeavours at reform he is trying to meet both progressive and conservative demands, but each time he falls between two stools. The Government is trying to conceal the fact that its efforts at reform are not succeeding, and that is why it is always seeking a scapegoat, which it calls “the revolutionary onslaught”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown made quite a few haphazard statements and tossed quite a few random arguments around here in the House. I do not specifically want to react to him, except to ask whether or not they acknowledge the independent states. If he tells me that they do, let me tell him to go to the leaders of those independent states and ask them if they ever want to be part of one country again. That is all the NDM has to do, and in doing so I am sure they will get an answer. [Interjections.]

Then I want to tell him that at least the hon the State President is not painting himself into a corner he cannot get out of. He has never done so, and that is the sign of a great leader. What the PFP apparently does not understand is that the hon the State President refuses to go to the other population groups with a cake that has already been baked—whether it contains sugar or salt or not—and tell them: “Here, take it and eat, whether you like it or not.” Our approach is very clear, ie that in consultation with those people a decision should be taken about where our country is heading. Before the people in this country accept that, we have no hope of ever reaching a solution.

Today I want to confine myself to an aspect which has bothered me considerably for the past month or two. I am greatly concerned about where, spiritually speaking, many of the inhabitants of our country are heading. What has become very conspicuous in the present era is the “egotistical—I” syndrome in our country. The feeling displayed by people is that as long as things are going well for them, they do not care what happens to other people. The hon the State President and other hon members in this House have also referred to that.

It has emerged very clearly in the reaction to the hon the State President’s appeal to private organisations in this country to be extremely careful in granting increases. What worries me a great deal is that we did not tell those people there should be no increases whatsoever. What we did ask them to do was to be extremely careful in granting increases, but what was the result? It was almost as if they brushed aside the hand which the hon the State President extended to the private sector.

They all shout that we should combat inflation and that for them it is a splendid matter of principle that inflation should be curbed. As soon as they have to do something about that themselves, however, they stand back and say it is the Government’s duty or someone else’s duty to do so. What concerns me greatly is that there are organisations such as agricultural co-operatives which have granted their staff increases of up to 20%. From whom are they going to recover that money? Are there going to be further price increases which they have to pass on to the farmers, with input costs simply being increased again, or are they going to absorb those increases themselves? After all, those are organisations with which we co-operate and to which the Government has granted assistance to the tune of millions of rands. That is the reaction we get to the hon the State President’s appeal.

I want to go further. There are private bodies which stated that they wholeheartedly supported the hon the State President’s battle against inflation. What did they do, however? Some of them gave their employees increases of up to 28%, notwithstanding the appeal to please keep increases within limits.

I now ask myself the following question: Do those people, in future, have any moral right to tell the hon the State President that the Government has to combat inflation? What right have they to ask for the Government’s assistance? If that is the way in which they undermine our efforts to combat inflation, the matter has become a serious one.

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

I am sorry, but I am not answering any questions now.

It has become a serious question. The sooner private enterprise realises that it has as important a role to play in the fight against inflation, the better it will be for this country of ours as a whole.

Now, however, we also have this “egotistical I” syndrome in the CP. Hon members know that the Official Opposition displays this “egotistical I” syndrome, for example, when we refer to group areas. With one voice they shout: “The White areas must remain exclusively White!” Until quite recently we also had that syndrome. We also said, for example, that if a White person and a person of colour were to marry, they should live in the area in which the person of colour lives. In doing so, what were we doing? Is that not once more a question of the “egotistical I” syndrome—as long as I keep a White group area exclusively White, I do not actually care what happens in the other group areas. There are other people, however, who also want to keep their areas for themselves—amongst the Black people, the Coloureds and the Asians. At least this party is not in such a tight corner that it has not been able to examine this problem. It has stated that we are prepared to declare certain areas open areas after an investigation has been carried out, retaining other areas exclusively for Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Surely that is the answer. Any government must be prepared to examine any future problem that crops up—therein lies the answer. One must not paint oneself so tightly into a comer that one cannot get out.

Another example of that “egotistical I” syndrome, which I also find in the CP, is again this cry of theirs: “Everything that the Whites have, they must keep for themselves alone.” I am referring specifically to what is happening at present in the municipal elections, or at least in the count down stage to those elections. There are people in the CP who go around talking about nothing but “the White taxpayers’ money” and the city councils that must use that money solely for the White taxpayers.

If one starts to examine this kind of syndrome, one asks oneself how, in the future, the Whites alone can hope to survive in a laager of their own, solely dependent on their own resources. Can the CP not accept the principle that for its future, this country of ours needs all its people, and not only the Whites? We cannot close our eyes to this kind of future. We need everybody to build up this country, but that “egotistical I” syndrome is so ingrained that they are now again shouting ad nauseum: “When we come to power, we shall reintroduce section 16 of the Immorality Act; when we come to power we shall reintroduce the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.” When we, when we, and so it goes on. I think that the Afrikaners, the Whites, in the CP should be asked whether they have lost the power to survive—or forgotten what it is—to such a degree that they have to try to protect everything behind a wall of legislation. One should ask them whether they really think that they can protect the Whites in this country with legislation alone. Let me say this morning that that will not work. They will simply have to bury that “egotistical I” syndrome of theirs and realise that even in their wildest dreams about their White state, there will always be people of colour.

I want to remind them of the following words, and they must listen carefully:

The author of these words was none other than the hon the State President. My appeal to the CP is: Let us pay heed to that and change this “egotistical I” attitude while there is still time to do so in this country of ours.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react in detail to the hon member for Stilfontein. I merely want to say that he has given us quite a bit of ammunition and has played right into the hands of the CP. We therefore do not have to distort anything; we can simply inform the voters and have them decide accordingly. When he speaks about the “egotistical I”, I merely want to tell him that his party’s proposals in regard to group areas entail a vote being taken in a specific area to decide whether it should remain White, whether it should become a mixed area or could become an open area. If the Whites vote for it to remain White, every “egotistical I” of the Whites has voted for that. That is the hon member’s argument. [Interjections.]

I want to make a few observations on the interesting speech—that is my view—made by the hon the State President yesterday. Not only do I think that it is interesting, I also think is has far-reaching and—in my opinion—dangerous implications. That is how we see it.

No one disputes the need to be civilised or the necessity for maintaining Christian values. I want to state at once, however, that being civilised and having Christian values does not mean that peoples, cultural and racial groups, all civilised and Christian, should be forced into the same political allegiance. We have no problem whatsoever with a plea for rights for other people too. To tell the truth, according to our policy, our view of things, the maximum degree of rights will be granted to the respective communities within their own political allegiance, something which is not possible in a competitive position with other groups in the same political allegiance.

We have no difficulty with the hon the State President’s warning that we cannot build a future on hatred. We have no problem with that. This is not a party based on hatred. This is a party which, in the first place, has a love for its own people, and we believe that other communities also have a love for their own people, closer to them than our people. But at the same time we advocate justice for all.

Having said that, however, let me also say that one does not promote the love that exists between various communities by forcing them, contrary to the natural order of things, into a unitary society. [Interjections.] In this connection I can quote the hon the State President. I think that these were wise words he uttered a few years ago, in 1982:

We therefore agree with him that we should steer clear of a unitary society, and that also applies to the political structure of such a society.

We have no problems with the correct view of democracy. We all know, however, that everyone in South Africa speaks about democracy. There are also those who advocate a “people’s democracy” in South Africa, something quite different to what I think the NP advocates and something completely different to what we advocate.

We would prefer to speak of separate democratic institutions for various peoples. If one cannot force everyone into the same Westminster system, we would say that there should be different structures within which the Westminster system can be implemented.

We support, in the strongest possible terms, the hon the State President’s lead as far as independence is concerned, his emphasis on the idea of independence and the fact that this should remain the ideal in South Africa. We maintain that if that is the desire of those peoples, not only must we grant that to them, but we must also encourage them to move in that direction.

Secondly, we say that this is in the interests of our own self-determination. I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon member for Mossel Bay about people and nation, etc. All I want to tell him is that when we speak about the White community, the Afrikaner people is the keyelement in that concept, and in conjunction with the Afrikaner people, the other Whites, such as the English-speaking element, etc. It is therefore an amplifying ethnic concept, one which is not a precise ethnic concept, but in common usage—for years now on the NP side, and also on this side—we speak of the Afrikaner people as the key-element in that concept, but broadly speaking we refer to the White community. We should also add, however, that if the other communities are not intent on following a course leading to their own independence, we on this side of the Committee say that, in refusing to accept independence, they do not earn the right to govern jointly over the Whites. If they do not accept that, they thereby accept a position of subservience. If subservience does not appeal to them, then independence is the only alternative. We feel strongly about that point. We refuse to make the representatives of other peoples co-rulers over the Whites.

The hon the State President referred to a confederation. He spoke about the elements of various systems. To the best of my knowledge a confederation is a loose association of independent states. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I do not know of a single confederation system that works. Whatever systems there have been, have either become federations or have been smashed to smithereens. We do, however, have elements of a federation. As far as racial federation is concerned, I think that at the moment the NP is where the old United Party used to be. Perhaps the NP does not have a racial federation in all respects, but at the moment there are three different groups lumped together in one Parliament and in one system of government.

Against that background the hon the State President used Europe as an example. I do not think, however, that a parallel can be drawn between South Africa and Europe, because Europe consists of various independent states seeking to work together at specific points without the structuring of a sovereign super-parliament. No one is striving to achieve that. The idea of a European Parliament for South Africa cannot work because those are two different things.

The hon the State President is now working with a racial federation. In response to a speech of the hon the Minister of National Education he said that a federation was, after all, only a unitary state. In such a state the rights of minorities are not adequately accommodated. It remains a unitary state, after all, with one central parliament and one central government. Even if one differentiated in various spheres, within a unitary state the question was always: How does one escape the compulsion of numbers?

The hon the Minister of Finance tried to present me in a ridiculous light by referring to my so-called politics of numbers. The hon the Minister, however, will not be able to escape the politics of numbers. Numbers guarantee the NP their seats in the Government benches. It is because of numbers that some hon members almost lost their seats. It is numbers that won us 22 seats. It is numbers with which we won three seats. That side of the House is now saying that they were CP seats, but they were not CP seats in 1981. The CP won these seats.

If one envisages one democratic system for Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, with equal opportunities—as the hon the State President said—and equal treatment, and one does not have a qualified franchise, how is one going to escape the compulsion of numbers? The hon the State President referred, in particular, to the electoral college of the State President. He wants to introduce a minor amendment and foresees the inclusion of Black leaders in that electoral college. According to the hon the State President’s system he has to do so. I hope he does not think he can introduce a few token Black leaders. I could imagine Chief Buthelezi perhaps being one of those members of that electoral college. Does the hon the State President really think that a leader who prides himself on representing between six and seven million people will take a seat in the electoral college merely as a spectator? Even if the hon the State President were to give the six self-governing states only three representatives each in the electoral college for the State President—after all, it is also their State President—that would mean 18 in all. If one adds 18 to 88, one has a non-White majority in the electoral college for the State President. The hon the State President must not say that this is wishful thinking on my part. This is no mirage I am seeing. Last year a Speaker had to be elected. How did the voting go? There were Whites on one the hand and non-Whites on the other, and two non-White Ministers voted with the Whites; in other words 52:36. That is the recipe. That is the recipe for the election of a Black State President who, I believe, will pay no attention whatsoever to the hon member for Innesdal, because he does not even know what he has written. [Interjections.]

Are you people that afraid?

Order!

We on this side of the House are telling hon members that that is an illusion! I am saying this quite frankly to the hon the Minister of Finance. It is an illusion to try to get away from the politics of numbers in South Africa. It is an illusion, a futile thought, that heterogeneous population groups can be forced into a democratic system without any competitiveness developing.

We are telling the Government that Black power lies in wait for them. Black power lies in wait for them. Just take that little step! The Government is travelling that path, right in Buthelezi’s direction. He says he is not yet where he wants to be, because there are still a million steps to go, but the first one has been taken. The Government is like the impala passing the crocodile on the banks of the water-hole—because the crocodile does not bite immediately, the impala thinks that there is peace. We are warning the Government. Black power lies in wait on this road, and we are walking right into its jaws! We warn them!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Innesdal tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he is afraid?

Order! Did the hon member for Innesdal use those words.

No, Mr Chairman, I said: “Are you people really that afraid?” Those were my actual words.

Order! Was the hon member for Innesdal referring to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Order! The hon member for Innesdal must withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I want to tell him that if his conclusions about South Africa’s conditions and possibilities are true, there is no democratic solution for us. If one is to accept that his summary of the country’s circumstances is true, there is no democratic solution and then we enter the future through the gates of violence. [Interjections.] I do not want to quarrel with anyone. Please give me a chance.

Order!

Yesterday the hon the State President, in my opinion, delivered a keynote address. I can see that many are not going to agree with it; that much I concede. The fact is that he indicated specific directions in regard to aspects about which people who are interested in negotiated solutions are vague.

South African society—as is clearly evident from this—is not a unitary society, and consequently a political dispensation cannot be worked out to successfully serve the community’s interests on the strength of the acceptance of the false premise of a unitary society.

Secondly it reflects the existence of various or diverse communities. Each has its own aspirations, and each has its own expectations. This does not meant that there are no common interests in these diverse communities. That is why we emphasise the fact that whoever overemphasises the common elements, to the exclusion of community interests, would be making a mistake. On the other hand, it would be equally dangerous to emphasise the community interests at the cost of the common interests in our fatherland.

This morning I want to see whether it is not possible—at least in this House, which has the longest history of debating the future of our country—to find amongst all of us sitting here, a common basis for the political discussion that urgently has to be conducted. I therefore do not intend to react to individual speeches. There is, however, one common standpoint that we have.

The hon the State President’s debate!

No, it is the hon the State President’s Vote, and this House of Assembly’s debate.

Are you already Prime Minister.

We acknowledge that every citizen of a country is entitled to a vote in that country. We all acknowledge that right. Let me mention the example of a debate conducted here by the hon member for Soutpansberg who is not here at present. He said that his party stood for limited political rights for the Black community. He did, however, accept the principle of political rights for Black communities outside the national states. By accepting that, he accepted their permanent presence here. The hon member for Ermelo—I take it he is speaking on behalf of his party, or with their permission—says that where a man lives, he should pay tax, and where he pays tax, he must be able to vote. In terms of practical politics, that means that there are ten million or more members of Black communities who have to vote within South Africa, outside the national states. Let us now argue, on that common basis, about the road ahead.

All of us in the country believe in negotiated solutions. We may disagree about the mechanisms for negotiation, we may disagree about the style of negotiation, but all of us in this country say that we opt for negotiated solutions. There is an implication in that, because one is thereby accepting that one cannot represent South Africa with a single, final blueprint. The hon the State President made it very clear in his speech that it was unrealistic, a utopian dream, to think that we could suddenly come up with a final constitution. That is not possible. Evolutionary constitutional development has never, anywhere in the world, taken place in that fashion. Those of us who have made a choice for evolutionary constitutional adjustment and development, have made a choice for a process and not for a blueprint. It is a lengthy process. I respectfully want to state that the hon member for Sea Point is wrong about this. If we accept that it is a lengthy, evolutionary process the Government, by accepting and participating in the process, is not retarding progress but is actually obtaining maximum support for systems which have been negotiated so that those systems can have greater durability, so that their consequences can have more stability, so that there is greater certainty and security in regard to human rights, because more people than those of only one group have shaped such a system.

Non-participant Black communities, of course, are impatient. There is, of course, a need for certainty amongst White communities. Of course people want assurances in regard to the maintenance of their value systems. Of course people want assurances about the fact that when our systems address the developmental problems, the consequences will not pull the First-World component down to the level of the Third-World component. The opposite should preferably be the case, so that the Third-World communities are elevated to the level of the First-World communities.

That is why I am saying, with all the conviction I possess, that those who advocate systems and processes which endanger the position of the developed communities for the sake of other communities, are not engaged in evolutionary reform, but in destructive action. The developing communities are, for historical reasons, largely Black communities or other Coloured population groups, and with a view to what I have just said, it is in the interests of these developing communities—they also experience it as such—that the rights of the Whites should also be protected.

Tell us how.

I want to go further and say that the rights of the Whites can never be consistently protected in the long term without protecting the rights of the Black, Coloured and Asian communities.

Hear, hear!

I am sick and tired of the fact that when we argue from a specific angle and try to devise specific formulas, designed to ensure security, stability and development of the country, the view being that White rights should be as secure as those of others, this is regarded as an abdication of the rights of White people. If that is what is said, it is a mendacious statement. [Interjections.]

It is true, after all, that those who go to the negotiating table, do so with their own proposals. In doing so they have their own models, their own package deals. Negotiation therefore means trying to convince people to relinquish certain standpoints and to accept others in everyone’s mutual interest. We cannot argue that away, but that should not bring us to a point at which we are not prepared to negotiate. It must not bring us to the point of wanting to halt or stop the reforming process. What the Government’s standpoint, and the hon the State President’s proposals, entail is nothing more or less than that his proposals and those put forward by anyone should be proposals for negotiation at the negotiating table.

I should like to turn my attention to the hon member for Sea Point and other hon members. The hon member’s party and others vote against any proposals to include, on the basis of group definition, communities which are excluded from the processes. That is a standpoint that the hon the Leader of the PFP and his party consistently maintained on the standing committees.

I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the PFP—perhaps he should reply to us at some or other stage—what right he has to participate in a system which, according to him, is established on a group basis, ie Parliament, whilst prohibiting others, who are also prepared to do so, from participating. What gives his party that right, if there are some of the Black communities which live outside the national states and which want to function in terms of their own legislative institutions and executive authorities, as the hon the State President has proposed? What right have we, constituted as we are, to decide to block steps which, although not in accordance with our political philosophy, can include other communities? What gives us the right to block those steps? Surely it is their right to take that decision.

Can they come into an integrated system if they want to?

I am coming to that. The hon member must just give me an opportunity.

The hon the State President says that he is seeking a body in which leaders can negotiate. He said he was not tied down to a name, a composition or certain functions for that body. Would the hon leaders of both opposition parties now stand up and give their support to such a body, even though it does not comply with their idea of how it ought to be constituted, or are we going to argue about the composition of that body long enough to prevent that body from being established?

The only way in which we are going to make progress is by becoming involved in the negotiating process.

By surrendering.

Too many leaders are wasting their time paying lip-service to negotiations and then being obstructionist when the processes have to be given substance. [Interjections.] The rhetoric about being ready for negotiations is a thing of the past. The Government will have to proceed, in regard to its processes, with the help of those who want to participate, and those who want to remain on the sidelines must do so.

We shall continue, in spite of our differences on many aspects of the constitutional dispensation, in spite of the frustration of everyone who sometimes feels that we are not achieving what they want—in any event we cannot achieve what everybody wants—and in spite of the actions of those, inside and outside the country, who are doing everything in their power to drive people apart, psychologically or by acts of violence.

Every party has a mandate. This party received its mandate at its federal congress. That mandate was ratified on 6 May. I use the word “mandate”, because not only did the highest body in the party grant its approval to reform, but it also gave a mandate for reform. That mandate means that Black communities outside the national states must participate in political decision-making.

That is not true.

It is incorporated in the motion passed at those congresses.

What did you tell the voters?

Order!

It is stated in the election manifesto we published. In fact, it was the main point which was attacked by the Official Opposition. It is in that manifesto.

It also states that bodies should be created for their community interests, legislation and administration. I have said that bodies should be created to allow them to participate, at all levels, in legislation and administration. I have said that they should take place on the basis of the composition of groups, with the protection of group rights, with the maintenance of security and order and with effective decision-making on matters of national interest. What did the hon the State President do yesterday? He reported progress in all those spheres.

Let me conclude, Sir. He said that we should open up for discussion the position, the sphere of responsibility and the election of the Head of State. Let me just add the following. In spite of the fact that he is the leader of a political party, the hon the State President rose above party-politics.

Let him then resign as Leader of the NP.

He rose above party-politics to such a degree that large numbers of people from communities not involved in his election accept him as the Head of State.

Hear, hear!

When he speaks of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, this is reappraisal in the sense that we must design methods for including people.

It will not be you.

Sir, there is one thing I should like to tell those hon members, and that is that in that process I am as unimportant as the hon member for Langlaagte.

Spot on!

Unimportant.

I agree. I agree wholeheartedly!

South Africa is important, Sir! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon the State President, although he made a number of interesting suggestions, gave sufficient formal structure to the proposals he made to enable us to engage in a formal debate on some of those proposals. I must assume from the intervention of the hon the Minister that some of the debate will continue in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. To the extent that the hon the State President’s comments yesterday might involve a radical change away from the proposal before the standing committee at the moment, we will go into that debate with an open mind. Our party is totally committed to the concept of negotiation. We want it to succeed. We warned in the past, though, that unless one starts off on the right foot, one will not get proper negotiation and a lasting result.

I must make a couple of points, especially to the hon the Minister who has just spoken. I wonder if I could have the attention of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. There are two policy areas in which we are not doctrinaire in an ideological sense but in which we believe we will not find a solution—this is our own view and we believe it is also the view of the broader South African community—until this Government, which has to take the initiative faces up to the task and says in unambiguous terms that it is working towards direct representation of Blacks in the sovereign central Parliament of South Africa. Until they do that they have an insuperable stumbling block before them. Go to any Black leader, even those who want to negotiate, and they say that regional development is no substitute—cannot we just say yes to direct representation of Black South Africans in the sovereign central Parliament of South Africa? It is a fundamental issue as far as they are concerned, and it is fundamental to anybody who believes in real equal rights for people.

There is the other issue of the group versus the individual. Yes, let us negotiate the extent to which people feel there are group rights and individual rights. I think in the end one will find that group rights are the collective exercising of individual rights. We can talk about whether that is the case or not, but once again, fundamentally if by group we mean a race determined by way of race classification and formalised in terms of law, and not such groups as may develop in terms of voluntary association, then we will not get cooperation and we will not get a solution.

It is not that we are uptight about this; we simply believe it to be a reality. When the hon the Minister says that he wants to protect what he calls group rights, I have some doubt as to what he means. My view is that groups—whatever groups they may be—have a right in what I call a defensive way, that is they have the right to defend themselves from discrimination. I doubt that groups also have such a right in what I call an assertive way.

Domination!

If we agree that the rights of groups are not defined in what I call an assertive way but merely in a defensive way …

I do not agree with you.

… then I believe we should examine ways in which we can protect those rights, but let the Government not say in advance that the only way to protect them is by means of race classification and defining groups in relation to that.

Order! Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member for Sea Point may proceed.

Let me give the hon the Minister what I think is one of the most telling illustrations of what I am trying to put across. We all believe that there should be religious freedom—freedom of worship—in South Africa. Interestingly enough, there is no law which says there should be freedom of worship in South Africa. There is no classification of people into lews and Christians or Protestants and Catholics. There is nothing like that at all.

What we do have, however, is the right of an individual to form a religious community together with other individuals. There is the right of individuals to practise their religion both individually and collectively. This constitutes the religious right of minority groups. What we do not have in South Africa is a formalisation of that protection on a group basis because it is the individual who is entitled to exercise his rights in this respect.

Let me suggest to the hon the Minister that, instead of starting negotiations on the basis that he already knows that the only way to provide protection is through race classification and formalisation—he says that he is open-minded on this matter—let him say that he is also prepared to examine the concept of voluntary association and freedom of choice as a means of seeing that there is the maximum amount of freedom for individuals in South Africa. I am putting this forward simply because the Government keeps on saying that the only way to do so is by way of race classification. [Interjections.] No, I do not have time to answer questions.

The two points I have raised, therefore, are direct participation in the central Government and the option of the individual in respect of the group to which he wants to belong, in whatever field. That is the PFP’s attitude.

Secondly, when it comes to negotiation, I have two words of caution. I must mention them because the hon the Minister has been trying to negotiate for some time, and I do not think he will succeed if he persists in the style he adopted today, in effect saying: “We are carrying on regardless”. I have to say that that is the worst way of trying to get people to the negotiating table.

I must warn against negotiating on the basis that a new and agreed solution will be built upon unilaterally imposed foundations. We are looking for a new, agreed solution, broadly based among all the people of South Africa, but at the same time the Government is proceeding apace to lay the foundation stones of a new constitution unilaterally. That is what the hon the State President said; he said we had to govern ourselves into a new constitution. [Interjections.]

I believe that there should be a negotiated solution, and that such a solution requires give and take. I do not think any group has the total answer. Negotiation means compromise.

That is what I said.

In that case, the hon the State President and the hon the Minister must not give the impression that we have already laid the foundation. They are saying: “We Whites of the NP have laid the foundations and you must come and help us to build the superstructure”.

But we did not say that! [Interjections.]

He did say that. This is what is happening in practice. Then he must say that he will, in fact, accept that these foundations could be proved wrong, and that we have not embarked upon the NP’s path of evolution.

The fourth issue I want to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister and the hon the State President is the question of the political environment which has to be created. I believe a large part of the reason for there not being negotiation is the fact that there is the wrong political environment. Let us say that some of the wrongness of the political environment comes from the radicals; it comes from people who do not want to negotiate.

Equally, however, this Government will realise that it too has a responsibility to create the right political environment. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning knows this, even from the memoranda that have been submitted in respect of participation in the National Council. Many Blacks who would like to negotiate this matter say that the political environment is not yet correct. There should be free mobilisation of Blacks and the unbanning of certain people. This should happen not because one likes or dislikes them, but because that has to be an essential part of creating the right political environment.

While it is true that the political environment of intimidation does not promote negotiation, it is equally true that the political environment of restrictiveness does not promote a mood for negotiation.

I put it to the hon the Minister that we are desperately anxious to see that negotiation starts in South Africa. We will do what we can. However, we must say that negotiation will only start, not when the Government says what is appropriate but when they have created a political climate in which people genuinely feel that there is a mood to negotiate. They must feel that they can be included in the sovereign central Parliament of South Africa and that they are not compelled to use race classification as the basis of their participation in government.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to deprive the hon the State President of the pleasure of replying to the hon member for Sea Point’s speech. That is why I want to turn my attention to the Official Opposition.

I want to begin with the statement that the Official Opposition never misses an opportunity to avoid speaking about partition in this House. Is it not interesting that they never speak about partition? It is never the right time. In the no-confidence debate the Government’s policy had to be criticized. In the Budget debate the Government’s policy had to be criticized. In the discussion of the State President’s vote the hon the State President had to be criticized. We never get round to partition, however. There is only one way we can solve this problem, and that is for us to move a private member’s motion from this side of the House at some stage or other.

The CP’s slogan is freedom through justice. “Freedom through justice!”—that is apparently their banner these days. Freedom, according to CP policy, means self-determination through partition. This slogan, however, also has a second component, that of justice. HAT defines justice in the following way: “In accordance with what is right; proper, impartial, fair, honest”. In brief, as the hon the State President said, one can only arrogate to one’s self what one is prepared to grant to other people. This concept of justice ought not to be foreign to members of the CP, because their leader is a theologian and there are several other theologians and legal men in their ranks. Surely that is a concept on which their entire discipline is based.

Let us assess the CP’s policy on the basis of the concept of freedom through justice. Let us make this applicable to the Indians. In their booklet Programme of Principles, paragraph 2.2.2, it is stated that the present Indian Group Areas form the basis of the future state which will be established for them. At the moment these group areas consist of approximately 124 parts, covering an area of 51 000 hectares. If we convert this into a percentage of our country’s surface area, it is 0,045% of the Republic’s surface area. They then go on to state that the heartlands have to be determined scientifically. We have been waiting for that for six years now.

I really want to express my sincere thanks to the hon member for Lichtenburg who has announced precisely where the Indian homelands will be. The hon member said the following at a candidates’ meeting in Pretoria: “The Indians can have the area between Stanger, Durban and Pietermaritzburg.” In other words, they will have approximately 124 small group areas plus this area between Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Stanger.

I went to have a look at this area. It is a decent piece of land comprising approximately 350 000 hectares. It is a fairly extensive piece of land, but there is one small problem. Approximately 215 000 hectares of this land belongs to KwaZulu. I do not know whether the hon member for Lichtenburg is going to negotiate with Chief Buthelezi to get the land back. I hope his scientific planning has included that. If they do not want to give that piece away, what remains covers an area of approximately 135 000 hectares. If one adds that to the portion already situated in the homelands, this comprises approximately 0,166% of the country’s surface area, in other words a little more than one thousandth, which the CP wants to use as an Indian homeland.

What they do not add is that 80% of these 135 000 hectares includes the best sugar-plantations in our country. If one calculates the value of the sugar-plantations at a conservative R15 000 per hectare, one sees that this piece of land for the Indian homeland costs approximately R2 billion. That is not what bothers me, however, because it is nonsense. What does bother me, in fact, is that the hon member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. He was also a Deputy Minister who worked with these things. So why does he not tell us what is going on here? Why does he keep these facts from the people?

He is going to reply to you!

Is that freedom through justice? Is it impartiality if one does not consult anyone? I think hon members of the CP must suffer from constant insomnia.

Let us put their policy to the test as far as the Coloureds are concerned. The facts are precisely the same. We have also been waiting six years to hear particulars of their Coloured policy. At the moment there are approximately 341 group areas for Coloureds covering a surface area of approximately 96 000 hectares. This is approximately 0,0855% of the RSA. The hon CP members are saying we should not forget about the rural Coloured areas. The latter cover approximately 1,5% of the country’s surface area. What they do not tell us is that barely 74 000 people can make a living in those rural areas. They can hardly survive there. The rest of the 2,7 million Coloureds must therefore be crammed into an area covering 96 000 hectares. We must not forget that this is freedom through justice! [Interjections.]

The hon member says a scientific investigation was carried out, because his constitution provides that one can only determine the Coloured homeland by way of a scientific investigation. The hon member, who is the deputy leader of the CP has now indicated to us, after six years, where the Coloured homeland is going to be, and we are grateful to him for that. He says gone are the days of “pasella wena”. He says the Coloured people already have enough land in urban and rural areas within which to develop their own identity. The myth of an own Coloured homeland has now eventually been given substance, and what we have is this small number of group areas plus the rural areas.

My question is: Is this right? Is it fair to treat people like this by jam-packing them onto such small pieces of land and then thinking one can have a slogan such as “freedom through justice”? I think it is a farce. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said it was an illusion for us to want to get away from numbers. I want to tell him that it is an illusion for them to want to implement a policy of partition without the necessary land on which to do so. It is an illusion to think that one can introduce partition without violence. I want to conclude by offering hon CP members an alternative slogan which ties in more closely with their policy, and that is: Freedom through selfishness.

Mr Chairman, here we have again had a typical example of an NP which states that the CP is misleading the voters, but which does the very same thing here on a gigantic scale.

The hon member said that it was on those small patches of land to which he referred that the CP wanted to jam-pack those people. Why did he not add, to all the things he mentioned, that that same area between Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Stanger already accommodates 76% of all the Indians of South Africa? Why did he not tell the people, too, that 50% of the Coloureds were already in that area? Why did he not go further and state that what the CP says—I also said this in the Pretoria City Hall—is that those areas can be extended by way of land-exchanges or the purchasing of land? Why did he omit to say that? [Interjections.]

With whose money? [Interjections.]

Order!

That is typical of that party. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday vehemently objected here to the fact that the CP had stated that it was going to endeavour, within 10 to 15 years of CP Government, to have 65% to 70% of all Black people back in their own fatherlands. I want to tell you that the CP is serious. We are not joking. That is what is going to happen. [Interjections.] Hon members will see it happening when the CP comes to power. [Interjections.]

Since we are now speaking about Natal, the Black people in Natal, outside KwaZulu, decreased by 21% between 1980 and 1985. In KwaZulu they increased by 35%. In 1980 there were 1 086 000 Black people in Natal, outside KwaZulu. They decreased to 854 000 in 1985. Their numbers decreased by 231 922.

But the borders were moved!

This means that their numbers decreased by 46 000 per year. Then they come along here and say they would have to move so many thousand per day with bulldozers.

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

No, Sir. Their numbers decreased by 46 000 and the Government did not even know about it. How many did they move with bulldozers? Not one. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who works with the Black people, cannot even get a bulldozer started. They did not even promote that move, and that is why we are saying that in Natal, where less than 10% of the Black population lives, their numbers have already decreased by 46 000 per year over the past five years. Throughout South Africa the CP is going to promote the circumstances which gave rise to that.

Why do they not also tell the voters what their policy for South Africa demands? Why do they not state that Prof Mostert of the HSRC has said that in a unitary state in South Africa 175 houses per hour would have to be built, or 1 400 per day? That is 7 300 million per year. He said that that should have been done from as early on as 1985, but it was not done. In other words, what they want to do is not viable—they are changing South Africa into one huge slum.

There is a second … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Parow has finished speaking.

I want to expose a second untruthful pronouncement of theirs. The hon member for Sasolburg said yesterday—as the hon the Minister of National Education said on television in the debate with my hon leader—that I dismissed the linking policy as impracticable. Let me tell that hon member that that is not true. It is a gigantic untruth. I am a great, enthusiastic supporter of the linking policy. I was in the past, and I always will be. It is a blatant untruth that he told. [Interjections.]

Now I want to discuss the announcements made by the hon the State President, not so much because the scope of those announcements are important, but owing to the course the hon the State President has adopted.

He held up the promises he had previously made, ie that Blacks would be introduced into the highest legislative and executive authority in South Africa, stating how he was going to do this. He also announced other changes, the first—having nothing to do with the course he has adopted—being that now, in the place of a single State President, there would be both a Prime Minister and a State President. After ten years the hon the State President has come full circle, arriving at the point where he began. At that stage we had a Prime Minister and a State President, and now he is going to introduce this again.

