Order! In view of the fact that there is uncertainty about the speaking times of a Deputy Minister during a debate and about Standing Rules 89 and 90, I wish to give the following ruling in order to bring about uniformity in the three Houses:

Mr Speaker, may I address you on a point of order in regard to the ruling you have just given?

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Rule 90(a) reads as follows:

With respect, the “member in charge of the business” may be a Cabinet Minister, and I would submit that this Rule supersedes any previous rulings because this Rule has only just been brought in. When the Minister is present and he is therefore the member in charge of the business, surely it is reasonable to accept that while he has unlimited time, any additional person who is not in charge of the business and who is not a Cabinet Minister should not be allowed the same privilege.

Order! May I interrupt the hon member there and suggest to him that he personally—as I know he will do—study my decision in detail and then, if necessary, come to see me in my office when we can discuss the matter further.

Furthermore, if it should prove necessary, I shall certainly give the hon member the opportunity to address me further on the issue in this House.

Before coming to this decision, I personally spent hours in consultation with all the senior advisers at my disposal. I would, therefore, suggest that procedure to the hon member and say again that he is welcome to see me in my office.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to make two statements that I hope will enable hon members to hold a more meaningful debate on the matter that is contained in the statement.

During May 1986, the Government announced its policy guide-lines with regard to urbanisation by means of the White Paper on urbanisation. In this White Paper urbanisation is accepted as an inevitable process in the course of the development of our country.

In the 1986 publication much emphasis was placed on the planning of urbanisation in the metropolitan areas as well as in the rural areas and the establishment of new metropolitan areas or towns was not excluded.

The Government is still convinced that a more proportionate distribution of economic and social development in the non-metropolitan areas should be promoted and expanded. For this reason appropriate measures for counteracting over-concentrations in a few metropolitan areas must remain in force and be strengthened.

In the process of urbanisation the larger urban areas in the platteland, such as, inter alia, the declared industrial development points in the Republic and the self-governing territories, must therefore play a far more important role.

In the process of regional development new large towns have emerged, for example Richard’s Bay, Botshabelo, King William’s Town/Bisho, Ekangala, Isithebe/Sundumbili, Mmabatho and Atlantis.

Despite earlier control measures, migration to urban areas took place and the existing population in the urban areas also increased as a result of natural growth, without the need for land being accordingly adapted.

Since the acceptance of the policy guidelines in the White Paper on urbanisation, attention has been given to the identifying of suitable land on an ad hoc basis to make provision for the existing shortfall in Black towns and also for the expected growth tendencies.

Accordingly land has already been identified country-wide for the expansion of the existing needs of Black people in places such as Mangaung (Bloemfontein), Motherwell (Port Elizabeth), KwaNobuhle (Uitenhage), Khayelitsha (Western Cape) and Chesterville (Durban).

I want to emphasise that the mere fact that the Government is responsible for identifying land for occupation, does not mean that it is its responsibility to obtain that land and provide housing for all people who move to the cities.

By identifying land, the Government is not indicating that it will buy that land either, but that the land is earmarked for certain purposes.

At the same time, I want to warn that the Government is aware that the identifying of land leads to speculation and exorbitant prices, and for that reason it intends putting an end to it.

In terms of section 33 of the Development of Black Communities Act, any developer, provincial authority or local authority body is at liberty to acquire this land, after a thorough investigation has been made, and to develop it for town purposes, after the necessary legal-technical regulations have been complied with.

In the case of the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal River complex, where the largest concentration of the various population groups and economic activities in Southern Africa is present, attempts to identify land for urbanisation are being hampered because of mining, the existing development pattern and physical factors such as dolomite and heaving clay.

During 1987, I made an announcement in response to the draft guide-plan for the Central Witwatersrand area and the submissions that I had received in this regard, that in order to achieve the objective of orderly urbanisation it was necessary that land for urban development would have to be identified timeously within the broader regional context of the PWV complex. I also announced that I had agreed to a consortium of consultants being appointed to be of assistance in this regard.

As early as March this year, I announced that the report of the consortium had been received. In the meantime, the recommendations have been studied, and I should like to express my appreciation for the high level of professional expertise shown by the consortium and for the speed with which the task was carried out.

†The consortium paid attention to all aspects of urbanisation. According to the most probable projection it is anticipated that approximately 8,3 million Black people will be living in the PWV complex by the year 2000. This means an increase of some 2,2 million people in relation to the estimated existing population of 6,1 million Black people, for whom suitable land must be found and identified. In addition, there are also considerable backlogs in existing towns which have to be addressed.

At present the existing Black towns in the PWV complex cover an area of some 46 000 hectares. An additional 16 000 hectares have been added since 1985. It is estimated that another 13 000 hectares should be provided for further balanced Black urbanisation up to the turn of the century. These estimates broadly correspond with various investigations carried out by the Department of Development Planning and other recognised agencies.

In the process of land identification, the consortium has given attention to all other aspects of urbanisation such as the socio-economic structure of an area, road and rail transport, job opportunities, pollution, conservation, physical suitability and development costs, apart from other appropriate planning considerations.

In the main the consortium recommended the expansion of existing Black towns, namely Soweto, Kathlehong-Tokoza-Vosloorus, Kwa-Thema-Tsakane-Duduza and Daveyton. They also recommended that two new Black towns be developed in the vicinity of Bapsfontein and Ennerdale and that the north-western portion of the central Witwatersrand be earmarked specifically for the urbanisation of higher income groups.

The Government has therefore, following thorough investigation of all the related factors and circumstances, decided that the expansion of the existing Black towns should enjoy priority. Preference is also given in order to assist in the establishment of viable local government and to make meaningful local government possible.

The specific areas for expansion will be determined taking into account consideration of details such as the suitability of the land, mining activities, mineral deposits and the actual demand for expansion.

The recommendations in respect of the new Black towns in the vicinity of Bapsfontein and east of Ennerdale are accordingly not being given further consideration.

In principle it has accordingly been decided that Soweto should expand westwards, Evaton-Sebokeng northwards south of Ennerdale, Kath-lehong-Tokoza-Vosloorus should expand south-eastwards and eastwards and KwaThema-Tsakane-Duduza southwestwards so that these two complexes may eventually link up.

Daveyton should be rounded off northeastwards with the Opperman land included. Daveyton, however, should be extended further eastwards, while Tembisa should be rounded off insofar as it is possible and meaningful to do so, south of the PWV5 main road.

In view of the need for higher income housing for population groups in the north-western sector of the PWV, the Government accepts that urbanisation will take place here and that a limited area of 600 ha should be provided in the short term for higher income Black urbanisation on the Diepsloot site south of the Pretoria/Krugersdorp highway.

Should legislation permitting free settlement areas be approved by Parliament, such an area may be considered for this sector.

Over and above the already approved areas of land in the PWV complex, the Government has also dealt with the extension of Black towns in the other development regions. A table which indicates the land allocated during the period 1 January 1986 to 30 April 1988 is attached to my typed speech.

I wish to emphasise that these further areas which have been approved, are a broad indication as to where the Government is prepared to consider and designate further land for Black urbanisation. Thorough investigations into the suitability of specific sites will, however, have to be carried out before the exact delineation of the boundaries will be possible. This matter will be urgently attended to.

*After the judgment in the case of G Mathebe and others v the State President and others on 29 March 1988 in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the Government took the constitutional position of Moutse into consideration. It soon became clear that Moutse was a multifaceted problem in which there were literally as many views as there were men.

Of course, there are various factors involved in the consolidation of self-governing territories, such as ethnic—this was highlighted by the Supreme Court—geographic and economic considerations, that cannot be ignored.

In order to investigate the position thoroughly and to give proper consideration to all facets, the Government decided, after consultation with the Chief Ministers of Lebowa and KwaNdebele, to appoint a one-man commission of inquiry to investigate and make recommendations with regard to the constitutional and related problems and the constitutional future of the district, Moutse; and with regard to what in general ought to be the proper constitutional way of determining or amending the borders of self-governing territories.

With this I should like to announce that the hon former Chief Justice, the Hon F L H Rumpff, has been appointed to perform this task.

The Government trusts that everyone who is involved with the matter will make full use of the opportunity to submit written or oral evidence and representations to the commission. This will enable the commission to make carefully considered and well-founded recommendations with regard to the questions. After the recommendations have been received, the Government will be in a position to decide on the exact provisions of legislation that ought to be introduced with regard to Moutse. Moreover, legislation is necessary to consolidate certain transactions in Moutse between 1 January 1986—that is the original date of incorporation—and 29 March 1988, the date of the court decision.

Mr Speaker, it is obvious that the statement the hon the Minister made here in the House this afternoon requires careful study. A great deal of research went into this report. The report or statement has very important implications, and we shall have to study it thoroughly before reacting to it in a responsible manner.

Regardless of how important this report is, a few things are already evident from it, for example, that a greater degree of urbanisation is taking place in the PWV area, and we have the impression that an attempt is being made to consolidate Black areas.

The impression that one gets at first glance is that this is taking place from west to east, southwards around Johannesburg, and that the possibility exists that a very large Black metropolitan area is to be established there. In the light of the NP’s election manifesto of last year, this raises the possibility that it will be a metropolitan area that could apply for self-reliance, even independence, if the manifesto is to be taken seriously.

There are important questions about specific locations. It appears to me that the serious representations with regard to the so-called Norweto have been disregarded by the Government, or that it is not doing much about them, but that it is going to establish a Black residential area in that region. Furthermore, one is dealing with the horizontal expansion of the various residential areas, all within what we consider to be the heartland of White South Africa. [Interjections.] This has very, very serious implications. [Interjections.] If those hon members think that such a thing no longer exists, they should realise that this side of the House believes that there are White areas that are White property and over which we have a say. [Interjections.]

On the local level I would ask that attention be given to other matters. The hon the Minister can give attention to them later, but he spoke about towns and about the expansion of Black residential areas in towns, in the cases of, for example, Northam, Ellisras and Thabazimbi. It appears to me that a decision has already been taken on Thabazimbi, but we can find out more in this regard from the hon the Minister later.

With these few remarks and with this promise that we shall carefully study and react to the statement of the hon the Minister, I should now like to refer to the report of the Department of Development Planning. It is an important report, and I want to refer to a few of the statements made in it insofar as they concern the constitutional development and the constitutional planning for the future.

On the first page I read—

Let us say at once that it is true that the constitutional panorama is being changed. It is being changed dramatically, and as far as we are concerned, this dramatic change is disturbing. Secondly, I want to add that we on this side of the House say that any constitution or any constitutional dispensation must make allowances for change; otherwise it would constitute an intolerable shackling of the freedom of a specific community and people. According to our view, change, and a great deal of change at that, will have to be brought about. [Interjections.] The question is not whether we are for or against change; the question is in what direction the change is being made, what change is being made, what the objectives of the change are and what the eventual position will be of the community that one represents in the programme of change. That is the most important thing. [Interjections.]

Partition!

We are not ashamed of the word partition. Those hon members applied it throughout and now they are running away from it. [Interjections.]

Furthermore we say that emanating from the Government’s constitutional approach, namely that this is one, undivided South Africa, and, as I have heard, that the point of departure is that the whole of South Africa is the common possession of all the population groups, that have equal claim to all land, general franchise, equal treatment, equal opportunities—this is all terminology from the speeches of hon members on that side—no discrimination, joint decision-making at all levels and the inclusion of everyone, also the Blacks, in the legislative and executive authority, it goes without saying that the present Constitution will have to be amended. It is obvious that it will not be sufficient to simply co-opt Black people into decision-making bodies in Parliament or the Cabinet, but that they will have to be accommodated in a full-fledged way. It is obvious that it will not be possible for them to remain subject to a White majority in the government of the whole country.

Furthermore, the report says that the constitutional panorama is changing irrevocably. We now want to ask why irrevocably. We are saying that it cannot mean that it will be impossible to ever change anything again after the NP has brought about those changes. It cannot mean that …

[Inaudible.]

Fine, we accept that.

It cannot mean that the feeling is that the NP can bring about change, but that afterwards, no one else will have the right, or will even be in a position to bring about change.

We are saying here today that it is inconceivable that a CP majority in the House of Assembly will simply regard all the NP’s constitutional alterations as irrevocable. Furthermore, we say that it is inconceivable that a White majority, that regards joint government of non-Whites over Whites as completely unacceptable, will resign itself to the so-called irrevocability of powersharing and of multiracial government. That is inconceivable.

Today, any political observer will tell one that the winds of change that are blowing through South Africa are not the winds of Mr Harold McMillan. Nor are they the gusty winds of the NP’s reform. Nor are they the cyclones of the ANC and the SACP. Those are not the only winds that are blowing. The HSRC has given us an indication of which way the wind is blowing.

The HSRC said, in its recent research, that even within the NP there are only 24% outspoken pro-reformers and 38% outspoken anti-reformers. In 1986, 51% of the Whites—that is not only members of the NP—were still saying that reform was right. In October 1987, only 43% said that reform was right. That is the way the wind is blowing. Almost two thirds of the Afrikaansspeaking Whites say that Blacks must not be brought into one central government.

Furthermore, the report says that 71% of the Afrikaans-speaking people say that there are not sufficient common values between the Blacks and others to work out a constitution for South Africa together. That is a HSRC finding. I am telling hon members that that is the way the wind is blowing. If people grin sceptically today about the possibility of a CP majority in the House of Assembly, I want to say that the wind is blowing very strongly in that direction, according to all observations in the field—in the rural areas and in the cities.

I said that certain things were inconceivable. I now want to add that I hope that when there is a CP majority and the time comes for it to execute the will of the majority of Whites—I want to tell hon members that this is on its way—and it takes steps to amend the Constitution, and I say it quite calmly, non-Whites will no longer be joint governors over Whites, and that it will also be inconceivable that the NP will agitate along with the non-White groups for the preservation of joint government of non-Whites over Whites. I hope that that is also inconceivable!

The report continues:

I repeat: “A democratic dispensation which will afford all citizens equal political rights.” We have also heard that it is being said in Government circles that an expansion of democracy is taking place. I want to briefly state our comments on that as follows.

Firstly, the CP has no problem with Black, Brown and Indian participation in own, separate, democratic dispensations for the different peoples and communities. We have no problem with democratic dispensations for the various groups. However, we have the strongest objection to a unitary state in which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and 10 million people—hon members can take their choice as to whether it will be 20 million people outside the independent states—take part in the business of one and the same Parliament and one Cabinet on a so-called democratic basis, on the basis of equal treatment and equal opportunity. We definitely object to that, because in our opinion the implications of that are deadly—we think this is basic logic—to the self-determination of a White community in South Africa.

I should like to refer to a well-known statement made by Chief Minister Buthelezi after the general election last year. It was a very dangerous statement that I do not think we should simply allow to go unnoticed—because it is an indication of what is going on in the minds of Black leaders. I confronted him personally with his statement that he would harness Black fury in order to sentence Whites to a life-long prison sentence in an open democracy. I made three things quite clear to the Chief Minister. Firstly, I said that it would not be an open democracy; it would not be a democracy at all! Secondly, I told him that it would be blatant Black domination. Thirdly, I told him: “My people will never accept that.” [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I now want to tell hon members that this Government has already allowed the idea to form in the minds of Black people—perhaps they have allowed more than one idea to form—that they have an equal claim to all land in South Africa. We can go into this point further during the debate on the statement of the hon the Minister. Is that the approach of the Government or is it not? Is the idea that as long as it is in control, it will determine where the various Black residential areas are going to be established? We just want to say that the NP is heading towards the composition of a government that will no longer be in their hands and in which they will no longer be in a position to say that they are retaining certain areas as White areas and giving Blacks certain areas in which to establish themselves.

Black people already have the idea that they have equal claim to all land in South Africa, whether it is right or wrong. They also have the idea that because of their numbers they will at least wield the sceptre over the Whites as well in a unitary state. I do not think that anyone can deny that many of them have that idea. There are Black leaders who simply accept that on the grounds of their numbers they are going to form the majority in one central government. They expect it. They also expect that that Black majority government will have the power to place the resources of the country in the possession of the Black majority. They are not interested in a weak little government up here which is merely a consultative body. They are interested in a strong government. That strong government must have a Black majority to be in a position to decide in the interests of Blacks and to be in possession of the resources of the entire South Africa.

Last week I had the privilege of meeting a small group of students from the Pretoria Technikon here, and among them was a Black student. The Black student asked me a question, or rather made a statement, and said: “But the land belongs to all of us.” My reply to him was:

I shall be glad if we can be given a definite statement by the Government about what their point of departure is on this point. What is their point of departure? Is the land simply available to everyone regardless of the government that is going to have to decide about it in the future?

I just want to ask a very practical question. If on a farmer’s farm there are 10 native villages in which a certain number of Black people are living, does that farm now belong to everyone, also to the inhabitants of those 10 villages? We should like to hear.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Bethlehem can tell us. Surely it is a very simple question.

I am telling you!

The hon member says no. Thank you very much, let that be placed on record.

Furthermore, I suspect that hon members of the NP tell one another that they will never surrender the political power of the Whites, at least not in the way the ANC wants them to. [Interjections.]

They do not tell us, though!

Some say they will share the power, but they will not hand it over, at least not to the ANC. We should like to believe that that is the idea. In that case, we are telling those hon members very clearly that it is plain deceit to try to make people believe that you are sharing political power, while at the same time retaining it.

I want to make a few statements in this regard. If one never wants to relinquish political power, one does not really intend to allow other groups to exercise that power with you.

The second statement that I want to make is that to think that on the basis of equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal votes, 5 million Whites can share power with 1 million Indians, 3 million Coloureds and 20 million Black people and still retain their self-determination, is too ludicrous for words. In my opinion it is naïveté.

Furthermore, we say that if one thinks that one can keep political power in the hands of the Whites even if one says that one is sharing it, and one invites leaders of other groups to participate in the decision-making only on an individual basis, without having them elected in the same way as Whites, one is doomed to fail. That is the reason why various proposals on the part of the Government simply do not get off the ground.

If democracy in a unitary state means one central government, one highest legislative authority, one main budget, one defence force and police force and one undivided territory, and representation is given on the basis of equality or equal value of votes, there cannot, for example, be 20 000 White voters per White member of Parliament, while the Blacks have to be satisfied with 80 000 voters per member of Parliament—it has to be the same Parliament. There will be no moral basis for that, and we do not know what the Government has in mind.

They do not know either.

They do not know what expectations they have aroused. The expectation is that they will be represented according to their numbers on a basis of equality. The ratio of White to non-White will then have to be reflected in the number of members of the different bodies. If there are then, according to numbers, 166 Whites, 85 Coloureds and 45 Indians in Parliament—allow me to rub it in, because some people do not make these little calculations—and one is really democratic in that each vote counts the same, approximately 664 Black people will have to be allowed into Parliament.

Surely that is ridiculous.

Is it ridiculous? [Interjections] Fine, perhaps they will negotiate with the Government and say that they do not demand 664 representatives, but that they will be satisfied with 170.

Who is advocating one Parliament?

No, the hon member must now wait a bit. He must now climb out of the holes.

The NP says that they will participate in the legislative authority. Where are they going to sit? The hon member can tell us where they are going to sit and how they are going to do it. They shall have to tell us what the Cabinet is going to look like. Surely one can work it out in the same way. I indicated how the electoral colleges for the hon the Speaker and the hon the State President would be constituted if one were to implement it on a truly democratic basis, with equal political rights for everyone. [Interjections.] The hon member must tell us. I want to repeat what I told Chief Buthelezi. It is not a democracy, but Black domination, and my people will not accept it.

Since I am limiting myself in terms of time, I shall refrain from discussing a further interesting statement in detail. However, hon members can examine the following sentence:

He continues:

Further on, this strange little sentence follows:

We agree. Hesitation means failure, and it is happening. However, if one does not hesitate and is reckless by ignoring the warnings that you yourself expressed, you are heading for precisely that conflict that you warned against. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will understand if I do not react specifically to his arguments, but in the course of my speech I shall address some of the points made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

†Mr Speaker, constitutional development and planning in South Africa has over the last decade become irrevocably, and I use the word advisedly, directed at achieving the ultimate goal of moving away from White domination to, not Black domination, but a balance of power, where all South Africans are afforded a meaningful say on all levels of government in the decisionmaking affecting their lives.

Under White domination!

Genuine and lasting reform towards achieving this goal is only possible by way of an evolutionary, ongoing and multifaceted process, and the challenge confronting all of us is the planning and management of the process of change towards achieving the stated goal.

The Government’s endeavours to achieve the stated goal should be evaluated against the background of the realities of the South African society. These are, inter alia: That it is a plural society; that the South African nation is a nation of minorities; that the overwhelming majority of the South African nation is comprised of Third World components, but that the substantial First World component is determined to maintain First World principles, norms and standards, and to have the country governed in accordance with these principles, norms and standards; …

Like the right to a fair trial!

… that South Africa is a developing country, and, as such, is faced with the concomitant problems such as fast urbanisation, the unemployment of unskilled labour, and, at the same time, an undersupply of skilled labour.

These realities imply, inter alia, the following: That there is no simple, single solution to the problems confronting the Government and, in fact, all of us involved in one way or another in the Government of the country; that there are no ready-made, Western blueprints that can be applied satisfactorily; that, on the contrary, unique solutions must be found for the complex and diverse problems confronting us; that different constitutional arrangements may have to be employed for the constitutional accommodation of different communities; that reform is necessary in all spheres and on all levels; that law and order must be maintained as a prerequisite for a climate conducive to peaceful reform; and that economic growth must be sustained and stimulated. These are some of the implications of the realities to which I have referred.

In the process of constitutional reform, the Government is guided by and adheres to the following principles, norms and objectives: Democratically elected institutions; equal opportunity for all South Africans; the elimination of domination and discrimination; the maintenance of group identity and the right to self-determination; joint responsibility; negotiation, and the rejection of violence as a means of effecting constitutional change and reform.

Events over the past few years leave no doubt whatsoever over the Government’s and the NP’s commitment to genuine reform—not mere hollow gestures to appease certain sections of the South African community and/or to curry favour with the international community.

I will mention only a few of the positive results of the Government’s endeavours to reach the stated constitutional goals. Independence for the TBVC countries, coupled with multilateral cooperation; self-government for other territories and collective co-operation; the tricameral constitutional dispensation for White, Coloured and Asian South Africans; local government for all communities, including Black South Africans; multiracial regional services councils; multiracial provincial executive bodies; the recognition of the common citizenship of all South Africans; the abolition of influx control, the scrapping of several measures which were perceived to be discriminatory; reform of labour legislation; and social and economic reforms, including regional development, decentralization and deregulation.

With regard to the Black South Africans outside the TBVC countries and the self-governing territories, the Government and this side of the House acknowledge their permanency and the unviability of expecting them to exercise their political rights in the Black states or territories. We acknowledge that they form part of the South African body politic. We acknowledge the necessity of their participation in decision-making within the Republic of South Africa and the provision of decision-making bodies for them above local government level. [Interjections.]

The parameters within which this is to be achieved have been categorically stated on more than one occasion by the hon the State President and other leaders on this side of the House. They are, inter alia, the recognition of the plurality of the South African society, comprising different ethnic groups and communities; no domination of any one group or groups over another group or groups and the protection of minority group rights. A system of one man, one vote in a unitary state is not acceptable. A fourth chamber for Black South Africans in the tricameral Parliament is not acceptable because the tricameral Parliament was not devised for this purpose. Participation by Black South Africans in decision-making and governing processes must be the result of negotiation and must be introduced in an evolutionary and not a revolutionary way. Negotiation with the ANC and similar revolutionary organizations is not acceptable as long as they persist in their policy of violence and terrorist activities in an endeavour to grab and monopolise political power. The Government and the NP are prepared to share political power and responsibility, but not to surrender power under any circumstances.

The proposed National Council presently under review by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs is a well-intentioned and honest attempt by the Government to structure negotiations and stimulate progress toward the stated constitutional goal.

During the discussion of his Budget Vote in this House, the hon the State President announced important further proposals as part of the reform process. These proposals include the following: Firstly, regional bodies for Black South Africans outside the self-governing territories which will afford them the opportunity to elect leaders on a regional basis to take decisions on matters which concern them; secondly, the participation by Black South Africans in a reconstituted President’s Council to be charged, inter alia with the responsibility of advising the Government on matters affecting the lives of all South Africans; thirdly, the hon the State President intimated that the Government would have no objection to another name for a national council which will provide for the representation of all population groups with the main purpose of conferring on a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa; fourthly, Black Ministers in the Cabinet to administer matters such as, for example, Black education; fifthly, Black representation in the electoral college for the election of the State President in such a way that no population group will be able to dominate another or others. [Interjections.]

Of special significance in this regard is the assurance that the electorate will be consulted before any major constitutional reforms are implemented and, as in the case of the referendum in 1983, this side of the House will abide by the result of that consultation of the electorate. [Interjections.]

In spite of the Government’s well-intentioned and honest efforts, it has not yet been possible to make satisfactory progress with negotiations to afford Black South Africans outside the self-governing territories meaningful participation in the decision-making and governing processes at all levels of government. The question arises: What are the reasons for this? The reasons for this are to be found, firstly, in the inherent suspicion of Black South Africans that their White compatriots are not really prepared to share political power with them; secondly, intimidation by the ANC and other violent organisations; thirdly, international interference; and, fourthly, the negative influence of opposition parties and especially the opposition media.

*Mr Speaker, in the light of the facts mentioned, where do the PFP and others find grounds for their accusation that the Government’s reform initiatives are insubstantial, that they have failed and that they have come to a standstill or even to an end? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon member for Mossel Bay, and I must say that, perhaps more in terms of the general tone of his address than in respect of its detailed content, this was an attempt to be constructive and to look forward. Quite frankly, however, it still abounded with too many defensive clichés and generalities, of which I want to mention only two.

The hon member said that they believed in democratically elected institutions and equal opportunities for all. I wonder how many people hearing that phrase would realise that it means also that there must be compulsory race classification and that separate racial structures and democracy and freedom of choice can exist only within the racial structures laid down by this Parliament. I am complaining not about the hon member’s tone, but about the reality behind what he was saying. This aspect is going to be subject to further analysis and scrutiny during the course of this debate.

This is a critically important portfolio and department. At the outset I must say that the officials of this department deserve some congratulation on having managed to help control the affairs of such a difficult department, which has been in transition during the past year.

It is important because it deals not only with straightforward constitutional matters, but also with a whole range of matters which vitally and directly affect the lives of millions South African citizens. I will deal primarily with the general issues of constitutional development, and other hon members on this side will deal with specific issues affecting the individual lives of citizens in this country.

I underestimate neither the importance of dealing with social issues nor that of having economic development, but I believe that nothing is more important in South Africa today than addressing the issue of political power; how it is going to be distributed and exercised. That is fundamental.

At the risk of boring this House, I must say again that the failure of the NP Government over many years to address the central issue of Black participation in the central government of South Africa has been that party’s critical failure. The hon the Minister can talk about others creating a revolutionary climate, but nothing done by anybody else has added more to the revolutionary climate than the failure of the Government to have accorded Black citizens the basic right of participating in the government of their own country.

It has had another effect. The failure of the Government to address this issue has meant that the Government has steadily been losing its moral and natural authority over the people of this country, and it has attempted to offset this loss by strengthening its statutory authority and coercive powers. We therefore have the ironical situation in which, as the screws of apartheid, as we understand it, are loosened, so the screws of authoritarianism are tightened.

While there is, of course, more integration today than there was 20 years ago, there is also more political repression. While there is less segregation, there is also less political freedom, less rule of law and less civil liberty. This has been the direct consequence of the failure of the NP Government in the past to deal with the single central issue of South Africa, namely that of Black participation—the participation of the majority—in the structures of central Government and the central Parliament of South Africa.

I refer to something which took place before the hon the Minister’s time, although the hon member for Houghton will remember it. No act performed in this Parliament was more reckless or more damaging to the future of South Africa than Dr Verwoerd’s statement in 1960 that Black South Africans could no longer expect any political rights in the land of their birth. At the same he time banned the ANC and the PAC and proceeded to get rid of the last remaining representatives of Black people in this House.

I think the hon the Minister will agree—I recall his statement to the youngsters at the University of Pretoria some years ago—that much of the violence and revolt which we are enduring today, stems from this trilogy of political stupidity perpetrated in 1960.

The Government, more than 25 years since that time and after more than hundreds of deaths and growing international ostracism, realises that something has to be done.

I do not want to anticipate the National Council Bill, or whatever it is going to be called when it comes back to this House. I just want give two warnings which I believe have to be given in this regard. Yes, negotiated constitutional development is important, but the Government must not try to build new constitutional structures for the future on the apartheid foundations of the past. That is absolutely fundamental; do not try to build new structures on the apartheid foundations.

The Government must understand that the vast majority of South Africans want to escape from apartheid, they do not want to assist in it being entrenched.

That is not true!

I believe it is true. I think the Government knows it is true. The Government says the following in its departmental report, page 5:

This is the issue. The hon the Minister has to find ways and means of protecting individuals. He has to find ways of protecting groups so that they cannot be dominated and denied their rights and opportunities to live their normal lives. But, for heaven’s sake, he must not paint White South Africans into a shrinking small comer of the South African political stage. He must not do it.

The Government should not, by erecting race barriers, deliberately restrict White South Africans into being a permanent part of an embattled racial minority. We do not want to be painted in. We do not want to be locked into a corner. We in the PFP do not ask any group of individuals to give up their identity. That is theirs. We do not ask people to abandon their cultural and religious heritages.

We urge the Government to allow White South Africans at long last to step out of the shadows of apartheid and to become an integral part of a non-racial South Africa of the future. That is where our future lies. I want to urge the hon the Minister to listen to the hon member for Innesdal, who put it superbly in his latest essay in Inside South Africa. He says the following:

It is so superbly put; not about how apart we are but how united we should be, and the recognition of groups on the basis of voluntary association. I believe is the direction in which this country should go.

If there are still a few Whites who prefer to live within their own racial enclave, whether it is geographic or constitutional, I am almost inclined to say: “Let them have it!” Let them be while the rest of our nation should be allowed to get on with their job of building a new prosperous future for this country. Why should we all be held back by the bigotry of a small group in this society of ours?

The second point I want to make to the hon the Minister is that he should not plan a new constitution using machinery and in circumstances which in practice will exclude vitally important elements of the people from participating in that process. I know one becomes impatient. I was disturbed by the hon the Minister’s statement during the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote that the Government would go ahead with negotiation with those who wanted to take part, and those who remained outside could stay there. On face value that is fine, but it shows a disregard for the realities of South Africa, and this style of government I believe is going to lead South Africa into another constitutional cul-desac.

Making all the allowances for a society in a state transition, I am deeply disturbed at the damage which this Government’s contorted constitutional thinking and, I say, inept handling of constitutional development is doing to the fabric of democratic and accountable government in this country. One could give numerous illustrations, but the result of this process is that Government in South Africa today is, first of all, more complicated, more cumbersome and more expensive than ever before. Secondly, it is more remote from and less accountable to the people than ever before. Thirdly, it is more dictatorial and more imperial in style than ever before.

I wish to look at those factors more closely. I presume the hon the Minister will agree that the Government is more complicated, cumbersome and expensive. There is the proliferation of bodies, even at local government level, excluding independent and national states. There are White and Black local authorities, a limited number of Coloured and Indian local authorities, Black Community Councils, Coloured Management Committees, Indian Local Affairs Committees, combined RSC’s, White divisional councils, White local councils and separate White, Coloured and Indian rural councils. There are all of these, because this Government is concerned to keep race and racial concept as the building blocks for the new constitution of the future. This is what they are all about.

Secondly, I wish to argue that government is far less accountable and close to the people than it was before. In the first place, there is the fragmentation of Parliament, the proliferation of committees, the reduction of the opportunity for open debate—I must tell the hon the Minister that whatever he may think, this is taking the proceedings of this Parliament further and further away from the ordinary man in the street. I believe the ordinary man in the street is starting to take less interest in this Parliament because of this proliferation of committees and structures. Furthermore, indirectly elected and indirectly financed RSC’s are becoming amorphous bureaucratic institutions about and over which the general public has little knowledge and very little direct control. I would like to ask any hon member to go back to his hometown and ask the people who their local representatives on the regional services council are. Nobody will know. Nobody knows what is going on there. [Interjections.] The fact is it is just a swollen form of bureaucracy, it is not a form of representative government. [Interjections.] There is also a void in the accountable representative system of provincial government. This is a serious void and a serious defect in the whole structure of government today. The limited debates we had in those strange extended public committees are no substitute whatsoever for proper provincial government where there are properly elected representatives and properly accountable executives.

I am sure the hon the Minister will not disagree with me on my third point, namely that the Government is more dictatorial and imperial in style. There are dozens of examples of the change in character taking place in this Government. It is no longer what I as a member of the opposition of the NP used to talk about when I said: “Ek stem nie met hulle saam nie, maar hulle is darem ’n volksregering.” They are no longer a people’s government; they are a politician’s government. That is their style.

Let me give some examples. The rejection of the Indaba proposals within 24 hours of the proposals being made public was a sign of political arrogance. The forced incorporation of Moutse, to which the hon the Minister has referred and which has now been found by the courts to be unlawful, was an act of arrogance. The attempt of the hon the Minister of National Education to impose his will on the universities, also found to be unlawful, was an act of political arrogance. The so-called offer by the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry to members of the UDF and others, saying chat, provided they could satisfy the Minister that they wished to take part in the democratic process, they would allow them to take part in municipal elections, is another example of this. What kind of Government is this that people have to ask for permission to take part in elections? [Interjections.] It can only be arrogance on the part of the Government.

We can go on and on, but the blatant attempts by the hon the State President in recent days to protect his political friend, Mr Rajbansi, who quite clearly had lost the support of the members of the House of Delegates, is another example of this. Every established convention, every democratic principle, cried out for Mr Rajbansi to be dismissed as chairman of that council. However, instead of upholding the democratic tradition the hon the State President resorted to presidential threats and to party-political manoeuvring to save Mr Rajbansi’s hide! That was what it was all about.

The hon the State President threatened to dissolve the House of Delegates and have an election, in spite of not having the constitutional authority to do so. [Interjections.] This is a threat, in spite of his not having the constitutional authority to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sea Point had his heyday in Parliament in the years immediately following the 1977 election. The reason was simply that the old United Party had been disbanded and that many ex-UP supporters flocked to the banner of the PFP as their potential saviour. However, since 1977 we have seen a steady decline in the fortunes of the PFP. [Interjections.] At every successive election that party has fared more and more poorly. If ever anybody in this country had any doubt about the reason why, the hon member for Sea Point gave us that reason this afternoon.

That party sneers at the group concept. It sneers at a concept which is natural throughout the world, which is an accepted basic principle throughout the world. As long as the hon member for Sea Point continues to do that, his party will continue to slide, it will remain on the skids. Not only that, but the internal tensions in his party will become such that we will have a proliferation of splinter groups even more so than we have now, where we already have three parties spawned by that minuscule party sitting here in this House. Three will only be the start. There will eventually be 16 of them, each representing his own party as long as the hon member for Sea Point carries on like this. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Sea Point has sacrificed his relevance and that of his party. It is no longer necessary for this party to pay him much attention.

However, I want to come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In my opinion, he made two basic errors of reasoning in his speech. He still speaks in the idiom of the Westminster system of numbers as the decisive factor in the relations politics of South Africa. The NP, and with it South Africa, moved away from the numerical superiority approach a long time ago and towards the concept of consensus politics.

I can still understand that he could make such a bona fide mistake. However, I cannot forgive him for trying to persuade his own people and the people of South Africa that the Whites are still in control as the sole rulers of South Africa today. He knows that that is not the situation in South Africa.

During the 1983 election, two out of every three White voters in South Africa voted in favour of a negotiated future for South Africa. Today, the concept of a negotiated future is the choice of all Whites, all Coloureds, all Indians and the overwhelming majority of Black people in South Africa. That the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is still trying to persuade his people that they are still living in the era of White supremacy, is plain deception. The hon member and his party attended the provincial sittings of the extended committees and there he spoke about the trickery that those sittings represented. I want to say this to him: If he tries to make the people of South Africa believe that the Whites are still the sole rulers of this country, the same accusation can be levelled at him.

Precisely because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not want to face that fact, we are able to understand why his party indulged in their comical antics last week in Pietermaritzburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town. It was not because those people objected in principle to the sittings of the extended committees. No, it is because they could not afford to see that negotiation politics was succeeding in South Africa. In the four provincial capitals we saw in the joint extended committees how it was possible for South Africans of more than one population group to reason with one another and to differ radically from one another, but nevertheless to choose the option of negotiation above that of confrontation.

In Pietermaritzburg—I was very pleased to have had the privilege of sitting in on that meeting—we saw that not only was it possible for Whites, Coloureds and Indians to debate together, but we also heard reports there on the negotiations between the representatives of KwaZulu and the representatives of the Natal Provincial Administration. Progress was reported with regard to the first year of business of the Joint Territorial Authority between these two bodies. It was a success story that emerged there—a success story that the CP and its four representatives, namely the hon members for Brakpan, Potgietersrus, Roodepoort and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, simply could not afford to swallow.

In case hon members of this House still do not realise it, I must tell them one thing. Those four hon members entered the hall in Pietermaritzburg and made a great fuss. Apparently they did not see their way clear to attending that multiracial debate. They then walked out melodramatically and it was a terrific blow to all of us that these four people, who had no representative status in Natal in any case, walked out. They walked out of there as they ought to have walked out of there. [Interjections.] At one o’clock that afternoon the mayor of Pietermaritzburg presented a luncheon for that extended committee, which consisted of the same multiracial group. The four hon gentlemen then came in again … [Interjections.] I do not know whether they were hungry or whether they had suddenly forgotten their principles, but they sat down with us, unrepresentative as they were. [Interjections.]

However, I am very pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about the Constitution that had to be amended, because another of the delights of that day in Pietermaritzburg was that those four hon members then held a protest meeting in the old Oribi Hall. Oribi is a community of approximately 1000 people and we certainly expected that protest meeting to draw 700 or 800 people. However, there were only 94 people present there. I understand that that included the four speakers and their wives, family members and so on. Someone asked them how they were going to create this Utopia if they were brought to power. In the final analysis, there are certain risks involved in this new dispensation that has been created in South Africa. One of them is that the left-wing parties may take over somewhere along the line. Another risk is that the CP may take over here in the House of Assembly. That is a risk and we accept it as such.

It will be a disaster!

Of course it will be a disaster! Someone then asked one of those hon members how they were going to amend the Constitution. The answer was—those hon members must tell me if I am correct—that after all they would be in power and could therefore simply abolish the other two Houses. Is that how they are going to do it? Surely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has just spoken about amending the Constitution. He then saw only the NP as an obstacle. However, I wonder whether he has ever thought about the fact that the Constitution of South Africa states that today there are three Houses and that if he and his party were to gain a majority in this House and were to try to abolish the other two Houses, they would have to abolish the Supreme Court at the same time. The Supreme Court would, after all, most likely rule against them when the other two Houses made their appeal to the Supreme Court. If that happened, what would they do then? Would they declare the Supreme Court unlawful? [Interjections.]

It is no use the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition telling us that he does not hope that the NP will not join the other groups in objecting to the amendment of the Constitution. He must tell us exactly how he intends to amend the Constitution. [Interjections.] I want to remind him that in Pietermaritzburg one of the members of the House of Representatives told the four representatives of the CP that they would have to begin amending their policy the day after they came to power because there is not a single Black man, Coloured or Indian who agrees with them. How then are they going to amend the Constitution? I think it is high time the Official Opposition clarified that matter for us. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to address the hon the Minister with reference to the announcement he made in this House this afternoon. The first point relates to the identification of land for housing for Black communities. It is well-known that our standpoint is that this development should take place outside the Group Areas Act, but I do not wish to discuss that now. Our approach is also to consider increasing progress, and for that reason I just wish to say on behalf of this side of the House that it is imperative that this matter be dealt with and that we support it within the framework of the existing restrictions. I do not wish to express an opinion on the details involved, because we have not had the opportunity to study them.

There are only two remarks I wish to make. The first concerns the proposed area to the north-west of Johannesburg. The area of 600 ha is a small piece of land of limited extent and it is evident from the hon the Minister’s statement that when the legislation is passed, this will be regarded as one of the released areas. In view of that fact, the question arises as to whether it would not be better rather to develop that area, unless it is indeed good land on which more extensive development should subsequently take place. When the objections to Norweto were at issue, that did not appear to be the case.

The second aspect that I wish to comment on is the fact that the hon the Minister states that the socio-economic structure of the region should be borne in mind in identifying these areas and the type of developments that should take place. He adds that although it is the responsibility of the State to identify the land, it is not its responsibility to buy it for all the people.

One point that is missing here, in my opinion, is the fact that the State did not directly and expressly accept responsibility for the fact that it will indeed have to purchase land for people who cannot afford to make a contribution to their own housing. I refer to really impoverished people who are becoming urbanised and who are being involved in this ongoing process.

I did point out that provincial administrations and local authorities can purchase land.

It is true that those bodies exist, but the point I want to make is that the problem has not been properly addressed as regards those who can make no contribution. Prof Richard Tomlinson of Wits recently read a paper in which he relied largely on statistics provided by the Development Bank and by Pauline McCaul of the South African Institute for Race Relations in which he contends that 56% of all Black households in South Africa earn less than R300 per month and are therefore unable to make any contribution to their housing.

In the second place I wish to comment on the hon the Minister’s statement with reference to the matter of Moutse. In view of the scope of the statement it is far more difficult for me to support this. Against the background of the hon the Minister’s initial statement after the Appeal Court judgement, when he said that legislation would be passed …

[Inaudible.]

No, but to overthrow the Appeal Court judgement and therefore to proceed with the planned objectives. If I read that correctly it seems to me as if this statement has drawn the sting of the Appeal Court judgement.

I am not sure whether the way in which this is being done, is good. The appointment of Mr Justice Rumpff as a one-man commission to make recommendations inter alia about “the constitutional and related issues and the constitutional future of the district of Moutse” without providing a policy framework within which he should carry out this investigation and submit his recommendations, is dangerous. It appears to be merely an effort to buy time and to see to it that it is removed from the political arena. Some years ago Mr Justice Rumpff was the chairman of another commission of enquiry into Ingwavuma, and at that time, too, he had to make recommendations without real policy guidelines. When we examine the consequences of that, the consequences of the recommendations of this one-man commission could be catastrophic if the Government did not focus on the policy framework within which this had to be investigated.

Against this background I just wish to make a few remarks with reference to the pronouncement by the Appeal Court in this Moutse case. My first observation is that the incorporation was declared invalid and that Mr Justice Grosskopf relied chiefly on a statement by the former Deputy Minister, Mr Ben Wilkens, to the effect that people of various ethnic origins would have to learn to live together in peace and harmony. It was expressly stated that this was for administrative reasons and not for the purpose of consolidation of peoples. The old slogan that we were liberating not areas but peoples, was not the motive. Indeed, nowhere was this at issue in the documents put before the Court on behalf of the Government. This meant that the so-called moral basis of those times, of people becoming independent, appeared to fall by the wayside. In the hon the Ministers’ statement, too, he refers to the important factors—administrative, geographic and economic consolidation, as well as ethnic consolidation. The question is what the Government is really aiming at.

Are they aiming at independent states and the self-government of territories on the basis of race and colour, or is there another moral basis for considering that? Let me add, too, that the entire principle of self-determination has been ignored here. The people of Moutse were not consulted in the matter.

The second remark I wish to make is that the implementation of the processes constitutes a new form of forced removal. People are no longer being taken to other areas and placed under another authority; the authority is now being brought to them—just as unwelcome, just as alien and just as inhospitable in a certain sense.

There is a third remark 1 wish to make. Against the background of the crisis of legitimacy that our courts are facing, particularly after the pronouncement on the Sharpeville Six, and particularly, too, against the background of the fact that the courts do not enjoy high legitimacy amongst urban Blacks, but that among rural Blacks they do still have considerable authority, I just wish to warn that if there is intervention in this instance, in conflict with the judgement of the court, the people will not understand; and it will not help to use the arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament. The level of sophistication is such that they will certainly not go along with that, and the confidence they still have in the courts, will then be lost.

Arising out of this I just wish to raise three guidelines that could be investigated in an effort to make a positive contribution. The first is the proposal by Chief Minister Remodike with reference to the amalgamation between Lebowa and KwaNdebele. This would mean that we would be moving away from the idea of ethnic independence, of the independence of a people, but it would leave room for consideration of the unification of territories or regions with a view to establishing second-level authorities. This could be the forerunner. It is evident that there is support for this idea and I think that this is something which the hon the Minister and his department should give serious consideration to when we speak about future structures.

The second point is that it is going to be increasingly necessary—Moutse is an eloquent example of this; where one has a traditional governmental structure that is moving towards being controlled by the so-called republican control, the RSA, or first-world government control—to develop some form of synthesis. I am not aware of any planning currently in progress to consider how traditional authorities could be linked up with authorities that are familiar to us. The hon the Minister will really have to give serious consideration to this.

Without seeking to offend against or even to evade the sub judice rule, I want to refer to the pronouncement by the Transvaal Bench in the verdict of 20 May on the female franchise in KwaNdebele, in which Mr Justice Eloff pronounced a finding and declared the election in KwaNdebele invalid. The hon the Minister’s statement is timely, because if legislation had been proceeded with to impose further incorporation in the chaos that could possibly arise in KwaNdebele—of course, the notice of appeal has now upheld the current status—we should really not be able to deal with this in the future.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he can give us an indication of what his plan is in this regard. Is there any indication as to what their thinking is, or are they are going to sit back and wait until the decision of the Appeal Court comes through in this instance as well, so that we have to pass through this type of crisis again?

Finally, I just wish to make this appeal to the hon the Minister. Some of the chiefs of Moutse form part of the deputation of Chief Minister Ramodike, but did not participate in the discussion when they came to address the hon the State President here. To the best of my knowledge the people of Moutse themselves have never really been consulted and if there is one priority then it is that consideration should be given to what their needs and expectations are. If we really believe in the principle of self-determination, however it is interpreted, then that is what requires attention. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randburg will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. I think he addressed the hon the Minister, and I believe the hon the Minister will react to it.

If one looks at the political history of the opposition parties since 1948, one finds it strange that the present opposition has not taken note of what has been achieved with negative attacks on and negativism towards Government policy. There is only one route, and that is downhill. [Interjections.] It has happened because the opposition parties did not take note. I request the Official Opposition to take note at this stage and ask themselves what they are going to achieve by constantly reacting negatively to institutions created by the Government for the very purpose of promoting political self-determination in this country. [Interjections.]

I ask myself why we are so reluctant to accept change in this country. Why do we reject the opportunities the Government gives us? Why do we deliberately misrepresent the facts precisely in order to wreck these institutions? For what reason—I ask myself—do we play dual roles, in this Parliament as well? [Interjections.]

Are you talking to yourself?

The hon members who are reacting now, will recall that when we were discussing the regional services councils earlier on, we referred to the fact that when the hon members of the Official Opposition said that organised agriculture should play no part in the concept of regional services councils, members of that party were already participating in and cooperating with the regional services councils. I therefore maintain that they are playing a dual role.

Furthermore I ask myself for how much longer the opposition parties in this country can afford to commit political sabotage. I ask that we admit today that the Government is engaged in reform in this country.

I should like to pay special attention to regional services councils because they are the first institutions in which the man in the street—the ordinary citizen—can experience the climate of reform. Expression is being given to the Government’s principle on general affairs and own affairs in these bodies, as an extension of Government policy.

This afternoon I tell myself that it is the first visible recognition of general affairs on a local level. It emphasises the shared aspects of an overall system of government on a local level, which in fact creates the climate in which an own affairs community can prosper because that, we say, is the field of experience of the ordinary citizen.

This is the first Black participation, this is the first say they have in joint decision-making, and that is why I ask myself this afternoon why these attacks are being made on regional services councils. Is it solely for political gain?

The regional services councils were established after the Browne Commission had been appointed to investigate alternative financial sources for local authorities, and these structures, to which reference has been made, eventuated. This has resulted in our general community participating in the meaningful application of their resources, the infrastructure and equipment at their disposal and that general management ability may also be employed at a local level.

This gives the communities the opportunity to plan their level of development even on the basis of a local committee. In this connection we are especially thinking of the rural areas where the possibility exists that towns can function on a committee level within the regional services councils.

Let us take a look at certain principles that are at issue here. In the first instance the user of a service pays for that service. Because of the fact, however, that users of such a service make certain demands on the infrastructure of the country, they are asked for pro rata contributions and levies in proportion to the service that they use. I think it is a very reasonable dispensation. Furthermore we are in the process of moving away from the idea of one man, one vote, and we are actually establishing in the regional services councils the principle of franchise according to the use of the services that are supplied within that system. This is ushering in a new era, and again I ask whether we should commit acts of sabotage against it.

I have now reached the end of this section of my speech and I should like to direct a request to the hon the Minister, especially in regard to the rural regional services councils. Since the regional services councils will in all probability be unable to generate sufficient funds from their own resources in the short term, could funds be made available by the State, as was done in the past, to enable the regional services councils to get off the ground. By doing this we would assist these communities in sharing in joint government.

I also want to pause for a moment to consider the aspect of regional development. Since we have just been dealing with a governing body, a body with executive authority, we also, on the other hand, have a non-statutory body that furnishes the Government and communities with advice. We especially have the district development associations in mind. These are the regional development associations—the RDAs—and also the RDACs in which the private sector and the departments combine forces to identify and evaluate potential, and to give the correct recommendations on local, regional and national level.

This is a concept that goes hand in hand with, inter alia, the JMC system, the security measures that have to be maintained in the regions, the urbanisation policy as well as the population development programme.

It is very important that we do not see any one of these actions in isolation, but that we should see them as a joint programme or a joint strategy to raise the standard of living in this country. Some of these projects will also have to be maintained for sosio-economic reasons, because at this stage and especially in the rural areas, economic reform has not taken place to such an extent that the communities can be self-supporting.

Because of the points of contact in this respect, owing to the fact that the same people serve on many of these bodies, I want to ask whether the time is not ripe for the proper co-ordination and co-operation between the various organisations that have been created. Duplication should be eliminated as far as possible and we shall even take a look at the boundaries of development regions so as to enable them to tie in with the school of thought in respect of the co-ordination of services.

I conclude by asking whether we can afford any longer to have a community excluded from participation in its own planning and in its own destiny. Can any community continue to be excluded from the economic advantages brought about by joint decision-making on the question of water, electricity and the development of infrastructure? Can we afford not to give the groups that are lagging behind the opportunity to be trained and to take a greater responsibility in the administration of the country? Can we afford to allow these needs and priorities which play such an important role in both the rural areas and the Republic of South Africa as a whole to be satisfied without the participation of these people? I say we should guard against being reproached for not having afforded these opportunities to all the people. My plea is that we reverse the negative and destructive criticisms and that we jointly build a more attractive local government system in this country, and afford all the communities an opportunity of participating in it.

I take pleasure in supporting this Vote.

Mr Speaker, I just want to tell the hon member for Cradock that it is very difficult to be negative about a non-policy. The problem is that the NP is looking for consensus; that is their policy at this stage. I do not know how one can be negative about such a policy, and we should like to know what the real policy of the NP is. [Interjections.]

We have stated our standpoint with regard to regional services councils. It is power sharing, it is mixed government and it aims at the division of wealth, income and prosperity. It is a socialistic principle, which we reject. We participate in the regional services councils in the same way that we participate here. We take part in this parliamentary process in order to ensure that the CP’s policy will eventually triumph. [Interjections.]

Next, I want to address the hon member for Umlazi. We accepted an invitation from the mayor of Pietermaritzburg out of decency and respect for that man and his post, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we acted in a certain way in that extended provincial committee. [Interjections.] We merely showed common decency, but that is a word that that hon member no longer knows. [Interjections.]

He then spoke about the meeting that we held. His figures were completely wrong, but I am not going to elaborate on that. [Interjections.] The PFP also held a meeting that evening, but the NP, which was 40 years old on that day, did not even try to hold a meeting. [Interjections.] So how can they talk?

I want to conclude what I have to say about that hon member. He said that we knew that negotiation politics had succeeded. What a monstrous thing to say! What is happening at the moment in the House of Delegates? What happened with regard to Rev Hendrickse? How many Coloureds and Indians took part in a referendum? How many Coloureds and Indians give any support to this consensus-seeking exercise that the Government is engaged in? How many Black people with credibility have said that they are going to participate in this national meeting? Where is the negotiation process succeeding? [Interjections.] Let the hon member tell us that.

The hon member for Mossel Bay merely repeated in English the same old clichés we so often hear in Afrikaans. A judge once said: “It seems to me a certain advocate believes that his argument becomes stronger the more he repeats it”. [Interjections.]

The NP invokes group protection. They say that South Africa is a country of minorities that must share power on a basis of consensus, and one group may not dominate another. That is what the hon member for Mossel Bay said. Then in the course of his speech he referred to the electoral college, and he said that it should consist of a number of people amongst whom there should be no domination. How is the State President going to be elected? Any subsequent NP speaker must tell us how that electoral college is going to be constituted so that a majority of votes does not elect the State President, and so that he will be elected solely by consensus. [Interjections.] As long as they fail to come forward with an acceptable formula, their credibility will wane. To the degree to which this fact permeates the minds of the voters, the NP will continue to lose support.

A power-base is not only situated in the group. Geography is a powerful component of it, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said here today. Whites have title deeds to as much as 90% of the territory of which they are at present co-governors. They gained control of that land in terms of the principles of agreement, conquest and occupation, which are recognised by the international law of nations. That is the part of South Africa that we claim and in which we have established a sovereign government.

An important nucleus of that geography is the PWV area, in which more than 50% of the Whites of the RSA are living and in which the largest percentage of its gross national products is generated.

It is a White area and it is under White control. With regard to infrastructure and natural resources, the hon the State President said that these had already reached the point of saturation.

In its striving to settle Blacks in an orderly way, the Government is earmarking thousands of hectares of land, inter alia on the East Rand and in parts of 5% of the most valuable agricultural land in the Republic of South Africa for Black urban settlement. Hon members were given the figures today, disturbing figures of—as my hon leader said—horizontal expansion. There is no vertical expansion. It simply continues, and over the hills and in the valleys of South Africa land is being made available for Black development.

Another 13000 ha is being envisaged in the PWV area. [Interjections.] That is the area—the hon the State President said so himself—for which water will have to be brought from the Orange River and Lesotho to support it.

Now the hon the Minister has also said that at least two Soweto’s are being planned on the East Rand. We hear that 8,3 million Blacks are going to be living in this central, White controlled nucleus of South Africa by the year 2000. We now hear that plans for Norweto, northwest of Johannesburg, have not been abandoned.

Furthermore, with regard to the East Rand, we find that places such as Nigel, Heidelberg and Dunnottar—established White communities—stand the chance of being cut off from the East Rand. They will become White islands in the midst of an ocean of Black urban settlement. That is taking place as a result of the Government’s obsession with so-called orderly urbanisation. It has put the cart before the horse. It abolished influx control before urbanisation had been properly thought out. It abolished development bodies before the regional services councils were properly thought out. It abolished provincial councils before the monstrosity that replaced them had been properly thought out. In its search for more and more land the Government continues to think of horizontal urbanisation only, as I have just said.

It now appears that the hon the Minister has given up on the area around Daveyton, but it is not entirely clear from his statement what is happening there. We only know that the hon the Deputy Minister of Education, when he was in charge of development, experienced misfortune in that regard because further development was being planned in Daveyton.

With regard to Brakpan, I submitted a petition to the hon the Minister and the Administrator of the Transvaal, as well the town council of Brakpan. We asked that the Influx Control Act be reinstated and that no further land within the municipal area of Brakpan be made available for occupation by people of other races. The hon the Minister wrote back to us saying that in the KwaThema-Tsakane-Duduza complex, which serves Brakpan as well, approximately 4 550 ha had already been identified for additional Black housing. He said that a small area of industrial land was being made available to help these people. He then said:

I just want to draw the attention of hon members to what this committee said with regard to urbanisation, namely that 60% of the Black people are still living in the rural areas, while 10% Whites, 22% Coloureds and 7% Indians are still living there. That position has only changed by a small percentage since 1980. The reason for this is influx control.

With regard to this aspect, seen in conjunction with the fact that the central business area in the urban area of Brakpan is also going to be declared open to all races, I want to tell the hon the Minister that the inhabitants of Brakpan are resisting and feel uneasy and worried about what is taking place in the garden town of the East Rand.

In the light of what is being envisaged in Hillbrow and Mayfair and Woodstock, these open business districts are the precursors of the throwing open of one White town and city in South Africa after the other.

In October, the voters are going to vote for real community security and the proper and purposeful implementation of the Group Areas Act.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan said to us that they participated in institutions such as the regional services councils just as they participated in this tricameral Parliamentary system. My question, then, is why they boycotted the provincial sitting in Pietermaritzburg. If they participate in the system, why do they boycott it there? [Interjections.] Another question is whether the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly will participate in future joint sittings. That is what we want to know. Are they going to persist in boycotting, or have they learnt their lesson once and for all? The hon deputy leader of the Official Opposition led the boycott of the sitting in the Free State himself. I think that by this time he rather regrets that he accepted the legal advice he received to boycott this sitting.

You are making a mistake!

They were in fact boycotting the Free State. We discussed many important matters relating to the Free State but they boycotted those affairs which are of great importance to us as Free Staters. It is important to us to speak about these matters, but to them it is easy to boycott them. We shall not forget that.

However let me tell hon members what the big problem is. I said this in Bloemfontein and I should like to repeat it today for our other colleagues from the other provinces. I think that the Official Opposition is ashamed to debate and defend their slogan of “Freedom with equality” before people of colour because they know that those people will laugh at them if they want to debate it there.

What does that freedom signify for people of colour under their policy? What does justice mean for people of colour in terms of their concept of justice? Nothing; they laugh at it. That is why they are not going to, or are unable to participate in those debates.

That hon member walked out of that meeting and held a demonstration meeting at the showgrounds in Bloemfontein. There he once again shot down in flames the CP’s idea of linkage.

That is not true.

He says it is not true. In the past, too, he has said in this House that I am speaking nonsense if I say that he did that, but I want to deal with this here this afternoon.

My reference is a speech made on Thursday, 5 April 1984 by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 4508). Firstly, in 1977 the hon member was appointed chairman of a committee with the purpose of giving effect to the linkage mechanisms between the Republic of South Africa and Black states. The Premier at that time was Mr John Vorster. He appointed the hon member chairman of the committee.

According to this Hansard the hon member refers inter alia to “inter-state structures” on whose behalf he appeals for greater status. A conference of states is also mentioned. The late Mr John Vorster, for whom I still have the utmost respect, referred in those times to a “constellation of states”.

What is important is that the hon member recommended that the condition for this linkage mechanism within the conference of states and for this linkage mechanism between the RSA and the independent states that would mean political rights for Black people within their homelands, would be that the individual would automatically obtain membership or citizenship of this association. The hon member spoke about a free association of independent states with automatic citizenship for the individual. That was a condition of linkage. He recommended that a condition of linkage should be that Black people should share the same citizenship with Whites. [Interjections.]

Surely you are talking rubbish!

That hon member belongs in Morgenzon.

The hon member says we are talking nonsense. Of course this is true. The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about extraterritorial representation. That is what he taught us. I was a party official and at the time—it was during the election—I had to defend the party’s policy day after day.

He spoke about extraterritorial representation. That, for example, is that kind of representation the Turks have in Germany. What is important, however, is that they must share double citizenship with the Whites; they must therefore have the same citizenship as the Whites. That is the condition attached to this. Now he is angry at us because we share South African citizenship with Black people. However he recommended it to us at the time. At the time I even believed him! I said to said to everyone with whom I came into contact—he spoke to me about this—that joint citizenship was important to us. It was a condition of its success. He himself said that.

The hon member has now held a demonstration meeting in Bloemfontein. I want to quote from Die Volksblad of 24 May what he said there. This is what he said at the demonstration meeting after he had boycotted the Free State:

He then says that this is nonsense; that it is untrue. However, hon members should listen carefully now:

It is going to happen in silence—

The Blacks are simply going to become fewer. He says:

[Interjections.] It is not a secret plan; he told me it was a public plan, available to all of us. He said that they would do it by taking steps. One of the steps we have debated in this House are economic steps. They will promote economic and industrial development and other development in the national states so that the people will move there. Now I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg in this House today whether he has read one of the 11 development plans for Qwaqwa in the Free State. I ask this because he said—he was speaking to the Free State—“U sal net agterkom dat die Swartes in u gebied al minder word.” In die Free State the South Sotho’s will suddenly become fewer. Now I want to knovz whether he has read a single Qwaqwa development report. He has not read one, because in all of them it is stated that it is impossible to make this small country economically independent of the Free State, of the central part of South Africa. He has not read one of those reports. In each of them it is stated that it is impossible to provide employment by way of industrial development, even for all those who are living there at present. That is the reality.

He says they are not going to use bulldozers; the Blacks will simply become fewer. The South Sotho’s in the Free State will quietly, noiselessly, become fewer. Hon members should bear in mind, however, that there are 400 000 Whites in the Free State whereas there are more than two million South Sotho’s. They share the same province with us.

That party stands for majority occupation. Only this afternoon the hon leader of that party said that majority occupation was their policy. We want to know where they are going to go with those South Sotho’s. If they do not want to use bulldozers, what are they going to do? Then the hon member for Lichtenburg comes along and shoots down in flames his own party’s linkage policy and the policy he advocated—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred to this—in Bloemfontein. Listen to what he says:

The Blacks will only be citizens of their own country, wherever they live. That is what that hon member is saying—that same hon member who told me that the condition set to enable this linkage idea to succeed was double citizenship; double citizenship of the Southern African conference of states or the constellation of states, or, as it is presented to us today, double citizenship for these Black people of their homelands and of South Africa.

This is the condition, but in Bloemfontein he again made mincemeat of his party’s linkage idea. As we demonstrated in Bloemfontein, we in the Free State and also in other parts of South Africa can reach agreement with political parties and people of other population groups. We can also differ with them, but we shall find a solution by way of consensus with which we in the Free State will be satisfied. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall leave the hon member for Sasolburg to his battle with the CP. I am pleased to see that at least he has come to realize that he cannot wish the Blacks away. This used to be their own policy and the CP will accept the same reality in a few years’ time.

It is constantly stated by the Government that the ANC should renounce violence and take part in the constitutional negotiating process. However, judging by the Government’s actions, it is difficult to believe that they really wish to negotiate. Today I want to highlight some of the Government’s actions which, to my mind, prevent the creation of a climate in which negotiation will flourish and which make a mockery of the Government’s statement that it believes in negotiation.

Firstly, negotiation cannot take place when the Government alone decides on the constitutional structures within which negotiation is to take place. Blacks do not merely want to be able to take part in a rugby match here; they want to have a say in drawing up the rules of the game. That is why all the bodies the Government has created thus far have been rejected. The National Council or whatever it is to be called, or a new President’s Council, will be rejected for the same reason.

Secondly, negotiation cannot take place when the Government bans or intimidates virtually all the really representative Black leaders and organizations. Filling the vacuum thus created with leaders of one’s own choice, not only destroys the credibility of these leaders, but also that of the structures in which they serve. How can anybody believe people who say they want to negotiate when they detain or ban those very people with whom they should be negotiating? The fact is that the ANC is today without any doubt the most important and the most popular political organization in the Black community.

Says who?

I say so, and survey after survey confirms this. The Government will have to talk to and negotiate with the ANC, whether they like it or not. It is no use ignoring reality.

Thirdly, negotiation cannot take place when the Government is systematically destroying the free Press, particularly the so-called alternative Press, which was the last outlet for Black frustrations and aspirations.

†Fourthly, negotiation cannot take place if the Government allows its security forces to continue using violence against the disenfranchised majority in an attempt to suppress their striving for freedom. In the fifth place, negotiation cannot take place if the Government declares that the national anthem and the flag—symbols that were agreed upon by Whites only—are non-negotiable. If the Government refuses to negotiate about the flag and the anthem, how can anyone believe that they are willing to negotiate about far more complex issues like, for example, the franchise or the land issue?

In the sixth place, negotiation cannot take place if the Government, by means of the states of emergency and its propaganda machinery, create an uninformed White electorate which will not be able to respond positively to Black demands. Seventhly, negotiation cannot take place if the Government keeps on portraying Black leaders such as Mandela, Mbeki, Tutu and others—the very same people with whom Whites will have to negotiate—as proponents of violent change and Marxist takeovers. The Government used to only attack “revolutionaries”. That used to be Government terminology against the revolutionaries. Nowadays they have added the word “radicals”. Now we have the “revolutionaries” and the “radicals”. I have not heard the Government saying that radicals have committed any crimes.

*I think the entire 1948 Cabinet could have been called revolutionary. I say this without being negative towards those people. They were radical thinkers.

Are you radical or are you a revolutionary?

Eighthly, negotiation cannot take place if on a daily basis the Government violates the human dignity of Black South Africans through hundreds of offensive apartheid laws. Every Black family that is forcibly removed from Lawaaikamp is a nail in the coffin of negotiation. How does the Government expect the Black people of Lawaaikamp to accept its sincerity about negotiation when it has refused to resolve the issue of Lawaaikamp which is a small issue in comparison, through negotiation? How does the Government expect the people of Lawaaikamp to accept their sincerity when they have allowed their agents to terrorise the men, women and children there for the past three years or more in an attempt to bully them into leaving “voluntarily”?

As long as the Government continues on its present course it will not be able to be taken seriously when it mouths its belief in negotiation. As long as it brutalises and represses the majority, the oppressed will turn their backs on the Government.

*The Government and the hon member for George who are going to apply for a court order to evict about 2 000 Blacks from Lawaaikamp, must remember that this action will hold serious consequences for the constitutional process and that it will contribute substantially to the spiral of violence.

Mr Chairman, I am astounded each time the hon member for Claremont has the audacity to speak in this debate, because it is nothing but audacity to participate in a debate in which we are discussing constitutional matters while not a single hon member of this House knows where the hon member for Claremont stands on constitutional matters. We know he does not support the CP, the NP, the NDM or the Independent movement. We know he walked out of the PFP because their concept of Black majority is not leftist enough for him. He wants to move further to the left than the PFP. As someone who has known the hon member for a very long time, I want to warn him today. If he moves just one inch further to the left he is going to meet up with organisations which are banned in this country.

I want to ask the hon member why he continually holds a brief for the ANC in this House.

No, I say you must negotiate with them.

He does it continually. The role the hon member plays in our country is to continually cast suspicion on the SA Police and the Defence Force, and to visit places like Lawaaikamp, so that people can be persuaded not to act in their own interest and the television teams can film them. [Interjections.] That is the role the hon member is playing in South African politics, and I hold it against him.

The hon member’s conduct springs from fear of the Black man. He too is afraid of the Black man. When I say that, however, I am not only accusing him. I allege that every population group in this country is burdened by this fear. It has a tremendous influence on our constitutional reform, because it gives rise to radicalism.

Fear manifests itself in different ways in this country. There are people who, because of it, want to preserve everything. There are people who, because of it, want to acquire everything, and there are people who because of it, want to give everything away. I believe the fear the population groups have for one another is the cause of much of the inter-group tensions in our country. I think too that along the road of constitutional development it will be of the utmost importance to first identify these fears and eliminate them so that we can live together in peace.

Since Uhuru, the Asians in Africa have always been under the sword of the threat of expulsion.

How, however, a new source of fear has been introduced and this affects the Coloured population of our country, ie the question of a Coloured and Indian homeland. People are afraid that they will be forced into these small areas of land where they will live in poverty, isolated from the mainstream of our country’s politics and cut off from our country’s economy. This manifests itself in various ways in Coloured and Indian politics, but the most important observation to be made is that these standpoints do not contribute to dialogue, but through them we push people into the arms of the radicals.

The Black man too finds himself in a world of Western technology of which he is ignorant and to which he is not conditioned. He realises that his traditional way of life is not the answer, and that there is only one way to survive, and that is to be part of this technological world. There is only one way for him to do that, and that is by education and training. No wonder the Urban Foundation has found that the most important factor for the Black man, the factor they rate highest, is education for their children. They rate it even higher than political rights.

Once again this fear manifests itself in the Black community in the form of radical action. Demands are made on the Government—in the sense that they are going to take over the government—so that they can take control of the Treasury and use it to improve their position.

Alas, we as a White group are not detached from this fear syndrome, because we fear Black political domination. We fear the problem of numbers now facing us, and today there has been no better proof of this fear than the speech made here by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition attempted to project his fear of numbers on to the NP. We have no fear of numbers because we are working on a group principle. That is what it is all about.

Are there not more groups than yours?

Is there only one group?

We are working on the basis of the group principle, and therefore numbers are not important to us.

The Whites in this country are afraid—we must say this to one another; we must not try to deny it—that South Africa will become just another Africa-country on this continent of ours, where people suffer hunger and impoverishment, where law an order is a myth, where one has no say in the running of the country, where civilised Christian norms no longer apply and where the impartiality of the bench is just a sham. We are afraid that we will not be able to maintain our own community lifestyle in our country.

These fears are also manifested in various ways in White politics. On the one hand one has the leftist spectrum of parties that are also afraid of the role which numbers play, because they misinterpret group participation. They have already accepted that Black domination is the only way to survive in this country. That they have already accepted.

On the other hand there is the right spectrum of parties that try to overcome their fear of Black people through fantasies of total partition. They are as frightened as children who crawl under the bed during a thunderstorm. [Interjections.]

It is important for them to exorcise these fears by telling one another that everyone is part of the RSA, by telling one another that we do not want to discriminate, by telling one another we must share in economic benefits, by telling one another we must share in the opportunities our country offers, by telling one another we do not want to make a chaotic African state of this country, and by telling one another that we acknowledge the right of everyone to exist as a group. If we can do that, if we can remove these fears, we have the opportunity of walking the road of constitutional reform and eventually arriving at peaceful co-existence among all the groups in the country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments on the hon the Minister’s statement, and then proceed to deal with a few other matters.

In the first instance, will the hon the Minister tell us whether the consortium which was appointed to go into the whole question of urban housing for the Black population was instructed to make its recommendations within Government policy; in other words, were they given any freedom of thought or of action, or were limitations placed on the investigation that they were to undertake? I see from page 4 of the report of the hon the Minister’s department that the whole question of a socio-economic structure for the area, rail transport, job opportunities and so forth, was considered by the consortium. Could they do that with a free hand or did the Government say that they could only do so within the parameters of Government policy, within group areas legislation, within segregated transport provisions and so forth? It would be very interesting to have that information.

Secondly, are we going to have access to the report itself or are we simply to have the limitation of the hon the Minister’s department’s report on the report?

Why speak about limitations?

Well, I doubt very much whether the consortium that has spent months and months investigating this vast problem would end up with about five pages of report! That is why I say it. We are all very interested to know. I must say too that I am very sorry that it has taken the Government all these decades finally to accept the inevitable urbanisation of the Black population on a permanent basis. This was obvious to the Fagan Commission 40 years ago and, had the Government accepted those recommendations, we would not have been faced with this enormous problem of a shortage of housing units of about 500 000 as well as all the other concomitant problems that have gone with it. As Prof Mallows, ex-professor at Wits University on Town Planning, pointed out, the advantages of urbanisation are considerable as far as the acquisition of skills is concerned, as far as the raising of standards of productivity is concerned, as well as raising standards of living, and thereby, let me say, tackling the population explosion. These all go together and we have simply negated the whole thing; we have ignored it and we have allowed all these problems to arise because of the Government’s obstinate refusal to accept the inevitability of Black urbanisation.

My criticism of the hon the Minister’s statement is that it all appears to be based on the whole policy of separate group areas instead of making land available to all races on a non-racial basis. It is clear—and this is my major complaint—that the overriding problem of squatters has not really been tackled—that is to say, the urban poor. As we know, there are something like 800 000 squatters in the PWV area alone. This lastmentioned figure is according to the Urban Foundation’s and other estimates. These people come from the overflow of Soweto and other townships which have not been able to keep up with the demand for housing. These are backyard squatters who have now moved into areas nearby, and they also come from farms near towns-farms which have ceased agricultural production, as they have stayed on those farms and they have formed squatter communities. This matter has not been addressed.

Apparently land is now being made available—I am very pleased about that and I wish to commend the consortium and the hon the Minister for accepting the need for the provision of site and service land as quickly as possible to solve this urgent problem. But the land is to a large extent going to be used by private developers. They are going to use the land for upmarket housing—R30 000 and above—and it is quite clear that the vast majority of squatters are totally unable to take up offers of houses of that nature. Moreover, they cannot get loans. They cannot get loans because, so I am told, an amount of R800 per month in household earnings is the minimum upon which a loan will be granted.

Surely you know that they can obtain loans for the material with which to build their own houses.

Yes, they can get material loans, but any sort of better housing, if I can call it that, will cost about R30 000. They simply cannot afford that. I believe that 47% of the squatter population cannot afford housing of any kind unless it is heavily subsidised. The problem of the urban poor, which is the major problem facing us at present, is simply not being addressed. I say it is most important because there are people living in the most primitive conditions, many without so much as tap water, water-borne sewage or amenities of any kind, and yet it seems the problem is not being tackled in any realistic way.

We know that the only way in which it can be tackled is by the site-and-service approach, but the procedures must all be changed, the regulations pruned and standards lowered, otherwise we are never going to begin to accommodate these people.

In his article in The Star of 26 May, Professor Mallows points out that it is a priority to form a policy which will turn the new housing areas which have now been declared into coherent balanced communities, and that includes the shacks. It is no good just saying “There is the land and here are some building materials; go ahead!” One has to do more than that. One has to make a concerted effort to build up proper, coherent, balanced communities.

I want to say a word or two about the Moutse issue, which the hon member for Randburg mentioned earlier. I want to warn the hon the Minister that if he goes ahead with the announced plan of introducing legislation—and he would make it retrospective—in order to reverse the effect of the favourable court decision which the Moutse people obtained against their incorporation into KwaNdebele, he will deliver a real death blow to any hope of true negotiation on his National Council Bill.

The Government’s credibility is what is at issue here. The Government has said on many occasions that people who do not agree with their policy have recourse to the courts of law. The Moutse people took the hon the Minister at his word and took the State to court. They won their case and there was much rejoicing, but this did not last very long in view of the hon the Minister’s subsequent statement.

The hon the Minister’s action is going to undermine whatever credibility this Government has as to its good intentions of extending rights to Black people via the National Council Bill, and I strongly advise him not to proceed with this, and to accept the decision of the courts and leave the Moutse people alone.

I want to point out that Moutse is a very high-profile case. He knows that. I think he accused me of taking information to the British Prime Minister, and that is true. I did so because I was disgusted at what was …

You assisted in making it a high-profile case.

Of course! That is the way to stop such actions. I will do so on every possible occasion when I feel it is justified, and I want the hon the Minister to know that. When the Government takes action which may be stopped by virtue of diplomatic pressure, I will do all I can to get that diplomatic pressure going, and Moutse was a case in point. As I said, I advise the hon the Minister to leave the Moutse people alone and not to proceed with that legislation.

Oukasie is another case in point. This hon Minister and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid told us three years ago that there would be no forced removals for political purposes. I believe that the Oukasie case is essentially one of removal for political purposes. There can be no other reason. The hon the Minister told me face to face, eyeball to eyeball—he will remember this—that he was not going to move those people who did not wish to move.

That’s right!

What does the hon the Minister then do? True, he does not go along with a gun and dogs, load those people onto lorries and move them forcibly. What he does is to allow the Administrator of the Transvaal to issue regulations which make life unbearable for those people who remain at Oukasie. Shifting around in his bench like that will not help. [Interjections.] Has the hon the Minister studied the regulations saying that nobody is allowed to enter or leave the township? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the annual report of the Department of Development Planning and the Constitutional Development Service there is a paragraph under the heading “The Democratic Ideal”. In that paragraph the problems of the broadening of democracy is very thoroughly dealt with and inter alia the statement is made that far more than constitutions and constitutional bodies are needed to successfully carry out reform.

†In other words, the concept of governing into a new dispensation is fully and effectively supported by the implications of the points made in this report. I would like to refer specifically to one aspect of the whole exercise and that is the role of leaders and leadership in the reform process.

The same annual report refers to the need for what it calls “unequivocal and flexible leadership” which is necessary to guide the greatest possible number of citizens towards a new South Africa. I submit today that the leadership given by the NP is in fact unequivocal in its commitment firstly, to the protection of minority rights and group self-determination; secondly, the prevention of domination by any one group of another; and thirdly, the division of power among groups for decision-making on their own community interests and sharing of power on matters of general and common interests. All of this has been stated often enough.

At the same time I submit that the leadership is flexible in terms of facing up to the realities of South Africa and the very real need to bring responsible representatives of every single group together as part of a process of orderly and evolutionary change.

It must also be said that the context in which this whole exercise is taking place—more specifically the African context—is not particularly conducive to evolutionary change. I say this because some observers have expressed the view that Africa provides a blatant exception to the trend towards democracy. Here one must make reference to the fact that, of the African continent’s 46 sub-Saharan states, only four or five could in any way qualify as multi-party democracies.

*On the road to a negotiated constitution one of the first challenges that a leader is faced with is to bring the First and Third World components together and to achieve a synthesis of common objectives. Unfortunately the essentially destructive leadership of elements to the right and left of the political spectrum does not contribute in any way to the achievement of this goal. Unfortunately and tragically this is happening at a juncture at which dispersion and division across language and other dividing lines, as is sometimes preached, was never as unwelcome and untimely as they are now.

The development of a viable and lasting democratic system in South Africa needs strong and constructive leadership from each population group, and not only from the side of the Government. Every responsible leader has a role to play in the creation of a future and, in my opinion, in the following areas: Firstly, in the joint search for solutions and not in negative, destructive criticism. Secondly, in real negotiations and not in standpoints adopted in advance, posturing and boycotts; thirdly, in the changing of attitudes towards one another for the better and not the reckless stirring up or playing off of one group against the other; fourthly, by placing the emphasis on common goals and not by emphasising and highlighting differences; and fifthly, by creating visions of peaceful co-existence instead of one of a defeatist and pessimistic view of the future.

The success of all these objectives will be determined by the leaders who are already involved today, and by those whom we hope are still going to become involved.

†In support of my argument I call as my witness the very well-known liberal American historian and political commentator, Prof Arthur Schlesinger.

In an excellent article entitled “Democracy and Leadership” he says the following:

I should like to repeat that phrase: ”… the means of making it work”. In the South Africa of today leaders are going to make the critical difference. They are going to make self-government work or not work, and a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of every leader in this country as never before. The role of leaders, therefore, in governing into a new dispensation is critical, and will determine the success or failure of reform to a far greater extent than many people perhaps realise.

Democratic leadership has been described as “the art of fostering and managing innovation in the service of a free community”. This is the challenge that faces all the leaders in South Africa today.

*My hypothesis is that in the first place our constitutional salvation does not lie in ideal constitutions or models, but in strong leaders of all communities joining hands and hauling the wagon across the river. Peaceful co-existence involves tolerating one another and not begrudging one another an existence. I want to say that if leaders cannot tolerate one another, it is obvious that their followers will not be able to do so either. Fortunately the positive corollary is also true, and it is in this that the importance of the leader’s role lies.

In conclusion I should very much like to pay tribute to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who, since the creation of this Ministry a number of years ago, has tried with all his might to realise these objectives and in the process has at all times set us all a particular example of what I would call negotiation leadership. We ought to be grateful to him and to show our gratitude by following his example and convincing other leaders to follow that example as well.

Mr Chairman, since the hon leader of the NP in Transvaal admitted on 31 March, after the by-election in Randfontein, that there were many uncertainties about NP policy, we at least expected that something positive would emerge today, but thus far we have not yet received any replies in this debate, and we are waiting for the Government to give its reply.

The new policy of the Government is that South Africa is one undivided country now and that all the people who live in it form part of the same nation. The Government is constructing its new South Africa with tremendous zeal. Dozens of laws entrenching separation have been abolished and apartheid is being fought tooth and nail.

The question that arises is: What does the new South Africa of the NP look like? What is becoming of the country that was once known as White South Africa? To what extent is South Africa becoming everybody’s land and completely integrated?