In the meantime he has done a great deal of business. He has not made any money; just has lost a great deal. He has built up a top-heavy governmental structure which has the ordinary little voter groaning under its weight. Now a new expensive post is to be created, and I want to predict that it is going to be the post in South Africa with the greatest potential for a brush-off with a golden handshake of more than half a million rands, or perhaps even much more than that. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President accepted the concept of a federation. He has now accepted that Blacks are to be appointed to the Cabinet. He has also accepted the election of Blacks, by elected regional authorities, to the State President’s electoral college. I now want to ask the hon the State President a question. I think he owes South Africa an answer. Would Mr Govan Mbeki qualify for election to that electoral college by the Black people, or is he disqualified before he starts? Would Archbishop Tutu qualify to serve in that electoral college of the State President or not? I also want to ask the hon the State President whether they will only have seats there for electoral purposes, or whether they will also qualify for election as State President.

There is something else I want to ask the hon the State President about the electoral college. Are the Black people, who are going to represent 10 million, 20 million or 26 million people, regardless of the number of authorities they are divided up into, going to have an absolute majority in that electoral college on the basis of the fact that the numbers they represent in separate groups are in the majority? Justice requires this to be the case. If it is not, are the five million Whites going to have the absolute majority in that electoral college? The protection of minorities requires this to be the case. That is why the hon the State President has to tell us where his choice lies—justice or the protection of minorities.

The hon the State President’s announcement also clearly illustrated that a few years ago the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was correct when he said that a Black man could become State President. When he said that, he was in no way repudiated, but yesterday’s announcement proved that he was right. Likewise the hon the State President’s repudiation or admonishment of the hon member for Innesdal is of no value at all—in the future he will be proved to have been correct, in the sense that the ANC will have seats in the highest legislative authority in South Africa. What the hon the State President told him, in truth, was that he was just being a little hasty; he should not have said it yet. That is something for the future, a tune to be played at a later stage. [Interjections.] The truth of the matter is that with the course adopted by the hon the State President, things cannot but move in that direction.

I want to put a further question to the hon the State President. He said that matters of common concern to the Whites, Coloureds and Indians would be dealt with in the present Parliament. The common interests of the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are going to be dealt with in the “great indaba”, which could develop into a Parliament. For what reason are the joint affairs of Black people living in Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu to be dealt with in the federal Parliament, whilst the joint affairs of the Coloureds and Indians living in Mitchells Plain and Athlone are dealt with here, and also in the federal Parliament? Those joint affairs are being dealt with in two places.

The hon the State President clearly intimated that there would be two President’s Councils—a larger and a smaller one. Discussions would take place in the larger President’s Council, and the Black people would be represented there. In the smaller President’s Council, which would have the final right to take decisions, the Black people would not be represented. They would not have representation there because their general affairs are not dealt with here, but in the federal Parliament.

I therefore want to tell the hon the State President that each step he is taking is a more illogical step than the previous one. What is required of him is to correct that illogicality and injustice. Ultimately there can be only one outcome, and that is his not being able to get past the fact that Black people will have to be represented in that central federal Parliament or indaba. They will, of necessity, have to be in the majority if any justice is to prevail. It will be tantamount to the position in every African State—those in office will not be the moderates, but the radicals.

In all humility I want to tell the hon the State President that the commendable characteristics he advocates—peace, co-operation and the broadening of democracy—cannot be achieved by the policy he is adopting. It can only be achieved by the CP’s policy of partition.

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Lichtenburg has the floor, I always find myself greatly admiring the fact that so much hot air can emanate from a man of such small stature. [Interjections.] I honestly do not want to get personal, but the hon member is renowned for the wild allegations he frequently makes. I am reminded of the fact that one of his allegations was the subject of an inquiry by a joint select committee. And these allegations today are in keeping with the style he adopts. I am sure the hon the State President is expectantly looking forward to that pleasurable moment when he can settle scores with the hon member for Lichtenburg himself.

It is not difficult to become emotional in South African politics. It is the easiest thing in the world, because South African politics involves people. Since Union we have been grappling with the question of granting various people full-fledged rights in the same territory and of maintaining sound relations. In the process, of course, there are certain things which can stir up emotions. The hon member and his party make particularly free use of this. Here I am referring, for example, to numerical inequality and prosperity. Those aspects are also exploited by the hon member’s party.

It is easy to become emotional in this way, particularly in the times we are living in. Ultimately, however, South Africa’s future lies in each of the diverse elements being accorded its rightful place. Sound relations will have to be maintained and there will have to be mutual respect. I am only afraid that the kinds of speeches we have had to listen to from the opposition could lead to disturbances and to the deterioration in the relations between groups.

Just look at what is being said to the Whites in propaganda documents and speeches in this House. They are told that White taxpayers are being bled dry for the sake of giving certain facilities to non-White groups. They are told that this is unjustly being done.

We, as elected White leaders, have a task to perform in this Parliament, and that is to preserve this Parliament as a mechanism for working out future constitutional blueprints. If we carry on in this way, I am afraid that we will be polarising people in South Africa.

Everything the Government is doing for the upliftment of other races is being exploited and is being viewed from the point of view of injustices being done to the Whites. In the process this is hardening the hearts of the Whites towards the other groups in this country. The Whites are being polarised. Not only are the Whites being polarised in the process; the non-White races are also being polarised, because what is the Official Opposition telling the voters of South Africa? They are saying that if they were to come to power, all the needs of the Whites would first be met before any attention was given to those of other groups. The needs of other groups would take second place in planning in South Africa.

The constitutional dispensation being presented to the Whites is one in which they have all the rights, all the claim to rights and to the wealth in South Africa. I think it was the hon member for Brits who spoke yesterday of a “burning spirit of freedom”. The freedom which the CP is seeking is an escape from its responsibility towards the other races in South Africa. That is the kind of freedom they are seeking. The spirit which he says is burning in their hearts is the spirit of greed and selfishness.

How would the non-Whites be treated if the CP were to come to power? They would have no civil rights and it would not be possible for them to own immovable property. The other day the hon member for Ermelo said it was a sad day for South Africa when we decided to give non-Whites the right to own land in their own areas.

They will also have to assume an inferior role in the Public Service. The other day the hon member for Losberg took exception to the fact that a non-White policeman answered the telephone when a White woman wanted to lay a charge.

What is more, as if they would contaminate the Whites in some or other way, they are going to be excluded from all sport and, last but not least, there are churches to which they will no longer have access either. Nor will they have any share in any form of administration or governmental decision-making. Those are some of the conditions which this party holds out as possibilities if they were to come to power. That is music to the ears of the revolutionaries.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition expressed his disapproval of the ANC. I want to tell him that with such an opposition, which is causing this kind of polarisation, the ANC does not need any friends. [Interjections.] It is tragic, but it is the truth. Surely the CP cannot polarise Black people, by their actions and their speeches, and then tell me it is scandalous for me to say such things.

Once Whites and non-Whites have been completely polarised, this Parliament of South Africa, as a mechanism for change, is going to disappear.

You also said that 40 years ago.

That is correct, and because it is true, I shall repeat it. I want to add that I think the time has come for the Official Opposition, in the interests of South Africa, to stop making such irresponsible statements. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman must please forgive me if I do not react to his speech, except to say that I basically agree with what he said and with his overall approach.

Before returning to the debate, there is something else I should like to touch upon, and that is the repugnant and objectionable acts perpetrated yesterday at synagogues in Durban. I think that the majority of decent, thinking South Africans cannot but be shocked at what happened there. In this connection there are two points I want to raise. On more than one occasion the hon the State President rightly emphasized that freedom of religion was one of the cornerstones of South African society. He also rightly pointed out that in the preamble to the constitution it was stated, as a primary goal, “To uphold Christian values and civilized norms, with recognition and protection of freedom of faith and worship”. It seems to me the Government cannot now be indifferent to such conscious efforts being made by people to violate this fundamental principle, people who are, indeed, out to do irrevocable damage to group relations in South Africa. I want to appeal to the Government to do everything in its power to put a stop to such conduct, or at least to act against those who are responsible for this.

The second point I want to mention is that South Africa already has the image, in the eyes of the outside world, of being a bunch of racists as far as relations between Whites and non-Whites are concerned. The last thing we can afford is to create the impression, in the eyes of the outside world, that we are a bunch of anti-Semites and that anti-Semitism is a daily manifestation here.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I merely want to point out to the Government that the two parties which have been prohibited in West Germany, in terms of that country’s constitution, are the Communist Party and the Neo-Nazi Party. That was done because they were both undemocratic. Since the Communist Party has already been banned, I want to ask the Government whether the time has not come to consider taking action against bodies very clearly guided by Nazi principles.

I want to come back to yesterday’s debate and in particular, to the hon the State President’s speech. I want to say at once—not that he needs my protection, and the hon the State President must not hold this against me—that I think his reaction to the speech of the hon member for Sea Point was petty and unworthy of him as State President. The hon member for Sea Point responsibly and analytically—not with any extreme aggressiveness—discussed here what, in his view, the results of 40 years of NP Government had been and what the results of the hon the State President’s 10-year term of office had been, first as Prime Minister and then as State President. He also expressed his appreciation for the positive things that had taken place over the past seven or eight years under the direction of the hon the State President.

In spite of what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, it seems to me that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between the hon the State President as a political leader and his role as State President per se. For the sake of general constitutional consideration, I want to ask whether the time has not come for the hon the State President to relinquish that dual position, because the State President’s task is primarily that of uniting the diverse elements in the South African population in joint allegiance and loyalty to South Africa. I doubt whether he can also do this in his capacity as leader of a political party.

Permit me, in this context, to focus on one concrete point. I am referring to the discussion that took place here—it was introduced by the hon the State President—on the PFP’s attitude to sanctions. The PFP has repeatedly stated that it is fundamentally opposed to sanctions and to the policy of disinvestment. It has repeatedly stated that it is opposed to any form of violence aimed at bringing about constitutional change in South Africa.

I cannot believe that after we have repeatedly said that, the hon the State President is not yet aware of the PFP’s explicit attitude concerning this matter. I therefore cannot understand why there was this—I do not know what word to use; “provocation” is too strong—casting of a reflection by implication before the hon the State President was, in fact, sure whether the PFP was opposed to sanctions and violence. That was before the hon member for Houghton had very clearly replied to his statements. [Interjections.] I honestly want to say that I cannot understand this, because the hon the State President surely knows what the attitude is which we consistently adopt on that point.

I now want to come back to the question of constitutional matters broached by the hon the State President and the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon member for Sea Point has already replied indirectly to several points raised by the hon the State President and also directly to those raised by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I merely want to state that I associate myself with the statement the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made about it being common cause that the overriding problem in South Africa was the political accommodation of the Black population. That remains the overriding problem. Secondly it is also common cause that there is no instant solution and that this will be a process that will inevitably take time. Thirdly it is also common cause that any new constitutional dispensation must be the result of proper negotiation. And that is also what the hon the Minister said here.

He then added something that I could not understand, ie that they were now tired of the rhetoric of negotiations politics. He said that the Government had now obtained a mandate and had now decided to proceed. There is a fundamental conflict here. One cannot say, on the one hand, that one believes in negotiation as a necessary basis for arriving at a satisfactory dispensation, even if it takes time, and at the same time say that one is tired of the rhetoric of discussional negotiations and has decided to go ahead. He cannot say, on the one hand, that a one-sided solution cannot be enforced and then say, on the other, that it has been decided that they are finished with that process, are tired of it and are now going ahead. Those are two fundamentally conflicting aspects.

I am sorry the time does not permit to do so, because I would have liked to go into the various proposals made by the hon the State President here. I want to say that there is something that I find shocking. If the hon the State President found it necessary to have a Vice State President in our constitutional dispensation, I could understand it, but why a Prime Minister? Traditionally a Prime Minister is surely the representative of a majority party in this House, or in the new Parliament. To my mind it detracts from the whole concept of premiership to speak of a Prime Minister in that context. I regret not having the time to go into that.

By way of summary I just want to indicate what my reaction was to the hon the State President’s proposals which, of course, will be properly analysed and considered when we have them before us in envisaged legislation or in some or other form. My tentative reaction is very clear, and I want to summarise this in four points.

Firstly the hon the State President’s proposals offer no solution to the basic problem of our country, because if we want to accommodate Blacks, this must be done democratically.

My second reaction is that what we heard here yesterday simply means that there will be a greater concentration of power in the hands of the State President.

My third reaction is that this is clearly not a broadening of the democratic base, but that those proposals simply involve a further extension of the policy of co-optation and consultation and therefore do not make provision for true negotiation.

Fourthly, the principle of unilateral decision-making is still being maintained. I think the time has come for completely new initiatives to be taken. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier referred to the necessity for maintaining freedom of religion. I think we all have to agree with that. He also mentioned certain other matters to the hon the State President which I am not able to reply to.

I should like to refer briefly to the tricameral parliamentary system. Recently it has become the custom, particularly as far as the Official Opposition is concerned—we saw it in this debate too—to try to discredit this system. They say the system does not work, and it is also their policy ultimately to abolish it. This system is now virtually four years old, and I think it would be reasonable if we assessed it at this stage to ascertain whether it was working.

There is no doubt that as a legislative body it is far better than its predecessor. In the first three years of this system’s existence, 328 acts were passed, only a few less than the number passed by the previous body in three years. Nor is there any doubt that the quality of the legislation of this institution is far better than that of its predecessor, because standing committees discuss each piece of legislation in depth, because there is much greater opportunity for outside people to make contributions and, last but not least, because the opposition has much more of an opportunity to make a concrete contribution in the passing of legislation.

As important as the extension of the legislative authority, is the fact that the executive authority has been extended. The leaders of the Coloured and Indian population have, for the first time, been given an opportunity to be responsible for very important matters and to decide on matters intimately affecting their communities. That is a very important constitutional step that was taken. If one bears in mind the absence of a parliamentary tradition, and the lack of experience of the groups brought into the system, I think that history will yet prove that not only the implementation of this system, but also the system itself, has been a great success.

It is true, of course, that no man-made creation is without its flaws. Improvements can be brought about, and it also has to develop as an institution. We must tell one another clearly, however, that there is no other workable institution to accommodate the aspirations of these three groups. The success of this system is not dependent upon all the groups having to agree. Democratic institutions, such as the Westminster system, take it for granted that there must be differences, and for that reason the success of this system must not be gauged by the absence of differences amongst the various groups. What is in fact important—it is important for our survival as a civilized country—is that the representatives of the various groups use this institution as a mechanism to build up a better South Africa in an atmosphere of harmony and co-operation with one another.

For that reason I am saying that it is counter-productive to try to demolish the system as the CP is doing. Let us build up and improve the system and forge ahead, as the hon the State President asked us to do yesterday.

The debate is coming to an end and we have still not been given any solutions by the Official Opposition. There is, however, a new magic formula being used, ie “Urge to freedom”. I would specifically like to refer to the hon member for Brits. I am speaking to him as someone who is as old as he is and in whose veins the idealism of freedom flows as strongly as in his.

I want to tell him that that side of the Committee cannot teach this side of the Committee anything about freedom. [Interjections.] The cornerstone of the NP is the urge to freedom. The Whites’ freedom and security are a top priority of this side of the Committee, but then freedom and security in all its logical consequences; not security based merely on arms, but security based on a just constitutional dispensation, security on a communal footing. There can be no freedom or security for the Whites without a workable constitutional dispensation in South Africa. That is why it is also important to look to the interests of the other groups.

That side of the Committee must be careful that their urge to freedom does not turn into either self-glorification or licence, and they should have a brief look at our history. In our history there are examples of that.

During the years 1860 to 1864 every small group of towns in the Transvaal wanted to establish its own Republic, and it was Paul Kruger who restored law and order. That made him a great man, but it also resulted in bloodshed and death amongst the Whites. They must be careful of that. They should do themselves a favour and read what NP van Wyk Louw said about this in his drama: “Kruger breek die pad oop”. The urge to freedom can also go wrong. The urge to freedom must be something positive and workable; otherwise it is doomed.

The hon the State President was accused in this debate of not giving the country any direction. After yesterday, nothing is further from the truth. Anyone who knows anything, knows that in the long term the security of the Whites is dependent on that of the Black man too, and what we heard here yesterday was a giant step in that direction. Why must the Whites, for example, exercise control over the education of the Black people? That is an own affair that we arrogate to ourselves. Why must we exercise control over their education? Why must the Whites alone assume responsibility for creating an equitable dispensation for all the groups in this country. It is vital for us to establish bargaining structures for that purpose; it is in the interests of the Whites.

The voters being represented in this House are seeking long-term freedom and security. They are not looking for short-term fanciful solutions in a Coloured, Indian or Afrikaner homeland, or free association which would only mean that the majority had a choice and that the minority did not.

They are seeking solutions that take into account the realities of Africa where paper guarantees mean nothing and where independence is not the final solution either. Anyone who looks at the rest of Africa, who sees what is happening there and then tells me that that is the final solution, does not know what reality is. We seek peace, freedom and security in co-operation and joint responsibility, but we also seek a leader who fearlessly and sincerely gives direction and guidance without echoing the opinions of others.

That is Andries Treurnicht.

We seek a leader who does everything necessary to build up a fine future for us. Yesterday we had that leader and that leadership here in this Committee. It is nice to be National!

Mr Chairman, concerning the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s statement about the success of the tricameral Parliament, I merely want to tell him that the true test of the success of the tricameral Parliament does not lie in passing colourless legislation; the test lies in Parliament’s ability to deal with any policy matters and ideological considerations that may emerge. Only then can one gauge whether this tricameral system is workable or not, and whenever that has happened, it has not worked.

At a later stage I shall come back to the hon member’s idea about the urge to freedom or the love of freedom.

I firstly want to come to the statement the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made about his need to create a community of interests. He also made use of a statement that I had supposedly made to designate that community of interests. According to the hon the Minister I supposedly said that a man would have the right to vote where he paid his taxes and where he lived. That is true, but what that hon Minister did not do—I am saying that he deliberately did not mention that, because he knows better—was to say that this concerned a debate about the question of the franchise that Blacks would get, in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, in the proposed open areas. It concerned the franchise in accordance with that party’s policy, and not the franchise we advocate, because surely that has never been our policy. We have never even wanted to give Black people proprietary rights. So there is nothing but mischievous intent in that. [Interjections.] In accordance with our policy Blacks would not get proprietary rights or the franchise in our own area.

That is typical of the way in which Chris argues.

I am saying that this hon Minister did this deliberately, because he knows better. It was said in another debate, but he came along and used it here. I am saying that that is a distortion of reality.

As a result of the recent by-elections, and in particular the Randfontein by-election, quite a few post-mortems were held, post-mortems which furnished interesting results. One statement was that the NP had lost there because the CP had exploited the confusion that existed amongst the voters.

That is true.

I now hear it is true. That is just like someone entering the ring, dropping his guard and then saying: “It is a pity you connected with my chin.” If one sticks out one’s chin, surely one is going to be punched. Does the NP expect us to sit still and, if there is confusion, not make use of it? Surely that party is responsible for the confusion. [Interjections.] That is one of the excuses being made.

Another excuse—the hon the Minister of National Education specifically made use of this—was that the CP had told a whopping lie. The big lie was that the NP was going to sell the Whites down the river. The CP is supposed to have made that pronouncement, and it is supposedly untrue. That is the excuse being made, and I shall come back to that.

We encountered another similar attitude, in particular from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who alleged that we had misled the voters by professing to have a specific policy, which we toted round from one meeting to the next, when in fact that policy was impracticable. He said that the voters did not know that that policy was impracticable. There is one thing I want to say about that. [Interjections.] It really is a terrible admission on the part of that indomitable party, with all the media, all the newspapers and the English-language Press at its disposal … [Interjections] … about the voters supposedly not knowing, according to them, that that policy was impracticable. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs appears on television so frequently that by this time he is almost transparent from over-exposure.

There is no confusion in the minds of the voters as far as these by-elections are concerned. On the contrary, we say there is certainty. Over a long period they became certain that NP policy would result in the Afrikaner being destroyed as a people. That is the inevitable consequence. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education, however, says no, the NP will not sell the Whites or the Afrikaner in this country down the river because—says the hon the Minister—they will not relinquish the hard-won freedoms of the people.

I merely want to say, Sir, that the love of freedom on the part of the hon the Minister, and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North too, has been completely dulled. If they regard, as freedom, the fact that in the highest chambers they themselves cannot even decide matters for themselves, that at the second tier of government they are governed by appointed Coloured authorities and that at the third tier of government, or the interim level of government, such as in regional services councils, they have also lost the sole right to govern themselves, and if they are happy with that state of affairs, they have lost and no longer know what freedom really means.

The hon the Minister of National Education says that we should not doubt the NP’s bonafides or its intentions as far as the interests of the Whites are concerned. We want to remind him of the old English adage which states: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” We do not look at words alone. We look at what someone does. We base our accusation about his selling us down the river on what he does. That is the basis on which we judge. We say, yes, he is selling us down the river. The PFP’s method of selling one down the river is by way of a cash transaction—a one-off effort and it is all over. The NP, however, does it on a hire-purchase basis—by instalments!

According to law one is regarded as being guilty of an act if one could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of that act would be. What did this NP do? It brought the Indians and the Coloureds into Parliament, in spite of the fact that it was warned against doing so, in spite of the fact that we said that if they were brought in, the Blacks would inevitably have to be brought in as well. The PFP advocated that they be brought in, but we foresaw that this would cause problems. The NP, however, went ahead and placed itself in the crush-pen from which it cannot extricate itself any more. They chose the power-sharing course and now they cannot turn around. I want to tell them that the reality of the situation is that they have placed themselves in a crush-pen. It is not the existing policy that failed, but the fact that they took the first step which is the cause of all the misery we are now experiencing.

Now we come to the next inevitable step, which we foresaw and which the PFP advocated, ie that of including the Black man. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon member for Primrose referred to the question of inflation and the combating of inflation. This is one of the greatest problems and enemies South Africa has ever confronted. There are many reasons for it. One of the primary reasons, I think, is that South Africa does not have sufficient productivity in proportion to its population. If we do not all work on the problem and remedy it, we shall lose the struggle against inflation and inflation will continue to impoverish those in the professions and in the labour community. It will gnaw at the entire economic stability of this country.

That is why the Government very appreciatively took cognizance of the President’s Council Report on a Strategy for Job Creation and Labour-intensive Development. The Government is in agreement with the finding that unemployment must be accorded the highest priority in the formulation and application of general economic development and growth policy. If we do not succeed in doing that, all our reform plans will be wrecked by that huge obstacle.

Reform does not merely mean that one must bring about political reform and development. Reform does not mean that one must merely give people more rights where they did not have those rights before. Nor does reform mean that there must be social and economic reform in order to allow a larger number of people to participate in the country’s productivity and its ability to maintain itself economically.

Since the Government began with a special job-creation and training programme in 1985, an amount of R663 million, including R100 million for 1988-89, has been appropriated for job creation. However, I agree with the hon member for Yeoville who said in a speech here the other day that the private sector should make a greater contribution to job creation. We must make it possible, through internal development, for more people to make a living, and in that way make a contribution to the economy of this country.

There can be little doubt that the various programmes launched as a result, besides the welcome relief they afford the unemployed, are also making a major contribution to counteracting the revolutionary onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. A few months ago, when I had a conversation with one of the liberal clergymen, I asked him whether he had ever gone to see what we were doing to bring about job creation and training in South Africa. He asked me where this was happening. In the meantime, however, he travels around in the outside world and appeals to all and sundry to help impoverish South Africa further.

Since the commencement of the programme, the unemployed have already spent 80 million man days on job-creation projects. During the period from 1 April 1987 to 31 December 1987, for example, an average of approximately 120 000 unemployed were employed on job-creation projects on any one day. While the State is comprehensively doing its duty in this sphere, the necessary enthusiasm on the part of our private sector in helping to create work is still lacking. Consequently many investments are being made in non job-creating undertakings, while justice is not being done to the depressed areas of our country. I am not saying this behind their backs, but to their faces. Some media need not present this now as though I am in confrontation with the private sector. Why should one be in confrontation with people if one is merely telling the truth?

As far as training is concerned, the Government has, parallel to the job-creation programmes, made an amount of R373 million, including R83 million for 1988, available for that purpose. Up to the end of December 1987, 326 training contracts have been entered into with training organisations in the private sector. In that area we did get help, and we appreciate it.

The training covers approximately 180 different fields of activity and enables the unemployed to find a means of livelihood. Since the commencement of the programme in 1985 until December 1987, 714 752 unemployed persons were trained. Is that not an achievement of which we should be proud? Is that not a matter which deserves the attention of all of us and to which we should jointly pledge our support, instead of scoring debating points off one another and displaying negativism in all our arguments with one another?

During the period 1 April 1987 to 31 December 1987, 157 035 unemployed were trained. To help the trained unemployed to find a means of livelihood, particularly in the informal business sector, training contractors are being encouraged, in close co-operation with the Small Business Development Corporation, to establish work centres at which the trained unemployed can work for themselves and in that way earn an income for themselves through the manufacture of articles for sale. Furthermore, virtually all persons who are trained are being accommodated in one of the following ways: Employment in the formal sector; employment in special building programmes run by local governments; the housing trust; acting as independent contractors doing miscellaneous types of piece-work in formal and informal sectors; and by entry into the informal manufacturing, sales and services sectors.

This is a huge social programme which is taking shape in South Africa. I wish we could be more positively disposed towards these matters, because if we do not succeed with this the revolutionary elements will erode South Africa to such an extent that it will not be possible for us to continue to strengthen the economy.

What do we get for that, however? We get the kind of speech that has just been made here by the hon member for Ermelo. It was a tragic speech by a man of his intellectual capacity. The recommendations of the President’s Council, which were aimed mainly at promoting greater job-creating economic growth, are in line with the long-term strategies the Government adopted earlier. For that reason the Government is going to request the Central Economic Advisory Service, under the direction of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr G Marais, to ensure that the recommendations of the President’s Council are carried out within the frame-work of the long-term economic strategy and the economic development programme. The fact that most of the recommendations of the President’s Council are already embodied in various White Papers and other policy statements of the Government, confirms the earnestness with which we are contending with this problem. Since the 1985 financial year the Government has spent approximately R1 000 million on alleviating unemployment in the short term. During 1986-87 R420 million was employed to provide serviced plots and low-income housing for Black communities. A further R750 million was allocated for low-cost spending in respect of Black communities. This morning we had to listen to that hon member telling us that the party on whose behalf he was speaking was opposed to property for Black people. The contribution which this makes to the creation of job opportunities should not be overlooked. The foundation which is being laid in this way, in the struggle against revolutionary elements, must not be underestimated.

I was the Minister responsible for housing in this country. I saw what it meant to remove people from shacks and tin shanties and from under bushes and give them a roof over their heads. I saw what it meant to place families in a community where they could rehabilitate themselves. I recall that I visited West Germany years ago when Paul Luther was the Minister of Community Development and Physical Planning in the Adenauer Cabinet. He told me that in West Germany they considered the housing of people and job creation for people as the fundamental principle that had to be established in order to win the struggle against revolutionary communism in that country.

We must accept that the same applies in this country. People can say what they like about this Government, but no government has ever done more in the history of South Africa to establish communities, to bring about social upliftment and to create housing for people of all groups—White, Brown and Black—than this Government. It stands as an everlasting monument to the NP. [Interjections.]

800 000 people homeless …

If the hon member does not keep quiet now, I shall call her “tannie” again. [Interjections.]

And I will call you “oom”!

In the report it is proposed that the development of rural areas should be positively intensified, and that the policy of decentralisation should be revised in order, inter alia, to facilitate its incorporation into a more integrated regional development policy. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will furnish more information in this connection.

I thought I would make this short statement because I wanted to emphasise that our political reform, our economic reform which I discussed at the opening of Parliament, and our social reform cannot each take place in isolation. They must be seen as one major strategy to strengthen South Africa’s capabilities, against revolutionary elements as well. That is why the revolutionary elements are losing. And that is why we shall continue with the measures we are adopting in the sphere of security, and also in these other spheres, to ensure that a better future is created here for all the people in South Africa.

Yesterday I quoted from De Borchgrave’s article, and particularly one sentence in which he referred to a “new form of censorship by omission”. I do not want to elaborate on that any further this morning, except to say that one finds the best example of “censorship by omission” in this morning’s English-language morning newspaper. There one had an example of “censorship by omission”, where they kept the truth from their readers. Fortunately they are the exception to the rule. I shall leave it at that.

The hon member for Sasolburg was correct when he said that the Afrikaners did not want to remain rooted in the journeys of the past, but, he said, if they wanted to participate in the building of a new future, they would have to move forward to new horizons. I want to congratulate him for having raised this point here, because we have to instil idealism into our young people.

†The hon member for Houghton said that we succeeded with Armscor because we could spend money freely because the sky was the limit. That is not correct. That comment proves to me that she is not au fait with what happened with Armscor.

The fact is that we have applied strict price and quality control in the manufacture of every product of Armscor. That has enabled us to compete with the outside world. The sky was not the limit.

*We had limited funds and were compelled to apply strict price and quality control. Armscor co-operated with the private sector. Of the more than a thousand contracts which there were at one stage, the vast majority of the contractors were from the private sector. Those private contractors were subjected to strict price and quality control. This not only enabled us to produce products that compared very favourably with those of other countries, but also enabled us to compete with other products on overseas markets.

I was talking about the initial development costs!

No, now the hon member is saying that she was talking about the initial development costs. There is always a loop-hole. One can do what one likes, but they always find a loophole. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mooi River said: Don’t taunt our friends.

†No, that is not our policy. However, then our friends must not allow themselves to be dictated to by revolutionary elements.

*What I take amiss of the West today is that they lend a willing ear to the lies and untruths of the ANC and the Communist Party that are disseminated throughout the world by their agents. The hon members on the opposite side know this. The hon member for Mooi River would be the first to admit it.

†We are not taunting our friends. Our friends are listening to people who do not mean well with South Africa. They are listening to people who want to destroy South Africa.

*They do so because there are at present inherent weaknesses in the West. Just listen to what a British Minister said on television last night. Do not quote me. Did hon members listen to him last night? I am referring to Mr Tebbitt, a very senior British Minister who spoke about South Africa yesterday. He said he was revolting against the absolute hypocrisy that existed in the West. My reply to the hon member is therefore that we are not taunting our friends.

I now want to say something here, and I know the hon member Prof Olivier is going to become angry with me again. Many items of gossip on South Africa that exist in the outside world today had their origin in this Chamber. I have been sitting here for many years. I have heard the stories about a police state. I have heard the stories about the tramp of jackboots. I have heard the stories about a Nazi regime. That grotesque propaganda against South Africa had its origin in this Chamber. At the time the hon member Prof Olivier was still a Nationalist. At the time he still agreed with me.

What about detention without trial? [Interjections.]

Do not taunt me. I may perhaps mention names!

The hon member for Umlazi spoke about the necessity for actions across our borders in view of the right every other nation makes use of to protect its interests elsewhere in the world. Recently the Americans again made use of this right. It is just a pity that the Americans have one set of rules for themselves, and another for other people.

I shall come back to the hon member for Bethal in a moment. I think I must first leave him for a while.

Let him sweat!

I shall come back to him again in a moment, when I deal with another matter. I found it interesting listening to him because he displayed a form of thinking which we must take into account in this country because it creates nothing but mirages. The hon member was creating mirages. Not the military Mirages but the kind one finds in the desert. [Interjections.] I shall come back to him.

The hon member for Mossel Bay referred correctly to the maze in which some hon members have landed themselves with definitions. They draw up a set of definitions for themselves. The one wants a White Boerestaat, the other wants an Afrikanerstaat, the other one wants a Blanke Staat and the other a Volkstaat, and for each of these states they establish an organisation. It is a question of confusion worse confounded!

They remind me of the American student who arrived at a student function with the letter “K ” on his T-shirt. They asked him: “What does it stand for?” He said: “Oh, this K? It stands for konfusion.” They pointed out to him that “confusion” was spelt with a “c” and not with “K”. His reply was: “By gad, man, you don’t know how confused I am!” This right-wing group of ours is so confused that their hatred of the NP is all that keeps them together! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member Prof Olivier will probably complain again that I, as State President, should not say that sort of thing. No, I must be a kind of jellyfish that can be kicked around by everyone. [Interjections.] Well, then the hon member must find himself another State President, because I am not a jellyfish. [Interjections.]

I took a look at precisely what I said about the hon member for Sea Point yesterday, because he was very incensed about what I had had to say about him. I do not want to offend him. Both of us have been in public life for a long time. We have no reason to try to belittle each other. We have often clashed, but in general I think we have retained respect for each other. I want him to know this. I have respect for him. We differ radically with each other, but I have respect for him. Yesterday I did not try to belittle him. I had a copy of my speech pulled from the files to see what I had said to him, and I do not find that I insulted him. All I said was that he came forward with pinpricks, which we had come to expect from him.

[Inaudible.]

In the absence of the hon member for Sea Point, the hon member Prof Olivier rushed in to protect him. I do not think the hon member for Sea Point needs that hon member’s protection; I think the hon member Prof Olivier needs the hon member for Sea Point’s protection! [Interjections.]

The hon member participated again this morning. Let me just make this point: The hon member, together with his party, was responsible for a joint decision taken by all the parties in this House, namely that we had to move away from the Westminster system.

As then applied.

As then applied. However, that is not all. He also said we must move away from the system which embodied the principle that the majority must take all. It is stated in that report of the select committee. [Interjections.] It is stated in that report of the select committee for which they voted, namely that inherent in the Westminster system was the principle of winner takes all. That is why we relinquished the Westminster system in principle. That is all this Government is doing. It is still consistently making adjustments and changes to replace the Westminster system in South Africa.

That is why I cannot agree with him that the course he is proposing should be adopted, because if I were to do so, we would arrive at a situation, which the hon member for Houghton herself has endorsed many times, namely that of supporting Black majority rule. [Interjections.] She will not deny it; she is frank and honest enough.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member said he had nothing against it. I say that such Black majority rule was put to the test in neighbouring states. It culminated in dictatorships and ultimately not only one man, one vote, but only one man with one vote.

Are you opposed to a Black government?

I am opposed to Black majority rule.

Thank you very much!

Is the hon member only discovering that now? [Interjections.] Just look at the old Rip van Winkel! This is the year of our Lord 1988, and he only discovers it now!

But I thought you were a Broederbonder?

What does the Broederbond have to do with Black majority rule?

They are prescribing it to you.

The hon member must ask his leader. He is a member of the Broederbond.

He is no longer a member.

Oh, he is no longer a member. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member for Overvaal to hold a discussion across the floor of this House. The hon the State President may proceed.

I do not want to reply to the hon member for Overvaal. He is like a cork in a bottle. I do want to tell him this, though. Yesterday he spoke about people being cheated. Now I want to choose my words very carefully. The old people had an Afrikaans saying: “Hy wat agter die deur staan, soek gewoonlik ander daar.” (He who lurks behind the door, is usually seeking others there.)

Would you say that outside as well?

Yes.

Very well, then say it. [Interjections.]

I shall say outside that he who lurks behind the door is seeking others there.

Now you are already running away.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must contain himself.

It seems to me he is, in fact, lurking behind the door. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Chief Whip must also contain himself. The hon the State President may proceed.

I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that he must reply to the question the hon member for Sasolburg asked him.

It is a lie. There you have the answer.

The hon member makes himself objectionable, and he is an embarrassment to everyone. He is an embarrassment to his own party; he is an embarrassment to South Africa; he is an embarrassment to all the people of this country. The sooner he, with his large body, realises that, the better. [Interjections.]

I think you are a greater embarrassment to the country than I am. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point went on to ask what I meant by the statement that we did not want mere paper guarantees. What I meant by that was this. We had one experience after another of paper guarantees in constitutions drawn up all around us. Does the hon member remember the Central African Federation, when Nyassaland and the two Rhodesias amalgamated into a large federation which was held up to us as the creation in Africa which would last forever? Those were paper guarantees; they were torn up one after the other. The hon member must listen now; he cannot speak to the hon member Prof Olivier now. That hon member cannot help him.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must listen to me now. What I was referring to was that there were paper guarantees of that nature that were also applied in the present Zimbabwe when Mr Smith and Muzorewa had to surrender the government. However, that availed them nothing.

What I am advocating is that we create structures in which the guarantees have been incorporated. We must not create paper guarantees. That is what I meant.

But what about the entrenched clauses in the Constitution?

The hon member said the present system was not working, but surely there are paper guarantees in the present system too. Surly he is then defeating his own argument.

What are your views on this matter?

My views are that we must also rectify certain things in the present system.

I come now to the hon member for Barberton, who is actually a very reasonable member of the CP. I have no ulterior motives when I tell him that I have always had the utmost respect for him. I think he knows it. Yesterday he made a very strange speech here, however, because without ever having thought about what was actually before the House with the statements I had made, he gave vent to a lot of wild allegations. This is not what we are accustomed to from him. I said, inter alia, that the President’s Council should become an advisory body, with the inclusion of other advisory councils as well, in order to prevent duplication. I elaborated on that. The hon member did not deal with that.

Secondly I said the decision-making function should be removed and should, under those circumstances, be transferred to a smaller body. Surely it is nothing new to have something like this. There are decision-making functions of this nature in other countries as well. If I am not mistaken there is a decision-making function of a similar nature in France. There is a decision-making function in Germany with a constitutional court. There are institutions for that purpose. The hon member knows about them, but he merely glossed over them, because he had to say something. It was not worthy of him.

The hon member spoke about members who would be appointed outside Parliament to exercise authority, but is the hon member not in favour of a Black person eventually having control of Black education?

In his own country.

But what about the Black people living here? [Interjections.] Is the hon member simply going to say “abracadabra” and suddenly they will have disappeared? Suppose he eventually succeeds in getting rid of them—let us accept that as an argument—what is he going to do in the meantime?

When I appointed the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid I said to him: Dr Viljoen, you must work yourself out of this position because the control of Black education ought eventually to be in the hands of a Black person.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister is in agreement with that.

In the fourth place I spoke about the electoral college that had to be constituted in a certain way. It was a suggestion I was making. I did not say it was Government policy. I merely said these were the things which we had to decide in the National Council and on which we would have to consult one another, because if there are Black people in this country, we will ultimately have to allow them some form of joint say over the election of a State President. A chorus of voices were raised: Oh, now a Black person can also become State President! But under the present system a non-White can also become State President!

Not a Black person! [Interjections.]

Hon members must wait a minute. Under the present system a non-White can become State President.

But not a Black person!

A Coloured or an Indian person can become State President. [Interjections.] They voted for that in 1977, and as they are sitting there, they accepted the 1977 proposals. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon the State President intimated that if material constitutional changes were going to be made, he would first go back to the voters. Is the question of whether Black people will be accommodated in the electoral college one of the matters which will first be taken to the voters?

But of course! The hon member need not be afraid, and I shall explain it in Pietersburg. [Interjections.] The hon member will give me just as friendly a reception before the time as he has already done before. [Interjections.] If there are Black people whom we cannot conjure away in our or our children’s lifetime with an “abracadabra”—I shall be coming to that in a moment—we will have to make provision for their being participants in such a dispensation. The question of whether the White man will retain his position in this country will not depend merely on a lot of Acts, but on his leadership ability and on his example of not constantly vilifying everyone whose appearance is different to his.

That is, in fact, South Africa’s problem today!

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

I want to tell the hon member for Barberton that all these matters are subject to the following conditions. The first is that the present system continues to exist until there can be a satisfactory result through consultation. In the second place White values of civilisation may not be jeopardised. The hon member knows as well as I do what they are, because both of us believe in them. In the third place democratic principles must be retained. Those are the prerequisites.

The hon member for Greytown said what the other hon members had said and had not said. I cannot fault him on that score.

The hon member for Stilfontein stated quite correctly that legislation alone could not protect the Whites, but I have just said that the will of the White leadership must also contribute a large share.

In the past few years I have held many talks with Black leaders, some of whom are no longer with us. In each one of them I observed a deeply-rooted need to share goodwill with the Whites. What I am asking is that we must not ignore this.

I come now to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and at the same time to the hon members for Bethal and Barberton. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said no one was quarreling about civilised values. That is not true, of course, because many people are. There are people inside and outside South Africa’s borders who are quarreling about civilised values, and about maintaining those values, but we must support one another more and attack one another less often.

In the second place the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said the NP wanted to create a unitary community (eenheidsgemeenskap). I wrote his words down. Surely that is not true.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not make such statements, because they are not true. They are not true. He said the NP wanted to create a unitary community. In none of my speeches will he find that I was advocating a unitary community. I have said a hundred times already that one can say tomorrow that we are a raceless state, and the next day we will still be a multi-ethnic state. Why does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say such things?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to my standpoint on the European situation. The European situation is already a confederal system as far as economic matters, military matters and partly, too, as far as political matters are concerned. He said there was no such thing. I maintain that we have the best example of this there. I am not saying that it will remain that way, nor am I saying that our confederal and federal concepts will remain the way they are forever, just as he cannot say it, but surely we are moving in step with the times in which we are living, in order to deal with our problems. I elucidated my whole argument, and summed it up in the following words on 15 October, which I should like to quote to him:

That is my standpoint. That is what I believe in, and I proclaimed it for years as Minister. I also did so subsequently in the Defence Force. Throughout my life I have tried to convey the concept of good neighbourliness, because I believe that once we have arrived at the point where every population community proclaims its own rights for itself without wanting to destroy the rights of others, we have then established a concept of good neighbourliness. Surely I need not tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what good neighbourliness means, because he grew up in areas in which his parents and forbears practised good neighbourliness.

I now want to deal specifically with the hon member for Bethal. I want to put a few questions to him. He said the CP did not stand for domination (baasskap). I accept that. The CP does not stand for domination. Does it stand for consultation? Does it stand for consultation on matters of common concern? Does he admit that there are matters of common concern, matters such as land utilisation, the combating of livestock diseases, health services and the training necessary to get the economy going, to which I referred a moment ago? If the CP does not stand for domination, then is must stand for consultation. The CP cannot get away from that—if it does not stand for domination, it must stand for consultation. Surely it cannot stand for nothing.

One would be surprised.

If the CP stands for consultation, there must be instruments for consultation, and then those instruments for consultation must get together. Let us be childishly naive this morning.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, I do not want to take up much of the time of this Committee, but there are nevertheless a few hon members whom I still have to deal with.

I want to come back to the hon member for Bethal. I accept that the hon member was speaking on behalf of his party when he said that they did not stand for domination or baasskap; they rejected that principle. That is to say, in removing millions of people from the White areas of South Africa, this will not take place unilaterally, but negotiation processes and structures for negotiation will have to be established to make this possible. [Interjections.]

If the hon member does not concede that point, he must accept that they stand for domination, because surely it is not possible to move 10 million or 15 million people unilaterally—we heard that Soweto must be relocated and other concentrations of Black people must be removed—without applying domination. If he rejects that—I accept that he is correct—structures must be established by means of which it is possible to negotiate on how to deal with that situation.

In the second place I then accept that the structures this Government has created, institutions such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa, which has a board of governors consisting of White and Black people, a board on which Cabinet Ministers and others are also represented, will continue to exist, because after all they, too, must now apply a policy in South Africa which is not based on domination.

Then I have to accept that if the CP were to come to power, all the other institutions that have been established so far by this Government to make consultation possible would continue to exist. If not, what kind of structures are going to be established in their place?

A very important matter is inherent in this. I do not want to associate the ANC with my hon friends opposite in any way, but I do want to point out to them the dangers of the policy that they have, in fact, adopted. The ANC communist party says all structures-in South Africa must be replaced by alternative structures of the kind they want. Can those hon members see how dangerous it is if we want to begin breaking down structures in this country? Can they see to what extent we are playing into the hands of revolutionary elements that also want to break down structures?

The hon member has just told us, however, that they do not stand for domination. I therefore accept that they will use existing structures to have their policy implemented, or otherwise he must tell me whether they are also in favour of breaking down existing structures and creating alternative structures and, if they are in favour of alternative structures, what kind of structures they advocate. We can no longer speak in vague terms, because I am being accused of speaking in vague terms.

There are many matters on which urgent deliberation must take place in South Africa. I mentioned a few, such as health services, agricultural development, and talks on the combating of diseases, which is becoming of the utmost importance in Africa, and in Southern Africa in particular. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development spelt it out here the other evening.

What structures do the CP envisage if they do not stand for domination? And how is it going to establish those structures without negotiation? We must get answers to these questions. The hon member for Barberton is deep in thought now, as I see him sitting there. He is pondering deeply now, because he knows what interests, inter alia, his constituency has, interests which are inherent in the principle of joint consultation. The hon member for Bethal knows to what extent the economic prosperity of his area is inherent in joint deliberation. It is an area of the Eastern Transvaal which cannot survive economically without the presence of the Black working masses there that serve as a source of revenue. What is his answer to that vacuum? Does the CP want to cause South Africa and the Afrikaners, about whom they wax so lyrical, to deteriorate into poverty for the sake of mirages? The CP must therefore not reproach us if we tell them and this country that they are conjuring up mirages to escape from the accusation that they are not adopting those standpoints out of fondness, but out of prejudice and hatred, for the party of which they used to be members. [Interjections.]

I shall leave it at that. Hon members must prepare their answers and give them to us. However, they must not begin talking again about freedom and overall co-operation and that kind of thing. We now want to know how they are going to deal with these problems.

The hon member for Parow correctly pointed out that there were a few minor problems. It is the understatement of the year! We shall have to push our opponents hard, because South Africa must find answers to these questions.

The hon member for Lichtenburg let us know that it was not possible for him to be here, and consequently I shall not try to reply fully to him except to say, as I have already said to him before, that when he was in the Cabinet and we had to deliberate on the amalgamation of Black land in the areas in the Lowveld, we asked him specifically, as the person responsible, what should happen to a certain area, whether it should be added to Gazankulu or KaNgwane or what. The hon member’s advice to us was that we should not give it to either of the two Black territories, but that it should remain part of the territory of South Africa and be administered from the White Republic. He knows what I am talking about and he will not deny it. [Interjections.] It is true. He must know that we are confronted by certain problems which are not easily solved. One will always have these problems, unless one is going to load up those hundreds of thousands of people and relocate them by violent means.

The hon member for Kuruman correctly pointed out to the hon member for Lichtenburg that he should not be so unbridled. The hon member for Lichtenburg was not always so unbridled, but something comes over him when he mounts a platform. It seems to me it is the audiences that enthral him, and then he simply lets fly. However, I shall deal with him on a subsequent occasion, because I do not want to say too much about him in his absence.

The hon member for Kuruman correctly made an important point, namely that we must not make the work of the ANC and the Communist Party easier for them, but more difficult.

I come now to the hon member Prof Olivier. He read me a kind of sermon, and now I will probably have to return the compliment.

No, I know you too well; I would not preach to you.

Look, we probably know each other well enough to enable us to preach to each other a little. [Interjections.] Surely we can preach to each other.

In his heyday the hon member was a very useful intellectual force on the National Party side. He then believed in virtually the same standpoints of total separation on a basis of equality. I concede that he always used to say that it must be accompanied by equality. Therefore the CP is, in fact, drawing on his intellectual ability of the past. [Interjections.]

That is a poor guess!

The hon member gradually began to deviate from those standpoints and then began to support other principles. Now I want to demonstrate to him where the liberal direction, in which he is now headed, leads one if one takes it too far.

This afternoon a report appeared in The Argus by a certain Ramsay Milne, of The Argus’s foreign service in New York. I want to quote to the hon member what is stated here:

One would say that these things were happening in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Pennsylvania has nothing to do with racism. I know—I was there.

I was not talking to the hon member for Houghton. I did not say a word to her, but now she starts talking. It is almost as though one presses a button and suddenly she starts talking. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member for Houghton to continue her running commentary.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the State President is talking to the House. Whether he says he is talking to me or not, I am included as a member of this House.

Order! That is not a point of order and the hon member should know it.

Mr Chairman, as a matter of fact I am speaking to the hon member Prof Olivier and he is sitting behind her.

So can the rest of us leave? [Interjections.]

In the recent survey—I am preaching now as he preached to me. This gives us an opportunity to deliver our sermons. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I am not going to allow the hon member for Houghton to keep on commenting. If we have to allow comments every time members disagree with the speaker, this Committee will become chaotic. [Interjections.] The hon member should also not talk back to the Chair. The hon the State President may proceed.

Sir, I have not yet seen a woman who does not talk back! [Interjections.]

Now this report continues:

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member for Houghton to display signs either. [Interjections.] Order! If the hon member for Houghton is trying to make a circus out of this Committee, she will find out that she is skating on very thin ice. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is there a specific rule in regard to displaying signs in the House?

Order!

Whether there is a specific rule or not, it is for the Chair to decide whether a member is conducting himself or herself properly in this Committee. The hon the State President may proceed.

I now come back to the hon member Prof Olivier. The report reads:

What is the point I want to make? The answer does not lie in the leftist liberalism the hon member now adheres to.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must listen to me now because he has finished speaking. Surely we know one another.

Ten minutes.

He can have another 10 minutes if he wants. I shall now resume my seat, and he can have 10 minutes quickly. He wants it. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that the answer does not lie in right-wing radicalism, because right-wing radicalism leads to confrontation. Nor does the answer lie in leftist liberalism, because it did not work in America. It is not working in America in regard to unemployment. It is not working in America at the universities. Nor is it working in America in the political sphere, because a Black Caucus was established. A Black Caucus—in the land of liberty? Why is there a Black Caucus if America is such a heaven?

I almost feel like drawing the comparison Dr Franz Josef Strauss drew when Pres Chissano asked him to bring me a message. The message was that we should allow more people from Mozambique to come to South Africa. Whereupon Dr Strauss asked him: “Can you explain to me why so many people from Mozambique, the heaven of socialist Mozambique, want to go to the hell of apartheid in South Africa?”

There is a Renamo there.

My answer to the hon member Prof Olivier is therefore that the path the PFP advocates is a path which also leads to chaos.

An understanding with people can only be arrived at on one basis, and that is one of good neighbourliness and recognition of one another’s rights and on the basis of reciprocal respect for one another. It is a long process and not a process that can be completed overnight.

It is now being said that we have been in power for 40 years. However, we have not been governing this country for 300 years. Other forces governed this country for 300 years, and the bungling done during that 300 years we cannot rectify in 40 years. That is the answer.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the State President, since I take it that he does not simply want to label people, to tell us what he understands the concept “leftist liberalism” to mean?

“Leftist liberalism” is laissez-faire politics which simply proceeds from the standpoint that the individual and the person is the decisive factor. Group interests and material cultural interests are not of the utmost importance.

I never said that.

That is what the policy of that hon member’s party amounts to. They have stated a hundred times already in this House that they stand for a non-racial South Africa. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell the hon member that all of us, including the CPs, if they were to co-operate, could decide in this Parliament this evening that tomorrow South Africa would be a non-racial society, and yet the day after tomorrow South Africa would still be a country of minorities and communities which differed from one another. [Interjections.]

Correct!

Very well. They then have a right to protection, they then have a right to realise themselves and not be dominated by a majority. [Interjections.]

Correct!

Very well, but then the hon member is becoming a Nationalist! [Interjections.]

No, you are becoming a Prog! [Interjections.]

I now want to continue my reply to the hon member Prof Olivier. He raised the point of the pigs’ heads that were placed in front of certain synagogues. Let me say this: Whatever hon members may say, I have been fundamentally opposed to Nazism all my life. Halfway through the Second World War I was taking the lead in combating and breaking up a large national-socialist movement in South Africa. No one can deny that. During that time I made myself unpopular among fellow Afrikaners because I said that it was wrong, and because I fought against a dictatorship among my own people. I have consistently adopted the standpoint that Nazism and Neo-nazism is wrong, because inherently, whatever is said about me, I believe in democratic principles, but I believe in a strong democracy, not in a laissez-faire democracy. I believe that democracy must be in a position to protect itself against the other systems. A weak democracy cannot do that.

The hon member raised this point. Let me say I think it is only sick people who can do a thing like that. People who can take a pig’s head and place it before the shrine of another religious group are people with sick minds. I think those people have sick minds, and I think they are the dregs of society.

Hear, hear!

I cannot express a stronger opinion than that. The Government has already begun to give attention to this phenomenon, because we know it is a small coterie of people who are adopting this course because they do not see their way clear to functioning in a democracy.

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs is at present giving his attention to this matter, because the registration of political parties is his responsibility. Even if we have to strengthen the legislation, we shall do so, if it can be done in a proper way as far as the law is concerned.

Secondly, the hon the Minister of Law of Order is also giving attention to this matter. However, it is no use our taking steps which cannot be consistent. To ban communism and the Communist Party is far easier, because the communist idea can be interpreted in a tangible and visible way. Neo-nazism, however, hides behind all kinds of cloaks. We are giving attention to the matter. South Africa will have to free itself from these people and their actions if it wants to get anywhere. I agree with that. I hope the hon member is satisfied.

The hon member took it amiss of me for referring, in passing, to sanctions. I never said that the hon member for Sea Point was not opposed to sanctions. I never said that. He can go and read my speech. All I said was that there were people in this country who were hiding behind the PFP and propagating sanctions. The PFP must rid themselves of these people.

There are people who are contravening the laws of Parliament—laws for which every hon member in this House voted—and who are marching with the cloak of Christ wrapped around them and breaking laws. Those people travel abroad and propagate sanctions against South Africa. I want the PFP to stand up and say that not only do they condemn this, but that they do not want such people behind them either. That is what I want. Then the PFP will make progress, something which is not happening at present. Things are going badly for the PFP. The hon member knows that things cannot become much worse. That was my point. It had nothing to do with the integrity of the hon member for Sea Point. I have nothing to do with the standpoints to which he adheres. The hon member came to see me in my office. He will probably not take it amiss if I mention this. The hon member came to see me in my office to discuss sanctions. I appreciate that, and I know that he also warned against sanctions in the outside world. I want the PFP to get rid of these ticks that are infesting them. Has the hon member ever seen how ticks drop off a gemsbok when it has been shot? There are people who are hiding behind the PFP, wanting all the while to harm South Africa. The PFP must rid itself of that label.

Who are these people? He does not say who they are!

Listen to the hon member for Houghton carrying on.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the State President a question?

Is the hon the State President prepared to reply to a question?

Oh, of course, any time! [Interjections.]

Sir, I would extend you the same courtesy. I want to know who these people are whom you are referring to.

I am referring to those elements who break the law in this country.

Name them!

I am referring to those elements who march against the laws of the country. I am referring to those elements who advocate sanctions against South Africa in the outside world. Is the hon member satisfied?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North correctly remarked that we could not dismantle an institution because it has faults. The tricameral Parliament is still in its infancy, and now everyone wants to dismantle it. Surely that is not right. One must rectify the faults. One must consult and rectify the faults if that is possible. Means have been incorporated into the Constitution by which faults that arise can be rectified. I am in full agreement with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I have almost finished my speech.

Hear, hear!

Oh, is that not our heart specialist talking?

No, it was not!

Oh, was it not that hon member? Oh, well, never mind.

I want to come back to the hon member for Ermelo. He said a very dangerous thing here. If he does not qualify it, it is very dangerous. He said that the CP did not want to give Black people rights of ownership. They do not want to give Black people rights of ownership! He did not say that he did not want to give Black people rights of ownership in certain cases. He stated categorically that they did not want to give Black people rights of ownership. Now how does that compare with the statement made by the hon member for Bethal, who said the CP did not stand for domination. Surely the two are irreconcilable.

Has it ever occurred to the hon member that if one does not give people something to defend, one is playing into the hands of the revolutionary elements? The greatest incentive one can have in the struggle against revolution is when one has something to protect. That is why I am in favour of our creating a growing, strong middle class among Black South Africans.

I am in favour of encouraging small business enterprises among Black people. I am in favour, not only of providing them with jobs, but of training people to take care of themselves. I am in favour of helping to provide housing, which they acquire on land they own. The moment that happens there will be millions of Black South Africans here who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Whites against the take-over policy of the revolutionary elements in South Africa. I therefore reject the attitude of the hon member for Ermelo, which I consider to be dangerous.

I want to conclude. This debate had a few outstanding features. There are many things on which we agree in South Africa. If we seize the opportunity of going forward together hand in hand, it can only be to the good of our country. This has become apparent from conversations and from speeches made across the floor of this House. There is a great deal on which we agree.

Another feature was the accusations that the Government had ulterior motives in its honest search for solutions. These accusations are irresponsible.

Thirdly—and I say this in all fondness—the Official Opposition and the PFP do not have a plan for South Africa. They do not have a plan for South Africa. The plans they do have are destructive and negative. [Interjections.] The Government and the NP is a movement with a plan. We are a movement with a plan of good neighbourliness and a plan of good hope for South Africa and for all South Africans. In humble gratitude to our Creator we shall continue to seek the truth and the solutions so that our future generations can continue to live in this country.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this is an exceptionally short amending Bill, which has become essential owing to circumstances with which I do not wish to deal now—I do not know whether it would be in the public interest to deal with them. The Standing Committee on Finance studied the Bill thoroughly and was unanimous that it was in the public interest, and in the interests of South Africa in particular, that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book immediately.

I think it was the standpoint of all of us that the practical problems which arose, namely not permitting rogues to escape owing to a lack of time, should be rectified. It is our standpoint that we should do everything in our power in this country to eradicate all forms of fraud, corruption, etc. As far as we are concerned, we shall give our full support to the Government of the day in its efforts to do this. Under the circumstances, this measure is an essential one, and we therefore have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are very grateful to the Official Opposition for the support we are receiving in this matter. I can assure them that we on this side of the House are just as determined to try, at all costs, to eliminate every form of corruption and the use of all loopholes in the current legislation of our country and to ensure that the people who commit such acts are brought to book.

This legislation arises from an unfortunate incident in the recent past when a bank in South Africa succeeded in enriching itself by applying the difference in value between the financial and the commercial rand for personal gain. In the process it also succeeded in establishing funds for itself overseas to which, as citizens of South Africa, those involved were not entitled. This institution, the Bank of Africa, succeeded, by means of a transaction of $119 million, in getting $40 million—that is about R80 million—out of the country, specifically at a time when our country was in dire straits because of the refusal overseas to roll over our normal foreign loans. In addition to the problems we experienced as regards the shortage of foreign funds, they succeeded, in their thoughtlessness and in their reckless failure to appreciate the rights of the country and its people, in taking an additional R80 million in dollars out of the country through trickery. In addition to the fact that they took $40 million out of the country, they also made a profit of $40 million on this $119 million. This is ultimately reflected in the higher amount which we, as ordinary citizens, have to pay.

I want to go further, however. This transaction would not have been possible if the financial rand had not been converted into commercial rands at a good, recognised commercial bank in South Africa. If that had not been possible, they could not have executed this trickery. I want to ask the hon the Minister today whether in this Currency and Exchanges Amendment Bill, the Government has any claim to redress against this bank, the officials of which permitted this offence—wittingly or unwittingly; this is not the question. The question is whether the Government has any claim to redress against this bank, through the agency of whose officials this fraud was perpetrated. I am convinced that in these difficult times which South Africa is experiencing, we cannot allow these people to slip through. I know I am making a very contentious statement, but I am convinced that if it is not incorporated in the Act, we must change the Act in such a way that we shall, in future, also be able to address these banks if such fraud is perpetrated by their staff.

This brings me to the next matter. It is occurring continually in South Africa that one piece of “trickery”—this is in inverted commas because it is still within the Act—after another is committed. Clever plans are made to cheat the receiver of revenue. I do not wish to take up hon members’ time on such a beautiful Friday afternoon, but I know of a case in which the buyers of a racehorse valued at R60 000 succeeded, through manipulation at the expense of the taxpayer, in enriching themselves to the tune of R800 000. That on one horse! At the same time the owner of the horse received R600 000 for a horse worth R60 000. This represents an additional enrichment of R540 000, plus additional tax benefits which I did not have the time or the knowledge to calculate.

Does that not make it a horse of another colour?

That is a horse of another colour sitting over there as well! [Interjections.] Perhaps he is at home in present conditions. I do not want to enter into a discussion with him about it. We shall leave the matter at that.

I consider it essential that the hon the Minister of Finance ask the Standing Committee on Finance to obtain information and hear submissions on the institution of an Act exactly like this Act but with retrospective effect. This type of “stealing” of money which should go to the receiver of revenue, must be curbed by such an Act. I want to repeat that I feel this case should first be investigated further before we introduce such legislation. I am convinced, however, that we shall decide, upon closer investigation and after hearing evidence, that we require such an Act as well.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will be supporting the amending legislation. It is very limited in scope and in fact only deals with an extension of the period from 12 months to 36 months, or a further period depending on the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Normally, when one is dealing with matters such as those which the particular provision does deal with, viz the blocking, forfeiture, etc, of money or property, one has to be very circumspect to ensure that individuals’ rights are not adversely affected.

At first glance one could say that the extension of the period of attachment from 12 months to 36 months or more could be seen as an inroad into an individual’s property rights. However, if one looks at the Act itself, one will see that there are considerable safeguards contained in the Act. In the first place the attachment can only take place in respect of a person who is an offender or is suspected of being an offender on reasonable grounds. Therefore there will be a lot of scope for any person against whom an attachment is attempted to go to court and to show that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that he has committed an offence. Furthermore, any third party, not being the offender himself, who may be in possession of the funds and who is a bona fide possessor is likewise protected from such attachment.

All in all we feel that the extension of the period—necessary as it is, as appears from the argument advanced in the introductory speech—creates no possibility of any undue infringement of rights by virtue of the extended period. We therefore give this Bill our wholehearted support.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the PFP for their support of this amending legislation. It is very sad that illegal currency manipulation continues to exist. I think it is an indictment of the moral decay of our society.

At present the Act provides for the blocking, attachment and interdicting, for a period not exceeding 12 months, of certain moneys or goods involved in a contravention of the regulations and, when applicable, their subsequent return to the person who is entitled there to. In practice the period, as has been stated, proved to be too short and the amendments extending the period are designed to overcome these existing problems. I think it is also clear that they do not leave the aggrieved person without any remedy. I think we need have no fear of that.

The Standing Committee on Finance unanimously accepted the amendments with some minor changes and, I think, demonstrated and endorsed once again the success of the standing committee system. I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who participated in the debate, first for their support of the suspension of Rule 33 and now for the amendment as well. The case before us is very interesting in the sense that at present people are before the courts for fraud and that we would have to repay R80 million without the right to reclaim it if we did not pass this Bill. It is true that the difference between the commercial and financial rand will always cause a clever person to try to take a chance.

I regret that I cannot expand on what the hon member for Heilbron said about banks which participated. I think the case is sub judice and we therefore have to wait until judgement is delivered. Unfortunately we cannot deny that banks played a part in making this fraud possible. The hon member for Heilbron is quite right that the participation of these banks was altogether unethical. We shall really have to think about taking further steps after judgement has been delivered. Not only are racehorses involved, but also boats, plantations and a whole string of other things. I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister and confirm that we intend bringing evaders firmly to book.

I thank hon members for their support. I think the Bill is in its last phase and has already been agreed to by all the other Houses. I hope we shall obviate the problem.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, when the debate was adjourned shortly before the recess, the hon members for Parow and Caledon had already spoken. In the course of my speech I intend to return to some of the aspects they mentioned.

Like the principal Act, the amending Bill remains totally unacceptable to the CP. Many of the things that the CP have said in the past about this legislation, for example that it indicates the new order that the NP wants to implement, an order which is alien to an ethnic policy (volkerebeleid) according to which every population group has the opportunity to govern itself fully and in its own area, are now being demonstrated, inter alia, by the third paragraph of the hon the Minister’s introductory speech, and I want to quote it:

The question that occurs to one is why the hon the Minister availed himself of this particular choice of vocabulary. Why did the hon the Minister chose the word “multiracial”, while he could surely have used any of the other fine-sounding words which serve to camouflage the true policy of the NP. He could have used words such as “multinational”, “joint”, “umbrella” or even “general” or “multicultural”. Those are but a few of these words which we hear being used by the opposite side of the House by way of camouflage. But no, Sir, the hon the Minister chose—and one must accept that he exercised his choice with care—a word which is traditionally part of the vocabulary of left-wing liberalism to which the hon the State President referred earlier today. He chose the word “multiracial”, in the idiom of the PFP and its adherents in South African politics. I think it is fair to say that it is but further proof that the NP has swallowed, boots and all, the concepts and thought processes of that party, the PFP, which is very near the end of its road.

Secondly I want to refer to what the hon member for Parow said. As a rebuttal of the valid argument of the hon member for Pietersburg, he quoted the Chairman of the Witwatersrand Regional Services Council to indicate how successful the regional services councils were. I merely want to tell the hon member that he could not have made a poorer choice when he had to decide whom he would quote to indicate how successful the regional services councils were and how successfully they had been established, because the Chairman of that Regional Services Council comes from the NP’s stable and is, in fact, not a person who was elected in accordance with democratic processes; he is one of the many appointed by the Government in order to try to implement its policy. One could not expect the Chairman of the Witwatersrand Regional Services Council to say anything other than what he was called upon to say due to his appointment to that office.

The hon member for Parow also said that it was fair that the farmers, the agriculturists, should pay this levy because they were, after all, going to make use of the services and facilities. That is not a valid argument, for the simple reason that the regional services council levy is a new form of taxation. It is a new form of taxation, which is not simultaneously accompanied by new services and new facilities. The levies which are going to be imposed in accordance with this legislation and which, inter alia, have to be paid by farmers, are a new form of taxation, while in contrast there is no question of there being any new services. One can merely quote in this regard. With the introduction of the principal Act the hon the Minister himself said the following in a newspaper article:

In the first place therefore this legislation does not seek to create new facilities and services for the communities which have to pay new taxes in terms of the legislation. It is primarily aimed at the development of Coloured, Indian and Black communities.

The most important consequence of the Act, and I quote the hon the Minister further:

I could also refer to what the hon member for Caledon said. The hon member for Caledon was speaking by way of a reprimand to the PFP, saying that the PFP was not in favour of a group-orientated governmental system, as if the NP were in favour of it. But this amending legislation is in fact an example of the way in which that measure of group orientation, to which the NP might still be favourably disposed, has been eroded and undermined.

I want to refer to page 3 of the hon the Minister’s speech, and I refer to the new section 12A which is being inserted by clause 15, in accordance with which the rural councils will not consist of a specific population group alone. In fact, it has been made possible, in terms of the new section 12A, to establish rural councils which are going to comprise more than one population group. If that is not total disregard of group orientation, I do not know what is. [Interjections.] It turns so-called own affairs into a farce. It turns local government into a farce, while it is now being maintained—something we dispute—that it is an extension of existing local government structures. It makes a farce of White local government and White participation in deliberations on that level of government.

No, Sir, the pressure will increase to established mixed rural councils, as the legislation provides, instead of a so-called White rural council, and eventually it will only be the CP’s policy which will be able to salvage the NP dilemmas arising from that.

The question now is how these elections for these rural councils are going to take place. If it is now possible for more than one population group to be represented on such a rural council, how are the elections of the members of that multiracial rural council going to take place? Is there going to be a common voters’ roll? Is the election as such going to take place jointly? Will posts on these rural councils be kept exclusively for White, Coloured or Indian members, or is it going to be a kind of free-for-all, in the spirit of the new South Africa based on equal rights, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or nationality? I think we are entitled to receive a reply on this from the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

May I refer to page 4 of the hon the Minister’s speech in which he referred to participation in deliberations? He spoke, inter alia, about such participation, individually or in the group context. In other words, here is a second example of the hon the Minister viewing this legislation in such a way that the group orientation must not be enforced or retained. Not only is it being eroded in the case of rural councils, but it is also being eroded by the statement made by the hon the Minister, namely that it must be possible for this participation to occur individually or in the group context. I think that is the spirit which we say will be the new South Africa that the NP supports.