In this connection I want to refer specifically to the situation in Vanderbijlpark and the decision of the Government not to relocate the Black township, Bophelong, from the White area to Sebokeng. Here is a fine example of how far the Government is prepared to go in the construction of its new South Africa. Sebokeng is a Black township which is approximately 44 years old and stands on approximately 150 hectares of land. It is described as a Black island within a White residential area in Vanderbijlpark, and there are about 1 400 houses.

Bophelong would have been moved in 1981 already, but later they moved the date forward to 1991. have here a statement of the then Minister who said the following on 9 October 1980:

Great expectations that Bophelong would be relocated were created amongst Whites. Today this is no longer to be done and those people are suffering tremendous material losses. The Government decided about a year ago that it would no longer be moved. This decision came as a great shock to the inhabitants of Vanderbijlpark. This was simply further proof that the word of the NP has really become worthless.

This decision was taken in spite of a series of convincing and scientific reasons. Today I want to mention a few from a memorandum that I received from the Municipality of Vanderbijlpark. They gave six reasons why it is essential that the township be moved. Firstly, as a result of the replanning of the service road for the Golden Highway a section of the houses has to be demolished in any case. Secondly, the existing services, with the exception of electricity, have already reached the stage where their partial or complete replacement has become necessary. Thirdly, virtually all the Houses are dilapidated. Fourthly, the existing Black township does not meet the standard requirements for planning with regard to the provision of buffer strips. Fifthly, the location of the township does not fit in sufficiently with the city planning. In the light of the above-mentioned facts it means in the sixth place that facilities which are essential for a township cannot be provided on a long-term basis. The conclusion the municipality of Vanderbijlpark came to after examining the question of Bophelong scientifically was the following:

1. 1. die raad beslis die grond benodig vir Blanke woondorpontwikkeling;
2. 2. die voortbestaan van Bophelong ’n swart eiland in die gebied gaan vorm wat omring sal wees deur Blanke woondorpe en
3. 3. die voortbestaan van Bophelong ’n dem-pende invloed op ontwikkeling in die gebied sal hê.

They also refer to unsafe conditions.

As far as objections to the relocation is concerned, it is said that it would be too expensive. I want to say, however, that the municipality found that if the facts under 3.1 to 3.5—those are the cost factors—are taken into account, it is an open question whether it is such a major factor since the same amounts of money have to be spent in any case to bring the standard of services and housing in Bophelong up to scratch and to acquire land. The hon the Minister said it would cost approximately R22 million to move the people of Bophelong. In the Sebokeng area, however, the Blacks are at present R69 million in arrears with their rentals. That money would pay for this relocation three times over.

The refusal of the Government to move Bophelong therefore runs counter to a series of convincing and scientific reasons. It is a disgrace and a slap in the face for the Whites. It is further proof that the NP has left the Whites in the lurch. The Whites in the Vaal Triangle want to preserve a White Vaal Triangle for themselves and their descendants. The Blacks can do the same separately in the environment of Sebokeng.

Today I want to direct a request to the hon the Minister. I ask him on behalf of the Whites in the Vaal Triangle to see to it that the Vaal Triangle is preserved as a White heritage. [Interjections.]

Hon members may laugh at me if they like. I shall say that when I asked for the Vaal Triangle to be preserved as a White heritage the hon members of the NP laughed at me.

The way to do this is first of all to relocate Bophelong. After that Boipatong and Sharpeville must follow. There must also be no further development for Black housing within the Vaal Triangle. The opening of the central business districts of White towns must be cancelled. No grey areas should be established. The Group Areas Act should be strictly enforced there and squatting must be combated.

It is essential that the Vaal Triangle should be saved from becoming Black. It should be preserved as an area for the Whites. This is what the CP demands of the Government. I want to make a very earnest proposal in that regard to the hon the Minister today. [Interjections.]

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

I call upon the hon the Minister to submit to the will of the White majority of the Vaal Triangle as far as my request is concerned. If the majority of the White voters of the Vaal Triangle vote for the CP on 26 October, the hon the Minister should regard it as a directive from the voters that he should honour my request. My proposal to him is democratic, it is reasonable and it is fair. My request is that he should allow the White voters of the Vaal Triangle to decide their future themselves.

I challenge the hon the Minister today to allow this matter to be decided on 26 October. The CP is going to make this request of mine an issue in the 26 October election. The Government will have to abide by the will of the majority of voters. [Interjections.] The CP is going to keep the Vaal Triangle White and this Government is not going to thwart the will of the majority of people in the Vaal Triangle. The Government will eventually have to concede to the democratic will of the majority of voters in the Vaal Triangle. This will happen on 26 October of this year.

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the only certainty to be found these days in the definition of where White South Africa is, is the uncertainty, because the more days, the more definitions.

I actually want to talk about another matter, one which concerns regional development. Surprisingly enough, some people still maintain that the Government programme for regional industrial development is being jeopardised by the Government’s orderly urbanisation initiative.

One of the arguments advanced is that the with the abolition of influx control, the Government is allegedly terminating its job creation initiatives in the rural areas, because everybody is allegedly flocking to the towns and job opportunities would have to be created there. However, that is not the case.

In his statement this afternoon the hon the Minister referred to the demographic aspects. One of the most important objectives of regional industrial development is to realise economic concentration in a region in order to achieve selfgenerating growth as soon as possible, thereby gaining for it the status of a metropolis or minimetropolis. Seen in that light, regional industrial development will actually be a supplementary element of rural urbanisation.

In the large metropolitan areas the stage has been reached where job opportunities can no longer be provided at a rate to keep pace with the urbanisation process. It has therefore become of the utmost importance to create job opportunities where the people live, where they have housing and where they can work without prejudice to the community or family life, for then the breadwinner will no longer have to migrate to the existing metropolitan areas with the consequent disruption of his family environment. The importance and urgency of regional industrial development has therefore not decreased in the face of planned urbanisation.

The regional industrial development programme is aimed at a better geographical spread of economic activities through the promotion of regional industrial development on a regional basis. In this way an excessive concentration of industries in the metropolitan areas will be discouraged. It also ensures a more balanced distribution of incomes through the provision of job opportunities where the need is greatest. In terms of this policy there is better utilisation of the existing infrastructure, as well as the development potential of development points and regions.

What is important in this policy of the Government is that a broadening of the economy brings about stability and improvement in the living standards of the people concerned. Active promotion of this programme must of necessity encourage and develop the local entrepreneurship. This advantage can never be underestimated. In South Africa with its First and Third World components one can never do enough to encourage entrepreneurship in our Black communities, particularly among the Black youth. If these people are able to experience the successes of the capitalistic system, they will all the more readily reject socialism.

Perhaps the time is ripe to devise a strategy aimed at using the country’s human material potential to produce more entrepreneurs equipped with those qualities and faith in the capitalist system in which they can take an economically active part. The programme of regional industrial development increases the visible economic activities in every region. The ripple effect of this will be to increase the size of South African market by creating job opportunities, with a resultant increase in disposable income. The fact that many industries established in terms of this programme are export-orientated will ensure additional foreign earnings.

A portion of the money used as incentive measures is recovered through the creation of incomes and wealth, which in turn leads to a larger tax base.

In the technological era in which we live, and because of man’s ability to refine and improve his skills, it is pleasing to know that the Government’s productivity incentive scheme is already functioning well. When the achievement of regional industries is below the specified norm, problem areas are identified so that they can be rectified, while industrialists whose achievements have been above the norm, qualify for advanced industry assistance.

Of course, the productivity level of the regional industries will never be as high as that of their counterparts in the metropolitan areas. One must not lose sight of the fact that initially unskilled labour has to be used and the required skills will only be learned in the course of time. The important fact is, however, that an increasing number of people are learning these industrial and management skills and are developing. In this way there is a gradual development from the Third to the First World.

Criticism is sometimes levelled at this programme for not satisfying the requirements of job creation. In view of its objectives and target areas, I do not think the programme was designed to completely and satisfactorily address the question of job creation. Other economic sectors have continued to play a role in this regard. However, it cannot be denied that the programme has made an incalculable contribution to the meaningful creation of job opportunities. The job creation effect it has, not only in the regions but elsewhere in other fields and services, is not always realised and cannot always be calculated.

I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister for the lead he and the department took in setting up a strategic development team in the Eastern Cape when things were not going well there in the economic sphere. This team, which was responsible for development co-ordination in the Eastern Cape, has made a considerable contribution to the economy of the area. That, together with a positive attitude, has created a totally new climate there. The team has been charged, inter alia, with making proposals and offering solutions in regard to industrial matters, which include an industrial development strategy for the region, decentralisation questions and the improvement of concessions.

As co-ordinating organ of the public sector capital projects in order to monitor development in an orderly fashion, the team has filled an important role particularly in the construction industry. The steady distribution has kept contract work to a great extent within the capacity of the local industry. Apparently the stage has now been reached where the team has served its purpose and the normal business activities can be handled by the regional development committee.

What remains is the evaluation of the recommendations of the team and the implementation of acceptable solutions, so that Port Elizabeth can develop into a full-fledged metropolis, which can serve as an economic anchor for its own hinterland. The Port Elizabeth metropolis has a tremendous development potential and offers opportunities to the entrepreneur and investor with an eye to the future. The challenges are sometimes great, the solutions worthwhile and the reward gratifying.

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow up on the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. Unfortunately South Africa cannot escape the urbanisation process, because this is a world-wide phenomenon necessitated, inter alia, by the economic realities in developing countries which have committed themselves to the free-market system.

While urbanisation in the White section of the population has to a large extent run its course, in the Black section it is still taking place on a large scale.

If it is accepted that South Africa cannot achieve economic growth without the labour of the Black section of our population, it goes without saying that the necessary steps must be taken to enable these people to acquire housing through the identification of adequate land. Everybody wants to share in the prosperity of the country, including the Black section of our population. We must always bear these facts in mind when assessing the situation which confronts us.

Over and above the need for Black housing which urbanisation calls for, there is in any event, already a great need due to the over-utilisation of existing housing in Black residential areas throughout the Republic.

The social problems which occur as a result of inadequate housing are a high price to pay, and they endanger the peace and stability of the entire country. The Official Opposition will have to make a choice—either short-term political gain through an unworkable policy of partition, or active co-operation to find a workable solution. It will no longer be any use levelling accusations at the Government about uncontrolled squatting, displacement of Whites and infiltration of White residential areas. The Group Areas Act and other measures will not halt urbanisation. These are simply a means of ensuring order and protecting group interests. The Official Opposition has, in fact, already admitted that a large pottion of the Black population cannot be removed, even under their policy of partition.

The solution to the problem lies in making adequate land available, and the Official Opposition would be failing in its duty to all inhabitants, including the Whites, if it actively continued to hinder the Government in its attempts to create and maintain order through the identification of land for Black housing.

Contrary to what the hon member for Houghton has alleged, the Government is well aware of the shortages and is making determined efforts to address the problem. For this very reason, from January 1986 to April 1988, in terms of the Development of Black Communities Act, 28 916 ha of land were identified for Black township development. A further 11 042 ha have been given ministerial approval and are awaiting to be formally designated. This designation and approval applies to land situated in all nine development regions.

As has already been mentioned, the Government is unfortunately often handicapped when further development is being considered. They are confronted with protest campaigns from all quarters and other alternatives have to be sought as a result of the opposition encountered.

I am known for putting a high premium on nature and environmental conservation, but I am astounded by the large number of conservationists who explode each time Black township development is mentioned. One does not normally find the same objections, however, when it comes to White development. Investigations are timeconsuming, and inevitably lead to an increase in the backlog.

Further, it is a fact that land does not grow, and it is unfortunate that so much land which is suitable for township development is also particularly good agricultural land. However, if we accept in principle that the “bullet-train” solution of the CP is not viable, and that people must be accommodated as near as is practically possible to their work-place, there is unfortunately no way we can prevent certain agricultural land adjacent to towns being used for township development. The Government handles all such development with great circumspection, however, and weighs up all the pros and cons before any decision is taken.

The time has come, however, for the Black population to accept high—density housing. It is no longer possible for each individual to live at ground level, because land is simply too scarce and flats will have to be used more and more frequently.

I should like to confine my further remarks to the PWV area and point out that according to latest estimates a further 13 000 ha of land will be required by the year 2000. In order to tackle the problem in the PWV area on a macro-scale, and to remove the perception that the Government is acting prescriptively and unscientifically, the consortium of private consultants previously referred to by the hon the Minister has been appointed.

In this case the Government has given further proof of its good faith, not only by making use of private consultants, but also by giving the Green Belt Action Body, an interested group, the opportunity to appoint a consultant of their own choice to the consortium. The Government’s point of departure is that any steps taken to satisfy urbanisation requirements must be systematic.

Unfortunately, investigations of this nature always give rise to speculation, and as far back as November 1987 certain bodies took up options on certain land pending the Government’s decision. According to reports, people have been offered as much as R8 000 per ha, and in certain cases option fees have already been paid.

When we take into account that a large section of the Black population in need of housing is still not economically independent, it is obvious that land prices must be realistic. When land fetches these prices even before it is developed, I shudder to think what small plots, no matter how small, will cost after development.

All of us who believe in a free-market system do not want to see private initiative smothered, but I do believe that in a case such as Black housing, the profit margin should initially be very moderate, and that it may even be necessary for the Government to acquire the land which has been earmarked.

Let nobody infer from this that I am advocating that landowners should not be given marketorientated and fair prices for their property; quite the contrary, but I do not believe that third parties should make excessive profits and be enriched at the expense of those facing a crisis. If some bodies have burnt their fingers by taking out options, they must not complain. They are the architects of their own destruction.

In a public statement during March 1988 the hon the Minister warned people against speculation, pointing out that they did so at their own risk. Let us hope that everybody will learn a lesson for the future from this and that they will not be misled through speculation.

None of us can stop urbanisation, not even the Official Opposition. Let us accept the realities, and instead of short-sighted complaints about squatting and other unsound practices, let us do what has to be done and can be done. I make a sincere appeal to all those who might possibly be affected by the designation of the land to accept that the Government does not lightly interfere with existing rights and is exceedingly circumspect when taking decisions. I do hope in the interests of the inhabitants of South Africa that these decisions will be accepted.

I want to say something in particular to the voters of North Rand who are affected by the announcement. Let us work together to develop the area in the vicinity of Diepsloot so that it can be the display window for the rest of the world. Let us show them all that we do not begrudge people of colour an opportunity to develop their own Houghtons, Waterkloofs and Constantias.

If this area is to be designated as a free settlement area, let us take the opportunity of showing our opponents that we are as much in earnest about people’s rights of association as we are about their rights of disassociation.

We as Whites do not have the sole right to South Africa. The hon members of the CP may say so, but the realities of South Africa will overtake them. Let us share the plenty we have and in so doing preserve sufficient for ourselves. By claiming everything for ourselves, we run the risk of losing everything.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for North Rand made a very sincere plea in regard to the area to be developed in his constituency, the so-called Norweto. He must know that this is a real hot potato as far as the people living in that constituency are concerned.

You don’t like the Blacks there, that’s the problem!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein should listen instead of making interjections about matters he knows absolutely nothing about and which do not concern either himself or his voters.

Paternalism!

I am now a paternalist, Sir, and yet the hon member still has not heard what I have to say. [Interjections.]

I am somewhat worried about Norweto because I do not believe that proper planning provisions have been adhered to when we discuss a township of this nature. Far too often in South Africa we have developed Black townships which have inevitably become Black ghettoes—nothing more, nothing less. When one plans a township which does not have rail access or mass transport facilities—in his statement the hon the Minister has said that this development is supposedly for the higher income groups; I think I understood him correctly to say that—presumably people are going to use their own cars and so forth. Therefore, we shall await with interest but with considerable uncertainty the development of Norweto. I am not sure that it is in the right place, and I think that the voters of North Rand and in the adjoining constituencies need to be convinced that it is in the right place. It is not close to job opportunities; it is right out in the middle of the countryside, and I really feel that perhaps the hon the Minister is going to have to think again in this regard.

The hon the Minister’s statement on land identification for further Black urbanisation is, of course, a very important one as far as the PWV area is concerned, and it is not before time. The area is desperate for land and for areas in which to expand. As there has been a tremendous shortage of land in the past, perhaps I should ask the hon the Minister what sort of time scale he foresees in terms of the availability of this land. Could he answer with specific reference to Norweto? How soon is the necessary infrastructure going to be provided?

One thing we must say about all these areas intended for Black urbanisation is that they are inevitably areas for development in the short term only, because—I want to tell the hon the Minister this—the Group Areas Act is going to go. Inevitably, in the fullness of time, it will go.

He knows it!

All this planning is ultimately for nothing.

Do you have a crystal ball?

I do not have a crystal ball, but I am quite prepared to predict right now that in time—I do not know whether it will be five years or 10 years, but that hon Minister knows this as well as I do—that Act is going to go. [Interjections.] I believe that planning that is based on group areas legislation is nonsensical planning.

The same applies to decentralisation. We believe that planning for decentralisation should be done on sound economic lines. One should plan growth points not because they are next to a homeland, a kraal or a Black area, but because there are good, solid economic reasons to justify them. That hon Minister knows too that much of our decentralisation has to take place in homeland areas rather than at natural growth points where there are raw materials, power, water and things of that kind.

Decentralisation along present lines is very expensive. The sort of incentives that have to be offered to industrialists going to decentralised growth points are enormous. I believe that transport and other incentives amount to R611 million of this year’s budget. Transport alone accounts for something like R234 million of that. That is an enormous amount of money, and I sometimes wonder whether it could not be better spent in developing industries at natural growth points.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of what the transport subsidy is within the PWV area?

It is enormous, Sir, but the hon the Minister must carry his argument through and realise how much more expensive it is when one goes to growth points like this, which are far away from markets, raw materials and sources of supply. He knows that it probably costs two or three times more to transport goods from those places than it does from the PWV area, where the markets are.

One thing that he must realise is that goods manufactured at growth points of that nature will ultimately have to be sold to the rest of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I refer to the speech made by the hon member for Bryanston—I should like to discuss his remarks on regional development—allow me to go back to what the hon members for Brakpan and Claremont said earlier today.

*The hon member for Brakpan made certain remarks with regard to the announcements made by the hon the Minister, and I should like to request the hon member first to study the statement properly. He will then see that the decisions with regard to this land were taken on the basis of responsible planning.

With regard to the question of the utilisation of agricultural land, all relevant factors in that regard were also taken into account. However, it is unavoidable, especially on the Witwatersrand, with the restrictions with regard to mining and dolomite and everything that goes with that, that agricultural land will be involved as well.

Furthermore, I should like to tell the hon member, specifically with regard to the area that he represents, that the announcements have had no negative effect on the draft guideplan for the East Rand. He can have a look at that if he likes.

The hon member and his hon leader made remarks with regard to horizontal expansion. I should like to tell the hon member that vertical expansion is definitely something for the future with regard to Black housing. I have no doubt about it.

It is something that I personally shall encourage as a development for the future. The density of Black habitation as opposed to White habitation at the moment, is something like 4:1 in the urban areas. The point therefore, is that if we talk about habitation, Black people have a higher density than Whites.

The hon member said that influx control had been abolished before planning for orderly urbanisation had been done. The result that hon members are seeing here, in the form of an announcement about identified land for orderly Black urbanisation, is in fact the result of planning. The hon member apparently forgets that the process of influx to the cities and the urban areas began long before the influx control measures were abolished. The hon member would do well to look at the White Paper on urbanisation again.

Furthermore, I should like to tell the hon member that his attempts to fire a shot in the dark about Daveyton, testify to his having been incorrectly informed on that point. I should like to tell him that my colleague who is the representative for that area, the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, dealt with this matter in the correct way. Once again, as has often happened in the past, that hon member and his party unnecessarily conjured up spectres about allegations with regard to land and the availability of land in the Daveyton area.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister tell me whether we can regard this statement of the hon the Minister as the final word on the matter, namely that he is dropping that development in the direction of Daveyton?

The hon member must read the hon the Minister’s statement. He indicated exactly which areas around Daveyton had been agreed to and which had not. The Luri lands were not approved but the Opperman lands were approved.

In other words, we can accept it as the final word on the matter?

It is in the statement—in black and white. [Interjections.]

Finally I want to make a remark about the hon member for Brakpan. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the local authority itself applied for the free trade area in Brakpan that he referred to.

I now want to make a single reference to the hon member for Claremont. Actually, the hon member does not deserve a reply from anyone in this House. [Interjections.] I am not sure whose interests that hon member is representing in this House but I am obliged to react to one aspect.

If my hon colleague does not know, I shall tell him!

My impression is that he is representing a radical group.

Yes.

If it were not unparliamentary to do so, I would say who he was representing.

That hon member referred to Lawaaikamp. Let us look at the facts about Lawaaikamp. I do not now have the time to go into all those details, but there was a meeting in Lawaaikamp again last Sunday. I want to call it a so-called church service. The service was addressed by, inter alia, Messrs Boesak and Chikane and a certain Paul Boateng—a British member of Parliament. A good question is what he was doing at such a function. What is he doing in South Africa for that matter. The hon members for Claremont and Pinelands were also there. They are the people who come from outside to stir up the local community. There is no other way of putting it.

That hon member said in the newspaper that 2 500 people were present at the church service, and I say that is not true.

Were you there?

According to all indications from various sources, there were at the most 1 000 to 1 500 people present on that occasion. However, what is interesting, is that eight buses were counted on that occasion—people were therefore brought to the place from outside. There were also approximately 200 motor vehicles and kombis. In other words, was it the local community of Lawaaikamp that went berserk there and protested or was it the hon member for Claremont and the other four people mentioned who were responsible for this gathering? I am making the statement that it was not the local community. There is no evidence that people from Thembalethu, in other words, the old Sandkraal, were present.

The hon member is doing the people of Lawaaikamp a disservice with his actions. I think the people of Lawaaikamp deserve better than to have him set foot there again. They deserve to be heard with regard to their need for better accommodation. They can get that in Thembalethu. I am not going to pay any further attention to the hon member; he does not deserve any more attention.

I should like to deal with the question of regional development. The hon members for Cradock and Port Elizabeth North, the hon member for North Rand to a certain extent, as well as the hon member for Bryanston referred to the subject. Regional development is based on certain economic, demographic and social realities in South Africa. It is a fact of course that in the big centres one has the self-generating factors which attract people, that stimulate development and eventually provide employment opportunities. On the other hand, in the rural areas one has mainly agriculture and mining which serve as the basis for employment and which actually form the economic basis of that development.

However, as a result of physical and economic factors, this is not of such a nature to provide sufficient growth and sufficient employment opportunities in the rural areas. Therefore, it often happens that there is a flow of people to the urban concentrations, with the expectation that there will be better opportunities there. This is a phenomenon which has arisen in our country, just as it arose elsewhere in the world. This expectation of a better existence in the urban concentrations leads to the flow of people towards the cities, regardless of whether accommodation or infrastructure is available. This leads to problems. The hon member for Houghton referred to them. I should just like to make the remark that I hope that the hon member for Houghton does not expect one to establish a town at every place where squatters set themselves up in order to satisfy their needs. She agrees. If by her statement about coherent communities, she means that one should utilise the process of orderly urbanisation to provide for the needs of those people, then I think we agree with each other. That is exactly what we are doing. In fact the statement made by the hon the Minister earlier today ties up with this.

However, I should like to point out to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that if we do not take these steps with regard to positive urbanisation—I am referring to the remarks he made—the situation is going to become chaotic and squatting is going to get out of hand. Then we will really have slum conditions in South Africa of the same magnitude as in other parts of the world, for example, South America, or wherever.

I should just like to ask something of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He referred to the Witwatersrand as the heartland of the Whites. On what does he base that statement? I am not necessarily arguing with it, but if one looks at the statistics with regard to the population figures in the Witwatersrand, one finds that the ratio of Blacks to Whites in that area is approximately 2:1.

What about land and surface area and proprietary rights?

I do not now have that information at hand, but why are those people there? They are there because there are employment opportunities. Why did the White people move to the Rand? For the same reason. The point that I want to make—if the hon member for Brakpan will listen—is that the present ratio is 2:1. Even with the projection that we are talking about, namely that there are a further 2,2 million Black people who would have come to the Rand by the end of the century, we are still only talking about a ratio of at the most 4:1.

On the other hand, if we look at the area that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition represents, namely the Northern Transvaal area, we find that the ratio of Black people to White people is already 25:1. Now is that a heartland, or not? [Interjections.] I would just like to know on what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition bases his statement with regard to the White heartland. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal also made a statement. I shall refer to his other remarks later. It is just while I am talking about figures that I want to refer to his statement that the Vaal Triangle should remain a White heritage. [Interjections.] That area is White at the moment and therefore it must remain so. That is the assumption.

I did not say it was White. We shall make it White. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member for Overvaal must tell me something. According to the census of 1985 there are at present 352 000 Black people in the Vaal Triangle, and 167 000 Whites.

That is untrue. Most of them are in Sebokeng.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal cannot have three turns to speak. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

In other words, is he saying that Sebokeng is not in the Vaal Triangle? I do not understand his argument, because according to his argument it is not in the Vaal Triangle. [Interjections.] I cannot continue to argue with the hon member on this point.

Just wait and see what happens on 26 October!

I politely drew the attention of the hon member for Overvaal to the fact that he was making speeches. However, the hon member is not heeding my appeal and I shall therefore have to take firmer action. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Finally, I just want to say to the hon member for Overvaal that if he does not want Black people there, he will definitely have to make a plan as to who will do their work. I cannot understand his argument. However, I shall leave it at that.

I should like to proceed with the subject of regional development. With regard to the problems surrounding urbanisation, regional industrial development is being considered as the alternative solution. As it is important to create economic bases in the rural areas as well, it is necessary to look at regional industrial development to create employment opportunities and thereby to utilise and improve the already existing accommodation and community and family life that exists in the rural areas as well as to improve the quality of life of those people. What is very important is that the available and existing infrastructure in those areas should be utilised, thereby contributing to a better geographic and economic distribution of the people of this country.

Some critics, such as the hon member for Bryanston, want to allege that the urban concentrations, the city centres, are sufficient to meet the economic growth needs of the country. That is not true; it is not possible. It is very important, not only for economic reasons, but also for demographic reasons and the like, that regional development and the utilisation of regional development resources are properly applied in the interests of the country. The problems of overconcentration in metropolitan areas are manifold. Although we are not yet experiencing them, it would be unwise not to take this into account and keep them in mind in our future policy so that we could prevent them.

The hon member for Bryanston said that the costs of regional development were too high and that they were disproportionate to the ability to create employment in the metropolitan areas. However, that is not correct either. Surely he now knows what the costs involved in the creation of infrastructure in the metropolitan areas are—the hon the Minister referred to them a while ago. The transport costs, the costs involved in the provision of infrastructural services such as water, etc and the price of land and housing are, after all, just that much higher in the metropolitan areas. The hon member must discount it, and he knows that as well as I do.

The Government is of the need for further orderly economic development in the PWV area. We are aware of the value of the PWV area as a metropolis in the country. There is no doubt about it. However, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket; we know that as well. That means that we will have to make timeous provision for better distribution, and consolidate regional development by means of active programmes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It is very clear that he is well-equipped for this post, and I am sure that he will make a great success of it in the future.

In the development of the democratising process, effective and representative local and regional government are vital. Local and regional government bring government, at the decision-making administrative levels, closer to the people themselves. This increases effectiveness by way of greater accessibility, greater participation and local contributions. The success of any regional government, however, depends on three aspects, ie the geographic base, which ensures a communality of interests; the resource infrastructure, which ensures viability and the devolution of as many functions and powers as possible to ensure autonomy. We find, however, that there is a natural resistance to the devolution of powers and the transfer of functions. It is a very natural inclination to want to retain functions, and when there is a devolution of functions, to want to retain excessive control measures.

I should like to advocate that the function evaluation process, which is in operation in the department at the moment with a view to privatisation, and which is being co-ordinated and administered by the Commission for Administration, should also be used to determine, in those investigations, how many of these functions can, in fact, be allowed to devolve to lower echelons of government.

The Self-governing Territories Bill is a step in the right direction. The chief aim of this legislation is to extend the powers of the self-governing territories. Whereas previously use was made of the incremental method, ie that of regularly augmenting powers, this is now being regulated exclusively. Powers will only be excluded in certain spheres.

Apart from the regional government of the national states, self-government and autonomy should also be granted to larger concentrations of Black communities near the metropolitan areas. They would then be in a position to bring their leaders to the fore on a democratic basis, and those leaders could then have a regional power base and be in a better bargaining position as far as their people are concerned. At local government level we find that the system of local government, which is an old one, has been refined to a great extent. That is why it works. I do not think that we should concern ourselves about granting greater autonomy at regional and local government level, because electoral sanction will ensure that matters are put right at the polls if voters’ interests are affected.

Regional government furnishes the best opportunity for regional co-operation between various bodies. The regional development associations give the private sector an opportunity to make a contribution to the region. Each has its own constitution, and the department only acts as the necessary point of contact. Voluntary co-operation between the authorities of various regions in the executive, administrative and technical spheres increase the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the services, particularly when the regions are interdependent. With interdependent regions a joint executive authority, as in the case of KwaZulu-Natal, can largely provide for this need.

At the local government level provision is made by regional services councils, and these are the necessary mechanism for co-operation with a view to improving services and functions. Not only does this create a revenue base, but it also generates revenue within the region, revenue which can benefit all the inhabitants of the region. Although a large portion of the revenue is, in fact, contributed by the State, and since contributions are tax deductible, there is a very great difference when it comes to this revenue base, ie the revenue which the region itself generates and can therefore administer itself without central control.

The Official Opposition, which wants to abolish regional services councils, are denying the community the right to act collectively to the benefit of everyone, particularly to the benefit of the smaller local authorities which could thus be made more viable.

During the sittings of the extended provincial committees there was criticism of the appointed Provincial Executive Committee, the allegation being made that it did not broaden the democratic base, but rather centralised authority. That may be so, but there are two things they fail to appreciate, ie that members of all groups participate in the executive authority and, secondly, that all three Houses of this Parliament exercise parliamentary control over that executive authority. I think that is a very great step forward.

In the strongest possible terms the Official Opposition criticises the appointment of people of colour to the executive committee. When they are given an opportunity, however, to assess the administrative activities of the Administrator and the Executive Committee, they boycott the proceedings and conduct protest meetings.

If it is true that the executive authority, on which all groups are represented, will not work, that it is “a political swindle” or a “macabre dance of death” or “an iniquity”, as the hon member for Brakpan said, why do they not offer proof of that by taking the opportunity to debate the issue and evaluate the Executive Committee in the light of the facts that emerged in the debates. They do not want to do so, because they know that the provincial administrations are successful, that they acquit themselves very well of their task and that they are entrusted with many important matters such as Black local authorities and have made a great success of that.

In the Official Opposition’s official mouthpiece it is stated: “Mengeldebatte misluk.” Nowhere in that entire article, however, can one find a single argument to indicate why the debates had failed, except for the fact that they were boycotted by the CP.

The provincial administrations are probably the best example of excellent results having been achieved by the devolution of power, bringing power closer to the people.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate.

The hon member for Nelspruit is aggrieved by the fact that the CP is unhappy about the appointment of people from other race groups to the Executive Committees. However, that is not the only reason. To abolish democratically elected provincial councils and to replace them with autocratically appointed members is a further indication of the Government’s idea about the extension of democracy. However, I shall not pursue that point.

This afternoon’s debate is, in my opinion, one of the most important debates because it deals with constitutional development, which is the essence of the future situation of South Africa. During my maiden speech I referred to the concept of “democracy”, and I referred to the statement of Prof Arend Lijphart with regard to the preservation of democracy in plural communities. On that occasion I said that I should like to return to it at a later date.

This premise is not only important because the President’s Council regarded it as a point of departure for the creation of the present constitution, but specifically because the NP’s stated policy at present is “to broaden democracy”, whatever constitutional implication that may have.

On page 45 of his book Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, Prof Lijphart talks about something that is of great importance in the Constitutional debate:

Secondly, he refers to the whole idea of consociation. He says:

Thirdly, he says:

Therefore we are dealing here with three different theories in the constitutional arena, namely assimilation, consociation-democracy and partition. I want to dwell on these briefly, but I want to place particular emphasis on the idea of consociation-democracy, because it is my point of departure that this forms the basis of the present political system in the RSA.

I want to begin with assimilation, which is understood to mean the gradual process of absorption of a minority group in a society by the majority group in that society. In South Africa this means in practice the absorption of the White minority by the Black majority. Prof Lijphart says that owing to many factors, this solution has a very small chance of success.

Subsequently, I want to dwell on the idea of consociational democracy, a theory of which the basic characteristic is the deviation from the majority principle, with the resulting protection of the minority group in a plural community. When one analyses this theory, one comes to the conclusion that it forms the basis of our present constitutional tricameral system and also of our present Constitution, Act 110 of 1983.

The idea behind consociational democracy is that a leadership body, a so-called “elite cartel” that is representative of the various minority groups, should come together to form the government of the day. These leaders of the minority groups are then representative of the various groups, and according to the Government’s policy, the Whites are also one of those minority groups, but have they never heard of the concept of White South Africa!

However, Prof Lijphart says that before we can arrive at this political system, there are four basic prerequisites that must be satisfied. The first is that the various leaders must realise the inherent dangers of a fragmented society; secondly, they must be personally dedicated to the preservation and extension of the political system; thirdly, they must subordinate segmental differences to national unity; and fourthly, they must be able to formulate viable and meaningful solutions. I want to dwell briefly on two of these.

The first one is that they must personally be dedicated to the preservation of the system. When some of the leaders enter into the system with the belief that the system must be destroyed, I do not know whether they are really motivated and whether they are really dedicated to the political system.

That is very true!

Whether viable and meaningful solutions can be formulated—that is the fourth prerequisite that I mentioned—remains an open question.

Provided these four factors are present there are four basic characteristics of the theory of consociational democracy which, I believe, one can see practically embodied in the present tricameral system, firstly in the idea of a leadership coalition, secondly, in the idea of a mutual veto, thirdly, in the idea of the principle of proportionality and finally in the idea of segmental autonomy.

I want to begin with the idea of a leadership coalition. The idea here, as I have already said, is that the various leaders of minority groups will come together to find common ground, which is indeed embodied in the present tricameral system, as we saw, with the inclusion of a Coloured and Indian Minister in the Cabinet. It was not very successful in the short term, because Mr Hendrickse has already left the Cabinet and uncertainty exists at the moment with regard to the position of Mr Rajbansi.

Of course, the assumption is that the various leaders will agree with one another in the first place, and, in the second place, because the leaders agree with one another, their followers will also agree with one another.

Secondly, there is the idea of a mutual veto, and the intention here is merely to protect the different minority groups in this way. This idea is also contained in the present system, but the Government has applied it as it suited it. The veto does exist with regard to the structure of the system, and for this reason we now find ourselves in the interesting constitutional position in which, to a large extent, Mr Hendrickse has the power to decide whether we are going to have an election or not. The fact of the matter is that that veto does not exist with regard to the legislative and executive processes, which we see evidence of in practice in that legislation is forced through by means of the President’s Council against the wishes of the other groups, and for that reason that effective veto does not exist.

The third principle is that of proportionality. The hon member for Umlazi—he does not appear to be in the House at the moment—made the allegation this afternoon that he had not heard a great deal about this principle of proportionality, or that it was no longer the standpoint of the NP. I do not know whether or not the hon member has taken a careful look at the constitution but the fact of the matter is that the principle of proportionality is the central idea in the whole present tricameral system. It is contained in the composition of Parliament, in the composition of the electoral college and in the composition of the President’s Council in the present system.

And in the time for debate!

After all, that is the dilemma in the present system.

When the Government reaches the stage in which it says that it wants to include Black people as well, it suddenly begins to suffer from amnesia and the principle of proportionality is no longer such a good one.

That is the point! Well done, Corné! Let them have it!

The Government’s standpoint at present is that Black people must become part of the system, up to the highest level of the legislative and executive authority. The hon member for Innesdal said even in the same Parliament. Now the idea of proportionality is no longer suitable, because unlike in the present system, one can no longer say that four is fortunately always more than two plus one which is three, because the Black people must now be included.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question in this regard, and perhaps he will reply to me, but I am not sure. The President’s Council found the following with regard to the Black people in its recommendations on the Constitution at the time (First Report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, PC3/1982, p 19):

That is what we have at the moment—

My question is what has changed in this regard since then.

My fourth point is the idea of segmental autonomy which is merely the idea of own affairs which is also embodied in the present system.

There are various reasons why this theory of consociational democracy has not had a happy past, and I merely want to refer to the quotation of Prof Boulle in the Tydskrif vir hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse reg, in which he says:

I am also in good company when I refer to the then Prime Minister in the days before they accepted power sharing. He said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1980, col 247):

That is what the then Prime Minister, now the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, said.

Never!

I want to make the statement that the policy of consociation is a policy that is failing, that we are wasting precious time with futile experiments and that the time has come for us to implement partition.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon member for Randfontein with interest. I think we have to agree that the hon member made an interesting speech in the sense that we waited in anticipation in the hope that something would emanate from the hon member which would be useful in the practical politics of the country. It does not help to outline a theoretical and academic certainty of something which in practice is completely unfeasible and impractical. It does not help at all to give clarity to something which is an impracticable in the politics of South Africa.

The hon members for Brakpan and Overvaal referred here in the same vein to the removal of Blacks and how certain White areas would then be kept White.

Are you against that? [Interjections.]

The unfortunate thing is that urbanisation is an economic force which pays no attention to congress resolutions of parties. Urbanisation is an economic phenomenon which is taking place all over the world and has been the subject of many people’s research. Urbanisation is an economic force which does not heed the statements of members of this Parliament either. It is a phenomenon which is a reality which every governing party, or a party that wants to be involved with the realistic politics of the day, has to keep account and deal with.

The pace of political or constitutional development in South Africa is something which creates frustration for every party represented in this Parliament. If we now have to determine an order of priority with regard to which party and leaders within Parliament are being put to the test the most by frustration due to the pace of constitutional progress, it surely is this side of the House and the hon the Minister.

We are all frustrated about the pace of constitutional development, simply because the realities of our country are so different to what we should like them to be. Our forefathers, White and Black, historically spent just as much time fighting each other in wars and uprisings as they spent fighting against nature and the climate of this country. They nonetheless still found the time to develop the best and the most powerful economy on this continent.

Today we are still engaged in fighting against each other in the political sphere as groups and, regardless of how different we should like it to be, it is a harsh reality of this country that in a multi-cultural nation such as South Africa it is not easy to prevent group emotions from being roused to an extreme and that they can then get out of control.

When the leaders of groups do not act with sufficient responsibility or do not have sufficient understanding of the damage that can be caused by the centrifugal forces of conflict, such leaders are accessories to the delays in the process of constitutional development in the country.

It will unfortunately remain the lot of South Africa to accommodate different groups constitutionally because divergent group interests is a fact which cannot be reduced to a myth by the slogans “non-racialism” and “a common society”.

When political crises arise, it simply remains a fact that people choose sides. They choose sides in solidarity with their own groups, and it would be naive to think that this situation in South Africa can be resolved in the near future. It is a reality which is a fundamental force in South African politics.

It is unfortunate that the PFP’s pursuit of their dream of a Utopia in which the interests of many groups ought not to play a role, is emphasised, so that people who want to promote the reality, are labelled “apartheid promoters”.

Group rights in South Africa have to be accepted, but we must also look beyond that, and that is exactly what the present Constitution has begun to do. Please note that I said “has begun to do”. It is so tragic that both the CP and the leftists are out to wreck the present dispensation without offering any prospect or hope as to what they will put in its place.

It is a tragic phenomenon in our White politics that the English Press together with the PFP, as well as other leftist groups, are trying to bluff people into entering a political desert of futility together with their leaders, and particularly the former leaders of the PFP, in their effort to bring about the fall of the Government.

In his speech the hon member for Sea Point said that “we no more have a people’s government but a government of politicians”. In the process of constitutional development municipal elections are taking place this year. It is a pity that our position is not being compared to the conditions in which we find ourselves on the continent of Africa. It is a pity that our conditions are compared to highly developed Western countries where different conditions apply to those in South Africa.

The hon member says “we no more have a people’s government”, but in the history of South Africa, and in fact in the history of the continent of Africa, there has never been an election in which so many public representatives will be elected on one day will be the case as on 26 October this year. In the light of that I do not know what the hon member is referring to when he says “we no more have a people’s government”. [Interjections.]