May I refer to the penultimate paragraph on page 4 of the hon the Minister’s speech in which he referred to another basis which could be determined by the administrator if he were of the opinion that the determination of voting power could not be calculated on the basis of the purchasing of services by a specific local body? I think it is important and valid for one to ask what other possible bases are being considered here.

May I refer to the new section 15A? There are cases in which it is sensible and justifiable for one to make provision for regulations which can be made, inter alia, by a Minister.

If we take a look at the new section 15A we see that it is nothing but an acknowledgement that after all the consultations and deliberations, the new system of regional services councils are still in such a state of chaos, and will most probably create further chaotic circumstances, that it would be essential to allow the hon the Minister to govern effectively by way of regulations, under this amending Bill. We see that in subsections (6) and (8) of the new section 12A and it is seen especially in the section to which I just referred, namely 15A.

I want to return for a moment to the hon member for Caledon. He alleged—I accept that he was thus trying to justify or state that organised agriculture supported this legislation—that representatives of the Agricultural Union were involved in talks prior to the drafting of the Bill. I want to tell him that I am convinced that he cannot pride himself on organised agriculture supporting this legislation, neither the principal Act nor the amending Bill. We are standing with our feet on the ground, we go about among our people and we know that there is growing opposition to the whole system of regional services councils, also the way in which it is being formulated in this amending Bill.

The topsy-turvy way in which this system has been introduced is, inter alia, topsy-turvy because now, by means of this amending legislation, provision has for the first time been made for the representation of farmers, while they already have to register and are subject to legal obligation, not only to register, but also to pay levies, which is proof that this is hare-brained legislation and further proof that organised agriculture is not happy with it. The fact is that we now have a situation here in which regional services councils have been introduced and established, and at this stage farmers have to register, and taxes have already been levied and paid. The taxes have already been collected and can be enforced by the existing legislation without the farmers, in fact, having representation in any way whatsoever on the regional services councils. A basic prerequisite for paying taxes is surely that one must have representation on those bodies which impose the taxation. I think it is fair, at this late stage, to ask the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member whether what he has just proclaimed in respect of regional services councils also holds good for Blacks within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, in so far as income tax is concerned.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sundays River could probably have asked a far better question, and with the limited time available to me he will have to wait for a later occasion.

At this late stage we ask the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to complying with two demands before farmers are obliged to register. Agriculture must first have proper representation on regional services councils and also have the assurance that they will receive a fair share of the taxes which they contribute to a specific regional services council in a specific region when it comes to the expenditure of those funds. Alternatively, if the hon the Minister does not want to agree to a suspension of registration, he must at least postpone payment of the levies in terms of the existing legislation until those conditions have been complied with.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes available to me I should not like to reply to all the points the hon member for Potgietersrus singled out. I shall rather leave that to the hon the Minister.

The hon the State President put this cardinal question at the end of his speech: What are we going to do instead of negotiating? The hon member for Potgietersrus immediately demonstrated that they stood for domination (baasskap), because they reject the negotiating process. He had a lot to say about rural councils, but I shall return to that in the course of my speech.

He also wanted to know how members were elected. Is he not aware of the fact that organised agriculture has already drafted a constitution which they are making available to their farmers’ associations? When organised agriculture has completed its task in a region, and does not have members on its councils that will sabotage them as a matter of course, there will be no difficulty in establishing a rural council. That once again reflects the absence of agricultural politics in the ranks of the Official Opposition. There are no farmers among the hon CP members, and that is why physicians and attorneys in the CP have to get up in the House and speak on behalf of the farmers. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that last night I was talking to a farmer whose major complaint was that for seven years we had been promising regional services councils as well as farmers’ participation in them, but that they had not yet been established. It is not only the Northern Transvaal which talks like that; it is the whole of South Africa.

I want to quote from the unedited speech by the hon member for Pietersburg on 30 March this year. He said the following:

He went on to say:

This relates to rural councils and nothing else. He went on to say:

I want to quote further, for the benefit of hon members, from the May 1987 newsletter of the SA Agricultural Union. This is the official mouthpiece of the farmers of South Africa. It states:

Consequently they accept the Act. I quote further:

I want to say that the statements made here by the Official Opposition are fraught with politics. They are making a clear charge against organised agriculture and they are sabotaging its objectives with their conduct by objecting to a Bill in the strongest possible terms, namely by asking that it be read this day six months.

They go further and negate the responsible way in which the SA Agricultural Union has participated in this game. They subvert the system and the State’s authority by not giving the farmers the opportunity to participate in the advantages of the regional services councils after having registered.

What are the advantages? Spell them out.

I shall come to that. The hon member would be well advised to take a look at what Bloemfontein did. The people who do want to co-operate can show hon members what they are capable of.

The Official Opposition went further and deprived rural communities of these advantages and privileges. I shall come to that in a moment.

Surely we know what organised agriculture looks like. The farmers from the base and then it is built up to the level of farmers’ associations and agricultural unions and upwards to the provincial unions. On the SA Agricultural Union level co-ordination takes place with the general council, which is agriculture’s highest council when the congress is not in session.

Those are the people who make the decisions. They are the ones who voted at that stage for Mr Jacob de Villiers as vice president of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. He is a respected farmer from the Malelane district in the Eastern Transvaal. They asked him to investigate the matter on their behalf. They asked Mr Frans Malan, a manager of KWV and, inter alia, the chairman of the Western Cape Agricultural Union to represent them. Furthermore, they asked Mr Hans van der Merwe, who at that stage was the Deputy Director: General Services, to represent them and to see to it that they obtained representation on the regional services councils.

Hon members are therefore levelling severe charges at the liaison procedure in organised agriculture. Doubts are being cast on the mandate given to these gentlemen. These hon members are telling us that they cannot agree with their view that there should be rural councils for farmers in the rural areas. They reported back, and I agree that the farmers were not satisfied. However, they did say that at least the possibility of our obtaining representation was being left open. That is what it is all about, however, and I shall be speaking about the SA Agricultural Union’s statement. I shall get to that in a moment. I maintain that the political conduct of the Official Opposition is causing rebellion among the farmers, because the opposition is deliberately engaged in undermining co-operation within organised agriculture. They are engaged in subverting the interests of the farmers in organised agriculture and its operations as well as in the functioning of the regional services councils. They are causing the farmers to rebel because it suits their political purposes. That is why they are acting in this way.

Organised agriculture has said all along that they are not interested in representation on regional services councils as such, because in that way one would be bringing politics right into organised agriculture. That is why it was such a long process, and that is why we must now also consider the process. We are negating the responsible way in which the SA Agricultural Union acted. During 1983 representations were submitted via their then Transvaal president, Mr Nico Kotzé, asking in what way participation in the deliberations of the regional services councils was going to be obtained. The SA Agricultural Union took up this matter because it came after the Browne Commission’s investigation into the financing of local authorities. I do not reproach the Browne Commission for its statement, because they took a look at local authorities, and at that stage the concept was not that rural areas were necessarily local authorities, and for that reason they dealt only with the towns and divisional councils in the Cape. However, we are now presenting another concept in terms of which we are looking at a broader administrative and co-operative body. That is why our contribution in this regard was requested. This was how the SA Agricultural Union got involved with the Loubser Committee.

That is not all. The hon the Minister allowed the Co-ordinating Committee for Local Authority Matters to be expanded—a committee which meets bi-annually while the executive committee meets four times a year. The SA Agricultural Union made contributions on both these committees. They have representation there in the person of Mr Hans van der Merwe. Do hon members want to tell me that organised agriculture did not have its say? I think we have made extremely rapid progress. If it had not been for last year’s strike we would have had this legislation passed as early as 1987; the farmers would have begun to benefit from the regional services councils a long time ago.

That is not all. Farmers asked about funding. Further representation was given to Mr Hans van der Merwe on the local authority’s financial liaison committee, and over a period of more than a year, until November 1987 when the last meeting was held, the SA Agricultural Union systematically made its contributions—inter alia with the Croeser work-group, which subsequently constituted this committee.

The SA Agricultural Union has expressly stated that it wants to be exempted from levies until such time as it has proper representation. However, it is not saying that it wants to rebel against State authority. It is telling farmers to register and pay their levies. There must not be any resistance to State authority.

It went further. In November 1987 the hon the Minister appointed four people, namely the president of the SA Agricultural Union, the vice-president, Mr Nico Kotzé, Mr Isak Cronjé of the Free State Agricultural Union and Mr Dries Bruwer of the Transvaal Agricultural Union to negotiate further with the Administrator on methods of financing as well as uniform franchise norms. In other words, we must not be in a position to prescribe different norms to the Northern Transvaal and the Western Cape. That is the stage we have reached at present, and I believe a feasible system has been worked out. A moment ago I also spelt out that the constitution for a rural council was drafted a long while ago.

I am telling these hon members that they are committing sabotage and are undermining what the farmer in this country is fighting for. It is not pleasant to pay. The Cape farmer has always paid his rates, but then, the farmer says, he wants something in return.

I am telling these hon members that they are discouraging participation in order to divide people, simply to achieve the political goals they would like to achieve. They are sowing doubt among the farmers concerning a levy, but the farmers are not stupid. They used section 10A of the principal Act and convened committees to consult with the regional services councils, in the meantime, to see which services would be rendered. The party of those hon members is doing them a disservice if they do not want to co-operate. They must remember that if they want to destroy something, as their deputy leader said two nights ago in Pretoria, they are bringing about their own destruction and downfall. They must not stand in the way of development and progress in this country.

Those hon members are depriving agriculture, especially in the backward areas, of the role it can play on rural councils to see in what way they can improve conditions. I now want to tell hon members what has already been achieved by the regional services council of the Northern Transvaal in the hon member for Pietersburg’s area. In terms of this section 10A, Mr Lewies is the chairman of that committee. I have mentioned two names here of people about whose political standpoints there is no doubt. We know where they stand. They are participating.

The hon member for Soutpansberg must listen to what I have to say. During the past week the farmers’ associations of Messina, Pietersburg, Lethaba and the Central Lowveld held negotiations on co-operation with the chairman of the Northern Transvaal Regional Services Council. The farmers’ association of Letaba, as executive, has already given its co-operation, but its chairman, Mr Dries Bruwer, said that it should wait a while so that it could discuss matters. In principle the executive is co-operating.

They negotiated further, with the result that they will receive a 50% discount on their levy. Do hon members want to tell me that we are going to keep back rural councils and that we are not able to negotiate the 50% discount or the 25% discount, as is the case in the Western Cape? It means that they are not giving that power of arbitration or participation. That is what the hon members are engaged in.

I am telling hon members we greatly appreciate agriculture’s role because it is able to make a contribution in respect the administration of rural areas.

Furthermore, all the funds collected from agriculture are channelled back to agriculture. That was a decision which was taken. Black schools and mobile hospital services are being established in those areas. I am telling hon members that eventually this will be an opportunity for farmers themselves to help uplift depressed areas.

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

Order! It seems that the hon member for Cradock has resumed his seat.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cradock should not take it amiss if I do not react to him. It is clear that he can speak with authority on farmers’ interests and farmers’ organisations, something which I cannot do. It is definitely outside my field of knowledge and experience. For that reason I do not want to go into it any further, although I listened to what he said with great interest.

The hon leader of this party, the hon member for Sea Point, stated our viewpoint on this matter in the previous debate. I want to say immediately, as he indicated, that we find this Bill unacceptable. I should like to add—I know the hon member for Potgietersrus will not take it amiss of me—that one always feels uncomfortable when one has to vote with a party, for example against a measure such as this one, for completely different reasons.

That is how it goes!

Yes, unfortunately that is so. It is a part of our parliamentary system. Yet I want to say that it need not therefore be assumed that one is pleased to be placed in such a situation.

Neither are we!

I accept that. What applies to me, certainly applies to those hon members as well.

[Inaudible.]

I know. That goes for me too.

I want to tell you honestly, Mr Chairman, that I cannot associate myself at all with the reasoning of the hon member for Potgietersrus.

We are not angry with you!

We understand each other as far as these matters are concerned.

The fundamental problem lies in the fact that at this stage of the Bill we have arrived at the consequences of the fundamental standpoint that was stated here earlier today by the hon the Minister and the hon the State President, which is that the only basis on which anything can be divided is a racial one. South Africa consists of a diversity of racial groups. Whatever we do will of recessity have to be done on a racial basis. [Interjections.]

Yes, there is an inconsistency. The hon the Minister may well say that in terms of the Government’s philosophy there are grass-roots bodies such as local authorities, to which the principle of separate racial structures applies. However, the hon the Minister then creates co-ordinating bodies such as regional councils in which those groups come together again. If one really wants to be logical and consistent, there ought not to be bodies in which the principles that were previously stated are fundamental to one’s constitutional views. The hon the Minister knows as well as I do that it is inconceivable—the hon the Leader of the CP also elucidated it—that we in South Africa can govern the country without mechanisms through which the various parties can meet one another, talk, consult and plan together.

In terms of the hon the Minister’s policy it is not good enough to begin at the lower level and create the opportunity for deliberation there. No, it must take place at the higher level. That is where the inconsistency occurs.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make sure that I am following the hon member’s argument. Is he saying that I want to create institutions for consultation between people at the lower level, but not at the highest level?

No, it is just the other way round. I am saying that the hon the Minister does not want to create joint councils on the ordinary human level. Owing to South Africa’s diverse racial structure, the Government’s policy dictates that those institutions and instruments should be modelled on a racial basis. Joint deliberation and membership can take place by way of co-ordinating bodies.

I shall debate this philosophical principle with the hon the Minister on a subsequent occasion. This principle rests on the idea that the only basis on which we can search for constitutional structures must be the principle of racial diversity, and a structural basis in every possible body at the level which I mentioned.

If there is any rational basis for this, other than a racial one, the hon the Minister and the hon member for Mossel Bay must explain it. To say that we must create structures purely because there is a diversity of races in South Africa makes no sense at all. Where is the idea of common interests? Is that not of paramount importance?

The hon the Minister knows that we said from the beginning that we were opposed to the concept of separate local authorities. Ever since we passed the Act in 1984 we have stated that principle repeatedly. Although it is true that there were no joint local authorities in other parts of the country, it was certainly not the case in this part of the country. Joint local authorities functioned very well here.

That is why the House of Representatives and the Coloureds from this part of the country consistently rejected their removal from representation in the Cape municipality and also why they are consistently rejecting the implementation of separate councils.

Now they are going further, and that principle is now being applied in the creation of separate rural councils in the rural areas, something for which this Bill makes provision. The hon member for Sea Point stated very clearly that it was completely unacceptable to us.

I listened very respectfully to the hon member for Caledon when he stated the same principle in his speech, namely that we should at all costs create bodies on a racial basis. If I understood him correctly, he meant that that was the only basis. If I remember correctly, he said at the same time, in reply to one of the CP speakers, that they did not want to co-operate with people. They had allegedly said that he should not involve his Coloured workers on the farm in the planning and management of the farm. Did I understand him correctly? He said it was a common occurrence in the Western Cape. He sits there with his Coloured workers and together they plan the management of the farm. [Interjections.] He says that is correct. If that is true, why can the hon member not serve on one rural council together with the Coloureds in the farming community in this part of the country? What is wrong with that? Why must that body be told that …

Surely that is not impossible!

Let us clarify this matter. The original provision was that a representative body could be created for areas outside the jurisdiction of a local authority. That is what the law provided. There was no question of race or colour in that provision. It provided that in an area such as Constantia, or a rural area like Caledon, a representative body could be created that could, in fact, be represented on the regional services councils. The hon member for Mossel Bay will concede that. We were quite happy with that because there was no question of race or colour.

Then this amendment was introduced in which the councils were created on the basis of population groups. On the basis of population groups separate councils must now be created, but two Ministers can decide that there can be only one council. What does that mean? If the hon the Minister of White own affairs decides he is not going to allow it, the other hon Minister has absolutely no choice in the matter.

One cannot prevent the other two Ministers from agreeing if they want to!

My point is that it is being said that this provision is a vast concession and that is simply not correct.

The hon member for Mossel Bay will concede that if the Government were serious, the original arrangement of a representative body would have been retained, and not the present definition which states that a representative body could only be created if the Administrator were satisfied that the interests of the people could not be properly served by means of a rural council. That is the basic point of departure in which the difference lies.

It is very clear for the PFP that as the Act stood with regard to this particular point, a representative body, in which colour or race did not play a role, could exist. What is wrong with that? I reiterate that in areas like Constantia and other places the need for separate councils does not exist. I shall discuss the philosophical aspects at a later date because they affect the essence of our professional future. I want to say immediately that my words should not be taken to mean that proper care should not be given to the protection of group rights. That is something else. However, how can a distinction be made purely on the grounds of race—a fact which no one can change?

For example, a Coloured farmer who has a farm adjacent to mine, who has precisely the same interests that I have, who has the same points of view, who wants to do the same things that I want to do, who wants the same things that I want, may not, purely because he is a Coloured farmer and I am a White farmer, serve on the rural council with me unless the two hon Ministers up there decide that there should be only one rural council. Hon members can therefore understand that this type of system lacks any logic at all. Under these circumstances we have no other choice but to oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, before reacting to hon members’ specific arguments, I want to make two general comments. In the first place, and this is intended for the hon members for Pietersburg and Potgietersrus, I want to say that in my years in this House I have learnt that the most dangerous step a person can take here is to speak on a subject about which one knows nothing.

Then you had better keep quiet!

Neither of these two hon members was a member of the standing committee, and that is why they did not speak with the necessary background knowledge. This emerged very clearly from their contributions too.

In the second place, and this is intended for the hon member Prof Olivier, I want to say he justifiably deplored the fact that the Official Opposition and the PFP were opposing this measure on the grounds of diametrically opposed arguments. I now present, for his consideration, the proposal that he ask himself how it is possible that two Opposition parties in this House can oppose a measure such as this on the basis of diametrically opposed arguments.

That is your creation, not mine.

The Opposition parties are therefore in conflict with one another, so the truth must apparently lie elsewhere. I suggest that the truth is to be found in the measure before the House. [Interjections.]

I briefly want to deal further with the hon member Prof Olivier’s argument. He deplored the fact that provision was being made for separate rural councils. He asked what was wrong with joint rural councils. The hon member is on the standing committee, he has exceptional knowledge of the measure and he conceded, with justification, that provision was being made for joint rural councils in terms of the amendment which was adopted. This is the very matter on which the Official Opposition is attacking and criticising us. The hon member Prof Olivier asked why this could not be arranged right from the start. Why should it apply only when the Ministers concerned agreed or decided on it? The hon member himself furnished the reply in his argument, however. He said he was not appealing for group interests to be ignored, but for the possibility of having a joint rural council where there were common interests involved. That is exactly what the measure provides for.

The measure cannot proceed from the assumption that there are common interests in all cases. That is why the measure provides that, as a point of departure, there are to be separate rural councils, but there may be joint rural councils where common interests exist. In a case such as that to which the hon member referred, in which Coloured farmers operate adjacent to White farmers and feel that they have common interests, the measure provides that there may be joint rural councils. I suggest that the measure does precisely what the hon member Prof Olivier was advocating, except that the measure does not proceed from the assumption, or accept it as a principle from the outset, that there is such a degree of common interest that we must make provision for a compulsory union, as it were.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member, in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee, if it is true that there may be common interests in rural councils, whether it is not equally true that there are common interests at local government level and that there may therefore be one body there? I want to ask, in addition, whether this concept of joint rural councils is not a compromise on the side of the Government to meet the hon members of the House of Representatives so that they have to support this Bill.

In the first place, as regards local authorities, they obviously deal with the own affairs component of local government, whereas regional services councils specifically see to common interests. Consequently it simply will not wash to try to draw a parallel between the two now. As far as the second question is concerned, it is true that in the process of the search for consensus, this provision was accepted in this way. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with a concession. This formulation has simply been accepted by the parties concerned in the process of the search for consensus.

I want to react specifically to the arguments of the hon member for Pietersburg. The hon member referred here to regional services councils as an “affair”. He said the measure we were currently discussing was an effort to increase the workability of the “affair”.

Earlier this afternoon the hon member for Potgietersrus criticised the hon member for Parow because he had alleged that there were already 16 regional councils which were functioning successfully. In addition the hon member for Potgietersrus also referred to the hon the Minister’s statement that regional services councils had been instituted primarily for the development of Coloured, Indian and Black communities, as if this were the sole purpose of regional services councils.

In this regard I should like to present a few statistics or items of information to the House. I do not intend quoting anybody, but I shall mention the facts so that hon members may judge for themselves whether regional services councils are functioning successfully or not. I shall take the Pretoria Regional Services Council as an example. The hon member said that the chairman of the Witwatersrand Regional Services Council was not an authority, so I shall take the Pretoria Regional Services Council as an example. It appears that projects to the value of approximately R60 million will have been completed by 30 June 1988. Of importance in this regard is the fact that private consultants and contractors are being used in the main. In detail the statistics are as follows. The Rantesig Local Area Committee—that is south-west of Pretoria—for Whites has provided for a water supply scheme costing R634 000, representing the total project costs of the mains inlet to the reservoir, which was paid on 23 February 1988. This scheme has already been put into operation.

As regards the Kosmos Local Area Committee for Whites at the Hartbeespoortdam, provision has been made for an extension of the water purification plant totalling R100 000, representing the total project costs which were paid on 18 February 1988 and an electricity scheme totalling R70 000 for the erection of an additional substation. This project has already been completed but not yet put into operation.

On 14 January 1988 R611 000 was paid to the Primindia Indian township near Brits toward the project of a community services site as well as a contribution to erection costs of the community centre. This facility was opened with appropriate ceremony on 27 February.

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

Unfortunately my time has almost expired. [Interjections.] As regards Verwoerdburg, which is a White local authority, R1,5 million was voted for the completion of a road construction project. The entire amount was paid on 4 February 1988 and the project has been completed.

An amount of R400 000 was budgeted and paid in toto on 9 March 1988 as regards phase 1 of the external electricity supply service to the new Coloured and White townships at Brits.

Various projects are in an advanced stage of construction in the areas of the 16 participating authorities. Does this indicate an “affair”? Does it not indicate a regional services council which is functioning successfully?

I should have liked to react to further arguments from hon members but unfortunately my time has expired. I shall therefore leave it at that.

Mr Chairman, before I reply to individual hon members, there are a few general remarks I should like to make. In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, who used to be my Deputy Minister, for the contribution which he made in handling this legislation in the initial stages, as well as in Parliament itself. I greatly appreciate his contributions in this regard.

In the second place I want to mention that there was a very interesting phenomenon in today’s debate. The legislation under discussion was dealt with by the standing committee of which I was the chairman and of which the hon members for Roodepoort and Ermelo were members. It is reasonable to assume that hon members who are part of the standing committee processes and who represent their party there, will also be the speakers when the legislation is discussed in public.

We are versatile!

It is interesting that the hon member for Barberton says that they are versatile.

I did not say a word.

I mean the hon member who made the interjection.

It was not the hon member for Langlaagte either.

It is very interesting that their versatility in the standing committee did not amount to any contribution at all. However, there is an explanation for this, which is that when they are not in the limelight, they do have any contribution to make regarding the problems facing the country. However, when they appear in public, they do not speak for the sake of finding solutions, but for the sake of supposed emotional reactions outside. [Interjections.] That is not how one governs a country.

†I would also like to make a third observation, and it applies to the hon member for Sea Point.

I have just arrived!

He is very fortunate that he has just arrived. The hon member for Sea Point has a particular sensitivity when other people criticise his point of view. We had a glowing example of this again during the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President, and I would like to quote from his reaction.

That debate is over now.

I am trying to discuss a pattern of debate.

Play the Bill, not the man!

The hon member for Sea Point said:

Quite apart from the fact that it is not true, it discloses a sensitivity …

I am not sensitive at all.

May I please just reply to the debate?

You are replying to a different debate.

I am not replying to another debate; this is applicable to what I want to say. What did the hon member do when we discussed another Bill?

Discuss this Bill, not another Bill.

When he addresses other hon members of this House, he claims immunity and impunity—he can then say what he likes. He can say that other people have been doing horse-trading and that other members have “gekonkel”—his words—to achieve certain results. I think the hon member for Sea Point must apply to himself the same standards he applies to other hon members of this House.

I have always done so.

He has never done so. I think it is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

*I now want to discuss the Bill itself and I want to start with the hon member for Pietersburg. That hon member spoke about “blueprints” for politics. I merely want to ask him what became of his party’s blueprint which is known as the Latsky Report? The CP has never had the courage to publish that secret blueprint of theirs. The only inference we can draw from this is that they are ashamed of the Latsky Report and the blueprints it contains; … [Interjections.] and that they do not see their way clear to subjecting it to public debate in the House of Assembly. However, I want to concede to the hon member at once that if it had been my report I would also have been ashamed to disclose it.

[Inaudible.]

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

No, I do not want to reply to any questions. I am now replying to the hon member for Pietersburg. Surely, the hon member remembers that the same questions were asked when we debated the principal Act. Surely he remembers this, and he then said that they would put forward a policy—that was four years ago.

It exists!

However, we have never heard about it, Sir! We have never seen the report.

That is not our fault!

However, what has the Government done compared with the hon member’s party? The Government has subjected its policy on local government to public debate.

As regards the local government level—the hon member knows this—we consulted all interested parties and had several aspects investigated through the co-ordinating council, before the legislation was submitted to Parliament. There is representation for all political standpoints, as far as I know, and also for all the respective communities, in that co-ordinating council.

Today I want to say that since that council was established not a single decision has been taken by way of a vote. It was possible for people who had the interests of the communities at heart to find common ground, and this alone in my opinion proves that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is wrong when he says that it is not possible to share decision-making powers. This council has proved that it is possible.

The difference between us and the hon member’s party is clear and apparent to everyone. The CP has proposed—we heard this again today—unilaterally and under the chairmanship of Dr Latsky of Alberton, a blueprint for White local government, and they have refused to make it known. I maintain that their neglect to do so implies that they have neglected to debate the alternative standpoint.

We shall release it soon—before the elections in October!

Yes, we shall have to wait until October. We can wait four or five years too.

The NP—I am saying so explicitly—consults people and investigates matters with others, and openly debates this. That is why I believe successes can be achieved in practise, with regional services councils too, and I want to say that the CP is only better than the others in one respect, and this is as regards its negative criticism, which is its greatest single ability.

Then the hon member, who is a senior member of the House and a very senior member of his party, said that the rural councils—note, not the regional services councils, but the rural councils—were to the disadvantage of every farmer.

Whom we represent! [Interjections.]

Who fought for the rural councils? The CPs!

The hon member went on to say that his party was voting against the Bill because it was to the disadvantage of every farmer in South Africa.

Whom we represent!

Now he is qualifying his statement. He says it is not to the disadvantage of the farmers whom he represents, but that it is to the advantage of the farmers I represent. Perhaps he should tell us one day what the reasoning behind this remark is. [Interjections.]

Clause 15 of the Bill is specifically aimed at benefitting all people living in rural areas, including farmers, through representation on the regional services councils, by making provision for the establishment of rural councils. Farmers, like every other economic undertaking, are already paying the RSC levies. This Bill is therefore not introducing a new principle as regards payment. All the legislation is doing is to introduce an improved position on the basis of elected representation in rural communities.

I want to tell the hon member that the co-ordinating council, in which agriculture is directly represented, asked for this when a movement developed in agriculture in a specific province to run the agricultural associations for political purposes. And that is a fact. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg devoted his speech almost exclusively to a tirade against the establishment of rural councils. In the process, as is usual in debates in this House, he was wrong as regards both his factual allegations and his conclusions. In a typical CP way the hon member disparaged the representatives of organised agriculture—the hon member for Cradock referred to them—who served on the Loubser Committee, by saying that Mr Frans Malan of the Boland and Mr Jacob de Villiers of the Eastern Transvaal did not represent the opinions of the farmers. As soon as the CP lose the argument, they attack the person. Then they no longer consider the case at issue, but they talk to the person ad hominem.

The hon members knows that the farmers asked the Government to recognise the SA Agricultural Union as the mouthpiece of all the farmers. With regard to the rural councils, this is precisely what the Government did. I therefore hope that this statement will at least be corrected in future.

Recently, on 25 February 1988, my colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture and I held discussions with the president of the SA Agricultural Union regarding the matter of regional services councils. In their submission to me, with reference to the interview of 25 February to which I have referred, the SA Agricultural Union said the following about representation on regional services councils, and I am quoting verbatim:

This is the standpoint of the Agricultural Union, which I accept. Apart from the standpoint on representation, the reason for the need for representation was also identified, namely to take decisions together on services such as abattoirs, markets and so on.

The submission by the SA Agricultural Union went further than that. I am continuing to quote:

According to the CP the Government must ignore the mouthpiece of the farmers, as well as the request and recommendation of organised agriculture, as represented by the SA Agricultural Union. [Interjections.] I am continuing to quote:

The hon the Minister of Local Government in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly is already drafting the regulations with regard to which the SA Agricultural Union will be able to make inputs. As regards the RSC levies, on 25 February the South African Agricultural Union basically asked for two things, namely differentiated levies for agriculture and adjusted payment intervals. It was possible to accommodate the standpoints of the SA Agricultural Union on both these aspects. On the strength of this I issued a statement on this subject, in conjunction with the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

I now come to the hon member for Parow. As usual he made a positive contribution on the legislation in the House. He quoted inter alia from a letter from the chairman of the Central Witwatersrand RSC, which indicated what practical projects had already been initiated. An important point emphasised by the hon member was the fact that through its projects the RSC had created new employment opportunities for the private sector which was working for the RSC on a tender basis.

There is another important point in this regard for which I want to thank the hon member, namely that his contribution to the legislation was not confined to the public debate. He also made a major contribution in the standing committee, where the groundwork was done, and I am grateful for this.

The hon member for Caledon is himself a successful farmer and he explained to the hon member for Pietersburg that one of the keys to his success was that he consulted the people who work for him on his farm. According to his own evidence this leads to higher productivity and better relations. In my opinion he is arguing correctly that the proposed rural councils will make it possible for everyone to have a say in decision-making on matters affecting their lives. Even the needs of the farm workers can be put and dealt with in the council. I think the hon member is right.

†I come now to the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member summarised his speech before concluding by saying, and I quote him from his unedited Hansard:

This statement is obviously incorrect and any objective observer or student of the Bill will know that it is untrue. I can only conclude that the hon member is not such an observer or such a student.

I dealt with the clauses of the Bill in my introductory speech and I do not intend repeating what I said. However, the blatant incorrectness of the hon member’s statement can best be illustrated by referring to a few clauses, such as clause 19. Clause 19 provides that rates previously levied by divisional councils fall away as soon as RSC levies are introduced in a region. This is a fair and equitable provision in favour of owners of property, especially in the Cape Province.

For the record I want to give some information in this regard. In the Stellenbosch Divisional Council area, before the introduction of the RSC, there were approximately 44 560 ratepayers to the divisional council. After the introduction of the RSC in this area the ratepayers, registered contributors, had been reduced to 3 068. In other words more than 40 000 people who previously had paid divisional council rates no longer pay them in that divisional council area.

I also want to refer to the Algoa Divisional Council, where one finds very interesting information. There were 104 443 payers of divisional council rates to the divisional councils of Dias, part of Winterhoek, and Humansdorp. There are now registered contributors to the Algoa RSC numbering 11 856. The important fact is that some 92 500 people no longer pay those rates.

However, the hon member for Sea Point does not have to study the facts. He only draws conclusions.

Clause 13 deals with the authority of a council to delegate powers. That does not make the council more cumbersome; it streamlines the activities of those councils and it simplifies decision making. Clause 11 of the Bill deals with the appointment of an executive committee and the powers of such a committee. These powers will be similar to the existing local government provisions and will simplify and improve management. However, the hon member says it is cumbersome. He says it burdens people.

Order! May I interrupt the hon the Minister for a moment. There is an expression in English: “Stage whisper.” These must now cease. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I told the hon member for Lichtenburg that I would discuss his standpoint this afternoon. I have been informed that he cannot be here, and I accept this. The hon member for Lichtenburg is the deputy leader of the Official Opposition, but what is he doing? On 4 March he said, and the House must now listen attentively, that it was the CP’s intention to see to it that the RSC system failed wherever possible. According to a report in Die Burger of 20 April 1988 the same hon member had said the previous evening in Pretoria that he wanted to smash the system and sabotage it. These were the words he used in respect of an announced organisation which was agreed to by Parliament. He said this about an organisation which this House, as a democratically-elected House, had agreed to. Now I ask myself who else wants to create alternative organisations and break down the existing one? In whose company do we find ourselves.

We are going to sabotage power-sharing too. [Interjections.]

I can understand that coming from a number of hon members on that side of the House, but I cannot understand it coming from the hon member for Lichtenburg. After all, that hon member was a member of the Cabinet. He was responsible for the sensitive matter of education for Black communities. If the attitude he now has was the one he had when he carried out that task, that explains the Black reaction, in the schools too. [Interjections.]

Can one believe that the deputy leader of a party, who prides himself on being an Afrikaner, can set such an example to his fellow countrymen? Can we really accept that we have reached the stage where a frontbencher of an official opposition says he wants to sabotage an organisation of Parliament?

If people who have not had the same exposure to democratic organisations say such things, one can still understand it, even if one does not approve of it; but if an hon member with his experience and status says so, then it cannot be defended, condoned or understood.

We are going to sabotage it constitutionally. Surely you know that.

I want to tell the hon member at once that I am not afraid of his threats.

He is an expert on sabotage.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that the hon member for Overvaal is an expert on sabotage?