In the rest of Africa local government of any kind virtually does not exist. These elections are therefore a great step forward on the road of constitutional development in this country. The maximum devolution of powers and the decentralisation of administration is a laudable part of the process of development in the country, and in many cases it is functioning excellently. Unfortunately there are still too many signs that devolution is being practised on a de facto basis, and there are still too many people who do not accept or practise the philosophy.

I want to refer in particular to events with regard to the divisional council of Caledon. On various occasions this divisional council made certain arrangements on the advice of its town planners and the local community representatives, amongst other things, on the sub-division of erven in rural areas. These decisions and recommendations of the board were then reversed in a somewhat unfortunate way on appeal by the provincial administration. I must unfortunately tell the hon the Minister that I share the unhappiness of the divisional council of Caledon, which is an elected body and acts on the advice of its expert personnel and its elected local representatives, when the administration reverses the decisions without there being thorough liaison once again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Caledon. In his speech he referred to the CP and to the fact that their policy and what they stand for are not viable.

I should like to take this further and mention to hon members that in the HSRC’s report it is stated that by the end of this century there will be approximately 40 million Black people living permanently in White South Africa, and that of every six people with a matriculation qualification in South Africa, at least five will be Black. Of every three people who have a university degree, at least two will be Black. In all honestly and humility towards our hon friends on the right, I want to ask them how they are permanently going to exclude these people from a political dispensation. It is simply not possible.

The central theme this afternoon was once again how we could accommodate everyone in South Africa up to the highest level, without one group dominating or overshadowing another. The CP believes that we can do this by way of partition. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that party is the only party in South Africa that believes that.

In contrast the NP, the governing party at this stage, believes that this should be done on a group basis, with everyone being accommodated without one group dominating another.

In a survey conducted in 1984 it was found that only about 36% of the states in the world—ie 51 states in the world—could claim that they had democratic governments. Of these democratic states, there is only one in Africa, and that is Botswana. The others are partially democratic or undemocratic. It is often asked why African states are not democratic. It is owing to the fact that they have not been through the same phase of development as First World states.

Secondly the plural nature of the majority of these states, and the fact that there is ethnic and cultural diversity, make it very difficult for them to adopt a democratic dispensation.

In a 1971 survey by Walker Connor it was indicated that of the then 132 states in the world, only 12 could be regarded as ethnically homogeneous communities. All the others were comprised of two or more ethnic groups. Such multi-ethnic societies become deeply divided societies when ethnic identities are polarised, ie when ethnic groups become organised political interest groups. Unfortunately this is also partially true in South Africa.

Whether it is possible to institutionalise democracy in a plural society such as that in South Africa is, of course, an open question. On the one hand there are those who believe that the broadening of the democratic base must take place by means of co-optive government and, on the other, there are those who believe that we should open up the system, that we should include everyone and that we should all conduct frank discussions to see whether we cannot move towards a truly democratic South Africa.

As far as the first option is concerned, it is argued that in the first place a democracy is not possible in South Africa owing to the plural nature of society. It is therefore argued that we should co-opt White people and Black people into a system of government and that we would then ultimately have a system in which there would be Whites and Blacks in the Government who would dominate other Whites and Blacks.

Those who are in favour of this system allege that one could thus eliminate any opposition party or any person offering any opposition and that because of the great diversity in South Africa one would not be able to get democracy off the ground—that is their main argument. There are simply too many players in the game. We must therefore accept some form of co-optive government in which, by means of emergency measures and all kinds of safety mechanisms, one could be certain of remaining in power for a reasonably long time.

Consensus, according to these people, is simply not viable. The Constitution must therefore be abolished, recourse must be had to military action, the Defence Force being brought into the picture—I see the hon the Minister of Defence listening attentively, because that is a possible option—big business must be involved and then our credibility in the rest of the world would be restored—so these people argue—because such a government would not be constituted on a racial basis. There would be both White and Black people in such a government. They would, to a certain extent, succeed in maintaining order and stability here.

It is being asked who these people will be. The truth is: Every man has his price. I believe there are enough conservative Black people who, for a financial consideration, could be induced to participate in such a system. [Interjections.)

I should like to associate myself with the second option, and that is the option of liberal democracy based on the following: Popular sovereignty, in other words citizens who have the privilege of participating in the national economy and controlling their own rights, privileges and obligations as citizens.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether we can conclude that because the hon member for Claremont is keeping and is acting as his timekeeper, he also dictates the pace of his political thinking?

Order! No, that is not a question. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman … [Interjection.] … next time I shall rely on someone to the left of me. Hon members, however, know the saying: Keeping to the left is the quickest route to Robben Island. That is why I have kept to the right. [Interjections.]

The second principle I want to refer to …

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member whether that is a silent wish on his part. [Interjections.]

That is a good question. Next question? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to complete my speech.

Secondly I should like to refer to the second leg, ie that of political equality, vested in the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of the colour of their skin. They must therefore have an equal say. Political equality does not necessarily embody equal treatment; every citizen has the right to decide whether and how he wants to make use of this opportunity to become a participant in the political process. Inevitably it is a citizen’s right and privilege to decide whether he wants to vote or not.

Thirdly there is the accountability of the populace. Citizens who have a joint political say have a specific responsibility to obey the authorities. The authorities, in turn, must ensure that the rights and privileges of citizens are protected.

Fourthly there is the acceptance of majority government. It is a fact that individuals in any society will, by turns, find themselves to be members of minority groups and majority groups, depending on prevailing policies and circumstances. Every question of public importance creates its own divisions. As far as every member of the public in those divisions are concerned, this cuts both ways, so that at some or other time everyone will be in the majority or on the winning side.

In conclusion I want to say that a constitution must therefore comply with the following principles: Firstly, the demand for justice. This manifests itself, in the political sphere, in equal citizenship and participation up to the highest level. Secondly there must be equal opportunities, ie the acceptance of equal structures in which everyone can have an equal say, without one dominating another. The third principle is that of freedom of association. Normally the emphasis is placed on the individual, but freedom of association must also apply in regard to group rights. In the Western World group rights and protection are accepted. The General Assembly of the UN has, in fact, accepted a convention on group rights in which it is clearly stipulated that minority rights in regard to language, culture and education must constitutionally be guaranteed in a differentiated society.

I want to conclude by saying that when we adopt the reform course, we must ensure that we do enough and do it in good time, not too little, too late.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow must please excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I do, however, just want to congratulate him on his sense of humour. I am glad that on the one hand he still believes that partition will not work and that he knows, on the other, that the road to the left does not lead to the right gate.

During investigations carried out by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs into the future of specific development bodies during 1985-86, it was found that at local government level there were shortcomings in regard to the representation of communities outside the governmental areas of local authorities. With the introduction of regional services councils in the Transvaal, for example, the hon the Administrator acknowledged all local area committees, local authorities and Indian and Coloured management committees as representative bodies in terms of the Regional Councils Act. Because a regional services council covers a wide area, it includes local authorities and also a portion of the rural areas.

The phasing-out of divisional councils with the establishment of regional services councils in the Cape has left quite a few shortcomings in regard to the position of rural inhabitants, and more specifically the farmers, at the third tier of government. These shortcomings, however, are now largely being eliminated by the Regional Services Councils Amendment Act of 1988, Act 49, which was promulgated on 5 May 1988. Amongst other things this Act makes provision for the establishment of rural councils which will deal with the own affairs of rural inhabitants and will also grant them representation on a regional services council.

The amending Act provides that one rural council can be established for every population group within a region. Provision is made for the establishment of a maximum of three rural councils for a single population group in a region if the relevant Minister regards this as necessary. The amending Act also provides that two or more Ministers can agree to establish one rural council for various population groups in a region or regions. Members of rural councils will be elected directly by the inhabitants of the rural areas. The result is that rural voters will not be disenfranchised, as was initially the case.

The aims of a rural council are to grant representation, on a RSC, to those people in a region who do not fall within the jurisdiction of a local authority, thereby promoting the interests and welfare of those people. For this purpose a rural council is vested or entrusted with those powers and obligations which the relevant Minister will identify from time to time. A rural council is not, however, empowered to impose any levy or service fees. The expenditure involved in the administration of a rural council are defrayed from moneys voted by Parliament. [Interjections.]

The main source of revenue of an RSC is the regional services levy and regional establishment levy. The rate of the levy is determined by the RSC itself, of which representatives of the rural councils are also members. The farmers will therefore have a say. The rates can be determined with due consideration for the financial position of the farmers. Provision is also made in the legislation for the levying of differentiated rates, and if circumstances justify it, farmers can therefore impose levies at a lower rate. In this regard one specifically has in mind periods of drought and other natural disasters, overseas boycotts of agricultural products, etc. Farmers therefore now have an opportunity of participating in representation at regional level, and it will depend on the farmers themselves whether they get down to it and ensure that their interests and welfare are given adequate priority.

Generally the system of RSCs is welcomed by the farmers. They had two serious objections, however, ie firstly their lack of representation on the RSCs and their disenfranchisement owing to the fact that divisional councils had disappeared and, secondly, the fact that farmers did not have a vote in the RSCs.

In terms of the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985, prior to the promulgation of the amendment on 5 May 1988, every constituent body’s voting power was determined in accordance with the regional services it purchased from the RSCs. In many cases, however, the farming community is self-sufficient as far as the provision of regional services is concerned, and they would therefore not purchase many services from the RSCs. That would mean that were entitled to a limited vote.

This problem is now being resolved by the Regional Council Services Amendment Act. In that Act provision is being made, inter alia, for the fact that if the Administrator is of the opinion that the basis for the allocation of votes, as determined by the Act, cannot be implemented in regard to a local body, in order to obtain a result which, to his way of thinking, is fair to all parties involved, he can approve another basis for doing so. One such basis which could possibly be investigated, involves services for which one frequently does not pay directly, for example roads, civil protection and certain health services.

A RSC must therefore not be seen as an extraneous body intervening in the affairs of farmers in rural communities. It consists of their own representatives elected by them. Hon members must remember that these rural councils are a new concept in their own right which have been given substance, through constitutional reform, in the interests of the rural communities.

In conclusion let me thank the relevant hon Minister for the way in which he took a stand in regard to the officials of divisional councils in the Cape and also in regard to property rates which land-owners in the Cape have had to pay over many years and which are now going to be abolished or phased out with the establishment of RSCs.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his senior officials for their hard work in regard to reform. They should carry on the good work, because with its tendency to blow hot and cold, the Official Opposition really does not have any substance! The country is waiting for the hon the Minister, his officials and the Government to set the tone in solving our problems. It is a pleasure for me to support this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I want to do just one thing before the adjournment of the House this evening, and that is to react to the hon member for Sea Point with regard to his allegations concerning the hon the State President.

†I had occasion before to point out to the hon member that he often accuses other people of arrogance but forgets his own attitude and actions. I would like to suggest this evening that his remarks—unjustified as they are—are in fact arrogant. I have the Hansard copy of the hon member’s speech with me and I am just going to quote two paragraphs from it. He accuses the Government of dictatorial actions and attitudes and he quotes examples to substantiate his conclusion in this regard. He says the following:

He goes on to say:

I am addressing the hon member. He continued:

He repeated that. I want to take it from there and ask the hon member whether this conclusion as to what the powers and the responsibility of the hon the State President under these circumstances are, is the unanimous view of his party. I am asking him that question.

You can ask me till the cows come home!

He naturally says that, because he cannot answer the question. I would like to read what the member of his party in the House of Delegates said about the motion and the amendment to the motion. [Interjections.] That is very important. I shall quote what Mr Poovalingam in the House of Delegates said about this.

Which motion are you referring to?

I am referring to the motion which asked for a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates and for the hon the State President to intervene, on which an amendment was moved by Mr Pachai asking for Mr Rajbansi himself to resign. Both the motion and the amendment implied a motion of no confidence in Mr Rajbansi. Mr Poovalingam is a member of the PFP. He said the following:

It was not passed.

The amendment was passed and he was referring to it.

[Inaudible.]

I did not interrupt the hon member—

The hon member for Sea Point accuses the hon the State President of arrogance, whilst a member of his party says that the motion—if it is adopted—in fact implies that the hon the State President has the power to dissolve the House as one of the options. [Interjections.]

Was the motion adopted?

The hon member asks me.

Why does he not study the records of that House, because they are discussing the actions of the hon the State President in relation to motions and amendments in the other House.

Why do you not tell us what your view of the constitutional position is?

I am going to tell that hon member that, because somebody has to tell him.

They will still not grasp it! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point must first concede that it is the hon the State President’s responsibility in the first place to uphold the Constitution; and secondly, to apply the provisions of the Constitution, also with reference to the conventions that are not incompatible with the Constitution.

We endorse that.

He agrees with that, Sir. The fact is that the Ministers in the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates were appointed by the hon the State President on the advice of the Chairman of that Ministers’ Council. Those are the facts. A motion of no confidence …

Is that a convention which you now say applies?

I am stating a fact now.

But does it apply as a convention?

I will come to that as well; let me just finish this argument.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Sea Point is becoming like the hon member for Houghton—he cannot stop himself or contain himself. [Interjections.]

He is in trouble; that is why!

The conclusion therefore is inevitable that a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. Section 39 (3) of the Constitution clearly defines what the hon the State President’s powers and options are. Firstly, he can dissolve the Ministers’ Council and appoint another council, or he can dissolve the House and call an election. Let us assume just for the moment that we can argue about the legal aspects of the interpretation of the sections of the Constitution.

You should!

Well, fine! Let us argue about it, but do not call a man with a specific interpretation of the Constitution that incidentally does not suit that hon member’s personal view, arrogant and dictatorial! I resent the fact that the hon member for Sea Point accuses the hon the State President in the application of his interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of party political manoeuvring. I resent it, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that the hon the State President is protecting his political friend. It is on record that the hon the State President indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates that should that House decide to adopt a resolution—and publicly substantiate it—calling for an enquiry into the accusations of irregularities, he would consider that favourably, whether it applied to Mr Rajbansi or anybody else. Sir, is that protection of his political friend? [Interjections.] He said that to the people who approached him.

Mr Rajbansi has lost the majority support in that House!

That is the relevant point!

That is the issue!

But the point is that having lost that, it is also a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council.

[Inaudible.]

I am not arguing whether one refuses to accept it or not, but I would like to suggest that I would rather trust their legal advisers than his. I am not, however, arguing on the point of legality. I am talking about his accusation that the hon the State President is arrogant, and the way in which he expressed himself in this House in this manner on this issue. I think that is disgraceful, Sir! [Interjections.] I think it is disgraceful!

I would like to say in all fairness that he is the last person to accuse other people of arrogance and acting arrogantly.

Business interrupted.

Mr Speaker has requested me to convey the following ruling to the House.

In view of the fact that there is uncertainty about the speaking times of a Deputy Minister during a debate and about Standing Rules 89 and 90, I wish to give the following ruling in order to bring about uniformity in the three Houses:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! This is the first time that the hon the Minister is appearing in this House as the Minister and we should like to welcome him and wish him everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, thank you for the friendly welcome to this House. I also received a very pleasant welcome from other hon members of this House, not only today but also on other occasions. I therefore regard it as a privilege to appear in this House again.

Before we start the debate, I should like to refer to the Head of the Bureau for Information and senior officials of the bureau, as well as officials at the regional office who render service to the Coloured community in particular, and thank them for their work. The Bureau for Information is still a young organisation which, although it is continuing the work of the department which preceded it, is fundamentally a new organisation. We strive continually to carry out the task of the bureau, that of communication between the Government and the people, in a more effective way. In this regard, the Head of the Bureau, head officials and all other officials play a very important part. I am still relatively new to this sphere, but I consider it a great privilege to head an organisation in which so many capable people are employed in working with great dedication towards a better South Africa for all its people.

To begin with I should like to refer briefly to the task of the bureau, namely to communicate. It is frequently asked why the Government has to communicate with the people. The crux of the matter is that the Government carries out specific actions which have an influence on the living conditions of the people. Even when the Government adopts a specific policy in the broad sense of the word, such a policy is gradually converted into action. Consequently this has a fundamental influence on human life. That is why it is necessary for details about the Government’s actions and intended actions to be conveyed to the people so that they may react to them. If the people’s reaction were to reject the Government, so be it. If they were to reject the Government, they could at least do so on the basis of actual fact and not on the grounds of ignorance or misconceptions.

There is another example which I used in the House of Assembly yesterday, namely that it is the Government’s duty to communicate about specific matters. Before enlarging on this, I want to point out that the Bureau for Information is the communicating arm of the State par excellence, but this does not mean that all communication is necessarily done through the bureau. As an example I wish to refer to the destructive plague which has come charging down upon us recently, namely Aids. If the people want to defend themselves against this plague, they have to have specific information. They have to know what the nature of the disease is; how it originates and how it may be communicated. If one looks at the methods of the ordinary media, one sees that the sensational aspects of such a disease are concentrated upon. The origin of the disease and certain of its aspects may be headline news for a few days from time to time. If the Government did not launch a sustained information campaign, however, and ensure that such information reached every member of the population, the people would not be capable of protecting themselves against such a disease. That is why it is the duty of the State to communicate. If, for instance, we were to neglect our duty as regards preventive information about the disease, we could even be accused of having genocide as our motive—of actually wanting people to die of it. This is merely one example of how essential it is for the Government to communicate.

A further example which I should like to mention is the National Council which the Government wishes to institute. This is something which we discuss at length. I am sure that every hon member of the House has considered this or discussed it with other people a thousand times. For specific reasons, however, the Government has not yet launched a campaign to announce its intentions as regards the National Council. This has certainly been publicised by the media.

If one were to conduct a scientific survey among the people to discover how many Blacks, at whom it is aimed, had heard about it, one would find that a mere 14% of the Black population know anything at all about a thing like the National Council. Yet this matter will have a profound influence on them. That is why it is necessary that a matter like this should be made known to them intensively. This is what the bureau is striving for.

As I have said, not all Government communication is done by the bureau. The Aids campaign is an example of a campaign which was carried out by a different Government department. The function of the bureau is to be responsible for certain overall communication in assisting other departments with expertise which we have collected and are developing, to assist them in improving their communication and also to ensure that this communication takes place in a co-ordinated way. We want to ensure that it takes place in the best possible way.

I have the greatest praise for the bureau. This does not mean that the bureau or I maintain that we accomplish our task perfectly or that we do not make mistakes from time to time. We continually scrutinise ourselves and test the feelings of the people. An opportunity such as this one today is an opportunity in which we may also test the deepest feelings of political representatives to see to what degree we are succeeding in fulfilling our task well and where we may improve.

With these few words, Sir, the matter is open for discussion.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin … [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member has not even started yet. Hon members must really grant him the opportunity to do so. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give the hon the Minister a special welcome to this House. Since I have not welcomed anyone else in this House in that way before, it is quite something for me to welcome the hon the Minister in that way. In paying tribute to the hon the Minister, Sir, I should be failing in my duty if I did not give recognition to his great personal gift as a vital actor in this system. It is quite an education to watch his political mind at work when he is exposed to any situation. I dare say that it is an education to many of us who are not ashamed to admit it. He is a royal asset to the NP—and that is where the rub lies!

Order! The what?

The “rub’, Sir.

The hon the Minister has placed himself full square behind the political philosophy of the NP, a party which prescribed racial divisiveness socioeconomically with the prerequisite of that abhorrent special White privilege; and they do so in the belief that the total Black sector of the population will eventually submit to the carefully designed, arbitrary use of the legislature to abnegate their birthright.

I want to ask the hon the Minister, with his great powers of political analysis and persuasion, whether his other talents—his powers of perception—prognosticate any semblance of peace for this country as long as the status quo remains. I do not have to tell the hon the Minister that his Government is facing a full-scale bloody revolution which shows no sign of abating as long as his Government refuses to talk with the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order! No, hon members must grant the hon member his rightful time.

Yes, we should talk to the ANC. Carry on.

Order! The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

In my opinion, the demand for preconditions to such talks is an evasion that this country can ill afford.

At this point I want to remind the hon the Minister of the Afrikaner’s own use of violence in opposing British rule. I would like the hon the Minister to explain to us why the Afrikaner resorted to this form of strategy. The former head of the ANC, Chief Albert Luthuli, once said, and I quote:

He was referring of course to the uncompromising attitude of the Government. Until his death under tragic circumstances, he never saw the bars of that door removed. Today we Blacks are still exposed to a form of slavery called apartheid or racial discrimination, against which there will always be a struggle for freedom in various ways. I want to read a letter written to me in April 1973 by a renowned poet and journalist of The Star who wrote, and I quote:

He then continued with a few lines of poetry, and I quote again:

This then, in a nutshell, can give people on the outside our view—when I say our, I mean the total Black sector of the South African nation—of an undeterred exhortation for freedom. The hon the Minister must please not speak about the separate racial freedoms his colleagues normally refer to as “most ideal for us”.

The gadding of the Press is not only outrageous, but also deplorable. The public has a right to know the truth. Once the hon the Minister starts banning newspapers, the bureau, by his instruction, is cooking up the news. The Government calls it perspective, but such censoring is horrendous. Take for example the incident in Kwa-Ndebele.

Order! I have to request the hon member for Durban Suburbs to come back to the Vote under discussion. [Interjections.]

I am dealing with that, Sir. The example I want to refer to is the incident at KwaNdebele where the Imbogoto-Vigilante violence took place. [Interjections.] The situation which prevails in the SABC is also pathetic. Although M-Net is sponsored by the media in this country …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Durban Suburbs, my brother …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Will the hon member for Bethelsdorp please grant the hon member for Daljosaphat an opportunity to put his question?

Sir, the hon member for Durban Suburbs said that there would be a “bloody revolution”. Those were his words. I want to know whether he is serious about what he said and where he got his information from.

Mr Chairman, it is simple. The hon member for Daljosaphat regards me as a brother because he knows my views. Therefore, he knows that I do not support violence. That is why I am here. I referred to a “bloody revolution” because people are dying outside. Bombs are being thrown and innocent people are dying. [Interjections.]

I have not finished with what I intend saying about the news. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what his bureau means by stating, in an advertisement, that the media would do well if they decide on which side they are. M-Net, therefore, will not touch the news, lest they too suffer a loss of credibility. [Interjections.]

Sir, to my knowledge and experience, spying has never been part of the Bureau for Information. Because they value their job, officers of the bureau are cajoled into liaising with the National Intelligence Service and security officers. Security officers always prefer to visit the officers who work for the Bureau for Information after hours at their homes. [Interjections.] This can only be termed blatant harassment. What will happen if an information officer refuses to co-operate? Does he get his telephone tapped?

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

No, Sir, I do not have enough time. [Interjections.]

Does he become unpromotable or is he even sacked?

Black people, generally, are very wary about working for the Government because there is always a great possibility that they can be used and abused by their employer.

Like you were abused.

I did not allow that, Sir.

Even though some may be fortunate enough not to be harassed, the general public will remain unconvinced that they are not spies. I do not have to spell out what neighbours do to people whom they suspect of being spies.

The Bureau for Information should, in my opinion, be scrapped. It is not only a waste of the taxpayer’s money, but it also seems to harass the taxpayer himself. [Interjections.] The operation of informing the environment can be done easily by the individual Government departments concerned, who can also compile feedbacks which in turn should keep the legislature well-informed. The overseas mission of the bureau is also a total failure because the international community has demonstrated in many ways that it is far from gullible. The Bureau for Information spends millions of rands on these missions and up to now sanctions are on the increase and most countries have closed their doors to South Africa’s people. Anyone who plays sport with South Africa suffers all sorts of undignified isolation and bannings. [Interjections.] There can be no justification for apartheid anywhere and I hope that when the hon the Minister replies he will not attempt to make a case for the justification of apartheid. His job, as I understand it, should be to use his polished professionalism to engineer among the top echelon of his party true and meaningful reform. I certainly believe that he can do it.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this Vote and I want to use this occasion first of all to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment as Minister in this very important State Department. I want to say to the hon the Minister that I hope that this important general affairs Vote will be discussed at a joint debate next year. [Interjections.] I feel that such an important debate should not and ought not be fragmented as is again being done this year. I am not going to use my precious 15 minutes, as some of my hon colleagues in the House of Assembly have done, to tear up the hon the Minister and his officials present here today, because I firmly believe that the hon the Minister and his department are playing a vital role in providing that all-important communication, which is of such vital importance in South Africa. Especially in this fourth year of reform politics in South Africa, it is of vital importance that the State have that machinery in order to communicate with people, even at grassroots level.

I believe very firmly that far too many people—and that includes myself—are uninformed. One must differentiate today between the ignorant and the uninformed. One of my hon colleagues said recently that ignorant people are ignorant because they are uninformed. I want to say to the hon the Minister here today that far too many people outside this House are uninformed about the activities and the aims of his Ministry. The activities of previous leaders of this department have left far too many questions unanswered and this ghost, which is still dogging this department today, should be left aside by the critics. Therefore I am not going to go back into the history of the so-called Information Department, but would like us to give this well-equipped, educated and talented hon Minister and his department a chance to set up the machinery of this very important department.

This new hon Minister should spell out in greater detail today exactly where he and his department stand. His department was described in the Press this morning, for instance, as a “state propaganda machine to bend the minds of the people”.

Arising out of the hon the Minister’s introduction today, there is one question I should like to put to him: How much has his department spent on informing the people outside this Parliament about the dangers of Aids and who are his department’s agents at grassroots level? I want to meet more of the officials of this department at grassroots level.

I now want to quote from the department’s very informative albeit very brief annual report. It is stated in the introduction that the bureau—

Further on it is stated that:

The mention of “regional offices” gives rise to another question I should like to put to the hon the Minister. Does his department have a regional office in the great metropolis of Soweto? Does it have a regional office in the metropolis of Mitchell’s Plain, where more than 60 000 people of colour are now living?

Only 60 000? Surely there are far more than 60 000 people living there.

Then, on page 3 of the annual report, it is stated that:

This is what makes me feel that more should be done by this hon Minister and his department. More should be done to set up communication forums whereby people can reach each other.

On page 4 of the report we read that the task of the Directorate National Liaison is “to promote communication among all population groups and representatives of foreign media in South Africa”. Mr Chairman, I have said often in this Chamber and I am saying again here today that the average White South African is uninformed about the quality of life and the hardships which we as people of colour experience in our various townships around this country. It is vital, therefore, that in this fourth year of reform in South Africa more forums of communication, involving more people of colour, are set up. I personally, in the past, as the first leader of the Official Opposition in this House, approached both the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and this hon Minister’s predecessor to express my willingness at the time to meet as many Whites and foreign guests as possible and to participate in any discussions aimed at bridging the gap which existed and exists between us.

I feel that people of colour have been left out in the cold for too long. Far too many departments, including this department, are still being manned at the top mainly by Whites and we have now reached the stage in South Africa at which we do not want to read about each other. We read here of the millions of publications—over 7 800 000 publications—which have been published, printed and distributed by this department. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we in South Africa do not need pamphlets or booklets to read about each other. We need more opportunities to meet each other and more forums in which to meet each other around the conference table—or we could do so in a forum such as we have here today—so that we can tell each other about our difficulties, our hardships and about our political, social and economic desires in South Africa.

With all due respect, Sir, so much junk mail gets put into our postboxes every day that we will probably cast aside information brochures that come from the hon the Minister’s department. We have passed that stage of reading about each other in South Africa. It is a shame, Sir, but I speak to more Whites from foreign countries than I speak to fellow citizens in South Africa—and I am a member of Parliament, a leader in my constituency! I am a leader in my community, yet there is this tremendous gap—or is it a wall?—existing between people in South Africa today. I feel the hon the Minister should devote more time, more energy and more money, and use more officials, and even use more propaganda, to bring us together on a one-to-one level. We should rather do that than spend money on sending people on overseas missions or on bringing foreigners here.

People in South Africa need to be informed about each other’s problems first and foremost. Yet we are spending more money on informing and educating people overseas and other people outside South Africa than we are spending on informing people inside this country. That situation, in which people are uninformed, cannot continue.

I want to say again here today that during my first three years in my term of office as the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House I only once addressed a group of White students from the Orange Free State and I received only one invitation from a White university in this country. [Interjections.] The visible and invisible walls of apartheid have driven us apart, and so I want to ask today, out of the few hundred guests …

At least he featured in Penthouse.

Order!

That was a low joke from that hon member, Sir. He would never appear in that magazine, even if he paid them. That was a mean statement for an hon member of this House to make. That was a low blow, a mean attempt to get at my family, months after that matter has been buried. [Interjections.] What is the mentality, Sir, of one who resorts to such tactics? [Interjections.]

I met two out of the hundreds of guests who were invited to this country this year. Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister who these hundreds of foreign guests—I believe that we very often pay for their passage here—are brought here to meet. Who are they meant to see? Whose viewpoint did they come to listen to if we in this House, leaders in our communities, do not get the opportunity to meet them? I am not begging for an overseas visit, as an hon member suggested just now—but I do believe that the people who come here should meet us. It is vital that more hon members of the Coloured Parliament meet more of these guests who come from overseas. In fact, we should not meet only with overseas guests, but also with leaders in the White communities.

I cannot overemphasise the fact, Sir, that the average White person is ignorant of the quality of life and the hardships that are being experienced by vast sectors of the so-called Coloured community.

In closing, I want to ask the hon the Minister how many members of the respective race groups are filling the top 600 posts mentioned in the annual report and also what the highest post is that is presently being occupied by a person of colour.

Finally, I also want to ask him what chance people without degrees have of being appointed in these departments, both here and overseas. After all, only a few of the people of colour who have applied for these important posts have degrees.

Mr Chairman, I listened intently to the two previous speakers, and I would like to agree with them that significant communication forums should be started in order to solve our constitutional problems. It is true, and I want to agree with the hon member for Durban Suburbs, that talks with the ANC are imperative, and the sooner the better.

*Right at the beginning of my speech I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment to his present post, and wish him the best of luck. I must wish him the best of luck, since he has been given the unenviable task of correcting a very poor image of South Africa and promoting a better one, both internally and abroad. The chief function of the Bureau for Information is to promote effective communication between the Government and the South African population. Because South Africa has a heterogeneous population, this is an ambitious task.

Structural disparities are a further hindrance in exercising the function of the Bureau for Information. Discriminatory legislation has removed people from one another to such an extent that not only have they become strangers to one another, but they have also built up all kinds of prejudices with regard to one another. I have said in the House on numerous occasions that people who do not know one another cannot trust one another. People who cannot trust one another regard one another with suspicion.

I accept that it is the Bureau for Information’s function to inform citizens on the country and its people by means of its numerous publications. How successful is the bureau in its attempts, however, when each ethnic group is informed almost exclusively on its own group in its own journal? The broad South African community is excluded, and in this way the people remain uninformed about other people in South Africa. The hon the Minister may differ with me, but in this connection I involuntarily think of the newspaper, The Caret, which is distributed among the Coloured component of our population and contains only “Coloured” news and Government announcements. I believe that the Coloured reader of The Caret could have been better informed concerning events in other communities. In this way I believe we can get to know and understand one another.

In South Africa, with its obsession with groups, it is a fact that one group’s dream is always another group’s nightmare. An image of the military and police force, technical skills and economic preparedness and the land on which their hope for survival in future is going to be built, is reflected in the respective publications for Whites published by the Bureau for Information. To me as a Black man, these very things are symbols of continued domination and the continuation of a status quo which we do not agree with.

It is the objective of the Bureau for Information to remind Blacks of their group context and to encourage them to go and settle in their respective homelands in due course. Sir, a homeland is not a home. People cannot live there; they cannot work there. People who were not even born there have to go there to create homes for themselves. Whether we want to call this a regional institution or whatever, that fact remains.

I did some research about a national state such as Bophuthatswana. It is one of the flourishing national states and I established that 17% of the population of Bophuthatswana has urbanised, whereas 83% live in the rural areas. The income in the rural areas is an extremely disquieting matter, because I established that 30% of the rural population’s income is less than R500 per annum; the income of 29% is less than R1 000 per annum; the income of 16% is less than R1 500 per annum, and that of 12% is less than R2 600 per annum. This means that the average income of 75% of the inhabitants of a flourishing national state such as Bophuthatswana is less than R1 000 per annum or R83 per month. [Interjections.] Now one wonders what is being propagated and what the people are being encouraged to do.

The publications of the Bureau for Information made much of the Government’s decision about citizenship, but what does citizenship mean without franchise? I am not talking about the right to vote for a regional institution to have token representation in Parliament. I am talking about the franchise for direct representation in a central government—that is what the LP believes in.

The publications of the Bureau for Information appeal for reconciliation and an end to violence, but what does reconciliation mean unless Whites are prepared to give back what has been taken from Blacks? I know that the hon the Minister has very noble intentions, but I want to tell him that if the Government has good intentions with relationships among population groups in South Africa, attempts will have to be made to achieve a better understanding of one another. Consequently the Bureau for Information will have to start using concepts with similar contents. Citizenship must have the same meaning for a Black man as it does for a White man in South Africa. The Government will have to say what it means. [Interjections.] Of course, it will also have to start doing what it says it will.

There will be no point in distributing publications such as Talking with the ANC, since the contrary is not published. It was none other than the Afrikaans churches which approved of the 1914 rebellion, because they had the same history as the ANC. They felt they had been denied basic rights, and after a long history of unsuccessful negotiations, they believed violence to be their only alternative. This corresponds with the ANC’s attempts at violence.

Consequently I fail to understand why the works of someone like Nelson Mandela have been restricted, whereas they contain important lessons for both Blacks and Whites. We are on the eve of countrywide local government elections and pressure groups recently started their attempts at deterrence in Soweto. We know about the attacks on the Sofasonke Party, and we reject that kind of action. Personally I believe that the works of Mandela can be used in the present circumstances to introduce his standpoint in respect of participation in the system of government to the broad South African electorate.

In The Struggle is my Life, I read inter alia what Mandela had to say when he expressed his opposition to boycotts. He said:

He went on to say, and I quote:

He went further, giving his opinion on how the freedom struggle can be continued from within the system. What is particularly important was his warning against puppets who want to take part in the system only for their own gain. He said, and I quote:

Sir, he goes on to give an opinion about participation. I know that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is finding it difficult to sell the National Council to Black leaders at the moment, but if this hon Minister, who feels he has a monopoly on knowledge, reads Mandela’s works, he will find it much easier to negotiate with Black leaders, since Mandela said the following in the said work, and I quote:

I should like to repeat this sentence:

Why are works such as these banned? Why can the rest of South Africa not take cognisance of this? Why do we merely write the contrary, and why are our people merely fed the contrary? I quote:

The self-righteous in this country say one must be represented both inside and outside Parliament. I quote once again:

Why must we constantly read what the majority party in the House of Assembly has to say? I question even the legitimacy of the NP as the true Government in South Africa, since the Constitution does not say anywhere that the majority party in the House of Assembly shall be the Government. This is merely the result of the ungodly system of 4:2:1.

The Bureau for Information propagates power-sharing by means of its publications, but declines to tell the readers that the Whites will continue to dominate. Surely that is no democracy. Instead, it is pigmentocracy. In my opinion the Bureau for Information, as the mouthpiece of the Government, has only one message to convey to all South Africans, viz the fact that we are in this beautiful country together, that we are not all the same and that therefore we shall have to accept that we are different. We need one another. We can serve one another, and that is why our relationships with one another must change gradually. When I talk about change, I mean that the relationship in which Whites are regarded as the guardians of Blacks must be dispensed with.

In its place, there must be a relationship in which we are partners, in which merit, and not colour, plays the decisive part. If ever there was a time in which we should see and hear one another, in which we should have understanding for one another and respect one another, it is now.

Sir, with your leave I should now like to concentrate briefly on the SABC. To begin with I want to quote from the corporation’s annual report. I refer hon members to page 33:

With reference to television, the following is said on page 45:

Sir, I am one of those people who believe that the SABC should act as an intermediary between the population and the State by reporting autonomously on the activities and welfare of the State. I am sorry to say, however, that the SABC cannot act autonomously at all, since it is governed from above. The SABC has unashamedly become an ally and even a tool in the hands of the NP. By allying itself uncritically with the Government, the SABC is trying to justify injustice under the banner of national interest. Because of the fact that the SABC is under the control of the NP, there can never be any question of truth, accuracy and objective reporting any more—especially not during the past 10 years.

I mention this because the news on SABC-TV is still presented only from the Government’s point of view. If that is deviated from in any way, or anything that is contrary to what the NP leadership proclaims is broadcast, it leads to an immediate telephonic connection with the Director-General of the SABC. [Interjections.] This kind of interference in news bulletins leads to the majority of South Africans either not listening to the news any more, or taking it with a pinch of salt.

I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would explain to the House why the Government refused to allow M-Net to present their own news programmes. Did they fear that M-Net would broadcast contradictory reports, or what is the actual reason? It is each citizen’s right to know the truth about his country. That is why every licence holder wants news to be broadcast impartially and very objectively.

The LP of South Africa has begun to make the best of the way in which the SABC treats it. We are deeply involved in two by-elections at the moment. Perhaps voters will take cognisance of this on TV news on election day for the first time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to welcome the hon the Minister of Information in this House. During last year’s debate I drew the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that The Caret, a national and international newspaper, is purely a Labour Party paper and I wish to stress that point once again. I wonder whether the editor of The Caret is not perhaps the leader of the LP. [Interjections.] When one opens The Caret one only sees LP publicity. [Interjections.] Sometimes I wonder what I should call it. [Interjections.] I do not want to call it the …

Order! The hon member may continue.

I wonder whether one can still call it The Caret. Perhaps one should call it “The LP Caret” or, even better, the “Caret King”. [Interjections.] Many of the hon members of the Official Opposition are doing a lot of work and the hon the Minister’s department has held so many interviews with other people and a lot of hon members of the Official Opposition, but they do not have the courage to publish the truth about what our people are doing. They only publish this propaganda and it is not always true what the LP is doing, because they only get all the publicity. [Interjections.] Many interviews take place—the hon the Minister can check with his department—and reporters waste hours of our time, but at the end of the day nothing happens. Therefore, in future, if the officials from the hon the Minister’s department come to us for an interview, they must not waste their time and our time, because we have a lot of work to do. [Interjections.] One can see in the last report that the Freedom Party of South Africa did a lot of work. All three Houses got together, and the Freedom Party did a lot of work.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know whether this Freedom Party still exists.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is wasting my time.

†We are working very hard and should at least be given credit for that. People should not get a lot of publicity for doing nothing. The hon the Minister or one of his officials can visit my office and he will see that we are doing a lot of work. We are helping thousands of people, whose problems do not only fall under the hon the Minister’s department but also all the other departments. I cannot see why the hon the Minister’s department does not give us the necessary publicity. Are they scared of the truth? We are here to tell our people that the tricameral system is working. A lot of hon members are doing nothing but collecting their salaries. [Interjections.] However, those who work hard get no publicity. I do not know why this is the case. [Interjections.] I have visited America at my own expense, not at the State’s expense. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

As far as qualifications are concerned I would like to ask the hon the Minister please to inform me as to whether our people have been granted higher positions. If not, could the hon the Minister please elaborate on that.

We see lovely ladies around us, but we do not see any non-White ladies around us. I believe women today play a very important role indeed and women have proved that they can achieve much more than men. We can also work faster. I believe that a public relations officer could play a very important role in the department. A good qualification does not mean everything. Good training as such means nothing; experience is of vital importance. If one talks to the layman in the street one has to speak his language; then one cannot speak high English or Afrikaans because one has to make contact with him. One has to win his confidence, as a friend or a member of the family—not as an enemy or a reporter. If one interviews them they will be sincere with one, on the condition that one prints the real story. One should not distort the story, as newspapers are doing here today because they have no news. We are causing our country a lot of damage.

They are scared to tell the truth. I see South Africa as it is today, not from the dark side, but from the bright side.

Not from Egypt’s side.

Well, it is an honour to have Egypt represented here. [Interjections.] Today we are facing a very serious problem, but the Bureau for Information is very important. Once I had an important visitor from overseas—I will not mention his name—and he asked me what today’s news was. Today’s news tells one immediately what is happening. If a dog bites a man, it is no news, but if a man bites a dog, it is news. That is what is happening today.

I believe we must get a public relations officer especially for the Muslim people to propagate their culture. Here we have people from the Muslim culture, the Malay culture and other cultures. Many of our people and the department get mixed up between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. We have our own culture, the Indians have their own culture and the Coloureds have their own culture too. However, if one opens this newspaper we appear to be just one group. It is not only one group that should be represented. [Interjections.]

I believe the hon the Minister has a very important portfolio. A part of the bureau’s task is to build South Africa’s image and popularise our country overseas. According to the annual report for 1987 they had 398 overseas visitors. Can the hon the Minister tell me who interviewed the 398 visitors? Were there Coloured and non-White reporters too or only White reporters? [Interjections.] The LP is going to do a lot of damage.

I believe the bureau is very important and should go out to schools or invite people to come to the bureau. People often ask what the Bureau for Information is. Nobody knows about it. I want to repeat that public relations officers are very important. People should be invited to visit Parliament and the bureau to see what is happening. Have a cup of tea and a few biscuits with them. How much money will this cost? Billions of rands are spent, but still they cannot achieve what they want to achieve. All these things will achieve nothing and will only do our country more harm.

At our schools our children are boycotting classes and many things are happening. Therefore, it is very important that we should befriend our children today. Parents can be invited or letters can be written to school principals, inviting the whole group—the principal, the chairman of the school board, the parents and the children. If everybody sits around a table, the problems can be discussed.

I speak to many people here and they think that the White man is a completely different person, he is not the same kind of human being we are. When people meet one another many discoveries take place. When the people see a Minister on TV he is a strange person, but when they see him in the street he is a completely different person. Why can we not say to our people, whether they are Coloured, Black or even green, no matter what race we belong to, we are all one nation, we are all South Africans?

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to give me an honest answer about what is happening with regard to the matter I raised in last year’s debate.

Mr Chairman, I have come to obtain information from the hon the Minister of Information this afternoon on what is going on in the country and what our position is overseas.

I should like to refer the hon the Minister to page 2 of the annual report which states:

I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us what he includes in speaking of “effective communication”. The bureau has regional offices at various places, especially in capital cities, where purposeful communication should take place with the various communities. I should very much like to know how information of national importance is conveyed to these communities.

How is information of national importance fed to these communities and how is information from the communities handled? Is the approach to and treatment of information on all communities equally serious?

A communication project called “Together we shall build a better future” was launched two years ago. What results has this project produced? After the House of Assembly election in May 1987 certain questions arose. Are we able to obtain information on the views of the general public as regards the NP Government’s newly instituted policy? How far is the NP Government prepared to go on the road to reform?

Is the amount of money which is spent by the Directorate: Research Co-ordination justified? I am asking this especially with the view to the next question, namely how does this directorate see the new South Africa after the launching of their projects and what recommendations were submitted to the Government? As regards internal liaison, can the hon the Minister tell this House how his department involves non-White youth in government initiatives and what success has already been achieved?

How successful is the bureau’s liaison with foreign media? How are actual conditions in South Africa conveyed to foreign news media? How successful is the bureau in selling the South Africa Government’s reform initiatives overseas? How positive is overseas reaction from those who read the magazine South African Panorama and what is the internal reaction of readers of Suid-Afrikaanse Panorama?

During the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote, I put this matter to the Minister concerned, but perhaps it is more relevant to this hon Minister’s field of responsibility. In the bureau’s weekly publication Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig of 1 April 1988 it was reported that Prof Carel Boshoff was establishing a sovereign Afrikaner “volkstaat”. Can this hon Minister tell the House where this “volkstaat” is to be established? [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Douw has already spoken about the magazine The Caret. This publication is read widely in my constituency, but I have to ask whether this magazine is aimed at a certain colour group only.

I now come to the recruitment of personnel by the Department of Information. I should like to know what requirements are fixed for potential employees. Is in-service training provided and what motivation is there for potential employees in the bureau?

In conclusion, I want to ask the hon the Minister to furnish the hon the State President with the information that there are good, loyal members of this House who would make good Ministers in general affairs portfolios.

Mr Chairman, …

Big goat.

I shall leave the goat alone.

Mr Chairman, at the start of this relevant and exceptionally important debate on the Information Vote, I want to concentrate on two statements which the hon the State President made early in 1986. I shall quote him as follows:

The hon the State President continued:

At the beginning of the debate, the hon the Minister of Information also elaborated on the importance of communication. These statements which the hon the State President made were seized upon by the exponents of change in South Africa, and were distorted and disseminated to people in the interior as propaganda against the Government’s reform initiatives. The hon the Minister said that it was his department’s task to inform people. His department is the communication arm of the State.

Communication has already been touched upon by various members of the House. I want to associate myself with the words of the hon member Mr Douw, namely that too little is done to convey matters which the people want to hear to them. The hon member’s words carry a great deal of weight. He said that we could fight the exponents of change in South Africa with their own weapons, namely by conveying their holier-than-thou writings to them by telling them what their leader, Nelson Mandela, said in The Struggle is my Life. Certainly racist statements are made in the same book. One of the questioners asked him: “What are you going to do with the so-called Coloureds in the new South Africa that you envisage?” He replied: “They have been a nuisance, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.” Sir, I do not want to belittle him, because he says many good things, but I believe that these words may be used to our advantage and they can also make many people sit up and think further.

The hon the State President’s recent announcement that Blacks would have sitting in the electoral college and also representation on a reduced President’s Council, as well as the announced Great Indaba which is to be constituted and on which Blacks will have representation, is of particularly illuminating interest to the LP.

We as a party take an interest in what is said. Our purpose, as we have promised our Black brothers, is to work to get them here too. The institution of the new dispensation and the Government’s statement of intent to involve increasing numbers of Blacks at the highest level of authority, has placed South Africa irrevocably on the road of change. This is a road of no return. We are on a road to evolutionary change in our country; South Africa bears the stamp of political change today.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that there are many uninformed White people who are being fed misinformation by the CP opposition. They are told that the Government is selling out the Whites’ rights in South Africa. They are told that the Government is selling out the Whites’ right to existence in this country, which they helped to build, to the Black man. What are we doing about this in the Bureau for Information? What propaganda machine are we using to convey the truth to those people and how effective is that machine? Do we really reach the man in the street who is led to believe so many lies? It is important for the future of this country that every person know the truth.

As I have said, South Africa is irrevocably on the road to reform and the movement cannot be reversed. Nothing can take us back to the South Africa of yesterday. We are moving forward. The momentum must come from us and, in order to make a success of the new dispensation, we shall have to use our initiative to proclaim the truth to people. We must tell them that South Africa forms part of a greater Africa and that the vast majority of South Africans are Black people and that those people have a right to a say in the highest authority of the country as well.

As I have said, there are many others who feel that the change and reform is insignificant and frustrates them. I once saw a saying on a poster which read:

In the short time at my disposal this afternoon I should like to express what I see in the situation prevailing in our country. I should also like to describe how I view the relationship between certain church leaders and the initiatives toward change. First let me talk about the option of violence which is advocated by certain people.

It makes no difference how a person wishes to interpret the sanctions campaign which is being conducted against the country. In my opinion it is and remains a violent onslaught against the economy of our country. I have already said that I wished to discuss the option of violence which is quite frequently propagated by certain church leaders as a possible option to bring about political change in the country. I therefore want to speak chiefly about changes, resistance and violence and the view which I as a South African citizen and Christian have of them.

As a Christian Calvinist I believe that the church and church leaders can never be supporters of the status quo. I do not believe the church is supposed to leave matters as they are at present. As a member of the Reformed Church, I believe that we as reformed people should help to reform the world about us. We must inform the world and the people about us of the truth. Christians who are involved in politics must concern themselves with political reform. Economists must reform the economy and theologians theology, everyone according to the demands and opportunities of the time in which he is living.

As a politician, I want to reject the policy of apartheid and partition in toto. I want to ask the champions of the policy of partition and apartheid whether they are aware of how much pain and suffering they have caused people and how much it has cost South Africa in terms of social injustice to maintain this policy. I want to ask the champions of apartheid and partition whether they really believe that all the injustice which has been caused and is still being caused can really be justified. I also want to ask them whether they really believe that their unjust and dangerous refusal to advance to joint decision-making on a common future is defensible in terms of their concept of White domination.

I want to conclude by quoting from Die Volkstem which was published on 30 August 1905. I shall quote the first verse:

I want to ask the champions of apartheid and partition how long we in South Africa are still to suffer. How long are our sportsmen and sportswomen to be kept out of international meetings? How long are people like the Zola Budds and the Springboks of today to be prevented from pitting their strength against international teams? How long will we have to sit and watch our people being pushed out of all important positions? How long do the champions of apartheid and partition hope to maintain the economy of South Africa at a time when more and more sanctions campaigns are being conducted against us? We should bear the golden rule of realism in mind, namely that no man is an island. South Africa and its people are not islands either. We need one another as fellow builders and fellow citizens. We need to work together to build walls of stability and progress in this country. We need one another. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, permit to compliment the hon member for Southern Free State on his speech. It is a pity, however, that he could not complete it.

Permit me further, Sir, in the same spirit to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment. He is a personal friend of mine and I do not wish to hide the fact that I am proud that we met each other long ago. I want to share a few thoughts with the hon the Minister today.

†Sir, allow me to say at the outset that it is important that every civilised country will have a department or bureau of information. It is an absolute necessity in every civilised Western society. That department’s role is, first of all, to keep its citizens, the local people, informed about Government thinking and about what is happening. However, that role has to be extended. The world at large must be kept informed about what is happening here in South Africa. South Africa is, after all, not an island.

Because the hon the Minister has inherited a department with a stigma, a department which has built up a reputation of being guilty of having spread certain untruths, it has been very difficult for him to sell the facts about what is happening in South Africa successfully. Because of this department’s history, people in the rest of the world have grave suspicions when it comes to the information which is being fed to them via this department.

I said right at the outset that it is important that we have a department such as this. It is also important that we set the record straight.

*If we have always been unacceptable to the outside world, we must make ourselves acceptable. We cannot live alone. It will be the role of this department to put the story clearly outside. Sir, only the truth is required. If we progress—and we are making slow progress—we should say so; we should not present an untrue image.

†Nobody can say that the South Africa in which we live today is the same South Africa which John Vorster sold to the world. We have moved away from that era. However, we also have a leeway to make up to make us totally acceptable outside. That is the role which this department has to play. It has to sell the truth, and keep people informed about the movement towards a South Africa that will be accepted totally by the rest of the world. *If that is the department’s role, the hon the Minister should spell out to this House where we are heading. Sir, as a member of the Cabinet, he must know where we are heading and he is therefore able to do this.

†We have to know this, because we cannot walk in darkness any longer. If we have a role to play here in Parliament, then it is, amongst other things, to see that South Africa’s people are kept informed about where we are heading.

Sir, I am pleased that the hon the Minister referred to the National Council, because now you will not be able to say that I am not dealing with the Vote when I raise this matter. [Interjections.] I want to say that if the National Council Bill were marketable, it would already have been marketed by this department. However, in its present form it is not a marketable commodity. That is why the department has not touched it. We have to take a commodity to the Blacks which will give them hope.

*If we wish to rewrite the Constitution of this country, it is important that Black contributions be made. I want the hon the Minister to convey this to people outside.

†I have no problem with the principle of a National Council, and that can be placed on record. It is necessary to rewrite the Constitution of South Africa. It is totally unacceptable in its present form. We said so at Eshowe and we will continue saying so until we come forward with a model which will accommodate all South Africans. [Interjections.]

*As capable as the hon the Minister and his department are, this message should be conveyed clearly to people. If we really want to institute reform and if we really want to involve Black people in Parliament and decision-making processes, we must say so. If we want to involve only yes-men, we shall not be able to sell the matter.

†This is what we have to say. I am not prejudging the Bill on the National Council. I am not saying that the intention is to bring people here as “Uncle Toms”. That is not what I am saying, but I am saying that we have a duty to sell our intentions to the outside world, so that people can clearly understand our intentions. We will not be able to attract those moderate leaders, people who are in favour of creating a South Africa that is acceptable to all South Africans without using violence.

*There are thousands of those leaders out there. The vast majority of Black people in this country are not violent.

They want a new South Africa and they want to achieve this in a peaceful way. They want to negotiate to this purpose, but then let us say so. We keep people in the dark, however, and we keep the truth under wraps. [Interjections.]

†For this department to operate successfully the Cabinet must give it a product that is marketable to the outside world. First of all, let us start off with intent. We must talk about a bill of rights. We should not only start talking about it; we must also start believing in it. The greatest objection of the outside world is that people’s individuality and their rights have not been protected in the Constitution. Only some people’s rights are protected.

*In March I received an invitation to a meal from the department.

†I was supposed to eat with two very important people from the Comoro Islands. It is no secret that the Comoro Islands are close to my heart because those people are African people and it is necessary for us here in Parliament to keep contact with the rest of Africa. [Interjections.] Here I felt I had an opportunity of speaking to fellow Africans. It is only incidental that the Comoros is a Moslem country and that I am a Moslem. I would also use that opportunity to exchange ideas on a religious basis. However, to me the most important aspect of the meeting was that I saw it as an opportunity of meeting Africans. The invitation, as I understood it, was to meet the vice president of the Comoro Islands and another member of parliament. That invitation was summarily cancelled, not because the people did not come. I have never been informed as to why that invitation has been cancelled.

I want to know why that invitation was cancelled, because those people came to South Africa and I did meet them. It was purely by accident … [Interjections.] I am not interested in what the hon member is saying. It was purely by accident that I met them in the corridors of Parliament. I went to them and then I discovered that this was the vice president of the Comoro Islands. I take exception to this kind of treatment. [Interjections.] I think we should treat each other properly. The manner in which that invitation was handled was despicable, particularly since it was a known fact that I had met these people.

I know that the Comoros is one of the few allies we still have in Africa. We must maintain good relations with the Comoros and establish relations with the rest of Africa. However, we in this House should also be involved, because we are also a part of Parliament. Let us not just get the hidings, let us share in the better things also. When the tough get going, we are there.

*We are not afraid to defend our presence in this Parliament outside. Let us start building at togetherness in this Parliament to which we have come.

†This department has at its disposal the most powerful weapons—television in the first instance and the radio in the second instance. Let those media, however, not be used as the mouthpiece of the NP. Let us use the media, because of their power, as instruments to create a South Africa that all of us can be proud of.

The hon the Minister owes this Chamber—I must use my time to say this—an answer. There is so much speculation inside and outside the country about the sudden disappearance of Mr Eksteen.

*We want to know. Last year when my hon leader was attacked, the media were abused. His resignation from the Cabinet was news and all people did was to furnish South Africa with the news that Rev Hendrickse had resigned. The hon the Minister knows that Network was used to push through the hon the State President’s standpoint.

†We must not—on the backs of the taxpayers—use the media unfairly. I want to believe that Mr Eksteen was a person who wanted to project whatever news there was for what it was worth, especially if the news was really news and was truthful, but he suddenly disappeared from the scene.

*Let us look at the price that we as taxpayers had to pay to get rid of Mr Eksteen, however. The hon the Minister must explain the true situation to us. If there is nothing to hide, he must say so. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all hon members who have participated in the debate. There is one thing I am sure of, and that is that I cannot possibly do justice to all the matters which were raised here and all the questions which were put. I shall do my best to reply to certain questions. Certain hon members, however, put a whole series of questions, each deserving a comprehensive reply, and for that reason I shall perhaps try to pursue certain matters after the debate.

†The hon member for Durban Suburbs has written a note to me saying that he has to leave by 4.15 pm. He apologised to the House, but that means that I will have to deal with his contribution first. However, may I first of all thank those hon members who said some very complimentary things about me, for their kind words. To some extent, of course, that makes my job more difficult, because if people expect so much of me the chances that they may be disillusioned are so much better. I shall do my best not to disappoint them.

*This applies to all hon members, from the hon member for Durban Suburbs to my old friend, the hon member for Toekomsrus.

†The hon member exhorted me to use my talents in such a way that the status quo would not be maintained. I want to make it very clear that the policy of the party to which I belong and of the Government in which I serve is most definitely not to maintain the status quo. The ideals of my party and of the Government are to create a South Africa in which all its people will have a place in the sun and will be able to live with human dignity and enjoy full rights etc. There is no problem as far as our ideals are concerned. I think the ideals that we hold are basically shared by the hon member for Durban Suburbs, the hon member Mr Douw, the hon member for Toekomsrus and many others. If we sat down and expressed our ideals, we would find that there was very little difference between us. The problem in South Africa is how to get from where we are to where we want to be.

There are basically two routes from which to choose. The one route is that of destroying everything and starting from scratch again. Then we must bear in mind, however, that we will have to start where we did 350 years ago. Our whole infrastructure, our economy and so many other things were built up painstakingly over many generations and involved a great deal of toil and sweat. South Africa, as it is today, did not fall out of the sky. If we destroy this through a revolution we must remember that we will have to start again with absolutely nothing. No hon member in this House wants to see that. As a matter of fact that is the very reason why hon members are here. They want to follow a different route.

*The other course is that of reform. Reform means that one begins with what one has and then changes certain things, without in any way being destructive, so as to improve matters. This also means, however, that one is involved in a long and gradual process. It cannot be done overnight.

†If it were possible to change South Africa overnight into a better country I would certainly support such action wholeheartedly.

However, the harsh realities of life are of such a nature that overnight change is simply not possible. Reform is in fact a very labour-intensive process. Reform means changing little things in the society painstakingly until the cumulative effect of such changes is a changed South Africa.

*The hon member for Toekomsrus said very clearly that present-day South Africa is definitely not the same as the South Africa of ten years ago. If one were to regard this in the proper perspective, one would see that in essence South Africa was completely different. Aspirations are completely different to what they were ten years ago. Ten years is a long time in a person’s life, particularly if they still lie in the future. Once ten years have passed, however, it is a very short time. If the ten years still lie ahead of one, this seems to be a very long period, and that is why people get impatient about reform. I include myself in this.

Hon members may have seen the interview with the hon the State President on television on Sunday evening. In reply to a question, “Have we progressed quickly enough?” he said, “No, we have not.” The hon the State President himself would have liked to see more rapid progress. One is, however, tied down by circumstances. If one moved too quickly, problems would also crop up. When one lands up in hospital with pneumonia, the doctor prescribes antibiotics. It is no use, however, drinking the whole bottle of antibiotics in one go, because the medicine would kill one. The same principle applies to reform. If one were to drink too much medicine at one go, it could cause one’s death. [Interjections.]

†Therefore, Sir, I should like to stress that too much too soon is as bad as too little too late. However, this does not detract from the basic fact that we are living together in South Africa.

*An hon member used those words here today. There is no doubt about that. Another hon member blamed the bureau, asking why we did not convey this message. In fact, the message in the Bureau for Information’s song specifically said that all of us in South Africa should work together to build a better future. Unfortunately—and I really do blame the ultra left-wing elements for this—a campaign was launched that scuttled the project involving that song. If it had succeeded, it would have brought the ideal, which hon members and I cherish, closer to fulfilment. It is a great pity that we were not able to carry out that project successfully.

I should just briefly like to broach a few further points.

†The hon member for Durban Suburbs referred to the banning of the Press by the two “Stoffels”. I should like to put it very clearly that restrictions on the Press are administered by the Department of Home Affairs which is not run by myself or the Bureau for Information. [Interjections.] The task of the Bureau is in fact to facilitate the flow of information and this is what we are trying to do. We are at present instituting a new service where news will be made available to the media for distribution.

I should like to ask hon members—I nearly used the word “challenge”, but I want to be positive about this—please to bring to our attention anything in any publication of the bureau which does not conform to the truth. If they wish, they can direct it for my personal attention, because I can say in all sincerity that it is not the task of the bureau to spread inaccuracies.

You should have spelt that out in the advertisement. It was misleading.

We are only human, so that will happen from time to time. It happened the other day when a very prominent newspaper publicised the fact that the bureau had spent R2 billion on publications instead of R2 million. That sort of thing can happen to us as well, and we will correct it. Hon members can be sure that if there is any inaccuracy in any communication published by the bureau, it will be a mistake and not something that was done intentionally.

What we did say, as indeed the hon member quoted, was that the media would do well to decide which side they are on. What we mean by that is that the media have to decide whether they are on the side of peace and the peaceful transformation of South Africa or whether they are on the side of revolution. This is one thing for which I do not apologise, Sir. I am implacably opposed to revolution or violence, because that leads to destruction. It leads to tremendous pain and suffering by people—much more pain and suffering than one can imagine. Therefore, I am implacably opposed to revolution, and even though my natural inclination is for a free Press, for as much freedom of the Press as is possible, I will come down heavily on any publication that promotes revolution. We have only one country and if we destroy it we shall not have another.

The hon member also said that officers of the bureau were cajoled into liaising with all sorts of people. Since I took over responsibility for the Bureau for Information, Sir, nothing like that has happened, and the circumstances that have prevailed in the bureau since I became associated with it ensure that people cannot possibly be forced into doing anything like that. The Bureau for Information does gather information from the population to feed into Government apparatus, but it does not indulge in spying. The information we collect is scientific information. Furthermore, as our people move around it comes to their notice that there is a problem in some or other place, and that information is channelled back to the bureau and thus to the Government. That information, however, is positive information about how people feel.

I shall have to reply rather quickly, Sir. One other aspect to which several hon members referred is the external task of the bureau. The bureau does not have offices overseas. It does not have an information outlet overseas. We have very limited contact with overseas countries in that the Department of Foreign Affairs, which deals with information in the outside world, buys some of our publications to distribute overseas.

Although we deal with the foreign media in South Africa, we do not have offices overseas and we do not project South Africa’s image overseas. That is the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I will have to hurry and I am sorry that I will not be able to answer each and every hon member. The hon member for Ottery asked how much we were spending on the Aids campaign. This again is the terrain of the Department of National Health and Population Development and as far as I know, they have up till now spent some R0,5 million on that campaign. The hon member asked whether we have regional offices in Soweto and Mitchell’s Plain. The answer is no. We would very much like to have the resources to open offices in all the major centres and towns. We have 15 regional offices which are spread around the country.

*We have an office in Johannesburg which serves the entire Witwatersrand, including the East Rand and the West Rand, Soweto, the northern areas, etc. It is a reasonably large office. We have an office in Cape Town which serves the whole of the Cape Peninsula. Unfortunately we do not have enough money or manpower to open more offices in more centres. In fact—and I think this is a point the hon member Mr Douw raised—we are doing a great deal for communication across community boundaries. If the bureau issues publications aimed at specific population groups, the object is not to compartmentalise those population groups, but quite simply to convey a certain message from the Government to those people. We must do so in a specific community context. There is nothing preventing any member of one group from reading a publication aimed at another group. There are probably quite a few Whites who also read The Caret. It is specifically aimed at making provision for communities which otherwise could not be reached in a specific way. The object is definitely not to compartmentalise people. In fact, I hope that we shall shortly be showing a video called Huis, paleis on TV, a video made by the bureau and aimed at depicting, to the general public, the every-day living conditions of Black city dwellers. That is the kind of work we are doing. I shall have to hurry.

The hon member Mr Douw also said that the Defence Force and the Police were symbols of oppression. We regularly conduct opinion polls, and generally speaking that is really not the case. In general the Police and the Defence Force are regarded in a very positive light. There are always differences of opinion, of course and this will differ from one community to the next. I nevertheless want to add that at least 50% of the staff are non-Whites.

Far fewer than 50%.

I was under the impression that it was approximately 50%. Nevertheless a very substantial portion of the Police Force is made up of non-Whites. Over the years non-Whites and Black policemen have begun to occupy more senior positions in the Police to an increasing extent. Here I want to refer to the bureau, because the hon member asked how many people of colour were employed in the bureau.

At present there are 445 Whites in the employ of the bureau, 17 Coloureds, seven Indians and 29 Blacks. The highest post occupied by an Indian is that of Deputy Director, and his salary is approximately R33 000 per year. The highest post occupied by a Coloured, and also a Black, is that of senior public relations officer, at a salary of R25 000 per year. The highest post occupied by a White is, of course, that of head of the bureau.

I should like to point out that the bureau’s employment and promotion policy does not take colour into account at all.

As long as it is White!

I think it was the hon member for Table Bay who said that experience should count more than qualifications. Unfortunately, we cannot simply use our own discretion in this regard. The Commission for Administration prescribes that beyond a certain rank the person who is to be appointed must have a certain qualification. From time to time one persuades the Commission for Administration to make exceptions in certain cases. We will have to look into this matter, but at this stage I can only say that we cannot simply use our own discretion when we want to.

*I should like to give hon members the assurance, however, that when posts are advertised we do not look at the skin colour of the applicant, but at his qualifications and inherent suitability for the specific post. Sir, I am not ashamed to say that. I say it without any reservations.

The hon member for Hawston put a whole series of questions. I do not think that in the brief time that is left it is possible even to start answering those questions properly. I do think, however, that I have already, by implication, answered some of his questions. I shall read his speech in Hansard and see which specific questions I have not answered. I really would like to thank him and other hon members—I am thinking, for example, of the hon members for Southern Free State and Toekomsrus, and in fact all the hon members—for the positive attitude I have witnessed here today.

Sir, the Coloured people play a very specific part in the bureau, and in the future they will play an even more extensive role. I could perhaps just mention here that a valued colleague in the Cape regional office, Mr A Dollie, retired on pension on 1 March 1988. Since 1962 Mr Dollie has been involved in several Government information services. He is well-known to many hon members in this House. One of his numerous positive characteristics was his ability at all times to reconcile the interests of the State with those of the South Africa population. In mentioning him here, we should like to pay tribute to him for the service he rendered.

Hear, hear!

There is another person, Mrs Alathea Jansen, who has also worked for the bureau and will be retiring one of these days. Perhaps she was not as popular with all hon members as Mr Dollie was, but if one examines the situation more closely, one sees that she really did make a very valued contribution to the Bureau for Information. We want to thank her for that.

There is one final aspect that I should like to mention. We all live here in South Africa together. For as long as we try to steal a march on one another, and oppose one another in an effort to climb a bit higher up the ladder, we shall be digging our own graves. Conditions are difficult.

If we would just open our eyes, we would see that we do, in fact, have many things in common. I think we should sit down quietly for once and draw up a list of those positive aspects we have in common, and also a list of those aspects which keep us apart. We must then use those positive aspects as a basis from which to come to grips with the negative aspects.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot take a question, as I have already exceeded the time allocated to me by a few minutes. If the hon member wants to ask her question we will unfortunately have to continue this debate some other time. [Interjections.]

*I think that at this stage we should regard this part of the debate as having been finalised so that I can proceed with the debate on the broadcasting services and the SABC. At the moment the SABC’s officials are right next door because there was not enough room for them in the visitors’ bay. They will be here shortly, but even in their absence I want to say the following. The SABC is a very important organisation in South Africa. Certain hon members have already referred to the SABC. It is a very important organisation. It is a unique mass communications medium. The SABC has had a very difficult time of it during the past year owing to a variety of circumstances. Only this year the problems of the SABC reached a climax when its former Director-General, Mr Eksteen, left the service. That was a traumatic event for the SABC. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member Mr Lockey at once that the former Director-General of the SABC and I were friends. I hope that in these circumstances he will still regard me as a friend. I am fairly certain he will.

I do not think so.

When I took over this portfolio, I told myself that we should see whether it was possible to find a solution to this problem. It was not possible, however. As a result of a whole series of complications over a long period, and a clash in regard to management approaches, a crisis of confidence developed between the board on the one hand and the management of the SABC on the other. This resulted in a lack of mutual confidence between these important components of the management of the organisation. [Interjections.] In those circumstances it was simply no longer possible to continue with that specific set-up. That is why this process was, alas, necessary. We can discuss this matter again at a later stage, however. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Chairman of the Board of the SABC and the acting Director-General and other members of the Management Committee of the SABC. I know them all as dedicated people. The acting Director-General did not apply for that post; he was simply placed in that post. I have great sympathy for him, but I am also very confident that he will keep the banner flying in these circumstances. I therefore want to wish them all everything of the best. We can discuss our differences of opinion about the activities of the SABC, but I just want to say that we must agree that here we are basically dealing with a very fine and valuable institution in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, last year I asked Minister Schlebusch to give TV viewers in Piet Retief their money’s worth—that is TV2, 3 and 4. Although I sympathise with the fact that they were unable to supply these services to them in 1984, I would like to bring the matter to the hon the Minister’s attention. These viewers pay the same price for their TV licences as viewers in the Cape and the whole of South Africa, but they do not receive TV2, 3 and 4. I wonder if we cannot come up with a solution. Perhaps it will be possible for them only to pay half-price for a TV licence for as long as they do not receive TV2, 3 and 4. They work so hard and by the time they come home there are no TV 2 programmes. I was there for three days and I could see this for myself. I could not even listen to the radio. They only receive TV1. I wonder whether housekeepers or housewives have anything to watch or listen to at all. Perhaps the hon the Minister can come up with a solution.

We now have the privilege of seeing more of the Black culture on TV2 and 3. It is most enjoyable and enlightening, but what frustrates me and many other viewers is that we do not have the opportunity of viewing the culture of the Coloured and the Malay people. It is so rich in every aspect. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should also see to it that better and more widely circulated communications reach our people as this gives us an opportunity to form our own opinions, whether negative or positive.

People work till five o’clock and when they come home at six they want to sit and watch TV with their families. However, at that time there are only local programmes and these are terrible. The acting is neither normal nor natural. One can see that these people are paid just to act on TV. There is nothing more to it. How can people enjoy this? Overseas TV offers much more. In the mornings there are special educational programmes about housekeeping, cooking and raising children. There are also many other programmes, for instance about home economy or needlework. These programmes offer viewers the opportunity to see and learn.

Many housewives working at home cannot read or write. Why can the SABC not present programmes like that on the radio and TV? In this way illiterate people can even be shown how to read and write. Illiterate housewives who stay at home and do the housework can be taught the alphabet first of all. After that they can start to read words etc. In this way they will eventually be able to read a newspaper or help their children with their homework.

The media of the SABC are very important, because they keep us up to date with what is happening. Many people from overseas are interviewed by our people. Why can people in the townships not be interviewed? In this way we can see and hear what is happening all over the country. We only want people to see and hear and speak the truth. We do not want anything else.

Now I want to talk about TV interviews and competitions. They give the telephone numbers and ask people to dial straight away, but the moment one picks up the phone it is engaged and stays engaged for ever. I wonder how this is possible. [Interjections.] It happens often. It also bothers me that no Coloured people ever win these competitions. It is mostly Whites who win the big prizes and go overseas. [Interjections.]

I believe that children’s programmes are extremely important because they help the children to educate themselves as they grow. That is why many of our children are educated whereas their parents are not educated. Through children’s programmes we could actually teach the children to educate their parents. I regard that as very important. The SABC could introduce a special programme in which they can teach the children how to go about educating their parents.

The SABC could, for example, give the parents a special telephone number for enquiries about the parents’ programmes. There could also be a special number for those parents who cannot read and write. Of course, the programmes can only be screened for a limited time, and so not all the parents will be able to understand what the programme is all about. In such cases the parents should be able to contact tutors at the special telephone number. This method of tuition is popular in the Middle East; in fact, it is being used throughout the world. Illiterate people have been taught to read and write by means of programmes on TV and on radio. The method has been successful, Sir: Many illiterate people have been taught to read and write. Today, because of the TV and other media, many top businessmen and businesswomen are well-educated. [Interjections.]

The SABC should not be so negative. They think they can just screen any programme for us to sit and watch. Many of our people, however, work very hard during the day and they want to come home and watch something good. After all, that is what they are paying for.

I should also like to ask the hon the Minister to talk to the SABC about screening more movie classics. I am thinking of films like Singing in the Rain, All Mine to Give, High Society and The Fishermen and I believe there is a demand for such films. The people should at least get the opportunity to see what they want to see. After all, they are paying for licences; they are not watching TV for free, so they should at least be given an opportunity to see the movies they want to see. I have had discussions with our people and there are many TV programmes they do not like. Most of them hire video tapes, they say, because there is never anything they want to see on TV1—and that applies to both the English and the Afrikaans programmes. [Interjections.] Then there are those programmes that are presented in both English and in Afrikaans. Presenters should rather speak English or Afrikaans, otherwise the people get confused.

There are also those programmes that I call “Coloured programmes”—programmes in which people taking a role as a Coloureds are shown to be drunk, stealing, breaking into places and under the influence of drugs. [Interjections.] That is certainly not the way of life of our people, nor does that reflect our culture. [Interjections.] Many of our people are very highly educated and highly qualified.

The SABC could encourage people from the different groups to get to know one another. The SABC could encourage parents and neighbours to get to know one another by interviewing them on TV or on radio. They could simply write to the people. Those people pay licences, so the SABC should know how to contact them. Programmes like “How to Know your Neighbour” or “Get to Know One Another” are necessary, because many of us do not even know our neighbours. [Interjections.] Often we do not even know what education our neighbours have or what language they speak. [Interjections.] These hon members are behaving like children, Mr Chairman. They do not know what they are talking about. [Interjections.] This is such an important matter, Mr Chairman, but there are some hon members here who are simply making laughing stocks of themselves. [Interjections.]

Some of us here feel we are educated, but what about the housewives? Many of the housewives in our community do not know how to budget. The husbands come home at the end of the week and give their wives their wages, but then the wives do not know how to use the wages properly. The SABC should invite housewives to appear on programmes and then explain to them how to budget. They can screen a programme in which a woman goes to the supermarket to buy her groceries and then explain the budget as the woman shops. They could explain what she should buy, what she should not buy, how much money she should spend, and how much money she should keep. Many of the housewives have no idea of how to budget for a month or even for a week. [Interjections.]

You should watch TV2.

A lot of our people do not watch TV2 because they are only interested in watching programmes that are presented in the language which they speak. If the SABC wants to present programmes they should present them in the people’s language and not in a foreign language. That is very important.

Mr Chairman, unlike the hon member for Tafelberg, I certainly do not have or know any Coloured culture. Allow me, however, to plunge headlong …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I never mentioned anything about our people having no culture. [Interjections.] Our people have a good and rich culture. It seems to me there is something wrong with the hon member’s hearing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethelsdorp may proceed.

I will not argue with nincompoops, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. [Interjections.]

Allow me to plunge headlong into the debate on the SABC.

In its philosophy, under “personnel”, the SABC states that it strives continuously to be a leading and sought-after employer, which offers competitive conditions of service, relates renumeration and promotion to merit and promotes and applies the knowledge, ability and talent of personnel. This is a philosophy which one can only describe as being worthy of the highest praise. At the same time, Sir, the philosophy gives rise to a number of perplexing thoughts which immediately brings a number of intriguing questions to the fore.

Not very long ago a certain employee of the SABC had bundles of praise heaped upon him. He was acknowledged as a rising star and a competent person. If this was so, and if Mr Riaan Eksteen was such a competent Director-General, why was he dismissed or asked to resign in such an ignominious manner? If he was incompetent, why was he given such a golden handshake for his incompetence? What will his final pay-out be when he has received his pension benefits?

Mr Chairman, allow me a few questions with regard to the presentation of news. What standard is set by the Corporation in presenting news from Parliament for instance? The Labour Party, with the highest number of MPs in opposition, is not treated as the largest opposition party to the NP. When comment is called for, it normally follows in this order, both on TV and radio: NP, CP, PFP and only then comes the LP. Why is this? On whose orders are these comments so arranged?

The SABC prides itself in being non-racial, and this was said in the House this afternoon. However, why does it still have the practice of own affairs in that each racial group employed by the Corporation is employed simply to do the work as it appertains to its house or its community? Only when it is a story of very big dimensions, do the Whites on the staff jump in to project themselves as “kenners” as it were. Where do they gain this knowledge, considering that they always insist on own affairs in each racial group? I ask: Are other people who are not White required to do the spadework on big stories and then brief their White colleagues, who then go on TV and, to a lesser extent, on radio to read and interview those of other races who make up the big stories? We should also like to know what role, if any, the hon the State President plays in the dismissal of persons in the employ of the SABC, and the dissemination of sensitive political news and its final decision to either broadcast or not.

Another thing which irks me is the violent nature of cartoons presented on television. Programmes aimed at junior viewers on “Good Morning South Africa” are of particular concern.

One has only to look at cartoons such as Tom & Jerry, Tweetie Bird or even Laurel & Hardy. They are all about murder, homicide, bashing, maiming, torture and destruction from beginning to end. To think that this inhumanity or beastliness—whatever one wishes to call it—is supposed to be a form of humour! Hon members should view these programmes to experience fully the violence portrayed by these strips.

It is a fact, Sir, that considerable influence is exercised by television on South African society. It is a psychological fact that greater influence will be exerted on the young, immature minds in our society, especially those who are exposed to such compelling viewing. Care should be taken to ensure that the youngsters are not unduly influenced into thinking that all problems can be resolved by the use of violence. They should not be led to believe that this is the attitude that should be the yardstick in their adult lives, for this can be the message and the influence of such programmes.

It would be appreciated if the hon the Minister would have the cartoons shown on this programme monitored as soon as possible. I think that a bit of a clean-up and some toning down would be quite in order.

*It is gratifying to hear that the SABC is aware of what its listeners and viewers expect in respect of the promotion of culture, and that they are beginning to present programmes which are produced in large centres by arts councils. One can only hope that the works of the smaller groups in smaller centres will not be overlooked. In this way one hopes that it will be possible for District Six, the musical, to be enacted in the homes of all South Africans, thus reflecting the Coloured community in its full, rich spectrum.

†By doing this, we shall, in the true spirit and tradition of the SABC, strive to be flexible and responsive to the wishes, needs and preferences of its viewers and listeners.

In conclusion, it is to be hoped that the new financial policy of the SABC will bear fruit and meet with further success so that … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on page 1 of its annual report the SABC talks about “broadcasting at its best”. When, however, I consider how few people of colour are employed by the SABC and how few people of colour participate in its programmes, I cannot but come to the conclusion that the SABC has failed in its mission and its philosophy, and that it has failed to discharge its stated community responsibility. I should like to quote from page 1 of its annual report:

Can one confirm that that is true when one takes into account the part played by people of colour in broadcasting on radio and on SATV? With regard to its philosophy the SABC states that its programmes “respect ethical and community norms”.

Can that be true if one respects and looks at the attitude and participation of people of colour? The SABC says they accept responsibility towards all the different population groups, but is that in fact true when one looks at the number of people of colour in the hierarchy of the SABC? The wonderful advent of TV in South Africa has resulted in almost eclipsing all other media as the greatest communicator and advertising medium in this country. I am perturbed, however, that TV1 reflects the image that South Africa is a White country with First World citizens. TV2 and TV3 reflect a Black South Africa with Third World citizens. I personally do not listen to the radio service which in recent years has undergone a total metamorphosis, because of the various regional broadcasts. Radio has recently, as far as regional broadcasts are concerned, become an entertainment media. People of colour and especially the Coloured sector, need more exposure and participation on prime time SABC TV. Educationally, socially, academically, culturally, as well as on the entertainment scene, more people of colour, other than Blacks and Whites, must be seen and accepted as part and parcel of a total South Africa. Not a single hon member in this House will disagree with me today. We in this House, as leaders and representatives of our various communities and constituencies, have been sorely neglected by the SABC and SABC-TV1 and TV2. There is not a single White personality, sportswoman, sportsperson, White artist or political leader who has not appeared several times on SABC-TV. In my three years as the first opposition leader in this House, beside Messrs Andrews and Mason Mann who came to me from time to time to give me 15 seconds on Spitsberaad, I was not at any time in this important position in this Parliament approached by the SABC, SABC-TV1 or TV2 to appear on any political programme. I discussed this matter with Mr Brand Fourie, as well as Mr Riaan Eksteen, in my office, but not a single person from the SABC, housed in the Marks Building over there, ever approached me for my view as a political leader in Parliament, representing people of colour. This is disgraceful. Last time I attacked the media and the Press for this very same reason. Why can we not appear on TV? Why can a CP leader demand and get prime time to participate in debates on TV so that he can expose and reflect his party’s policy against that of the NP. How many of our leaders have ever appeared on TV to debate and project our viewpoints? We are moderate leaders who are willing to participate in bringing about a South Africa in which there will be a place for all of us. This Chamber is not the kitchen of Parliament, nor is it the backyard of Parliament. We are bona fide members of the official Parliament of this country. However, when it comes to TV news, we are nowhere to be seen. Even the studio audiences at these live shows I believe are picked up from old age homes. When last did we see a Coloured person in a studio audience?

Last year my daughter and I took part in a TV programme. We were flown down to Johannesburg. Most of these live shows are filmed by private companies. The Good Idea Company invited my daughter and me to participate in such a programme.