Mr Chairman, on a point of explanation: He himself said that he was a constitutional saboteur, and it was in that context that I made my interjection. [Interjections.] He said that he was going to torpedo regional services councils.

Order! It seems to me the word “sabotage” has already been used frequently here in these circumstances. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I merely want to repeat what I said: I am not afraid of the remarks and standpoints of the hon member for Lichtenburg; I am ashamed of them. [Interjections.]

Order! There are a few hon members sitting at the back there who would like to help the hon the Minister to make his speech. I would appreciate it if they would stop doing so.

There are enemies of the Afrikaner who want to draw a caricature of the Afrikaner. They depict him as a narrow, loveless, nasty person. The behaviour and the actions of the hon member for Lichtenburg are strengthening that caricature.

I want to go further. I know of CP members at local government level, both council members and officials, who are good council members and officials.

The CPs are always good! [Interjections.]

It would be a sad day for our country and its people if all CPs at local government level were to behave as rashly as the hon the deputy leader of that party.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Waterberg, knows that his former MPC, Mr Fanie Ferreira, became alienated from his party because of his standpoint on local government and regional services councils. [Interjections.]

And where is he now?

He did so before he got where he is now. [Interjections.] He is a worthy chairman of the Bushveld RSC with its headquarters in Nylstroom. [Interjections.]

I want to say at once that those regional services councils have made tremendous progress in the short time they have been in existence. They have done excellent work for region 44.

However, I want to touch on another important matter. I think the hon member for Potgietersrus must get to know his constituency. Because he has not yet done so, I should like to teach him a lesson about it.

So that he can also gain a majority of 39 there?

Yes, but I got mine with a conscience. [Interjections.] The hon member got his without a conscience.

Do you have a conscience? [Interjections.] That is a very good question!

Now the hon member must listen carefully. When the Bushveld Regional Services Council was established, several town councils tried to get the headquarters of the RSC established in their town. [Interjections.]

Order! There is going to be a division. If there are hon members who would like to participate in the division, they had better keep quiet now; otherwise I am going to request them to withdraw from the Chamber.

It is well-known—and the hon member for Potgietersrus will confirm this—that the control of the town council of Potgietersrus is in the hands of CP supporters. That CP controlled city council went out of its way to have the headquarters of the Bushveld RSC for its town. On 18 August the town clerk of Potgietersrus wrote to me, although I do not decide on the headquarters of regional services councils. This decision is taken by the Administrator of the Transvaal. In a long letter, accompanied by a thick memorandum, the town clerk, on the instructions of the town council of Potgietersrus, wrote to me, and I should like to quote from his letter:

They are not going to sabotage it. [Interjections.] They may sabotage it, in the way the hon member for Lichtenburg is doing so, but listen to this interesting letter:

I should like to ask the hon member Potgietersrus whether during the municipal elections in Potgietersrus he is going to persuade his party to get rid of those members of the town council who did this? Is he going to tell them that they cannot be candidates? We must please get away from this ambiguity.

I now come to the speech made by the hon member for Potgietersrus this afternoon. He quite rightly said that the CP opposed the principal Act. That is true. He said I had made my speech in the idiom of the PFP and the Liberals, because I said that the council was multiracial. I want to ask him a question first. Are these councils not multiracial?

I should like to participate in the division! [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, I am so keen for the hon member to participate in the intellectual exercise too! [Interjections.] The hon member Prof Olivier will confirm that his party is not in favour of a multiracial system. They are in favour of a non-racial system. This is therefore not a term used by the hon member Prof Olivier.

I want to go further. Did the hon member not read the report to which the hon member for Cradock referred in respect of the Borckenhagen and the Brown Committees? Did the hon member not also read that I had said that this system, in addition to giving other communities the right to make decisions, was aimed at the decentralised, deconcentrated development of our country? I also said that the rich urban areas had to make a contribution in this regard in respect of the underdeveloped areas.

Is the hon member’s party not one of the parties which is constantly asking that steps be taken to prevent the depopulation of the rural areas and encourage regional development in the rural areas? Is the hon member’s party not also one of the parties which is saying that the subsidies to developed urban areas must be changed, and that the costs of services must be recovered there so that there can be better development of the rural areas and other areas? Why is he now guilty of telling such an untruth in this debate?

The hon member also spoke about the fact that the Bill was providing for two Ministers to be able to establish one council for two communities. Of course this is the case. After all, it is up to the community to exercise that option, through its Ministers’ Council. The right to protection therefore exists.

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

No, I am not replying to any questions.

The hon member said that the farmers were already paying, but did not have representation. He alleged that they were now getting it through the rural councils. Surely that is not true. In the Western Transvaal, for example, the farmers’ association already has official representation on the regional services councils, with a voting power of 11,8%. This was done by means of the definition of a representative body as provided for in section 1 of the Regional Services Councils Act.

The fact is that the South African Agricultural Union, as I have indicated, has said that they do not want the agricultural associations to have representation as associations because party-politics will then become an issue. That is why we have the Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill in front of us.

The hon member Prof Olivier and I have completely different standpoints. Is he prepared to re-establish bodies at the top for consultation and collaboration? I assume the hon member is also referring inter alia to the proposed Statutory Council?

I am talking about the regional services council as an example.

Yes, but the other one too. The Co-ordinating Council is such an institution at the lowest level, on which all the communities serve. The council was created statutorily and was not enforced. The council developed from the regional relations committees, the liaison committees and the National Liaison Committee, which expressed a need for this.

I want to take this matter further. The hon member’s party is also advocating freedom of association. Does this not include the right of dissociation?

That is a cliché!

No, it is not a cliché. It is a fact!

I thank the hon member for Cradock for his contribution. I merely want to say that his contribution was not confined only to today, but he was an agricultural leader in the Eastern Cape and in the SA Agricultural Union. He did a great deal towards establishing the structures which we are discussing today, to the benefit of the rural communities. I thank him for that.

I also thank the hon member for Mossel Bay. He dealt with aspects which I am not going to repeat. In conclusion I want to say that this Bill is a Bill which must strengthen the local government systems in our country and improve the circumstances of life of the people.

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

No, I do not want to reply to questions. The hon member may request the information he seeks during the discussion of my Vote if he so wishes.

I say that this Bill will strengthen local governments, it will create instruments which bring communities together and it will create relations which our country needs.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—105: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bekker, H J; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

NOES—29: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H. Question affirmed and amendment dropped. Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on Wednesday evening during the reply of the hon the Minister of Finance to the Second Reading debate, I made the following interjection in respect of the hon member for Daljosaphat: “Hy was in die wingerd.” Having looked at the unrevised Hansard I now concede that the phrase has an offensive connotation and has indeed given offence to the hon member. I believe I owe the hon member an apology and therefore, I unreservedly apologise to him.

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was talking about the position in Vredendal North. I should like to continue and give the House a picture of the position there. It was in April 1986 that the major shift occurred in Vredendal. As a result of that relocation, the people who had just been relocated were saddled with extra costs in regard to the payment of rent. The service levy alone is R33 per month in Vredendal North. At this stage the total arrear payments are astronomical.

On 19 August 19871 wrote a letter to the hon the Minister, from which I should like to quote:

I am not going to quote further. I merely want to tell the hon the Minister what the present position in Vredendal is. I telephoned the Vredendal municipality this morning and asked what the present figure was for the rental payments which were in arrears. In Extension 27 the amount is R53 638. The newly relocated area, Extension 31, has arrear payments amounting to R167 264. That was after an arrears amount of R160 000 on 19 August 1987.

In conjunction with the municipality I had an investigation conducted by the University of Stellenbosch aimed at studying, in depth, the soil conditions in the area. The new extension is situated on a plateau where the costs for the installation of essential services is extremely high. The hon the Minister ordered an investigation and investigated the situation for himself. I want to ask the hon the Minister to have this specific situation reviewed.

I want to quote to the House a letter received from the management committee. It reads:

This means that a person with an income of R150 per month effectively has to pay R58,80 in rent. As a result of the situation in Vredendal, which serve a rural area, the incomes of the people there are nothing to write home about, and because of the high service levy their rent increases by an abnormal amount. I want to ask for an investigation into the situation. I do not actually want to speak about Vredendal at any great length, because there are also other towns in my constituency which are experiencing serious problems.

In the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget I referred to Doringbaai. I should like to tell hon members of the position in Doringbaai. That fishing village is situated at the mouth of the Olifants River. Virtually the whole of the area belongs to the North Bay Canning Co which is a subsidiary of Oceana Fisheries. This area falls under the jurisdiction of the Cedarberg Divisional Council. As a result no Coloured inhabitant enjoys the privilege of home-ownership. All the houses in which the Coloured people live belong to the fishing company. On 8 April I held a meeting with the fishing company at Doringbaai. If assistance is granted, they are prepared to hand over property to the State. I sent a letter to the hon the Minister explaining my position to him. I wrote to him that I had held a meeting with Messrs Latsky, Van Zyl and Pierre van der Merwe of Oceana Fisheries at Doringbaai.

I asked for the establishment of a community development committee under the chairmanship of the director, so that we could see how we could possibly help the community of Doringbaai. I also referred to the condition of the school at Doringbaai. Since I came to Parliament I have been talking about the atrocious condition of that school. It is ironic that the school was built by the company in question, but on land belonging to the NG Mission Church. Not a cent has been spent on that school since, apart from the money spent by the company. The children receive their tuition under the trees and on the stoep of the school building. There is no decent sanitation and the principal does not even have an office. He has to sit in a small enclosure on the stoep. We cannot permit our people to live in such conditions any longer.

I now want to refer to Klawer. I have told the hon the Minister that a unique situation prevails in that town. Removals are also in the offing. There are three separate squatter areas in the town, ie the Roman Catholic camp, the Anglican camp and the Railway camp. This is because of the way in which the town is divided up. The community of Klawer is completely divided and there is no proper infrastructure in any of the three camps. The one camp is situated alongside the Vredendal Road, whilst the other two are in the old area. I want to ask the hon the Minister to institute an investigation into the application for the construction of 80 houses in Klawer. In the past two years 30 dwellings have been constructed in the town, but I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that the remaining houses are also built, ie the other 50 houses that still have to be built. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister for what has been achieved in the Hantam consituency. I probably do not need to spell out what has been done, because the hon the Minister and his department know about that. I neverthless want to add that the hon the Minister is definitely in an unenviable position, because every hon member in this House expects him to make enough money available this year to erect the same number of dwelling units in their respective constituencies as in the previous year. I cannot see how the hon the Minister is going to manage to do so with the amount of money available to him. There has been an increase of 9,1%, it is true, but in real terms the hon the Minister will be able to build fewer houses because the inflation rate is higher than the percentage increase. Seen in the light of continually increasing building costs, the hon the Minister will undoubtedly be able to erect fewer dwelling units this year. In this regard I want to sympathise with the hon the Minister, because this is definitely going to expose him to unnecessary criticism.

There are a few things I want to mention by name this morning. Hon members are aware of the new rent formula. Unfortunately the majority of management committees cannot interpret that rent formula. I also want to mention that in my constituency I have come across town clerks who cannot interpret the formula either. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister this morning to find out whether officials cannot be appointed or seconded to visit the respective towns to explain that new rent formula.

[Inaudible.]

Thank you very much; the hon member is welcome to do so.

I want to point out that the new rent formula is actually making life harder for our people. [Interjections.] We would very much like some of our people to become home-owners, but we cannot do so at the expense of their overall living conditions. We are actually making it more difficult for people to increase their living standards in other respects.

I want to mention an example of people who paid approximately R22 in rent and service fees before the new rent formula came into operation. When the new rent formula comes into operation, they will be paying higher service fees than before. I therefore feel that it has become necessary for something to be done. I want to leave the hon the Minister with the thought that the department will have to decide whether it cannot help those people in some or other way—perhaps by way of a subsidy …

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps the hon member has a better suggestion. Possibly the department could think of another way of granting assistance.

With regard to the sales scheme, let me say that we would very much like to sell the houses to the people. We are doing everything in our power to do so. In my constituency, however, people are now asking to have their deposits returned. The reason for that is that the prices of those houses are unrealistically high. Those houses were built 30 or 40 years ago. The loans negotiated to pay off the houses should already have been paid off. We therefore owe nothing on those houses. Now, however, they are being sold at the present replacement cost.

The hon the Minister has probably received numerous representations asking him simply to give the houses away for nothing. Sir, what happens? A house which was built approximately 40 years ago, after the war, at a cost of R380, is now being sold for R800 or more. The profit made is not ploughed back into the relevant community. Now suddenly there are a number of shareholders amongst whom the profits have to be distributed.

We are selling those houses to people who have an income of R150 and less per month. They are paying more now than they did when they were renting the houses. I do not know what to suggest, but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his officials to devise a plan to help relieve those people’s burdens.

I have ascertained that houses are also being built in our area, but that little is being done in respect of the infrastructure. Sir, surely one cannot simply build a house in the veld and hope for the best.

I know that when private developers come on the scene, the first thing the administration expects is to have the necessary infrastructure laid on, for example roads, sanitation, lighting and so on, but when a local authority plans a residential area, it seems to me they can simply go ahead regardless. In my constituency there are residential areas which have been in existence for years. There are residential areas which are still in the process of being established and in which there is a complete lack of infrastructure. As far as Calvinia is concerned, we have asked for funds to provide for that necessary infrastructure. We experienced a freak of nature, a hailstorm, but virtually every year there are floods in that area. In a year in which the rainfall is normal, one can hardly walk in the streets, because there are no storm-water drains, kerbstones or proper roads. I want to ask the hon the Minister to have a look at that correspondence and to see if he cannot take some purposeful action soon.

I want to come back to the sales campaign. We planned to make those houses completely livable, but speaking about livable, let me say that we want to supply basic needs, for example a bathroom, a flush toilet and water on every stand. We need money for that, because we want to do that for everyone, and not leave it to every individual to do it for himself. We want to do it for the whole community, so that the costs incurred by owners are kept as low as possible. I think the hon the Ministers’s department is already in possession of such a letter. I want to ask the hon the Minister to view that sympathetically and to assist us in this regard.

We are living in an area which suffers from drought almost constantly. Water is one of our most precious commodities, and we have to use it sparingly. Hon members will agree with me that communal taps waste water. That is why we want to provide water in every individual dwelling and have individual water-meters installed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the shortage of housing for our people has begun to assume serious proportions as a result of the removals in terms of the Group Areas Act. As a result established communities in the cities and rural areas have been uprooted, and in many cases this has marred peaceful coexistence.

This lamentable state of affairs can be ascribed to the fact that the Group Areas Act is implemented strictly by White officials who are completely out of touch with Coloureds as fellow South Africans. The poor and inadequate housing of our people is merely considered within the context of the establishment and building up of communities, without any infrastructure.

According to the writer, Al J Venter, in his book Coloured, prior to the tricameral system our hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was so disillusioned during a visit to Macassar, that in utter frustration he cried out: “Shocking and appalling”.

In the true sense of the word, that describes the poor two-roomed subeconomic housing the Whites have built for our people. The two rooms are a bedroom and a kitchen. There are no ceilings or interleading doors, and that is not at all conducive to sound family life. That is proof of poor planning—not planning for good South African citizens, but for share-croppers.

This inhuman treatment of our people by White town councils has made the housing problem a cronic one. In his book, Freedom, Welfare and Order, Dr Jan Lombard writes:

In South Africa our people do not generally share in this material welfare. Our purchasing power is needed in the White towns and cities, but we are not permitted to live there.

Many White South Africans have, over the years, regarded Coloured people as inferior compatriots who could never rise to the level of being producers. Coloured people have always been restricted to being consumers. That is the major reason why group areas were declared precipitately. Our housing crisis is related to White avarice. They do not want to relinguish land for the development of sound communities and with a view to peaceful coexistence. There is always a shortage of money and land for housing. We do not have to look far for this sickly, unchristian avarice. One merely has to go to places such as Sutherland and Merweville, where the Coloured people are clustered together in a small island of red-brick houses, while the Whites have more than enough land for development. The same applies to many other towns in the Karoo and in the rural areas.

One gets the impression that the Coloured people are the Whites’ “skeleton in the cupboard” or their secret shame. That is why they have to be moved to remote places—as the hon the Minister mentioned in his speech—behind a ridge, a railway line, a river or a plantation. According to a report in Die Burger of Saturday, 24 May 1986, the hon the Minister officially stated at the annual congress of the Landowners’ Federation and the Rental Association in the Western Cape, held in Parow, that—

The hon the Minister hit the nail on the head as far as Coloured housing was concerned. Our housing crisis is part and parcel of South Africa’s human condition of injustice and inequality which leads to the uprooting and relocation of communities. That is undesirable, because ultimately it leads to an increase in social diseases, alcoholism and juvenile crime.

My time is limited, and I shall therefore come back to my constituency. I want to take this opportunity of thanking our hon Minister for the funds he has granted to my constituency since 1985. Today I want to single out Beaufort West in particular. Since 1985 we have built more than 400 houses there. Some hon members may not regard that as a very great number, but to those of us in the Karoo it means that we have at least achieved something. At the beginning of 1988 we received approval for the building of an Olympicsized swimming pool. It will be the first Olympicsized swimming pool in the Karoo. We want to thank the hon the Minister very sincerely for having thought of us. Beaufort West has had its 150th anniversary, and this is the first time that the Coloured community is getting a swimming pool of its own.

At present we are engaged in the construction of a school and hostel which are specifically going to be used for the children of the surrounding farms at Beaufort West. Beaufort West is also the only town in the Karoo which has already completed 30 self-help houses.

I could say the same about Sutherland, Laingsburg and Matjiesfontein. The department spent R300 000 at Matjiesfontein, and I can give the hon the Minister the assurance that the inhabitants of Matjiesfontein greatly appreciate that. This will be the first time in the history of Matjiesfontein that upgrading is being done. At present we are engaged in the construction of 20 self-help houses at Sutherland, and we need funds for the upgrading of our residential area.

Before I conclude, I want to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister for the granting of more funds for the upgrading of our residential area at Beaufort West. Hon members take the floor in the House and boast about how beautiful their towns are. Today I want to extend an invitation to all hon members in the House to come and have a look what this Anver Essop is doing in the Karoo. Then, and only then, they can furnish their comments.

Mr Chairman, I wish I could continue in the vein of the hon member who preceded me. Unfortunately the picture in my part of the world is not as rosy as in the Karoo.

In the short time at my disposal I want to put a few cardinal aspects to the hon the Minister. I am going to focus my attention on the deficiencies and needs that exist in the central part of South Africa. I am going to talk about the Southern Free State, and at the same time I want to mention the Northern Cape and Griqualand West. The picture I want to sketch of that part of the world is an ugly one. It is there that one crosses over from one level of civilisation to another. It seems as if civilisation stopped at the Orange River. Nothing is being done in that part of the country. It seems as if we are a part of South Africa, and yet not a part of it either. That is why that portion of the country is sadly neglected.

But there is a faint glimmer of light at the end of the dark tunnel. There are some signs of activity. The department made two very good moves, and I sincerely want to thank the hon the Minister for that. Very good appointments have been made in the Free State. In the first place we have obtained the services of a regional representative, a certain Mr Strydom. I cannot but speak highly of him. Since his arrival in Bloemfontein, things have begun to happen. Where previously there was stagnation, there are now signs of activity. Mr Bertie Verster of head office also specifically focuses his attention on that area. I want to give him all the credit due to him, and one cannot but speak highly of him. I only wish he had come to us a long time ago. That is why I am saying that there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. We can see things happening.

Today I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to heed the representations these two gentlemen will make to him so that we can stand up one day and, like the hon member for Nuweveld, say: “We came, we saw and we conquered. Come and see what is happening in our area.”

The less-developed communities in the Southern Free State are also part of South Africa today. A modicum of development is taking place there, and our people are doing fairly well in those areas.

I listened to the hon member for Hantam who took the words out of my mouth. What applies to his constituency applies equally to my constituency, and also to the Northern Cape and Griqualand West.

I should also like to refer to the way in which rent formulas are interpreted. Somewhere something is drastically wrong. Some town clerks are insolent and refuse to apply the rent formulas, whilst others purposely misinterpret them. One cannot believe that some town clerks work out the formulas in such a way that in certain places pensioners have to pay up to R80 in rent and service fees. What must the people live on? Something must definitely be done about the matter.

Last year the Administration: House of Representatives went out of its way to arrange for a seminar in Bloemfontein to which all town clerks and members of the management committees were invited. During the seminar a full explanation of the rent formulas was furnished, but back at the office they forgot everything had been said to them. Some town clerks subsequently called the members of the management committees together and simply said that this was how the new rent formulas would be implemented in future.

Order! Hon members must please stop their private discussions. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, some management committee members, particularly in the rural areas, do not have much education and still have the master-servant mentality. When the master has spoken, that is how things must be done. As an MP I am continually impressing upon my people that they should stand up for themselves and not take everything at face value. Afterwards, the town clerk calls them all together again and says that I am leading them astray and that things should be done in this or that way.

In this regard I want to suggest that the department send officials to each and every town to investigate matters there and to determine how the rent formulas are being implemented in the respective towns. I cannot believe that different rent formulas are applied in different towns. Something will definitely have to be done about the matter.

Secondly I want to refer to the sales campaign. Here we have a similar case to the one in regard to the rent formulas. Our people are being exploited and impoverished. I cannot understand how houses can be sold for such unreasonable prices. I want to make a suggestion today. During the hon the Minister’s speech I frequently said that the houses should be given to the people. I want to repeat that.

Some of the houses in those schemes are more than 30 years old. A 30-year old loan really ought to be paid off by now. If a person has been living in a house for 30 years, surely the house can be given to him. Can that possibility not be considered? After all, he has paid for the house. [Interjections.] In cases where people have been renting their houses for less than 30 years, I want to suggest that the hon the Minister’s department appoint a commission of enquiry to attend to the matter. The members of the commission must go from place to place to determine the condition of the houses and the circumstances under which the people are living there. Then they must report back. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a crying shame that there are still people in this country paying the people who work for them less than R50 per month. It is absolutely scandalous that someone who has to go to work each day gets less than R50 at the end of the month. I think that is where many of our problems originate. It is scandalous that there are those who exploit our people to such an extent, pushing them further into the depths of poverty. [Interjections.]

In the 10 minutes at my disposal I want to refer to conditions in certain other areas. [Interjections.]

Order! I am asking the hon member for Riversdal please to treat the Chair with respect. I am warning the hon member for the last time. [Interjections.] The hon member for Border may continue.

Sir, I want to speak about the Vergenoeg and Fynbos areas which form part of the Buffalo Flats extension. As hon members know, the people now living there previously lived in Duncan Village. Duncan Village was destined to become a Chinese area, but is inhabited by so-called Coloureds. It is controlled by the Black administration board, and the rent is collected by the White town council. As a result of all the problems there, those people moved to Vergenoeg and Fynbos, but in those two residential areas one sees nothing but poverty.

We have already sent numerous deputations to the hon the Minister. We have had the town councillors here at the hon the Minister’s office. Other individuals have also come along here, but the problems are still in evidence. The rents in those new residential areas are too high. One cannot afford to pay that rent. The hon the Minister wants to approach the matter on an individual basis, in the sense that everyone who is in difficulties should contact him through the local authorities.

Can the department not institute an investigation into the conditions in those areas? Sir, in that area the situation is such that when there is a strike at the factories, the people living there simply have to go along with it—whether they want to strike or not. Those who did not want to play along during the recent strike had their houses bombarded by petrol bombs. As a result of intimidation the people simply have to play along. Then they have no income. The rent, however, continues to increase, with the result that the people are even worse off.

Can the hon the Minister’s department not do anything? Can an urgent investigation not be instituted to see what can be done to afford those people some relief? That should actually have happened a long time ago.

Those poor people are so wretched they could die. The hon the Minister has repeatedly listened to the complaints of hon members, but now something has to be done. The hon the Minister has the experts at his disposal. His department cannot just listen to our lamentations every day; something has to be done as well. It is no use our trying to solve these problems individually. Something must also be done by the hon the Minister’s department. Appoint a commission so that we can institute an investigation and determine precisely what problems there are. The hon the Minister knows the problems, in any event, but we have been talking about those problems for the past four years. We want to start talking about the solution now, and that will only be possible if the hon the Minister’s department appoints a commission to launch a countrywide search for the solutions instead of the problems. By now we are sick and tired of hearing how bad things are throughout the country. We now want to start hearing about how good things are, and we want to change that negative attitude, as the hon the Minister put it in his speech yesterday, into something positive. That can only come from the hon the Minister’s department; hon members of this House cannot do it. No hon member in this House has the necessary knowledge or money to do anything like that. It is important to constitute a committee, or something of that nature, to come to light with the solutions, because otherwise we shall grow so tired of the situation that we shall proceed to violence to put matters right. It seems as if people manage to get somewhere when they resort to violence. It seems to me that that is the only answer. We are here, however, because we believe in negotiation. We are here because we believe that this is the way to find the solution. If such a commission were to be constituted by the hon the Minister’s department, we would be able to find the answers. One of our major problems is that we cling to the local authorities.

Amen!

We must break away from all the local authorities. The department must function in such a way that it reaches right down to the smallest towns, so that we can get away from the town councils and from their control. [Interjections.] Why is there so much development in the Black areas? Because they have broken away completely. Let us look for a moment at the solutions and stop being obsessed by the problems. [Interjections.] The solution lies in our breaking away completely from this system. [Interjections.] Let us seek a new solution. I see the hon the Minister smiling—it is because he is enjoying it. [Interjections.] He likes it. [Interjections.] We are not interested in expanding own affairs. We are interested in general affairs, because housing ought not to be a political football. Housing affects every person in this country, whether he is white, black or pink. Let us forget about the own affairs concept and make this a general affair. [Interjections.] Now the hon the Minister is not laughing anymore.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is advocating autonomy?

Mr Chairman, if autonomy is to be the solution, let us advocate it. I want to upset hon members ever so slightly; that is why I am saying this. [Interjections.] Autonomy in what sense? That is what the debate is all about. When we talk about autonomy, we are not talking about Coloured municipalities. [Interjections.] Let us take the constituency of my benchmate, the hon member for Mamre, as an example. Somchem and various other factories are situated in Atlantis. Why can the taxes levied on those factories not be ploughed back into that constituency? It is not a Coloured municipality; it is a municipality. [Interjections.] In that sense both Macassar and Atlantis are ready for autonomy. We have been driven into a corner, because we are obsessed by the fact that it is a Coloured municipality and that our problems can only be solved by a management committee for that Coloured area. Let us break away from that concept.

If a constituency is situated in a certain area, everything in that area should fall under that municipality. In that way we would free ourselves from the grip of the Whites, because our neglect and poverty are orchestrated by the Whites. They exercise control through the town councils, thereby also exercising control over the management committees at local government level.

Why can the people living on the Cape Flats not unanimously declare their independence from the Municipality of Cape Town? Why can we not break away from the Cape Town City Council? [Interjections.] There is no such thing as “cannot”; it can be done. [Interjections.] This is not NP politics. We are seeking a solution to the problems there. We must not have our view blocked by NP policy. We must create a policy which will be to the benefit …

What does your leader say?

My hon leader is not here at the moment, and the hon member must leave me alone; I am speaking now. We must create a policy here which will benefit our people out there. I am not talking about apartheid now. I am talking about finding solutions. That is the problem we are faced with here. We cannot simply discuss the problems. We must discuss the solutions. That is what we are advocating.

You are saying what we are saying.

The hon member has never said that; he is too afraid to say it. The hon member for Strandfontein said he objected to a White person coming here. There are many hon members who feel that way, but they are too scared to say it. That is why I am saying it. [Interjections.] That hon member has lost his way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to quote from the speech of the hon the Minister:

That is true and I want to assure the hon the Minister that my constituency, associates, supporters and I will support him in that goal. However, I should like his assurance that he is in charge of housing for our community at all levels. Housing is one of the greatest needs of our community and the vast backlogs and the terrible housing conditions in some of our areas are problems that certainly need to be addressed. Many of our existing schemes, especially in my constituency of Ottery, and in Grassy Park, need to be looked at immediately.

I said in my speech during the Second Reading debate on the Budget that the fruits of reform have not yet reached the masses. When one looks at the housing and accommodation provided in the areas of Ottery and Parkwood Estate in my constituency, one realizes that reform politics and the fruits of reform certainly have not reached these people. If I am to reach them as their MP and their representative in this House, I must do something to address this problem. There I need the help of the hon the Minister.

It is these bread and butter issues, especially housing, which must be addressed. I really wish to know from the hon the Minister today who is ultimately in charge of providing housing at all levels to our people. I run an advice office in Ottery and I see up to 40 people a day. One person out of every five people who come to me, has a housing problem.

I want to quote here from one of the many letters I receive from local authorities. This one is from the Cape Town City Council:

I regret that it is not yet possible to offer accommodation to Mr X. The council allocates accommodation in datal order of application from a vast waiting list, comprising more than 43 000 families.

These 43 000 families have been on the waiting list for almost 15 years, and the list is growing daily, Mr Chairman. Since 1984, when housing became an own affair under the hon the Minister and his department, nothing has been done with regard to the situation around Ottery and Parkwood Estate. I am saying this respectfully, and I am not trying to pick a fight with the hon the Minister and his department. That which we are doing in this House and which we are discussing here, has not reached our communities as yet. This pulls the mat from under our feet because the most urgent needs in our communities cannot be addressed by MPs. We are powerless.

We have heard about certain areas today. Certain wild allegations were also made in this Committee by hon members of the opposition. It was said that only certain areas get help. I cannot agree with that. However, when one listens to some speeches about how certain areas were upgraded and about the funds that were allocated to them, one wonders if they are not true. We are totally confused and frustrated as we have to deal with so many different authorities, such as the regional services councils, the city councils, the management committees—mancoms—and the ministries. Who has the final say, Sir?

A very tragic case was brought to my attention last year. It was on television. The house of a Brand family who lived somewhere in Walmer Estate was burnt down to the ground. I wrote to the hon the Minister. I went to the mancom, the city council and the divisional council and no one lifted a finger to help that unfortunate family. It took the hon the Minister five months to provide me with a final reply with regard to the Brand case in Walmer Estate. But nothing was done to rehouse the poor Brand family who had lost everything in the fire. This was an emergency and there was only the one case. I am mentioning this to express my frustration. One can turn to four authorities or to the hon the Minister, yet they cannot attend to one emergency case.

The mancom in Grassy Park is playing a cat and mouse game with the people who live there. They have meetings in the civic centre every week and the people who are on the waiting list have to attend these meetings. The chairman gets up at these meetings and carries on about housing, making all sorts of wild promises, but he is entrenching his position as chairman of the mancom. With all due respect, certain local authorities and mancoms are being abused by certain members of our communities.

You have the opportunity to get rid of them now.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the houses in Parkwood Estate are dirty and overpopulated. Many of these sub-economic flats and houses accommodate more than three families. I want to quote from a letter of 17 March which was circulated.

*I want to quote from the letter what the hon the Minister said about the qualifications of voters:

†According to this letter, thousands of people who are living in our subeconomic areas are disqualified as voters at local management committee level. We need these voters. In the present political climate, where the radicals are having a field day, and where a religious war is taking place between the Muslims and the Achmadias, we need an assurance from the hon the Minister. I want to ask him why we are being faced with this problem that only people who are not owners or occupiers of subeconomic housing are allowed to vote.

There are countless masses who are not on the local authority’s voters’ roll.

Order! The hon member for Nuweveld should please show the hon member for Ottery the necessary courtesy of listening to his speech. The hon member for Ottery may proceed.

Sir, this is a vital and urgent problem with which I am being confronted, especially in my constituency where there are all kinds of radicals and people who are anti-establishment. We need every voter and we need to accommodate these people. No stone should be left unturned, no door overlooked and every potential voter must be reached if we want the concept management committees to be a success. By sending out this circular, however, the hon the Minister is putting an obstacle in the way of MPs and those interested in making a success of management committees. Many people are living in the subeconomic areas as “bywoners” as opposed to those people who are actually paying rent, but who cannot vote for me even if they wanted to. [Time expired.]

Sir, one of the most important activities of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is the promotion of home-ownership. As a result of the rising building costs over the past few years, in many cases rentals and payments cannot be afforded by the tenants. Consequently a new rental and purchasing formula was devised to bring rentals and payments within reach of the buyer or tenant. However, the fly in the ointment is the levies that municipalities place on levies that are not subsidised. As a result of the adjustment of municipal tariffs, rentals and payments often increase to such an extent that in many cases the occupants can no longer afford them. As a result, their payments become overdue and they eventually lose their homes, as well as the money that they have already paid.

In this regard and as proof of what I have just said, I want to refer to a certain case in Swellendam where a nurse with a monthly income of R792 bought one of the new houses in the town. Her monthly instalments were R216,89. She took occupation of the house in October last year, but in January this year she had to vacate it because she was unable to keep up with her instalments. I want to quote from a letter that the Swellendam municipality sent to a buyer:

The rental was R156 per month. It was later increased to R158 and then, as I have read here, to R186 per month. Here we are dealing with a married man who has five schoolgoing children. He earns R150 per week.

This is an unhealthy trend that is creating serious problems. I am bringing it to the attention of the hon the Minister so that consideration can be given to possible relief in cases where the occupants cannot afford the rentals or instalments.

There is a further matter that I want to raise. My experience of community committees is that they offer an excellent forum for discussion which may not be underestimated. In such a committee one gets the opportunity to discuss our people’s needs in detail and to find solutions. Experts sit around the table with committee members. I disagree with another hon member who says that nothing happens there. I cannot say the same.

A self-help project will soon be under way in Barrydale. I think it was in a debate in 1985 that I mentioned the little place Barrydale, which is also called Steek-my-Weg, where for more than 10 years not a single residence was erected in the Coloured area. I want to attribute the fact that this project is soon to be launched to this community committee. An amount of R350 000 has already been allocated for this purpose. Barrydale is another town in my constituency that stands on the brink of a phase of growth—thanks to the community committee.