They made five episodes. After two episodes had been shown—the show was called Rendezvous— and after two White personalities had appeared in it, the remaining three episodes were cancelled. Not a single member of the SABC Board or anyone else had the courtesy to tell me that the show had been cancelled. That is how we are treated. The SABC spends money by paying private companies to make TV programmes in which there are token appearances by people of colour and Coloured leaders. Then the programmes are scrapped if they feel that they are not good enough.

Sir, why is there not a single Coloured continuity announcer or newsreader on SABC-TV1? Nobody in this House or out there can tell me that there is not a single person of colour in South Africa who can be a newsreader, presenter or continuity announcer on SABC-TV1. [Interjections.] There was a time when we had a few, but then there were objections; I suppose from the CP and the verkramptes. Those people were removed. Then, for a week or two, we had a faceless TV. [Interjections.] Now, every person who can present something turns up as a presenter on SABC-TV1, but they are all White. Why cannot we see a Coloured face?

I am not asking for tokenism. I want to see the attitude about which there is so much talk, namely that there are opportunities and that we have a democracy where there is freedom for all, displayed through this medium as well. I do not believe what people are saying, namely that now, in the fourth year of reform, things are opening up for us. In many avenues—I am referring especially to SABC-TV1—people are still as verkramp as ever. I want to see a change in this regard. Because I believed that there would be change I was forced to enter into this process of participation and power-sharing. I believed that the necessary change would be brought about. However, it is not happening at the pace at which I believed it would happen when I entered the tricameral system.

Sir, it may sound as if I live with a chip on my shoulder, but when one takes onto account the great personal sacrifices we have made—the dangers, frustration and rejection which we have had to endure and still endure in our communities—I think we have a right to feel the way I feel today. When it comes to matters relating to the media, we have been neglected, not only as members of Parliament but also as community leaders.

I say again that I am not asking for tokenism or hand-outs. We need to play a part, not only in the administrative section of the SABC. We must accept the fact that the various race groups must live and work together in order to ensure a peaceful South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of being able to enter this debate. I have very little time at my disposal but I should like to bring a few very important matters to the attention of the hon the Minister and his department.

Firstly, I should like to praise the SABC for the religious programmes which are presented on Radio 2000. They are excellent—unsurpassable. I have a problem, however. Why is no time allocated to such programmes on SABC-TV as well? People must not tell me that we do have such programmes.

We have far too few religious programmes on TV1, TV2 and TV3. This concerns me because I think there is something wrong. Black listeners of South Africa are totally neglected on TV2 and TV3. I cannot believe that a man who has worked the entire day and who wants to watch TV when he gets home at night is granted only two hours to view his own culture and events taking place around him. If anyone is proud of his culture, it is the Black people of South Africa. I know what I am talking about as I come from such a situation. Those people would like to see their own affairs; they want to watch their own people. They want to see what progress is being made. They want to view their own culture and music. Hon members could well go and listen to the Black people at their music festivals. Black people want to see these things and where are they better able to do so than on TV when they get home at night? Now they are granted only two hours to view their own culture, music, the development of Black residential areas and matters which are important to them.

Let us look at sports coverage on television. On Sunday afternoons TV2 and TV3 viewing time is used to televise the Grand Prix in Mexico, overseas soccer and tennis, whereas Blacks want to watch their own people. They want to watch Kaiser Chiefs and Orlando Pirates; they want to watch their own Black players; they want to see how they are progressing. They want to view the South African situation and how this situation is changing and developing and they want to see the role that Blacks are playing in this. They are not interested in other matters because they do not have enough money to take part in the Grand Prix in any case. They do not have the money to purchase those vehicles. They are not interested in this; they are interested in their own affairs. [Interjections.]

Hon members know that there are three soccer associations in South Africa today. Only the National Soccer League, the NSL, features prominently in telecasts, however. Why does the old NPSL receive no news coverage? They have so frequently knocked at the door of the SABC for TV coverage but they are simply ignored. The same applies to the soccer federation. Surely they also pay TV licences; they also have the right to appear on TV. They should also have the opportunity of appearing on TV so that pride in their achievements may be stimulated among them.

I do not want to voice complaints only, but recently remarkably few of our people have been seen on TV news. We in this House receive little coverage. We should be pleased to receive more coverage because we are also selling our policy to the South African viewer. We want to tell viewers how we see South Africa. Viewers should know what is happening in this House; they should know what is being done and said here; they should also take note of the alternative. I believe that it is high time for us to do something about this. TV2 and TV3 transmissions are not televised across the Orange River.

Just across the river, in the direction of De Aar, people hear what is going on in the world on SABC-TV2, 3 and 4. Nevertheless these people pay just as much for their licences as we do. Is it not high time that those people were reached now as well? Otherwise we should halve their TV fees until such time as they are also linked up to civilisation.

I spoke about the socio-economic development among the Black peoples of South Africa. So little is shown to people on TV about these matters; people do not know about them. I believe a huge service was held on Sunday at Lawaaikamp, near the hon the State President’s town, where there was to be a protest against the enforced relocation of the people of Lawaaikamp. Let us show people the realities of South Africa. Let us show people on TV what Lawaaikamp looks like at present and how ugly it is there. Then we can show people the alternative; let us emphasise the alternative. Let us show people the new area to which they may go. It should not merely be a news flash during a programme; the alternative should be shown systematically. We should show what is being done not only in connection with Lawaaikamp, but also in Botshabelo and Old Crossroads. Improvements are being brought about and we should sell these things to the world. Too little is being done to sell true changes and improvements, the true reform in South Africa, to the world. It is time for this to be done because then people will talk less and less and will know that people are being relocated in an orderly fashion from a place where disease would gain the upper hand to a place where their lives are being uplifted so as to enable them to fit into the South Africa of tomorrow.

Sir, you and I are under way to the new South Africa. We are under way to the ideal state to which we are all looking forward so eagerly and we shall have to take the people with us along this road. We shall have to reach every person in his inner room where he is watching TV and lead him out of the situation in which he is enmeshed because of circumstances which have prevailed in this country up to the present. We must take him with us step by step on the road to reform. We must take him from the familiar place where he is to the new place where he would like to be one day. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate.

†I am against monopolies. We know what kind of problems monopolies can cause. The SABC unfortunately has an absolute monopoly over the visual media in the sense that M-Net—the only other form of visual media in this country—is not permitted to present the news in this country. If those are the principles, then the obvious extension of those principles is that all other media will also be controlled. This causes great concern. Before the hon the Minister replies to me and says that the news media are the other Botha’s problem, I want to tell hon members a joke about the Bothas.

When the last census was taken in this country it was discovered there was an imbalance in respect of surnames. There are large numbers of Jacobs, Bothas, Van Zyls, etc, whereas there are but a few people with the surname of Swart, which is a name revered in the country because it was the name of the first State President. People by that surname are on the decrease. Those people then decided to ask people to change their surnames to Swart, but the problem was whom to talk to. They decided that the State President, who is one of very many Bothas, might be interested in changing his surname to Swart. They spoke to him and his reply was: “P W Botha of P W Swart maak nie vir my veel verskil nie; dit kan maar verander word.”

*Minister Stoffel Botha said the same thing. Stoffel Swart sounded rather good to him. The problem arose when they got to Pik Botha. His reaction was: “No, wait a minute, that does not sound right to me.” [Interjections.] That is the message that we want to convey here. Colour should not matter.

†I want to return to the monopoly. We must allow competition because if the policy of this Government is privatisation—they want to sell the railways, Eskom, Sasol, etc—the SABC should also be privatised. One never hears that, however. Is it because of the power of the SABC? Is it because the SABC is at the disposal of those who govern and those with the ambition—I have nothing against ambition—to remain in power by using this powerful medium? Then I say it will be an excellent idea to privatise the SABC as well.

Let us look at our own situation. At the moment we are fighting two by-elections for this House. However, no mention whatsoever has been made of these elections by the SABC.

*Surely it is just as important that one hear and read about the elections in those constituencies too.

†More about it should also be heard on the radio and I am not calling for colouredness to be expounded on the TV and the radio. What I am saying is that all people should be given their due.

The programme Monitor gives a fair overview of events in Parliament every morning. We appreciate that because most of my constituents are poor and do not have television sets. However, we are their representatives and we care about them. They listen to their R19 radios and they have the right to know what role their representatives in Parliament are playing.

*The part played by the so-called Coloured Parliamentarians is significantly absent on radio and television. I am not appealing only because of my image, but because of the image of the entire system. If we want to show people that the system is working, we must portray this to them. We must show them what kind of progress is being made in this Parliament.

†That is why I am asking for more time to project what is happening here in Parliament. The hon the Minister may be surprised at the interest that the people in the poorer rural areas take in what is happening here in Parliament. I think we owe it to them.

*Sir, now I must talk about the things that do not appear on television. I may differ with the hon member concerning the new way in which sport is broadcast.

†If television has made any progress, it is in the importance they have given to sport. We know how important sport is in any society. It is vital that the importance of sport should be projected. Whilst we are being isolated, it is important for the local people to be kept informed about what is happening on the international scene. It is unfortunate that we have to pay the price of not seeing the Zola Budds—people with real national and international talent—in international competition. We cannot project that kind of participation. However, this is the price we are paying for the philosophy of those who are governing us. It is a sad day when a swimmer with potential has to advertise for a wife in the news media simply because he has ambition to share his talents with the outside world.

*A person who feels he has enough talent to take part in the Olympic Games, a healthy and handsome young man, has to pay the price by taking the citizenship of another country.

†Sir, this is the type of thing that we have to project. It should be honest projection. In projecting sport, we also have to project the truth of what is happening outside.

*I do not approve of what the world has done to Zola Budd, because she is not only an Afrikaner; she is a South African as we are, and we were just as upset as other people in the country when she was treated in that way. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this incident.

†That is what we are asking SABC-TV to project to the South African viewers. We are tired of paying the price for NP philosophy. South Africa is tired of paying that price.

*If progress is to be made in the country and if we want to make the country acceptable to the rest of the world, we must start working at reform. We cannot afford the luxury of being isolated. The people on management level at the SABC, who have my sympathy, can tell one what kind of problems they have to contend with in creating a reasonable image to the general public. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to hon members’ opinions of the SABC. I want to start immediately on a subject which I have already addressed and which came in for discussion again, namely the matter relating to the previous Director-General. I do not want to make a song and dance of this, but I do want to say a few things. When one comes across a situation such as existed at the SABC, in which a lack of confidence had arisen, such an organisation may be damaged enormously. That is why it is fairly common practice—in the private sector too—to terminate a person’s services under such circumstances and, depending on the circumstances, to pay him a specific amount in compensation.

But why only one victim?

Sir, I shall deal with that. [Interjections.]

It depends on the circumstances. If one catches a specific person with his fingers in the till, one dismisses him summarily. If the person has given good service, however, but service which does not serve the purpose—although he works hard and is a capable person, this simply will not do—one has to make a change for the good of the organisation. If one also wants to be fair towards the person, however, one cannot simply dismiss him and put an end to it. One also has to think about the man who in this case is midway through his working life and holds a very senior position. He cannot go back to where he came from and he cannot simply walk into a similar job. It will probably take quite a while before such a person finds employment again. He will probably also find employment at a lower level than he had before. This is the reason behind the idea to pay him five years’ basic salary. These are not allowances because, after all, allowances compensate him for expenses which he incurs while he is doing the work.

The hon member also asked what else he was getting and what his pension was like. His pension is a simple matter in that when he reaches retirement age he will receive a proportional pension. I think he is entitled to a quarter of his pension when he retires. That is the whole story. If one treats such a person unfairly, he may argue that, however patriotic he may be, he cannot permit himself to be treated so badly and will go to court. One then has to explain in court why one dismissed that person. This leads to allegations and counter-allegations and the court case can drag on for more than a year. Meanwhile a great deal of money is paid to advocates and eventually it may cost one even more, plus a great deal of pain and unpleasantness.

I see the courts are not fond of the Government. [Interjections.]

No, of course not.

That is why one has to review such a situation and ask oneself what is fairest under the circumstances.

There are two more points I want to mention about this matter. It is not true that he was paid hush money; no agreement was entered into with him in terms of which he is not allowed to say anything. There are certain staff regulations, however, which read that if a person leaves the service of the SABC, regardless of whether he retires, resigns or whatever, he is expected to keep quiet about certain matters of a confidential nature. This applies to everybody and is an old rule which has been in existence for a long time. It obviously applies to Mr Eksteen as well, but that is all.

The other point deals with the question of what part the hon the State President played in the dismissal. Hon members will recall that the hon member for Randburg insinuated in the debate on the State President’s Vote in the House of Assembly that Mr Eksteen had been dismissed at the insistence of the hon the State President.

The hon the State President then said that if that was what the hon member alleged, he should request a joint select committee of inquiry to investigate the allegations because, if they were true, this would come down to an irregularity. All of us, including me, respect the hon member for Randburg; he is also a friend of many of us. This hon member withdrew his allegations, however, because he did not have sufficient grounds to insist on an inquiry.

I think this should provide an indication to us of the true state of affairs. What is more—I am saying this to the credit of the hon member for Randburg—the hon member said immediately afterwards that he was withdrawing the allegation. Yesterday he again rose in the House of Assembly, referred to this and said he was withdrawing his allegation. We all respect this hon member and I think we should accept that evaluation of the matter. When I took over the portfolio, I also investigated the matter because I wanted to ascertain the facts. I could not find any trace of such interference, however. I hope that hon members will accept my explanation as such. Let us look to the future, at what we can make of the SABC to be something which can provide a great service to all of us and to South Africa in general.

†I want to refer to the hon member for Tafelberg. This hon member made a lot of suggestions as to how certain things can be improved. I am not a programmer and it is not for me to respond intelligently to those suggestions. The SABC, has, however, taken note of her suggestions and I am pretty sure that they will give consideration to the hon member’s proposals. I just want to make a few comments.

As far as licence fees are concerned for people who fall within or without the range of TV4, the position is that TV4 is actually a bonus for those who do receive it, in the sense that TV4, since its inception, was supposed to pay its own way. This means that people pay basically for TV1, but that TV4 is a bonus. TV4 is run purely on a commercial basis. Therefore, in some of the outlying areas it is not commercially viable to supply TV4, unless all of us are prepared to pay a lot more in order to extend TV4 to a very small portion of the population. I know it is not a very satisfactory situation.

*Unfortunately we are faced with the problem that it is cheap to provide certain services in places where there is a large concentration of people. In this way it costs only 14 cents per listener per annum to support a transmitter in the Johannesburg area where we have a huge concentration of listeners. To supply the same service in an extensive rural area costs almost R37 per listener per annum, almost 200 times as much as in an urban area. This means that we shall have to pay much more for our TV and radio services if we want to furnish all people with all the services. It is true that in the present situation there are certain essential services which can be afforded only with difficulty. Nevertheless we shall definitely have to think about reviewing the matter in future.

At present, licences provide only approximately 30% of SABC income whereas the remaining 70% comes from advertising fees. It is dangerous for an organisation to be so dependent on advertising fees, however, because this eventually forces it to act in accordance with the wishes of advertisers. We shall therefore have to revise that proportion at some future time.

†With regard to the educational programmes which the hon member mentioned, I should like to say that the SABC has informal and non-formal educational programmes which are directed, according to research, towards the needs of the population. The more formal educational programmes are supposed to be the responsibility of another department. In other words, the SABC makes its channels available. Unfortunately, so far the money available for formal education has been taxed so heavily that such programmes have not yet been presented on television. However, we will not leave it at that. We will pursue the matter again so as to introduce more formal education, such as literary programmes, on television.

I can assure the hon member that I am pretty sure that it cannot be totally correct that only Whites win competitions. If that is the case, then it is purely by chance, because I really do not know how they will be able to distinguish between a White Van der Merwe and a Brown Van der Merwe in such a competition! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Bethelsdorp spoke about the violent nature of cartoons.

†As far as other programmes are concerned, the SABC has implemented a programme whereby violence is drastically eliminated. There has been a significant reduction in the occurrence of violence in the normal programmes. However, when one gets to cartoons, everyone knows that one has to do with something which is not real.

*Sir, if one examines old fairy tales like “Red Riding Hood”, one finds that these things are actually very violent indeed.

Yes.

Yes, like “The Seven Bears”!

It seems to me that it is just part of a type of children’s world. The child is taught to some degree to live with the violence which occurs in the world—by living with it in the fairy tale world. I therefore think one should rather compare these cartoons with the fairy tale world than with the real world. The SABC has not received many complaints in this regard yet. If it becomes a general occurrence that there are complaints about violence in cartoons, the SABC will look into the matter, but I do not think that one will no longer have cartoons in such a case.

Too few people recognise this!

I do not know of a cartoon in which the chaps do not go for one another at some stage or other!

†As regards drama, the hon member referred specifically to the musical District Six. I have been informed by the SABC that they tried to obtain the television rights on the musical, but that they were not available. [Interjections.]

That cannot be true.

Fair enough; we can try again. [Interjections.]

*The hon member Mr Douw spoke earlier about the lack of coverage as regards by-elections. It is true that there is less coverage of by-elections, but there are obviously various reasons for this. Of course, public meetings are not held much. [Interjections.] This is what I have been told. The argument which is put forward is that no really sensational public meetings take place. On the other hand, the SABC is not informed of important events in good time. Nevertheless planning was already afoot before today’s debate to give the actions of leading figures in the constituencies concerned both TV and radio coverage before Wednesday’s voting. I do not know, however, where this will take place.

†The hon member for Ottery had a lot of complaints about the SABC. The SABC on the one hand says that they also experience difficulties with Coloured people in the sense that Coloureds very often refuse to take part in certain programmes, for instance magazine programmes and so forth. The problem therefore seems to be that the people who are approached are unwilling to participate and that those who are willing to participate are not approached. [Interjections.] That seems to be the problem.

It was said that Coloureds and Indians were not treated as separate cultural units on TV; they are in fact treated as either Afrikaans or English speaking people, apart from the fact that they form certain subgroups and therefore one would like to give publicity to certain elements. The complaint, however, is that they are not treated as separate population groups. It was said that specific problems were experienced because some members of the Coloured group were not willing to appear on TV programmes. However, the various TV programme categories presented the following Coloured contributions: Coloureds played important parts in four drama series which were filmed during the past year, namely Two Weeks in Paradise, Hannibal se Toere and Arende. As regards religious programmes, Coloured contributions and ministers were seen regularly in Lifestyle, Thy Kingdom Come, Built for Life, Met Woord en Lied, Kompas, Oordenking and Kruis en Kroniek.

*Arising from this, I also want to respond to the hon member for Southern Free State. He said that there were too few religious programmes on TV. [Interjections.] We should be very grateful for the way in which the SABC deals with its religious programmes. The prominent role played by religious broadcasts emerges from the SABC annual report. I am referring to SABC programmes in general now. Approximately 14 620 religious programmes were broadcast over all SABC services within a year.

I want to say that one may be very grateful that the SABC actually does so much. I would be prepared at any time to concede to hon members that one could certainly do more with this. One has to be careful, however, not to overdo the matter, because then one alienates one’s viewers. It therefore has to be done in a balanced way. An assurance that we have been given is that the SABC has established a special directorate to see to the arrangement and scheduling of religious programmes. Radio Kansel on Radio 2000 is broadcast by a private organisation which hires time from the SABC to do this and I think they deserve our support. It is there for people to listen to. As regards television, this is a very delicate matter. One should obviously express one’s opinion on this, but we do have the assurance that it is watched meticulously.

†This brings me back to magazine programmes featuring interesting events and people on a planned and organised basis, such as Uit en Tuis, Potpourri, Graffiti, Silhouette and Collage. It was not always possible to have at least one contribution per programme per week, because of the unwillingness of people in the Coloured community. As regards music and variety programmes, Coloured artists appeared regularly in light music programmes such as Met Liefde Van, No Jacket Required, Symphony Rock and Take a Break. Coloureds appeared on a planned basis in Cosi Fan Tuti, Spies en Plessie and Slimsê. In other words there is a consciousness of the need to introduce Coloured people to the programmes. The same applies to educational and children’s programmes.

*If one takes another look at the current appearances of Coloured faces on TV and one compares this with the situation as it was five or ten years ago, one notes an appreciable increase which may be attributed to an effort to encourage this. As regards employment of Coloured people, the SABC also keeps a totally open mind. There are 5 768 members of staff in service, of whom 4 000 are Whites, 100 Coloureds, 39 Asians and 1 500 Blacks. [Interjections.] That is true; there are 4 000 Whites. Obviously there is no discrimination in conditions of service and, except for certain posts for the semiskilled, Coloureds and Asians also hold numerous posts for highly skilled persons such as those of announcers in radio programmes, journalists in news services, as well as technicians and operators in the technical division. Large-scale employment of those of colour is hampered by the availability of vacant posts. There is a lack of candidates of colour for the limited number of specialised vacancies which are advertised from time to time. Of course, the problem is that the SABC staff is shrinking and is not being enlarged. Under such circumstances vacancies which have to be advertised usually arise only in highly specialised directions. One may repeat, however, that there is no discrimination in the employment policy. As regards the SABC news service—I think the hon member for Bethelsdorp referred to this too—the SABC is proud that, in comparison with other media, it has the largest number of people of colour on its political editorial staff.

There are two members from the Coloured group and one from the Indian group. The only Indian member of the Press Gallery Association works for the SABC. Then there are two Black members as well. These are the first and the only two Black reporters which report on Parliamentary proceedings. The SABC gives a categorical assurance that non-White members of its political editorial staff are not used exclusively for the population group of which they are members. Their duties cover the entire political spectrum and not only own affairs. Nevertheless there is an obvious preference for using those people to report on their own people’s affairs, because they probably understand them better. This is not done exclusively, however.

†We do not have continuity announcers any longer, and I feel somewhat sad about that because they used to be very nice girls.

*The hon member for Southern Free State asked for more religious programmes. He also said there were too few cultural programmes on TV2 and TV3. He also requested TV coverage of Black soccer. These are all suggestions to which attention can be paid. The hon member also referred to Lawaaikamp. There has been television coverage of Lawaaikamp; the hon member was probably too busy with his political career at the time and consequently missed the programme. Last night there was also a programme which dealt with another Black town. According to our schedule, this type of programme will be televised on a regular basis. It has a twofold purpose, namely to show one group of people how the other group lives. The picture of different communities is sketched on TV so that people may get acquainted with one another in this way. On the other hand, it is aimed at showing that progress is being made and that things are getting done. I want to thank the hon member for his positive attitude in this regard.

Hon members know that a great deal has been done in the country to upgrade people’s living conditions. After all, this is an enormously important facet of reform. Reform is not only giving the vote to people so that they can vote about the misery in which they are living, but to help them rise from the misery so that they may have the vote about something which is worthwhile. Economic and social reform, together with political reform, comprise part of the Government’s reform programme. One cannot omit one of the three legs because that would cripple the programme and it would not succeed. We have to be careful about this.

Events which are currently taking place in South Africa with a bearing on reform are being broadcast increasingly by the SABC. I am very grateful for this because it contributes to a better understanding of South African conditions.

The hon member for Toekomsrus spoke about the fact that the SABC had a monopoly regarding news services. Unfortunately the hon member is not in the House now. This is a very complex subject. [Interjections.] Is he on television now? That is possible. Unfortunately one cannot discuss everything. I think one should account for oneself, however, after there has been discussion on everything which is wrong, and make proposals on how to rectify matters. I see the hon member for Toekomsrus is sitting here.

I shall investigate the matter of the monopoly of news services and get back to the hon member. My time has practically expired. I want to add that after we have finished talking about everything which worries us, there are many splendid things happening in South Africa too. Various hon members referred to them today and I want to thank them for this. I think we should take note of this.

The second aspect we should bear in mind is that we are all human. We all have our limitations and our own problems. We must have a little patience with one another and, when I say with one another, I really mean with one another. There are so many matters in this country which have the potential to come between us in a most disruptive manner if we permit them to do so. If we were to permit this to happen, the country would go up in flames as no other country in history has ever done. We can use those same differences between us, however—if our approach is positive, with the necessary consideration for the other person, with the necessary patience and love of one’s fellow men—to generate an ultimately greater power in South Africa than would have been the case otherwise. This is why I want to thank hon members for the reception I have had in this House today. I have listened to all the problems. We shall definitely be able to pursue the discussion on other occasions. I do not know whether I shall be here again next year; it may be somebody else. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister did not reply to my request to allocate more time to our people on TV2 and TV3 and I want to ask him what the position is.

Sir, the hon member has referred to a very complex problem. I undertake to reply within the foreseeable future. I shall analyse the situation and get back to the hon member.

We must continue to have discussions with one another. I really hope that if we discuss the same subject next year, we shall have progressed a few steps toward the creation of a better South Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister to comment on the order of comment I mentioned in my speech?

Sir, this is a question I cannot react to immediately. The House of Assembly is the largest House. One also has the parties of one House and maybe that is the philosophy. This is something that can be reviewed. I cannot see why not.

Debate concluded.

Order! Mr Speaker has requested me to place the following ruling on record.

In view of the fact that there is uncertainty about the speaking times of a Deputy Minister during a debate and about Standing Rules 89 and 90, I wish to give the following ruling in order to bring about uniformity in the three Houses:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the draft resolution which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

*Mr Chairman, I gave careful consideration to and spoke to many other people about the draft resolution before us today.

†I shall rather come back to English. [Interjections.] Are hon members satisfied? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not pay attention to other hon members. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon members here do not understand Afrikaans and they want me to speak English, but I shall speak Afrikaans at times too.

We understand Afrikaans, you may speak Afrikaans! [Interjections.]

Just as long as hon members understand. [Interjections.]

What do you think? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, after reading in the newspapers about what is happening here in the House of Delegates and having thought about it and studied the Debates of the House of Delegates regarding the Ministers’ Council, it gives one food for thought that we are sitting and discussing all these problems here in Parliament today but at the same time we are not doing anything positive about them. I think it is high time we in the House of Delegates took the bull by the horns …

And did what the people want us to do. [Interjections.]

… and satisfied the people. [Interjections.] At the same time, however, there are some hon members here who do not have the strength to take the bull by the horns. [Interjections.]

*Let me put it this way, Mr Chairman. We have a motion of no confidence in every debate!

Speak for yourself, man; do not speak for this House!

I have a book here …

You have no confidence in yourself!

I have it right here. Here it is. [Interjections.] I am referring to any hon member of this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member has no right to tell me that. Who does he think he is? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to request hon members not to interrupt the hon member for Lenasia East. If any one wishes to put a question or raise a point of order, the hon member who wishes to do so must rise and address the Chair. The hon member for Lenasia East may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I have here a book, namely the Debates of Parliament. Various names are contained in it.

Who gave you the names? [Interjections.]

They are in the book. It is surprising when people move a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. During the last debate we had various motions concerning the Ministers’ Council, but at the same time how can we separate the two from each other? Can we do that? [Interjections.] I know what cannot …

Yes, one can. Do you know the law?

I know the hon member is a lawyer. That is why he is sitting here instead of working out there. He should go and do his job outside. [Interjections.] Do not come and tell me what the law is. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am speaking to the motion, Mr Chairman, and I maintain that if one has … [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. They are trying to waste my time. I would have done that gladly but the hon member knows he is wasting my time. He knows very well that I only have five minutes. Those five minutes will be wasted.

What about the community?

I have always been in touch with my community. I have always done that. As I stand here today, I am an honest man. No man has ever been able to point a finger at me. [Interjections.] However, I can say this for the hon member …

Do not point fingers at me.

Well, then do not point fingers at me either. The hon member is in no way better. He is a carbon copy of everybody else. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon member is and because he is like that, he believes somebody else will be the same as he is himself. Therefore, do not call people names.

I am speaking to the motion. When one comes to move a motion of no confidence, one should consider what confidence there is available in the House. Now some hon member is trying to tell me to go back to the people. Why does everybody else not go back to their people? They should have gone back. I stand here, speaking on behalf of my people. [Interjections.] I maintain …

[Inaudible.]

And you are a nominated man. [Interjections.]

I have spoken to my people and I have consulted them and I believe it is high time for this rubbish that goes on around here to be thrown out of this House. We are not here to look after ourselves. We came here for stability. Now look what is happening! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the last speaker said that he had not even started and he ran out of time. I do not want that to happen to me. [Interjections.] This motion, as moved by the hon member for Lenasia East …

They did not have the guts to let me speak.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Lenasia East made a statement here, saying that “they have not got the guts”. He referred to hon members of our House. I contend that that is unparliamentary, Sir.

Order! Did the hon member for Lenasia East say that members do not have the guts?

Yes, he did.

I did not say “members”, Sir. I deny that and he can stand up and take an oath to the contrary. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say that a member did not have the guts?

I did not say “a member” either, Mr Chairman. I am sorry, but I did not. [Interjections.]

Order! I accept the hon member’s explanation. He may resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, he did say so. He said “they”.

Order! The hon member denies having said so and I accept his explanation. [Interjections.] Order! Did the hon member for Camperdown just say that the hon member for Lenasia East is a liar?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark unconditionally.

I withdraw those words unconditionally, Sir. That hon member still does not speak the truth, though. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I object to what the hon member has just said.

*May I put one question to you, Mr Chairman? If a man has not got any grey matter in his head, what can one do with him?

Order! The hon member must resume his seat. The hon member for South Natal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the draft resolution printed on the Order Paper was moved by the hon member who is, from what I understand, a member of the PIP. What I cannot comprehend is that no hon member of the NPP took it upon himself to move this. I do not know what that means, but I leave it at that.

I want to make it very clear, on behalf of my party, that it was never our intention to move a vote of no confidence in all hon Ministers. This was specifically mentioned by the hon member for Reservoir Hills yesterday when he read out the intention of this House. Unfortunately, the interpretation in terms of the Constitution states otherwise. Therefore, it is our intention to make it very clear that the motion moved on 20 May 1988 was specifically aimed against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We do not have anything against any person, but the position of an incumbent or how he exercises his powers in that position. That being the most important issue, we definitely have confidence in all the other hon Ministers and therefore the motion was moved as it appears on the Order Paper.

Because of the interpretation, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Be that as it may, we from the Solidarity Party do not see our way clear to support the motion. Therefore we will not be supporting the motion. However, we understand the predicament and we believe that this has to be done to save a certain situation. We have no objection to that. However, we cannot support this motion as it stands.

Mr Chairman, we from the PFP neither see any predicament, nor do we understand the illusory predicament in which the hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council apparently find themselves. It is a predicament created out of their own fears—not physical fears—that they might lose the position they occupy in the coaches of the gravy-train. It seems to indicate that their support of the resolution of this House on 20 May 1988 was not based on any principle or policy and it did not result from any deep-seated honesty or a feeling of integrity, but it was intended merely to rearrange the coaches of the gravy-train.

We find it abhorrent that simply because the hon the State President, in a devious and misleading manner, threatened these people that their positions might be imperiled …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can the word “devious” be attributed to the hon the State President?

Order! Did the hon member for Reservoir Hills say that the hon the State President acted deviously?

Mr Chairman, I certainly said that the hon the State President acted in a devious and misleading manner. Devious is a perfectly proper English word. If the hon member Mr Nowbath wants to become the protector of the hon the State President, he is entitled to do so.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, this House was created in terms of Act 110 of 1983. The various Ministers were appointed under that Act. One of them was designated as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The hon Ministers together make up the Ministers’ Council and they were appointed in terms of section 24 of Act 110 of 1983. The Ministers were appointed first and then one of the hon Ministers was designated as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in terms of section 21(2) of Act 110 of 1983. Obviously, the hon member Mr Nowbath did not read this. If he read it, he did not understand it.

It is manifest that any suggestion that the hon the Ministers take office from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, is not only incorrect, it is absolute nonsense! It is in the Westminster tradition that the Queen or sovereign calls upon the leader of the majority party to form a government. The leader then nominates his cabinet. In this case, the Cabinet was formed first, and then the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was designated. This is why I say the hon the State President was devious. This is why I say he deliberately misled hon members of the Ministers’ Council. This is why I am ashamed that the hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council permitted themselves to be misled by the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said the hon the State President deliberately misled the hon members of the Ministers’ Council.

Order! I would like to look at the hon member’s speech in Hansard. I am not perfectly satisfied with the context in which the hon member has used certain expressions. I will look at the Hansard and give a ruling later.

Clearly the resolution of 20 May 1988 expressed no confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There was not a tittle of suggestion in that resolution that there was no confidence in the hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council. If it is true that that assertion was made, and if the hon the State President did not deliberately mislead the hon Ministers, he was wrongly advised by legal experts. We know that legal experts have often made mistakes in giving advice to the Government. We know that numerous Supreme Court decisions have overturned decisions taken by Government. Only recently the hon the Minister of National Education took on the universities. Obviously he would not have done that irresponsibly. Obviously he acted on legal advice. Obviously that legal advice was wrong, as the Supreme Court in two different provinces in this country has demonstrated.

It is understandable that the hon the State President will give the best support … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Ministers’ Council is a body and an institution provided for in the Constitution Act. It also enjoys our support under protest. In principle we believe that the own affairs administration should not have been created. Housing is a national issue and must be addressed nationally, as is health, because one does not have bugs created by Almighty God for a specific race group. Such bugs will bug anyone, irrespective of colour or creed.

They go after the Whites, too!

I am merely using these graphic examples to show that there is no such thing as an own affair. There was only an own affair between Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keyes! [Interjections.] Hon members will remember that after the baby was born, it was everybody’s affair! Likewise, more than ever, we chose to come into this tricameral Parliament, knowing full well what the limitations were. We chose to participate in an own affairs administration, because there was no other alternative at that stage. I must stress that we are committed to our work in Parliament as far as own affairs are perceived by the NP.

Under these circumstances I, as leader of the National Peoples Party of South Africa, have three hon Ministers and an hon Deputy Minister in the Ministers’ Council. We, myself and my party, have full confidence in these hon Ministers and therefore the Ministers’ Council as such.

The motion of 20 May 1988 was negatived. The hon the State President obviously interpreted it to mean that this House moved a vote of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council.

I say it is not so, because we will not be a party to any draft resolution of no confidence in the hon Ministers and the hon Deputy Minister who are hon members of my party. None of those hon Ministers will be a party to a draft resolution of no confidence in themselves. We have the fullest confidence in them. [Interjections.] I have full confidence in the hon Ministers. [Interjections.]

At this stage I would like to reiterate that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should consider the events of the past few weeks in the light of what a democratic system requires of a person. I am not going to elaborate on this, except to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should still reconsider his own position in the Ministers’ Council. I want to reiterate that my party has full confidence in the hon Ministers and the hon Deputy Minister who are members of this party. Because they form part of the Ministers’ Council and cannot be divorced from it we have full confidence in the Ministers’ Council. I therefore support this draft resolution.

Mr Chairman, …

Umfaan!

Mr Chairman, I take strong exception to an hon member in the opposite benches calling me “Umfaan.” [Interjections.]

Order! Did any hon member call the hon member for Lenasia Central an “Umfaan”? [Interjections.] Unfortunately no hon member is owning up. Can the hon member for Lenasia Central tell me which hon member he is referring to?

Mr Chairman, I do not want to pursue the matter any further.

Order! Then the hon member must proceed. I want to request hon members not to call other hon members “Umfaan”. [Interjections.]

It was a compliment!

I take it in that spirit. The parliament of any country is considered sacred and should be respected as such along with its traditions.

You are the first one to make a mockery of it. You are the first one to break the rules.

I do not want to respond to that hon member. When I responded to him last week, he was annoyed with me and he said that for the rest of his life he would never forgive me. I therefore do not want to respond to him again. [Interjections.] Parliament is sacred along with its conventions. I said it last week and I want to say it again.

Did you say Parliament is sacred?

Yes, it should be considered sacred.

Do you know the meaning of the word? [Interjections.]

Hon members in the opposition benches want to waste my time and I fully realise it. However, we have a duty to perform to our communities and we have to set an example to the communities outside who watch our performance in this Chamber. I have said before that we must have dignity and honour and we must attach value to Parliament.

Are you implying that we do not have dignity here?

The draft resolution before us must be viewed in the light of what I have just said. Parliament is the highest debating Chamber of this country. Everybody looks to Parliament for direction because it represents the legislative process of the country. The community judges us by these standards.

In order to have some stability and to normalise the situation it is essential that every hon member in this House supports the draft resolution before us.

I personally have not criticised any hon Minister now or in the past. I have confidence in the entire Ministers’ Council. I have never attacked or criticised any hon Minister or his portfolio because I believe that the office of a Minister must be respected—irrespective of who occupies that office.

It is a long process that brought this draft resolution on the Order Paper today and we are aware of it. For the moment it will suffice to say that for the benefit of the population outside who will judge us by our actions today, it is essential that we support the draft resolution. From this side of the House we fully support the draft resolution.

Mr Chairman, on 20 May a substantive motion was moved by this side of the House and it was followed by several amendments. This caused confusion as it was construed as being a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council.

My party has three members who are Ministers of the Ministers’ Council as well as one Deputy Minister. We have the greatest confidence not only in their honesty and integrity, but also in the way that they carry out their work. We have the highest confidence in them. Therefore I support this motion of no confidence. [Interjections.]

Order! I want the hon member Mr Thaver to know that the draft resolution before the House is a motion of confidence. Does the hon member support that?

Yes.

Mr Chairman, I am rather unhappy about this draft resolution that has been moved in the House at this particular juncture. I hear hon members very loosely and glibly making reference to Parliament being sacred, conventions, etc.

It seems to me that some people talk for the sake of talking. It also seems to me as if some people do not understand the meaning of the words that they utter here. It is all very well to understand the basic principles of democracy. If we understand the basic principles of convention then I submit, with respect, that what happened in this House a few weeks ago should have been gracefully accepted by this House.

Without being personal, I want to say that I believe that in public life there are times when we have the support of people and there are times when we do not enjoy their support. When we come to the stage where our support wanes and we do not enjoy the support of the people then the honourable and graceful thing to do is to step down. If that had happened I believe it would have spared us a lot of unnecessary tension in this House, a whole lot of unnecessary criticism in the newspapers that this House has been subjected to, as well as the unnecessary allegations that this House is divided on religious or linguistic lines. These linguistic and religious lines have been bandied about by the newspapers.

The SABC had the temerity to suggest the other day when the vote of no confidence was passed in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it was something that was done by a particular group on religious grounds. That seems to have been the most important thing in that particular news item rather than the issue that confronted this particular House and the resolution that was adopted by this House.

It seems to me that there are some people who are hell-bent on fragmenting our community for one reason only and that is to entrench themselves in certain positions. There are certain people who support that and whether they belong to the SABC or not is immaterial to me. If they are bent on dividing the community I believe that the directors of the SABC should take heed of that situation because we will not tolerate it.

I made a speech here immediately after the hon member for Brickfield spoke, yet nothing was mentioned about that. I said that we should look at the composition of this House and the composition of the people sitting on the left side of this House. Does anything signify that hon members sitting on this side belong to any one particular linguistic or religious group? Does it? No, it does not. I want to take the opportunity in this debate to set that record straight once and for all. I am looking at the media and asking them to do something about this. If the media is going to be responsible for trying to fragment the community they will be doing the dirty work of the NP which wants to rule it by division.

The Government talks about own affairs. It seems to me as if there is no such thing as own affairs in this House on certain issues any more. The other day this House took a decision on who should be and who should not be the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is an own affair and an affair of this House. Why is the hon the State President not respecting that? Why find excuses? All kinds of reasons are put forward to entrench the situation. Why?

Ask him.

Mr Chairman, if the hon agent of the State President wishes to answer, he may do so. If he has nothing to say, he had better shut up! [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

He talks rubbish, Mr Chairman. He moved a resolution, and I dare him to oppose this resolution. He moved a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council the other day. Where is he going to stand today? [Interjections.] It is he who moved that resolution, and the hon member for Moorcross moved a motion of confidence.

I stand by it.

He stands by it—fair enough. However, I am asking the hon member Mr Nowbath where he stands. He will show how fickle he is, how he wavers and how he is making a mockery of our participation. It is he who is making a mockery of participation in the tricameral system by way of his own conduct and the type of resolution he moves here which is totally irrelevant. [Interjections.]

I want to state quite categorically that the hon the State President, the media and everybody else must understand quite clearly that these amendments meant nothing. In terms of the Rules there was one substantive motion by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Because there were other amendments tossed in as a ploy—as a decoy—there are people who find it necessary to use those decoys in an effort to cloud the issue. This is pure politics, and it has nothing to do with the question of what is legally right. Legally I stand by the point that there was no vote of no confidence in those hon Ministers who are now referred to as rebel Ministers. No vote of no confidence was passed in them. There was no vote of no confidence passed even in the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. We did not pass that motion against him, nor did this House do so.

I say that I can understand that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to entrench himself in this position; this is the impression he is creating. This is the impression the world has gained.

[Inaudible.]

No, I do not want him to do so. I am not attacking him personally; I am talking about his position as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I have nothing personal against him; he is welcome to come and have tea with me, as he normally does in Pelican Park. That is not a problem.

[Inaudible.]

I wish to make it quite clear that this House has passed a vote of no confidence in him as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and I think that when we reach that stage he must accept this. Had he accepted this at the time when precedence was given to that particular resolution on the Order Paper, he would have saved us a lot of unnecessary embarrassment by accepting it gracefully. However, he is well within his rights to do what he does; that is his business. I cannot think and decide for him. My own feeling is that if that had been done we should not have had this problem.

I want to make it abundantly clear from this side of the House that I speak on behalf of my party. We cannot support a motion of confidence in the Ministers’ Council if it includes all the Ministers. We want to make it quite clear that we cannot support that resolution, because we cannot on the one hand, as we did last week, support a resolution calling for the resignation of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and then this week come and support a resolution that we have confidence in him as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] I said nothing privately to him; I want to make that absolutely clear. I also want to make it clear that at no stage did my leader ask to be the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It was the PPSA that invited him to be the leader of the coalition group and to be chairman.

That is a fact.

That is a fact, Mr Chairman, and I want the media to get that straight once and for all and not to speculate about this kind of rubbish. There are people who are deliberately trying to destroy the unification process that has commenced with this alliance that has started. Perhaps this setback is an initial setback, but I hope that this will still signal a unification of the right-minded people in the interests of the community of South Africa.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Springfield to speak, I just wish to address the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

The reason I was uncertain about the expressions at issue was that they were used with reference to certain actions outside this House. Having reflected on the matter, one comes to the conclusion that whilst these expressions relate to matters that have taken place outside this House, they have a bearing on what has happened within this House. Under these circumstances I want to call upon the hon member for Reservoir Hills to withdraw the statement that the hon the State President had acted deviously and misleadingly.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I want to call upon the hon member Mr Nowbath, who is a senior hon member of this House, to behave himself when the Chair is giving a ruling.

Mr Chairman, as everyone in this House knows, I am a very meek and mild and a very humble person. [Interjections.] When a Chairman bona fide asks me to do something, I must obey. It was only when someone else said something mala fide that I did not. [Interjections.] I do obey, Sir.

Order! Does the hon member withdraw it unconditionally?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, it is a cause for some regret that the credibility of this House has never been very high in the community. [Interjections.] It is also a cause for some regret that the respectability and the image of this House have never been of a very high standard in the community. It was precisely on account of that and the doings of the majority party in this House that I made the suggestion to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at some or other point that he institute a slogan for his party, which would have read: “Sumus semper in excretum sed acta variat.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member to translate that into English? The language of this House is English, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Springfield must kindly withdraw that Latin expression.

Mr Chairman, I shall certainly withdraw it, but I should like respectfully to draw your attention to the fact that this is something that I said to the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council and it has already been recorded in Hansard. However, if the hon the Chairman of this House wishes me to withdraw it, then I shall certainly bow to his wishes.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We in the PFP have tried to be consistent in various matters. [Interjections.] It is because of this consistency that we in the PFP have always supported any move to remove the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from his position. We have therefore supported all motions of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and particularly its Chairman.

However, I want to draw the attention of this House to a decision that was taken by this House on 20 May 1988, and I should like to move the following as an amendment to the draft resolution before this House:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House reaffirms the decision it took on 20 May 1988 and requests the State President as a matter of urgency—

1. (1) to appoint a judicial commission to enquire into and report upon allegations of corruption concerning the allocation and disposal of land, the commission to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to report as soon as possible but not later than 31 December 1988; and
2. (2) to dissolve the House and to call an election at the earliest possible opportunity.”

[Interjections.] I do this because I believe that this is the only manner in which the tattered image of this House can be restored.

This debate began with a great deal of laughter in this House and I want to remind hon members of this House that it is the community outside this Chamber that is laughing at each and every hon member of this House. It pains me that we as hon members of this House have to be party to this spectacle.

I believe that by our actions here this afternoon, if we were to support the draft resolution before the House, we would clearly be acting in contempt of the general wishes of the Indian community. I believe that we would also be acting in a manner that could be construed as a travesty of a political system that only distorts and ignores the combined wills of the people of South Africa. Before my time runs out, I would like to make this clear to all hon members … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Springfield has moved an amendment to the resolution before the House and I wish to object to that amendment. It is my submission that the amendment deviates substantially from the scope of the resolution.

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Moorcross that we are looking at the amendment and a ruling will be made shortly.

Mr Chairman, when I started my speech on the notice of motion submitted by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition on 19 May, I avoided being acrimonious for very good reasons. In spite of the fact that by innuendo there was certain acrimony against me I will still, in my contribution this afternoon, not deviate from that course.

The hon the State President’s name has been dragged into the debate. It is common knowledge that last Friday the entire Ministers’ Council met with the hon the State President and it is common knowledge that this morning the entire Ministers’ Council again met with the hon the State President. I do not want to go into detail about what was discussed at both these meetings, but I am sure that the misunderstanding which certain hon members have and which was demonstrated by way of what was said this afternoon, will be cleared up by way of discussions with these hon members. However, the hon the State President does not take sides. [Interjections.] The hon the State President will not take sides. [Interjections.] The hon the State President is bound to uphold the provisions of a constitution. I would like to remind the hon member for Reservoir Hills and his colleague, the hon member for Springfield, that some people speak with their minds closed. There is a similarity between a parachute and the minds of those two hon members; they only begin to click and work when they open. They should remember that this afternoon. The hon member for Lenasia Central once said that sometimes some people suffer from foot and mouth disease.

The hon members for Southern Natal and Stanger this afternoon referred to a vote of no-confidence passed against the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council last Friday. That was on 20 May 1988.1 now ask myself the question why that motion or the amendment was not worded accordingly. The grounds for the amendment and the grounds for the resolution were not that they had no confidence in the person who was occupying the office of Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The grounds for the notice of motion and the amendment, as embodied in the amendment and the notice of motion, are therefore that they have the majority. It is not that they do not like me. It is not that they do not like my performance. If one reads the records of the proceedings of the House of 19 and 20 May, one may see that hon members who are sitting on the other side expressed positive sentiments about the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. They were not personal either. Therefore, I believe the emphasis must be placed on the wording of the resolution and the reasons for it.

I now come to sections 21 and 24 to which the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills did know what procedure the hon the State President followed on 17 September 1984 when he appointed members to this Ministers’ Council, he would know that he did not first appoint Ministers. He called on the leader of the majority party to recommend names to him so that he could consider the appointment of members to the Ministers’ Council. Both section 21, which deals with the appointment of Ministers, and especially with the appointment of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and section 24 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of Ministers, have specific provisions, namely that the hon the State President, in his opinion, must be satisfied that a person who he is appointing as a Minister at the time of the designation must have the support of the majority of the members in the House, and the same applies to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I therefore believe, from a procedural point of view, that we had a Westminster constitution, and section 88 of our Constitution empowers us to uphold not only the provisions of the Constitution but also conventions. On 19 May I said to the House that if conventions were followed in the exercises which this House conducted on 19, 20 and 5 May, there would be no need for a notice of motion. I would have gone to the Office of the hon the State President and handed in my resignation. Convention is not one-way traffic, but two-way traffic.

Let us analyse the reasons why the original notice of motion submitted to this House by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not supported. That resolution was quite clear, namely that because I had lost the support of the majority of this House, a request should be made to the hon the State President to change the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. However, opinions were floating in the corridors of this building that even if one asked the hon the State President to remove the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by a resolution of this House, one would indirectly be asking for the removal of the entire Ministers’ Council. There is no doubt about the fact that one cannot separate the hon the State President from his Cabinet and in the same manner …

Somebody bluffed.

I did not interject while the hon member for Reservoir Hills was speaking. I suggest that he affords me respect. In the same manner one cannot separate the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman …

I am taking no questions.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council refuses to take questions.

No, Mr Chairman, I am raising a point of order. Is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council entitled to come to this House and tell us fairy stories?

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills has a habit of indulging in airy-fairy theories, he should not reflect that onto others. I stated on 19 and 20 May that any resolution which might, directly or indirectly, be regarded legally as a motion of no confidence against the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, or whoever occupies that office, would immediately ignite section 39 of the Constitution.

I do not think, in fairness to the hon members for Lenasia East and Actonville and the hon member Mr Thaver, that it was their intention to perform anything or adopt any resolution that would result in igniting section 39 of the Constitution, which would most certainly force the hon the State President to act, not necessarily in terms of sections 21 or 24 of the Constitution but, most importantly, in terms of section 39 of the Constitution of this country.

I do not think anybody can be critical of any hon member of this House if understanding is shown in respect of supporting the notice of motion that we are considering. This resolution was submitted by the hon member for Lenasia East. I think one has to show understanding. What has been the result, was definitely not what was the intention. I do not think one can be critical of those hon members who have supported this resolution. I do not think anybody should look upon this negatively. One should rather show understanding for the reasoning behind the support of this resolution.

Order! I am just awaiting the typewritten version of the amendment moved by the hon member for Springfield. Hon members must just bear with me for a little while. Order! The hon member for Springfield has moved an amendment as follows:

1. (1) to appoint a judicial commission to enquire into and report upon allegations of corruption concerning the allocation and disposal of land, the commission to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to report as soon as possible but not later than 31 December 1988; and
2. (2) to dissolve the House and to call an election at the earliest possible opportunity.”

I am unable to accept paragraph (1) of the amendment as it is not relevant to the resolution before the House. Paragraph (2) of the amendment is accepted, and I wish to reiterate that paragraph (2) reads:

1. (2) to dissolve the House and to call an election at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence. I do not understand why you ruled the first part of my amendment, the one referring to the decision, out of order. I submit with respect that that is not beyond the scope of the resolution before this House.

Order! I would like to tell the hon member for Springfield that the first part of the amendment extends the scope of the draft resolution before the House. I wish to read out to the House what that part of the draft resolution says. It reads as follows:

1. (1) to appoint a judicial commission to enquire into and report upon allegations of corruption concerning the allocation and disposal of land, the commission to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to report as soon as possible but not later than 31 December 1988;

Unfortunately, that part of this amendment is not acceptable. The second part of the amendment is relevant to the draft resolution before the House. Consequently that is acceptable. The amendment that is acceptable reads as follows:

1. (2) to dissolve the House and to call an election at the earliest possible opportunity.

For the sake of clarity, I shall read the whole amendment, including the introductory words:

Is this now clear to hon members? Do hon members understand the amendment that has been accepted by the Chair? [Interjections.]

Amendment put and the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Cader, D; Iyman, J V; Khan, N E; Padayachy, M S; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M) appeared on one side,

Amendment negatived.

Main Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have always spoken in this House with confidence and this afternoon when dealing particularly with our programme to fulfil an important requirement on behalf of our community I speak with even more confidence.

What is the carnation for?

This carnation is not for what we discussed a few minutes ago. This carnation is a tradition of the Budget Vote.

It should have been a bunch of carrots! [Interjections.]

I take this opportunity in the initial stages of this debate to convey my thanks and those of all the hon members to the Ministers’ Council, the Director-General Mr R P Wronsley, the Chief Director Mr Carstens and all the officials of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for their excellent efforts with regard to providing housing for our people in the face of hostile and often venomous criticism directed at the department during the past year.

The Director-General, Mr R P Wronsley, who assumed office on 1 December 1987, has a bachelor’s degree in political science and public administration. He has vast experience in financial affairs as he also held the post of Chief Executive: Taxation in the Department of Finance. We are indeed fortunate to have a man of his calibre at the head of the Administration and I and all the members of the Ministers’ Council are certain that within a short time Mr Wronsley will be successfully captaining the ship of the House of Delegates into smoother financial waters.

Hon members of this House are fully aware that the Department of Housing is the youngest department in the Administration: House of Delegates. Besides providing the necessary training to the majority of the personnel of the department over the past three years, the department had to fulfil its prime function, namely the provision of housing.

In these critical years the officials were forced to mature rapidly in their respective fields. I am proud to say that the personnel have passed this trial by ordeal with commendable performances. The achievements of my department, which I shall mention later on in this address, should be viewed against the background that I have briefly sketched to obtain the correct perspective and to realise the extent of our achievements.

My address today is split into three broad categories, namely housing—and here I want to make it clear that we do not only want to provide housing to our people, but rather that we want to ensure that people have homes—township development and, thirdly, supporting services. The intellentsia of this country have established that the provision of housing is pivotal to the attainment and maintenance of a stable South Africa. Moreover, anywhere in the world in developing countries if one provides everyone with a home then one is playing an important role in respect of stability in a country, society or community.

There is no uncertainty whatsoever as regards the point that there is inadequate housing. Provision has created unstable conditions—unrest conditions—in our land. The creation of this unfavourable climate can to some extent be attributed to the governing forces but is to a major extent a responsibility of local authorities in this country. The Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture will deal later on with the role and the attitude of local authorities in great detail.

Local authorities must ensure that the requirements of their residents are catered for. Local authorities used to complain that the Government was not providing adequate financial resources in order to assist them in meeting the housing challenge. However, I can cite cases where in the three years that the House of Delegates has been in existence, funds have been allocated to certain local authorities, while to date those local authorities have done little or nothing to ease the housing shortage.

My duty as Minister of Housing would also be greatly alleviated if all hon members in this House were to play an active role in the provision of housing as far as their constituencies were concerned. I do not say that hon members have not played a leading role; some hon members have made valiant efforts in their constituencies. Hon members must bring pressure to bear on these recalcitrant local authorities to participate in the housing action. My department will do everything possible to assist these local authorities in getting housing projects off the ground.

The Housing Development Board, which is an apolitical body, was establish to guide and assist local authorities in meeting the housing challenge. The Housing Development Board was established during the last financial year and it replaced the former National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board. When I reply to this debate I want to deal with the deficiencies we have in respect of not having the powers of the former Community Development Board.

I have pleasure in announcing that the serving members of the Housing Development Board have been reappointed by the Ministers’ Council for a further year, effective from 1 April 1988. They are Mr W J van der M Marais, as chairman—and I want to say that we are greatly honoured to have the services of this experienced official for another year; Mr C H Kotze, as vice-chairman; Mr R E Hudson-Reed; Mr J G Brand; Mr R Jagath; and Dr D S Rajah.

In the 1987-88 financial year the Housing Development Board approved 65 new projects up to a value of R59 659 209 and approved revisions to 83 existing projects up to a value of R175 636 156. The total value of projects approved is R235 295 365, which includes departmental projects to the value of R40 356 022.

The prime objective of the housing policy employed by my department is to provide affordable housing to the lower income group of our community by providing finance to local authorities to erect the required houses. I must once again emphasise that the responsibility for the provision of housing rests squarely upon the shoulders of local authorities. I repeat that it is the local authorities’ responsibility to ensure that the housing needs of its residents are catered for.

The House of Delegates is in practice a partner to the local authority in the housing process. The House of Delegates will provide the necessary loans wherever requested, subject to the availability of funds. My department is keeping a watchful eye on local authority projects to ensure that the ultimate product satisfies the requirements of the community. This is a difficult task in that it has to achieve this within the restrictions of a maximum cost limit of R30 000 per unit including the land, bearing in mind that the people for whom the houses are intended will be able to afford them.

The question of affordability is of critical importance in these difficult economic times and it is therefore afforded the highest priority. I can assure hon members that the Committee of Housing Ministers is also examining this problem in greater detail. My department has had no hesitation in rejecting housing proposals which were considered to be too expensive for our people.

The preparation of the housing code for the Administration: House of Delegates is being finalised. The hon the Deputy Minister will deal with this in greater detail in his speech. In this code the emphasis is especially placed on the unique needs of the Indian population. Although attempts were made to remain within the bounds of the previous code, certain important changes in emphasis are incorporated. It is inevitable that the administration will adopt a different approach in certain respects, which will not necessarily be pursued by other own affairs administrations, in spite of the fact that we want to adhere to a standard norm. Accordingly the housing codes of the various administrations will thus lay down various approaches, although the basic housing policy may be fundamentally similar.

The Administration: House of Delegates employs the following long-term policy to provide adequate housing for the future. It does so, firstly, through the allocation of housing development funds in the most effective way possible in order to ensure optimum access by people to housing; secondly, by way of a sales campaign to alienate all saleable dwelling units to present tenants, and in this manner, from a sociological point of view, also to enable the people to convert houses to homes; and thirdly, by encouraging the involvement of the private sector by (a) active promotion of housing utility companies; (b) provision of land under certain circumstances to private developers; and (c) encouraging employers to become involved in the provision of housing for their employees. I appeal to local authorities and other interested organisations to work in close collaboration with this administration in order to make this housing strategy a success. Positive steps must be taken in an effort to solve the long-term housing problems in this beautiful country of ours.

The housing waiting list, which is a national waiting list system which I announced last year, is now fully operational. The objectives of this system are to assist the local authorities and the department (1) to determine by means of responsible scientific calculation the total national need for residential erven and housing over a five-year period expressed in terms of annual needs for the Indian population group; (2) to convert the national estimates to regional, metropolitan and local authority levels; (3) to set realistic targets for local authorities in respect of the requirements of the housing scheme with due regard to the economic realities; (4) to monitor the achievements by local authorities in respect of the number of houses and building erven which are processed annually by means of township development applications.

The following strategies are adopted in an effort to ensure that the current and future needs are satisfied. This is achieved by close co-operation with local authorities and the private sector by (1) identifying, in conjunction with local authorities, the need for building erven and residential land of such a local authority over a five-year period from details which are obtained from the data bank; (2) programming on an annual basis for a five-year period for the acquisition of land and the installation of basic services and also programming for provision of funds thereof in respect of the State’s responsibility—ie to provide low-cost housing and serviced sites for people who cannot build for themselves; (3) the determination for the allocation of funds where necessary on a priority basis; (4) the identification of suitable land and acquisition thereof on a continuous basis; and (5) supplying serviced erven according to the need.

Questionnaires are despatched annually to local authorities to determine, inter alia, the following: Number of existing houses; number of families inadequately housed; number of families on the waiting list; number of new housing units annually required for a five-year period; number of serviced erven planned to be made available within the five-year period; extent of available reserve land; and, lastly, population statistics.

The capitalisation of interest has always caused a major problem in determining the selling price of houses and serviced erven. Interest is calculated from the dates on which local authorities effect draws on the approved loan. This interest is payable by local authorities bi-annually at the end of June and December of each year. Interest accruing during the construction period is capitalised at 6% and after the construction period at 11,25% per annum. The interest on loans for the acquisition of land and housing schemes for future development may also be capitalised. The Housing Development Board may, on application by any local authority, approve that the interest payable during the construction period—that is preliminary interest—may be capitalised. However, as I have just indicated, capitalisation of preliminary interest increases the cost of any project and consequently has an effect on the final selling prices of the houses. Linked to the capitalisation of interest is the question of time scales. The longer a project takes to complete, the more interest accrues and if that interest is capitalised, the resultant effect is that the cost increases. Therefore there should be no delay in getting a project off the ground.

Availability of Land for Housing

I have stated previously in this House that the scarcity of suitable land is the major obstacle in the accelerated provision of low-cost housing for our people. The identification, planning and installation of the infrastructure is a time-consuming process and therefore this necessarily delays the provision of housing. Local authorities have the prime responsibility of providing housing for their residents and accordingly the identification and acquisition of land also rests squarely upon the shoulders of local authorities. Experience has now revealed that the local authorities generally are concerned about the housing shortage of our people. All the local authorities recognise the need for housing and further land. Very few positive results are obtained. This is mainly due to the following factors:

• — Poor insight, poor planning and lack of expertise for long-term housing programmes;
• — the reluctance of certain local authorities to provide housing for the Indian community; and
• — the scarcity of large tracks of land within a declared group area suitable for low-cost housing.

Here I want to point out very clearly that it is the policy of the Ministers’ Council not to confine the identification of land to the group area and to identify land, even if it is set aside and remains vacant, for use by other race groups outside group areas and municipal areas.

A further reason is the following: Land barons hold the local authorities and the House of Delegates to ransom by asking ridiculously high prices for suitable land within existing group areas. I will deal with this in my reply. At present throughout the country we are held to ransom by land barons. I will now deal with each of these factors in turn.

Firstly, regarding insight, planning and expertise, there is no doubt that certain small local authorities display lack of insight and expertise in the provision of housing. I want to make an appeal to hon members of this House to ensure that the local authorities that fall within their constituencies are doing everything possible to meet the housing shortage. I do not believe that local authorities must move like a football does when one kicks it. If hon members of this House do not exert any pressure on these local authorities to accelerate the housing programme, I am afraid that all the money in the world will not provide houses for our people.

I wish to announce that my department will assist any local authority, on request, in the planning and the development of low-cost housing for our people. My department has been providing this service to many, mostly the smaller, local authorities for a long while. My department will liaise with all local authorities and will provide the necessary assistance and guidance wherever required.

I now want to deal with the reluctance of local authorities. There are certain recalcitrant local authorities which have displayed overt reluctance to undertake housing projects for the Indian community in areas which fall under their jurisdiction.

I hereby announce that in identified cases where local authorities have been reluctant to undertake housing projects, the House of Delegates has stepped in and has undertaken all the required planning in order to provide the required housing for our people. I want to assure hon members of the House that the House of Delegates will not hesitate for an instant to step in and execute housing projects in areas which fall within a local authority, if there exists reasonable evidence that the local authority concerned is not interested in executing a project for its Indian residents. The House of Delegates is committed to provide housing for our people and I will take whichever steps are necessary to ensure that the provision of housing for our people is continued with on an uninterrupted basis. This is very important.

Regarding the scarcity of large tracts of land within a declared area, the accelerated provision of housing is being impeded by the scarcity of suitable land for low-cost housing purposes.

I want to repeat what I have said in this House before, and that is that the Group Areas Act has created an artificial supply and demand situation as far as land for Indian housing is concerned. In this connection I want to announce that local authorities need not confine their search for suitable land to existing declared group areas, but should identify suitable land, even if it falls outside a declared group area. My department will then take up the cudgels and set whatever machinery is required in motion to have a new group area declared.

Hon members of this House have in the course of various debates expressed their opposition to the Group Areas Act. However, being law, the Group Areas Act has to be complied with. If it means having new group areas declared to meet the housing challenge, then so be it. Until the Group Areas Act has been amended or repealed, this is the only course of action available.

I now want to deal with land barons and the high prices of land. Time and again my department has been faced with extremely high prices for land required for low-cost housing being demanded by land barons. Mercenaries have climbed onto the bandwagon to make a quick killing as soon as it becomes known that the House of Delegates is interested in a tract of land for housing purposes. These landowners are quite prepared to allow the properties to lie fallow while the people cry out for housing assistance. The House of Delegates has not and will not negotiate with these parasitic mercenaries. I am afraid that time is fast running out for these land barons.

I want to announce that my department is presently formulating a modus operandi to compel the land barons either to develop the land for housing, or to capitulate to the demands of the people. The land will not lie undeveloped any longer. I must add that this approach will also severely affect land speculators in our community. The object of this exercise is to increase the housing stock with or without the involvement of the House of Delegates.

I now want to deal with private sector involvement. It is Government policy to encourage the private sector to play an active role in the economy of our country, especially with regard to housing. The Administration: House of Delegates is taking continuous steps to involve the private sector and individuals in the provision of housing, seeing that it is the individual’s own responsibility to see that his family is adequately housed. The involvement of the individual is seen as a prerequisite for the preservation of a stable community and it can only become a reality with great difficulty and if the individual is offered the opportunity to obtain the type of housing that best suits his needs and financial ability.

The Administration: House of Delegates is encouraging the involvement of the private sector by active promotion of housing utility companies; by providing land under certain circumstances to private developers; by encouraging employers to become involved in the provision of housing for their employees and by assistance to prospective purchasers in the private sector through the granting of interest subsidies.

It will be impossible for us to eliminate our housing backlog without the involvement and encouragement of the private sector. During 1987, 510 erven in Lenasia South Extension 2 were allocated to building contractors and utility companies. Each contractor was responsible for the planning, construction and marketing of houses built by itself to persons on the official waiting list. The transfer of the land is being effected from the Housing Development Board direct to the purchasers.

In the Newlands West area the private sector produced 888 units in the last financial year on land which was financed by the House of Delegates and which is under the jurisdiction of the Durban City Council. It is anticipated that more than 2 000 units will be produced in the 1988-89 financial year in this particular area. The houses that are being built qualify for the 33,3% interest for first-time home-buyers. In Hillgrove the Urban Foundation is providing 1 300 housing units, while the House of Delegates will provide not less than 1 000 low-cost houses in Community Area No 5, Newlands West. Planning in Community Area No 5 has already reached an advanced stage.

Another way of providing financial assistance to a prospective home-owner is by means of a 90% loan. This scheme is available to the public and has not proved to be very popular although the number of applicants is on the increase. The maximum loan granted under this scheme is R29 700 which is 90% of R33 000. This is the maximum amount allowed for the plot and the building.

One of the purposes of the 90% loans is to increase the housing stock. Individuals are therefore encouraged to buy or build new houses or dwellings. The following statistics reflect the steady growth of the 90% loans in the past three years. In the 1985-86 financial year eight applications were approved and the total value was R200 728. In the 1986-87 financial year 18 applications were approved and the total value was R398 615. In the last financial year the applications increased from 18 to 44 and the total value was R1 306 800. In the past three financial years 70 applications were approved and the total value was R1 906 143.

A large number of Indian areas in Natal were affected by the September floods. Numerous houses, flats and schools were severely damaged. In the Durban environs, Chatsworth was the worst hit area and here there was a tragic loss of lives. A total of 188 houses were affected. Of these, five houses were demolished by the flood waters and it was necessary to demolish a further two houses which were very severely damaged.

In order to assist those affected by the floods an emergency housing scheme of 82 units was undertaken in Chatsworth. A record number of 24 houses were erected in only 17 days. In Pietermaritzburg it was also necessary to erect 22 houses to house those families who had been forced to abandon their homes.

Other areas which suffered serious storm damage were Ladysmith, Verulam, Howick, Stanger, Estcourt and Tugela Rail. Throughout Natal, 116 Indian schools were damaged and the cost of repairs is estimated to be in the region of R650 000.

I now want to deal with the new rental formula and the hon the Deputy Minister will deal with this in greater detail later on. Hon members of the House are already aware of the new rental-instalment formula which came into effect on 1 July 1987. This formula is designed to assist all persons who fall in the lower income categories up to a maximum of R1 000 per month.

Here I want to respond very briefly to an allegation raised by certain organisations in the Durban area, such as the Durban Housing Action Committee as well as other action committees. I want to say that there is nothing wrong with the rental formula—in fact, it is the finest thing that the State could do to assist people in the lower income group as well as people who earn over R1 000 per month to buy their homes.

We received a deputation from the Durban City Council the other day at a joint meeting of the Committee of the Ministers of Housing. They concurred that if the implementation of the rental formula was deferred, a great disservice would be done to those who obtained much relief in that sector where they bought their homes in response to our sales campaign.

The rental formula deals with what is owed to the State and that is the capital and the interest. Where people have a misunderstanding, however, is that in the consolidated bill the municipality adds its own charges.

That is where there is a problem. The problem does not lie with the redemption of the capital interest. The problem lies in the area where the municipalities adds its own tariffs. In his speech the hon the Deputy Minister will present breakdowns to convince the country that this rental formula is an excellent formula. In fact, we can prove to South Africa that in a case where a person’s overall rent on the consolidated bill could be R130, the interest on capital which we regard as rent may be as low as R15. Therefore the fault does not lie with the formula.

We have nevertheless pledged and appointed a committee of officials to examine where there are genuine cases of hardship amongst poor people and to devise ways and means in which we can be of assistance to these people. The House of Delegates is in effect providing a subsidy to all tenants and purchasers who reside in dwellings financed by the House of Delegates, be they departmental or local authority projects.

I must mention that this new formula has elicited a tremendous amount of adverse criticism from so-called community-based organisations. In order to dispel these criticisms and any fears that there may be as far as this new formula is concerned, let me state the facts and put this matter in the correct perspective once and for all. Let us ask ourselves this question: What are the facts?

The facts are firstly that all income surveys were suspended in 1983, which meant that rental increases corresponding to increases in income were also suspended. The problem particularly with regard to Durban is that the rentals were based on the 1983 income and when the new rentals were applied based on 1988 income, according to the Chairman of the Durban City Council’s Health and Housing Committee, 50% of the tenants had had increases of 60% during the past five years. Neither the Housing Development Board nor its predecessor at any time have approved any increases in the rentals since 1983. This must not be confused with increases in municipal charges. During this period local authorities have levied increases in respect of municipal charges. The result of this has been that the public at large has criticised the House of Delegates for allowing rentals to be increased when municipal charges have been increased. This is definitely not the case. No rental increases have been levied since 1983.

Secondly, the fact is that the new rental formula is based on current income and not on the 1983 income. The present purchasers and tenants are paying rental instalments on the 1983 income. Thirdly, income surveys have been reinstated to implement the new rental formula. The present survey shows a high jump in income, because the surveys were not conducted annually from 1983. Fourthly, the average inflation rate for the past five years is in the region of 16%. Fifthly, the new rental instalment formula is based on the income whereby persons earning up to R800 per month will not pay more than 25% of their income as rent or as an instalment.

When we take these facts into consideration it is clear that should a person’s 1983 rental have been increased by 10% per annum for a five year period his present rental would have reflected a significant increase on his 1983 rental. The corresponding rental in the new formula would be significantly lower. This can best be explained with an actual example. Let us take as an example that in 1983 a personal income was R450 per month. The rental payable in terms of the old formula was R133,01 per month. If the person’s income has remained static for the five-year period up to now his present rental would be R133,01 on the old formula, or R70,92 on the new formula. Therefore if one applies it based on a static income the rental formula should actually result in a decrease in the rental. If he chooses the new formula, he would then be saving an amount of R62,09 per month.

Next, if the person’s income has also increased in the period from 1983—and for the purposes of this example let us say that his current income is R650 per month—if he opts to stay on the old formula his rental would be R157,51 per month. If he chooses the new formula the rental payable would be R136,42 per month, with a saving of R21,09 per month.

The most common criticism is that the person was paying R133 per month whereas he now has to pay R136,41 per month. This is a fact, but it will be viewed in conjunction with the following: Firstly, that the figure of R133 per month is a rental based on his 1983 income of R483 per month; secondly, the figure of R136,42 per month is a rental based on his current 1988 income of R650 per month. This major difference has resulted in an increase of R3,41 per month which is an advance of only half a percent per annum for the five-year period, while the cost of living has escalated by at least 16% per annum. These comparisons are not understood. They are deliberately not being recognised by certain organisations.

The greatest advantage of the new formula is its flexibility. The new formula is sensitive to fluctuations in income, and this is an excellent example for those who are renting or purchasing homes that are financed from Government funds. Any decrease in income can result in a proportionate decrease in the rental/instalment following the first month after which a local authority has been notified of the change in income.

It will be noticed that we have made a change from the old system. In terms of the old system one can make an adjustment once a year. However, we are now allowing an adjustment in the first month after there is an adjustment to income. Income surveys will henceforth be conducted on an annual basis.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the shortage of housing is the single most important factor contributing to dissatisfaction in our community. The housing shortage provides fertile ground for the seeds of discontent to germinate. Once this seed has taken root no amount of persuasion will remove it from the housing arena.

Housing is the critical point on which most of the so-called community-based or “people’s representative” organisations have based their opposition to the present establishment and more particularly, the House of Delegates. These organisations revel in the present housing conditions and the restrictions imposed by the Group Areas Act. In order to negate the influence and the actions of these so-called community-orientated organisations I have directed that should suitable land not be available in a declared group area for low-cost housing, other areas might be identified even if they fall outside an existing group area. While our declared goal is the repeal of the Group Areas Act, this much-criticised Act can be used to our advantage in the search for land and the declaration of new Indian areas while the Act is in force.

In the past year it has become apparent that no matter what political group, religious group or so-called community-orientated organisation a person may belong to, provide him with a house and his differences are quickly forgotten. With this in mind I announced Operation 25 000, as I am convinced that actions speak louder than words. Therefore the House of Delegates must now act effectively.

I want to say that in respect of the availability of land and the identification of land, we have virtually found solutions to our land problem in the major areas of South Africa where we were confronted with this problem in the past two decades. I particularly want to refer to Pretoria, the Johannesburg area, the East Rand, the Durban metropolitan area, Pietermaritzburg, the Tongaat area and the Pinetown-Mariannhill complex.

I am certain that the rapid construction of houses will not only disperse community resistance towards the House of Delegates but will actually instil community support for the House of Delegates. Although this would be a welcome side-effect to the housing action, the prime objective of providing affordable housing would have been achieved.

In accordance with the hon the State President’s declared policy of home-ownership, the sales campaign has been extended to 30 June 1988. The sales campaign offers purchasers substantial discounts in respect of houses built before 1983. The sales campaign commenced on 1 July 1983 and the following statistics reflect the progress made in this regard as at 31 March 1988: Durban has 12 272 units available for sale and they have sold 9 020 homes, which is excellent. That is 73,5%. Port Elizabeth has 376, and the total sales amount to 292, which is a percentage sale of 77,66%. Cape Town has 72 units available for sale. Fifty-nine have been sold, and the percentage here is 81,94%. Pretoria has 391 units available. The total sales are 279, and the percentage is 71,36%. Johannesburg has 5 056 units available for sale. The sales here have not been as good as in other areas, namely 977. Here the percentage is 19,32%. Therefore, out of the total units available for sale, namely 18 167, a total of 10 627 have been sold and the average percentage, which was reduced by the poor sales in the Johannesburg area, is 58%.

It can be noted from these figures that almost 60% of the possible purchasers have taken advantage of the discounts offered in terms of the sales campaign. I appeal to hon members of the House to encourage their constituents who are eligible to participate in this campaign to take advantage of the various discounts being offered as quickly as possible.

I should now like to deal with the summary of the Budget for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture: Vote 2. The following table reflects the differences in the proposed amounts to be spent in the 1988-89 financial year by my department, when compared with last year’s Budget on the different programmes.

The figures mentioned reflect an increase of R22 645 000 in the Vote. The amount for Associated and Supporting Services includes an amount of R2,2 million for certain job creation projects. Programme 5, the Promotion of Agriculture, now appears as a separate item and reflects a nil amount voted in the past year. This, however, is not the case as an amount of R1 296 000 was included under Associated and Supporting Services in the 1987-88 financial year for the promotion of agriculture.

I shall now deal with the allocation of funds. The following table reflects the allocation of housing development funds for continuing projects and all projects that are being funded for the first time for both local authorities and departmental projects on a global basis. I shall provide details in respect of each area later on in this address. I will deal with the continuations and the first-time instances.

I do not think Johannesburg should be despondent, because with the infrastructure that is being formed they will become the pride of the Transvaal very soon—including Actonville.

Order! I call on certain hon members to pay attention to the hon the Minister.

Concerning Pretoria, we had to alter the housing programme there and Lotus Gardens Developments are on their way. Furthermore, at least those hon members representing the Cape area can smile. As regards the grand total, this represents a record for allocations in Indian housing in any financial year.

My department’s concerted effort in meeting the housing challenge can be seen in the fact that the allocation of funds for new projects exceeds that for current projects by almost R25 million. Of greater significance is the fact that departmental projects total R58 651 621. I would like to forecast that the departmental increase is expected to double because we have certain plans in Phoenix, Shallcross, Newlands West, Actonville and also in Pretoria.

This is an increase of almost 400% on last year and lends weight to my comments on departmental involvement earlier on in this address. The total allocation of R242 061 606 is the largest amount ever allocated for the provision of Indian housing in the history of the Indian people in the Republic of South Africa.

Arrear Rentals/Instalments

Arrear rentals is a matter which is causing tremendous concern in my department. The following table reflects the arrears in respect of residential accommodation or properties directly administered by the House of Delegates, split into five regional categories. The arrears reflected are as at the end of January 1988:

Hon members will notice that the sales campaign in Johannesburg is not so encouraging and these arrears break our all-time record.

The department has made numerous attempts to recover the arrear amounts from the various individuals and has met with little success. I must point out that the alarmingly high arrears occurred as a result of action taken by my department in order to prevent the spate of evictions which were occurring throughout the country. The department itself then instituted relief measures in order to assist the extremely indigent families in the community. However, the time has come to address the problem of arrears very seriously. In an attempt to prevent an adverse climate developing against the House of Delegates, evictions were stopped. This action has created further arrear rentals/instalments.

I hereby announce that my department will adopt a more severe approach towards people who have fallen into arrears. Everything possible will be done to assist these families, that is, by applying relief measures, by referring the cases to the Department of Health Services and Welfare for social assistance, and by encouraging tenants to purchase the houses whereby the arrears incurred can be capitalised against the purchase price. If all else fails, the necessary administrative and legal machinery will have to be set in motion to recover the arrears or to evict the persons concerned. Evictions will be considered as an absolute last resort.

I want to assure hon members of this House that each case will be treated on merit. The House of Delegates has a moral and social responsibility to account to the rest of the Indian community as to why the arrears have been allowed to escalate to such a high level.

I must also point out that if the question of arrears is not addressed firmly, it can lead to a nationwide campaign of non-payment of rentals/instalments if the people realise that the House of Delegates has adopted a lenient approach. I must remind hon members that the Housing Development Fund is a revolving fund and if this situation is allowed to develop, the resources of the Housing Development Fund will be rapidly depleted until it is bankrupt, resulting in the housing progress coming to a grinding halt. Therefore it is our responsibility, especially that of the hon the Minister of the Budget, to ensure that our revolving fund grows and generates itself. I, for example, can become a very popular Minister, but my successor will be left without any funds whatsoever.

The bankruptcy of the Housing Development Fund must be avoided at all costs. As hon members are aware, the Treasury contribution to Indian housing is totally inadequate to meet the housing needs.

Financial Assistance to Home Owners

The House of Delegates provides financial assistance to home-owners in the following ways:

1. (i) 3% interest subsidy home ownership saving scheme;
2. (ii) 33,3% interest subsidy scheme for first-time home-buyers; and
3. (iii) differential interest rates for income levels up to R1 000 per month in terms of the new rental/instalment formula.

I will now consider each case individually.

I now want to deal with the 3% interest subsidy home ownership saving scheme. This scheme was introduced during 1972 and is designed to encourage first-time home-buyers to save up to a maximum of R20 000. The State subsidises the individual by paying a further 3% interest over and above the interest rate that the participant may receive from any financial institution, provided that the applicant fulfils certain conditions.

In the 1987-88 financial year an amount of R31 889 was paid to 104 applicants. What is becoming very popular—and sometimes appears to be abused—is the 33,3% interest subsidy scheme for first-time home-buyers. This scheme provides assistance for a person who has not previously owned a dwelling unit. Any individual who buys a new house costing less than R40 000—ie excluding the land—qualifies for a 33,3% interest subsidy for five years, subject to all other applicable conditions being fulfilled.

This scheme has proved to be very popular, as the following statistics reflect. The total amount paid in respect of this scheme in respect of the 1987-88 financial year, amounted to R5 320 544. This amount was paid out to 4 314 applicants at an average of R103 per month per participant. When my department assumed control of the administration of this House and this scheme on 1 October 1985, there were only 682 participants. This reflects an increase of more than 533% in the number of applicants in two and a half years since my department took control.

This scheme has a twofold objective: Firstly, to promote the increase in housing stock, and secondly, to stimulate the economy with greater private sector involvement in the provision of housing. The following statistics reflect the tremendous progress made with this scheme since this department assumed control. On 1 October 1985 the number of participants was 682. The number of participants on 31 December 1985 had grown to 1 046. By 31 December 1986 it had grown to 3 529. By 31 December 1987 it had increased from 682 to 3 628.