During the past three years and seven months that I have been in Parliament, considerable progress has been made in my constituency. [Interjections.] I can proudly say that there are plans to develop projects in my constituency over the next few years that amount to several million rands. [Interjections.] In the current financial year several million rands have been allocated for the upgrading of towns in my constituency. This comprises the measuring and buying of land, building and service projects, the provision of housing, and the provision of electricity and services such as sewerage and stormwater drainage. I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the help and support that I am receiving in my constituency.

It is common knowledge that there is an urgent need for secondary school facilities in Heidelberg. I want to request that the department endeavour to provide the school building at the earliest possible opportunity. As early as the 1979-80 financial year the calling for tenders for the building of a high school was envisaged. At the time the high school for Heidelberg was sixth on the building programme of the administration for Coloured Affairs.

I want to conclude with the following questions to the hon the Minister: What progress is being made with the planning and building of a high school for Heidelberg? How many pupils are being provided for? When will tenders for the construction of the school be requested, and when will the construction of the high school be commenced with? Finally, I also want to ask what progress has been made as regards the purchase of the primary school building from the Anglican Church in Slangrivier?

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the R3 million that he granted for the upgrading of the Cape Flats. Heideveld, Bonteheuwel, Manenberg, Hanover Park and Kensington benefited a great deal from it.

†The actual upgrading of these areas is done by the city council, but the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the House of Representatives is providing the funds for these projects.

*The Cape Town City Council receives an income of more than R12 million per year from our areas, but nothing is done for our areas. We do not even have decent roads. We still have the old cement roads with red gravel next to them, without any pavements. In Cathkin, in the Heideveld area, people are improving the tiny old houses they bought, but there are no pavements or any good stormwater drainage. When the wind blows the sand blocks those drains. Winter is coming and when the wind blows the sand blocks those drains and we will again have pools and dams of water. I request that funds be made available to improve certain roads in Heideveld where the people themselves are modernising their homes.

One often feels powerless because one’s requests are ignored. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the new rental formula, because it is already being applied in my constituency. I want to agree with the hon member for Border that certain houses that were built more than 25 years ago should be given to those people free of charge. If I were to hazard a guess, the tiny houses near Heideveld station were probably built for about R800 and the Cape Town City Council has already got back more than double its money. Then there are also the houses that are known as “dual occupants”. Those tiny old houses in which almost 20 people are living should be broken through and given to one family.

Something which really hurts me is that there are five junior schools and two high schools in Heideveld, but there is still no swimming pool in Heideveld. Where must those children go for recreation? It is too dangerous to go to Bonteheuwel, because then they have to cross Jan Smuts Drive. It is also too dangerous to go to Manenberg because they can be injured on the way there. Therefore I want to ask the hon the Minister to provide funds for a swimming pool because I will have to wait for an eternity for the Cape Town City Council. Where must the children of Heideveld go to relax?

As the hon the Minister himself knows, we have a housing shortage. Only this morning I received five letters from the regional director in the office of the hon the Minister for houses that have been approved, but there are no houses yet. Last week I met the chairman of the Belgravia Taxpayers’ Association who expressed his disappointment about people who were squatting near the canal. Those people have no respect for those homeowners.

There is no proper sanitation for those people. Something must be done so that we can continue with the Delft area so that our people can be housed. I have never heard of a shortage of housing in White areas. I have never heard of a White squatter. However, there are houses standing empty in White areas.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister for more funds to be made available so that we can develop the Delft area to provide our people with housing.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to thank the hon the Minister and his officials for the visits that they paid to my constituency during the past year and for the assistance that was given by them. I must mention the name of one person in particular who is not here this morning and that is Miss Walsh who really did her best in the local authority to satisfy the people in my constituency.

I come now to the housing shortage in towns in my constituency, especially Grabouw, Hawston and Villiersdorp. There is no land available in Grabouw. The local authority has already applied to the Department of Forestry to expropriate certain pieces of their land so that it can be divided into erven. I am asking the hon the Minister to help us in this regard.

In Villiersdorp we have a water problem. I have already addressed this matter in the debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget and I will be in touch with the hon the Minister in this regard. I should like to mention that one of the main causes of the housing shortage in our towns is the bad planning done by the White local authorities. In the past they only paid attention to the smooth progress of the White component in the towns. Surely one plans a few years in advance for the growth of a town. I now ask what planning our White local authorities did for the growth of the non-White component in those towns. Today we find ourselves without houses and land, but the problem has been shifted onto the own affairs department and our hon Ministers, while those officials could have taken precautions in the past when everything was still general affairs. Now we are left holding the baby.

I welcome the White companies that want to construct houses for their workers in our Coloured areas, but on condition that those White companies transfer the rights of ownership to their employees who occupy those houses within three years. In addition those workers must not suddenly be dismissed before the three-year period expires. That is one of the great evils. The people are placed in the houses, but just before the three-year period expires, they are dismissed. They do not receive ownership; the White company retains it. That is a malpractice that we do not want in our areas.

That brings me to rentals. More than enough has been said about rentals and I am not going to elaborate. I just want to make this statement: Many White municipal officials do not know how to calculate the new rental formula. They are writing to the officials of the department again for explanations and submissions, which places an extra burden on the department’s officials. That rental formula must please be explained clearly.

I now come to a very important matter. The higher rentals that people often talk about are actually higher service fees. The increase in the service fees results in the people’s not being able to pay their rentals. Why not? Because at present no increases in wages or salaries are being granted. How must those tenants pay the higher rentals if they are not earning higher wages? The hon the Minister of Finance said recently that he was not going to grant an adjustment for our pensioners. He prevented that. Many of our tenants are pensioners. Why can the hon the Minister of Finance not speak to the local authorities and instruct them not to increase the service fees? If we attack the one side, why not the other side as well? I am making an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance not to ask the local authorities, but to instruct them that the increase of service fees must be stopped immediately, because our people’s salaries and wages are not being increased. That must happen immediately.

I now want to come to an urgent matter. The conditions that are caused by many local authorities and their attitudes result in their frequently becoming the enemies of our people. The Whites in South Africa must realise that in more ways than one they, and not the radicals or the terrorists, are their own worst enemy. Their actions cause them to become their own worst enemy.

I come now to Tesselaarsdal. I mentioned the conditions there during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of the Budget, and a deputation from Tesselaarsdal will come and see the hon the Minister one of these days about the division of property there and the remainder of that property.

I am now coming to something very important which I read in Oorsig of 1 April 1988. I read from page 4:

Now I ask you, Sir: Why do people squat? Let the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning give us the answer. Why do people squat?

There must be a reason. I should like to quote from page 2 of Credo Mutwa’s book Let not my country die:

What must people in urban areas do when there is no housing or land available and when they do not have jobs? What is the Government and especially the office of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning doing to house people? I want to quote further from the book by Credo Mutwa … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon Whips for having given me this opportunity to speak on housing. I want to place on record my appreciation and that of my constituency for the funds made available by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for the upgrading of townships in the Cape Peninsula. On behalf of my constituency I wish to thank the hon the Minister for his promise of more funds in future so that we can continue with the upgrading programme in our areas.

When I was writing my speech last night, I felt upset because the City Council was warned that a certain building in Cape Town would become a white elephant. The City Council of Cape Town is using our people as milking-cows for the upkeep of that big building on the foreshore. Yet, as my hon colleague has said, the City Council is controlled by the PFP. That is true.

*Then they still want us to woo them. How can I do this? How can I woo a city council which does not want to assist …

Order! I cannot allow the hon member to start up a courtship.

The reason for my remorse is that the work is long overdue and it has been hampered in years gone by by a custodian like the City Council, which preaches a doctrine of liberal ideologies, but is lacking when it comes to improving the environment of the people. Whilst failing in its fundamental duties and obligations as a local authority, this Council never fails to increase the rates payable and to collect these for its own account.

Just last week the City Council again came up with a new rental scheme. We told them that the people could not afford it at present. Yet they have increased the rent by 17%. The hon member for Ottery is not present, but I would like to point out to him the formulae laid down for the Parkwood Estate area. The old formula for the income group between R151 to R300 was R34,38; the new one is R47,07. Now they have completely changed the new formulae again so that they can get a certain amount of money into their coffers and keep their white elephant going and pay those other white elephants who are sitting there doing nothing.

There are cripples and invalids working for the City Council, yet the Council does not have work for our people.

I shall first read the tariffs under our old rental scheme. From 151 to 200 the tariff was R39,81; from 201 to 250 it is R46,43; and from 251 to 300 it is R54,56. That was before we objected, Sir. The new tariffs, ie the tariffs which are presently applicable, are as follows: From 151 to 200 the new tariff is R52,50; from 201 to 250 it is R59,12; and from 251 to 300 it is R67,25.

*Sir, how can our people afford this? Really, Sir, the sooner this hon Minister and his department take over that work, the better it will be for our people, because we will be able to help our people. I, for instance, go out of my way to help our people, Sir.

†Let us look at how the Cape Town City Council works. The Council has gone to great lengths to promote its project “The greening of the city” of Cape Town. The report contains grandiose ideas for the townships, but that is where the Council’s commitment ends. They only talk about what should be done, but nothing is actually done to improve and beautify our area. It seems, therefore, that that report was only intended for the White group areas in the City. In this regard I want to tell our people in the Administration: House of Representatives that they must not think I am forever picking on them, but I want them to understand that the hon the Minister has given authorisation for R1 million to be spent in my area. Of that R1 million, however, only R700 000 was used. The other money, it was said, had to be spent on escalation fees. Now I ask you, Sir, why must we give money to the City Council when they are going to take almost a quarter of that money to use somewhere else? Moreover, how can there be escalation costs? Really, Mr Chairman, I have no time for this so-called City Council and I think the sooner we get rid of that body the better. If I were really to say what is on my mind, I would get annoyed.

The hon the Minister himself knows what problems we are having with the City Council of Cape Town. He knows that he authorised Rx million to be spent on my area so that houses could be built. What has happened, however? He told the City Council that he was giving them that money on condition that they allowed the management committee to allocate the houses. That money—I speak under correction now—was given in 1985, and till now those houses have not been built. Do hon members know why?

*It is simply because we Coloureds may not decide who can get houses and who cannot. They want to think for us, they want to speak for us, they want to do everything for us. Now I ask the hon the Minister please to listen to what we have to say about the Cape Town City Council. We are appealing to him to assist us and not to give the money to them to do as they please any longer.

Mr Chairman, before I state the case of Bishop Lavis, I think it is important that I sketch some of the background, the history. [Interjections.]

I only want to go back as far as 1976 when the hon member for Robertson was the CRC member for Bishop Lavis. He tried to solve the problem of overcrowding in Bishop Lavis.

At that time it was said “Vote for Meyer, because he is making the road wider”. I should like to place something else on record and I think it is important that I do so, because even in 1976 we were promised certain things to solve the problem of overcrowding in Bishop Lavis. At the time we negotiated with the Department of Community Development and the then secretary, Mr Louis Fouché. I want to quote from a document in my possession:

1. (i) 50% to alleviate the overcrowding conditions in Elsies River.
2. (ii) 25% to the Department of Community Development in terms of their standard allocation procedures.
3. (iii) 25% to Bishop Lavis and the northern areas generally.

†Sir, it is a shocking situation that very little, if anything, has ever been done in order to assist Bishop Lavis in this problem of overcrowding. I do not know what has happened, but since documentation was submitted as early as 1972—this department then resorted under Messrs Pen Kotzé and Louis Fouche—nothing has come to fruition as far as this situation is concerned.

*In the light of this we went further and conducted a socio-economic survey from house to house. To date 42% of all houses in Bishop Lavis have been visited. In this regard I want to quote from a Western Cape Regional Services Council document which is relevant to the investigation. I quote:

1. 1. 99% van alle loseerders en plakkers se name verskyn nie op die algemene waglys vir Bishop Lavis nie.
2. 2. Daar is reeds 311 plakkershutte in Bishop Lavis geïdentifiseer wat deur Kleurlinge bewoon word. Daar word beraam dat daar ongeveer 700 krotte in Bishop Lavis bewoon word.

A serious situation definitely exists in this area. I quote further:

1. 3. Meer as 50% van alle eienaars en huurders se name verskyn nie op die kieserslys nie. Daar is reeds 1 170 name op die kieserslys geplaas.
2. 4. 73% van die gesinshoofde in Bishop Lavis verdien R151 tot R650 per maand. Die gemiddelde gesinsgrootte is 5 siele. Voorsiening vir behuising sal dus vierkamersubekonomiese eenhede moet wees.

1. 5. Tydens die ondersoek het die inwoners hul ontevredenheid uitgespreek oor die gesamentlike toiletgeriewe vir die huidige skema.

†Sir, we talk of modern and high technology, but we still have a situation where people have to share toilets.

*I am concerned about the situation. There are all sorts of illnesses doing the rounds—I shall refer to tuberculosis later—and now people are talking about Aids as well.

It is shocking to think that there are still not separate toilets today.

The sixth point that I want to raise is that 581 of the tenants are prepared to buy their two-roomed houses and enlarge them on a self-help basis. Not only will this bring relief with regard to the overcrowding; it will also give the sales drive a boast. I want to know whether or not it is possible to do something to do away with the overcrowding in Bishop Lavis. Can the people not be given an opportunity to overcome the problem of over-crowding by means of a self-help scheme?

There are 206 owners who would like to improve their homes on a self-help basis in order to do something about overcrowding. There are 230 tenants who would like to attempt the self-help scheme—in other areas as well, including Delft. Among the squatter families, 189 families are prepared to rent or attempt self-help schemes in other areas. These figures are based on a door-to-door survey that was conducted.

It is clear from the above information that the position with regard to overcrowding in Bishop Lavis is serious. It should be seen as one of the main causes of the drastic increase in the incidence of tuberculosis. Plans should immediately be devised to remedy this situation. [Interjections.]

Sir, I think it is important to keep my speech short, because time is limited, life is short and times are hard. As I said, there are 311 illegal structures with regard to which the overcrowding figure is 2 500. I must speak quickly, because there are other points that I want to touch on as well. With regard to the figures of overcrowding and the housing shortage, I just want to say that I did not suck them out of my thumb. Heads were counted in that those who undertook the investigation looked into every corner and hole and under every piece of corrugated iron where there was anyone. They did not merely write down what people said.

With regard to two-roomed houses the figure was 403. That gave us an overcrowding figure of 1184 with the result that the requirement came to 338. The figure with regard to four-roomed over-crowding was 3 715. If one adds the two figures together, one arrives at a figure of 4 899. Therefore, there is a need for 1 576 housing units. We need them immediately. The survey was conducted on only 42% of those erven. I think it is of the utmost importance that this matter be given the hon the Minister’s attention.

With regard to housing matters and the hon the Minister’s sales campaign I should like to quote from a letter that I received in response to a query that I made:

†Sir, I quote from this letter because I want to ask the hon the Minister—I have also done so before—if he will consider a group mortgage bond for these people. I refer to group mortgage bond insurance. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I think we must thank the hon the Minister and his department—from the staff in Parliament Towers right down to the staff in his regional office—for their assistance to us over the past year.

As we are all aware, housing in Cape Town is a big problem. We are very grateful, however, for the standard of the homes that have been erected in Blue Downs. I think the hon the Minister and his department should be congratulated on their initiative in regard to Blue Downs and especially on what is going to happen in the Delft extension. I believe we must do just that, and provide the housing in that area for the lower income groups most urgently. [Interjections.] I want to request that the regional department compile a waiting list for the people moving to that area, so that everyone earning under R1 000 per year will have the right to live in the Delft extension of Blue Downs.

We are grateful for the housing that was provided for the aged. I may mention that the hon the Minister opened the housing scheme officially. When one takes a look at the housing which was provided for the aged in Bonteheuwel, one sees that it is a completely new concept, and the people whom we have sent there are most grateful.

Much has been said during yesterday’s and today’s debates in connection with the rental formula. I must place on record that the new rental formula has been to the benefit of the people of Bonteheuwel. The old formula was replaced by the new one and somebody came to me the other day and told me that according to the new formula, they will have to pay R1,98 per month for a three-bedroomed cottage.

Plus the services.

Plus the services, of course, but we are talking about the basic rental. I think the communities should be told very clearly that this Government and the LP has reduced rentals in the townships. We have been attacked for increasing rentals, but the truth of the matter is that this administration has reduced rentals.

However, now that the rentals have been reduced—in some cases to less than R2—and now that people in our townships have received letters, in which they have been told that their rentals will now be reduced and asking them which formula they want to accept, the Cape Town City Council has grasped the opportunity to increase rentals by almost 50%. [Interjections.]

It is a disgrace!

I think that the White councillors of the Cape Town City Council are out of touch with reality and the township way of life. I honestly cannot support an increase in rentals right now. What is the logic in informing people one month that their rentals will be reduced, but the very next month that their rentals will be increased? I do not think that is logical. I think we should tell this Committee that one of those councillors—and I am referring specifically to the councillor for Schotsche Kloof, who is against the management committee there, telling them that he represents people—did not oppose the sharp rental increases for that area.

Who is he?

He is Councillor Osborne. [Interjections.] When I said to Councillor Perkins that we cannot agree to rental increases at this stage, he told me: “Mr Mckenzie, it is 4 pm, and if we do not make a decision now you will be sitting in this meeting without a quorum.”

They are out touch with the people.

Let us look at the rental arrears in our townships. Once again this Administration took a decision that people must not be evicted for not paying their rent. If we look at the arrear accounts of our local authorities, especially those in Cape Town, one will find that never before in our history have we had such high arrears. The people in the townships can no longer afford to live, because of unemployment. Now they are still increasing people’s rentals. This is why I want to ask that the hon the Minister to send a deputation to the Administrator or have a commission appointed which would do this. We need to look at the way in which services increase the rentals, because it is in that regard that our people are suffering.

They are charging us for an increase in administration costs. The council had 28 000 houses to be sold in the Cape, and 13 000 of those houses have already been sold. Why, then, must the administration costs be increased if half of the housing stock has been sold? If 13 000 houses have already been sold, what has happened to that staff. Why has the staff not been reduced or transferred to other departments? Why did the staff budget increase? We are just about fed-up—even in this Chamber—because year after year hon members get up and the level of this debate is lowered to that of a management committee or a local authority. Year after year we come to this House and this Parliament and the hon the Minister knows the problems he has with that so-called liberal City Council, but nothing is being done about that.

I think the time has come for the hon the Minister to do something. They are making a fat profit out of these houses. If they want to present figures to us to show that this runs at a loss, let us look at Bokmakierie which was built in the 1940s. Those houses are already crumbling. Do they want to tell us that those houses have not been paid for? They are making profits on our money. This department gets back the money they have lent the City Council.

What happens to the interest?

They only give that money to this department once every six months, but they get that money from the tenants monthly. What happens to the accumulated interest? Why are we never told these things? [Interjections.] That is right. They say it is not my business. Why? They want to keep it a White affair. If it is money which affects us, it is withheld from us. Just the other day this council voted on the issue and they won by one vote. If it was not for that one vote they would have given the housing back to the hon the Minister. If they do not want to let go, is the hon the Minister going to allow our people to keep suffering so that Whites can make decisions about matters affecting our people? [Interjections.]

It is time that the hon the Minister went out of his way. If necessary we must create our own housing committee. When one speaks to any township dweller and even the staff of the housing department of the Cape Town City Council, they ask one: “When is your department going to take over housing? We cannot see our people suffering like this.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as I am the vice-chairman to the hon member for Bonteheuwel on the Athlone District Management Committee, I want to underscore what he has said. We certainly do have problems with the City Council of Cape Town when it comes to housing issues. Just to emphasise the point of the cost of the upkeep of the staff, I may mention that in the 1984-85 housing estimates an amount of R3 900 000 was allocated for staff costs. That staff had to administer 48 500 houses. In 1988-89 the staff costs amount to R6 900 000 and they have to administer 33 000 houses. The City Council claims that because there are fewer homes to administer, staff members have been assigned to administer the sale of houses. They have a sales campaign going. The average sales of houses are about 100 per month. The City Council is afraid to rock the boat, because they will either have to get rid of some of their staff or push them into other avenues within their particular sector. Consequently they want the poor man, the rent payer, to continue paying for their retaining that staff.

Coming back to the housing issue in general, wherever we go in South Africa the distress signal of our community is: “Please, Sir, I need a house.” The severe shortage of land and houses is the biggest single factor governing the lives of our community throughout their existence. Our people are suffering terribly as a result of the shortage of houses, some very traumatically. We are all aware that apart from the natural population growth, the implementation of the Group Areas Act robbed us of a large portion of our housing stock and land: People were moved from homes they owned and occupied into homes that could have been occupied by those people on the housing waiting lists. Look what that has created! It has created a monstrous problem for which the Government has little intention of finding any solution in the immediate future. Within the municipal area of Cape Town we have a housing shortage of 45 000 units. As a result of that, mass overcrowding has become the order of the day.

In my constituency of Hanover Park the township of Hanover Park is grossly overpopulated. An average of 18 persons or three families live in one one-bedroomed unit, and there are approximately 700 to 800 such units. The situation has given rise to severe social degradation, crime is rife and at most times frightening, and no amount of policing will solve this problem.

Two years ago I asked the hon the Minister’s department to investigate and report on the possibility of taking over a large tract of land from the City Council of Cape Town which they had set aside for a rail link between Manenberg and Ottery. The cost of providing a rail link between these two towns would be astronomical and, to all intents and purposes, not viable. We need homes; and we need land on which to build houses. I am appealing to the hon the Minister to leave no stone unturned in his quest to solve the housing crisis which has reached astronomical proportions.

Let me come to another aspect of the City Council set-up, viz the allocation of homes as far as the management committees are concerned, and the power to decide thereon.

The Athlone District Management Committee has a frustrating job. Their biggest frustration is that they do not have the authority to decide on the allocation of homes, ejectments, etc. We experience countless problems with regard to illegal occupants because of the overcrowding situation. I am unable to go into great detail in this regard because of the time factor.

The decision to eject people from their homes rests with one person within the City Council, and that is the director of housing. She decides whether a person should be allowed to stay or whether he should be evicted.

Last year I made an appeal to the hon the Minister to stop the ejectment of people from their homes for a temporary period of six months so that the Housing Board could decide upon changing the housing policy with regard to illegal tenants. So many people are without homes and overcrowding is rife. When the City Council ejects people, these people are out on the streets and they come and knock at my door. This takes place week after week and month after month. These cases are then referred to the department and the department has to turn to the city council to ask them if there are houses available. I did not get a reply from the Housing Board on their decision with regard to keeping these people in their homes temporarily, or that at a cut-off date these homes would be allocated to the people instead of their being ejected onto the streets. What is the sense of ejecting a person if that person then goes to the department and is invariably allocated the same home again? He might as well be allowed to stay on there.

I would like the hon the Minister to take up this issue with the City Council and the Housing Board, otherwise we will have to find some other alternative for retaining these people in their homes. Maybe we will even have to go to court on the issue.

For the upgrading of our areas—I am referring to Hanover Park specifically—we need at least another R6 million to R10 million. Hanover Park is a mess anyway—it does not have proper roads, sidewalks, parks and other facilities. There is an old age complex and I would like to ask the hon the Minister to allocate the necessary funds required to upgrade this complex. These units consist of two rooms and a toilet only. There is a communal bathroom for about 35 couples.

The three-storeyed flats in Hanover Park definitely need renovation. Many of the stairways or lean-tos are falling to pieces. We might soon have an accident there—somebody mounting those stairs may fall through them. Many of the ceilings in those flats are cracked and they will either have to be demolished or something drastic will have to be done about them. I want to ask the hon the Minister to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into the poor workmanship in respect of those flats. The same applies to the various homes in the area. There are too many one-bedroomed houses. We need money so that we can at least help the people and provide them with one extra room.

In conclusion I would like to ask the hon the Minister to extend the sales campaign for at least another year.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister and his staff for what they have done in my constituency. I want to come to the facts, however.

As my point of departure, I want to repeat that it is imperative that an ombudsman be appointed in my constituency. There is no question about that. Moreover, the ombudsman who is appointed should be free to travel throughout South Africa. You see, Sir, when the department receives an application for the development of a township, they look at the plan and say it is fine. What does one find eventually, however? One finds that there are eventually just monotonous rows of houses. There is no variation. This is what the department should look at. If there is no variation, they should order the developers to redraft the plans.

We are saying we want more houses. Things do not work as simply as that, however. A need must first be established, then the ground has to be inspected, and then ownership of the land has to be determined. If it is not proclaimed ground, one has to go through all the various phases, and by the end it will have taken nearly five years before the scheme has gotten off the ground. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we have to look at this thing constructively. That is my first point.

My second point is that I have lots of problems in my constituency. One problem is that the people have no community centres. Where, then, can the people meet? The White people do not want to share their facilities. I am amazed that there is no community centre in Joubertina. When this township was built, a circular was issued to the effect that the department was not to grant the loan if the plans for the area did not include a community centre. Yet now there is a township which is dark and which has no roads or drainage. The people are paying, however. The authorities are trying a new stunt too now. When the management committee approaches the department and says the people want to have a community centre built, the department says that that will entail each tenant’s having to pay R10 more in rent. I say, Sir, that these people have a right to a community centre. When the group area was declared, we were told that we would not have any problems, and I think we should go back to the Government of the day with this.

I turn now to the various circulars that were sent around. In circular 4/87, clause 3.2.3, reference is made to the income of the people. I quote:

It is all well and good to say that, but if one wants to go to that department, on what basis does one go there? After all, that hon Minister already has problems with pensions, so how on earth are we going to get a subsidy from that department which deals with social welfare and pensions?

I now want to quote from circular 4/87, clause 3.2.6:

I then want to turn to circular No 5 in which the following is stated:

This never happens in practice, however, because the local authority wants to build up its funds. It is so convenient for the local authority; it has different sources such as a maintenance reserve, the rent reserve and other funds. They are not going to be anxious to sell a house without a deposit. Who would be? The strategy I propose we employ is that each member of a management committee ask to be granted powers to administer housing. If they are granted those powers, all matters and money relating to housing will be transferred to the management committee. The management committee will not be gaining autonomy, but will simply be taking on a responsibility. We have to look at strategies by means of which the money can be taken away from the local authority.

*I am not going to dwell on this any further. I should like to refer to another important point.

†I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider cancelling all the other circulars and to issue instructions to local authorities to sell these houses without asking for a deposit so that we can bring relief to our people.

I also want to refer to the new formula. I think it is a very good formula, especially for those with a low income. We have no problem with that, but what bothers us is the people who have to work with the formula. I want to mention an example of what happened in Malmesbury. In terms of the old formula, these people paid R20,26 per month. In terms of the new formula they must now pay R70,58 per month. It goes further. This R70,58 is only the basic rental. To this one must still add service charges of R33,32 per month. What is happening now? These people are saying they sent us to Parliament, but that we can obviously not bargain or negotiate, because since we have been in Parliament, they have had to pay for our shiny Mercedes-Benz motor cars. I want to suggest that we appoint ombudsmen to investigate the management committee system throughout South Africa. We are paying for those officials in the various municipalities. If this is done, we will not have the same problem next year.

Another matter I want to refer to, is the question of increases. In terms of the circular, if a person earns between Rnil and R450, the increase must be R5, and after that the suggested increase is R10 to R15. The suggestion is that this must be phased in. When the circular came out, local authorities were supposed to work on the 1983 incomes and automatically credited those people on their lists. What happened, however, was that those people who were in fact credited, were evicted from their homes, simply because the local authorities did not do their job properly. They then use the new survey form to make an evaluation, because according to their instructions, people cannot just pay more, they have a choice: they either pay the old rent, or they pay the new rent. To solve this problem, we should allow everybody to buy their houses. We can even investigate the possibility of sectional titles. I know it takes a little bit longer and that it is more complicated, but we must investigate the possibilities nevertheless. As long as our people are managed by municipalities, they will suffer. We must look at a strategy or plan to remove this yoke of oppression from our people’s shoulders.

Sir, I have not said anything about my constituency, but I do not think that it was necessary to do so.

You have two minutes left.

Order! That is something I will decide about. The hon member for Haarlem may continue.

I think what is important is that the hon the Minister should instruct his department to look for land, throughout South Africa, and to look at ways to service that land. If land is serviced, half our problems will be solved, because then we can build on that land. If we do this, we could also investigate the circumstances in a particular area. If there are problems, we would then be able to solve those problems. Now all the MPs have to run around. I do it, I have to ask the officials to come to me to explain the rental forms, etc. I suggest that the department decide on a formula and on how things should be done, because then we would not have to run around.

In order to service land and to provide the necessary facilities, they have to look, for example, at schools and clinics. A community centre can serve many purposes. Where do people receive their money on pay-days for example? They often have to walk kilometres because we do not have the necessary facilities. Furthermore, nine out of ten times, when they go to town, they spend their money there. Then, when they arrive home, they have problems. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the debate with interest. If one were a political sociologist, one could analyse the expressions that were used, the ideas that were presented, the frustration that was evident, the solutions that were suggested, and many other aspects; and one could then see where there is strain in our society with regard to the Government’s constitutional changes.

I am glad that there is an increasing awareness amongst hon members of Parliament with regard to possible ways in which these problems can be solved. One hon member says, for example, that management committees must go, while the next says that they must stay. Another hon member asks that they be given more powers and some hon members even talk about autonomy. I am glad that this debate was open to that degree. In this way people become more aware of the situation in which they find themselves. Political consciousness has to do with a certain awareness, because once one is aware, one becomes conscious of problems and can start looking for solutions.

One can see that even in the NP, in the hon the State President’s proposals and in the Budget. One can also see it in the CP. It occupies everyone’s attention these days. Therefore, I am glad that we had a meaningful debate on this particular question. One can also notice it in the splinter groups that are being formed, in the civic associations and housing action committees in various cities. All this proves the point that I am trying to make, viz that one should make an analysis and then start looking for solutions. [Interjections.]

Sir, we in this party have repeatedly stated that our vision is clear. We have clarity about what our goal is. That is why we are achieving what we set out to do. The results are obvious. However, I want to correct some things as I go along. Unfortunately I will not be able to reply in detail to every speech that was made in this debate. By making use of Hansard, the staff will reply to the points which every hon member raised.

The hon member Mr Paul Müller made the statement that the LP had been in charge for the past 20 years. [Interjections.] That is an obvious untruth. We took over housing matters in 1984. [Interjections.] Before 1984 it was a general affair. There was a Minister of Community Development, with his staff, who dealt with community development and housing matters in the whole of South Africa. We in the CRC had to stand in the queue; we had no say. Therefore, people must please take notice of the fact that, in the four years since we have taken over, we have made our mark as far as housing is concerned. This is manifest in the attacks on the department.

It is obvious that hon members are looking for solutions. I want to thank them for that, because that is an indication that there is an increasing awareness. However, it must not end at that. Analysis must not lead to paralysis. That often happens in debates.

*This sometimes happens after hon members have said what is on their minds. It is a good thing for hon members to say what is on their minds and to get matters off their chests, but that should not be the end of the story.

†One is then confronted with the hard realities of economics—the supply of money and the fighting for funds.

We have made advances in the welfare field, Sir; and we have made advances in the field of housing, because we are deeply concerned about the future of the community we represent. The end goal of our participation in this system is the upliftment of our people.

This is a historical happening. When the slaves were first freed in 1834 they had a four-year contract to leave their employers in 1838. However, what did they march into? They went from poverty to poverty; they were free only to be poor. There were no factories, and there was no industrial revolution, and they returned to the slave masters they had come from. That was the only home they knew. They were disposessed people. They had no property ownership, there was no land available; they were slaves. Therefore this party has a historical task. This is why we quarrel with those who boycott, because we have to follow the Governmental processes and have to participate in order to deliver the goods.

I am not quarrelling with the hon member for Border now. He participated in this debate twice. So did the hon member for Haarlem and the hon member Mr P J Müller. Why did they participate? They complained about conditions in their constituencies. They cannot move away from the needs of their communities, because they are the people who vote for them. These are our people’s social needs, and that is their perception of their representatives.

Own affairs is a fact.

It is not own affairs. The fact is that we are public representatives. The people one represents want one to solve their problems, because we are their leaders. [Interjections.] They are concerned about daily bread and butter issues. We see this coming to the fore again and again. We are here and we are going to participate until all those problems are solved.

This, of course, means that risks will have to be taken. Risks will have to be taken in local government, and that is why the hon member for Haarlem is correct in saying that the management committee must take over powers in respect of housing, with all its financial implications. [Interjections.] We must assume that responsibility. We must not run away from it. It does not mean autonomy. The local authority must see to its job of providing services, such as water supply, electricity, the removal of litter and traffic control. That is their job, but what have they become now? They are becoming housing development bodies. That is where politics comes in, because they have taken over Coloured housing. Have hon members noticed that as far as White housing is concerned, the private developer does this for the White groups? However, White local authorities have taken over Coloured housing as a function and it is in this respect that we are being exploited. [Interjections.] This is why we, as a developing agency, have to take it over as a function, as any private developer takes over housing in any White area. [Interjections.]

Blue Downs has proved our point. The City Council of Cape Town wanted to take control of that area, but we took it out of their hands. [Interjections.] We took it out of their hands and we privatised it; and who is in charge of it now? Our department is, and we have our development committee, which hon members of Parliament and members of the management committee of Malcolm Rose in the Kleinvlei area, serve on. We have our own director who deals with the housing development of Blue Downs. It is under our control and the people are moving into Blue Downs. Hon members should have a look at that area. It is expensive, but we, the LP, want to stand back and look at Blue Downs, which will, in the years ahead, stand as a monument of future town planning. [Interjections.] We are not going to accept the Bonteheuwels anymore, the rental structures and the control of the local authorities. [Interjections.]