The average monthly payment to financial institutions as at 1 October 1985 was R93 000. This had increased to R123 430 at 1 December 1985. At 31 December 1986 it had increased to R238 041, and up to 31 December 1987 it had increased to R353 874. The average monthly amount of subsidy per participant at the end of October 1985 was R136. By 31 December 1985 the amount was R118. At 31 December 1986 it was R94, and at 31 December 1987 it was R98.

I want to advise private developers not to abuse this scheme. This scheme is designed for a particular category of people. We are going to impose stringent conditions if private developers charge onto the land what should be reflected on the buildings. If this is going to be abused and if this figure escalates, we shall have to review our policy.

The following joint Press statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of Manpower and Public Works, as well as all own affairs Ministers, was issued on 25 May 1988 announcing adjustments to the interest subsidy scheme for first-time home-buyers.

It stated the following: As a result of representations which were received from the private sector and in order to promote greater participation in the scheme for first-time home-buyers in the lower income groups, certain adjustments were effected to the conditions for participation in the scheme. It was decided to increase the present maximum limit for the cost of a dwelling which presently applies for participation in the scheme, from R40 000 to R45 000. A further increase up to a maximum of R5 000 will be allowed in cases where steep inclines or unfavourable soil conditions on the stand result in a high cost of erection.

In order to prevent building costs higher than the limit referred to above being shifted off to the cost of the stand, an all-inclusive cost limit of R65 000 is laid down. In exceptional cases—I hope the hon member for Reservoir Hills is listening because this may apply to Newlands West—the limit may be increased to a maximum of R75 000 if, in the opinion of the relevant Minister, it proves to be justifiable. This limit includes all costs of the dwelling and stand as well as expenditure regarding administration, consultants’ fees and registry of freehold rights.

The maximum subsidy payable will, however, still be calculated on a building cost of R40 000. Previously a person was not allowed to construct a dwelling of more than R45 000. Now he is allowed to go up to R75 000 with the special permission of the relevant Minister. The subsidy, however, will only be paid on R40 000. The total subsidy will be calculated as at present as 33,3% of the interest payable over the first five years of the loan on the building costs of the dwelling. It was, however, decided that the subsidy would be paid over a period of seven years. This is an adjustment that is also an improvement. From the beginning of the third year the subsidy will be decreased annually in order to ensure a gradual phase-out. This is not the phasing out of the scheme but the phasing out of individual assistance. The subsidy will still be paid on a monthly basis.

To ensure greater participation of persons in the lower income groups in particular, it was decided that for all loans in respect of which the building costs amounted to less than R20 000, a subsidy which would be calculated on a building cost of R20 000 would be paid. The subsidy, however, may not amount to more than the interest payable on the building loan. For this purpose the cost of the stand and other expenditure included in a loan of less than R20 000 may also be taken into consideration. The revised interest subsidy scheme will be implemented with effect from 1 August 1988 and will only apply to new applications received by financial institutions after that date.

I now come to the differentiated interest rates for income levels up to R1 000 per month. The differentiated interest rates have been set by the Housing Development Board and are based on the income of the breadwinner of the family.

The new rental instalment formula is very comprehensive and provides the various interest rates applicable to persons earning up to R1 000 per month. The new formula clearly illustrates what a person would be paying if a market-related rental instalment is applied and also what amount he should actually pay. I have already covered this matter in depth earlier on in this address, except to say that it is estimated that the subsidy provided by the House of Delegates in the implementation of the new rental and instalment formula is in the region of R40 million a year.

The following statistics reflect the progress made in the amounts allocated for the provision of Indian housing since the establishment of the House of Delegates in September 1984. These statistics are very interesting. In the 1984-85 financial year the allocated amount was R85 839 757. In the 1985-86 financial year the amount was increased to R132 708 907. In the 1986-87 financial year the amount was further increased to R155 454 834. In the 1987-88 financial year the allocation was R222 794 560. In the present financial year the total allocation for local authority projects and the department’s own projects for existing and new schemes is R242 061 606. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is the largest amount ever allocated in any financial year for the development of Indian housing.

Although a large percentage of this total of R242 061 606 will be utilised for the acquisition and servicing of land—this is very important—it is estimated that 5 834 houses and 7 945 serviced sites will be made available during the 1988-89 financial year. This gives us a total of approximately 13 500 units because I think the definition of a unit must now include the serviced stands. Hon members of the House are already aware that I announced Operation 25 000 last year. This special campaign is designed to provide 25 000 houses by the year 1990. Taking into consideration our programme in Johannesburg, in Lotus Gardens in Pretoria, Actonville and other areas on the East Rand and on the Natal Coast and in the Natal Midlands we expect to sail past this figure. I want to say that with a tremendous measure of confidence and will and determination and, after the Ministers’ Council’s assistance in identifying areas, once housing production starts we will have 50 000 houses produced in a row continuously.

The provision of housing is inextricably linked with the supply of land. Although I have discussed this issue earlier on I want to mention that every site serviced represents a housing unit, for without the land there would be no house. The provision of serviced sites is therefore being afforded the highest priority. Once the serviced sites have been produced, the houses will follow.

The biggest problem that is faced by the department, is the availability of land. From the figures that follow, it is clear that greater emphasis is being placed on the acquisition and servicing of land. I believe that once we identify the land and acquire it there will be absolutely no problem with regard to construction because I think money, especially from the private sector and individuals, will be made available.

In the 1984-85 financial year 2 870 units were built; 1 094 serviced sites were produced and that gives us a total of 3 964. In the 1985-86 financial year 2 967 homes were built, 1 115 sites were serviced and that gives us a total of 4 082. In the 1986-87 financial year 4 286 homes were built, 1 366 sites were serviced and that gives us a total of 5 652. In the 1987-88 financial year 3 058 units were built, 5 503 sites were serviced and that gives us a total of 8 561. Therefore in the past four years 13 181 units have been built, 9 078 serviced sites have been produced and that gives us a total of 22 259 units in all.

Although the year under review did not provide as many units as anticipated, the number of serviced sites produced was almost 300% more than estimated. Last year I mentioned that 5 000 units would be built and 1 565 serviced sites would be approved. The preceding figures reflect the progress made in these two categories since the inception of the House of Delegates. As far as I am concerned, my department has succeeded in providing 8 561 units in the past year and is on target to make Operation 25 000 a reality.

It is also interesting to note the number of centres involved in the housing action.

The effects of my previous directive are already filtering through the system, ie for every new house built there must be three serviced sites to replace it. This is clearly evident in the figures that I have just quoted.

I will now present the allocations on the basis of area. Should hon members of this House require the information on the basis of electoral divisions, I will make it available. The figures presented reflect a combined total of all proposed and current projects in an area.

Looking now at the province of Natal, in Chatsworth an amount of R8 746 062 has been spent since January 1978. The total amount allocated for 1988-89 is R9 536 800 for the provision of libraries, community facilities including the central sports stadium, services, welfare projects, 393 serviced sites, 210 units and the purchase of land.

Since August 1978 an mount of R49 725 411 has been spent in Newlands West. The allocation of R4 996 971 for the 1988-89 financial year is in respect of a water augmentation project which will also serve the Phoenix area, the installation of services and the provision of 315 serviced sites.

Since January 1976, an amount of R228 838 833 has been spent in Phoenix. An amount of R64 416 952 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year towards a water augmentation project which will also serve the area of Newlands West, the installation of services, the provision of community facilities, the provision of 1 785 serviced sites and the construction of 1 670 dwelling units. I suggest to the hon member for Phoenix that if he wants to make his prime target the provision of a sports stadium, my department will give favourable consideration to such a request.

As regards Springfield, since November 1985 an amount of R709 333 has been spent in this area. The allocation of R3 138 000 in the 1988-89 financial year is in respect of the acquisition of land to finalise the borer infestation project.

Redcliffe is a very important area. To satisfy our housing requirements in the coastal area, an amount of R6 338 799 has been spent in this area since April 1986. An amount of R7 845 517 is now being allocated in this 1988-89 financial year for the completion of services, the construction of 450 units and the provision of 450 serviced sites. I want to say that we must watch out for massive developments in this area.

As regards Shallcross, since April 1986 an amount of R1 530 749 has been spent in this area. An amount of R2 057 360 is now being allocated in the 1988-89 financial year for the erection of 74 units, the completion of 267 serviced sites and the provision of community facilities. I want to say that we are programming better development—accelerated development—in Shallcross where we are going to undertake a development of Buffelbosch Extension No 2 ourselves—by our own administration.

As far as Escourt is concerned, up to March 1988 an amount of R2 927 543 had been spent in this area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year of R3 009 000 is for the acquisition of land, provision of services to 22 sites and the erection of 20 units.

As regards Isipingo, since July 1980 a total of R26 893 541 has been spent in this area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R475 564 for the finalisation of the projects consisting of 645 units and 102 flats. We are conducting negotiations with the Isipingo municipality in respect of the development of two areas. A submission has already been made to the Housing Development Board and this Board was not able to approve the submission. The matter is now being reconsidered by the Isipingo municipality. Once they have been resubmitted to the satisfaction of the Board, the necessary allocations will be made.

As regards Ladysmith, since October 1981 an amount of R8 452 668 has been spent in this area. An amount of R3 668 438 is now being allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the erection of 110 dwelling units and services to 295 sites. The hon the Deputy Minister will give details in respect of future expansion of the housing programme in this area.

Since September 1984, an amount of R12 369 625 has been spent in the Marburg area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R6 484 752 for the completion of 250 units, the erection of 350 units, the acquisition of land, the provision of services and the provision of community facilities. I must say that discussions are in progress between the Margate Municipality and our administration and that during the course of the financial year an additional allocation will be made as and when it is required.

The Pinetown area is a very important region. The Pinetown-Mariannhill-Shallcross complex is an area we have identified in which we can provide 8 000 housing units to be developed in phases, thanks to the efforts of the hon member of Parliament for that area and also thanks to the hon member of Parliament representing Marburg. Since February 1988 an amount of R321 231 has been spent in this area. The allocation of R1 536 050 for the 1988-89 financial year is for the acquisition of land and the provision of community facilities. I want to say that we are earmarking at least R20 million to be spent in this area after certain negotiations are finalised.

Since April 1986, an amount of R69 960 has been spent in the Mooi River area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R3 900 000 for the provision of services to 189 sites.

Since April 1986, an amount of R7 393 524 has been spent in the Newcastle area. An amount of R62 587 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for planning fees in respect of services to 338 sites.

Since July 1982, an amount of R24 771 480 has been spent in the Pietermaritzburg area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R3 334 244 for the provision of welfare projects, the installation of services and the erection of experimental low-cost units.

Since April 1986, an amount of R6 490 863 has been spent in the Stanger area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R3 million for a welfare project, services to 770 sites and the construction of 40 units. I can say that negotiations are under way with the Stanger municipality and that this allocation does not reflect what the department is programming for Stanger.

Since February 1984, an amount of R27 920 004 has been spent in the Verulam area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R6 213 653 for the completion of 718 units, the erection of a further 700 units, the provision of 107 serviced sites and a welfare project.

Richards Bay is our growth point. As at March 1988, an amount of R8 064 878 had been spent in this area. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R12 million for the erection of 400 units.

Since April 1987 an amount of R1 157 713 has been spent in the Howick area. An amount of R2 571 151 is allocated in the 1988-89 financial year for the completion of the services and the erection of 155 units.

An amount of R369 573 has been spent in Glencoe since 1982. In the present financial year we have allocated R1 055 561 for the provision of services.

No funds were spent in the Gingindlovu area in the last financial year. An amount of R250 000 is the allocation in this financial year for the provision of services to 50 sites.

No funds were spent in the Mtubatuba area in the past year. In the 1988-89 financial year the allocation is R250 000 for the provision of services to 50 sites.

Since April 1987, an amount of R10 968 788 has been spent in the Cato Manor area. An amount of R8 868 510 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the provision of services and the construction of 151 units.

Savanna Park has been a problem. We have problems with the contractor and serviced sites were damaged by the floods, which has delayed our project. Since April 1983 an amount of R676 000 has been spent in this area. The 1988-89 allocation of R212 447 is for the finalisation of the servicing project. A further interim allocation will be made for the construction of 150 units in this financial year.

I now move to the Transvaal and in Balfour, as at the end of March 1988, an amount of R52 439 had been spent. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R693 500 for the provision of services to 72 sites.

As at the end of the last financial year an amount of R18 031 631 had been spent in Palm Ridge. An amount of R913 030 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the provision of community facilities.

Since April 1986 an amount of R2 932 167 has been spent in Heidelberg. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R2 175 190 for the acquisition of land, installation of services and construction of 80 units.

At Delmas, since January 1984, an amount of R350 270 has been spent. An amount of R750 000 is now allocated in this 1988-89 financial year for the construction of 20 units.

At Bakerton, Springs, since April 1985, an amount of R3 927 167 has been spent. An amount of R2 200 000 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the provision of community facilities.

Since April 1986 an amount of R504 156 has been spent in the Primindia area. The allocation of R1 662 117 for the 1988-89 financial year is for the provision of services, erection of 52 units and community facilities.

At Roshnee, Vereeniging, as at the end of March 1988, an amount of R4 537 322 had been spent. An amount of R2 328 000 for the 1988-89 financial year is allocated for land acquisition, services and the construction of 20 units for the aged.

At Middelburg an amount of R860 370 has been spent since April 1986. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is R1 487 375 for the erection of 40 units, land acquisition and the provision of community facilities.

At Nelspruit we have a problem because the municipality has identified land which is unsuitable for development. The land has been serviced, the sizes of the plots are too large and the prices are unrealistic. Nevertheless, since April 1986 an amount of R70 798 has been spent in the area. The 1988-89 allocation of R625 365 is in respect of a project for 30 units.

As at the end of the last financial year an amount of R2 962 868 had been spent in the Pine Ridge area. The 1988-89 allocation of R804 327 is for the completion of 139 units.

At Johannesburg no funds were spent in the past year. An amount of R5 500 000 is the allocation for the 1988-89 financial year for the provision of waste water treatment works and outfall sewers. I may add, that our department is developing the area north of Nirvana Drive. Most certainly, when we require the funds, these will be made available. We are also looking at the other areas in Lenasia South where people are occupying the so-called agricultural land. We do not want a sword of uncertainty to hang over their heads, but we want to ensure that these people are given home-ownership as quickly as possible.

At Marlboro Gardens, since April 1986, an amount of R2 100 676 has been spent. The 1988-89 allocation of R3 000 000 is for the provision of community facilities and the erection of 50 units.

Since April 1986, an amount of R14 982 231 has been spent in Lenasia. An amount of R14 521 960 is the 1988-89 allocation for the provision of services, improvements to the town centre, the provision of a service centre for the aged and the construction of 1 000 units.

No funds were spent in Barberton in the past financial year. The 1988-89 allocation is R250 000 for the provision of community facilities.

No funds were spent in Bethal in the past year. We are allocating R265 000 in the present financial year for the provision of community facilities.

No funds were spent in Potgietersrus in the past year. The present allocation is R409 835 for the provision of facilities.

Bronkhorstspruit is in the same position as no funds were spent in this area in the past year. I visited this area myself. There is a land identification problem. What the municipality has identified is not acceptable to the community. We are reaching an agreement with this municipality to ensure that we get the housing project off the ground as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in this financial year, R300 000 is being made available for the provision of services.

In the Grasmere-Finetown area no funds were spent in the past year. It is pleasing to note that we are allocating a sum of R5 000 000 in this financial year for the provision of services.

No funds were spent in Coligny in the past year. For the 1988-89 financial year, the allocation is R150 000 for the provision of community facilities.

In Unaville no funds were spent in the past year. We are allocating R500 000 in this financial year for the provision of services.

The same position applies to Kinross. No funds were spent in the last financial year. In this financial year we are allocating R1 200 000 for the acquisition of land. I am sure that there will definitely be progress in Kinross during this financial year.

No funds were used in Klerksdorp in the last financial year, but we are allocating the sum of R1 500 000 for the erection of 10 units and the provision of community facilities.

No funds were spent in Wolmaransstad in the past financial year. The allocation for this year is R50 000 for the construction of a community hall.

No funds were spent in Potchefstroom in the past year. An amount of R190 000 is the 1988-89 allocation for the provision of sporting facilities.

Since April 1986, an amount of R64 199 has been spent in Piet Retief. In the present financial year we are allocating R250 000 for the provision of community facilities.

We had many problems in Pretoria. We were looking at land. We are about to solve the Claudius issue. There was a Supreme Court case, where we are losing interest very heavily, as a result of arrangements made by the former Department of Community Development. The Pretoria municipality handled housing there on an agency basis. Whatever the deficit may be, it has to be charged to the present Housing Development Board. Nevertheless, I want to express my appreciation to the former Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon member for Laudium for reaching consensus with the Black community so that the way is now clear for the development of Lotus Gardens. We have completely altered our programme in Pretoria, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. An amount of R5 000 000 is now allocated for the provision of services for 1 000 sites for the 1988-89 financial year.

No funds were spent in Rustenburg in the past year. The 1988-89 allocation is R6 946 940 for the erection of 50 units and for the provision of services.

I now come to the East Rand and the area known as Villa Lisa. No funds have been spent in this area in the past year. An amount of R5 000 000 is allocated in the 1988-89 financial year for land acquisition and the provision of services. I want to place on record that this time I took the matter to the Ministers’ Council and the Ministers’ Council examined three areas. They are Villa Lisa, Windmill Park and Apex. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to place on record that it is the desire of the Ministers’ Council to make use of the three areas, even if they become available now.

All three?

All three.

The geotechnical report is positive. We do not have any mining problems similar to those we had in that other area on the East Rand, which is still owned by the Housing Development Board. [Interjections.] We have problems with Apex, but I want to place on record that if Windmill Park is available today, the House of Delegates will take it.

It is available!

If it can be made available by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, the House of Delegates will take it. In terms of the Group Areas Act, and also in terms of the price, the Ministers’ Council has indicated—with the understanding of the MPs for that area—that we will take whatever area becomes available first and is the cheapest. I want to dispel any misunderstanding among hon members in this House and people residing in Actonville, that the House of Delegates tried its best to get Windmill Park and Villa Lisa at the same time. Unfortunately it could not succeed. I am prepared to discuss this privately with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party spokesman on housing, the hon member for Stanger, and even the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

I want to place it on record that the Ministers’ Council is very much interested in Windmill Park. We will acquire Windmill Park. There are ready-made homes there. I agree with what the hon member for Actonville said yesterday. Nobody pushed us into Villa Lisa. It was just that it became available first.

But you will not get rid of Palm Ridge, will you?

No. I want to dispel rumours of mischief-makers that there is no plan to move anybody out of Palm Ridge. This I say with the full support of the hon member for Central Rand In Standerton no funds have been spent in the past year. I may just add that as far as Villa Lisa is concerned, I want hon members to calculate the savings that were effected as a result of dealing directly with the landowners. I want to place on record that there is a section of that area, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will vouch for this, which is valued by independent valuers to be too high. There are expensive dwellings there. I can assure hon members of this House that we will even go to the Auditor-General if needs be to get his advice whether we should acquire a small section in the area that is declared, because there are beautiful homes there. They are mostly agricultural estates, but after examining the initial figures, I got the impression that we had to tread very carefully in that particular section. However, we do not want anybody to buy that area later on and rezone it as giant commercial areas. That is the danger if one leaves a small strip.

Dennis, he is now talking about you. [Interjections.]

That is a mischief-making comment of the highest kind! I am talking about Phoenix.

The truth hurts!

I am talking about Phoenix. On the border of Phoenix, privately owned properties have been rezoned as giant commercial areas—not by Indians, but by Whites. This is even happening on the areas bordering Lenasia. It is happening on a massive scale. I therefore want to dismiss with complete contempt the interjection of the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

In Standerton, in the present financial year, we allocated R1 062 328. In Lydenburg an amount of R75 000 was spent during the past financial year. In this financial year we will allocate R375 000 for the provision of community facilities, provision of services and the construction of 10 units.

No funds were spent in the Warmbaths area during the past financial year. We are allocating R100 000 for the construction of a community hall.

No funds were allocated for Schweizer-Reneke during the past financial year. In the present financial year we are allocating R150 000 for the construction of a community hall.

No funds were spent in the area of Zeerust in the past year. An amount of R700 000 is now allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the erection of ten units and the provision of community facilities.

We now move to the Cape Province. In Kimberley no funds were spent in the past year. In the 1988-89 financial year an allocation of R918 060 was made for the provision of services to 86 sites and the erection of 14 units.

No funds were spent in the area of Vryburg in the past year. An amount of R400 000 is allocated in the 1988-89 financial year for the erection of four units and the provision of 22 serviced sites.

As at the end of the last financial year an amount of R2 240 301 had been spent in the East London area. The 1988-89 financial year allocation is R4 418 997 for the provision of services, the erection of 82 units and the provision of 264 serviced sites.

I now come to the area of Malabar. This is the area where most of the film stars reside in India. [Interjections.] Since August 1982 an amount of R3 207 573 has been spent in this area. An amount of R2 248 120 has been allocated for the 1988-89 financial year for the provision of services, the erection of 100 units and the provision of 270 sites.

Pelican Park was the biggest tangle with which the House of Delegates was ever confronted but it is now untangled. Thanks to the co-operation of the members of the management committee, the two hon MPs who represent the Cape area, the Cape Town municipality and our administration, Pelican Park will get off the ground. Yesterday we had a meeting with all the parties concerned. The serviced sites along the beach will become available by way of allocation to persons on the joint waiting list and also by public tender, subject to certain stringent conditions. Other sites will be available next to the lake and next to our parliamentary village. I think the critical housing problem will be relieved in the next few years.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Mr Chairman, I will take the question later. Let me finish my speech first.

What about the folly of Copes Folley?

Please, no snide remarks. I do not think we should turn this into a dirty debate. [Interjections.] I was worried about Pelican Park but I think that the final prices of the land will be reasonable. I think they will be as reasonable as the land in Chatsworth. I am satisfied …

Which people in Chatsworth?

The poor people. The Ministers in Chatsworth are very poor Ministers. I am satisfied that when we present the package proposal to the people of Cape Town, they will be very pleased with the way in which we have untangled the mess in Pelican Park. The 1988-89 financial year allocation for Pelican Park is R18 432 905 for land acquisition, the erection of 600 units and the provision of 848 serviced sites.

No funds were spent in the area of Cravenby in the past financial year. In the present financial year an amount of R700 000 is allocated for the provision of community facilities. That concludes the allocations. Let us move on to township developments.

Cato Manor is our own project. The Indian group area of Cato Manor comprises three separate townships known as Umkumbaan, Bonella and Wiggins. The position with each of these townships is as follows: The township of Umkumbaan is at the most advanced stage of the three. Additional services have been installed and an additional 258 special residential sites have become available for sale.

Several purchasers have experienced problems in developing their sites due to the presence of ecca shale. The Housing Development Board accordingly appointed consultants to identify those areas where special building precautions would have to be taken. A preliminary report has been received from the consultants indicating those areas which are affected by ecca shale. A final report is now being awaited which will indicate in great detail how each site has been affected and the precautions necessary to develop each site. This report will be received shortly.

Two general residential sites in this township will be developed by the Housing Development Board. Invitations to tenders will take place shortly. The contractor is expected to be on site during mid June 1988. The development will comprise 44 duplex units.

As far as Bonella is concerned, the contract for the installation of engineering services which was due to be completed during March 1988, has been delayed as a result of the recent heavy rains. It is expected that these services will now be completed during July 1988. The land surveyor has completed the diagram of the layout of the township. The new layout plan which was submitted to the Durban City Council is expected to be approved shortly.

The township will be registered in two phases. This administration will erect 150 units in phase 1 when the services are completed. Tenders for this contract have closed and the successful contractor moved on site on 2 May 1988.

The preliminary layout plan of the township Wiggins has been presented to the Cato Manor Residents’ Association (CMRA) so that it could provide some input before the plan was finalised. Unfortunately, no feedback has been received from the Association after a considerable length of time. One of the administration’s town planners met with the consultant town planner of the CMRA recently to discuss the matter. To date no inputs have been received from the Cato Manor Residents’ Association. Thereafter it will take 2 to 3 months to finalise the layout plan of this township. Only then can the plan be submitted to the Durban City Council for approval.

Richards Bay is a very important area for development. The development of Richards Bay has been undertaken in three phases. The consolidation of the six component properties was registered and phase 1 was proclaimed in September 1987.

As far as phases 2 and 3 are concerned, difficulties regarding the conditions of establishment are presently being resolved and final conditions still have to be received from the Private Townships Board. The matter is receiving priority attention.

The services have been installed in all three phases. Four hundred dwellings are to be constructed in Phase 2. The project will commence by the beginning of the third quarter of 1988.

With regard to the Ladysmith shopping centre—lot 5710 Ladysmith—before shops at this centre can be sold and transferred to the tenants, a condition of establishment must first be finalised. This concerns the transfer of the public places at the centre to the local authority. This transfer has been held in abeyance as representations to have these public places rezoned to permit the erection of further shops were received. The matter is being pursued with the Town Clerk of Ladysmith.

The township of Marburg Extension 14 was proclaimed on 24 September 1987 and is being transferred to the Marburg Town Board in terms of an agreement between the former Community Development Board and the local authority.

The Weenen shopping centre was not built in accordance with the general plan by the former Department of Community Development. As a result certain encroachments arose and these first needed to be rectified before the individual shops could be sold and transferred. The necessary amendments were recently registered in the Deeds Office and the sale of the shops to the tenants can now proceed.

With regard to Mountain Rise, Pietermaritzburg, there are three zones which are being attended to by my department. The position of each is as follows: Zone 1 consists of a number of pockets of land which have to be consolidated and resubdivided:

1. (i) Subs 1 to 6 of Lot 1614
   The consolidation and resubdivision of the above properties was registered on 9 March 1988. Certain road portions were also transferred to the local authority on the same day.
2. (ii) Proposed subs 1 to 11 of 7 of 75 and subs 15 to 20 of H of 75 of Pietermaritzburg
   A surveyor was appointed to frame a diagram for the above subdivisions during 1986. This survey work has since been completed. My department is now attending to the conditions imposed by the City Engineer, Pietermaritzburg, to enable the registration of these subdivisions to take place. Thereafter the new subdivisions will be sold.
3. (iii) Subs A to F of 5 of B of A of Lot 82 Pietermaritzburg
   Services are to be installed to enable the registration of the above subdivisions to take place. Four of the proposed subdivisions have already been sold to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

As regards Zone 3, this township, which has the potential to provide 81 special residential sites, has been sold to a housing utility company which will service and develop it. As regards Zone 4, two consolidations were registered in this zone some years ago. The two consolidated lots have each been resubdivided and will provide a total of 33 new special residential sites. The Pietermaritzburg City Council will install the water and electrical reticulation this financial year. All other services have been completed.

As regards Savanna Park, this township originally consisted of 3 phases but only one phase is being developed. The recent floods damaged the existing services and, as a result, the stormwater services are being redesigned. This has necessitated amendments to the approved layout plan and has delayed approval of the general plan by the Surveyor-General. The services are expected to be completed by August 1988.

As regards Howick West, Extensions 1 and 2, the former Department of Community Development planned both these townships. In fact general plans for both townships were registered in 1982. My department’s town planners, however, amended both layout plans in order to provide an additional 31 special residential sites. The number of special residential sites has now been increased to 186.

The installation of services in Extensions 1 and 2 has been completed. My department will construct 155 houses for the low income group. The contract will be extended to provide an additional 31 houses. The contractor is expected to commence in June 1988.

As regards Newlands West, the Housing Development Board recently resolved to acquire the land known as CA5 from the Durban City Council. This township will comprise approximately 1 000 housing units. The amendment of the final layout of the township will be completed by June 1988. The design of the services for the township will be completed by August this year. The construction of services is likely to commence in January 1989 over a period of approximately 18 months. It is expected that the first houses will be constructed in phase 1 during the latter half of 1990.

The project in regard to Copes Folley and Dunveria was originally undertaken by the Pietermaritzburg City Council on behalf of my department. The first phase of approximately 1 000 units has been planned and the Council’s engineering consultants are to begin with the final design for the services in the near future. It is now proposed that my department will accept full responsibility for the development of this area.

As far as Lenasia is concerned, there are a number of townships within Lenasia which are receiving the necessary attention for proclamation. The following are the details of these townships: As regards Extensions 9, 10 and 11 a consolidation of some 45 component properties has to be registered before Extensions 9, 10 and 11 can be proclaimed. Problems with mineral rights have been encountered and these must be resolved before the consolidation can be registered.

Extensions 9 and 11 can be proclaimed almost immediately after the consolidation has been registered. As far as Extension 10 is concerned, the final conditions of establishment are expected shortly. Proclamation will also be possible shortly thereafter.

As regards Lenasia South, Extension 2, the registration of this township is receiving attention. All the documents have been signed and forwarded to the State Attorney who should be in a position to lodge them with the Deeds Office shortly. Provision has been made for 596 residential sites in this township.

As far as Lenasia South, Extension 4, is concerned, consultants have been appointed to plan the layout and design the services for this township. Provision has been made for approximately 3 300 units in this township.

The site was handed over to the contractor in December 1987 for the construction of engineering services. The construction of services is divided into six phases, the first of which will be completed by July 1988. The installation of services for all phases will be completed towards the end of 1989. The building of the first homes is expected to commence in August 1988.

Finetown-Grasmere is an area where there are several problems. People are complaining about the slow pace of development there. At present priority is being given to the development of Lenasia, Extension 13, and Lenasia South, Extension 4. Once these developments are in progress, consideration will be given to the development of this area. There is also a serious squatter problem in this area which my department is endeavouring to resolve.

As regards Lenasia Extension 13 (the area north of Nirvana Drive), this township will comprise approximately 1 600 units, mainly for the low income group. Consultants were appointed recently to design the layout of the township and further consultants were appointed to design the engineering services. The township application and layout was submitted to the Johannesburg City Council at the end of March 1988. It is expected that the township will be approved by the City Council in July 1988 and the installation of services in phases will commence in August 1988 and continue for approximately 18 months. The construction of houses should commence early in 1989 after the township is proclaimed.

Lotus Gardens is an own project of the House of Delegates. This proposed township, comprising approximately 1 600 units, was designed by the former Department of Community Development. The development of this township was at first deferred as it was deemed advisable to investigate other areas which were possibly more suitable for residential development. It has now been resolved to proceed with the development of Lotus Gardens. The township establishment procedure has been taken up with the Transvaal Provincial Administration.

The tender documents for the servicing of the township are expected to be ready shortly. Tenders are expected to be invited by the third quarter of this year. The services for the first phase should be completed by mid 1989, enabling the construction of the first houses to take place.

On the East Rand, the major development of an area known as Villa Lisa will shortly be undertaken by my department. Most of the land has been acquired by the Housing Development Board. Approximately 2 000 units will be provided.

Consultants were appointed at the end of March 1988 to design the layout of the township and the engineering services. The planning of the layout is expected to be finalised shortly with the design of the services to be completed by about August 1988. Thereafter tenders can be invited and finalised in October 1988. A contractor can commence with the construction of the services in phases in January 1989. The contract will be for a period of 18 to 24 months.

Phase 1 should be ready for the construction of houses in August 1989 and the first houses should be ready for occupation towards the end of 1989. It is expected that the proclamation of the township will be effected in the second half of 1989.

During the past three years consultants have been appointed to prepare strategy plans for Natal and the Transvaal. These strategy plans are comprehensive reports which indicate population growth, areas of employment and existing group areas, etc. The reports are an invaluable guide to assess future population growth and to determine how much land will be needed in order to plan and develop new townships. My department itself is presently preparing a similar report on the Cape Province.

As a follow up to the report on Natal, a detailed report on the metropolitan area of Durban is presently being compiled by consultants. Areas will be identified and examined by the department with the eventual aim of having them proclaimed as Indian group areas.

With regard to group areas, I wish to appeal to hon members of Parliament, local authorities and local affairs management committees to assist my department in identifying areas which could be investigated for proclamation as Indian group areas. Some of the areas being investigated are the following: Firstly, there is Tongaat. I am pleased to announce that a group areas advertisement for the extension of Tongaat was made public last Friday.

With regard to Phoenix East, I want to say that we have identified the area in consultation with the Durban municipality. We have a problem pertaining to prices in Phoenix East, but I can assure hon members of this House that this will be the most ambitious housing project ever undertaken for Indians in the history of this country. As regards Northdene, due to consultation with various authorities and especially the efforts made by the hon member of Parliament for that area, we are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Other areas being investigated are Howick, Bergville and Ladysmith in Natal, which will be dealt with by the hon the Deputy Minister. Other such areas are the East Rand, Apex, Villa Lisa, Volksrust, Bronkhorstspruit, Kinross and Trichardt in the Transvaal, as well as Bloemfontein, Hennenman and Bethlehem in the Orange Free State.

The illegal squatting of Blacks within Indian group areas in Natal and the Transvaal still remains a serious problem. In Natal, certain areas of Chatsworth, Phoenix, Newlands West and Clare Estate have been affected by squatting. The areas of Finetown-Grasmere and portions of the farm Vlakfontein in the Transvaal have likewise been affected.

In view of the seriousness of this problem, a co-ordinating committee under the auspices of the Department of Development Planning, on which representatives of the provincial administrations and the own affairs administrations serve, has held several meetings with a view to resolving the matter. In fact, certain amendments to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act have been passed during this session of Parliament which will no doubt create firmer control.

My department administers some 41 shopping complexes and intends selling the shops to the present tenants wherever possible. Consultants have been appointed to expedite all such planning matters which are necessary before the shops can be sold.

A matter of deep concern is the escalation of arrear rentals, presently estimated at R2 million. The Housing Development Board is investigating ways and means of recovering these arrears.

I now want to deal very briefly with the rural development programme. The Development and Services Board recently carried out extensive investigations into all the rural areas in Natal.

The programme has been accepted in principle and consideration is being given to implementing the recommendations contained therein. The following schedule reflects the sites acquired and the proposed acquisition of sites for the erection of schools. In the 1987-1988 financial year the acquisition of land and control of State land came to R3 650 000, and in the present financial year this figure stands at R6 605 000. The following 16 school sites were acquired in the past financial year:

Sites for the following schools are planned to be acquired during the current financial year.

1. 1. Bonella S.S. 1
2. 2. Chatsworth Tec. S.S.
3. 3. Dannhauser: Sportsfield
4. 4. Eshowe P.S.
5. 5. Fairbreeze S.S. Sportsfield
6. 6. Hillgrove P.S.
7. 7. Lenasia South P.S. 2
8. 8. Mitchford P.S. Sportsfield
9. 9. Mountview S.S. Sportsfield
10. 10. Naidooville P.S. Sportsfield
11. 11. Newlands S.S. 3 (Riverdene)
12. 12. Pelican Park P.S. 2
13. 13. Newlands S.S. 3
14. 14. Hillview P.S.
15. 15. Port Shepstone P.S. 3
16. 16. Heather S.S. Hall
17. 17. Motala Farm P.S.
18. 18. Verulam Roodekraans P.S. 1
19. 19. Estcourt Drakensberg
20. 20. Glencoe P.S.
21. 21. Palmiet S.S. 2
22. 22. Palmiet S.S. 3
23. 23. Phoenix P.S. 50
24. 24. Phoenix P.S. 51
25. 25. Phoenix P.S. 44
26. 26. Sea Cow Lake: Sportsfield
27. 27. Shakaskraal S.S. Add. Land
28. 28. Stanger: Lot 14
29. 29. Umkomaas School of Industries
30. 30. Umzinto P.S. 2
31. 31. Umzinto P.S. 3
32. 32. Wasbank P.S.
33. 33. Wyebank P.S.
34. 34. Zeerust P.S.

*S.S. = Secondary School

P.S. = Primary School

Next we come to Villa Lisa on the East Rand and the acquisition of land for housing purposes. A socio-economic survey revealed the need for low-cost housing on the East Rand. A large tract of land, approximately 1 000 ha in extent, was identified as a possible Indian group area. The area known as Villa Lisa was thoroughly investigated and was proclaimed as an Indian group area on 29 April 1988. Consequently the Housing Development Board resolved to acquire all the land within this area. The Administration has already finalised the acquisition of a number of the larger portions of the area and is presently negotiating the acquisition of the remaining portions. The land is expected to cost approximately R13 500 000 in total. The planning of the area is already in progress and it is expected that provision will be made for the initial planning of approximately 12 000 dwelling units.

Moving on to supporting services, although the provision of housing is the prime occupation of my department, it is also responsible for the erection of schools and colleges required by the Department of Education and Culture. It must be noted that expenditure for this purpose is provided by the Treasury. I would like to mention certain achievements from a global viewpoint in connection with capital works, repairs and renovations and hiring of accommodation.

As regards secondary schools, in the 1987-88 financial year, my department completed the construction of 18 secondary schools at a cost of R12 471 503. A further five secondary schools were commenced, with an amount of R470 355 being spent.

As regards primary schools, in the past year 14 primary schools were completed at a cost of R4 470 117. A further eight primary schools were commenced with and an amount of R135 225 was spent.

As regards technical colleges and schools of industry, an amount of R3 433 218 was spent in the 1987-88 financial year in completing the Northdale Technical College and the Newcastle School of Industry. In addition nine school zones were fitted with computer classrooms at a cost of R3 568 919.

A total of 12 new schools will be commenced with, of which eight are primary schools and four secondary schools. Tenders will also be invited for major additions and alterations to 41 schools in the Republic at a total estimated cost of R70 743 888.

Going on to the repairs and renovations and minor new schools, I wish to report that the following amounts have been expended during the last financial year:

The figures for minor new works on a regional basis are as follows:

I will not give details of what is proposed to be expended on repairs and renovations in the 1988-89 financial year, but the total will be approximately R9 280 000. Minor new works in the various regions will total R1 398 649, giving us a grand total of R10 678 649. It is anticipated that this amount will be spent for minor new works and repairs and renovations to 294 schools, five offices, one technical college and one shopping complex.

Regarding the hiring of accommodation, expenditure in connection with the hiring of school and office accommodation in the four regions of Durban, Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town totalled R2 865 492. In view of the fact that all hirings are conducted on the basis of lease agreements, it is expected that an amount of R2 865 492 will be spent in the 1988-89 financial year.

As I have stated earlier, hon members will notice that we are overcoming our main problems, namely the availability of land. In many areas our problem still remains the question of affordability. Yesterday we heard the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning saying that his department had to pay R50 000 per hectare for Black housing in Natal. We are complaining about R25 000 being asked for the land adjacent to Phoenix, compared to the R4 000 per hectare which was paid in 1983. We have to take some serious decisions in respect of the subsidisation of land, otherwise it will not be possible for us to provide low-cost housing.

I want to make an appeal to hon members of this House to be reasonable in their areas and not to make heavy demands on our Administration to grant subsidies and unnecessary relief, because we have not budgeted for the subsidisation of land where we are required to pay a high price. I think hon members will realise the financial implications of such a programme to subsidise land, and that it will virtually make our housing fund bankrupt.

I want to conclude my address by assuring hon members of this House that Operation 25 000 is already moving into top gear and that the momentum of the housing action will accelerate to a pace unprecedented in the history of the Indian community in this country.

In keeping with parliamentary precedent, criticism is expected to follow this address. I appeal to hon members to restrict their arguments to issues mentioned in my address. Of course, I expect hon members to raise all issues which are of national interest and also issues which affect their particular constituencies.

I appeal to hon members seated on both sides of this Chamber to render their support in breaking the backbone of our housing shortage. The critical housing shortage hangs over our heads like the sword of Damocles. I am convinced that the joint efforts of hon members, Ministries of Parliament, LACs and management committees will result in a happy community and a stable South Africa.

Order! I would like to draw hon members’ attention to Rule 75 of the Rules of Debate. Every member is to be uncovered when he enters or leaves the Chamber, or if he moves to any other part of the Chamber during a debate, and shall bow to the Chair passing to or from his seat, unless Mr Speaker directs otherwise in the case of an hon member concerned. Many hon members do not bow to the Chair when they leave their seats. They must please observe this Rule.

Mr Chairman, I propose that this debate be interrupted in order to afford hon members an opportunity to study the lengthy debate delivered by the hon the Minister of Housing. I am of the opinion that we can continue this debate tomorrow.

Order! Has the hon member consulted the Whips on this matter?

Yes, Sir. I also spoke to the hon the Leader of the House, as well as other hon Ministers.

Debate interrupted.