That is why I say we have to take risks and that we are going to be accused of making the system work. We are going to accused of going for autonomy. People are going to accuse us, but we are going to do it because we have the needs of our community at heart.

Does the hon the Minister have the remedy? There is a Housing Act for the House of Representatives. Let us have the legislation before us to argue that point.

Mr Chairman, if it is necessary to amend the Act, we can do that. If we have to amend legislation, then we can do it. I want to make it clear to hon members not to do what the boycotters do and become involved in an intellectual debate. This is often the case. I want to prove my point that housing is the developers’ function.

In terms of the Housing Act—the hon member for Border is correct—a management committee is a local authority.

That is right.

However, when the word came into being it was a swearword. People said: “Oh, now it’s autonomous. Now you can become the mayor of Bonteheuwel.” In terms of the Housing Act we have actually taken over the function of housing. We have taken over that responsibility. Therefore, I want to appeal to the management committees in the areas controlled by the City Council to form one big management committee before the election takes place so that we can finally delegate to it the function of housing in the Cape Peninsula area.

We are serious about this, and I want to repeat that hon members must please not fall into the trap of talking about autonomy, because we reject this completely. The sources of revenue are with the White local authorities and the State staff is there. We are not going to let them move away with the source of income while we have to administer the poverty of our own people. Hon members must look clearly at what they are saying and they must look very carefully at what they want.

Our department has taken over a development function, not autonomy. In this country we are going to move into coalition government—local, provincial, regional and central government. [Interjections.] Let us take the CP. They can only win the election with the co-operation of English-speaking South Africans. That is how the NP took over. That is why they have so many English-speaking Cabinet Ministers. The English vote of the old United Party has gone to the NP, so we are not afraid of the CP. The NP must go through that strain so that we can move towards participation at all levels of Government.

I was going to remind hon members that I also have a constituency. I can cry just like them. [Interjections.] I also have to negotiate for funds. I can give examples. Hon members can come to my constituency. Cranville has no street lights or waterborne sewerage. We had to appoint two development committees at Franschhoek and at Cranville to examine the future development of those towns. Stellenbosch, of course, has gained; and like some of the hon members I want to thank our department for what is taking place in Stellenbosch. This is where I come back again to the question of public representatives. We had to take over.

This is why I had an argument with the former Director of Education, Mr Arendse, about the placing of sites. That is what is going to be the function of management committees with regard to schools. The placing of future school sites and the planning of sites for future community development will be their job. Hon members know how we sometimes struggle to build a school in a particular area because there are no sites available. Look what happened in my town. The Director of Education, then Mr Arendse, wanted a third secondary school in Stellenbosch. Let us look at the facts, however. A thousand children were coming to school by bus every day. That meant that we had to build a school which children could only reach by bus. Our children cannot even get into a secondary school at standard six level; they are in the primary schools.

However, what did I do? I went to look for sites. I got one outside Stellenbosch where the buses come from in the Cranville area and the area of Jamestown.

*I personally looked for premises. It is my management committee’s duty to do so.

†We got old Luckhoff back for three years. Old Luckhoff was a Coloured secondary school in a White town and we got it back from the university for three years.

*Who spoke to the Rector of the University of Stellenbosch? The management committee and the MP, not the radicals. [Interjections.]

I can also wail about a shortage of funds. My constituency is Pniel. In Pniel the people do not have freehold. The people are battling to get loans to build their houses. There is also a shortage of land. The other evening at a branch meeting in Pniel I had to laugh when the people asked me: “Minister, when are you going to answer our letters?”

I therefore know all about that. However, we are battling with staff. Hon members must not be angry with me, but although we support the hon member for Haarlem’s idea with regard to an ombudsman, at this stage hon members must make full use of their ministerial representative. ††I now want to come back to the contributions of individual members. As I have said, it was interesting to see how hon members of the Official Opposition were forced to participate in the debate.

It is our democratic right.

Yes it is, but the hon member does so because his voters force him to do so.

*After five years he has to go back to his voters and tell them what he has achieved for them.

That is what Hansard says.

Yes, that is what Hansard says.

†Why do they do so, however? They do so because their voters talk in terms of bread and butter issues. That is their dilemma.

*They do not want to hear the philosophy of the hon members of the Official Opposition. They want to hear about the bread and butter issues, such as when houses and schools are going to be built for them and when they are going to get their pensions.

†That is why they want hon members to participate here. It is on this issue that we broke up with the school boycotters, because all they were concerned with was intellectual politics.

*I am tired of “pulpit politicians”.

So am I.

Ask them who is really doing the work in the communities.

Tutu cannot even build a toilet. [Interjections.]

Those who participate in the system will one day look back with pride on the steps that they took to alleviate the suffering of our people.

*We also went through the boycott phase.

†Everyone can look at our history. Here in the library one will find books on the subject. When one looks at the last hundred years one sees a history of poverty, of talks of non-collaboration and non-participation which brought no solutions. For that reason we in the LP are not going to stand back.

I am sorry that the hon member for Ottery is not here. I will not be able to deal with all the speakers as they spoke, but I will make a few remarks. With regard to the case of the Brand family I want to say that the matter was investigated. Mr Brand has repaired his dwelling and does not require any financial assistance. Apparently the repairs were effected with Mr Brand’s own resources and so he required no further assistance from this department. I just want to tell hon members that it takes a long time for me to reply to all their requests. I receive plus-minus 150 letters per month—and that is apart from the letters at the regional office. I have to refer many letters back to the regional offices and because of the staff shortage it takes a long time to answer all hon members’ letters. We regret that.

*As I have said, I cannot reply to every speaker in detail. I now want to talk about rentals.

†The hon member for Bonteheuwel put it correctly when he said that we had reduced the rentals. The rental formula is applicable, but it is the local authorities which are not implementing it. We have gone to them and have given them the instruction to lower the rentals, which they did. However, the hon member for Bonteheuwel is right when he says that they then took the gap to raise their service rates. The Housing Board is looking into this question, however. If there are specific cases, like the one in Malmesbury, we want them to be brought to the attention of our department so that we can look into them. The hon member for Haarlem forgot about certain things in respect of the new rental formula. Our first problem is the person who earns too much.

He is getting hurt.

Yes, he is getting hurt.

†Therefore we have to look at our rental formula continuously. We addressed the matter particularly with the poor in mind.

I want to tell the hon member for Border that his City Council begged us for a new formula and the department gave it to them. Why are they not implementing it? Why is the East London City Council not implementing the new formula?

This is why we want the law here—so that we can hammer them.

As long as you support us, Peter, we can do so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have problems. My staff have to go back continuously to explain the situation and I find it absolutely absurd that a town clerk cannot read a rental formula.

Do hon members know what is happening? This is why I want to refer once again to the question of functions. Do we have to do this at regional or at provincial level? I am tired of knocking at the door of a White local authority. I want to state in public that I have no problems with many local authorities. They go out of their way to assist me. However, some of them force us to talk in the way in which the hon member for Border did this morning. We have to take the housing function out of their hands completely. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the local authorities are the instrument through which we must build houses in Coloured areas. They are the instrument through which we have to administer housing in the Coloured areas. What happens now to the management committee? It has no powers and no functions. Therefore we have to devise a method so that we can take over their function so that we can upgrade housing and build new homes for the people we represent. I want to repeat. Hon members should pay a visit to Blue Downs. They should take note of who allocates those houses. Private companies have to market them. Hon members should read the Sunday Times Extra and Rapport Ekstra so that they can see how Blue Downs is being advertised. Sir, this happens because we have privatised and taken over the function.

We must also deal with the question of implementing the rural rental formulae. We must pay the local authority for services rendered. This is what any private developer has to do. One can look at any White area. Whenever land is made available, the private developer takes it over, markets his homes and the city council only connects the necessary services.

*I now want to argue about giving houses away free of charge. I must do this.

†After we studied certain given cases we did give the houses away, yes. However, we need a revolving fund for new housing. If the hon member for Haarlem is not satisfied with the factor via which we arrive at the selling price, we can look into that factor.

[Inaudible.]

No, let us look at the question. We can sit with the officials and the Housing Board in order to arrive at a new factor. I want to remind hon members that housing is a general function in terms of the Constitution.

Because of the money parting hands.

Hon members must read the Constitution. I have to sit with the other hon Ministers of Housing. There is an interministerial committee on which all the Ministers serve, and that is the place where one has to fight the new rental formulae.

Twist their arms.

The hon member need not doubt my capability to twist somebody’s arm. I argued with other hon Ministers on that committee to raise the income limit of people from R1 000 to R1 500 so that they could get loans from the State. I did not succeed and it was raised from R800 to R1 000. This is still too low.

Who is the obstruction?

The other hon Ministers do not want to agree. We have to agree in those meetings on a general basis. The hon the Minister of Finance looks at one. His officials are also present, because this has to do with finance. One must also remember that many of our homes are heavily subsidised.

*The person who now buys the house, after having paid rent over the years, has not paid the total rental to cover the erection costs of the house. His rental was subsidised. [Interjections.] His payment is now also being subsidised.

I want to tell hon members something else in this regard. One hon member here said that the monthly payments of the occupiers of houses were higher after they had purchased the houses than their rentals were when they were leasing these houses.

† In terms of the new rental formula, however, the two payments should be the same.

No.

The hon member says that is not the case. Then we shall have to look into those particular cases in which those payments are not the same. That is why the new rental formula was introduced—so that an occupant’s monthly repayments, after he has bought the house, are the same as his monthly rent used to be. We shall look into this question of the interpretation of “may” and “shall” that the hon member for Haarlem raised. He said that local authorities interpret differently when it comes to the paying of a deposit. If an instruction has to be issued, we shall do so in a circular. Morever, it will be a definite instruction so that the local authorities will know exactly what to do. I agree fully with some of the hon members who said that the local authorities interpret the circular in a way that suits them. They say it is not an instruction, but a request.

That is right.

That is right, yes. We should look at that circular again, therefore. With that in mind, I should like to ask whether we cannot revive—on a temporary basis—our committee that dealt with housing, so that we can sit down with the officials again and plan the rewording of the circular in order to send out a definite instruction to the local authorities. [Interjections.] I would ask hon members, however, please to bear with me on this. We cannot give the houses away. We have to make a profit so that we can inject funds into our building fund. As the Minister, I have to say this. It would be irresponsible of me to say that we should simply give all the houses away. Economically speaking, it does not work that way, because next year hon members are going to come here and say to the Minister that they need more money for housing. If they examine the budget which was handed to them, they will see that millions of rands came back into the fund through the sale of homes and the repayment of loans.

This is not an easy task, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon members again that we should choose hon members from this House and form a committee which will sit down with the officials in order to negotiate the best possible deal under the circumstances.

*We are going to give attention to this. Hon members must remember that the committee which we appointed at that stage—the hon member for Border was a member of that committee—accepted the principle that people paid rent according to their income. This was accepted by us. That document was on the table of every hon Minister entrusted with housing. This House’s proposals were therefore accepted. Now we come to the implementation of those proposals. We must therefore get together again and revise the entire matter to see how the principle should be applied.

I do not want the hon memeber to get angry about this—after all he is speaking the truth—but there are different lessees. Must the last person to live in the house enjoy the benefit of getting that house free of charge although other people lived in that house before? [Interjections.]

A formula must be introduced.

Our hon leader is correct when he says we have to look at a formula. Some people are getting some money for their areas.

*The hon member for Border is getting R2 million, for example, and the hon member for Dysselsdorp is getting R9 million for his constituency.

†The hon member for Bosmont is going to get R9 million for his area as well. We are still going to talk to him about how that money is to be spent. I shall give him a detailed answer. [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, as regards the upgrading and general renovation of buildings, I merely want to tell the hon member for Border that this only applies to buildings under the control of the Department of Education, and not to houses. However, people must not think that we are not going to renovate and restore our residential areas.

†I also want to refer to the question of welfare help as far as housing is concerned. I want to explain to hon members that we have a problem helping people who are genuine welfare cases. At this stage we are working on a formula for welfare aid grants to these people.

*We are sending officials to the relevant families to ascertain the income of the family, and then we decide whether or not that family qualifies for a welfare grant. That is how things are generally done. However, the problem is that in cases where pensioners cannot afford their rental or payments, they ask us to lower the rental. These are the people we want to help and that is why the local authorities send welfare workers to investigate the income of the family. However, there are cases where children work and board with their parents or family, but make no contribution to the services they use in that house. If the pensioner therefore allows his children to use him, that is his affair, but if there are working children in a house, they must make a contribution to the services they use. They use water, they discard rubbish which has to be removed, but now the pensioner says he cannot afford to pay his rental. This is what we want to prevent. We want to work out a system in terms of which we can give real welfare assistance to those persons who need it.

†Sir, when we adjourned, I was talking about the various amounts allocated to the various constituencies. Unfortunately I can only mention a few of the figures my officials were able to obtain. I have asked the hon member concerned to see our officials, either Mr Du Preez, Mr Fuchs or Mr Parrot, and ask them for a breakdown for the particular constituency. I have already indicated that more than R2 million will be spent in the constituency of the hon member for Border, R9 million in the Dysselsdorp constituency, R9,5 million in the constituency of the hon member for Bosmont, R2 million in the Rust Ter Vaal constituency and nearly R7 million in the Berg River constituency. In the constituency of the hon member for Haarlem an amount of R3 million will be spent, while nearly R3 million will be spent in the Hantam constituency and nearly R4 million in the Bokkeveld constituency. In the Nuweveld constituency more than R4 million will be spent. I have only been able to answer a few of the hon members who participated in this debate. If other hon members want a breakdown for their particular constituency, they should ask our officials in Parliament Towers for the relevant figures.

Hon members will understand that as far as the sales campaign is concerned, there is still a 25% discount on a cash sale, 5% discount for leasing for more than five years and a 5% discount for purchasing during the sales campaign. Very often the selling prices are near the cost price, and I want to reiterate that circulars are not guidelines but directives. The wording has to be corrected and we will deal with that. Most local authorities are co-operating and seminars on the new formula are being held countrywide. There is an ongoing process to inform and advise local authorities. The matter is also being taken up with the United Municipal Executive, a body dealing with all the White local authorities in the four provinces. If I have left something out, hon members should please contact my department and I shall try to give them a written answer.

*I want to tell the hon member for Dysselsdorp—he requested that the houses which people had been renting for years now, should be given to them free of charge—that I agree with the sales strategy. This will promote home-ownership considerably. However, I am afraid that we are dealing with an upliftment task. If we simply give the houses away, some people are not going to see this as an upliftment task. At the moment we are talking to various companies about upgrading programmes.

†I want to tell hon members that two White persons approached me yesterday. In co-operation with building societies, they want to work at upgrading homes which people have already bought.

*I want to give the hon member for Dysselsdorp the assurance that my department and I are giving ongoing attention to further incentives with regard to the purchase of houses. I hope to be able to make further announcements in this regard in the near future.

I have said that we are working out a formula in respect of self-help schemes. Our problem with self-help housing is that when a man earns too much, he pays according to his income—as if he had received a completed house. We want to reward him instead, in the sense that irrespective of his salary he will only have to pay the erection costs. We are working on this.

The selling price of 736 houses in Dysselsdorp, Extension 1, was laid down in 1986. Representations with regard to the redetermination of prices have been received. I therefore want to ask hon members to ensure that their facts are correct. As regards the selling price of houses in Dysselsdorp, Extension 2, my department will inform the hon member on the position as soon as possible.

As regards the condition of houses in Toekomsrus, Bridgetown—I am mentioning this in consequence of the report from which the hon member for Dysselsdorp quoted—the Building Services Division of my department commented as follows:

If we bear in mind that the houses have been provided with all facilities which exist in a town-ship, such as tarred roads, the sales price of R10 553,36 cannot be considered excessive. As regards town planning, one must bear in mind that one has to pay for part of the planning of the area. One is paying for those tarred roads and street lights.

With reference to the rental formula, one does pay according to one’s income. Hon members must not think that a poor man or someone like a pensioner can buy a house. He will not be able to pay the full amount. Sir, I am going to come back to the rental formula constantly. In certain cases a person pays R6,25 per month. Hon members can now ask me whether I mean that he is going to pay R6,25 every month for 30 years. The answer is “yes”.

But he will have died long before that!

That does not matter. I am now talking about that kind of repayment. Last year we had the case of a widow with three small children. She bought the house, and will pay according to her income for the entire 30 year period. Let us assume she lives in a house costing R30 000. She is not going to pay off that entire R30 000. The State is subsidising the rest. This is the important point. I want to repeat that this is a very complex matter. We must convene our committee again to talk about this.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether a person who has paid off 10% of the purchase price is entitled to a deed of transfer?

Yes, once the term has elapsed. What this amounts to is that when he sells the house, the new buyer has to pay the full price.

Sir, that person is the owner of the house while he is paying for it. If the husband dies, it belongs to his wife and if she dies it belongs to one of the children. This is how we do things in Stellenbosch. It stays in the family. The payment simply carries on.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether a person, when he has repaid 10% of the purchase price, qualifies for a deed of transfer?

I shall have to ask the officials in my department. They say “yes”. [Interjections.]

In reply to the hon member for Dysselsdorp I want to tell him that according to the information of my department the new rental formula already applies, but not to all houses as yet. The town council has therefore been asked to speed this up.

As regards the community hall in Oudtshoorn, an amended application was received by the regional director on 20 April 1988, and will be submitted to the Housing Board as soon as possible.

Then there is also the matter of Hendrik Koopman’s request for a building loan. He applied for a loan of R20 000, but according to his income the maximum amount for which he qualifies is R18 000. The application was therefore refused by the Housing Board. I have asked the Housing Board to reconsider the matter. [Interjections.] I am simply replying to a few of the hon members who participated in the debate, to show that we have answers for everyone.

The hon member for Bosmont spoke about the poor conditions in Riverlea, the proclamation of a township so that the houses could be sold, the possibility of further expansions and the house prices.

In the first place the municipality is at present electrifying the houses in Extension 1. As soon as the project has been completed the upgrading of the entire area will receive further attention. In the second place, with regard to Riverlea, Extension 1 has already been proclaimed, and the municipality expects Extension 2 to be proclaimed within four months. Extensions 3 and 4 have already been surveyed, and as soon as they have been proclaimed services will be installed. In the third place, more than 80 of the houses in Extension 2 have already been sold under the hire-purchase scheme, and 80% of the economic houses have already been sold. The municipality has the prices of the houses.

I merely want to tell hon members that they must say in this House that they could not get the figures from their regional offices. There are several MPs who telephone officials of regional offices, who are specifically working with this, directly. Hon members can therefore get the information immediately, if they simply lift the telephone receiver and find out who is working with this in their regional office. They can telephone the town clerk when they experience problems, as is the case in Malmesbury. They can then ask why the town treasurer took a specific decision. Hon members must find out how a local authority determined the rent, for example.

I will tell hon members what the trouble is. When hon members send me a letter, it has to be sent to the regional office; then it has to be sent to the municipality, after which it is sent back, and five months later they get an answer. [Interjections.] Hon members must therefore please speed matters up. I do not want to boast about my own constituency. My management committee never visits me in my office. [Interjections.] That is because they know what they must do. They know who they must telephone. They must liaise with the official in the regional office who is working with this.

They do the work more quickly because they are afraid of the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

We are talking about constitutional change and the devolution of power. [Interjections.] We must learn how government systems work, because one day we are going to work with local authorities that deal with housing.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal spoke about the big families in small houses, as well as the increase in the amount on which first buyers are subsidised from R40 000 to R60 000. The hon Ministers responsible for housing do not want to make any concessions in this regard. They say that there will be less money available for other people if people get bigger loans.

When people buy houses and find that they are too small, application is made through the intercession of the local government to the Housing Board for funds to add on an extra room on a self-help basis.

Hon members must please understand that if everyone were to ask for a loan of R60 000 or R80 000, there would be less money left for the next person. Look at what we are doing with self-help housing. We can build two houses for the price of one, because that man gets a smaller loan. Hon members can go and see what is happening in Belhar. Some people are building houses for R13 000 and R17 000, including the site. Those people’s payment is going to be lower, and they are also helping their brothers, because the rest of the loan is available for another self-help house. Hon members must please help us. We must not create expectations in that departement which we cannot satisfy. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasise this point, because it is a very controversial matter. We now expect to build the best houses for our people, and this is a good ideal, but in the long run that man is going to have a high payment. We must help him to help himself.

Subsidise the services.

Right, let us talk about that. [Interjections.] Let us talk about subsidising the plot, because the cost of the plot is the problem. This is what we must talk about.

It is God’s earth which is so expensive.

It is as free as rainwater, but someone has to pay for the pipes. Rainwater is free, but my problem is the services on that site—irrespective of the house built on it.

The committee of Ministers entrusted with housing gave consideration to increasing the maximum building costs of houses which qualify in terms of the scheme for first-time home buyers. After thorough consideration it was decided that the amount should be increased owing to the increased building costs. Details are being worked out at the moment and an announcement will be made in the near future.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal also put the following questions to the department: What progress has been made in approving the project for the erection of houses on a self-help basis in Promosa, Potchefstroom? The application has been received by the department in Cape Town and it will soon be submitted to the Housing Board for consideration. Funds for the electrification of the housing project in Zeerust have been voted for the present financial year and the town council of Zeerust has made a great deal of progress with the application for the implementation of this project.

The hon member for Vredendal asked questions about the high cost of services in Vredendal North. The department is very sympathetic about this matter and the municipality was asked to make a donation, because they decided that the people in Vredendal North had to be resettled. That was their decision. However, we have not yet received a reply from them and we shall take the matter further.

Application was made to provide approximately 100 houses on serviced sites and the funds will be made available.

†The hon member Mr Solomon made a representation regarding an old age home in Bethelsdorp. An old age home is still in the planning phase. No formal application has been submitted by the local authorities as yet. As far as Bethelsdorp Extensions 29 and 31 are concerned, the project is supported in principle by the department and the meeting with all concerned was to have taken place today, but due to the debate on my Budget Vote we will arrange another date and we hope to meet them on 15 June.

The hon member for Border spoke about the upgrading of Charles Lloyd township. He wanted to know about the final costs of Buffalo Flats. A report was drawn up at the department and was sent through to the local authorities. The engineers of the local authorities are presently processing the report to submit their findings to the department. The final costs of Buffalo Flats, Extension 1, were approved on 21 March 1988.

The final costs of Buffalo Flats, Extensions 2 to 7, are at the regional office for processing. There was an error in the service costs which caused the delay in the processing of the application.

*I have only mentioned a few of these matters as examples instead of giving everyone who participated in the debate a reply in this regard. Before we move on to the next Vote, however, I want to thank hon members who participated. There are still a number of matters that we must look into.

†We must look at the income form mentioned by the hon member for Haarlem. We must talk about a method for allocating houses and work out a procedure. I want to tell the hon member for Hanover Park as well as the hon member for Bonteheuwel that the Housing Board took a decision with regard to the question of illegal tenants and we will let them know in writing what the decision was.

Was it a positive decision?

It was a positive decision, but we will let the hon member know in writing.

The hon member for Rietvlei mentioned the problems which hon members who deal with the City Council encounter when it comes to decision-making. That situation is an example of the worst form of negotiating process. The city council comes together with the management committees and with members of Parliament for negotiations. The city councillors then go back to their White housing committee which refuses to accept the decision taken. Every time this battle is fought backwards and forwards I fully agree, therefore, with the hon member for Bontheuwel and the hon member for Hanover Park that we should get one management committee going for the whole Cape Peninsula area.

I am grateful for the reports about the upgrading of the Cape Peninsula area. We will continue to do so. I am glad to see that the houses at Bokmakierie are being sold and that one person has already started to improve his house.

*I am very glad about the remark made by the hon member for Suurbraak about the committees in his area. We are going to appoint one in Heidelberg too to promote this matter. I agree with the hon member for Southern Free State that we must expand the regional office there. We must establish a body similar to the one here in the Peninsula, which we talked about, to deal with housing directly.

We took cognizance of the matters mentioned by the hon member for Hantam. I think I have already replied to some of his questions, but we shall still look into the matter of the sales formula which he mentioned. I have already replied to the hon member for Vredendal too. The hon member for Haarlem must come to us with a proposal regarding Uniondale.

†This is something which I want to ask hon members of Parliament. They should go to their local authority, their management committee, with a definite proposal as to how particular problems should be solved. Then hon members should follow it up and negotiate a deal so that what they aim at is accomplished.

I do not want to keep the Committee too long, but I want to conclude with this particular matter. I deliberately spoke about negotiation. One finds in our community that things are not followed up. People discuss something, but do not pursue it to its conclusion. One can see that also in the coming and going of political leaders. They start off with a big bang.

*They are like Eno Fruit Salts. One adds water, it fizzes for a moment and then it peters out.

†We in the LP have learnt over the past 20 years to keep going until we have reached our goal.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what we should do as far as Uniondale is concerned? We have made representations and followed them up, but each time the hon the Minister’s department has come back and said that there was nothing they could do about it. The correspondence regarding that subject has been going on for two years now. I hope there is somebody who can finally resolve that matter.

I want to reply to the hon member for Haarlem. This is exactly what happens to correspondence. One does not court by correspondence, one makes “house visits”. That is how one gets a wife. One does not write letters. All of us who are married, made “home visits”.

I want to plead with hon members. Often a troublesome case could be solved by picking up a telephone to make an appointment with the official concerned. One must not forget this. I am not addressing the hon member for Haarlem in particular; I am referring to a particular project that one can settle. Hon members must please bear with me. That is why I am talking about the negotiating process all the time. It is useless to do this by means of correspondence.

The hon the Minister of Finance also said so.

It is useless. One has to go and see the man personally who deals with one’s particular problem. One has to hammer him until that problem is solved. This is the important thing.

Mr Chairman, in turning to agriculture I am reminded of a statement about agricultural policy I once read. It went like this: “Our agricultural policy is simple. A high price is paid for products which are sold at a lower price, as exports, and the taxpayer foots the bill.”

Agriculture in most parts of South Africa is going through very difficult times and as most of our farmers are in the arid regions of the country, they have been hit the hardest. The recent good rains have brought hope and optimism, if not relief from the drought, and we hope that better times are ahead.

Of the funds that were voted for Programme 7, 68,8% was spent on development works, 8,2% on training, 4,8% on financial aid, 3,8% on administration and 14,4% on personnel during 1987-88. Because of the fact that the provision of money under Programme 7 has for decades not been enough to address the serious problems in agriculture and the rural areas, it is very difficult to give enough assistance to farmers. The amount voted in 1987-88 was not enough, and we had to shift priorities in order to accommodate the demand. The same pattern is expected for the new financial year.

Nevertheless, I am glad to report that the number of farmers assisted in obtaining farms increased from 8 to 15 in the previous year. One of these loans was for an amount of more than R500 000—the biggest loan up to now. Because of the growing demand for financial assistance, investigations are being made at the moment with regard to the possibility of creating a revolving fund for financial assistance to farmers.

*I said before that we must help people to help themselves. For that reason there is only one alternative in respect of agriculture and the rural areas. We shall have to take steps to broaden the economic base of areas where the problems exist. In this connection agriculture will have to pay a big part, but mining and tourism have as much potential.

If we really want meaningful development in this sphere, the necessary executive arm will have to be created to accept this responsibility. Large sums of money are needed for this strategy and such an instrument will have to be independent of the normal managerial and control responsibilities of the department.

It will be necessary to react quickly to changed needs, and manpower and capital provision will have to be adjusted accordingly as a matter of urgency. It is clear that something of this kind cannot function within the department’s organisation. For that reason the Ministers’ Council has agreed in principle that the development corporation, or a similar organisation, should be estabished to accept responsibility for the creation of the necessary base for integrated development in rural environments in particular.

In the process preference will be given to development projects which must create opportunities in agriculture, mining, the industrial sector and tourism.

Negotiations with the South African Development Trust Corporation for it to assist in this regard have reached an advanced stage and the objective is to establish such an organisation later this year. Everyone who can possibly play a part will be involved in this development process, and the private sector, the Development Bank as well as die SBDC will become involved. In preparation for this, a consultant is already investigating possibilities in the spheres of mining and the industrial sector in the rural areas of Namaqualand.

In the interim, Mr Chairman, we shall continue to try to meet the basic needs of the people in the rural areas. This involves the provision of basic services like domestic water, sewerage, stormwater drains, roads and bridges.

We have always been hampered by a shortage of funds, and for that reason we have tried every year to achieve a reasonable growth in the budget. I am happy to be able to point out that the agriculture budget will grow by more than 30% this year.

Planning and surveying of towns, in order to provide services on an orderly basis and to grant freehold, is still receiving urgent attention and funds for planning and surveying have been increased from R550 000 to R1,5 million this year.

In the next financial year an estimated R14,1 million will be spent on carrying out development projects in rural areas. This is essential, and it is a good thing that this is being done but, Sir, we cannot allow money to disappear into a bottomless pit. I expect the co-operation of all councils to ensure that development projects are looked after properly and are maintained. We cannot start all over again every time.

In addition I do not always get the necessary co-operation to ensure that the soil is conserved for posterity. Overgrazing is assuming critical proportions, and there is no point in putting up fences, erecting windmills and building troughs if there is nothing but dust and sand.

This a very serious matter, and for that reason I have issued instructions for the necessary regulations to be drawn up to make it possible to exercise effective control over overgrazing. We cannot afford to destroy the heritage which has been entrusted to us.

Another principle I want to single out in respect of the rural areas today is that in future assistance can only be given to those people who want to help themselves. Andrew Carnegie once said: “There is no use whatever in trying to help people who do not help themselves. You cannot push anyone up a ladder unless he be willing to climb himself.”

A large part of this self-help is to levy realistic taxes and tariffs and collect them regularly, and also to ask for and collect realistic grazing fees. At present there is an investigation into a system in terms of which assistance in respect of development projects and other financial assistance is going to be linked to the ability of a board to generate its own income to a reasonable extent. The higher the achievement, the more the assistance for basic needs will be.

In agricultural training we experienced various high points during the 1987-88 financial year. For example, a student at the Kromme Rhee Agricultural College received a diploma with distinction for the first time, while a woman also attended a supervisors’ course at Kromme Rhee for the first time and passed. Great success was also achieved in counteracting the negative idea that exists in connection with the agricultural professions by presenting an information programme for the guidance teachers of six Western Cape schools.

Agricultural training is the important link in giving our people a greater share in agriculture and we cannot neglect this aspect. Funds spent on training are funds well spent!

In order to plan the training task of the Kromme Rhee Agricultural College more meaningfully, the HSRC was requested to undertake a complete investigation into all aspects of agricultural education—ie from school level to university level. The report is expected in the near future, after which it will be possible to take more meaningful decisions on agricultural training in general, as well as the facilities needed. A clearer picture regarding the career possibilities for graduates should also be available then.

In conclusion I want to express the hope that the following definition of a farm will no longer apply in South Africa in future, but that farmers will be able to earn a living on their land in their own right.

†They say a farm is a piece of land which people leave to go to the city to make enough money, so that they can come back and live on it.

*In conclusion I want to get back to what I said at the outset regarding the role of this department in the process of constitutional development in South Africa. Our philosophy is to involve people at grassroots level in solving their own problems, as well as in their own upliftment, which is essential in constantly improving the climate for reform. We do not want to enforce solutions from above and we do not want to do things for our people. We should like to make our expertise and means available so that the people can deal with the implementation themselves. A co-operative situation of this kind makes great demands on communication, mutual trust and teamwork. Communication is extremely important, but we often talk about it and then nothing comes of it. We in South Africa will really have to go to the trouble of holding discussions—and holding discussions in the right way—in forums and structures which treat all those involved equally and which ensure a meaningful say.

†The story is told about the bad communication between an American tourist and a Spanish waiter in Madrid. The tourist wanted to order steak and mushrooms and drew a picture of a mushroom and a cow. The waiter brought him an umbrella and a ticket to a bullfight! I am closing with the request that all actors in the upliftment process join hands with me and the department to form a team to carry out our very important task.

Mr Chairman, Oom Hansie taught me that one should never become excited, so hon members will have to urge me on today because I am not going to get excited.

In the first place I should like to express my thanks to the hon the Minister, his personnel and his officials for the good co-operation that I have received from them over the past four years. We have always argued a great deal and we still argue, but nevertheless we stand together and I think that is very important for sound relations.

The request I want to make is that in future we attempt to separate physical agriculture from the development of rural areas so that, at a glance, one can form a clear picture of the exact amounts that are being granted for physical agriculture and the development of infrastructure for residential areas in the rural areas, for example. It is not always easy to distinguish what is being spoken about if mention is made of agriculture as well as the development of rural areas in one sentence. It lends itself to misunderstanding and for that reason I am making the request. Sometimes it is said that R20 000 million is being voted for agriculture, but then it is for agriculture and for rural development which includes the upgrading of a residential area, for example.

I notice that the amount of R27 251 000 appears under the programme: Agriculture. That is an increase of almost R6,5 million on the previous year’s budget. Although this amount cannot satisfy the needs that exist in the areas, under the present circumstances the hon the Minister and his department should be congratulated on it. We have so many problems in the rural areas that I cannot possibly do justice to them in the short time at my disposal. However, I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to certain problems in Namaqualand that need urgent attention.

Many of our people in this area depend on cattle farming for their existence. As a result of the limited amount of agricultural land that is available in these areas and the insurmountable obstacles that the political system in the Republic of South Africa places in the path of the potential Coloured farmers, to prevent them from purchasing farms as independent farmers outside the area, the area has become overpopulated with regard to the farming population.

We now find ourselves in a dilemma. The livestock exceeds the capacity of the particular area. As responsible people—we are aware that the utilisation of the land and vegetation should go hand in hand with its protection—we are all thoroughly aware of what this state of affairs, namely the overgrazing of land, is going to mean in future. The overgrazing of pastures or the damage to the soil and vegetation cannot be condoned under any circumstances. When this happens it is self-evident that control measures must be applied to protect the soil. That means that control measures will definitely have to be applied in our areas where overgrazing does in fact take place. If such control measures are effectively applied, it will mean that our livestock will be reduced according to the grazing or carrying capacity of the land.

I do not know of any hon member in this House who would want to see people who depend exclusively on livestock farming for their existence deprived of the privilege of being able to farm. It is a fact that one needs sufficient ground to be able to farm. However, in these areas we do not have sufficient land. Therefore my request to the hon the Minister is that the department should do everything in its power to help prospective Coloured farmers to buy farms—preferably farms adjoining these areas, but also elsewhere if necessary—so that the carrying capacity of the land that is being overgrazed at the moment, can be restored without the farmer’s being detrimentally affected.

As I indicated in a speech earlier this week, State-owned land is available in Namaqualand. It can be made available to Coloured farmers immediately. I can think of no reason why this cannot be done. [Interjections.] I want to request the hon the Minister to listen to my plea and to attend effectively to this situation. [Interjections.]

Another matter that I want to say a few words about in the limited time at my disposal, is the problem of the damage that was suffered by the people in the region of Goodhouse, Vioolsdrif and Rooiwal as a result of the floods. Some of those smallholdings were completely flooded and destroyed. It will take the reparian farmers a long time and cost them a lot to repair the damage and to restore the irrigation areas to a suitable condition for sowing and planting. For that reason I want to ask the hon the Minister to make all possible help available so that those people will be able to plant and sow as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

There is the further question of the farm workers that work on those smallholdings and who are without an income at this moment. I know of cases where people are starving as a result of the flood disaster that befell these riparian farmers. I know of families in Goodhouse, Vioolsdrif and Rooiwal who have no income. Something will definitely have to be done to assist these people while they are unemployed. [Interjections.] These people will have to be taken care of. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that I am very unhappy about the Coloured Farmers’ Aid Council. [Interjections.] I believe that the aim of this council is precisely to help the farmer overcome his handicaps.

Order! The hon member for Steinkopf must stop pointing his finger. The hon member may proceed.

I withdraw the finger, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] I do not know what criteria the council applies in the consideration of applications, but we should remember that the norm that applies to Whites cannot apply to Coloured farmers. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon the Minister for what I did not receive …[Interjections.] …but may perhaps still receive. [Interjections.]

22 August 1984 was an exceptional day for the Coloured community, including the community of Namaqualand, because it was decided that they could also elect representatives for their constituency. My constituency gave me a mandate, and expectations were created among them that I must try my best to satisfy in order to maintain credibility.

I now ask the hon the Minister where my constituency stands after four years. [Interjections.] In other words, where do I stand with my rural areas? I began with a programme of action. I planned for the upliftment of my people. I am under no illusion; I know that there was scepticism and doubt in the hearts of some of my people from the start. They asked themselves whether this new dispensation would not just be another “kubus” gimmick. [Interjections.] However, my constituency made their choice and they are now being crucified by being excluded when the cake is divided. [Interjections.]

I am a pragmatist and I also did my planning. [Interjections.] I am proud of it. I want to make use of any opportunity my people may have, but that opportunity has not presented itself in a period of four years. My modus operandi differs from that of the revolutionary. I am also conducting my revolution, but I do it here in the House if necessary. Unlike the reactionary, I am not going to wait; I shall jump in. The rural areas in my constituency have simply been neglected for too long, at the expense of development in other areas which was perhaps not even all that necessary. [Interjections.]

It appears that no one except the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly knows where Namaqualand is. He knows where it is because he ostensibly wants to make it a Coloured homeland. Housing development boards were established by the hon the Minister. These are things we only read about in Namaqualand. The people in my constituency—there are three rural areas in my constituency—are rapidly losing interest. It appears to them that the LP cannot deliver the goods. I want the hon the Minister to tell me today what has been done for the rural areas of Leliefontein, Komaggas and Pella. What has become of all my memorandums, submissions, requests and letters? If only I could know what cul de sac they ended up in.

I know it will be said again that sufficient funds are not available. The following headline appeared in this morning’s Die Burger: “Vier klein Namakwas kry grond terug.” This court case would never have taken place had my submissions requesting the purchase of land adjoining these rural areas been attended to.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I announced yesterday that this matter was sub judice. The department is considering taking certain steps in regard to this matter.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: It is not sub judice. The court ruled that it would only be sub judice when an appeal was lodged.

Mr Chairman, that is what I read in Die Burger this morning. According to this newspaper the court found in favour of those who brought the case to court:

There are no funds available for development projects in my constituency, but where are the funds going to come from to pay for this court case? Was it perhaps budgeted for? I am merely asking. I repeat that this court case has caused me and the reputation of the LP incalculable harm. It could simply have been avoided. We are not asking or begging for alms. We are simply asking for our rightful share of the cake. At the moment we are not even getting the crumbs from the table.

I realise that perhaps we are branded because we are “plaasjapies” and farm boys. After all, what do we know? Nevertheless, the Namaqualanders in the rural areas are a proud bunch of “plaasjapies”. We are also looking forward to development in our areas. We also live for the future of our children. It is no wonder that the rural areas are becoming depopulated so quickly.

Mr Chairman, do you know that we Namaqualanders also read news reports? We also watch television. In that way we see and read what is happening elsewhere and what astronomical sums of money are being granted for development elsewhere. Now we are merely asking when our turn will come, or are we still going to be excluded? I should like to know.

Mr Chairman, I am participating in this debate with tears in my eyes.

When we talk about agriculture here, we are talking about an own affair, although I am of the opinion that agriculture, which is such an important part of our country’s economy, cannot be an own affair. Agriculture in our country is important to every inhabitant of this country. All of us love the land in the same way that all of us love rugby. If rugby is a national sport why can agriculture not be a national general affair?

Nevertheless, we have been placed in that compartment and for that reason I want to confine myself to agriculture as an own affair. Although agriculture is an own affair, we do have a significant part to play. We know that the road to peace and to survival run through Africa. It is clear that not only along the borders of our country but everywhere, there are many farms which are untenanted. We know that the high input costs of farming are driving many farmers off the farms and that those farms remain uncultivated and untenanted. In the first place I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister if something cannot be done to make those farms available to Coloured farmers. I want to point out to the House that in many White farming areas it is actually the non-White foreman or the non-White farm manager who is the farmer on the farm. I do not know what the hon the Minister can do. He knows how we have pleaded in this House for the abolition of the permit system and I want to repeat that he, as the Minister concerned, and the officials must assist us in this matter so that we can get rid of that permit system.

Own affairs agriculture not only duplicates things, it is also discriminatory. In my constituency there are 14 farmers in their own right and I see that R27 million has been voted for agriculture. If we therefore have 26 rural areas, in which there are also residential areas or townships, this amounts to approximately R1 million per rural area. If we consider the backlogs in the rural areas I cannot see how there can be any money available for the so-called bona fide farmers.

The drought was barely a thing of the past when we had the flood disaster. Who must we turn to? I visited my constituency after the flood. I could not reach my own farm with a vehicle. I visited some of my neighbours. Large amounts of top-soil—the best agricultural land—have been washed away. Fences have been washed away and as hon members know a good boundary fence is one’s best neighbour. The farmers who still have livestock are going to find that their livestock will wander onto their neighbours’ farms. Where must we go for assistance to have the fences which have been washed away replaced?

Sir, I am not going to say much more, because if I do, the hon the Minister will think that it is all just “padding” as we always said during the examinations. The fact that I want to keep my speech short must be seen in the serious light in which I view matters.

As regards development aid the hon the Minister’s department has purchased a few farms in recent years. I do not want to condemn this, and see it as an investment. But what is to happen to the existing bona fide farmers? Many of them have uneconomic units. This state of affairs developed before the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act came into operation, when parents divided their farms into uneconomic units so that each child could have a piece of land. The farmers are now trapped on their uneconomic units. They cannot even be called farmers in their own right. Because they are attached to the land, however, they stay on the farms. Many of the farmers would like to farm economically. I know of cases where some of the farmers have applied to existing institutions for financial assistance. They could not get it because they could not give guarantees. They are farmers who I believe really will make a success of this industry.

I wonder whether the time has not come for our department to develop a scheme similar to the development board which has already been established, with a view to increasing assistance to these farmers, to which the bona fide farmer can apply for financial assistance. I know we will be referred back to the Land Bank and other financial institutions. However, I know that, as was the case in the past, it will be impossible for our farmers to get assistance owing to the requirements which are laid down and the security which will be expected from them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance, Mr Barend du Plessis, said in the House on Wednesday that agriculture formed an important substructure to the economy today. I want to associate myself with this by requesting that we pay serious attention to the conservation of our agricultural land.

Considering our population growth, we shall require more land in future than we have at present to feed our large population. Available agricultural land shrinks every year because more land is used for housing and also for numerous other reasons. Our Coloured farmers will have to be helped to acquire economic units. The Government must bring them into profitable farming. They would like to farm efficiently, but at the moment most of them are eking out a precarious existence at Suurbraak and Slangrivier. It is specifically for this reason that I am appealing that my Coloured farmers be given assistance for collective farming.

I may mention that, in consequence of the hon the Minister’s recommendations, the farmers of Suurbraak and Rietkuil are seriously considering moving in a different direction in farming. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the farmers at Rietkuil are concentrating their attention specifically on stock farming. They are also interested in fruit farming. I want to appeal for help for these people so that they can develop the necessary agricultural expertise.

There is a point to which I want to return. During his visit in April last year, the hon the Minister visited my constituency with me. When the farmers at Rietkuil spoke to the hon the Minister, they mentioned inter alia that they had also had failed harvests, like White farmers, and were also on the brink of bankruptcy. They pleaded with the hon the Minister for financial assistance in any form. Unfortunately, the hon the Minister could not give them a positive answer. They pleaded for help; they pleaded for assistance. On this occasion I want to make an appeal on their behalf—when I speak of “them” I am speaking about the farmers of Suurbraak and Slangrivier—that the hon the Minister give attention to their pleas again. I request the hon the Minister, when he replies in a short while to the debate on his Vote, to give me an answer with reference to what the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned in this House on furnishing Coloured farmers with assistance. I appeal to this hon Minister for assistance for those threatened farmers.

I also want to request that the way in which Coloured farmers are assisted by the Agricultural Assistance Board should be re-examined.

Most of their applications are not successful. Farmers at Suurbraak and Slangrivier cannot achieve anything because they do not receive guidance. At least, that is the allegation which is made. Not even short courses are held or arranged. The result of this is that farmers in rural areas are lagging far behind. They are hampered by various restrictive measures and, in consequence of the high requirements which are set, they feel they are being rejected further. As a result of their poor harvests and other factors, most of the farmers in the area are not backed by adequate capital. Most of them have no security to take up loans elsewhere. One of the farmers at Rietkuil applied to a commercial bank, which helped him, but when I visited him some time afterwards, his eyes were full of tears as he related that the bank at Swellendam where he had taken up the loan would be coming to attach his property the following week. It breaks one’s heart if one thinks that we are here to represent people and that we even have an own Ministry, but then have to hear that our people do not receive assistance when they appeal to the House of Representatives. That is why I say that if Coloured farmers are not viewed in all honesty and sincerity, they will disappear from this earth.

I want to refer again to farmers’ complaints as regards the White extension officer in the region concerned. For purposes of the record, I want to mention his name. He is a Mr Heunis. According to the farmers in the area, the man means nothing to Coloured farmers in the two rural areas. Hon members will recall that I referred to this before, because it is a matter of great concern to Coloured farmers there. When I raised the matter again last year, I was told that it was being investigated. I can actually refer the hon the Minister to a statement by one of the farmers that the word “hotnot” was used to him. I want to conclude by asking the hon the Minister what progress has been made to date regarding the matter. The matter was brought to my attention in 1985 and I drew the hon the Minister’s attention to it at that time. It would appear that to date matters are continuing in the same way.

I further want to request that attention also be given to another matter and that it be investigated. The Rietkuil farmers complain—if I remember correctly they also complained personally to the hon the Minister—that they struggle to obtain land from the council at Suurbraak. They allege that they apply without success and that many of their letters are not even answered. It concerns me, however, that it has been alleged that a certain inhabitant of the rural area of Slangrivier was given the opportunity of buying land merely because his capital was sound.

This man obtained the opportunity of buying a number of hectares of land at Suurbraak, where he does not even live. I am investigating the matter from my side too. I am speaking under correction, but I was told that an advertisement had appeared in Die Burger in this regard. That piece of land—this is apparently one of various cases—which was advertised at R38 000 was purchased for R6 000. I am following up the case and I request the hon the Minister to go into it as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, agriculture forms the cornerstone of our economy. For that reason it is essential that Coloured farmers receive the same financial assistance as White farmers. A farmer is a farmer, after all, irrespective of the colour of his skin. [Interjections.]

As yet there has not been any reform in the field of agriculture. Coloured farmers are still being discriminated against. In this Budget only R27 251 000 has been voted for agricultural purposes. With these few pennies provision must also be made for the management and development of the 24 rural areas, the training of agriculture students as well as farm workers, assistance to farmers, etc. For that reason I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to integrate Agriculture with rural areas in the next budget. Agriculture must be treated as a separate item in the Vote.

Coloured farmers are being done an injustice. Since 1986, owing to the drought, the Government has given monetary assistance totalling R2 billion to White farmers. Last year R400 million was allocated to White farmers who were facing sequestration. To date only R30 million of that R400 million has been used. The R370 million which is in the coffers of the House of Assembly as a nest egg, has to be used for the development of our rural areas and for further financial assistance to farmers.

In terms of the Group Areas Act—I am referring in particular to sections 13, 20 and 21—it is provided that the occupation and ownership of agricultural land is controlled. A permit is therefore needed when land is transferred from one population group to another. Mr Prins, from Mitchell’s Plain, who is present in the House today, can attest to the fact that it is extremely difficult to get a permit. Mr Prins would like to buy a farm named Opsoek, near Ladismith, for R60 000 in cash. [Interjections.] However, he has been battling since 1986 to get the necessary permit. At this stage he is even paying interest every month to get the farm, because the farmer does not want to wait that long for his money. He has already paid R5 000 for implements, and several thousand rand for livestock and so on.

However, on 15 April of this year Mr Prins was informed that he could not buy the farm because of the colour of his skin. [Interjections.] I now want to quote from the letter which Mr J J Theron, MPC, wrote to Mr Prins. The reference number of the letter is 17/2/4/1/2L1/1, and it is addressed to Mr H Prins, 67 Shephard Road, West Ridge, Mitchell’s Plain. It is written under the caption “Group Areas Act, 1966—Application for a Group Areas Permit, portions 84, 69, 98, 82, 97, 5 and 9 of portion 5 of the farm Opsoek No 73, Ladismith.” I quote the letter:

What is so shocking is that this farm which Mr Prins wants to buy is situated next to the rural area of Zoar. On the other side it borders on the farm Amaliestuin. [Interjections.] Why can Mr Prins, who is a South African, not buy the farm, whereas White immigrants can buy a farm in any farming area without restriction, and settle there?

He is Coloured. [Interjections.]

Why must Mr Prins be handicapped in this way, when he is keen to farm on Opsoek? [Interjections.] Why must Mr Prins be done this injustice? [Interjections.] We will leave no stone unturned in attempting to allow Mr Prins to buy the farm Opsoek. [Interjections.]

The division of land tenure and the removal of measures which undermine the oppressed person’s self-respect and self-esteem, are the practical challenges I want to confront South Africa with today. [Interjections.] That is why the permit system must be repealed. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Swartland.

A development strategy must be initiated in all the rural areas; then people like the hon member for Springbok will not need to become despondent. It must reconcile the practical demands of development and the political realities, because there are still too many of our people today who are living in a subculture of poverty in the rural areas.

I want to make it quite clear that a development strategy in the rural areas must not lead to a continuation of apartheid or delays in its elimination. Nor must it restrict people’s opportunities. For that reason I suggest the following measures: The agricultural development of rural areas can never accommodate the potential agricultural aspirations of our people, and therefore it must be possible for our people to purchase agricultural land anywhere without restriction; Coloured farmers should be able to join in the organised agricultural and marketing structure of the country without restriction; the future development of the rural areas should take place in a regional context—development planning must be integrated with general regional development. Many people settle their families in the rural areas for the sake of housing security—many of Zoar’s inhabitants work in Cape Town, for example, and also live there—and this problem must therefore be solved at the point of origin. In addition the immediate target of agricultural development must be the accommodation of as many farmers as possible. This is a situation which will sort itself out as the more vigorous farmers buy the others out.

The accommodation of as many farmers as possible involves the following: The granting of aid to part-time farmers; the establishment of co-operative schemes in which groups of farmers can work together for specific objectives, for example the purchase of implements; and the establishment of partnership farming where more than one farmer farms on one unit.

Unit farming should be converted into agricultural projects. Our people in the rural areas will definitely benefit from this. Where possible agricultural projects should be established inside and outside the rural areas—in the case of the farm Opsoek which is situated near Zoar, it is absolutely essential for Mr Prins to acquire that land. It is important for farming projects to be under the greatest possible degree of private initiative. In the rural areas there is a great need at present for agricultural and technical training. For this reason these facilities must be taken to the people. At present we have only one agricultural college where our people are trained.

I have taken appreciative cognisance of the fact that the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is creating employment opportunities in the rural areas at present. At Haarlem, for example, a cardboard factory has been set up and in Zoar a factory which makes jerseys has been established. As a result of insufficient funds, however, development cannot take place in the rural areas and for that reason other sources of finance will have to be found for the development of the rural areas. We will have to declare war on poverty in the rural areas. [Interjections.] For that reason I also took appreciative cognisance of what the hon the Minister said in his speech, namely that the Ministers’ Council had already agreed in principle to the establishment of a development corporation or a similar organisation which would take responsibility for the creation of the necessary base for integrated development in the rural areas.

Today I also want to make a serious appeal for part of the farm Waaikraal to be given to the inhabitants of Dysselsdorp, where they can undertake community farming.

In conclusion I want to take this opportunity to thank our members of the Standing Committee on Finance from the bottom of my heart for the contribution they made there by taking up the cudgels for our Coloured farmers. I want to quote from the speech which the hon the Minister of Finance made in this House the day before yesterday. He said:

The following is important:

In those circumstances a White farmer qualifies for a territorial allowance of R500 per month.

The three requirements are:

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased that we could discuss this Vote. It is rather a dismal Vote, because the prospects for the rural areas and even for agriculture are not good at all. Agriculture is actually an own affair and our agricultural committee must really take this matter to the correct department. We shall not be able to rectify things in this House.

With regard to applications for loans, extension to farmers and so on, our department simply does not have the officials.

Then give the department back.

No, agriculture must go back to general affairs and that has been said here this afternoon. [Interjections.] A farmer is a farmer. The matter must be tackled in the correct way.

There is no point in the department’s buying farms. I am not in favour of that any more. I want to make this point. We can buy many farms, but the prices are pushed up because Coloured farmers are going to buy them. The Coloured farmer who gets the farm will never be able to repay his loan and make a profit. [Interjections.] That is the problem I have to contend with.

I want to tell hon members once again that they are discussing the purchase of farms with the wrong Minister and department. Loans are given to many of our farmers. Some of them get loans up to three times to keep them going. Farming is big business. Collective farming is a thing of the past. Co-operative farming on the other hand is something else, because then one gets right of ownership.

That is communism.

No, then the person earns something. What is happening in the rural areas? There are 9 000 donkeys in Namaqualand. Who is going to get rid of them? They roam freely in Kromgras. A donkey eats six times as much as a sheep does.

Ten times.

I heard an hon member saying ten times. Who is going to get rid of the donkeys?

Sell them to the circus.

No, I want to know who is going to get rid of them. A management board is in control …

Sell them to the Sothos.

If the department intervenes it will be taken to court. [Interjections.] We must expose the matter today. Visit the rural areas. I visited every rural area. I filled the post in the old CRC for five years. Old people and young children live in the rural areas. The young people are moving away, since there are no employment opportunities for them. That is why I said in my speech that expert assistance must be called in from the South African Development Trust and the Development Bank so that our people can farm profitably. That is the important point.

People in the rural areas are responsible for the protection of the land and they are more fortunate than local management boards. In reality they are getting a donation, because they do not repay the loans which they have been granted, but repay 10% of their tax on the loan. They do not get loans at an interest rate of 1% or 10% as local authorities do. Hon members must see what is happening. I am pleased that certain hon members said they have nothing to say thank you for. I want to list the “nothing” to hon members.

One of the rural areas, Komaggas, which is in the constituency of the hon member for Springbok, received R602 000. Leliefontein got R502 000. I now want to refer to the municipal area of Springbok itself. An amount of R200 000 was allocated for the upgrading of Matjieskloof …

Mr Chairman, I want to point out to the hon the Minister that I spoke about the rural area of Komaggas. I did not talk about Matjieskloof and Springbok; they are not rural areas.

I am talking about the hon member’s constituency. The hon member said he had nothing to say thank you for. Springbok is his constituency. Hon members must come to Parliament with facts. An amount of R477 000 was allocated for the upgrading of Springbok; R1 million was allocated for plots and services in Bergsig. An amount of R241 000 was granted for housing in Bitterfontein.

But those are still not the rural areas.

We are talking about Namaqualand.

We are talking about the total development of Namaqualand, because Namaqualand’s development does not consist only of development in the rural areas—there are towns that have to be developed as well. We have to create employment opportunities for the people, and we have to accommodate the people who work on the mines. It is not only the rural areas that have to be developed, therefore.

Development is taking place in Okiep, for example. We are spending R2 million on the development of the town which was taken over from the copper company. If, therefore, we talk about the rural areas, we must talk specifically about what is happening in the rural areas. [Interjections.] There are rural management boards which administer areas in which people are in arrears in paying their taxes. What happens in a municipality-controlled area if one is in arrears in paying one’s rent or tax? [Interjections.]

Sir, I am pleased about this frank discussion about the rural areas, because I have problems with the rural areas. Hon members can go and take a look at the rural areas that have not been taken over by this department. They can go and see what is happening in Elim and in Wuppertal. There is farming worthy of mention there. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Mamre must please come to order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Hon members can go and look at the agricultural land in Elim which is in the possession of the Moravian Church. It is so bushy that it would cost a fortune to get rid of all the bushes. [Interjections.] The community has changed: Elim’s people now work in the cities; they are no longer farming. Little gardens are made, but the agricultural land as a whole is no longer being utilised, even in those places where the church is still in control. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, we have a problem with collective farming. The days when people could live like tribes and their cattle could graze with everyone else’s have passed. Who is going to reduce the stock now to protect the land? What will hon members do if the veld is laid bare? [Interjections.] It is easy to talk here, but those poor people have to make a living from stockfarming in those rural areas. Who is going to exercise control over the reduction of the stock, however? Which board is going to do so? A management board had consultations with me and that was what I asked them. Who is going to reduce the stock in your rural areas, because your grazing is already being laid bare? Nothing will be left for the future, I told them. I also told them they should go back and exercise control over the reduction of the stock. They did not want to do so, because they were afraid of endangering their membership of the board, since they are afraid of an election. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want the hon members of this Committee to take a good look at this matter. We want to help the people and that is why we spoke in the Ministers’ Council. That is why I said to hon members at the beginning of my speech: “It is your attitude to the problem that is going to determine your success in dealing with the problem.”

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister something. It is such fun for the hon the Minister to tell people they must go and reduce their stock, but does he realise that one’s three or four goats keep one from starving? That is why I proposed that more land be given to the people. I ask you, Sir, who is going to reduce his stock? If, for example, someone has shares in a company, he is not going to sell his shares if some other shareholder is going to buy them.

Mr Chairman, I am not talking about the poor pensioner who has three little goats. I am talking about farmers who farm collectively and who have approximately 500 animals—in a rural area! [Interjections.] Who is going to intervene? It is not my duty or that of the officials. After all, there is an autonomous management board. Why do they not take action against that farmer? I am not talking about the pensioner; I am not talking about the man who has 10 sheep or goats. There are farmers in rural areas who are farmers in their own right, and some of them have hundreds of animals. [Interjections.]

Once again I want to put this question to the hon member for Springbok: Who is going to ask those farmers, those big farmers in the rural areas, to reduce their stock?

Who is going to count the stock and impound the animals? That is where the problem of overgrazing begins. I want to repeat what I said earlier, viz that farming today is a business. That is our problem in the rural areas. It is easy to talk here, but we must try to implement the system, because someone has to take the lead and someone has to give permission for this to be done. I want to repeat that there are management boards in control of the areas in question.

Hon members are welcome to go and see what is happening in Namaqualand, because possibly then they will understand what I mean. At Komaggas the donkeys roam freely and even bite people. How many of the pastures in the rural areas are not destroyed in this way? Hon members should go and look at Leliefontein. The issue here is the protection of the land. Someone has to take the lead, and the people must elect this person, this leader. The people complain a great deal about the management boards, and that is why we announced that we would have an election on 26 October this year. We are going to draw up a voters’ list for the rural areas on the basis of one man, one vote. Not only the older people will be able to vote, but everyone who is older than 18 and lives in the rural areas is going to be able to vote. Leaders must then come forward who can take the lead in the upliftment, development and planning of the rural areas.

We spoke about the devolution of power and management committees earlier and said our people should take over power themselves and take care of their own upliftment, but that is where the problem with funds originates. If the Government makes the funds available, it is going to prescribe how those funds should be utilised and repaid. Take a look at how many people in the rural areas are in arrears in paying their taxes.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am pleased the hon member called it “a subsidy for housing”, because the people in the rural areas do not even have title deeds. We are talking about right of ownership. People talk about collective farming and joint ownership. [Interjections.] I remember that when I visited Oppermansgronde some time ago, the people said that if I came there with title deeds they would hang me from the highest tree. Now we have the case of a teacher who wants to teach at Oppermansgronde, but he does not have title deeds. That is where town planning comes into things, so that this man can get right of ownership and own his own land. Yet the people say that they prefer collective farming and joint ownership. I have problems with loans in the rural areas and we must solve the problems. I can talk about the rural areas for hours, because I visited 24 areas. We have the same problem with Elim as we do with Oppermansgronde. The Riet River canal flows through Oppermansgronde and the Sundays River canal flows through Elim. The question now is whether one should establish collective farming in these places, or whether one should measure up economic units so that the farmers in the rural areas can get right of ownership on those plots so as to obtain their own farms. [Interjections.] Hon members should go and tell this to the management boards in the rural areas. I want to repeat that the Vote on rural areas is a difficult one. On the one hand there are old people who keep only a few animals, who have to be protected and for whom collective farming should be introduced. Part of this must be made available to them. On the other hand the bona fide farmers must also be given an opportunity to get right of ownership so that they can own their own land. We have the same problem with the farm Jakkalskraal at Franschhoek. Must we earmark that farm for collective farming as well so that it can go the same way as the other rural areas?

No!

Precisely, that is what I said, but some hon members were doing other things when I made my speech and were not listening to what I was saying. [Interjections.] I explained that the Ministers’ Council was doing its best to involve the SA Development Trust Corporation so that a system could be worked out in terms of which Waaikraal at Dysselsdorp could be used to the advantage of all the people there.

We now have to cut Waaikraal up into various parts, but how many farmers would this involve? We wanted to make that farm available for the use of the whole community.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is an advocate of collective intensive farming?

Sir, with reference to what is happening in agriculture, what we are dealing with here is a phasing out process. No farmers will be left in the years ahead! That is why control must be exercised in that area.

And if that is the people’s choice?

Sir, if it is the people’s choice, they must accept the implications and suffer the consequences. Then they must not come to the Government and say they have no more grazing. Take a look at what happened in Ethiopia. We must work out a system in terms of which that land can be preserved.

I am in favour of the development of the rural areas and of collective farming in cases in which specific people cannot afford land, and therefore cannot farm on a large scale. Where is the poor pensioner to end up, for example, because he is …

Browbeaten!

Yes, that is the word. [Interjections.] There are wealthier farmers surrounding him.

Mr Chairman, may I just ask the hon the Minister, in view of the fact that he went overseas to make a study of intensive farming, whether he cannot tell us how some of the things he learnt can be employed in practice?

I am pleased the hon member asked this question. We could easily sit here discussing that all afternoon. [Interjections.]

We are involved in a co-operative farming scheme, and have begun to implement it in Genadendal. There was a report on Suurbraak, about how to use a farm efficiently. Hon members should go and look at the land in the Genadendal region, lying there unutilised. No one is using it any more, because collective farming is no longer being practised. There is one thing we must not forget, however, and that is that we are involved in supplying water at Genadendal. This was never the case before.

I cannot go into detail about the matter, but during my studies abroad we tried to determine how one could purchase a farm so that it would be to the benefit of the community in question. Let us look at the position in Haarlem, for example.

Yes!

Yes, hon members are well aware of what is happening at Haarlem. We bought the farm “Anhalt”. We did not cut it up into economic units for farmers, however. Employment opportunities are being provided for the people of Haarlem on that farm. The farm is an asset for the management board. Sometimes the board makes a profit to the value of thousands of rand. [Interjections.] The State bought the farm and Haarlem’s management board does not need to repay the purchase price. There are officials working in Haarlem who are paid from this Budget—not from the budget of the Haarlem maangement board. What has happened at Haarlem in the meantime? Haarlem has grown. It now has a factory which makes cardboard boxes for the packaging of apples.

Hon members have also heard that we now have a factory in George. I am pleased that the hon member for Haarlem put that question. Hon members must go and see what we are doing. We are involved in a process on the basis of which we are creating employment opportunities. Since there is a problem in the rural areas in that there are many people, that land must be utilised to the benefit of all.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the State will remain the owner of the land and the factory, or will they be selling shares in the near future to the people of the area, so that they can get the profit, instead of the State?

Mr Chairman, the State does not own the land; it is kept in trust for the community. The community has to decide what they want to do with the land. If they want joint ownership, it is their own indaba. There are other rural areas which have decided to give their people right of ownership. The rural area of Pniel in my constituency is one of them. They are dealing with title deeds, because in the rural areas the people have the right to be there (sitreg), but not to own land (besitreg). [Interjections.] Then one has to get a land surveyor to cut up the plots. Hon members must go and see what is happening in Mamre. [Interjections.] They must take a look at a management board which is taking the lead and doing upliftment work. Hon members must go and look. [Interjections.] That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the devolution of power. I do not want a management board to come and stand begging, however. It must take the lead. Leaders who can do the upliftment work in that area must be elected. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister mentioned that there was a canal which flows through Oppermansgronde. The big problem the people of Oppermansgronde have, however, is that the economic units there are too small to farm on, and that the population has increased too much. Mr Opperman has too many descendants now, and there is not enough land for all of them to farm. [Interjections.] Is it not possible to purchase more land so that those people can have better prospects?

Does the hon member know that the Oppermansgronde management board is renting farms to White farmers in that area? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I realise that this is done in certain cases.

I am pleased that the hon member replied to my question. [Interjections.] If such a unit is too small to farm on, how can such a person own a second one? [Interjections.] We are talking about joint land ownership this after-noon. [Interjections.] The hon member was merely confirming what I said …

Order! The hon the Minister is replying. Hon members have had an opportunity to make their speeches, during which they put certain questions to the hon the Minister and appealed to him to reply to certain questions. I therefore appeal to hon members to listen to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the fact that hon members are complaining shows how frustrated they are about agriculture in the rural areas. The point, however, is that I am not frustrated, because I have to seek solutions. I am the political and administrative head of this department, because hon members appointed me to that post. I have to seek solutions, and that is what we are talking about this afternoon. That is what the MPs who are involved with rural areas are talking about. Are they in favour of right of ownership in respect of economic units, yes or no?

Yes!

Then we must work out how we can establish collective farming there, and how we are goint to obtain economic units. That will provide the solution. I agree with hon members that we must give agriculture its rightful place. The bona fide farmers who are achieving must be taken out of the rural areas and given farms, without the permit system. [Interjections.] We must take them out of there.

But that is what I requested.

After all, we have an agricultural committee. We must take up these matters and try to find solutions. I am pleased that we have been able to express our feelings.

I want to tell the hon member for Suurbraak that we are attending to the matter concerning Mr Heunis. We expect to have a decisive answer shortly. I want to explain this to hon members, and they must please not be angry with me now. I am not responsible for the appointment and dismissal of officials. There is a different procedure for this and a different Minister works with this aspect. [Interjections.] We agree that the assistance granted to farmers is not sufficient. Hon members must remember that the Farmers’ Assistance Board consists of Coloured farmers and that they take the decisions. [Interjections.] I have explained that. [Interjections.]

I want to explain to hon members that I have a problem. It is easy to tell a farmer that one is giving him the money and a farm, whereas one knows he has to come back after six months because he has no security. People came to me here—the hon member for Dysselsdorp spoke about bona fide farmers—businessmen who had never farmed in their lives, but who wanted loans so that they could buy farms. That is when security comes into question. If a man wants to stake his home, his property or his business, he must come and talk to us if things are not going well and he cannot repay his loan. We have a committee to investigate these matters. I explained to hon members this afternoon that I have problems with the farming question. Agriculture must become a general affair.

We must see how we are going to deal with the question of right of ownership, collective farming and overgrazing in the rural areas so that we can find solutions to the problems. There is a deficiency, but I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech when we spoke about this aspect of my Vote: One’s attitude to the problem determines one’s success or failure. My whole approach is to find solutions. I may not know all the answers today, but as members of Parliament it is our duty to go and seek answers so that we can help our people and effect true upliftment in the rural areas.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he supports Mr Prins’s application?

Sir, I support the applications, but I do not hand out the permits; the provinces do that. I support the applications for permits. We have said the permit system must go. I know all about it. There is a Coloured farmer in my constituency, and I took the same course and asked for the permit to be granted. We all agree that the permit system must go.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move: