Mr Speaker …

Order! Would the hon the Minister just please take his seat again? I think that the least that can be expected of hon members, when the presiding officer commences the day’s proceedings and the Secretary reads the first Order of the Day, is for them to evidence the necessary respect. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I think hon members will concede that the subject of the debate we are engaged in is probably one of the most important as far as the future of this country is concerned. I therefore want to begin by expressing my thanks to all hon members who have thus far participated in the debate. I thank them for the reasonableness with which they formulated their standpoints. I realise, better than anyone else, that in the very emotionally-laden atmosphere of a political debate on the future political dispensation for the country, we can easily lapse into a state of emotionally harangueing one another. That is why I want to congratulate hon members on the level at which they maintained the debate here yesterday.

Personally I should also like to record my appreciation for the services furnished by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare while he was in charge of this Ministry and these departments. I think his dedication redounds to his credit, and I record my appreciation for that fact.

At the same time I want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry, who was involved in this Ministry for a short time. Even during the short time he was with us, he impressed us with the contributions he made. I should also like to welcome the new hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to our ranks. I want to tell him that I have no doubt that in the light of his experience with the Department of Law and Order, he will be able to accept the new order in this department. He will, of course, still have to learn that he will often have to do his talking on the run, like the chap who wanted to talk to the ghost. [Interjections.] I think that his contribution yesterday attests to the fact that he has already acquainted himself with the activities of the department and the Ministry.

I want to continue by saying that this year is an important year. It is indeed a unique event when a party has been governing for 40 years. I readily concede that we can have different views about whether what happened during those 40 years was right, wrong, partly right or partly wrong.

†However, nothing can detract from the fact that this is indeed a unique achievement and a historic occasion. One also has to understand that this is an opportunity to assess the contribution that this party has made over the past 40 years towards the constitutional development of our country and our nation.

*This party was established in 1914 on the basis of two fundamental and cardinal considerations. That has consequently had a specific influence on the constitutional development of our country from then to the present day. There are specifically two important facets on which I think we should focus attention and which we should also evaluate critically.

The first is that this is the only fatherland in which the Whites of this country want to live, and not in such a way that their expertise or skills are the only ones which are allowed or accepted when it comes to the development of the country, but because they and their descendants want to live here in peace and security.

This brings me to the next statement I want to make. What was also involved here were the citizenship rights and other rights of the Whites. When we debate the politics of the future, it is still always a matter of the rights of the Whites and their position in South Africa. The fact that the rights of Whites in this country are also involved has two important implications, as I see it. The first involves an undertaking I want to give, inasmuch as it is within one’s power to give undertakings for the future, and that is that as long as the NP is in power in this House of Assembly, we will not allow simplistic majority systems to be introduced in this country. [Interjections.]

What about non-simplistic majority systems?

If the hon member for Lichtenburg does not accept the political concepts, definitions and terminology, I do not want to react to that. [Interjections.]

The second fact I want to mention is that with the advent of the Republic the country was finally, under the guidance of the NP, delivered from its colonial subservience. Today this is merely a fact of history, but it has a specific significance. It means the elimination of every possibility of future constitutional development in our country being determined in Whitehall or Lancaster House, as in the case of Zimbabwe. It also means that the fortunes of this country, in every sphere of life, will be determined by South Africans. This has an important implication for those of us living here. While the future of the country will be in the hands of all South Africans, the role which the Whites will play in future planning is non-negotiable—now and for the future. [Interjections.]

The second cornerstone on which the party is based, and on which it has developed throughout the years, is the fact that it has always accepted the realities of the composition of the South African population and still does so today. It is accepted, without qualification, that South Africa is not solely the fatherland of the White section of the population. It never was, it never can be and will not ever be in the future. The fact that we do not like this, does not make it any the less true.

The citizenship and rights of other peoples and groups have always been part of the terms of reference and the responsibility of the NP, and that is equally true today. I want to reiterate today that a party which ignores this responsibility is ignoring the future. That is why it is not only this fact in the composition of our population which is accepted, but also the challenge to improve the co-existence of South Africa’s groups, peoples and communities qualitatively as far as possible. This embodies a particular responsibility as far as development is concerned.

There is one point we can concede. The development issues in this country are the major issues we are grappling with. They manifest themselves in every sphere of life—the social, the financial-economic and the political. They consequently include solutions for the developmental issues of the country which on the one hand cannot mean the undermining of the authority of the Whites, but on the other hand cannot mean that the position of the Whites should be safeguarded at the cost of others. Nor does it mean that we can allow our standards, norms and value systems to decline, because that does not signify development. Then we would have decline.

My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, has already replied to several of my hon colleagues’ speeches—the hon members for Cradock, Port Elizabeth North, North Rand, Claremont, Bryanston and Overvaal. Apart from certain relevant remarks, I shall therefore not be reacting to them any further.

I should like to explain to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Sea Point that I shall be reacting to them at a later stage. They should consequently not misinterpret the order in which I address hon members.

[Inaudible.]

I have already received a message to that effect, and that is how I understood it.

†I would like to start with the hon member for Hillbrow. He must not consider it unfriendly if I say that I did not understand what he was talking about, but I had an idea he was talking about broadening the base of democracy.

*I now come to the hon member for Mossel Bay. I do not want to repeat his speech, but I do want to thank him for the fact that he has repeatedly underlined one important aspect, and that is that in the developmental process we are moving towards a balance of power. I think that sums up his speech.

The hon member for Umlazi largely reacted to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He made a few important statements, however, which I want to supplement today. I do not think that we always realise that the Whites no longer govern this country alone. I do not think we always understand that the overall sovereignty of Parliament, previously composed solely of Whites, no longer exists today. Nor do I think that we always understand that we all had a hand in fundamentally changing the sovereignty of Parliament as it was.

In their day hon members of the Official Opposition made a major contribution towards removing large portions of our country from the sovereignty of the White Parliament, because when the four states became independent, this Parliament lost a part of its sovereignty. When the six states became self-governing, a portion of the sovereignty of Parliament, in regard to the powers which it transferred to those states, disappeared. What is more, if the Official Opposition’s policy were taken to its logical consequences, it would remove even greater portions of the country from the jurisdiction of the White Parliament, which they want. When we therefore speak about encroachment on the sovereignty of this country, we must see it in unequivocal terms.

The hon member also made another statement. I think that the extended public committee sittings in the various capitals was an innovation which could augur well for us in this country, because for the first time, within the Parliamentary setup, the various groups and the parties within those groups could have an opportunity to put forward their respective views, this time not in the absence of or about the other members, but in the presence of and directly to those other members.

There should also have been Blacks.

Let me tell that hon member that there are many Blacks I would rather have had there than certain Whites. [Interjections.]

What I want to say in this regard is that there was an opportunity for people to implement a kind of self-discipline in terms of the formulation of their standpoints, something that can only augur well for us. I agree with the hon member for Sasolburg that the Official Opposition was not in a position to debate their concept of justice directly with the other people. [Interjections.]

This brings me to something else that is important too. I understand that the Official Opposition does not accept this system, but I also accept that, like democrats, they are functioning within the system.

Let me also say that in the standing committees the hon members left the communities, which they say they represent, in the lurch, because they did not air their views there. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Parow. As always he made a very refreshing contribution. There is one important matter on which I should like to agree with him. Anyone who underestimates the emotional restrictions on progress in our fatherland, with its present composition, knows nothing about politics, because there is more of an emotionally-laden atmosphere in a divided society such as ours than in a homogeneous one.

Another important aspect, in spite of all the fears of political domination which are real, and in spite of all the emotions and prejudices which are realities, is the fear of the destruction of values. The greater the Third World component in the population, relative to the developed section, the greater is that fear. Therefore, in determining the course of constitutional development, in evaluating the direction it is taking and the rate at which it is moving, and in looking at the mechanisms which must give effect to it, it would be dangerous to ignore that fear.

The hon member for Umhlanga and other hon members spoke about the reform process and thanked the department for what it was doing. There is just one thing I want to say here. Everyone in the country, all of us sitting here, have made a choice opposing the status quo. There is not one single political party which wants the dispensation which exists in South Africa at present.

That is true.

That is true. We do, of course, want to change things in different ways; all of us have accepted that fact. There is something else we have accepted. I hope the hon member for Lichtenburg will now listen to me with equal approbation. We have accepted that the changes which must come must be parliamentary.

Within the context of the Constitution.

Yes, within the context of the Constitution.

We will do that!

The hon member says they will do that. I am glad, because in a moment I am going to speak to him about that.

Are you still going to be speaking for some time?

Yes, I am still going to be speaking for some time, because it takes me longer to get information across to the hon member for Lichtenburg than it does in the case of other individuals. [Interjections.]

We have therefore chosen negotiation as a procedural method. It is a difficult process, it is a lonely process, it is an uncertain process and it frequently causes instability.

The hon member for Nelspruit expressed a depth of knowledge about the question of regional services councils, their functions and what they are capable of doing. He and the hon member for Caledon specifically referred to the possibility of the devolution of powers. Let me tell him that the Commission for Administration and the provinces are going into this aspect. I also want to say at once that the Transvaal provincial government is setting an example, in that province, of the process of the devolution of power to local government level.

I want to make a second remark, ie that it is true that these RSCs have new sources of funds and new responsibilities to distribute revenue to the smaller and less developed communities. In this regard the Transvaal should be commended, because it was the first province which introduced these councils throughout the province. [Interjections.] It is important, of course, that in regard to their funds they do not have to ask the State how these funds should be spent.

There is one cautionary note I want to sound, however, and that is that changes to institutions, the creation of new institutions and the removal of existing institutions have tremendous emotional implications for the people who have worked and have to work within those systems. I just want to issue a word of warning. When we do exploratory and innovative work on these systems, we must not think that people working within the system are pawns that can be shifted round at random.

So when functions are transferred, there are three important things to bear in mind. In the first place there must be the necessary funds with which to perform the necessary functions. Secondly officials must be capable of performing those functions. Thirdly there must be security for our officials, because the officials of our country have sacrificed more to make a success of our new institutions than anyone in this House realises. We therefore owe them our thanks and appreciation.

The hon member for Caledon is upset about the distribution of land. Let me state that I think it is madness that a local authority cannot even divide a plot in two without someone having to give it permission to do so. Essentially it is but one more element of the impossibly cumbersome procedures people have to adopt in order to bring about development in their towns.

Hear, hear!

Therefore I am one of the advocates of authority devolving to the community and the community then determining its standards and norms. This must, of course, always be subject to the maintenance of minimum standards.

The hon member referred to the coming elections. It may interest hon members to know that on 26 October elections are to be held for 1 106 bodies for the election of 7 569 councillors. I should like to comment on this. I regard these elections as being the most important elections ever held on one day in South Africa. Let me issue a warning, even at this stage, that the forces of hell are going to be unleashed in an effort to abort these elections. For that reason we as a State, we as a Parliament, must do everything in our power to frustrate those plans. The Government plans to develop a strategy to make it possible for the greatest possible number of people to cast their vote, because the governmental pyramid must be based on a firm foundation of local government. That is the crux of the matter.

The hon member for Beaufort West spoke about regional services councils. I want to tell him very personally that I hope for the best as far as his son is concerned. We are sorry to hear about the accident. Over a great many years the hon member has furnished a valuable service in the field of local government, and I want to thank him for that. It also seems to me as if he has the privilege of being the last chairman of the Association of Divisional Councils of the Cape Province.

I do have some good news for him, however, and that is that I have discussed the matter of the rural councils with the hon the Minister of Finance. I am aware of the fact that certain councils have not increased their taxes in anticipation of the establishment of regional services councils, and that they now find themselves in a position in which they will have to introduce very high increases. The hon the Minister of Finance and I have agreed that in the present financial year he will make an amount not exceeding R2,5 million available so that it will not be necessary to increase those taxes drastically. I hope it will help the hon member to solve that problem.

What is more, in regard to the two regional services councils of the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape, I have conducted negotiations with the hon the Minister of Finance, and he will supplement the amounts involved in the own affairs functions performed by the regional services councils for that administration in an additional appropriation to the tune of an amount not exceeding R15,3 million.

Thirdly hon members are aware of the fact that in contrast to the situation in the other provinces, the construction of major roads and divisional roads in the erstwhile divisional councils of the Cape and Diaz is being subsidised, not by 100%, but by 80% to 90%. The hon the Minister of Finance has agreed that under the new dispensation these roads, as in the other provinces, will also be subsidised fully by the State.

†The hon member for Houghton put many questions to me and I would like to reply to them in the same courteous manner in which she asked them. Firstly, she enquired from me as to whether the consortium received specific instructions. I would like to refer the hon member to the White Paper on Urbanisation in which the guidelines for dealing with urbanisation are spelt out in detail. Quite obviously, this document was a reference document also for the purposes of the investigation by this consortium.

The second point that I would like to make is that the hon member will understand that the greatest need for land in the urban areas and particularly the PWV area, is for the Black communities, and therefore the announcements that I have made refer particularly to the needs of those communities. I believe the hon member will not have any quarrel with me in that regard.

There is no doubt about that.

I want to deal with another point which was also raised by the hon member for Randburg and that is the question of Moutse. I want to choose my words carefully because hon members are aware of the fact that this matter is in any event vis-à-vis the government of Kwa-Ndebele also sub judice.

*There are trends which I have observed and which I want to identify and warn against at an early stage. I am referring to the Government’s responsibility for maintaining order and stability in the country. Times of reform are inevitably times of potential instability, because reform carries the seeds of uncertainty about the future. For that reason there can be instability.

The State cannot shirk its responsibility in this regard. What is happening, however? In this regard I want to issue a warning. If the State takes action against people causing unrest because of their statements or actions, and these people happen to be trade union leaders, an orchestrated attempt is made to create the impression that there is conflict between the State and the trade unions.

You started it all!

The hon member should please be as courteous as she was yesterday.

*Secondly, if the State takes action against people who contravene Acts of Parliament, and if the State takes action against people whose conduct and statements could give rise to revolution, insurrection or civil disobedience, and those people happen to be members of a specific Church, there is also an orchestrated attempt to create the impression that there is conflict between the State and the Church concerned.

Let me also issue a warning against a third aspect, because I see it coming. No one—not the hon member for Randburg or the hon member for Houghton either—disputes the sovereignty of the legislative authority. No one disputes, not only the right, but also the responsibility, of Parliament to take the necessary remedial steps to put matters right when courts interpret parliamentary legislation in ways which Parliament does not regard as being in accordance with its own objectives.

That is not the situation at all!

Just give me a chance to finish my argument.

Let us apply this principle. Quite obviously, as a result of a judgment in relation to the legality or otherwise of the elections of the government of KwaNdebele, and on the assumption that a decision of the court of the Provincial Division is upheld by the Appellate Division if it goes there, this Parliament would have to take steps to validate the actions of that government over a period stretching from 1984 up to that judgment. The hon member for Randburg will agree with me.

I am just warning that when this is done, we do not become part of the orchestrated attempt to say that the Government does not accept decisions of the court.

*I have already announced that I have referred the question of Moutse’s incorporation or non-incorporation to a one-man commission. I want to suggest that those of us who have something to say about that should say it to the commission, because that is why the commission is being called into being.

The hon member for Randburg says we have three options in the case of Moutse. I do not want to discuss that now. The hon member says there is also talk of the amalgamation of the two areas. The Government has said that if the leaders of those two areas wanted to negotiate with each other about (a) the future of Moutse and/or (b) amalgamation, the hon the State President would be prepared to give them a chairman for such discussions.

The Government is therefore not standing in the way of those two areas discussing the question of amalgamation. The hon member ought to realise that it takes two parties to conduct a discussion.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to put the following question to the hon the Minister. Firstly I asked him yesterday whether Moutse had a right to participate in the decision-making. Secondly I asked whether he did not view the idea of amalgamation in a broader context, ie geographically consolidating regional government rather than merely doing it as a phenomenon involving Blacks. Would the hon the Minister like to react to this?

Mr Speaker, let us first speak about Lebowa and KwaNdebele, because both are involved. I am quite prepared to conduct the other discussion with the hon member. The fact is, however, that one Minister does not want to discuss it. I do not think the hon member expects me to force him to discuss it.

The hon member made a further statement—I hope I understood him correctly; if not, he must correct me, because I do not have the benefit of seeing everyone’s Hansard—by saying he had no knowledge of the fact that we wanted to introduce traditional elements into modern systems. The hon member is nodding his head in confirmation. He therefore did say so. If he were to consult the constitutions of the national states, he would specifically find that in those constitutions an attempt was made to reconcile traditional and modern elements. The struggle in certain areas is, in fact, a struggle to preserve traditional elements in contrast to the introduction of modern elements into those specific regions.

Now I come to a statement the hon member made—the hon member for Houghton made the same statement—ie that we must surely not take steps in regard to the incorporation of Moutse which would be tantamount to sidestepping the decision of the courts in regard to our bargaining rights. One of the arguments advanced by the hon member for Houghton was that the Black people had confidence in the courts.

You told them to go to court!

No, I never told them so. They are entitled, however, to go there.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton has some verbal disease. [Interjections.]

She caught it from you!

The hon member says we should not try to introduce legislation for this purpose, because the relevant community would not understand this. I can understand that this could possibly be the case. The hon member for Houghton, however, wants to incorporate all the communities which do not understand this in one federation with a system of one man, one vote.

Just one further remark about the hon member for Houghton, Sir, and then I have done with her. [Interjections.] What does the hon member say. She says she discussed the Moutse case with the head of government of Great Britain. She said she would make use of every method possible, including diplomatic means, to exert pressure on South Africa.

Sometimes, yes!

Mr Speaker, I therefore want to know from the hon member what is to become of her party’s opposition to foreign interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa? [Interjections.] What value is there in these statements by the hon member for Sea Point when he rejects foreign interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa? [Interjections.] What value do his words have when one of his front-benchers travelled the world conducting discussions with diplomats and heads of government concerning plans to exert pressure on South Africa? [Interjections.] Quite probably she spoke about that in Moscow too. [Interjections.] I am sure she also spoke about it in Red China, when she was there. [Interjections.]

I put it to the hon member that my definition of loyalty to one’s country is different to hers. [Interjections.]

Mine is for the good of the country; yours is for the good of the NP! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, about the hon member for Overvaal I only want to make one remark. The hon member said he would not be here at a later stage. The hon member said that he challenged me. They are holding an election on 26 October. He is entering the election race, and there is one point about which the voters must cast their votes, ie the removal of Black people from the Vaal Triangle. [Interjections.] He said that if the White voters voted in favour of his standpoint, it was just, fair and reasonable for the Black people to be relocated. [Interjections.]

What the hon member is forgetting is that the Black people—the people he wants to remove—are also holding an election on the same day. If they were to say that they did not want to be removed, would it be just, fair and reasonable to have them removed?

For you simply to surrender! [Interjections.]

That hon member’s norms of reasonableness, fairness and justice are White norms and not South African norms. [Interjections.] At best it is a purely racist approach. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer questions at the moment.

As usual, the hon member for Randfontein made a good academic contribution. [Interjections.] He explained Lijphart and the alternatives to assimilation and consociation, and also partition. He also argued about why assimilation and consociation would not work. Then he made an intellectual leap that brought him to partition. What he did not do, however—I suggest that he should now do so—was to move from the academic level to the practical level. He must also resolve the problems of partition before he comes to the conclusion that partition is the answer, without ascertaining what realities are involved. I shall be dealing with that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Claremont must forgive me. [Interjections.] He is an example of how Parliamentary privilege can be made use of. [Interjections.]

I can use it to good advantage.

I want to tell the hon member that he, in conjunction with the company he keeps, is part of the problem in this country.

You are the problem!

Secondly, someone who relinquishes citizenship to avoid doing national service does not, in my opinion, have the right to speak about the conditions in this country. [Interjections.] That hon member only wants to negotiate with people who want to destroy or paralyse our country, and he only wants to negotiate about handing our country over to the forces of devastation and chaos. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it was something to listen to the hon the Minister.

Hear, hear!

However, what I mean by that is not quite what those hon members think.

The hon the Minister likes to look for common ground and points on which we can agree, and I wish to concede another minor point to him. It is true, as he said, that the matters which are being discussed under this Vote today are certainly the most important matters which could be discussed in South Africa and which are going to determine our future.

I also think he will agree with me, but not today, about the second matter which I want to mention—he will agree with me in the future—namely that the constitutional plans of the Government as a whole are failing completely. [Interjections.] They are heading—whether they are simplistic or complex—for a Black majority government.

I should like to advance two pieces of evidence to show why the Government’s plans are failing. The first is the speech which the hon the Minister delivered today and the announcements which he made yesterday. They were rhetoric. They were clichés. It was an echo of Mr Ian Smith’s pronouncements of a decade ago. A decade ago Mr Ian Smith said that values would be maintained and that the role of the Whites was not negotiable. What became of that? Nothing came of it!

How many things have this Government and this hon Minister already negotiated which they had said were not negotiable? One example is the sovereignty of the Whites. Most tragic of all is that I totally overestimated this hon Minister. This hon Minister contends that when Transkei and the other TBVC countries were excised from South Africa and obtained their own sovereignty, we gave our sovereignty away and that therefore one might as well share power in a mixed Parliament. He uses that argument to justify that. I want to say to hon members that it was a shocking discovery today that this was the grasp that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had of political affairs!

We shall do it again. We shall again excise land from South Africa and make other peoples and territories sovereign and excise them from our area of jurisdiction. This in no way detracts from the sovereignty of the Whites; by no means! What it does do, however, is to grant sovereignty and justice and freedom to the other peoples who do not have it at present. This is the only way the political situation of South Africa can be handled. That is what the CP is going to do.

The second reason I want to advance as to why their whole constitutional plan is failing, is this excellent thriller which sprang out of our fax machine yesterday and leapt into my arms, as it were. One could say I caught a “mark”—28 pages of fine, fascinating and riveting reading matter. What is it about? It is about the communication strategy for the 1988 municipal elections. I quote from the introduction:

In other words, this is an advertising company that has been instructed by the Bureau to devise a strategy—a propaganda campaign—for the coming municipal elections. The hon the Minister has just referred to the fact that they have a strategy. Is that not excellent? Then McCann goes on to state the objectives:

The McCann report then goes on to mention the objectives—a whole lot of them, among other things. It is very important to take note of this. There are several objectives, but this is the essence of the matter:

This is hard NP policy. [Interjections.] These municipal elections form the basis of the National Council, because where is the Government going to get Black people if the municipal elections do not produce them for the Government? [Interjections.] What we have here is unadulterated NP policy. [Interjections.]

McCann then goes on to say:

Now I can understand why they are so afraid of a so-called boycott. They see a boycott in anything. McCann tells them …

But you are the boycotter!

We do not boycott; we fight the NP. We do not boycott; we fight those hon members within the system. In these municipal elections we are not only going to fight those hon members, but we are also going to beat them. [Interjections.] Now they can go ahead and call that a boycott. They are going to say it is a boycott, because their system is failing and they must get people to participate so that they can say that their system is succeeding, since they are afraid no one is going to participate. [Interjections.]

McCann goes on to tell them how it should be done. In this document the following is said:

The voter must be told benefit to the consumer is—

Therefore this is a marketing strategy for the Government’s constitutional system, and in this case the municipal election.

This thriller goes on, and it reads like a dream. They spell out the campaign schedule, and they specify what is to happen in which months, and the various heads around which it must happen, are set out. In the first place there is the campaign involving mercenaries. Mercenaries have to be hired. The second part of the campaign concerns the identity document, and the third part is the campaign called the “agent of change” campaign. Once again, this is regarded as being separate from the election campaign. The following is stated in this document:

Then it is recommended that the hon the State President place advertisements in the newspapers again.

This part is important: The document reads:

This, then, is our propaganda that is referred to here. This is the ad hoc propaganda that has to be countered; it is the propaganda of the opposition parties that McCann cannot foresee. The opposition parties are now to be opposed, whereas we fight with idealism and conviction for a cause. State money, to which we have contributed, is now to be used to fight us in this election. [Interjections.] That is now the point at issue. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must at least afford the Chair an opportunity to hear what the hon member is saying.

Now we come to the cherry on the top. They go on to speak about a “creative strategy”, and this is truly a remarkable creative effort that is now unfolding before us. McCann says:

The Government’s credibility is under suspicion! [Interjections.] This agent which they have consulted, tells them there is one small problem. Its client, the Government, is offensive and it is difficult to market the product because it lacks credibility. Its client is a bad client. They say:

They are saying that their client is so offensive that this could elicit negative propaganda and comment. They go on:

It may be counter-productive! [Interjections.]

They cannot afford to have these gentlemen speak. It is counter-productive. They say that there are ways of surmounting this. They say that one method is to get a third party. However, it is difficult to get someone who is acceptable to everyone. Now comes the great creative effort. They say:

[Interjections.] Can hon members believe that an advertising company says that the owl and the chameleon have more credibility than the Government? Now I want to suggest that the government abandon the powder-horn emblem and obtain a new emblem, namely the chameleon, since they have now changed their policy so much that the chameleon would suit them well. As soon as they enter any chamber, their colour adapts to the decor. [Interjections.]

The owl works in the night; he is very active at night-time. I propose that the Government abandon the powder-horn and use the owl and the chameleon as an emblem, because McCann says that the voters would then be more inclined to believe the Government.

They go on to expound how the campaign and the timetable must operate. They mention the newspapers in which advertisements must be placed, how advertisements must be placed on television, and so on. Time is catching up with me, and therefore I just wish to mention this one important matter, namely the budget—the cost involved. It is going to cost the taxpayer R4,7 million. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that his colleague is engaged in this scheme. Does it have his approval? Does the Cabinet know about it? Is that the strategy he was talking about?

I shall reply to you shortly.

This week the affairs of the Bureau for Information were discussed here, and R31 million was budgeted. Parliament was asked to vote the funds. Why did the hon the Minister not get up then and say that he sought the approval of this Parliament for an amount of R4 million? Why did he not inform us that they were going to fight us on this issue. Why did he not do so then? That Vote was discussed; however, not a word was said about that money. Now I ask the hon the Minister whether this has his approval. Does he agree with it? Does the Cabinet know about it?

If the hon the Minister wants this report from McCann, he can have it, but apparently he already has it; so he does not need a copy. However, I am prepared to have it Tabled. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg will immediately remove that document from the Table.

Mr Speaker, I shall take it back immediately. [Interjections.] I am prepared to Table it.

I say that this is evidence that the Government’s Constitution is failing. Never in the history of South Africa has it been necessary to spend R4,7 million to tell people they should go and vote. Now, for the first time, propaganda has to be made to get people to the point of going to vote, since they do not want to vote for this business. [Interjections.] McCann states in this report that the object of this effort is to reach 60% of the Black public and 40% of the White public. [Interjections.] This is proof that this Government’s Constitution is failing. That is why it now has to make propaganda.

I want to go further and say that the Government is capitulating. It no longer has the will to introduce any measures. The announcement by the hon the Minister yesterday concerning the land being made available in the PWV region is clear evidence that they are capitulating. Two to three years ago in this House the hon the State President said that the infrastructure of the PWV area was over-extended. Uncontrolled development could not be allowed. If something were not done about it, the people in that region would die of thirst. The hon the Minister comes along and says that several hectares of land are being made available to enable people to flock to that area, although there is no work for them there.

There is no reason why this should happen. Are their job opportunities? Is there a shortage of workers in the PWV area? No, there is no shortage. Is there a social reason for it? No, there is no social reason. Is there a political reason? The only political reason could be that that party wants to give the Transvaal away to the Black people in order to get away from the CP. That is the only possible reason.

I also wish to say that the hon the Minister’s announcement on Moutse is a typical example of this Government’s inability to handle a problem. For how long has this hon Minister been dealing with Moutse? It was becoming an increasing problem, until he eventually gave it to the former Chief Justice to solve.

Surely that is untrue!

They cannot handle that problem, and now they hope it will be forgotten about, as was the case with Ingwavuma.

That is why I say that this hon Minister’s speech here today, and the fact that they have got a company to market them under the emblem of an owl and a chameleon, is the clearest evidence that this Government’s constitutional plans are finally failing. They lack the will to implement anything any more, and only one thing remains in South Africa and that is the CP.

With these municipal elections the CP—I want to tell the hon the Minister this—is going to destroy these constitutional plans of theirs within the framework of the Constitution. We are going to destroy them! [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is my doubtful privilege to speak after the hon member for Lichtenburg. I do not quite know what to do with him. [Interjections.] The hon member made a very lively speech this morning. He referred to a chameleon and an owl, but we would far rather be a chameleon and an owl than a miserable tortoise.

Or a member of the Broederbond!

Yes, that hon member who made the interjection would do well to keep quiet.

The whole approach of the hon member for Lichtenburg merely attests once again to the standpoint that I have often put forward in this House in the past, namely that left and right eventually meet. He is adopting the same tactics and using the same methods as the ANC, namely to destroy this system.

Do not vote!

He asks how they are going to destroy that system, and says that it will be in terms of the Constitution. I can tell hon members what one of their loyal followers, a certain Prof Booysen, wrote in the Sabra periodical about how they would do it. He stated:

Naturally he says nothing about the undeclared constitutional means. He goes on to say that they will conduct a campaign with idealism and conviction. He also mentions here how they are going to get the Blacks out of the White area again.

I just want to ask a very simple question. He is so well-informed, but where is the map? Can hon members of the Official Opposition provide us with the map at some stage? It ought to be very interesting.

I wish to touch on the matter of the municipal elections. Last week mention was made here of certain things, and I quote from a CP pamphlet about the municipal elections. It is their election manifesto. The following is said:

As far as I am concerned that is a gross and deliberate untruth and a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Quite simply, by way of misrepresentation and a lack of their own political policy, it is calculated to hoodwink or mislead the voters with regard to their real intentions. I shall leave the Official Opposition at that and, for the rest of the time at my disposal, confine myself to certain elements which I should like to mention to hon members in this House.

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

I do not have the time, Mr Speaker. That hon member can resume his seat. He can ask a question later if there is any time left.

We live in a world of fluctuating circumstances in which various forces, such as socio-economic, technological and cultural forces as well as the force of ideas, impinge on politics. This is particularly true in the case of the Official Opposition—that is to say, if they have any ideas at all.

Recently the voters again expressed their overwhelming support for the responsibility of the Government to govern this country with its varying forces and powers. One of the undertakings given by the Government in this election campaign was to extend democracy in such a way as to make constitutional provision for the fluctuating circumstances. The constitutional debate is currently focussed on the Blacks outside the independent national states as being the ineluctable reality in the country. While retaining principles that are very clearly spelt out in the Preamble to the Constitution—here I refer to certain elements, namely own community life, order, economic and other development, an independent judiciary and so on—the Government must adapt to the changing circumstances in an evolutionary fashion.

I should like to take hon members with me to the cradle of this constitutional development, and once again, owing to the time factor, I shall be restricting myself to the Black people only. The NP plan and policy, namely to give the Blacks a joint say in matters of common concern, is purely a continuation of the policy formulated by Gen Hertzog, which I shall spell out to hon members. The point of departure and ideal of Gen Hertzog are summarised in a speech he made in 1921. I quote verbatim from Die Burger of 14 October 1921:

In the same speech he went on to say:

The following point, however, is very important. These realities—namely that segregation in various spheres such as the political, territorial, social and industrial, must succeed—were however linked to a condition. This is the cornerstone, and it is this that the NP is linking up with in 1988.

I refer hon members to a speech made by Gen Hertzog in Pretoria in 1913. This is a free translation from the Dutch of the erstwhile periodical De Volkstem. With reference to this effective segregation Gen Hertzog states:

He said this at a time when the numerical proportion of Whites to Blacks was very close to what it is today. Therefore Gen Hertzog’s philosophy can be summarised in one of two statements. The first is that unless we effectively segregate the Blacks territorially and otherwise, we shall have to give them the franchise in matters of common concern. The second statement, which amounts to the same thing, is that we will have to give the Blacks the franchise in matters of common concern unless they can be effectively segregated.

Gen Hertzog went further. He said that Black areas should not only be demarcated, but also developed. He said that life in those areas should be so attractive that they would prefer to be there rather than to live in the city slums.

At the turn of the century’, therefore, Gen Hertzog said precisely what the NP is saying today:

And then his qualification in 1913—

The reality, and the Government’s resultant failure to segregate effectively, has caught up with us. Large parts of the Black population have already been segregated, and at present it is the task of the NP to accommodate constitutionally, in one way or another, the large parts of the Black population living in our areas.

In a civil state (burgerstaat) constitutional civil rights are guaranteed, in contrast to the “volkstaat" of the CP. Civil rights have various facets—political, economic and residential. Political facets include the franchise and representation. Economic facets include the right to free-trade areas, and the NP and the Government have already given effect to that by way of the policy of deregulation. However, there are residential rights as well, and that is why the influx control legislation has been abolished.

As regards the Group Areas Act, this does, after all, apply to all citizens, and the purpose of the Act is orderliness and the provision of an own life for own communities. However, if in a specific isolated instance it is better for communities to be mixed, that should be accepted as such and accommodated.

The Government is absolutely on the right road. With a Minister, a Ministry, a department and a party like ours, we know we are on the road to victory.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Bloemfontein North. It is not a frequent occurrence that members who represent neighbouring constituencies have the opportunity to address the House of Assembly one after the other, and for that reason I welcome it.

It is important that we also pay attention to the constitutional policy of the Official Opposition during the discussion of this Vote. The CP’s policy of partition has an own fatherland for the Whites as an objective, a fatherland which will be established by the secession of a specific territory from the rest of South Africa, and in which people of colour will not have equal rights with the Whites. That is the definition of partition in CP terms, according to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, as interpreted in the Patriot of August 1986.

In order to put their policy of partition into operation, the CP will have to negotiate with the other population groups if they want to establish it democratically. There is no doubt about that. Unilateral partition is out of the question. That is, in my opinion, the CP’s first problem. They will not and cannot persuade the other population groups to move to other areas in their millions, whether to homelands or the TBVC countries.

Two weeks ago in Bloemfontein the hon member for Lichtenburg said that the CP would not use bulldozers, but would adopt certain measures. The hon member for Sasolburg dealt with that effectively yesterday, and I am not going to refer to it any further. What struck me, however, was that a hand-distributed newspaper of the CP in our area—the Vrystaat Spieël—let the cat out of the bag a few months ago. I am referring to their 26 February-10 March edition, and I quote from it as follows:

Large fridges!

Consequently there must also be measures to freeze the numbers, houses and land of the Blacks. That newspaper then says there used to be measures that worked.

The question that now arises is whether the measures that controlled the influx of Black people succeeded as a whole. The harsh reality, however, is that in spite of the strictest influx control and in spite of the relocation of Black people, resettlement, the consolidation of Black areas, the development of border industries and reference book regulations, and in spite of many other measures, the flow to the Black areas has never exceeded the flow from those areas.

The ideal which the late Dr Verwoerd set in all sincerity, viz that we would reach a turning point in 1978 when the flow of Blacks back to their original areas would surpass the outflow to the White cities, has today, ten years after 1978, not yet been realised. The Whites are in the minority in all four the provinces and in practically all the magisterial districts in South Africa. I am not elated about that, but it is nevertheless a harsh reality that we simply have to accept.

If I could choose—if the Whites could choose—we would probably have arranged matters differently. But we cannot escape this fact either. The CP now has to contend with a tremendous problem. In their heart of hearts they know that they cannot escape this fact either. They know that partition can only be an element in the solution of South Africa’s constitutional problems, but not the entire solution.

The CP knows that total partition is not viable because no democratic measure—take note, I said democratic measure—can rearrange South Africa’s population distribution in such a way that White majority occupation may be accomplished in the country. They know it is not possible. Their problem, however, is that they do not want to admit it, because then the bottom falls out of their partition policy. If the CP were to admit to what they knew in their heart of hearts to be impossible, they would undermine the very nature of their party; the CP would then break up. The CP knows that the measures of the past were inadequate to accomplish White majority occupation in any appreciable section of South Africa.

The hon member for Lichtenburg’s measure of allocating citizenship of a homeland to a Black inhabitant will still not physically remove him from the Republic. The suspension of subsidies, to which he referred in Bloemfontein, removes Black people to an even lesser extent. In fact, all these things merely increase the potential for conflict. The freezing of Black numbers, of Black housing and of land for Blacks is not viable. The CP may thus impress a few credulous Whites in the short term, but whether they will be able to persuade a meaningful number of Blacks to their way of thinking is a different matter.

In my opinion the Official Opposition has a threefold problem. In the first place they cannot, with the assent of the Coloured people and the Indians, amend the Constitution. They cannot obtain that assent. In the second place it is impossible, to all intents and purposes, to enforce White majority occupation in any part of South Africa without relocating the Black people against their will. In the third place the CP has no proven record of successful negotiation with other groups. They have neither the structure, the methodology or the experience of meaningful negotiations with other population groups at their disposal. The CP are renowned only for their questionable record of dissension and walkouts—dissension as we have experienced it in every sphere in South Africa during the past six years, and walk-outs as we experienced them in the four provincial capitals two weeks ago.

That is the record of the Official Opposition. They do not negotiate; they walk out. They can demonstrate, but they have not yet mastered the art of negotiation, of an adult and responsible face-to-face approach to South Africa’s problems.

The late Mr John Vorster described politics, on occasion, as the science or the art of the possible. He later qualified this by saying that politics in South Africa was the reconciliation of conflicting interests. To practise politics in South Africa, one should reconcile the conflicting standpoints of the various population groups or attempt to reconcile them. That is the test for a political party or a politician. Measured in terms of this definition, the politics of the CP does not qualify in any respect.

What is the CP’s record in this regard? What contribution have they made during the past six years to settling the conflicting standpoints between the groups in South Africa?

I ask the hon members of the Official Opposition what contribution they have made in this connection? They are making demands, ostensibly on behalf of the Whites. They are offending the human dignity of people of colour. They are merely creating a climate of suspicion with statements which impugn people’s citizenship, subsidies, numbers and so on.

I to not think that the Official Opposition, with its partition policy, has a contribution to make in the sphere of reconciling conflicting standpoints. [Interjections.] Their partition policy, which they will have to enforce against the will and wishes of other groups, does not have the capacity to accomplish reconciliation. It does have the potential of causing the worst degree of racial conflict.

Depriving people of citizenship against their will, the suspension of subsidies and the freezing of numbers, houses and land for Black people is a reckless and undemocratic strategy that has the potential of causing South Africa to go up in flames like a Lebanon.

No right-minded South African can adopt this course. That is why I say that the policy of partition, as preached by the CP, will be catastrophic for us.

Mr Speaker, last night the hon the Minister got very hot under the collar reacting to an accusation made by my leader, the hon member for Sea Point, against the hon the State President. The essence of the hon the Minister’s objection was basically that the hon member for Sea Point had complained about the autocratic and imperial style of government and conduct on the part of the hon the State President, and that he had specifically referred to the protection of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates. Furthermore, he also mentioned the fact that the hon the State President had threatened to call an election without having the constitutional authority to do so.

In his anger the hon the Minister tried to play the fool and asked whether the hon the leader of the PFP was speaking on behalf of his entire caucus. I can assure him that the hon member for Sea Point was speaking with the full knowledge, confidence and support of his caucus. In point of fact, we discussed this matter and the hon member for Sea Point obtained a mandate to express the strong disapproval of the caucus about what had taken place during the past weeks and about the role the hon the State President had played in it.

In his attempt to make fools of us, the hon the Minister …

That was not difficult!

The hon the Minister should listen for a moment.

He referred to the speech made by Mr Poovalingam, the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I want to ask the hon the Minister to go and read that speech again, because he quoted him incorrectly. [Interjections.] He quoted him entirely out of context. If I wanted to devote my entire speech to that, I could show him how stupidly he quoted from that speech, because the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ standpoint was by no means what the hon the Minister suggested it was.

I now want to ask him this, however. If the legal advice that the hon the State President obtained, irrespective of whether it was correct or incorrect, was that he could indeed call an election, why did he not do so? This surely indicates that the hon member for Sea Point was right in that the hon the State President was protecting the hon Mr Rajbansi there, and that he supported him in this uncomfortable political situation in which the hon Mr Rajbansi found himself.

The hon the State President is evidently finding that he has more and more in common with the style and the methods applied by the hon Mr Rajbansi, and it is therefore not surprising that he feels obliged to support him and to protect him in the uncomfortable situation in which he finds himself. [Interjections.]

There is no doubt that the hon the State President displays an autocratic style. The hon the Minister can make jokes, talk and argue as he pleases, but he will not convince anyone, least of all the hon members of his own caucus, that the hon the State President does not display a more autocratic style than any of his predecessors displayed.

That is not true.

It is true. There is no doubt about it. There has never been a period in the history of the NP caucus in which they have had so little say over the government decisions of the day. [Interjections.] He will not convince anyone of that.

I am afraid the hon the Minister will just have to go back to that matter—the validity of the accusation the hon the member for Sea Point made against him—and mull over and analyse it again.

Furthermore I want to refer to a question with regard to the Group Areas Act. We have noticed, with a certain degree of dismay, that the Government has evidently decided to deal with the group areas dilemma in which they find themselves by simultaneously taking a step to the left and a step to the right. The question is what happens to people who adopt that kind of political strategy.

The hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation referred inter alia, to what was being envisaged, and in pursuance of what the hon the State President had said, also referred to the fact that provision was now being made for the creation of open areas, but that the legislation would simultaneously be given so-called muscle to enable the Government to take harsh action against those who contravene the Groups Areas Act.

He even went so far as to place advertisements in newspapers again at the taxpayers’ expense. Once again that illustrates the style adopted by the hon the State President and his Government—the misappropriation of the taxpayers’ money in order to adopt an autocratic style. In those advertisements he used the marketing approach that has been adopted throughout and referred to it as live and let live. It is an outrageous abuse of that whole concept to employ it in an effort to sell this approach to the Group Areas Act.

In the first place the Government must understand that if they want to keep their promise not to become involved any more in the forced removal of people from one place of residence to another, it is totally irreconcilable with the approach that they now want to take strong action against people who contravene the Group Areas Act.

What the Government should know, if they do not know it already, is that people do not contravene the Group Areas Act because they find it a novelty, because they take pleasure from it or because they want to make a political statement to the authorities. They transgress because they have very little, if any, choice about where they want to live.

The extent to which the Group Areas Act is being contravened at present is of such a nature that if the Government wanted to start taking strong action at this stage, they would create a situation in which one would have the forced removal of people the likes of which we have never seen in South Africa. I am including cases such as District Six.

I want to tell the hon the Minister—he probably knows it—that notwithstanding the Group Areas Act, there are a great many more people living in White areas today than ever lived in District Six in the first instance. This will create a worse situation than they created in the past at Modderdam and Unidale here close to Cape Town.

The hon the Minister must therefore understand what he is letting himself in for if that approach to the Group Areas Act is to be followed. I want to warn him, in all honesty, against the shortsightedness of this kind of approach.

It is ironic that it was, in fact, this hon Minister who adopted a completely different approach to influx control. It is he who took the bull by the horns and, in spite of great fears and anxiety about the consequences, even in his own ranks abolished influx control totally. I remember only too well how, in the same year and the previous year in this House, the hon members for False Bay and Tygervallei and others had warned against the dreadful consequences of the abolition of influx control. In spite of that the hon the Minister did the right thing and abolished it.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to recommend to the hon the Minister that he use his own recipe, the one he used in that respect, with regard to group areas. He must use the same approach with regard to group areas.

What do I mean by that in the first place? I mean that he must get rid of the Group Areas Act in one fell swoop. In this manner the influx of Black, Coloured and Indian people into White residential areas, and then to other residential areas as well, will be spread over a wider base so that the problems and the fears, as well as the political traumas that are being created will be kept to a minimum. It will, therefore, in the nature of things, promote people’s adjustment process to these new developments.

In the second place, by acting in such a way, the Government will spare itself a vast amount of political grief, because if they continue on the basis on which they are now planning to continue, every inquiry into the creation of an open residential area will be transformed into a political circus such as they have never seen before. Knowing the CP as I do, they and other rightwing groups will surely exploit every opportunity to such an extent that one will never hear the end of it. They will rouse fears and stir up resentment among people, and they will exploit every opportunity to the absolute maximum. People in a specific area will then ask, and rightly so too, why it is taking place in their area and not in another area. This is a question one will answer with difficulty, because one is never under any circumstances going to receive total support for the opening up of such an area. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I am not going to react directly to the speech made by the hon member for Green Point, but if he were to listen to my speech, he would see clearly why the Government was not, in any way, prepared to move away from the protection of groups in this country. Consequently, we cannot comply with the appeal he has made here.

The CP especially, but also the PFP, are trying very hard to create the impression in the minds of the voters that the NP does not have a constitutional plan. They want this uncertainty to take root in the minds of the voters. However, I can assure them that we do indeed have a plan which gives the voters the assurance that we shall maintain civilized standards and that not allow a Black majority-rule government to come into power in this country.

This plan has two basic premises, namely the sharing of power and the division of power. The one is just as important as the other. In their attacks on the Government, the opposition on the far right lets the emphasis fall on the concept of power-sharing, while the PFP attacks the power-division aspect in particular. However, both these components are important. We shall not achieve real power-sharing in this country if there is domination. As long as there is domination, one does not have power-sharing but a power take-over.

In the structures which have been established we have found good examples of how the power-sharing concept can work. Various speakers have referred to the regional services councils—an instrument which demonstrates visibly how power-sharing takes shape. The same applies to the joint executive committees. In both cases the requirement that there be no domination is satisfied.

The hon the State President has held out the prospect of negotiation at central government level concerning genuine power-sharing between groups. I say “power-sharing between groups” because power-sharing between individuals is not really possible in a heterogeneous country. That is why it is not possible to disregard the value of groups and group rights in this country.

This is precisely why the twin foundations of our constitutional plan are so important, namely power-sharing taking shape in an own affairs context. Because groups are entitled to the preservation of their own identity, way of life and standards, and because, without a power base, a group’s survival can be jeopardised, we must protect and extend that power base. It is for this very reason that I want to tell the hon member for Green Point that group areas remain important, for a power base must have a territorial foundation. Since we inevitably had to accept that partition into independent states could not offer the complete solution, we must also accept that the territorial component will form an important part of our future constitutional dispensation.

It would have been ideal if we could have had purely homogeneous regions with which to work. Although this ideal is partly attainable in the case of Black self-governing areas, it is far more problematic in the case of other population groups. Nevertheless, I think we should strive for the best attainable power base for own affairs, and that this power base should have a territorial foundation. This is why I say that group areas are so important and that the location of new areas for different groups and the location of free-settlement areas must not unnecessarily hinder the consolidation of ethnic areas.

At present there are self-governing municipalities with a geographical area of jurisdiction, and it would be short-sighted, and even eliminate certain constitutional options, if we were to water down this geographical power base. Our starting-point should be to facilitate the consolidation of ethnic areas. The national regional development plan ought to promote this goal. The proclamation of group areas and the allocation of land for Black communities in urban areas must continue to take into consideration the location of territorial areas for own communities and the possible consolidation of such areas. Since we are now, in terms of the Development of Black Communities Act, largely concerned—and justifiably so—with identifying land for Black settlement, as the hon the Minister announced yesterday, the question I should like to pose is whether we should not, at the same time, give serious consideration to the identification of land for the expansion and consolidation of areas for White possession and occupation.

The demarcation of these areas will result in greater certainty and security and facilitate future constitutional planning. At the moment we find that land in the RSA, which has not been proclaimed for a definite group in terms of the Group Areas Act, is controlled land. I feel that it is precisely this issue of controlled areas that should be examined. If we could succeed in the meaningful incorporation of the controlled areas into the existing group areas, the geographical classification of the RSA would be further advanced. Firstly, we must give urgent attention to controlled land which is at present situated in between proclaimed group areas. Controlled areas which are at present situated in between homogeneous municipal areas in the same region should, where possible, be proclaimed for the group concerned. Secondly, attention should be given to rural controlled areas to bring about their meaningful consolidation with existing group areas.

The point I should like to make is that the territorial power base is necessary for the preservation of the concept of own affairs. If these geographical areas could possibly be consolidated into regions, it would be a far better arrangement than the existing scattered areas. Although total partition is simply an unattainable dream in a sovereign, autonomous state, it does not mean, however, that the new constitutional dispensation will not include geographical components as well. There are already six self-governing areas and a large number of group areas for Whites, Coloureds and Asians, as well as the so-called section 33 areas for Blacks. Therefore it is probable that we shall have to govern ourselves into a dispensation which will include certain federal characteristics. This is also why we have begun to promote devolution and decentralisation.

What remains important is that both power-sharing and the division of power should be further developed in an evolutionary way. If we were to neglect the one, the other would be adversely affected. Without own affairs, genuine power-sharing would not be possible and will result in domination.

I think that without a territorial power base, own affairs would gradually be watered down, and we cannot afford that. Therefore, I shall do my best to ensure that we retain those geographical areas we already have for own affairs, and also develop them as a territorial power base.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to speak after the hon member for Roodeplaat. I thank him for his stimulating thoughts. It is a privilege for me to speak after he has spoken since we were, in fact, in the same class for five years at university.

I should very much like to avail myself of the open invitation which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition extended to NP spokesmen to address him on the question of extending democracy. Before I come to that, however, I just want to address a single remark to the hon member for Lichtenburg. There was a great hullaballoo in the House earlier when he made his “revelation”. I just want to ask the hon member in all seriousness whether he realises that he was attempting to make the propagation of own structures for Blacks in this country appear ridiculous. Does the hon member realise that he and his hon colleagues laugh whenever the Government shows that it is in earnest about the fact that Blacks in this country ought to develop some pride in their own structures? That hon member would do well to sleep on that thought tonight. He would do well to think about what they are doing in order to score some cheap political points for themselves, just as they did not shy away from making use of lies to obtain some political gain for themselves. The hon member knows it is true!

It is a public scandal! The newspapers will prove that it is a public scandal!

I now want to come back to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s invitation. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also objected to the statement that South Africa belonged to all its people. He made the astonishing statement that if a farmer had 10 Black villages (statte) on his farm, that surely did not mean that the farm belonged to the occupants of those villages. It is an astonishing statement because, after all, he is now using example from private law to illustrate a concept of constitutional law. Is he implying that this country does not belong to those people who rent premises and to those aged who live in old-age homes and who therefore do not own land? No, I say with all due respect towards the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that that statement is also nothing more than a play to the gallery. It is nevertheless an interesting statement. It is an interesting statement because in view of the terminology that was used, ie Black villages and the field of experience or immediate world of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I assume that this fictitious farmer of his with the 10 Black villages on his farm is a farmer in his constituency somewhere in the Northern Transvaal.

After all, hon members of the Official Opposition say that is CP country.

That is rural urbanisation. [Interjections.]

It is rural urbanisation and decentralisation. The policy of the Official Opposition is, after all, that of White majority occupation. Therefore, if that is CP country, I want to ask him bluntly why they do not remove the Blacks from the farms in their territory. Have they told their people yet that they must choose which few Blacks are to remain behind? After all, there must be more Whites than Blacks on the farms.

The CP knows it is not possible. They made the humorous statement in respect of local authorities in their election manifesto that they would rectify this situation through decentralisation. After all, there are already more Blacks than Whites and therefore they have to rectify the present situation by means of decentralisation.

They must tell the people in Kirkwood that they are going to decentralise the citrus co-operative at which the Black people work and move it to Enon. They must go and tell the people of Alexandria in my constituency that the Chicory Board has to be moved to somewhere in the Ciskei. They must go and tell my people at Uitenhage and Despatch that their policy is that Volkswagen and the other large employers must be decentralised and that they must move to Ciskei. They do not even spell out the consequences of their policy to their own people in the rural areas. They are too afraid to do so, because they know that they cannot afford it.

I want to issue a further warning to the hon members of the CP. They refuse to consider any form of joint decision-making. They make use of the simplistic concept of majority rule, and if they did not succeed with their policy of White majority occupation, they would be selling out the Whites. Then Black majority rule would be the end result of their policy, because they refused to consider anything other than the simple Westminster system of “winner takes all”.

They reject the tricameral system and all forms of power-sharing. They will lose in the end, because some of their people have already had to admit, in a moment of weakness or honesty in this House, that one will eventually have to vote wherever one lives and pays one’s taxes.

According to your policy!

Let us devote some attention to our solution, namely extending democracy. I want to come back to the fundamental difference between us and the Official Opposition, and in this regard there is no way in which we can find common ground. The hon the State President spelt out the fundamental difference in approach in the speech he made on 15 August 1985, which aroused some interest. After he had referred to the importance of stability and resistance to the onslaughts of the forces of chaos, he pointed out the importance of discussion and negotiation. He said—

That sounds like “Rubicon Rands”!

It is the Rubicon speech. The hon member is correct. [Interjections.] However, he does not understand that what the hon the State President meant by that was that Blacks were to become a part of South Africa’s solutions. Blacks are to become jointly responsible for the future of South Africa, but this must take place in an orderly fashion. In this way the old concept of Blacks being administered in South Africa—the opposition still wants to do this—was rejected, and the Rubicon was indeed crossed.

The object in extending democracy is, after all, to involve Blacks in it and to attain order, development, peace and prosperity within a First World context. Extending of democracy therefore means that Blacks are given an opportunity to become involved, and therefore the independent states and self-governing territories already represent an extension of democracy.

That is why the third tier of Government and the prospects of regional government represent an extension of democracy. That is why the idea of the expansion of the own affairs concept and an own Minister for education, for example, is part of the process. However, it is not a process for the sake of democracy. Democracy is not an object in itself; it is a means by which a country governs itself, and when we say that democracy is to be extended, this is the method through which Blacks are to be placed in a position to attain the fine ideal of order, development, peace and prosperity and to make a contribution insofar as they are able and willing to progress towards this ideal.

The hon the State President once said: “If you cannot help me, do not hinder me”. Matters could progress far more quickly in the absence of gossip-mongering and scurrying about, and I want to tell the Official Opposition they are free to gossip, but they will not deflect the Government from its course. They are gossiping to no avail. As for the PFP and the other gangs on the left wing, I want to say that they are scurrying around to no avail because they do not have any solutions. Therefore they must no longer hinder the Government on its path towards order and prosperity.

Mr Chairman, one could expect the hon member for Sundays River eventually to come up with gossip and lies, because that is one of the refrains of his party—the gossip and lies of which they accuse the CP. That party, however, has one problem, and that is that they are unable to put their finger on a single item of gossip or lie and tell the public: “The CP has been spreading gossip here and has been lying to you there”, because it would be front-page news in their newspapers. [Interjections.] I challenge him, Sir. They cannot but lament in the face of facts, because I want to tell him …

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

I do not have the time to reply to senseless questions.

We are going to tell the public of South Africa that in the coming municipal election the NP is going to try to indoctrinate them with R4,7 million of the taxpayer’s money. We are going to tell them that.

There is no proof of that!

Just as we indicated how they used the taxpayer’s money to distribute that song—it seems it may no longer be played; apparently there has been a presidential edict that it may no longer be played—we shall likewise expose the NP, with its fraud and its deceit, to the public of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

We are not ridiculing own structures for Black people, Sir; we are exposing the policy of the NP, which in itself is ridiculous. That is why one laughs at their policy. I want to tell the hon member, however, that I have noted his derogatory remark about the farmers of the Northern Transvaal, and I shall repeat it to them at gathering after gathering.

Just before I put a question to the hon the Minister, I want to tell him that when he took a side-swipe at the hon member for Houghton, for whom I hold no brief here, I quickly went to fetch something I read the other day in the Sunday Times of 1 May 1988. Ian Botham got hold of an Italian cricket yearbook, and the columnist had this to say:

Which, translated, means:

†Now I also know why constitutional development has never really taken off in South Africa! [Interjections.]

*I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. A commission of inquiry was appointed into alleged maladministration in the town council of Duiwelskloof. I understand this report has been handed to the Administrator. Will the hon the Minister please tell us when this report will be made available to us?

In addition I have been told that the hon the Minister held an “oeloe-oeloe” meeting in Alldays. Nobody knew about that meeting, but nevertheless a large number of people attended it.

Of course, he went by military helicopter!

Yes, I also wonder what transport he used to get there. I want to ask him, however, what he told the people of Alldays. Did he perhaps tell them of the prison which is to be built there?

What are you talking about now? Where did you get that from?

Did the hon the Minister not go to Alldays?

Where do you get that from? Have you suddenly woken up? [Interjections.]

Was the hon the Minister not at Alldays?

No, I was not at Alldays. [Interjections.]

Well, then it is … [Interjections.]

Now, there you have it! Just one of their gossip-mongering stories again! [Interjections.]

Now I want to put a question to the hon the Minister. The prison they are going to build at Alldays …

That is your bit of gossip-mongering!

It is not gossip-mongering! [Interjections.] It is a prison for 600 prisoners. That is according to a reply I received to a question in this House. The reply was that a prison was to be built at Alldays.

I was not at Alldays! You are gossip-mongering again!

I want to know what this hon Minister is going to tell the people about the prison at Alldays. [Interjections.]

You are talking “all nonsense”!

What is “nonsense”?

“All nonsense” about the prison at Alldays!

Oh, Albert, go to sleep! [Interjections.]

That hon Minister is planning a prison for Alldays. Is that the development which is to take place at Alldays? That is what I want to know from him. He is planning a prison for 600 people. Does he want to build a farm prison there and then borrow Lebowa’s water-pumping machines to provide water for that prison? That is what I want to know from him. [Interjections.]

In the tenth year of office of State President P W Botha, I think we should look at his much-vaunted rationalisation. Firstly, however, I want to make a few remarks about the following matters: The hon the Minister has made an announcement about a Black metropolis on approximately 13 000 ha, where eventually 8,3 million Blacks will be accommodated. That, Sir, is the greatest single acknowledgment that the policy of the NP, as initiated by Dr D F Malan and developed by his successors, has been totally destroyed or thrown to the winds by State President P W Botha’s Government.

Secondly, the statement by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid that they will continue with Black independent states is a fiction and a farce. I believe that if they carry on with those independent states, they will fail. The third point about this announcement by the hon the Minister yesterday, is that the present Government has yielded to integration pressures and has, in the most atrocious fashion, abandoned and sold out the Whites of South Africa, especially those of the Transvaal. As far I am concerned, it is a cynical sell-out of the Transvaal to the Blacks. It boils down specifically to the overall encirclement of the White area of Johannesburg by a Black ring. Johannesburg is a White heartland. More than 50% of the Whites of the Transvaal live there.

In Johannesburg?

The major percentage of the gross domestic product is generated there, and more than 80% of the land there belongs to Whites.

In Johannesburg?

No, in the PWV area.

Yes, that sounds a bit better!

The further allocation of 13 000 ha of land in that area, together with the 16 000 ha made available for Black urbanisation in 1985, and the establishment of still more Sowetos in Evaton, Sebokeng, Katlehong, and Tokoza, and the complexes at kwaThema, Tsakane and Duduza will sound the death-knell for the preservation of White control of the industrial heartland of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

This plan of the hon the Minister …

You are talking through the back of your neck!

I shall now tell that hon member what his State President has to say about that. Suffice it to say that this plan, announced yesterday by the hon the Minister, also shows the inability of the Transvaal members of the NP Cabinet to prevent the Transvaal from being sold down the river by State President P W Botha’s Government. [Interjections.]

Linking this to the revival of Norweto, I see in this announcement by the hon the Minister the political deceit which took place during the last general election. Then the envisaged establishment of Norweto was completely hushed up. No more was said about Norweto at the time. I now want to tell the hon member for North Rand, who spoke so well yesterday and told this hon Minister that the election 13 months ago had not informed the voters who would be affected by their plans for Norweto about that and about what was to happen in the vicinity of the southern areas of Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

That is not Norweto.

I therefore now challenge that hon member and the Government, in the name of clean administration and honest government, to hold by-elections in those constituencies affected by those plans. I say the NP will not retain one of those seats which it holds at present.

[Interjections.] That will tell him that he does not have a mandate from the voters of South Africa and of those areas to do just as he pleases with them. [Interjections.] I challenge them, in the name of honest and clean administration, which was announced with such a flourish in the early years of the hon the State President’s Government, when he was still Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg made the allegation that this side of the House cannot provide evidence that our so-called gossip does not propagate untruths. It is not necessary for me to prove it, because the Supreme Court has done so. The Supreme Court has proved it because R15 000 had to be paid to the hon member for Innesdal as a result of untruths and gossip spread by those people. [Interjections.]

The say they did not spread untruths, but I want to remind hon members of a speech which the hon member for Lichtenburg made in this House the other day and in which he made certain allegations. I say that he spread untruths. Amongst other things, the hon member referred in his speech to their proposed new homeland for the Indians—this is quite simply a triangle between Stanger, Pietermaritzburg and Durban—and said that 76% of the Indians lived there. That is an untruth. That is a lie which he told in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may not go so far as to use the word “lie”. He must withdraw it.

It is not true, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Sir, but what the hon member said is not true. [Interjections.]

According to the available statistics, that is to say the statistics of 1985, there are 821 361 Indians in South Africa, 659 000 of whom are in Natal. In other words, 80% of the Indians do, in fact, live in Natal, but I wonder if the hon member has ever heard of Chatsworth. The truth is that 40% of the Indians in Natal live in Chatsworth, which falls outside that triangle. He should really explain to us where he gets his from 76%. This is nonetheless the kind of simplistic statement they make here.

Furthermore, the hon member for Lichtenburg asserts that there is a flow of Blacks from Natal to KwaZulu. That is another untruth that was spread here. The hon member should really go and look at what is actually happening in Natal, namely the fact that the Zulus are flocking to the Durban and North Coast areas. That is the truth. There is no inflow, but rather an outflow as a result of the availability of job opportunities in the one case, and the lack of job opportunities in the other. [Interjections.]

Another untruth that the hon member for Lichtenburg is disseminating here is his statement that less than 10% of the Blacks live in Natal. Surely that is also an untruth. If one examines the statistics—the statistics of 1985 again—one sees that there are 15 million Blacks in the RSA. In the province of Natal there are almost one million Blacks outside KwaZulu and four million in KwaZulu, that is to say a total of nearly five million people. This is consequently almost 30% of the total number of Blacks, and he says it is less than 10%. That is also an untruth. [Interjections.]

These hon members mislead the voters with oversimplifications. They then identify the Indians heartland—the little triangle that is found there. The hon member does not even know where Stanger is, because he has not been there yet. He does not know what this line that is being drawn between Durban and Pietermaritzburg or the Indian homeland that he wants to create to the right side of the line looks like. He does not know that two-thirds of KwaZulu lies in that area. Do those hon members know what their contribution is with regard to consolidation with a view to promoting partition? As far as Natal is concerned, they say that they will throw away the entire Natal with the exception of the few districts in the North. That they will take. They include the capital and a large part of KwaZulu in that. That is what they are going to tell the voters. Hon members surely know that that is not feasible.

However, they say that they will help to promote the difficult task of establishing units or Black homelands. Those hon members are trying to counter it, not to promote it. They try to counter it every time we as a commission try to obtain land for Blacks. They use emotive means to cause people to refuse to cede White land to Blacks. If this is the case, how are they going to achieve their partition?

We have made reasonable progress during recent years. You yourself were chairman of this commission, Sir, and you know it takes a long time. With regard to progress, we can report today that as far as the commission’s task is concerned, the following have been dealt with: Transkei; Venda; Ciskei, except where, on request, we have to act as mediators in a certain case; Bophuthatswana, except for a further request with regard to which the commission will possibly become involved in winding things up; Qwa-Qwa; Lebowa; KwaNdebele; Gazankulu has almost been finalised; and in KwaZulu the situation is on the point of being finalised—the hon the Minister will make an announcement. We hope to deal with KaNgwane within the next 12 months.

This job being tackled by the hon the Minister and the commission is not an easy one. It is a difficult job, and the Official Opposition is not helping us in our work by telling voters that they are in favour of the identification of land for Blacks. That is a lie, because they do not, in any case, assist us in carrying out the job.

With regard to KwaZulu, the situation is that a proclamation is about to be issued. What did it involve? Two and a half years after the commission’s proposals were announced in September 1985, the commission members have been working solidly to accommodate the evidence that emerged. Literally hundreds and thousands of Blacks came to give evidence and the commission had to try to accommodate them.

Over the years the commission has learnt one thing, and that is that they negotiate well. They have succeeded in building up a mechanism for negotiations. For example, there is the case of the Inanda Dam, a dam having had to be built in the interests of everyone in KwaZulu near Durban. Hon members know that 800 families had to be relocated and compensatory land had to be found. They had to be persuaded. It was not voluntarily. The commission succeeded in doing that.

These commission members are welcome in all ten Black national states and they conduct interviews with the members of the Cabinet and others on the future of those people and the wishes of those people. We say that KwaZulu must be accommodated. Everyone knows that it was a patchwork quilt. History was the cause of that.

The CP is telling the voters now that its contribution will be to make it one territory that will eventually become independent. That is not possible. The commission has worked hard to establish whether they can consolidate it, but it is completely impossible. They are also numerous Black families in the Natal area as a result of old systems of labour farms that prevailed there.

There are also other problem situations that we have to face up to. It is no secret that this is the penultimate investigation of the commission, but the consolidation of KwaZulu is by far the most difficult one. KwaZulu consists of the greatest number of unconnected areas. The topography of Natal is all too well-known. The mountainous areas and the courses followed by the rivers make settlement in that area unsuitable. The pressure of numbers in KwaZulu is the most severe in comparison with that in the other national states. There are cases of the unfair occupation of land as a result of a lack of space in which to settle. I have already mentioned the labour farms.

The geographic consolidation of KwaZulu is really something one can only dream about. Cost as well as political implications have to be taken into account. There are national roads, railway lines and power lines that have to be taken into account.

The commission has held 10 meetings in the course of two and a half years. They visited the area to establish whether they could not satisfy all the wishes of the people. [Time expired]

Mr Charman, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the hon grandfather from Natal. We on this side of the House are extremely grateful to both him and his commission for the hard work they do for us in this regard. Because we are now speaking of the wisdom which comes with the years, and because the NP is now embarking on the next 40 years of rule, it is appropriate to draw the dividing lines again—both to the left and to the right.

Undoubtedly there is no way in which we as a party can accede to AWB points of departure. In the same way there is no way in which we can implement the ideals of the ANC and their UDF fellow-travellers. The ideals of both the AWB and the ANC will plunge this country into chaos. We cannot accommodate them, and to pretend otherwise is irresponsible and simply creates expectations which it is impossible to realise. Whether or not we can lock away their ideals is not really at issue. However, what is at issue is that the NP can never accede to the crux of their demands. When I use the word “never”, this illustrates something. It illustrates our determination to find a road for South Africa between the extremes of the AWB and ANC abysses.

†What awaits us on this road? In order to find an answer to this question, I wish to refer hon members to Natal. After all, in a certain sense Natal has become the last outpost of the NP. I exaggerate, of course.

I want to read to hon members from a special edition of the Inkatha publication, Clarion Call, of 1987. In it Inkatha predicts as follows:

We in the NP agree with this. Are we, therefore, on the brink of a breakthrough with Inkatha? I doubt it. I shall return to Inkatha and its leadership later in order to show that all that glitters is not gold.

*Before I come to that I shall first put our Constitution into perspective, because this is a guideline for the future. The Constitution represents a fine balance of two base elements: Power-sharing and self-determination. It is actually a good thing that we are frequently getting bogged down in constitutional matters and are even boycotting one another in this regard. This is teaching us an important lesson: Own affairs will have to be reconfirmed and developed further. It is the golden key to the future in which power-sharing with others must take place. The less we have to rely on one another’s goodwill and sense of responsibility, the less vulnerable we will be—and this applies to all groups. The maximum elbow-room to manoeuvre each group, in spite of power-sharing, is a requirement. Otherwise future consensus government is going to be subjected to even greater tension. For that reason it is essential for our self-determination to be settled, right down to local government level.

I want to issue a warning in this regard. In the long run there cannot be successful power-sharing in South Africa until self-determination on own affairs has been properly established, otherwise power-sharing would simply lead to majority government. This is the challenge facing us, the NP. If we fail, everyone in South Africa will suffer. I am not beating about the bush today.

As a Natalian I want to refer to experiences in Natal in order, to illustrate the problems we are facing with regard to power-sharing. In this regard I also want to issue a warning against illusions and over-optimism regarding the ideas of Inkatha and its leadership. I am quoting an objective from the Inkatha constitution:

This rejects any political accommodation of ethnic groups. This is a plea for an eventual unitary one man, one vote South Africa—in other words Black majority government. However, Inkatha’s strategy to achieve this differs from that of the ANC. I am quoting Chief Minister Buthelezi from the same issue of Clarion Call I mentioned a moment ago:

Here we therefore have greater realism than from the ANC. However, the article in the same Clarion Call goes on to say:

In contrast the NP’s philosophy was expressed as follows in January 1987 by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning:

It is therefore clear that those who believe that the NP and the Inkatha leadership are actually on the same wavelength are pulling the wool over their own eyes. Indeed, a great deal of water will still have to flow under the bridge before the NP and Inkatha find common ground—if they ever do. I invite Chief Minister Buthelezi to prove me wrong!

What conditions must first be met? All population groups in this country must accept that we cannot dominate one another. Those days are gone for good. The majority of Whites have already accepted this—hence the Indians and the Coloureds in Parliament, and the mandate we received on 6 May of last year.

However, some Black leaders, whether they belong to the ANC, UDF or Inkatha, do not really accept this fact yet. Their prime objective is still Black domination. After that they will sort each other out! Just listen to what Dr Dhlomo, the secretary-general of Inkatha, said in October last year in Indicator SA:

In the so-called “non-ethnic, non-racial, undivided South Africa” for which Inkatha is asking, this will be nothing short of Black domination.

The NP rejects this categorically. I am saying this frankly, because I am not paternalistic. We will wait patiently for greater realism among Black leaders. We must exercise patience. Listen to what Chief Minister Buthelezi said in Clarion Call (part II, 1987):

This approach reminds one of the words in another and older publication of a somewhat higher calibre. I am quoting from Proverbs 6, verse 10:

In this I see an awful warning to Inkatha. They are wasting opportunities and will be overwhelmed by political bankruptcy. The Inkatha leaders have become the prisoners of their own foreign image, namely that of a lever against NP policy—and this suits the purposes of certain Western embassies. It would certainly be a pity if the potential—there is great potential—for mutual understanding between Inkatha and the NP were to fail because of this.

At the same time we Whites in Africa must not be in too much of a hurry either. Our impatience is our Achilles heel. It makes us nervous and then we make mistakes. In Africa one must have nerves of steel or preferably no nerves at all. Politically speaking we must change over from Greenwich time to camp-fire time. We are not fated to have an academic political blueprint which will put everything right. The hon the State President was on target when he said that we should systematically rule ourselves into a new system.

In Africa the practice of a carefully developing system of power-sharing, supported and secured by greater self-determination for population groups, is the only guarantee. In the long run we shall not be able to draft a complete constitution for this first and then apply it. We shall have to build it into our structures bit by bit and put it to the test in practice, and then leave it to the academics to put it down on paper in due course. This is a lengthy process. In this the NP will be led by the two basic elements of our present Constitution: Power-sharing and self-determination. From the above it is clear that the NP, unlike the PFP and the CP, has already irrevocably removed the principles of Westminster democracy from its pattern of thinking.

Allow me, in conclusion, to state a standpoint categorically, so that we do not mislead one another. [Interjections.] That chatter-box had better keep quiet. [Interjections.] At no stage, either now or in the future, will the NP negotiate on the political enslavement of the Whites. It is not in our nature. It is not in our history. It is not in our policy.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Umhlanga was listening this morning when the hon member for Lichtenburg revealed the activities of the Bureau for Information, because he underlined everything I said on Wednesday about that Bureau and everything that I have believed about that Bureau ever since it was established, and that is that it is there simply to promote the interests of the NP. [Interjections.] I have no doubt about that.

However, to return to this debate, I want to say that I believe the NP has been responsible for many disgraceful and cynical actions towards people of colour, but surely the most staggering must be the sordid history surrounding the establishment of and subsequent actions in KwaNdebele.

Contrary to the fundamental theory of separate development, namely the necessity of ethnicity as a base on which to build, the NP recklessly set about establishing a homeland in the Eastern Transvaal called KwaNdebele. Development in the townships in Pretoria and on the East Rand was brought to an end some years ago and thousands of people were sent off into the veld to a place to be called Ekangala. At this stage there was no mention of the possible incorporation of this area into the homeland. Living in Ekangala became an absolute nightmare for these people. Not only did they have to contend with a strange, new and often hostile environment, but they also had to survive. To survive they had to find work, possibly at the few factories which had been established at Ekandustria, at ridiculously low wages, or face the many hours of travelling on buses to and from their old jobs on the East Rand and in Pretoria.

Hundreds of buses move in and out of Ekangala, and for that matter KwaNdebele, each day and they cover hundreds of kilometers as workers spend up to six hours a day travelling backwards and forwards between home and work. It is a truly disgraceful state of affairs about which not one single hon member of the NP appears to give a damn!

The Government has relentlessly pursued its objective of creating a homeland with the eventual aim, regardless of the will of the people of that area, of rewarding them with “independence”. Ekangala has been expanded, additional factories have been established at Ekandustria and the municipality of Bronkhorstspruit has been most diligent in providing a fully serviced additional industrial area across the railway line in South Africa.

Finally the time arrived to announce that all those people who had moved to Ekangala against their will were to be betrayed again. These were people who had moved to Ekangala from the East Rand against their will. I see the hon the Minister looks at me in amazement. Ekangala was incorporated into KwaNdebele without any consultation or a referendum having been held.

In the meantime, manoeuvres in the background with the aim of providing KwaNdebele with independence were proceeding apace. In spite of the vigorous opposition of the Moutse people, that area was incorporated into the homeland. This was accompanied by beatings, incredible stories of violence and even murder. The Mbogoto moved into Moutse on 1 January 1986 and attempted to beat the people of that area into submission.

Undaunted by the oppression of the KwaNdebele authorities, the Moutse people resorted to the courts, and they won. They had faith in the courts and the hon the Minister must bear this in mind and not undermine or destroy that faith.

The Government’s initial typically arrogant response to this was to threaten legislation to pursue their determination of incorporating Moutse into KwaNdebele. In the event they have had a rethink and have appointed former Chief Justice Rumpff to inquire into the constitutional future of Moutse.

I welcome this development as an alternative to legislation and I welcome the appointment of Chief Justice Rumpff who at the time of the proposed incorporation of KaNgwane and Ingwavuma into Swaziland showed that he is a man of wisdom and vision. I have no doubt he will employ the same wisdom and vision in considering the Moutse problem. I hope that all interested parties will give evidence before his commission.

There are many options available to the commission to solve the Moutse problem. I personally believe amalgamation between Lebowa, Moutse and KwaNdebele to be unrealistic in the circumstances at the present time. One possibility is to leave Moutse as it was before incorporation into Lebowa. It does not have to be attached to a self-governing state.

But what about KwaNdebele? The hon the State President has set out three conditions before he will consider independence. The most important of these conditions is that the KwaNdebele government must show broad support for the concept of independence. In order to show that there is support for this idea, the current cabinet has been holding a number of meetings to encourage people to support the idea. I claim that these meetings are completely rigged and will not show the real will of the people.

In the meantime, the KwaNdebele government has apparently appointed a Mr Joe Tshabalala to motivate the Ndebele people to “look forward” to the realisation of independence. Mr Tshabalala has apparently been appointed at a fee of R343 000 to be paid over a period of 10 months. When I asked the hon the Minister in a written question for details of this appointment, he advised me, in a written reply to my question about a fortnight ago, that because it was an internal matter of KwaNdebele he had no knowledge of the appointment. I find this very strange indeed. The hon the Minister reads the Sunday Times diligently enough to see whether he has been misquoted, but he fails to notice a report on this item which was prominently displayed! To use an Americanism, I regard it as absolute hogwash to say that he has no knowledge of the matter. In fact, it is another example of Heunis-speak.

Who is responsible for what is going on in KwaNdebele? Who is responsible and accountable for the R218 million which is to be lavished on this impoverished homeland in the current financial year? Who is responsible for the reign of terror in KwaNdebele? Who is responsible for the activities of the Mbogoto? The hon the Minister said earlier today that it is the responsibility of the Government to maintain stability in South Africa. Who is responsible for the detention of Prince James and Prince Cornelius Mahlangu? Who is responsible for the arrest of Prince Cornelius by the KwaNdebele police outside the British Consulate in Johannesburg? Who is going to control Brigadier Lerm? I understand he was called to Cape Town early in January this year to be spoken to by the hon the State President.

Who will stop the harassment of newspaper reporters in KwaNdebele? The hon the Ministers of Law and Order and of Development Aid say it is not their responsibility. Whose responsibility is it? [Interjections.] During two previous debates I asked who is responsible for what is going on there.

KwaNdebele is part of South Africa, and someone has to bear responsibility for the disgraceful state of affairs in that self-governing territory. Why not this hon Minister? I hope that when he replies he will tell us what is going on there and who is responsible for what is happening in that area. He must also tell us whether he will allow those people, who have been forced into that area against their will and do not want independence, to live in peace.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg is unfortunately not here, but I must say I was absolutely astonished at the speech he made here this afternoon regarding the hon the Minister’s announcement about land for Blacks in the PWV area. I was also amazed at the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s remarks.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said here that it was a “cynical sell-out of Whites in the Transvaal”. He said that more than 80% of the land in the PWV area belonged to Whites. He said that this would ring the death-knell for White control of the PWV industrial area—hon members must just listen closely to these words: “Dit is die dood in die pot van Blanke beheer van die nywerheidsgebied in die PWV-gebied”—and the hon member for Lichtenburg, who has just walked out, harped just as solemnly on the same note. I am amazed that they can become almost hysterical about these matters, but that whenever they must participate in the debate and their arguments are confronted by other arguments, they beat a hastly retreat.

Let us tell the CP here today, in the plainest language imaginable, that we on this side of the House are going to tell all the voters in the PWV area, the Transvaal and the whole of South Africa, during the municipal elections later this year, that the Black people in the PWV area form an inherent part of that area. We shall tell the voters of South Africa that the Black people living in Johannesburg are citizens of South Africa. We shall tell the voters of South Africa that the Black people living in Pretoria are citizens of South Africa, and we are going to tell the voters that because we are protecting their interests, we are saying to those fellow-citizens of South Africa that they also have rights, and we are also saying to our White voters that we will certainly not sell them out. [Interjections.]

The surest and deadliest way to sell out the White man in South Africa, is to persist with this insane CP policy of saying that Blacks do not have land rights and other rights and that they are only in an area such as the PWV area on a temporary basis, but far worse, saying—this is what the hon member for Soutpansberg said, and the hon the Minister reprimanded him for it—that Blacks do in fact have rights, but that they have inferior rights. It is therefore a sort of eternal White supremacy.

Let us speak to one another in plain language. We all belong to political parties in this House. I want the leader of my political party to be the leader of South Africa. The hon members of the CP want the leader of their party to be the leader of South Africa.

Then one would have a catastrophe!

The hon members of the PFP want their leader to be the leader of South Africa. [Interjections.] We could take this further and say that every Black population group in this country would like its leader to be the leader of South Africa. That is democracy. It is a part of the realities of South Africa that we have to live with.

On this occasion today, since we are now speaking about land, I should firstly like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the announcement regarding the further allocation of land in the PWV area. The hon member for Soutpansberg said that 80% of the land in the PWV area belonged to Whites. Just as surely as we are sitting in this House today, this is surely the consequence of historical events in South Africa over many years, from the time of Jan van Riebeeck’s wild almond hedge, up to the pre-Union legislation in the Free State, which stated that Blacks could not own any land at all in the Free State. That also applies to the legislation in the Transvaal which placed limitations on landownership by Blacks, as well as the legislation in Natal, which placed limitations on the ownership of land by Blacks. It also applies to the legislation in the Cape Province which placed restrictions on Black land ownership, and the commission of 1903 which imposed even further restrictions in terms of the Natives Trust and Land Act of 1913.

The simple fact which I want to state here, therefore, is that as surely as we are sitting here, just as surely we in South Africa as Whites—this Government having made the admission that Blacks are inherently citizens of South Africa; that is to say, those Blacks who do not wish to be citizens of the Transkei, Ciskei and the other independent states—will have to live with this basic reality, in other words that Blacks also have certain claims. In a certain sense, we shall have to rectify certain historical injustices on the road ahead.

In allocating land in the PWV area, for example, we can now give certain pieces of land to Blacks on an ad hoc basis in order that they may go and live there. In the final analysis, however, there are certain economic forces and civil rights we shall not be able to get away from. One such economic force is that people want to live closer to their places of work. That is why the NP’s standpoint of open areas at certain places is a reasonable and a sensible one. It is indeed a standpoint which takes economic realities into account.

There are certain realities about land which overshadowed all our ideals. In a certain sense our ideals about political ethnicity as an absolute political solution were overshadowed by the basic reality of history and of the places where people lived. That is the reality of citizenship. Certain myths about land have disappeared. One of those myths is that Blacks are temporary. For example, when we listen to one brand of terminology that is used in this House, we hear ourselves speak about “urban Black communities”. This is an historical term, which we still use in the historical perspective today. However, when we think logically about it, it is a fact that we do not speak about urban White communities. We do not speak about urban Indian communities either. We speak about White citizens of South Africa. We speak about Indian citizens of South Africa. We also speak about Black citizens of South Africa.

When we look at a constitutional concept, it is true that with regard to White-Black relations, as well as many other matters, an endless conflict potential exists which the NP, in fact, wants to eliminate. We say that we are not in favour of Black majority rule. We say that as a concept “Black majority rule” is in essence just as racialistc as the concept of White minority rule. That is why we take cognisance of racial realities in our constitutional planning. We also take cognisance of certain geographical realities. Stated in a certain single sense, we cannot really speak, in the context of constitutional law, of urban Black communities and define people in terms of urban Black communities representing political entities as such. We shall have to move increasingly closer to a geographic concept, a concept of people living in a specific geographical area and sharing geographical interests in the constitutional field.

The realities have also overshadowed another myth, ie that all Blacks may be linked politically to their homelands. The NP has bid farewell to that myth once and for all, except when Blacks definitely indicate that they wish to be linked in such a manner. Another myth we have moved away from is the myth that a political voice for Blacks means something other than a fully fledged and comprehensive political voice at the highest leave, the central level of government. That has been made clear on numerous occasions by the hon the State President and this hon Minister. I do not wish to say anything about the structures. Nevertheless, during the elections that lie ahead we shall tell the voters in simple Afrikaans that when we say that Blacks—the Black citizens of Pretoria and Johannesburg—must have a political voice, what we mean by that is a political voice in the highest Chambers in South Africa, in such a manner that one group or community does not dominate another. Under no circumstances, however, may we tell our people that it means an inferior voice, which is, of course, what the CP is proclaiming. That is political suicide.

Still less will we tell the voters that it means no voice at all. That would be the ultimate recipe for suicide. [Interjections.]

You have already talked yourself out of your own constituency! [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that I have represented one constituency for the past 17 years. I shall continue to stand there. The hon member for Soutpansberg, however, will run away quite a few more times. Quite a few of those hon members of the CP will run away a few more times. We, however, are not afraid to spell out the realities of the country to the voters of South Africa in simple, easily understandable Afrikaans. Neither are we afraid to tell the voters that if the White man wishes to commit suicide, he must persist in failing to acknowledge the rights of Blacks. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethal and the hon member for Soutpansberg, as well as the hon member for Witbank, must kindly make fewer interjections. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I should like to say that we on this side of the House are not afraid to look our White voters in the eye in so far as the land rights and political rights of Black people and the sociological rights of Blacks are concerned, and to tell them: “Because we care about you, who are our people, we are saying to you in the name of justice that we must also look to the rights of other people.” That is why we know that our voters will trust us in every single election, including the coming municipal election, with the power which has been entrusted to us as representatives to extend justice in our political structures as well.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr Speaker, when I started replying to the debate this morning, I mentioned the level of the debate. It seems I spoke too soon, because the hon member for Lichtenburg had not made his contribution yet. [Interjections.] Firstly, I should like to say to him that I do not believe he had a facsimile of a document; I suggest that it was a photocopy of a document. [Interjections.]

Are you suggesting that it was not genuine?

Information scandal!

Let me take the matter further. The hon member referred contemptuously to proposals to use animated characters, referring contemptuously to the chameleon and the owl. I have some advice for him. A chameleon eats flies and bluebottles. [Interjections.] An owl eats rats and mice. [Interjections.] I think the hon member should go and buy himself a mirror.

You are quite bitter, aren’t you?

Yes, I am.

Who are you—the chameleon or the owl? [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Lichtenburg were as adaptable as a chameleon his party would at least have been able to survive. [Interjections.] I did not interrupt the hon member.

You did!

The hon member should just consult Hansard. [Interjections.]

I want to begin by saying that the Cabinet has agreed to an information and communication plan with a view to propagating the local government elections. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon member to quote one paragraph from the documentation that has come into his possession in which it is proposed that the communication plan should suggest a choice between the various parties taking part in the elections. [Interjections.]

It says … I have proof that …

I should like to proceed. The fact is that that amount was agreed to on 25 May. Surely the hon member remembers, from the time when he was in the Government, that the budgets introduced by the various hon Ministers are agreed to well in advance and that amounts such as these are provided for in the supplementary or additional appropriation. [Interjections.]

I am not finished with the hon member in this regard. The hon member’s party actually wants to use the local government elections to demonstrate the support they have. Now he objects to the elections being propagated as political institutions. [Interjections.]

The party of the hon member for Lichtenburg supports the concept of Black local government outside the national states. [Interjections.] Their information pamphlets state as much; I have them here in front of me. They do not propagate opposition to Black local government outside the states; they actually propagate regional councils for Black communities outside the states. [Interjections.]

Not mixed councils.

He says he is opposed to mixed councils. As far as I know no elections are being held for mixed councils. [Interjections.]

No such elections are being held. The hon member knows as well as I do that the revolutionary powers have made, and are still making, attempts to cast suspicion on the Government’s credibility among the Black communities.

The document does not mention that.

The hon member quoted from the document that suspicion has been cast on the Government’s credibility among the Black communities. Hon members should listen to his terminology. He says the Government is offensive. He must tell me where he reads that in the document.

I am telling you that!

Of course. Some of his senses are failing him as far as his own offensiveness is concerned. [Interjections.]

You should go and see a doctor.

When the Government takes steps to propagate systems against the revolutionary powers, systems that the hon members’s party believes in, it is accused of using State funds to propagate its party’s policy.

It is being used for the Whites as well, is it not?

Of course it is being used for the Whites as well. Then, surely, we are assisting the CP. The policy in respect of local government is not just the NP’s policy; it is Government policy. Every government is entitled to propagate its actions with funds allocated by a council such as this.

Just like The Citizen.

Order!

The hon member should ask the hon member for Randfontein about The Citizen. He would know more about that.

What is the difference?

I want to make a third observation about the hon member.

Man, you are hurting!

Yes, it always hurts me when people insult the institutions in which I serve, as was the case this afternoon. I know of only one type of behaviour that is worse than that of the hon member for Lichtenburg, and that is when people kick doors open and shut. As far as I am concerned his conduct, when he flung a document onto the table today, was an insult to Parliament. He is not worthy of being a member of Parliament. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Opposition has apologised for being absent today. If I were he I would have done the same, but for another reason. I would not have been able to associate myself with the behaviour of the deputy leader of my party.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made some important remarks to which I want to reply. Apparently he has read the report very thoroughly. He quotes from the report that we have changed the constitutional landscape irrevocably. However, he does agree with me that the process of change is irrevocable. He also agrees—hon members can read his speech—that change is the essence of any development—including that of his own party. I cannot understand, therefore, why he finds it strange that this terminology should be used.

Tell us about the taxpayers’ money.

There is one good thing about the fact that the hon member for Losberg is here and no longer at the university. He can no longer mislead the students.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon the Minister is entitled to the basic acknowledgement of his right to reply to the debate. He will be treated as such. That is the tradition in this House. I appeal to hon members of all parties to afford the hon the Minister a reasonable chance to deliver his speech.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to know whether it is permissible, whether it is parliamentary language, to indicate that the hon member for Losberg, having allegedly mislead students, was also misleading this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I understood the hon the Minister to have referred to the hon member’s conduct in another capacity outside this House. He did not refer to his conduct in this House. Under these circumstances the hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, may I address you further on this point? The insinuation was that the hon member was misleading people in this House. It was said that he did this with students and that he was not entitled to do it here.

Order! I have told the hon member what I heard the hon the Minister say. That is my ruling. I shall, however, look at the Hansard report. If the hon the Chief Whip’s objection has any merit I shall take the matter further on Monday. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition then went on to make an important statement. He said they would change the Constitution if they came to power. He made a further statement indicating that he hoped that when they did that the NP would not co-operate with the Coloureds and the Indians in order to frustrate those efforts. [Interjections.] This comes from the Leader of the Official Opposition who claims to represent an alternative government.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Constitution cannot be changed by one House as far as the participation of Black, Coloured and White in this parliamentary process is concerned. The question is whether that party accepts this. I think the hon member for Lichtenburg provided the answer to that question when he said they were going to change the system within the framework of the Constitution itself. Changing the system within the framework of the Constitution itself would seem to imply that they would have to negotiate with the other two Houses about the matter. Now they say they are going to tell the electorate that they are going to change the Constitution to reconfirm the Whites’ sole sovereignty over South Africa. I want to ask the hon member what proposals he envisages to gain the support of the other two Houses in order to shut them out of the dispensation. I submit that when the CP and its leadership sell this propaganda it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth to say that they can do this.

Are they going to tear up the Constitution? [Interjections.]

If the hon member comes to power and wishes to do that, there is only one way in which he will be able to do so, and that is by suspending the Constitution itself.

Bogeyman!

Oh, but there is fear. I will concede that. [Interjections.]

Order! In my opinion the hon the Minister’s reference to something being a “gross misrepresentation” is unparliamentary. The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “gross”.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Therefore, I want to submit that we do not perceive the CP as a danger from an election point of view today, but from the point of view of violence. I think it is only fair that when we state our views to one another we should state them clearly so that people may understand them.

There is a second point I wish to make. This concerns the PFP as well as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party.

They cannot escape the frame of reference of the individual as the subject of political participation. They cannot rid themselves of the concept that numbers should be decisive as far as participation in politics is concerned. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accepts that all people should have political rights, that those political rights should be equal and that majority rights will prevail and minority rights will be opposed. He is trying to escape the numerical realities of this country by adhering to an absolutist policy of the creation of totally separate states. I want to ask him—maybe he should give us some information in this regard—how they intend to cooperate with all the independent states they want to create. After all, they are not satellites orbiting in space. What will these institutions look like and how do they intend to constitute those bodies which must co-operate?

What about the four independent states?

The hon member wants to know about the four independent states. They co-operate within a confederal context—on matters of common interest. [Interjections.] Did the hon member not know that? It is very interesting to see that hon members do not listen to what one says, or that they do not understand. I said “in a confederal context”. Co-operation agreements exist between the RSA and those countries.

Is it a confederation?

There is a permanent secretariat that is manned and financed by all the states. If the hon members of the Official Opposition are not even prepared to serve on a committee with people from Parliament, how are they going to handle that co-operation with other people? [Interjections.] Somewhere along the line they have lost sight of reality.

They say there must be a source; he must just try again.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg made his speech this morning. Unless he wants to ask a question or raise a point of order, he should now contain himself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to ask a third question. The hon member says he wants to keep the PWV area White. By doing what, Sir? There are at present 6,1 million people living in the PWV area. The economic activity in that area depends on the presence of those Blacks. There is a total of 10,5 economically active people in this country. Seven million of those people are Black. What will happen to the country’s economic ability without the labour inputs of those Black communities? He wants them to be accommodated in separate states. What is the price they will have to pay for that? What is the price not only of the withdrawal of labour, but also of the resettlement of those people—quite apart from the question of whether it is, in fact, possible or not? I shall come back to this later. I just want to say that when we propagate a policy, it is not good enough to offer the people simplistic slogans.

†I would like to come to the hon member for Sea Point. He is not here this afternoon.

He will be here soon. You may carry on in the meantime.

All right, I will carry on.

I would like to give him some advice. The advice I would give him, is not to brief the hon member for Green Point to defend his case for him, because I believe he has done worse than the hon member for Sea Point could have done himself. [Interjections.] However, what is very interesting—I heard this this morning from the hon member for Green Point—is that the hon leader of that party had the sanction of his caucus for the speech he made in Parliament. It is the first time in my life that I have heard that the leader of a party needs the sanction of his caucus for a speech that he makes in Parliament. [Interjections.] Even worse than that, he needs a caucus to interpret the Constitution for him, because my argument with the hon member for Sea Point had been …

Who gave you your legal advice?

Not the caucus. The hon member for Green Point did not dispute, in the first place, that Mr Poovalingam interpreted the Constitution differently than his leader did.

I did dispute it! I said you must go and read his speech!

I did read the speech. Furthermore, he asks why, if that is the legal interpretation, the State President did not do this or that. I repeat, the State President is to uphold the Constitution. The hon the State President is upholding that Constitution. [Interjections.] He is not protecting any particular person.

Not Rajbansi?

Nobody!

I have told the House that the State President has indicated that if that House should take a resolution that is substantiated in relation to the allegations of irregularities …

That is not the issue!

But that is the issue I am addressing now.

Are you choosing your own issues now?

Naturally I can. [Interjections.] The hon the State President would then consider such a resolution. Now the hon member for Sea Point accuses the Government and says that we are not addressing the central issue, namely the political rights of the Black community. I concede immediately that the question of political rights, not only for Black communities, but for all South Africans, is a crucial issue. It is not only crucial, but it is the issue on which parties and people in South Africa are most divided. Therefore the debate on those rights revolves around the constitutional future of our country.

It is not possible to deal with the rights of Black South Africans in isolation to the rights of other communities in South Africa. The hon member will agree with me. However, we must also guard against a Nkrumah syndrome that political rights would be the end of all things. I would like to suggest that equally important today is the economic, financial and social position of these communities. The hon member will therefore understand that the whole process of reform is a multi-faceted undertaking in which more attention to the one in relation to the other can, in fact, lead to instability. He would also know …

One has not been addressed, but the others have.

The hon member says that one has not been addressed but the others have. That is not true. What I am prepared to concede to the hon member, is that it has not been addressed fully.

However, he will concede to me that the participation of the Black communities in the economy of this country has also not been addressed fully.

Scrap the Group Areas Act then.

The hon member must please allow me to reply to him. He says the others have been fully addressed but I do not agree with him. All these facets have, however, been addressed simultaneously and if the hon member would relate to what has been done over the past five years he would know that. I refer to what has been done in the social field, the labour field and the field of property rights for Black communities.

I want to take it further with the hon member. The hon member ignores one important fact and that is the difficulty inherent in reconciling different worlds, standards, traditions and exposures in one country. I believe that is the crucial issue which all of us would have to address.

I had hoped that we would be able to maintain the level of debate as set by the hon member. Apparently that is not to be. The hon member goes on to say that as we succeed, we have more oppression and more authority being exercised; if I understood him correctly, he said there is more oppression and suppression of leaders. Let us analyse for a moment the validity of that statement in all fairness to all of us. I do not want to recriminate the hon member in any sense, but he largely lost his power base in the election because of his attitude towards security and stability. He knows that what I am saying is true.

No, you have a different perception about your security.

I shall reply to that. The hon member knows that any period of major change tends to lead to instability because people are uncertain of the future. There are those—I am stating the facts and not condoning this—that resist change and think that they can govern a country and a dynamic society according to the rules of yesterday. It is no good ignoring it. It is a factor to be considered. On the other hand the hon member knows that on the receiving end there are many people who do not seek to share the power, but to take over the power.

They have that in common with the Government.

I would like to tell the hon member that he might not approve of the way …

At least you got 39 votes…

Ask him how many votes he got, because at least as far as that is concerned, he is in good company. [Interjections.] Maybe he has never learnt the 39 steps that he should take.

Let me remind the hon member now that when the predecessors of his party and the predecessors of their political convictions were in power in this House, not a single one succeeded in bringing people of colour into Parliament. His predecessors did not succeed in getting Black people in Cabinets and Assemblies. The hon member might not agree with the way in which we did it or with the rate at which we did it, but he cannot deny that the NP, in terms of White domination of other communities, in the constitutional sense liberated many millions of those people. [Interjections.]

That is co-option!

I want to ask that hon member whether Chief Buthelezi has been co-opted into the system.

But he is not here!

I am not talking about the political systems. [Interjections.] In other words, what am I saying? I am saying that, notwithstanding all the arguments, the only party which succeeded in changing the Constitution was the National Party. Let me tell the hon member further that if the NP did not change the Constitution in 1961, South Africans would not have had the right to decide their own future.

Nonsense!

It would have been decided elsewhere.

That is not true!

Not only is it true, Sir; some people in this Parliament would have invoked the foreign powers to come and assist them.

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

No.

All I would like to say to the hon member is that because there is instability and because there is uncertainty, there are also powers that want to stop the process of reform. There are powers that are not in favour of reform that is evolutionary and peaceful. They are only interested in replacing the system with another system that is unacceptable, and I therefore suggest that it is the obligation and duty of the State, when the powers of revolution want to destroy peaceful processes, to take the security steps that need to be taken under these circumstances. I want to make myself clear: I do not believe that the action of security forces is an alternative to the process of reform.

That is important!

Yes, of course it is important; that is why I am saying it. I do believe, however, that they have a protective responsibility so as to enable those people who want to find peaceful solutions to sit down and find them.

One cannot prescribe solutions!

I will discuss that with the hon member. I have put the Government’s point of view on prescriptiveness on record, and there again the hon member for Sea Point might not agree with me, but he cannot refute the fact that we are trying to create formalised forums and bring in the leaders of other groupings and communities to negotiate a constitution. But we can not have it both ways: We cannot, on the one hand, say that the Government does not have a blueprint, and on the other hand say that we must negotiate solutions. These two points of view are incompatible, and the hon member knows it.

I would therefore like to suggest that the hon member can also assist, and I mean this seriously. He can do what I ask all leaders to do, namely to sit down and, if necessary, talk about talking. If each leader’s preconditions are to be met, however, we will never arrive at an agreed settlement. At this stage I would like to stop here, Sir.

Mr Speaker, as regards the hon the Minister’s reaction to the speech by the hon member for Lichtenburg, I merely want to say that I gained the impression that it was a case of “the lady doth protest too much”.

Hear, hear!

Someone will certainly have to explain how the situation arose that the Government’s advisors said that they could not reveal the Government’s hand in this regard because it had lost its credibility, and that they were therefore going to use the birds and the bees—animated characters—to put their case.

The Government cannot do this in any other way except covertly, and how is the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry going to announce this at a Press conference? After all, he will then be missing the entire object of the exercise. When the hon the Minister said that they were going to propagate this matter openly, this was doubtful, and I still say that this situation only arose because the hon member for Lichtenburg made this matter public here in the House; otherwise we would never have heard about it. We would never have known that the Government was behind all this. [Interjections.] We believe there is no real difference between the matter under discussion and the alleged Information Scandal of a decade ago. [Interjections.]

As regards the allegation by the hon the Minister in connection with our ways of persuading the groups of colour in this country, I want to put it to him that I believe that we have the best methods of persuasion at our disposal because we want to give those people more than they have now. We want to relieve them of the burden they are carrying, of still being bound by decisions we take. [Interjections.] Consequently we probably have the best methods of persuasion at our disposal.

As regards the so-called matter of numbers in the PWV area, and all this entails, I merely want to put it to the hon the Minister that if he were to look at the census figures from 1980 to 1985 he would come across the following information. Whereas the increase in the Black population between 1980 and 1985 was just over 16% in the RSA, the increase in the Transvaal was only 4,2%. I also want to point out that the percentage of Whites as against Blacks in the Transvaal improved favourably in the same period by no less than 3%.

Consequently when we look at that picture—apart from the fact that owing to the abolition of influx control this Government totally changed the picture—it would seem that the policy of segregation was succeeding. It resulted in a reduced growth in the number of Black people.

I want to refer to a previous political debate during which I said that the Government was creating a new nation in the Republic. On that occasion this hon Minister took it amiss of me and reacted as follows (Hansard, House of Assembly, 1987, col 5640):

What was the hon the Minister actually saying? He was saying that it was not constitutionally feasible to talk about the creation of a new nation. In the second place he was expressly denying that this was what the Government was actually doing. This is probably still that hon Minister’s standpoint, not so? He is probably still of the opinion that one does not create a nation, and that it is not his intention to try to create one either.

Now I want to say the following to the hon the Minister. In an article which appeared in a special issue of Business and Society Review, in New York, this hon Minister dealt with the issue of constitutional reform by way of negotiation. Now I want to quote him from that article. I am not going to quote out of context, although I must of necessity omit certain parts. After all, this hon Minister talks so much that I could not possibly quote everything. In any case it is very long-winded. [Interjections.] I am only quoting the following:

He then goes further. Of course the question is what the hon the Minister meant by “a new society”, and he answered this himself:

Who is creating new nations now? Is this only for overseas consumption, to be able to say there: “Look, we are going to create a totally new nation in South Africa”, whereas here it is not even an acceptable constitutional concept?

From the point of view of the CP this new nation is totally unacceptable, because if we listen to what the hon member for Innesdal and other hon members on that side say, it would seem as if the Afrikaner people must now be made subordinate to a so-called new nation, a bigger South African nation. It seems to me this is the idea which is taking hold.

In our opinion it is not feasible either, because we maintain that the differences which exist between the Third World and the First World in this country of ours, are far greater than the similarities through which they are attempting to unite us.

The report of the Department of Constitutional Development says that through the introduction of regional services councils and joint executive committees, as well as the National Council, the Government is seeking to change the constitutional landscape irrevocably, or has already changed it. Now it is being held against my hon leader that he has said that it was not irrevocable. After all, we will get rid of these aspects if we come to power. We will get rid of regional services councils and abolish these so-called joint executive committees, and the National Council will not even get off the ground in any case.

Today I merely want to say the following very briefly. We say that this Government is leading us down a road to an unknown destination. The only guarantee we are being given is that minority rights will be protected, but the Government itself says that it has not yet found an acceptable solution for this. In spite of this it has gone ahead and taken steps which, if it carries on, will or may eventually result in its not being able to revert to another policy.

The Government is involved in a process through which it is going to be placed in the position that the only option remaining to it will be that which the PFP and the left-wing groups in this country are propagating, because if it adopts this course it will be burning its bridges. The abolition of influx control and, in a certain sense, the abolition of group areas, are like all these processes, and every step it takes on the road to reform actually involves burning one of its bridges, thus making it difficult to turn back. This is what we hold against them.

Without having an acceptable solution to our problems, the Government is leading us down that road as if it already had that guarantee and knew that it would succeed, but everything points the other way, and it should realise that this is not feasible. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the speech by the hon member for Ermelo, particularly the final references he made to the constitutional landscape which is ostensibly changing irrevocably. I want to make the general statement that every time one moves forward one changes one’s course irrevocably. This is unavoidable. I do not know what the hon member expects us to do other than what we are doing to shape the future South Africa in which we are going to live. If that hon member and his party were in power they would, after all, have been doing the same thing.

What are the facts of the matter we are dealing with? As regards the general constitutional situation in South Africa, and as regards the development which is taking place in South Africa, the developments are, after all, also concerned with how the future can develop and take shape constitutionally. After all, this is the course the Government always proclaimed that it was pursuing.

The hon member demanded that guarantees be given regarding the final outcome. I want to ask him whether he thinks that his party, any government or any leader would be able to give guarantees regarding the final outcome. Surely it is not possible and he knows it, unless he is not a believer. Surely it is not in our hands to guarantee that final outcome. After all, it is the task of hon members and I to strike out in the direction we would like to see things develop. [Interjections.] Options exist with regard to that development. That hon member cannot argue about this, unless he believes that it is in his power—in his hands—to describe the ultimate configuration of the future irrevocably. [Interjections.]

The hon member and his party have frequently made statements in this debate about the purported support which they enjoyed and what this could give rise to in future. As a matter of interest I want to refer to an article in the latest Finansies en Tegniek, which has just been handed to me. In it an expert who is frequently quoted by that party, Mr Harry Laurie, is quoted on future development and on CP support, and in particular the support which the party allegedly enjoyed on the strength of the latest by-elections. It is interesting—hon members can go and read it—that Mr Laurie said that at best, taking all projections regarding the party into account, even those which were not realised in the recent by-elections, that party had no chance, and now I am quoting Mr Laurie’s words, “to take over the Government of the country in the foreseeable future”. At best he gives them 57 seats. Obviously it is far-fetched to give them that many, but this is the calculation Mr Laurie used to give them the best possible chance of success.

I want to dwell on the hon member for Soutpansberg for a moment. The hon member said something here and asked a question regarding the position of the village committee of Duiwelskloof. The hon member should have put this question last week in the provincial committee in the Transvaal. That was where he should have put the question. If he had participated in those activities, he would have received the answer there, and I am therefore not going to reply to him.

The hon member also said several things about Johannesburg and again referred to the White heartland of Johannesburg. He later corrected himself, and apparently he was referring to the Witwatersrand. The hon member was not quite sure what he was talking about. I gain the impression that the hon member heard about the announcement which the hon the Minister made yesterday regarding land which was going to be made available for Black development on the Witwatersrand, and therefore felt he should attack it—without assessing the facts.

He made all manner of statements, inter alia that the Transvaal colleagues of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who made the announcement, did not play their part in making contributions in the interests of the Transvaal. I want to give that hon member the assurance that the hon the Minister’s announcement was made with the unanimous support of his Transvaal colleagues … [Interjections] … because they meet the needs of the Witwatersrand and because they meet the need for development of the people of the Witwatersrand across the entire spectrum. This is also a rational solution to the need for urbanisation to prevent the chaos which would result if this kind of planning were not undertaken.

The hon member also said that the people of Norweto had been left in the lurch by the hon member for North Rand and that this matter was not put to them during the previous general election. However, the hon member for North Rand, like the hon the Minister himself said prior to the general election, in fact, that the matter would be assessed on a scientific basis. This was done. The consortium investigated it and made proposals, and on the strength of these proposals the decisions were taken by the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Consequently that hon member can feel free to go to the voters of North Rand and tell them that he has honoured the undertaking he gave in last year’s general election. What is more, the relevant organisation which represents the inhabitants of that area, the so-called “Green Belt Association”, made a public announcement to the Press in which they supported and welcomed the announcement by the hon the Minister. They are therefore satisfied with the establishment of high-income-group housing in that part of the world. When the hon member therefore broached this matter, he merely confirmed that he did not really know what he was talking about.

I also want to talk to him about his references to Alldays. The hon member said that the hon the Minister had visited Alldays. He has already received a reply to this, namely that the hon the Minister did not visit Alldays, as he alleged. He did not arrive there in a helicopter or by any other mode of transport. I do not know where that hon member came by those allegations. Then he asks us where we come by our allegation regarding gossip-mongering. This is precisely the kind of thing he is responsible for. [Interjections.]

I now want to put another question to him. Does he object to the announcement that a prison is going to be established at Alldays. Can I ask him whether he is opposed to it?

Of course!

Oh, he is opposed to it.

The people of Alldays are opposed to it.

He is opposed to people being settled in Alldays who can contribute to the development of that town.

With a prison next to a school?

Does he not want a staff who can make a permanent additional contribution to the establishment and development of that town? [Interjections.] It was within the framework of the regional development programme that the district development association and the task group for the stabilisation of the north-western border areas recommended that Alldays be considered a development point.

Obviously the prison is not the only factor which can stabilise development there, but if the authorities can make a contribution towards promoting development on a regional basis in a place like this, it does so. After all, it has a responsibility to do so. A prison need not necessarily be situated in a metropole; it can also be situated in a place like Alldays.

Where will those prisoners come from? From Johannesburg? [Interjections.]

Order! Only one hon member has been called upon to speak. I cannot allow a conversation like this in the House.

It is difficult to have a sensible discussion with that hon member, but may I point out Kroonstad to him as an example? What did the prison authorities mean to Kroonstad as regards the development of that region? We can quote many other similar examples in the country. I think it is a slap in the face of the prison authority if that hon member says he does not want that staff in Alldays. I think it is a slap in the face for those who want to develop Alldays.

That hon member is so inclined to say: “We will go and tell our people that.” I think we should go and tell the people of Alldays that he is opposed to development in Alldays.

I have already asked them …

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg cannot make such long speeches here.

Would you accept something like that in Johannesburg West?

You will not catch them that way.

I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon member for Johannesburg North. He does not seem to be in the House at the moment, and consequently I shall refer to him very briefly. He made allegations here with regard to Ekangala.

Briefly the facts in connection with Ekangala are that originally the Black town developed on both sides on the border of the Rustenburg-Bronkhorstspruit development axis. In 1986 a decision was taken, which was announced here in Parliament, that the two towns belonged together, on the KwaNdebele side of the border. This is precisely what happened with this incorporation.

There was no secret about this. A prominent public announcement was made here, by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, in connection with the matter after the Cabinet had decided on this. May I also point out that it was not necessary, according to any provision, to hold consultations with the local inhabitants of Ekangala.

This incorporation took place as announced on 1 December 1987, and provision was made for the fact that if there were people who were not happy living in Ekangala and within the borders of KwaNdebele they would be entitled to move to a nearby area. However, as far as I know, none of those inhabitants have thus far expressed a desire to do this. What is more, the Black town at Bronkhorstspruit, namely Sikobeni, would also be available for settlement of this kind. I therefore think the hon member was trying to flog the same old horse again, but without success.

It is not true that enforced removal took place in Ekangala either.

That is correct. The hon the Minister has pointed out that no one—I think it is important for us to point this out, because the hon member made such a statement—was moved to Ekangala against his wishes.

That is not true! I explained …

The hon member must furnish proof of this. According to our information no one was moved against his wishes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Roodeplaat adopted certain standpoints with regard to the extension of group areas towards neighbouring communities, and that the needs of such communities should also be taken into consideration. This argument certainly has merit, but I merely want to point out to him that the idea of group areas is not necessarily based on the more general needs of, inter alia, the rural communities, but solely on the specific needs of a particular town or city community. For that reason one will at all times have to consider the given, relevant needs and certainly the surrounding need with the necessary respect. Within the group areas concept this will obviously have to be considered with reference to the physical planning and relationship to the rest of the area concerned.

I think the hon member also made an important statement with regard to power-sharing and the division of power. I think it is important for this concept to be emphasised from time to time too, and for us to deal with both aspects and, in fact, include them in the development involving own and general affairs. The Government is indeed giving attention to this—I am referring to the announcements made earlier this year in the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President—to comply with this by way of the establishment of own and general interests at the different levels of Government. The practice has already been established at local government level. That development is also possible at regional level in future. In a certain sense it has already developed there. There is also the possibility that it will eventually also develop fully at national level. It is on the basis of power-sharing and the division of power that we have to build future constitutional models.

It is true that we do not yet have the overall answer regarding what the legislative authority at national level should look like. The Government has already said, on more than one occasion, that this is a matter which we must debate, inter alia in the National Council. If a solution can be found by way of advice obtained from the National Council, this will be the matter which we can submit for final consideration.

Consequently, in this regard I want to associate myself with the hon member’s emphasising the fact that we must always bear in mind that we are dealing with the concepts of power-sharing and the division of power and that they must have a place in our present constitutional development.

The hon member for Green Point referred to matters in connection with group areas and made a fuss about the fact that legislation was apparently in the pipeline which would make provision for both aspects, ie open areas and the stricter application, or whatever he called it, of the Group Areas Act as such.

I want to point out to him that on 21 April the hon the State President mentioned here that there would be legislation in this regard in the course of this year, and that legislation was in the final stages of preparation as regards these matters. At the same time the hon the State President also referred to the announcement on 5 October of last year. I should also like to refer to it, because I think it is important.

This is the basis on which this legislation is being prepared. If the hon member were to take another look at that announcement which was made in the House and which, if I remember correctly, was reported in Hansard in any case, he would see that the hon the State President explained that provision was being made for the acceptance of the principle of opening up existing and new residential areas, with due regard to the established rights which exist in a given area or which, in the case of a new residential area, would exist in adjacent areas. He also said that provision would have to be made for participation at local government level for the inhabitants of such an area by way of franchise. At the same time the hon the State President emphasised that own residential areas for each community were still of the utmost importance to the Government and that ways would have to be found to make this mere effective, if necessary. This is the argument which is at issue, and I should like to refer the hon member to it.

This morning the hon member tried to make the point that the two elements were contradictory and that one could not do both. He argued that one could only do one or the other. Of course he appealed for open residential areas and therefore the abolition of the Group Areas Act. The point is—the Government has stated this repeatedly—that in present-day South Africa one is dealing with a society which must make provision for both needs. Without retaining or perpetuating unnecessary and hurtful measures on the Statute Book it is also necessary to give expression to the unique community needs of the respective communities, so that those communities can protect and perpetuate their own community life, culture and identity, and everything that goes hand-in-hand with it. It remains the standpoint of the Government, for the sake of peaceful co-existence, also to take the group basis of South African society into consideration when it comes to the regulating of society at community level. Everyone’s rights and interests must be promoted and protected.

A community is a living and dynamic organism. Because this is so, the Group Areas Act, for example, has been amended innumerable times, and we are on the point of effecting further amendments, which are not unfounded or unconsidered, but are based on the recommendations made by a technical committee, which was appointed in 1983 under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Strydom. That report was referred to the President’s Council which assessed it and made certain recommendations on it. This was accepted by the Government in essence and in principle. That report makes provision for what I have now spelt out.

Obviously provision will have to be made for a specific procedure on how this must be opened to all races in an area. The specific franchise needs, at local government level, of the community affected by this will also have to be considered. Provision is, in fact, being made for this in legislation. At the same time provision is being made for the effective implementation of the Group Areas Act for the sake of the perpetuation of that need. The three subjects will be submitted to Parliament in three separate pieces of legislation and only one of these will obviously deal directly with an amendment to the Group Areas Act as such.

In their final form the Acts will therefore satisfy two sets of circumstances, viz the protection and enforcement of the rights of people who want to live in their own defined group context, as well as providing for living space for people who believe in free association. There is no suggestion of mixed schools, because education, is in any case, an own affair in terms of the Constitution. On the other hand there is nothing preventing the establishment of private schools which would, in specific cases be able to satisfy that need, if necessary.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether provision is being made in any one of those three pieces of legislation for stronger legal steps to facilitate the eviction of people living in White areas in spite of the Group Areas Act?

I was not discussing the details of the legislation. I was replying to the matter which the hon member raised earlier today in respect of the philosophical basis underlying how the two can be handled simultaneously. I reacted to that. The time will come for discussing the details of all three pieces of legislation when they become available. I have told the hon member they are in the final stages of preparation, and I cannot react to that now. It would be premature. However, when that legislation is available the hon member will be able to see for himself what the contents are. He will then have every opportunity to discuss this.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following up on what was said by the hon the Deputy Minister who approaches his task with great seriousness and dedication. We congratulate him on his appointment and wish him everything of the best for the future.

When the hon the Minister reacted to the hon member for Lichtenburg a while ago, it reminded me of a number of years ago when I was still a farmer. A cowherd of mine wanted to grow a beard, but had a bit of trouble doing so. A friend of his told him that he should use a mixture of chicken droppings and syrup, because the chicken droppings pushed and the syrup pulled. The hon member must decide for himself on which side he wants to apply the chicken droppings.

This afternoon I want to say a few words about housing and specifically Black housing. Getting a job and a home are the most important matters affecting the existence of any family. The ideal is for each family to have its own home. This brings stability and increases the security and safety of a community. Freehold and the owning of a home by members of all communities in their own residential areas must be promoted both inside and outside the self-governing states.

The provision of housing is in the first place the responsibility of the individual, but also of employers and other elements of the private sector. The Government only provides housing to the less privileged by way of exception. Taking population growth into account, meeting the expected need for houses is a tremendous challenge which is of the utmost importance. The backlog in Black housing outside the self-governing areas is estimated at 574 000 units by the Building Research Institute of the CSIR. The backlog in the self-governing areas is estimated at 162 000 units, which means a total of 736 000 units.

In order to meet the expected need, approximately 200 000 houses will have to be built every year up to the year 2000. In 1986 the public and private sectors together could only build 25 000 houses. In 1987 approximately 34 000 houses were built.

It is possible to eliminate this backlog over a period of two to three decades, but then a number of matters will have to receive urgent attention.

In the first place every individual who needs accommodation will have to play his part too. The private sector will also have to play a far bigger role than it does at present. Construction standards will have to be adjusted drastically to what the individual can afford. Informal settlements must be upgraded more quickly.

Of course it is a good thing that the ideal in the long term will be to make good standard housing available to everyone, but we must also be realistic. We must consider what the traditional houses of specifically the Black people in Southern Africa have been in recent years. They mainly lived in mud houses with thatched roofs or houses built entirely of grass. Most of them still live in these conditions and are quite satisfied. A home of one’s own, within the means of all communities, is an essential element.

Since the beginning of the eighties the Government has made a series of important adjustments to the housing policy. The most important of these is that freehold can also be given to Black people and that existing rented houses built with State money in their areas can be sold to lessees. In addition the South African Housing Trust was established in November 1987 as part of the partnership between the private and public sectors. The State’s contribution of R400 million as a loan to the capital of the trust, and an indication that the private sector should add R800 million to this, gave rise to a very important partnership between the State and the private sector.

As regards the surveying of premises, very good progress has been made recently. Out of a total of approximately 700 000 identified sites, plans for 639 000 sites had been approved up to 31 March 1988. In terms of the 99-year leasehold scheme a total of 23 204 properties were registered in the period between November 1985 and March 1987. During the past 12 months 32 256 properties were sold.

It is important for registrations to be arranged according to a cheaper and simpler procedure in order to speed up this matter. As regards the registration of properties in terms of the proprietary rights system, 42 properties were registered during the past 12 months up to and including 31 March 1988. Property transactions are expected to gain momentum now as soon as problems experienced with the opening of township registers in the deeds offices have been eliminated by recent legislation.

As regards State-financed houses, 271 000 houses were sold during the last few decades in terms of the home-ownership scheme; these are outside the borders of the self-governing areas and the SAOG areas. Of the balance of 363 139 houses, up to 31 March 79 338 of them were sold to the occupants. This leaves a balance of 283 000 houses which can still be bought. The favourable leasing terms and the strangeness of the concept of home-ownership are the possible reasons why more houses have not been bought by Blacks thus far.

Urbanisation, in the self-governing areas too, must be encouraged. The recent floods in Natal and KwaZulu again emphasised the fact that it was important for the people to be taken off the land to an increasing extent and settled in towns so that soil conservation practices could be applied in those areas. Traditionally land is communally owned by them, and heads of families are given a right of occupation by the tribal chief, which gives the individual the right to build a house. Consequently it remains our task to educate Black people to realise that it is in their own interest to promote freehold, in their own areas too. Without doubt freehold brings stability and security. It would also be a very good counter to the revolutionary onslaught if freehold could be promoted in our country.

Mr Chairman, I agree with most of the remarks made by the hon member for Umfolozi, but he will pardon me if I do not react to them. I wish I had the time to react to his remarks on Black housing and the need for speedy action with regard to the registration of title deeds, etc.

Since this is the first debate in which we can do this, I should like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes to the hon the Deputy Minister who has been appointed. I wish him everything of the best with this difficult task that he has.

Furthermore, when I look at the annual report and the tremendous amount of work that the officials of the department did and are still doing, I want to express my appreciation to them. As a member of the standing committee, I found the briefing sessions that we had with the department in the past particularly informative and enlightening.

I want to touch on a few random matters before I come to some of the main points regarding the constitutional debate that the hon member for Sea Point initiated here.

I want to begin with the hon member for Lichtenburg and the discussion that he set in motion here. In all sincerity, what bothers me in that document is that the hon the Minister said that there were two considerations, if I understood him correctly. The one was the necessity of persuading people to make use of their civil rights by coming to vote in the municipal elections.

The second consideration was to state what the Government’s policy was. He said that the Government did indeed have the right to make its policy known to the public. As I understood it, those were the two points that he emphasised.

With regard to the first point, I do not believe there will be any problems in this House with regard to the necessity of taking steps to ensure that people go to the polls. Therefore, I cannot understand why it is necessary to compile and distribute a document in secret. Perhaps I should put it the other way round. I cannot understand why all the parties in this House were not consulted on the best methods that could be used to get people to the polls. After all, we are all interested in mustering the maximum percentage poll in the coming municipal elections. [Interjections.]

When I look at this document, I must say in all sincerity that the statement that is made in it is correct. The research that has been done by the Bureau has shown that the Government’s credibility as an agent of change is under suspicion. Unfortunately this is as plain as day. However, on the several occasions on which we told the hon the Minister and the Government that there were many people in South Africa who did not attach any credibility to the Government’s attempts to bring about change, we were accused of not knowing what we were talking about.

Let us be honest. Many people to the “left” of the Government—I am using the word in inverted commas—in Parliament as well as outside Parliament, do not attach any credibility to the Government’s serious intention to bring about real reform. The elements to the “right” of the Government—I am using this term in inverted commas as well because I do not want to be misunderstood—also attach no credibility to the Government as an agent for positive change.

I want to go even further. I get the impression that there is no unanimity in the NP with regard to the Government’s reform plans. [Interjections.] That is the problem we are facing.

I do not want to make fun of the idea of the owl and the chameleon. However, if I could give McCann some advice, I would tell him a different story. In the world where I grew up, the owl was an omen of disaster. The owl was an omen of death.

What does your horoscope say, Oom Nic?

I really want to say that if the NP wants to use the owl, we can justifiably ask whether it is an omen of the death for the NP. [Interjections.] No, I just want to say that if I had to give McCann advice, I would tell him that in the part of the world that I come from one does not use the owl as a good omen. [Interjections.] In my part of the world we called a chameleon a “trapsuutjies”. Surely we all know how a chameleon moves along a branch. He feels around tentatively before putting his foot down. [Interjections.] I am afraid that that is also typical of the NP. It also feels around tentatively before it puts its foot down. It does not know where it is going. It does not know where it wants to go. In the end it merely sits there clinging to its branch. [Interjections.] That is the problem.

With all due respect to the hon the Minister, I want to tell him that he should rather use other images and not those of the owl and the chameleon. The problem that will have to be dealt with is that of the credibility of the Government. That is the problem with which this Government will be confronted to a growing extent. As long as the Government does not have a vision, that will increasingly be the case. I listened to this debate. I also listened to the hon the Deputy Minister. I must say that throughout this entire debate I encountered only clichés. I encountered only old truths. Nevertheless, I saw no vision. There was nothing new, except perhaps from the hon member for Innesdal. Of course, I know that the hon member for Innesdal occasionally has problems within his own party.

Not really. I do not have any problems!

However, I have searched in vain, waited in vain, to see whether we would be able to extract something from this vitally important debate with which we can move forward in the conviction that South Africa has gained a new image, a new vision for the future. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to some of the these matters later. However, I want to return for a moment to the hon the Minister’s remark to the hon member for Green Point, as well as the statement made by the hon member for Green Point with regard to the hon leader of the PFP, the hon member for Sea Point. The hon the Minister was surprised at the statement made by the hon member for Green Point that the hon member for Sea Point had a mandate from the party caucus.

The PFP is a democratic party, and that is probably the difference. [Interjections.] In the caucus of the PFP we discuss all matters, and the hon member who is a member of the caucus …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the speech that he is making at the moment was also approved by his caucus?

The hon the Minister knows very well that each party has its various groups, and that those groups meet beforehand—the NP does this as well—and decides how the debate will be conducted. [Interjections.] That is my answer to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

I want to say again that the PFP is a democratic party, and in the caucus we discussed this constitutional problem that had arisen. The hon member for Sea Point therefore had the full mandate and authority of the caucus to say what he had to say on that point. I shall return to that later. I think that the hon the Minister’s attack on the hon member in this regard was unjust and unfair. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the constitutional problem. The problem is very clear, and the hon member for Sea Point began to spell it out. It was concerned with the alleged threat of the hon the State President not to appoint the present Ministers when the new Ministers’ Council was constituted. [Interjections.] I want to refer hon members to the provisions of sections 24 (1) and 24 (2) of the Constitution, which certainly gives the State President the right to appoint anyone as Minister and also to dismiss anyone, as he sees fit. He does not need to ask permission.

In particular, I want to refer to section 24 (3) (b) and (c), in which it is stated very clearly that when a Minister is appointed to the Minister’s Council, he must, in the opinion of the State President, enjoy the support of the majority of the House at the time of his appointment. Therefore, if the State President wants to act democratically, how can he say in advance, if a new Ministers’ Council has to be formed, that he is not going to appoint certain members of the Ministers’ Council when those members enjoy the support of the majority of that House?

There is no constitutional way in which the hon the Minister or the hon the State President can reply to that question, because the hon the State President alone has the right to ask whether the person involved enjoys the support of the majority of the House at the moment that he appoints him as a member of the Ministers’ Council. We would not tolerate it here in the House of Assembly if the State President told us before the time that he refused to appoint the hon the Chairman or one of the other Ministers in the Ministers’ Council of this House. That is a violation of democracy, and I want to make it very clear. It does not matter which party is involved.

In the second place, the matter involved the refusal of the hon the State President to comply with the decision taken by the House of Delegates and the appeal that they made to their hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to resign as Chairman. I am again referring to section 24 (1) and (2), which gives the State President full power to do as he likes.

Mr Chairman, I know that the hon member’s time is limited, but may I ask him to read the motion that was adopted and in which the hon the State President was requested to dismiss the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates? [Interjections.]

The following motion moved by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates was agreed to—

That is a very clear decision.

[Inaudible.]

In my opinion the hon the State President had no other option, if he wished to act democratically, but to give effect to this decision of the House, because according to the Constitution the State President should only appoint a person as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council if he is convinced, at the moment of appointment, that he enjoys majority support. Once a Minister or Chairman has been appointed, there is no other juncture at which that criterion is valid.

The necessary implications of those provisions in the Constitution are, if it appears that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not have the support of the House, that the State President then has no other constitutional choice but to comply with the decision of the House. I accept that legal advice was obtained, but the hon the Minister himself has legal training—he is a lawyer—and he knows that there are many types of legal opinions. I also want to tell him that the problem in the constitutional arena is that there are very few precedents.

Why does that not make steps necessarily correct …?

Order!

I shall tell the hon the Minister why it happens. This Government has repeatedly heeded legal advice that appeared to be incorrect. Repeatedly! Here I am referring to the ruling of the Appeal Court on Act 46 of 1951, when this Parliament and this Government disregarded that two-thirds majority requirement. I am referring to the legal advice that the Government relied on with the implementation of the High Court of Parliament, and I can go further and mention other examples.

Therefore, the hon the Minister must not tell me that they obtained legal advice. He should be honest enough—I know he is—to pay attention when I say that, according to my legal opinion, the hon the State President acted undemocratically in doing what he did.

The third point was the alleged threat of the hon the State President to dissolve the House of Delegates. There are two sections that are applicable here, namely section 39 (3) (a) (iv) and section 39 (3) (b). The former states that he can only dissolve a House when the Ministers’ Council requests him to do so, and the latter when a House rejects its own budget or when the House passes a motion of no-confidence in the Ministers’ Council. Constitutionally there are no other grounds whatsoever.

If I were a member of that House, and the hon the State President were to dissolve that House under other circumstances, I would take the hon State President to court, because according to the Constitution, there are no constitutional grounds for the State President to dissolve a House in a manner or on grounds other than those stated in the Constitution.

That does not only concern the House of Delegates; it concerns the House of Assembly as well. I do not want a State President who can decide arbitrarily to dissolve this House without taking into account the regulations of the Constitution.

I want to deal with further aspects. The hon the Minister will understand me. There are two concepts that the hon the Minister used that I should like to discuss. One is the extension of democracy and the second is the system of values.

A system of values is not something that comes and goes. That is the problem. Let us be honest with one another. The hon the Minister said that the Government had brought about so many changes, and I have often said that I give the Government credit for having done so. However, there are a great many people who do not believe that the NP, as is apparent from its 40 years in power—to return to what the hon the Minister dealt with here—really believes in a system of values that those people would want to endorse.

Can the forced removal of millions of people be separated from a system of values? To return to the hon the Minister, does the removal of people in terms of the Group Areas Act not boil down to a value system? Were all the things that were done over that period of 40 years, all the discrimination, the political supremacy—the hon the Minister and all hon members know what I am talking about—not part of a system of values? Was it not a violation on a system of values which boils down, inter alia, to the negating of human dignity? If the hon the Minister speaks about a system of values that must be maintained, I justifiably want to ask him which system of values he has in mind? He must spell it out for me. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to commence with the last remark of the hon member prof Olivier on a system of values. He quoted a lot of things from history. I can remember the days when the hon member belonged to the NP and all these things were placed on the Statute Book—I was not a member of the NP at that time. The hon member should not be such a hypocrite and pretend that he is so innocent.

The hon member also climbed on to the “document”-bandwagon when it was referred to here. Well, we do not begrudge them that small pleasure if that is what makes them happy. The hon member also spoke of the NP’s credibility. One wonders how much credibility the PFP still has amongst the voters. One only has to look at their numbers in the House. Look at the last election results. At first they were the Official Opposition, but they have now become a small minority party. Look what happens to them, too, when we do not have an election. In Johannesburg they had 24 councillors; now they have 17. They are leaving one after the other because they no longer have faith in the PFP. They are now going to contest the election as independents. The hon member spoke of a vision. I want to know what vision he presented, what vision his party presented to South Africa during the previous debate. [Interjections.]

I should now like to associate myself with the hon the Deputy Minister. I should like to thank the hon Deputy Minister for having again clearly spelled out what the Government has in mind for the orderly arrangement of the establishment of communities in South Africa. I think he gave a good answer to the few questions put by the hon member for Green Point. I should like to add to that. I contend that the basis for the maintenance of an own community life for each of our diverse community components is a creditable viewpoint which we on this side of the House would like to stress. Every country with a diverse community set-up like ours has an inherent potential for mutual tension. We who know South Africa and the composition of its people understand this all too well. We must specifically try—the Government is trying, and for that we applaud them—to ensure that that potential tension does not become a reality. One of the most sensitive elements within such a diversity of communities, which can quickly arouse emotions, is the pattern of residential accommodation. I want to say at once that we on this side of the House are most appreciative of the responsible manner in which the government is dealing with this sensitive situation. Group areas and own residential areas for our various communities have become part of South African society, and the hon the State President has taken a very clear stand on this.

Firstly, he held out the prospect of the protection of vested rights. In addition, we support the Government’s standpoint that provision should be made for the establishment of open areas in South Africa in a responsible and scientific manner. We on this side of the House look forward with great interest to the three pieces of legislation to which the hon the Deputy Minister referred.

In this process—unfortunately this is the negative aspect—one finds it regrettable that there are elements in South Africa who try to exploit this fluid situation aimed at bringing about an orderly arrangement for our communities in South Africa, and to use it for their own short-sighted party-political advantage. I am talking now of the CP with its appendages, such as the AWB, the AV, and another organisation which pretends to be frightfully pious, the so-called Stallard Foundation, of which the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was one of the founder members. [Interjections.] These people only succeed in creating tension amongst the people of South Africa, they create confusion and stir up emotions in a very sensitive and thorny situation. One asks oneself: What is the strategy of the CP? My accusation this afternoon is that their strategy is the spreading of blatant disinformation amongst the population of South Africa.

I want to give hon members an example of this this afternoon. I have had first-hand experience of a most unfortunate incident in my own constituency.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member should rather go and talk to the AWB. I am talking to the CP now. [Interjections.] Are you a member of the Broederbond? I am not a member of the Broederbond and I am not interested in the Broederbond.

It came to my attention that a meeting was being arranged in my constituency, a so-called protest meeting, about offences under the Group Areas Act which had taken place. I was also told that this meeting was not being arranged by a political organisation. I approached the people who were arranging the meeting and asked them whether we could get together and exchange ideas. I told them I would try to put the facts before them, and if they still felt the same, they could then proceed with the protest meeting. I had no objection; that is all part and parcel of democracy. If people want to put their views by way of a protest meeting, I have no objection whatsoever. What happened then?

Then they chased him away!

It does not matter if they chased me away; that is precisely the point I want to make. People were asked to a non-political meeting under false pretences, viz that they would simply be required to register their protest against offences under the Group Areas Act. What happened at that meeting? An old ex-minister of the Reformed Church, Louis Kruger, who is an outspoken disciple of the CP, made a speech in the form of a prayer. The man who acted as so-called master of ceremonies at the meeting is an outspoken AWB-CP supporter. The chairman of the meeting, and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, were both founder members of the Stallard Foundation. That is the sort of non-political meeting they held.

I want to tell hon members what happened at that meeting.

You are now maligning your own people!

The hon member should rather keep his mouth shut. I am not maligning my own people; I am specifically protecting them against disinformation. [Interjections.] What happened there? After the meeting one of the speakers phoned me and apologised for having allowed himself to be made use of by the right-wing groups in South Africa at a political meeting—which was supposed to have been merely a so-called protest meeting. I received a letter from the organisers in which they forbade me to attend the meeting. It was signed by a certain gentleman. After that meeting that friend of mine phoned me and apologised. He said I should please not think he associated with those people; he was made use of.

The only reason I am bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the authorities is to reveal the strategy adopted by the CP. Instead of supporting the Government in an attempt to find a positive solution to a difficult situation, they come along with false pretexts, with disinformation and sow confusion amongst the South African public. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members, however, that they are only reaping short-term party-political benefit. The CP is only succeeding in bedevilling relations politics in South Africa, and all they are doing is dragging responsible and innocent people along with them. The hon member for Potgietersrus, who has taken to his heels, can put that in his pipe and smoke it. That is precisely what we are warning against.

“Semels”!

We on this side of the House sympathise with the Government …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said the CP created false impressions. Is he allowed to say that?

Order! What did the hon member mean by creating false impressions?

Mr Chairman, I was spelling out the falsity of the CP’s conduct. That is what I meant. The hon member for Brakpan can put it in his pipe and smoke it. From platform to platform we will proclaim that the CP is the false prophet in politics in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: One of the hon members on the other side shouted “semels” at us. Is that allowed? Mr Speaker ordered me to withdraw it when I said it.

Order! Did an hon member use the word “semels” with reference to the CP?

Mr Chairman, I said it, but I was not referring to anyone.

Order! Was the hon member not referring to the CP?

No. [Interjections.]

Since the legislation is still in the pipeline, there is one thing I want to advocate. There are unfortunately certain estate agents—thank Heavens not all the estate agents in South Africa—who abuse a fluid situation. I trust that the legislation will provide for retrospective action to be taken against them.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to be able to participate in the dying moments of this debate, after a very good contribution made by the hon member for Turffontein. Permit me to wish the hon the Minister and his Deputy Minister everything of the best. They can rest assured that they have our loyal support from these back benches. It was a very difficult Vote and debate which they had to deal with.

Very loyal support, yes!

We here in the Western Cape are also being confronted with urbanisation. Cape Town is, after all, part of Africa. We in this area live at the southern tip of the continent. It has been estimated that almost three-quarters of a million Black people now live in Cape Town. Why do these people come to Cape Town? The basic reason for urbanisation is that these people feel it will improve their own living conditions. That is a good enough reason for them to come to Cape Town.

Unfortunately, in this urbanisation process the Cape will have to forfeit its centuries-old character. Bearing in mind, then, that the preservation of the character of the Cape is also at stake, the demand for and supply of labour is a factor which must receive serious attention in this process of urbanisation. To ensure that accelerated urbanisation takes place in an orderly fashion, there must be various mechanisms and rules. These rules must be extremely rigid, so that squatting does not create conditions which are a breeding ground for radical forces.

There are many people in South Africa who were opposed to the abolition of influx control. They—and this includes the Official Opposition—must ask themselves one question. Regardless of the measures in force relating to passport control between the RSA and Mozambique, regardless of military activities along that border, regardless of the electrification of that border and regardless of the danger of wild animals, hundreds of thousands of Mozambicans are streaming into South Africa. What is the reason for that? It is because these people are hungry. The pressures on a man who is hungry enable him to overcome any obstacle. For this reason the Official Opposition’s cry for the re-introduction of influx control can never be realised. It is a figment of their imagination which they are presenting to the voters of South Africa.

The trouble with that opposition party is that they have to accept that Black people are the same sort of human beings as we are. They are people with the same urges and aspirations as Whites. It worries me that the Official Opposition is not prepared to recognise the human dignity of Black people. It is quite frightening to examine the urbanisation policy of the Official Opposition. Any government would be confronted with the problem or challenge of urbanisation. But when one looks at the policy of the Official Opposition, one gets a fright. When one also examines the CP’s strategy for taking over power, one sees shocking similarities with the revolutionary strategies of the ANC and the UDF. I submit this afternoon that their strategy for taking over power resembles the ANC’c revolutionary strategy. In both there is the danger of violence, with numerous similarities. [Interjections.]

What are these similarities? Firstly: The ANC and the UDF both attempt to control the educational system with their so-called “people’s education”. Through its politicisation and take-over of school committees, the CP is attempting to control the educational system in South Africa. Secondly: The ANC is attempting to maintain law and order in its areas through its so-called “street committees.” In certain places the CP is very selectively trying to take control of the neighbourhood-watch system in an attempt to bring law and order home to John Citizen, as if this could be ascribed to the CP neighbourhoodwatch systems. This is an old idea of the AWB that they are trying to put into practice here. Thirdly: The ANC and the UDF use disinformation to a very large degree to influence and incite their followers. On the other hand, the CP only makes use of disinformation in its propaganda to mislead the Whites.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to continuously compare the CP and the ANC in his speech, and is he entitled to apply ANC strategy to the CP?

Order! At the moment I have no problems with the hon member’s speech. He may proceed.

The fourth point of similarity is that the ANC and the UDF reject reform in South Africa. It is clear from this debate that the CP rejects the reform which this parliamentary system has brought about up to now. [Interjections.] A fifth point of similarity is that the ANC and the UDF use economic and social realities as an emotionally-laden device to create a breeding ground for revolution in order to make the country ungovernable. What does the CP do? The CP also makes unjustified use of the difficult economic and social circumstances of the Whites and makes political capital of that fact to incite them to opposition. In the sixth place, the ANC and the UDF embrace radicals within their ranks and abroad. The CP also embraces other radicals and embraces the ideology of the AWB. In the seventh place, the ANC and the UDF are the chief agents boycotting and demonstrating against us, in South Africa and abroad. The CP also boycotts the parliamentary system and are the ones who chiefly demonstrate against it. We saw an illustration of this this morning when the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP, with a grotesque display of such a demonstration, threw the document on the Table of this Parliament. In the eighth place, the ANC launches unceasing attacks on the leadership of this country. The CP does the same. Hon members need only think of examples of their behaviour towards the hon the State President and other hon members of the Cabinet.

Order! The hon member used the word “demonstrator” with reference to an hon member of the Official Opposition. The hon member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. The question that is now being asked is if the CP’s strategy for coming to power is not as dangerous and subversive as the revolutionary strategy of the ANC. [Interjections.] As fatal as an ANC take-over would be for South Africa, it would be as irresponsible to allow a right-wing, radical take-over if this embodied elements of a revolutionary strategy. It would not be correct to say that the CP democratically came to power through the ballot box and was therefore not revolutionary. In fact, it uses this strategy to influence the climate in such a way that it comes to power, inter alia, with the assistance of the ballot box.

We could adopt the finest policy of urbanisation and have the best intentions for negotiation, but the strategy of intimidation of the ANC alliance and the intimidatory strategy of the CP to come to power are of no benefit to this country, because these two strategies complement one another and destroy the creation of a climate in which proper constitutional development can take place.

Mr Chairman, let me say at once that I endorse the standpoint and the consequences which the hon member for Swellendam has just sketched for us. I agree with him about the inevitability of the process of urbanisation. Yesterday the hon member for Umlazi gave a striking description of this when he said that economic laws did not lend themselves to being amended at political party congresses. For that reason I also agree that if we want an orderly state of affairs, we shall have to reinforce the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act.

I thank the hon member for Turffontein very sincerely. I agree that he actually gave a very clear formulation of the standpoint involving the protection of the community life of those who have chosen to have their community life protected, and I want to reiterate at once that the formulation of an act can never be regarded as final, because it is intended to order the affairs of communities. If a community is dynamic, the mechanisms designed to bring order to that community must also be dynamic, and it is therefore not a mistake to adapt and to change; it is a mistake not to do so. The hon member addressed the CP on the methods it employed in its propaganda. This morning we had one of the best possible examples of the reprehensible methods being employed to disseminate their propaganda.

I shall reply to the hon member Prof Olivier at a later stage, and I should like to conclude with him and a few others.

I sincerely thank the hon member for Umfolozi for his contribution. I merely want to point out that the provision of housing, including that in Black communities, has gained unprecedented momentum over the past two years. The principle of proprietary rights as a stabilising factor in an individual’s life and that of the community is indisputable. In this regard I merely want to present him and the House with a few figures. The SA Housing Trust’s budget for the 1988-89 financial year is R290,2 million. Regional services councils will spend R113,9 million, the Development Bank R26,7 million, the Local Authorities Loans Fund R37 million and the National Housing Fund R413,7 million. Let me say at once that we need not apologise for the expenditure of these amounts on housing, nor on the Black communities either, because we cannot have a peaceful night’s rest if other people have nowhere to sleep. We cannot feel safe if others cannot live safely in their communities. Therefore, apart from the moral justification for what we are doing, the personal justification is equally strong.

The hon member for Ermelo amazes me every time. He quotes me, and he does so correctly, but does that hon member not, in accordance with his “volkstaat” view of the country, want new nations to develop in the constitutional context? That is what I want to know, Sir. If he establishes a state for the Coloureds, do those Coloureds not become a nation of that state, within the context of that state and in terms of constitutional law? So, according to those definitions, what is the nonsense the hon member is talking?

You were the one who was talking nonsense!

The hon member, however, said something else too. He said that this plan for communication was virtually like the Information Scandal. That is a very interesting remark, because he is thereby implying that there was, in fact, an Information Scandal! [Interjections.] By putting the questions, he is implying that there was such a scandal.

That is a distortion!

I did not intend to rake that up, but I want to ask the hon member for Barberton whether he was not chairman of a parliamentary committee which studied those reports? Would he not for a change, like an hon member of integrity, stand up and say what he and his committee’s findings were, or does it not suit him to do so?

Are you challenging me? Must I reveal what happened behind the scenes?

The hon member is free to say whatever he wants to. I am asking whether he was chairman of such a committee.

I was a good one!

Then the hon member must tell us whether the report they published was a correct one.

Go and read The Real Information Scandal

Let us go further. I now come to the hon member Prof Olivier. All the hon members sitting here believe in democratic systems, although they disagree about the nature, form and substance of such systems. All hon members sitting here believe in local government.

But not in Black nominated members!

Oh, Sir!

Order!

I prefer not to react to that hon member. [Interjections.] Hon members of the CP are in favour of Black local government.

Or are they not?

Or are they not? [Interjections.] The CP is in favour of political rights for communities outside the national states. According to their own documents, if lean believe them, hon members of the CP are in favour of, and I quote:

Tribally linked!

No, they are not linked to anything. [Interjections.] Is it a fact, or is it not, that the ANC and revolutionary forces want to destroy the system of local government?

The CP too!

Surely that is true. Must a responsible state not oppose the destruction of its civic bodies? I am now speaking to the hon member Prof Olivier. He spoke about the purpose of motivation. Motivation to what ends? To say that democracy offers the only solution? Does he agree with that?

Yes.

He says yes. To serve as part of the process of searching for peaceful solutions? Does he still agree?

Yes.

An election is essential to allow democracy to take its course. Does the hon member still agree? Does he agree about the role of local authorities, about the role and duties of councillors, about the role of local authorities alongside that of regional services councils, etc? Does he agree about the question of information concerning the requirements for an identification document, about the nomination requirements for candidates, about polling procedures, about the location of polling-booths about the date of the election and the polling times and about the role of the electoral officer? Does the hon member agree with the hon member for Lichtenburg that the State does not have a role when it comes to doing that?

No.

He does not agree with him. Very well. Now we understand each other. No one has ever suggested that that communication campaign was a secret campaign; on the contrary, Parliament must pass judgment on the money voted for that purpose. I have said that. Look at what the hon member Prof Olivier is now doing, however. Surely that hon member is not that irresponsible! McCann surely did not suggest that an owl and a chameleon be used. He merely used that as an example. He did so on the basis of SATV’s owl and chameleon to illustrate a point about animated characters. I cannot understand the hon member Prof Olivier reacting in this way.

Do allow me to make a confession. Hon members must not hold this against me. The hon member and I both obtained our LL B degrees at the same time. [Interjections.] We were fellow-students. In my day, however, he was already a senior lecturer. He was also a senior lecturer in specific aspects of the law. Sir, you should have heard him talking at the time about the erstwhile Bantu Law and Administration Acts. Seldom in my life have I come across greater enthusiasm than that expressed by the hon member Prof Olivier at the time. [Interjections.] Now he has changed his standpoint. He is, of course, entitled to do so.

You too!

But of course! That is part and parcel of living. Why do we question that? Was that hon member immoral …

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a moment! I have not even completed my question yet. [Interjections.] Was that hon member immoral when he supported apartheid legislation at the time?

That is a general question! [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member Prof Olivier does not have the floor now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I shall proceed. [Interjections.]

Surely he knows that value-systems also have a time perspective. [Interjections.] Surely he knows that. Why must I come and tell him that now? Surely he knows that there was a time—just to give an example of how value-systems change—when slavery was acceptable. I leave the matter at that.

The hon member argued—I do not blame him for that—about the interpretation of the Constitution. He is entitled to argue that point. I am not disputing that, but I do not think he is entitled to refer contemptuously to State law advisers.

No, I did not.

The hon member must wait a moment. Just look at the impression the hon member is creating, Sir. He referred to cases which the State had lost, but surely that is a one-sided standpoint. What about the cases the State has won? No, Sir, that is not the way we argue with each other. He says that his interpretation is the correct one. I do not want to debate that with him, except to say, merely for the sake of correcting a technicality, that the House of Delegates did not ask the hon the State President to dismiss Mr Rajbansi, as the hon member said initially.

Read the motion of no confidence!

Would the hon member for Sea Point just listen to what I am saying? The hon member Prof Olivier said that a motion was agreed to asking the hon the State President for Mr Rajbansi’s dismissal, and I am saying that that is incorrect.

I quoted it.

He then quoted the correct motion. The Constitution’s interpretation of the provisions to which the hon member referred, however, is such that a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council itself.

[Inaudible]

Of course. That is the case de facto and de jure.

[Inaudible.]

With all due respect, Sir, I cannot conduct a dialogue with hon members across the floor of the House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if he says it is in the Constitution, may I ask the hon the Minister …

No, I did not say it was in the Constitution.

That is how I interpreted his statement. What, then, is the constitutional basis for the hon the Minister’s standpoint?

In the Constitution it is also stated that specific conventions, in so far as they are reconcilable, also apply. Surely he knows that.

Let us take this matter further. I said that the Ministers were appointed after consultation with the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. A motion of no confidence in him is therefore, de facto and de jure, in terms of the Constitution and in accordance with the conventions, a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council as a whole. Then the Constitution’s provisions come into operation in terms of section 39. I shall not take the matter any further now.

I disagree with you, but in any event …

Of course the hon member may disagree.

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

I am sorry, but I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

What I blame the hon member Prof Olivier for, however, is that when one’s interpretation differs from his, he accuses one of acting undemocratically. [Interjections.] He said the hon the State President’s action was undemocratic. I shall leave the matter at that.

The hon member said that in listening to the debate he was hoping for some semblance of a vision. That is a reasonable expectation. One is entitled to look for that, but during the recent election the hon member’s party tried to form certain alliances and, in fact, did so with people advocating a new vision of things. Do hon members know what those people did with his party? They hijacked his organisation and his members. [Interjections.]

Now in many places they are without members and without any organisation, just a lot of independents without any vision. [Interjections.] I thank the hen member for Innesdal. It is no use the hon member Prof Olivier playing the hon member for Innesdal off against his colleagues. I believe, as he does, that in South Africa there are citizens of the Black community. I accept, as he does, that they are entitled to property in South Africa. I accept, as he does, that they are entitled to political participation, and as he does, I accept that one element cannot dominate another.

The hon member for Umhlatuzana said quite rightly that there were two pillars for success. When we want to discuss our Constitution, we must know that in a constitution for a country such as ours, where on the one hand one must protect community life, one must also direct one’s efforts at those common elements that bind us together. I am saying today that more people than ever believe this now. More Black leaders are striving to preserve what they have, but also to share in the overall bounties of our fatherland. All available information therefore indicates that all communities are increasingly seeking peaceful solutions.

Today I want to make one statement. In the future our country’s image, which is projected abroad, and its acceptability will be enhanced in accordance with the degree to which the South African population can accept one another and the degree to which we succeed in developing institutions to accommodate everyone. Here and now I have such a commitment.

I want to remind hon members of the CP that we have a philosophic standpoint concerning the party’s constitution, and that is that no group or community’s interests, whether those of the Afrikaners, the Whites, the Coloureds or the Blacks, are greater than those of our country. Our country’s interests can only be served in one way, and that is if the interests of all communities are served. That is why our security and our future are not solely in the hands of the Whites; our security and our future are in the hands of the population as a whole.

I wish we could give palpable substance to this vision on the road ahead, including that in regard to constitutional bodies. It is a long and difficult road, because there are more people who are destructive than there are those who are constructive.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North very clearly drew an analogy from the history of our party’s establishment, which accepted that there could be a division of land—partition, if hon members want to call it that—as part of the State’s solution.

There will always still be that handful of people remaining who cannot be accommodated within that system. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

I thank the hon member for Bloemfontein-East for his standpoint. I agree with him. It is so regrettable, however, that one does not have enough time to devote to the positive contributions made here.

My sincere thanks to the hon member for Vryheid. There is one thing I want to agree with him about here. He and his commission set an example of dedication and of what can be achieved by negotiation. My sincere thanks for the guidance he is furnishing in that sphere. [Interjections.]

I now want to make an announcement. With the matter of the allocation of land for regional governments and states coming to an end, we can now employ the commission for the purposes of tackling the second leg of its responsibility delineated in the Act, ie that of also giving attention to the living conditions of communities outside those states. We shall also be making use of them for this purpose.

I have replied to the hon member for Soutpansberg, but there is just one brief remark I want to make to him. If he had an interest in the investigation at Duiwelskloof, he could have obtained the information when the Extended Public Committee on Provincial Affairs: Transvaal sat. It was discussed there and is part of that committee’s responsibility.

My sincere thanks for the contribution made by the hon member for Sundays River. He illustrated, in practical and fundamental terms, how senseless it was to want to relocate Black communities. I thank him sincerely for that.

The hon the Deputy Minister replied to the hon members for Roodeplaat and Green Point. It seems to me that I am finished. If there is someone whom I have not remembered, I apologise.

We have reached the end of the debate. Outside there are people who are in doubt and who are seeking certainty. That is true. It is also true that there are people who, in constitutional terms, are looking to political parties for certainty about the course being adopted for our country. The question on everybody’s lips is who is going to decide about their interests. We as political parties and leaders must address that question, and we must do so with a sense of responsibility. It is our responsibility, and in carrying out that responsibility it is not enough to present solutions which give a semblance of security but which are going to result in chaos.

Let me say today—I am not reproaching anyone—that the Official Opposition guarantees no security. They appeal to man’s basest emotions and create a false feeling of security. If their policy were to succeed, by the year 2020 they would have had to remove 66 million people from South Africa, apart from the fact that South Africa’s economy would be destroyed.

The hon member for Sea Point—I do not reproach him for that either—also wants to address the question of security by fundamentally introducing a Western system … [Interjections.] Let me just finish. He wants to do so by fundamentally introducing a Western system in our country within a federal context, a system based solely on individual franchise, with a bill of human rights for the protection of minorities. Go and ask the people in Asia and Africa what that has given them. [Interjections.] That is why I am saying that we will have to have a constitution, whether we like it or not, which defines group security and acknowledges the existence of groups.

If new groups therefore have to come into existence through association, let us discuss that aspect. The fact that this must happen is something that no one can deny.

Let us look at what has happened over the past 10 years. Not only have we changed the country’s constitutional landscape, but we have also changed the country physically. We have changed the country economically and we have changed it emotionally.

All for the worse!

That may be so. I concede as much, because the system allows him to make such nonsensical statements. [Interjections.]

The fact is that there are millions of Black people serving on political bodies. Let us tell one another that. The hon the State President’s announcements represents a vision for our country. There is legislation pending which is aimed at establishing regional governments for those communities. If we want to reap the benefits of our institutions, what right have we to deny this to other communities?

Those of us sitting here are apparently participating in a system we do not like. When Black communities advocate that they want a system, what right do we have to say no? We are going to amend the Constitution to make provision for members who not serve in one of these Houses to serve on the executive authority of the Government. What is wrong with that?

We have been instructed to examine the composition of the President’s Council. What does that mean in the final analysis? It means a country and a party on the move into the future.

Hear, hear!

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I can tell the House loud and clear that the CP supports this legislation. Actually it is a formal measure to bring certain aspects of a given situation up to date. In the past, a member could be appointed to the Commission for Administration for a period of five years, and then for a further period of five years.

Section 2, subsection (5) of the relevant Act is now being amended to make provision for a period shorter than five years by means of an appointment of such a member at the discretion of the State President. In the light of that it is a formal amendment, and this side of the House has no objection to it. We support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, Bismark said that a terrible end was better than endless terror. With these words I am supporting this measure on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, it is a short statutory amendment; it is an appropriate amendment; it is an essential amendment; and it is a practical amendment. I thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, we accept the desirability of the principal Act, but for reasons I shall briefly indicate we cannot support the Bill.

We do not doubt that in these times of violence and unrest there should be as much control as possible over arms and ammunition. But as with all laws, it is necessary to examine the provisions of this legislation critically.

This legislation can only be good legislation if it is clear what is intended and what the criteria are for obtaining a licence. This is where this legislation falls down in our view. An important provision of the legislation involves who may legally possess a firearm or ammunition. We say it must be clearly spelt out so that the public can know who qualifies for a licence, who may possess a firearm, what the disqualifications will be and which factors will play a role in determining whether A or B may or may not own a firearm.

Section 2 of the existing Act provides that a only a person who has a licence, permit or authorisation may possess an arm. We agree with that. Now we have clause 3 which inserts section 2A(1) which provides how one may obtain this licence. In the first place, in terms of the legislation one must be a competent person in possession of a certificate of competence. That is the prerequisite, but what are the criteria which decide if one is a “competent person”? Firstly, one must be above the age of 16 years. Secondly, one must complete a prescribed application form. Thirdly, one must undergo a prescribed test and, fourthly, prescribed fees must be paid. The Commissioner, in his discretion, can then declare such a person to be a “competent person” and issue a prescribed certificate of competence.

These four points are prerequisites, but they are not the criteria. One might comply with all the prerequisites, but still not be entitled to a certificate of competence.

Who are you shielding?

No, the applicant must also find favour in the eyes of the Commissioner.

Who are you shielding?

This is where we have problems. The legislation has nothing to say about the factors which determine this approval. No guidelines or objective criteria are indicated. It may be useful legislation, but it is not good legislation.

Who are you shielding?

It is not good legislation, because it is not clear on which criteria the applicant is going to be assessed; will it be character traits, the colour of his skin or economic considerations? What, in the opinion of the Commissioner, will make him a suitable person?

We may have all the faith in the world in the Commissioner and give him a blank cheque, but after all he cannot do all the work himself. In terms of the Act he is authorised to delegate his powers, and he will do so. We may then possibly have the situation in which there are 10 or 20 people who can each decide whether a certificate of competence should be issued. This will be done at the discretion of each individual, because the legislation does not prescribe this. Somebody could be declared a competent person in Cape Town, but the same person could be declared incompetent in Pretoria. Legislation must afford certainty, and this legislation does not.

What about appeal?

I shall come to that. The legislation does not tell the public who will be a competent person. Nobody can determine whether the authorised agents of the Commissioner would apply the same criteria.

Who are you shielding?

There is a right of appeal to the Minister, but how can one make a meaningful appeal when one does not know what criteria are used in the assessment and if one does not know why the application has been refused? Will the reasons be supplied secretly to the Minister so that he can decide whether the certificate of competence has been justly or unjustly refused? [Interjections.]

Order! An hon member’s refrain: “Who are you shielding? Who are you shielding?” is now becoming monotonous, and the hon member must please stop.

On what grounds can an appeal against such a decision succeed if it can be made at someone’s discretion? Juridically it can only succeed if male fides or fraud can be proved, and that, of course, is not possible when one does not know what the reasons or criteria were for the decision.

We also find such a provision in clause 4. When somebody has been declared a competent person, and a certificate of competence has been issued to him, the Commissioner can still, in his discretion, refuse to issue a licence. The same argument applies here. The Minister to whom an appeal can be made can similarly delegate his powers. The authority to hear appeals, in terms of clause 27 which amends section 44 of the principal Act, can also be delegated to the Appeal Board or even any member of the Police. The Appeal Board is in no better position than the Minister or anybody else. It is an unfortunate situation. Our problem is that issuing or not issuing licences is subject to an absolutely subjective discretion. It is our submission and our view that this makes this the sort of legislation we unfortunately cannot support.

We would have liked to support it. During the discussions in the standing committee we even moved a relevant amendment in an attempt to try to rectify the matter, but the standing committee did not approve the proposal.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? If a commissioner has a strong suspicion that somebody is an agent of the ANC, but he has no clear and irrefutable legal proof of this, would the hon member think it reasonable or not if the Commissioner, on those grounds, did not want to grant a firearm to the man, and would the hon member say he should then put his reasons in writing?

Of course! We have no objection to that. That is precisely the problem with this legislation. If it is a good reason, it must be made known. That is the whole purpose of our argument. That is why we are asking for this. In our view that discretion is subject to no limits of any sort. It is just an arbitrary act of putting pen to paper, and in our view it is not good legislation. It is on this basis that we object to this.

Mr Chairman, I find it a pity that the CP does not see its way clear to supporting this legislation. I do not think the chief reason the hon member for Ermelo advanced here represented a strong enough case for opposing this legislation.

He referred to the wide discretion which the commissioner has. The hon member for Umbilo will respond fully to that argument of the hon member in a little while. When one listens to the arguments of the hon member for Ermelo one sometimes gains the impression that he would actually like to arm certain people who really ought not to be armed. [Interjections.] In this regard one thinks particularly of weapons buried in maize fields.

It is a fact that the South African society can be typified as a society with a tendency towards violence. We have statistics in this regard, but given the fact that it is a quarter to five, we shall not tire hon members with them. Suffice it so say that it is a fact that South Africa displays a tendency towards violence.

At the personal level, there is also a tendency to settle disputes in a violent fashion. It happens every day that when someone’s wife upsets him, he either shoots her dead or she shoots him. When someone forces someone else off the road, both people jump out of their vehicles and shoot each other dead. That literally happened.

In a society like that it is vital that stricter measures be enforced in so far as authorisation for the possession of firearms as well as the possible hoarding of weapons are concerned. That is the intention of this amending Bill, and that is why we on this side of the House support it wholeheartedly.

I just want to make a few very brief remarks about a few clauses. As far as clause 3 is concerned, which provides for testing before authorisation is granted in respect of the possession of a firearm, I want to make an appeal that when these criteria for testing are formulated, attention will also paid to emotional instability. A few weeks ago we had the tragic incident in which a man not only shot himself to death, but shot and killed two policemen as well. He was in possession of a number of firearms for which he had licences. If these criteria relating to emotional instability had applied, I do not think he would have been able to possess such a weapon, and I should very much like some attention to be paid to emotional instability when this testing is done.

I also just want to make a brief remark, which ties in with this, about clause 11. Section 11 of the principal Act deals with the reasons for declaring someone unfit to possess a firearm, and one may be declared unfit on the strength of information furnished under oath. One of these reasons is once again emotional instability or addiction to dependence-forming substances. In this regard I should also like to make an appeal to the public to perform their civic duty, because if one does not furnish this information with regard to someone who is emotionally unstable or who is dependent on certain substances, the Commissioner cannot declare that person unfit, and I should like to make an appeal that we discharge our civic responsibilities in this regard.

I also just want to refer briefly to clauses 2,18 and 20, which actually prohibit the building up of weapons from parts and the hoarding of weapons. I think this serves to prevent arsenals of weapons being built up by the left-wing and the right-wing spectrum to achieve political objectives.

I want to conclude by referring to clause 23. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister in this regard. Clause 23 deals with offences, and it deals with a firearm that is stolen whilst under someone’s direct control. Here we are very clearly dealing with an inner tension. When a firearm is being used, it can be stolen, and I want to illustrate this very briefly by way of an example. Last weekend a certain person’s firearm was stolen whilst it was lying next to him on the front seat of his car, but a few weeks ago a member of Parliament was shot dead and the Chairman of the parliamentary pistol club, the hon member for Maraisburg, informs me that the pistol of the late Peter Jacobs was in the glove compartment. Therefore, whilst he was sitting in the vehicle he could not use that pistol to defend himself, particularly because he was also wearing a seat-belt. I therefore simply want to ask that there should be a wider discretion. The use of a firearm can prove to be unsafe and it can be stolen, and I particularly want to ask that the Appeal Board exercise a greater discretion in regard to these cases. Sir, we support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we shall also support this Bill in its present form. The control of firearms is naturally very important, and in our view it is also important for certain amendments to be effected.

I just want to react briefly to the argument of the hon member for Ermelo, an argument for which we have a great deal of respect. In many instances, particularly in times like these, we would be sympathetic towards an argument of this nature, and it would also often follow that legal certainty would have to be created in this respect. One must create an approach in accordance with which it is possible to appeal to a higher court on the most meaningful basis with regard to a judgment of this nature. As I have indicated, under many different circumstances we would have been quite sympathetic towards the argument and could therefore have supported that same standpoint.

Nevertheless, I do believe that what we are dealing with here is the right to possess a firearm. The question, therefore, is to what extent it is correct to view this right in the same light as the right to freedom of movement, free speech and other fundamental human rights. After all, one does have a right to possess property. We simply believe that the right to possess a firearm does not fall into the same category as those other rights. The right to possess a firearm is not a fundamental human right, or at least not as one might almost assert is the case in the USA. It would be a pity if that were, in fact, to become the case in South Africa.

By that I naturally do not mean that one should not, under certain circumstances, be sympathetic towards a person’s capacity to possess a firearm. Nevertheless, we do not believe that argument is significantly valid, under the present circumstances, to oppose the Bill.

The hon member for Ermelo himself suggested that the opinion as to whether or not someone is competent to possess a firearm is a subjective one. That will inevitably be the case. The hon member is correct. It is a subjective opinion. There is such a wide variety of considerations which one must take cognisance of and which determine whether someone is competent to handle a firearm, that it is very difficult to codify and specify them all. Some of the elements one can, in fact, specify. We can say, for example, that when someone has a criminal record of a certain nature, he may not possess a firearm. Nevertheless, there are a large number of other considerations which, by their very nature, are difficult to specify by way of legislation—or even by way of regulation. We therefore believe that there will inevitably have to be a discretionary power and that it is right that that discretionary power should also be exercised conservatively, because the simple truth is that there are more people who take their lives due to the wide availability of firearms than there are people in a position to defend themselves in that manner.

The extent to which firearms are stolen in South Africa, the extent to which people do not look after their firearms properly, as well as the extent to which these types of firearms are abused when crimes are committed, for example, and when other undesirable activities are engaged in, is a source of concern and alarm to every right-thinking person in this country. That is why we believe that we should rather err in favour of a conservative approach in this regard and be relatively strict in granting firearm licences. For that reason we also have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Green Point for his support for the legislation under discussion. I agree with his arguments, and also with the way in which he dealt with the arguments put forward by the hon member for Ermelo.

As indicated by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, I shall briefly deal with the arguments of the hon member for Ermelo. At present, in terms of section 3(1) of the present Arms and Ammunition Act, the Commissioner of Police may, in his discretion, grant a licence to possess an arm to a person as defined in the Act. That is the present position in terms of the Act.

In terms of Clause 3 of the amending Bill a new section 2A is being inserted in the Act. According to the new section 2A(1), no dealer’s licence or licence to possess an arm—there are, of course, certain exceptions—may be issued to any person unless such person is declared a competent person by the Commissioner of Police.

In terms of the new section 2A(2) the Commissioner of Police once again may, as pointed out by the hon member for Ermelo—declare a person to be a competent person and issue the prescribed certificate of competence.

The amending Bill only alters the description of “person” in section 3(1) to which I referred. The discretion of the Commissioner of Police in respect of the issuing of a licence remains as provided for in the principal Act. The present section 3(1) was introduced by Act 19 of 1983, and when one looks back it is interesting to see that the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Overvaal supported the legislation at that stage when a similar discretion was granted. In fact, the same words were used. One wonders what has suddenly changed.

All that has transpired is that the Commissioner will now have a further function, viz the declaration of competence or otherwise of a person, and that discretion is similar to the discretion vested in him when issuing a licence. The reason for also granting a discretion in declaring a person competent is really quite simple. It is so simple that one would think even the CP, and specifically their legal advisers, would be able to understand it.

I shall explain it by way of a simple example. In spite of the fact that a particular person can successfully pass the prescribed test—perhaps he is a good shot and in addition has the necessary theoretical knowledge—he should in a specific instance not be declared a competent person for various reasons such as—let us examine them—his criminal record or temperamental instability. For instance, is the person an excitable type, or does he have an inclination for violence. He might be incompetent because of his dependence on alcohol or other dependence-producing substances, his lack of a sense of responsibility or the fact that he suffers from some form of mental handicap. It is really quite simple.

The reason for the retention of the Commissioner’s discretion in respect of the issuing of a licence to a competent person is just as simple. Perhaps I should again, for the benefit of the CP, make use of some simple examples to illustrate the point. In spite of the fact that a specific person is a competent person in all respects and is therefore declared to be such by the Commissioner, in certain circumstances the person concerned should not be granted a licence or obtain a firearm when, for example, he already owns 50 similar firearms and can supply no acceptable reason why he needs another weapon or weapons.

It must be remembered—if he has read the amending Bill the hon member for Ermelo surely knows this—that the 12-firearm restriction has now been done away with. But that does not mean that any competent person may own as many firearms as he likes. It simply means that the number of firearms which a person may possess is again being determined and that each case can be dealt with on its merits.

If one examines the simple logical reasons for the granting of the discretion to the Commissioner to declare a person competent, as well as the retention of his discretion in regard to the issuing of the licence to possess an arm, as I have just explained, one cannot but wonder if the CP, specifically the hon member for Ermelo, really cannot follow this simple logic. I cannot believe that they cannot follow it, especially in the light of the fact that the hon member for Ermelo is an advocate and, what is more, a senior advocate.

There must therefore be other underlying reasons for the fact that they do not want to grant the discretion in question to the Commissioner or, in any event, seriously want to restrict his discretion. Should the reason not perhaps be sought in the words of Mr Eugene Terre’ Blanche? He is quoted as follows in the pamphlet introducing the book A Question of Survival by Michel Albeldas and Alan Fischer:

When one also bears in mind that the hon member for Ermelo is a member of the Head Council of the AWB …

You are talking nonsense!

… and that five members of the AWB, including the other senior advocate, viz the hon member for Bethal, are sitting on that side of the House, the picture becomes even clearer; on the contrary, the matter becomes crystal clear when one considers the speech of my bench-mate, the hon member for Swellendam, earlier today in regard to that party’s strategy. [Interjections.] They should surely know that their policy is the ideal recipe for revolution in this country.

Those hon members can surely not take it amiss of me if I say the only reasonable inference one can make from the circumstantial evidence I have just sketched is that the extra-parliamentary leader of the AWB in that party has instructed them to ensure that the expansion of the arms arsenal of the AWB should not be curtailed by the fact that the Commissioner of Police is allowed to exercise his discretion when it comes to issuing firearm licences. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am amazed at the arguments the hon member for Umbilo dished up here as to why we did not support this legislation. [Interjections.] After all, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys did indicate to us that the hon member for Umbilo would deal with the legal arguments, but he did not do so. What he did, in fact, deal with were the political arguments surrounding the AWB. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys also said that we were hiding the real reason as to why we did not support the legislation, and that we wanted to arm certain people who ought not to be armed, and he referred to weapons that had been hidden away in the maize fields. He apparently did not have the courage of the hon member for Umbilo to refer directly to the AWB.

With regard to the reasons why we cannot support this legislation, I should like to assure the hon the Minister that nothing is further removed from the truth than the reasons mentioned by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys and the hon member for Umbilo. We are sorry that we cannot support this legislation, and I should like to outline the reasons to hon members. [Interjections.]

As a matter of fact, we want to give the hon the Minister the assurance that we have no objection to the fact that legislation has been tabled which makes for stricter control over arms and ammunition, and what is more, we want to congratulate him on it. We want to tell him that it is vital that plans be formulated and that legislation be introduced in South Africa in terms of which the possession of firearms is more strictly controlled. We should like to give hon members that assurance and to tell them that in so far as the desirability of legislation of this nature is concerned, we support it.

There are, however, some well-founded reasons, of which I should like to inform hon members, as to why we unfortunately do not see our way clear to supporting this legislation. First of all I want to refer to clause 11, read together with clauses 12 and 13. Clause 11 deals with the declaration of someone as being unfit to possess a firearm. The fact is that the Commissioner of Police is hereby being given a discretion which is unfettered in the sense that the bounds and limits of that discretion are not embodied or described in the legislation. [Interjections.] The commissioner—and he alone—is now to be given the power to declare a person unfit to possess a firearm. In this regard I am referring specifically to clause 11 (e).

With reference to the proposed section 11 (1), (4) and (5), we say that this ought to be the function of a court of law or of a quasi-judicial body, and that it ought not to be placed in the hands of one person, namely the commissioner. We are not saying this—we should like the hon the Minister to accept our assurance in this regard as well—because we do not have confidence in the commissioner, or because we maintain that the commissioner will not exercise his discretion well, but simply because it is an unsound legal principle to place that discretion in the hands of one person.

The following question could now arise: What about the appeal board of which mention is made in this legislation? I am referring to the provisions relating to the appeal board in this regard.

It is our standpoint that in this regard, too, the legislation under discussion lacks a whole number of improvements that could have been built in if adequate attention had been paid to the representations that were made in this regard. For example, it is not even certain whether the appeal board will ever be brought into being. It is not certain—we say this with respect—whether the Minister will transfer his powers to the appeal board. Therefore, the next appeal body in this regard, after a ruling by the commissioner, is the Minister himself. It is our considered opinion that the Minister ought not to be burdened with that power; not because he cannot exercise it, but because he has other more important work to do than to act as an appeal body in this regard.

The deficiency we foresee in this regard is that the regulations which, as it happens, have not been included in the legislation, will apparently rectify these omissions. However, because the regulations are not at our disposal—let us assure the hon the Minister that all the commentary that we looked through referred to this deficiency, namely that the regulations have not been included in the Bill to be read in conjunction with it—we cannot comment on them.

Permit me to mention a few of the problems in relation to the unfettered discretion of the commissioner and the possible right of appeal to the Minister. The commissioner need not furnish any reasons for his ruling. I want to make the following very clear to the hon member for Umbilo: The CP has no objection to the fact that a declaration of competence has been built into this legislation, together with a whole string of qualifications with which a person must comply in order to be declared competent to possess a firearm. The CP has no objection to that; on the contrary, we want to assure the hon the Minister that we support this portion of the legislation which makes reference to a declaration of competence and to the fact that someone must be declared competent in order to possess a firearm.

What we do object to, however, is the fact that the reasons for a declaration of incompetence are not required. Let us take a practical juridical look at what we are dealing with. There is now an appeal body. On what basis will one approach the appeal body if the previous body, namely the commissioner, does not give the reasons for his ruling? It is a juridical impossibility. The only possibility that then remains, is to approach the normal courts of law to review the ruling. Once again, because the commissioner need not furnish reasons for his rulings, the only ground for review which remain in this regard is that of mala fides or fraud, as my colleague the hon member for Ermelo also indicated. The possibility of an appeal to the appeal board is therefore limited, unless we view the appeal board as a body which will actually adjudicate the whole matter de novo in the place of the Minister or of the commissioner. That is not the case, however, and it is not spelt out as such in the legislation either.

I should like to refer to a number of points of criticism we have in regard to the appeal board. The first of these relates to its composition. We also find it juridically unsound that the Bill should prescribe in clause 14 that the appeal board is to consist of one or more members, with a maximum of three. Once again we want to assure the hon the Minister that we support the principle, but our standpoint is that a body ought not to consist of one person, but in fact of more than one person, and preferably of three persons.

I have already spoken about the question as to whether a right of appeal or the possibility of a review of such a right exists in this regard.

For the purpose of my last argument, I want to turn to clause 24. This clause requires that one will henceforth store one’s firearm in a safe, strong-room or similar place. I now want to indicate very briefly to hon members what absurd consequences this provision, as it has been formulated in the Bill, could lead to. We want to stress once again that we support the principle, namely that firearms must be taken better care of by people who handle and possess firearms. However, we are of the opinion that section 39 (1) (j) and (k) of the present Act offers adequate security with regard to the storage of firearms. I want to mention some examples which could lead to absurd consequences if the new amendments were accepted.

Suppose a person goes on holiday. If he reaches his destination and discovers that there is no strong-room, or that there is no strong-room or safe in the holiday house which he has rented in which he may store the weapon as prescribed in the Act, he will be guilty of an offence, although it is not his intention to commit an offence in regard to his possession of a firearm. Our standpoint is that although we support it in principle, the legislation was drawn up too hastily, because it has certain deficiencies which we cannot ignore. Solely for that reason, and not for some or other sinister reason like the ones that were mentioned, we do not see our way clear to supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to thank the hon members of the standing committee for the way in which they dealt with the Bill. I also want to thank them for the speedy disposal of business once the Bill had been submitted to them.

I want to react immediately to the hon member for Losberg who said that we were over-hasty in this regard. My predecessor, the present Speaker, was the first to propose that the legislation be amended. After that it was repeatedly published; representations were received from the public and from interest groups. I therefore want to give the hon member the assurance that this Bill was not steamrollered through Parliament or the standing committee. It had a very long preliminary stage, and I shall return to that later.

I should like to thank the former chairman of the standing committee, the present Deputy Minister of Law and Order, for his contribution to the disposal of this Bill. Secondly, I also want to thank hon members of the House for their contribution this afternoon. I must say that I appreciate the dispassionate and positive way in which we discussed this Bill. The Bill is important to many people in our country; I think it affects all our people. I thank hon members for their contributions. The hon members of the Official Opposition differ with us in regard to the manner in which we want to implement the legislation and certain provisions. After I have completed my speech, I think they will support the Bill. I hope they will.

I also want to thank the law advisers and the members of the SAP who went to a great deal of trouble to speak to people and interest groups in order to sort out problems so that we could submit a Bill that was supported by the interest groups, the people who represent the public. I should like to thank them for that. I also want to express my thanks to the interest groups and members of the public, fire-arm lovers, collectors and the many people—I cannot even mention them all—who reacted to our invitation and came forward with very positive contributions. There were excellent contributions which we incorporated in the Bill and which enabled us to submit more effective legislation to Parliament here today.

This legislation affects the lives of many people. Whether we like it or not, the Afrikaner in South Africa is very fond of his rifle.

There are more than a million people in South Africa who already have fire-arm licences, at present more than two million fire-arm licences having been issued in South Africa. By way of conclusion—I shall return to specific remarks made by hon members in a moment—I should like to place a few important aspects of this Bill on record.

The main objective of this amending Bill is to tighten general control over fire-arms. We are not apologising for this; we are saying this; because this is the intention. An aspect that enjoys strict attention in the Bill is the safe-keeping of fire-arms. Prior to 1983 only a person who lost a fire-arm as a result of gross negligence could be punished. This could only happen once he had been pronounced unfit to possess a fire-arm. This Act was amended on 16 March 1983. There are hon members sitting here who were members of that select committee in those days. Since then it has also become an offence to lose a fire-arm as a result of mere negligence or to fail to keep a fire-arm in a safe place when it is not on the person of the owner.

At that stage we thought this would have the desired effect, but unfortunately it did not prevent a steady increase in the number of weapons that were lost annually. In 1984, for example, the number of weapons that were lost was 6 556, and in 1986 it was 10 111. It is hardly necessary for me, at this stage, to elaborate on the dangers that fire-arms, which are not kept in a safe place, pose for the community. Almost every day we hear of shooting incidents that occur because children and other irresponsible people obtain weapons that have not been securely locked away or which are not kept under the proper control of those in whose hands the fire-arm ought to be.

That brings me to the example that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys mentioned of the man who was mentioned in a newspaper article, and who placed the fire-arm next to him on the seat of his car. What happened in this case? According to the newspaper article, the people who descended on his car while he was at a stop street, opened the door and grabbed the fire-arm and then grabbed him. In other words, this man did not exercise adequate control over that fire-arm in terms of the provisions of the law.

I think we should be quite open with one another about these matters. With regard to fire-arm control and the safe-keeping of fire-arms, our people are really not careful enough. The time has come for us to tighten this control a little.

Furthermore, it is also a generally known fact that weapons that are stolen are used to commit crimes of violence. An indication of this is the number of crimes that were solved during 1986 in which stolen fire-arms were used. I should like to mention the following figures for the information of hon members: In 1986, 1013 murders and attempted murders were committed with stolen fire-arms. One thousand eight hundred and eighty-six cases of burglary were committed with stolen fire-arms. I can give hon members many more examples in this regard. There were 13 cases in which stolen fire-arms were used during rapes. We therefore have a duty to try to deal with this situation and to ensure that this does not continue.

†Current legislation dealing with safeguarding firearms has been deemed inadequate. In view of this, the amending Bill provides precautionary measures to be followed when the firearm is not under direct control or carried upon the person of the bearer.

*Furthermore, a far-reaching amendment is being made to the way in which an applicant must apply for a licence to possess a weapon. We investigated the complaints of the public, the media, the fire-arm dealers, hunters and all those who are really interested in fire-arms, as well as Parliamentarians. We found that they criticised us for three main reasons.

Firstly, those who criticise us complain that we issue fire-arm licences to people who should not have them. I believe we must agree that there are fire-arms in the hands of people who should not have them. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys also referred to the man who killed himself and two policemen. However, the problem is that the present legislation does not make provision for further investigation to determine whether a man is competent and fit to be issued with a fire-arm licence.

Unfortunately, there are still no truly scientific methods whereby one can conclusively determine whether someone’s mental state or disposition is such that one can confidently place a fire-arm in his hands. Progress is being made in this regard. Research and investigation are being carried out to an increasing extent along these lines. I can foresee that in our lifetime people will undergo other scientific tests besides our physical ones. Ways in which to deal with this matter will still be found. According to this amending Bill, the Commissioner will then be able to use them. If new scientific methods are developed whereby the mental state of a person can be determined, the Commissioner should, and indeed must, use them when someone is being considered.

Secondly, the police are being accused of discriminating against non-Whites with regard to the issuing of fire-arm licences. In terms of this amending Bill it will be unlawful and, objectively speaking, impossible to discriminate against anyone who applies for a fire-arm licence. The same test of competence is being prescribed for all people. If a certificate of competence were to be refused, reasons for the refusal would have to be given. The hon members for Losberg and Ermelo adopted a firm stance in this regard. I assure them that if we refuse to issue a certificate of competence, the Commissioner of the South African Police will have to provide reasons for the refusal.

Where is that stated?

It is not stated in the Act.

That is our problem.

However, as we see and interpret it, the Commissioner of the South African Police will be obliged to furnish the person, whom he has refused to issue a certificate of competence, with reasons. An application may not be refused merely because the applicant is a member of a certain racial group.

Thirdly, we found that the greatest bone of contention was the so-called 12-weapon restriction. That restriction had interesting consequences. It resulted in people saying that because the figure 12 was inserted, they were entitled to 12 fire-arms. If people were refused licences after two or three fire-arms, they could not understand it, because according to the law 12 weapons were the maximum.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? On the standing committee I suggested that the legislation be amended so that reasons had to be given for the refusal. Why was that not acceptable then? I cannot understand the discrepancy. The hon the Minister says that the Commissioner must provide reasons while, in fact, we asked on the standing committee that reasons be given. That is my question.

Order! The hon member must put his question and not make a speech.

We are solving the hon member for Ermelo’s problem. I am sure that he will support the Bill in a moment. My law advisers informed me that if the Commissioner refused a certificate of competence and were asked to furnish reasons for this, he would have to do so. I should like to put it to the hon member in that way.

I want to return to the question of the 12-weapon restriction. On the one hand it led to people saying that they were entitled to 12 weapons, and on the other hand, bona fide sportsmen and fire-arm collectors alleged that 12 weapons were not nearly enough to participate in this sport or to really collect fire-arms.

At this stage I just want to issue a warning—hon members on this side of the House also referred to this—that the fact that someone possesses a certificate of competence, and that he retains that certificate until he is declared incompetent—does not mean that he may now simply acquire an unlimited number of fire-arms.

The merits of every case will still be considered. If we were to allow a man who was in possession of a certificate of competence to purchase firearms without restriction, people would build up arsenals, and we are not prepared to allow that to happen. I should therefore like to issue a word of warning here. Obtaining a certificate of competence does not open the door for people to purchase an unlimited number of fire-arms and continue to build up arsenals.

The hon member for Ermelo said that he wanted to congratulate me on the legislation, but that they had a problem. They accept the desirability of the legislation, but they have a problem with regard to how we put it together. As I said, I think the hon member for Ermelo will agree with me once I have explained the situation to him carefully. In talking about his major problem, we are talking about the power of the Commissioner to grant fire-arm licences and certificates of competence at his own discretion. An applicant will not now have to meet with the approval of the Commissioner before he can obtain them.

I should like to explain it to the hon member as follows. The Commissioner must exercise his powers and discretion as prescribed in clauses 3 and 4, to which the hon member referred. In both cases he is correct when he says that this is done at the Commissioner’s discretion, but with regard to the certificate of competence, the Commissioner may still refuse to issue a certificate of competence at his own discretion after the applicant has passed the prescribed test. That is the hon member’s problem. It is essential, because although the applicant is able to complete the formal testing successfully, it may be possible that he is not fit to possess a weapon owing, for example, to a criminal record or to the fact that he is an alcoholic or a drug addict or a violent sort of person, or has any other personality traits which make it unacceptable for him to possess a firearm.

We do not have problems with that!

Therefore, a man can complete the test for a certificate of competence, but someone must be able to prevent him from obtaining the certificate, if necessary, and only the Commissioner can do that. For that reason the Commissioner must have the power to withhold a certificate at his own discretion. Before a licence to possess a weapon may be issued to a person, he must be declared fit to possess a weapon. He must therefore be the holder of such a certificate of competence. If the person is, in fact, a holder of a certificate of competence, the Commissioner is now still able to refuse to issue a licence at his own discretion if he thinks that the specific licence should not be issued. Once again, it is essential for the Commissioner to have this power to refuse a licence. That is the second occasion on which he must exercise his discretion …

We do not object to that either!

… since the person cannot, for example, be allowed to possess an unlimited number of weapons. In this way, a licence to possess a semi-automatic rifle is only issued if the applicant’s particular circumstances justify the possession of such a weapon.

I think that perhaps I am now going to solve the hon member’s problem. The discretions in question are not absolute, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. However, discretion cannot be attached to a given list of objective factors, because this would create an impossible situation, as the merits of each application may differ, and as each case must be considered separately. The Commissioner’s function cannot simply be relegated to that of a rubber stamp. Therefore, although this discretion is subjective, and is exercised subjectively, it must be exercised bona fide in terms of the established appeal court judgment Insidia Shidiack versus Union Government, 1912, AD 642, with the necessary attention—he must apply his mind to it—and for the purposes contained in the legislation. He cannot go beyond that. His discretion therefore is not absolute—he must exercise it according to those provisions, and if he were to go beyond those provisions, the hon member and the applicant could take the Commissioner to court, and I am sure that they would succeed with such an application in court.

The hon member says that that is not good legislation. I want to say that the legislation is not perfect. We are coming forward with this legislation now. In 1983 we effected amendments and saw that they did not work. Now we are again coming forward with amendments because we say we are sensitive to something that is a problem area. We spotted the problem and that is why we are effecting these amendments. We believe it will perhaps work more effectively.

The hon member has a problem with regard to what a “competent person” is. I want to set the hon member’s mind at ease. He mentioned the example of someone who could be competent in Cape Town, but incompetent in Pretoria. This declaration with regard to the issuing of the certificate of competence is not going to be delegated to the separate regions. For example, it is not going to be done in Cape Town, as well as in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth. It is going to be controlled by one central office so that we can acquire one criterion for the issuing of these certificates of competence. Therefore, as far as this aspect is concerned I want to give the hon member every assurance. He need not worry about this any longer. Only one criterion will apply with regard to this matter.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys requested the public to help us when it came to the reasons for declaring a person unfit to possess a weapon. I agree with the hon member. The public must help us in this regard. With regard to clause 23, the hon member referred to the fact that when one used a fire-arm one ran the risk of having it taken away from one. I want to agree with the hon member. Of course that is so. Nevertheless, a man acquires a fire-arm to protect himself. That also links up with the example that I have just mentioned to the hon member for Losberg. Someone goes on holiday. He travels and takes his fire-arm with him. Of course, he is quite entitled to take his fire-arm with him. After all, he wants to protect himself with it. The fact of the matter is, however, that he may do so on condition that he keeps that fire-arm under control while he is in that situation. Surely, in such a case, we would not be so unreasonable as to declare him unfit. As long as he does not lose the fire-arm, he will not get into trouble. He must just keep the fire-arm under control.

There is no objection to or any problem with someone locking his fire-arm up in a safe—or in the equipment that is now going to be prescribed for it—and then, when he goes to sleep at night, placing that fire-arm next to his pillow so that he will be able to use it if necessary. After all, the fire-arm is still under his control. We really will not take action against such people in such cases. I can give the hon member that assurance.

I have already dealt with the example of someone placing a fire-arm next to him on the seat of his car. He must then at least lock the door and keep the weapon under better control. After all, that is safer.

The hon member for Green Point raised an important point. It is not a fundamental right to possess a fire-arm. However, I have already said it is important to people in South Africa. As the saying goes ”’n Boer wil sy roer hê.” That is the situation that we have in South Africa. A man simply gets angry if he cannot acquire a fire-arm. For that reason we are coming forward for the first time with truly better methods to test people so that fire-arms can be given to the right people. I thank the hon member for supporting the legislation on behalf of the PFP.

The hon member for Umbilo explained the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Police very clearly. I also want to express my thanks to that hon member.

In conclusion I want to say a few words to the hon member for Losberg. I want to tell him that he adopted a fine standpoint. He was not unfair. I believe that he is looking at these matters in the wrong way. He also objected to the question of the declaration of incompetence. These are things that already exist in the present Act. They are being transferred to the new measures. The hon member also asked questions with regard to the appeal board. The appeal board is going to be established. We need it. In fact, that hon member is going to help me deal with a large work-load, as was also stated on the standing committee. The hon member is going to help me with that. He is going to help me have decisions of this nature made by experts, who are going to be appointed to perform this specific task.

Order! According to the list that I was given, the hon the Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I have completed my comments.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, the amending Bill before the House has reference to the appointment of a member of the Commission for Administration. The appointment of members of the commission has been determined by this legislation for many years. The legislation provides inter alia that upon his first appointment a member of the commission must hold office for a period of five years.

This five-year period of office is not a point of dispute, and the only amendment before the House at present has the purpose of making a second appointment possible for a shorter period. I believe that hon members will understand the obvious reasons for the necessity of making a second term of office more flexible. It is not always possible for commission members to serve for a full five years after a five-year period of office, whereas their services may be essential for a shorter period.

The only thing this amending Bill intends to do, is to establish greater flexibility and greater adaptability so that, after considering all the circumstances, the State President can reappoint an existing commission member for a second term of a shorter period. He would also be able to appoint such member for more than one shorter period, but the total of the ensuing periods—a second or a third period—may not exceed five years.

I think this measure is self-explanatory. It is aimed at enabling us to make better use of our top officials. We should like to see our best officials in the very important Commission for Administration.

Mr Chairman, at the outset allow me to congratulate the hon the Minister on his successful participation in the Comrades marathon. My congratulations, too, on his silver medal. He has again proved himself to be a great sportsman and we sincerely congratulate him. We hope he will win a gold medal next year. [Interjections.]

Order! Did hon members of this House also participate?

No, Sir, no one from our House took part. [Interjections.] I think this is an incentive for our younger members in this House to don their running shoes and start jogging so that possibly we can participate in the Two Oceans Marathon next year.

We have no objection to the passage of this Bill. The Bill makes provision for the amendment of section 2 of the Commission for Administration Act, Act No 65 of 1984. Subsection (5) is being substituted by the following subsection:

The hon the Minister has said that the measure is aimed at making the provisions more flexible. I think it is also aimed at promoting better continuity in regard to policy. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please tone down their conversations. The hon member for Ravensmead must please come to order.

Sir, in my opinion the amendment cannot but facilitate greater flexibility, suppleness and continuity in the policy relating to the functions of officials in the employ of the Commission for Administration. I do not think this is a controversial piece of legislation, and we on this side of the House support it.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Southern Free State for his support. I also want to thank him for his congratulations, and I think a tradition has been built up as far as the Comrades is concerned. I trust the hon member for Southern Free State will undertake to have Parliamentary representatives from this House participating in the Comrades next year.

The hon member gave a good explanation of this measure, and there is little I can add to what he said. He rightly pointed out that the statutory amendment envisaged bringing about greater continuity, promoting sound administration and promoting the best possible utilisation of our top officials.

I thank the hon member and other hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives), as I did not have the opportunity of participating in previous Second Reading debates on any own affairs Votes. I am not going to speak on the Budget as such, however, but rather on three matters which are of great concern to me.

In the first place I want to refer to the regional office in Johannesburg which is overloaded with work. Secondly I am going to discuss the question of Government bursaries and thirdly I want to say something about education, which to my way of thinking has been completely politicised.

The Transvaal is served by the Johannesburg Regional Office. The Transvaal is, of course, that section of South Africa which is experiencing significant development. It is beyond my comprehension that it can still be thought that one office in Johannesburg is capable of serving the whole of the Transvaal. I appeal to the hon the Minister today to investigate the possibility of establishing suboffices, particularly in the Western and North-Eastern Transvaal, so that the people there can be better served.

One sometimes finds it necessary to have matters dealt with at the regional offices, and some of our poor people have to travel hundreds of kilometers in the process. I feel that if there were suboffices, better services would definitely be provided. The immediate response to this will be that the Commission for Administration has frozen posts, but I know—and I have proof of this—that so far Commission for Administration has not refused to approve appointments, particularly in the Administration: House of Representatives. In order to provide a good service to people who have really lagged behind, I request that the possibility be investigated of establishing suboffices for the Administration: House of Representatives at Nelspruit and Klerksdorp.

As you know, Sir, the Public Service is open to everybody, but unfortunately many of our young people do not have the necessary qualifications for admission to the Public Service. Another stumbling block is that because of the economic circumstances of their parents, many students do not have the opportunity to further their studies. The children are then dependent on financial assistance from the State. One youngster at Klerksdorp applied for a Government bursary, but unfortunately his application was not approved. I then made inquiries, because I received a letter which caused me some concern. In this letter this youngster was told that no financial assistance was available. The phrase in the letter which disturbed me most was the following:

They could say that when, in fact, this youngster did not have a cent with which to further his studies.

We shall really have to find money to afford our children opportunities to study further. Bursaries should be made available not only to students studying at universities—in other words, degree courses—but specifically to students wanting to go to technikons. I think if an applicant does not say he is taking a degree course, he is immediately disqualified. The moment one mentions a diploma, one is disqualified. According to the information I have, 42 bursaries were in fact granted for the following study courses: B Admin—4; ordinary B A—1; B A translation—1; B Sc occupational therapy—6; B Sc dietetics—4; B Sc physiotherapy—5; B Sc speech therapy—2; community nursing—1; social work—7; M B Ch B—3; the national diploma in oral hygiene—3; B Sc chemical engineering—1; B Sc electronic engineering—2; B Sc engineering—1, and B Sc mechanical engineering—1. We appreciate the granting of these bursaries, but determined efforts will have to be made to make more bursaries available.

Sir, a leaflet has been circulating in the Peninsula—and, I assume, throughout the country—about a stay-away campaign on 6, 7 and 8 June. This stay-away campaign is aimed at the Labour Relations Bill which has already been approved by this House. These things, of course, have now had a ripple effect far beyond the work-floor. Educational institutions are also involved, and as far as I know, tertiary institutions have already decided that on 6, 7 and 8 June they will boycott—not so much boycott as stay away from organised education. My fear is that as far as the Peninsula in particular is concerned, the ordinary school-going children will again be involved.

I realise that those children do not really know what it is all about. Personally I think our education departments should do something about educating our children politically. I say educate them politically, not indoctrinate them. I think our educational authorities have an important part to play in preparing our children for participation in social, cultural and political activities in society. White schools provide courses in mental preparedness which strengthen the child politically. The schools have cadet camps where children are prepared for national service. But what happens in our communities? The answer is absolutely nothing. Our children are exposed to unadulterated indoctrination.

Education is firmly entrenched in every facet of one’s life. This applies to politics as well. Students must be trained to enquire into what is happening, to give it serious thought, and to do that successfully, objectivity is essential. For this reason—and I am serious about this—teachers should be the most intelligent people in a community. I say that because experience has taught that the less intelligent person often uses his prejudices as an anchor in life. We cannot afford that in our communities.

In no country can education be separated from the requirements of the country and its people. In South Africa feasible attitudes are a necessity. South Africa is a country of diversity, where people have to live together, work together and in the end will have to govern together despite our different points of view. Politically the teacher’s political task is to prepare the child to contribute to the success of this process of living together, working together and governing together. If educational authorities are either unwilling or unable to plan properly and effectively for this task, teachers should accept it as a self-imposed task. I am not trying to justify the fact that throughout the country at the moment organised education is propagating the Freedom Charter because they feel they have a political task to perform. In no way am I trying to justify that. It calls for responsible action. Our educators will be expected not to stress continuously the differences between the population groups. However, we also expect them not to ignore the differences, but to seek, extend and emphasise what is common to all.

In times of political unrest which also influences our schools, it is essential that all students’ political framework of reference be broadened, thereby enabling them to have meaningful participation in the political process. We could do our children no greater disservice than to allow them to enter life badly and ill-informed about the country they live in and the people with whom they share the country.

Education today is one of the major polarising factors in our society. We are not the cause of it. Education is one of the most acute points of friction in our country. The reason for this must be sought in a colossal blunder whereby a system which stressed differences—own affairs—overshadowed education. Political shaping and indoctrination takes place in virtually every school in the country, whether it be White, Coloured, Black or Asian. It depends, of course, on how it is presented. However, this undesirable indoctrination can be restricted by responsible political shaping. I think here for instance of things like tolerance and frankness in regard to other people’s political views. I do not have the right summarily to reject someone else’s political views because I do not agree with them. I think of the acceptance of democracy as the point of departure in constitutional debate, of values such as equality before the law, and especially equal opportunities for all South African citizens.

I am convinced that the school has a responsibility to shape the child politically as well with a view to his maturing to adulthood in a democratic system. The true educator always prepares the child for the future. In this respect, therefore, I am also referring to the child’s political future. In view of the intricate social problems in South Africa, it is absolutely essential for the citizen in the making to have a thorough grounding in the constitutional options open to society. However, we must guard against political education being narrowed down to party-political propaganda, which is what is happening in our schools at present.

It is therefore necessary to devise a scientifically orientated training programme for teachers. The syllabus should cover inter alia dealing with conflict situations, change, the role of the individual and political thought. It must apply to all South Africans. In this sort of training—if it is handled impartially—the academic bona fides of the teacher must be above suspicion, and there must be no intimidation and disorder on the school premises.

It is clear therefore that the school’s task will be an intellectualising one; it must not be an activistic action. We must educate the children, not incite them, Sir. In fact, the primary task of the school is to try to develop the child’s ability to use his intelligence. The school, in effect, must be seen as a way of intellectually broadening the child’s perception of political reality in accordance with the nature of the school.

To implement this, I should like to suggest that the following be considered: Firstly, our history courses must be revised in order to restructure the White-orientated focus. The idea that the Black man in South Africa is seen as a bloodthirsty savage must also be eradicated immediately. Secondly, when teachers are qualified to deal scientifically with political training, senior secondary pupils must undergo a course in which, through a conceptual structure, they are confronted with the political reality. Thirdly, political literacy must be a component of the academic training of all teachers. Fourthly, educational programmes on television must be used to enhance the political expertise of our youth.

Sir, it is unfortunate that so many hon members in this House may not agree with me because they feel that the teacher could end up in an unenviable position. A teacher worth his salt would, however, when weighing the alternatives, also put his point of view—without being prescriptive. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in my view this House should in future be given greater powers in respect of job creation. At the moment job creation in the Public Service is a function of this House. However, the House has no say over job creation outside the Public Service. This causes problems for us, because one’s credibility as a politician outside this House goes hand in hand with one’s ability to create job opportunities for one’s voters.

The issue of job creation has assumed tremendous proportions recently. This is cause for concern, because many of our matriculants these days are unemployed. This gives rise to frustration and they seek other outlets. Employment is an own affair at present. This House has made significant progress in the sphere of education, welfare, health services and housing. But we cannot ensure a sound education system unless our parents have worthwhile careers. We cannot make people less dependent on the State in the sphere of welfare if they do not have good job opportunities. We cannot ensure the health of our people unless they have job opportunities. Our voters will not be able to afford housing if there is no work for them. These three main components are therefore not the components for the total upliftment of our community, because that is always dependent on job creation or job opportunities. We will have to give consideration to this. Anybody who is unemployed is dependent on the State, and I foresee serious problems if we do not do something about this in future.

As far as Government contracts are concerned, I think that much more can be done to assist the Coloured tenderer. I know of a case in which Coloureds formed a consortium under the guidance of a White man. We politicians have our hands full, because we know that the small builders cannot compete with large construction companies. When tenders are submitted for a large Government construction contract, the large building contractor is in a far better position to obtain that contract, and our smaller non-White builders are not really in a position to tender. As politicians we are trying at the moment to convince our building contractors that the formation of consortiums is a good solution, because in this way job opportunities can also be created locally. For instance, a school might be built in a rural town where there are sometimes 10 or 20 bricklayers out of work. Sometimes there are also a few unemployed building contractors who are struggling. The formation of consortiums would provide a solution to this problem.

I know of a case in which a White man took the lead. He called a number of Coloureds together and suggested that they form a consortium so that they could offer a guarantee. They tendered for a contract, the closing date of which was 16 May. These people could submit their guarantees to the State. However, the tender was delayed as a result of certain administrative problems. 1 assume a White put in a late tender, but now the whole matter has been postponed, because he is negotiating behind the scenes in an attempt to get that tender. The closing date for the tender has been extended for a month, from 16 May to 16 June.

I only want to give proof of the disadvantages this has for the State. Provision is made in the tender for escalation costs of 1,7% for each month the tender is delayed. When we are dealing with a contract worth R2,5 million, those escalation costs amount to R35 416 per month.

The question of delayed tenders, therefore, calls for serious consideration. I know how essential money is in our administration. There are so many other ways in which money lost in this way could be used by our administration if this question were dealt with efficiently. That is why, when it comes to money, our responses must be quick responses, because time is money, and the better use we make of our time, the better we shall fare.

This brings me to the question of bursaries. The present system of bursaries does not meet with all the requirements of our community, and some of our children are adversely affected in certain respects. At one stage I had the case of a girl who had applied for a bursary. Both her parents are pensioners. She passed matric fairly well—her average symbol was a D. That is not too bad. She applied to various technikons on the basis of her choice of subjects, but had no success with any of them. She was then admitted to the Proteaville Technical College. Her class fees were R100 per semester, plus R200 per term. Her parents were not able to pay her class fees from their welfare pensions, and she therefore had to apply for a bursary. However, she does not qualify, because she is a welfare case. She then had to apply to the Welfare, but the Children’s Act provides that she qualifies for welfare assistance only if she does not study at a tertiary institution. She was therefore completely dependent on a study bursary, but for some reason or other her application was not approved. This was to her detriment, because although her father sold even his bicycle to keep her at college, she had to give up her studies after three months. That was simply because she could not get a bursary. I am worried, because somehow we must assist people in these cases. The present situation does not provide fully for our children’s needs.

One receives a letter from the administration which reads as follows:

How sad and heartbreaking this is for that poor child who is in an extremely disadvantaged position and cannot be accommodated by way of a bursary, merely because she has to compete with other children who are perhaps wealthier and can complete their studies at these institutions. I am worried about this state of affairs and I want to ask the hon the Minister to give urgent attention to matters of this nature.

Mr Chairman, I consider it a privilege to participate in this debate. I want to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best for the future and ask him to accommodate us when we take our problems to him. He is the person who holds the purse strings and we are aware that he knows how to distribute money. I request the hon the Minister to think of the Free State and not to pass us over. We have many problems and I should like them to receive attention.

I first want to refer to bursaries first of all. This subject irritates me. I think there are people who do not understand the procedure. I should like students who apply for bursaries to receive an explanation of the basis on which they are granted. I know of many candidates who feel dissatisfied because they do not understand how bursaries are allocated. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to have a care for the poor child. Can the department not satisfy the requirements of the clever child whose parents are pensioners? Mr Chairman, I make so bold as to say that I do not understand how the child of a man who is a school principal and whose wife is a teacher can still be subsidised. Such people have good incomes. I think a line must be drawn in such cases. Students’ background should be investigated and documents completed so that the children of poor parents can receive aid.

I spoke to a number of students of the University of the Western Cape and they are confused concerning bursaries. They do not know how to apply or where to start. They wanted to know from me why they could not obtain loans. I told them that the hon the Minister made loans available, but the students do not know how to set about applying for them. Unfortunately I do not know who the school principal is and therefore am unable to pass the information on to the students. I want to request that the department attempt to send a deputation to address students or send a circular to schools to explain how bursaries may be obtained. We have to contend with a lack of understanding here and it appears as if the department is not doing good work. We all know that children can prepare themselves for the future if they are provided with bursaries. One creates a future for them in the country. I hope the hon the Minister will investigate the matter, because I believe it is simply a misunderstanding.

I have spoken about suboffices before and want to do so again today. One of my colleagues also discussed suboffices. A suboffice can be a great help. It would be extremely advantageous if suboffices could be opened in the vicinity of people’s homes. Pensioners cannot walk for kilometres to reach an office; some cannot even take a bus. If there is a suboffice in their vicinity, they can walk there to obtain help and to put their case. People in country districts cannot reach head office, but they can obtain help at small suboffices.

I want to appeal that in a large place such as Bloemfontein in particular a suboffice be opened in the Coloured residential area. I also pointed out previously to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that MPs could make their offices available to officials of the department so that voters could go there with their complaints which could then be reported to head office. Disabled people and the aged cannot visit large offices. The traffic is too much for them; they become terrified when they have to enter lifts. They cannot do this. I am speaking from experience because I work with people every day; they struggle.

I now come to education. We must promote education. Architects and other clever people owe their careers to education. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister to pump more money into education. We must all realise that education means a great deal to our country and that we cannot manage without it at all.

This brings me to the matter of loans. I want to request that delays be avoided in connection with applications for loans, even if it is a housing loan or any other loan for which people perhaps qualify. People who apply for loans should be informed on how their applications are progressing. Often people receive no feedback from the department. They then become impatient and come to complain to us as MPs that they have heard nothing and ask us why there is no reply to their applications. They want to know what is going on. I therefore request that the department keep continuous contact with the people who have applied. Many people complain that they hear nothing from the department, even four or five months after they have applied. People become impatient, Sir, and I feel that the department should make contact with these people. The department should develop a sound relationship with applicants.

I also want to appeal for more staff on school grounds and that money be provided to ensure that these grounds remain decent and look clean. If school grounds look decent and if we can find staff to look after them, people will begin to realise that they also have to pull up their socks. I want to ask the hon the Minister to bear this in mind when employment creation is considered again. We must appoint staff to care for school grounds.

There are schools in my constituency which do not even have a playground and we are still struggling to obtain money for those schools. The Bloemfontein City Council has made land available, but we want to appeal to the hon the Minister to see whether his department cannot buy that land. We just want to know what is going on. The documents are with the department, but we have had no feedback from them. We therefore do not know what is happening and we want to request that those matters be seen to. The schools to which I am referring are Joe Solomon and Heide. There is a piece of land which was allocated by the city council. We merely want to know where we stand at the moment. We want to take possession of the land as soon as possible. We do not know whether they intend donating the land to us or not. If they do this, I want to appeal at the same time that they work that ground for us to level it and turn it into a decent playground for the schoolchildren of Bloemfontein.

I shall leave these matters in the good hands of the hon the Minister of the Budget. He did not disappoint us in the past and I hope that he will not disappoint us in the future. I know he will reply to this, because I believe that he will always help us along the right course.

Mr Chairman, previous hon speakers had a great deal to say about a wide variety of matters, and there are a few aspects that I also want to refer to briefly.

†First of all I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of the Budget. I regard him as one of the most important people in this House, because he holds the purse strings. As Minister of the Budget he sees to the financing required by all the departments, be it the Department of Education, the Department of Health Services and Welfare, or whatever. I am grateful to see that we have made some progress in this particular year.

What worries me a lot, however, is the population growth in our country. They say in the year 2003 we will not, unless we produce more food, be able to feed our people.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Will the hon member please address the Chair. The hon member for Bonteheuwel must please not hinder the hon member for Daljosaphat. The hon member may continue.

Sir, we will not be able to feed our people unless we produce more food. We will have a drastic shortage of food. Statistics indicate that the Coloured population had a growth rate of 27,7%, against the growth rate of 14,9% for the White population group. I am not saying that our daughters are encouraged to have illegitimate affairs, but the facts speak for themselves. If one goes down to Caledon Square and asks who was trespassing on Taiwanese fishing boats, the answer will be Coloured women. This has a definite influence on our population growth. I do not even know whether we are Taiwanese or so-called Coloureds anymore.

[Inaudible.]

I do not need your help. These illegitimate children—these days they are called children from illegal marriages—have to be supported by the State. This is one aspect the hon the Minister of the Budget must definitely investigate. I do not expect the hon the Minister to patrol our beaches, but this is the reality of the situation. One of the reasons for this sorry state of affairs is our housing problem. Some hon members spoke about housing in general, but our young girls are forced to leave their homes and live somewhere else. There is a definite housing shortage.

*I do not want to tread on the hon the Minister’s toes, but we are responsible for our own housing. For example, we have management committees that have to look after this aspect.

It is said, however, that the responsibility for housing … [Interjections.] Yes, well …

Order! The hon member must please be given an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

The responsibility for housing is in our own hands. It is in the hands of our management committees, etc. Some of our young children are being forced out of our community.

†They are being forced out to go out to try to reach a compromise with Taiwanese.

*The last matter I want to mention relates to crimes committed by minors. This costs the State a great deal of money. It costs us a great deal of money. Sir, if one approaches a robot on one of the main feeder roads, one sees young children begging for bread, money or whatever. The question is: How many of those children have been forced out of their homes because their parents do not earn enough money?

†I want to emphasise a certain point. Coming back to the question of illicit love affairs and the like, I was fortunate enough, when I was a scholar, to have heard a lecture given by the late Paul Roos, who captained the Springboks. He was appointed as a sex educationist, and gave a lecture at our school. I want to convey his message to our youngsters. He asked whether anyone would like his sister, for instance, to be ravished by somebody else. If one did not like the idea, one should also not do that oneself.

*That is the message I should like to convey from here. If we do not want that, we must not do it ourselves either. [Interjections.]

†Lastly, I want to ask the hon the Minister how many foster parents we have in our community. *I am asking that question, because here in our own area, Mitchell’s Plain, we know of cases of broken families. I should also like to know how many orphanages we have. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is sitting there looking at me …

Order! Yes, he should be looking at the hon member, but the hon member must carry on with his speech.

In conclusion I should also like to know what the end result of this will be for our society. [Interjections]

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker referred to the hon the Minister present here today as the Minister who controls the strings. Strings are not and have never been a means of currency. One cannot spend strings and even though one controls the strings at times there is no money in the bank which could be tied up by these strings. [Interjections.] Our people need more money and less strings. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, I should like to support the budget in this debate on the Second Reading. There are, however, still a few things I want to know from the hon the Minister. This is a very difficult time for us in the economic history of South Africa. Economically this is probably one of the most difficult periods in the history of this country. Many of our people, particularly those on the Cape Flats and several others in the rural areas, are having a difficult time of it. People in the rural areas are dependent on agriculture. In the past few years those areas have suffered severe droughts, and recently there were floods. That is why those people, who are represented in this House, are in dire financial straits today. An increasing number of people have to rely on State aid. The inflation rate, which is increasing virtually by the day, and the high prices which consumers have to pay for foodstuffs, make it very difficult for our people throughout the country to make a living. Once again I am referring in particular to our Coloured community.

On behalf of all these poor people and various pensioners, I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister today to reconsider the means test. I am referring to the means test that is applied to our people before they can receive State aid. I want to know who devises this test. When last was the means test reviewed, particularly in the light of the poor economic conditions in South Africa? [Interjections.] Is it not time for us to increase the various allowances? [Interjections.]

†It is not possible for many recipients of grants and pensions to live on the aid which they receive from the State. [Interjections.] I want to emphasise that today in this debate. Our Black and so-called Coloured people receive very little in comparison with the amounts paid out in countries such as England, Canada and Australia.

I am not suggesting that the means test should be abolished, but in the case of pensioners one should look at the means test. I am thinking particularly of a case in my constituency where a man of 65 recently received a gratuity of R30 000. He invested this at a fixed deposit and he receives a monthly interest of R400. His wife recently turned 60 and her application for a pension was turned down on the grounds of the means test. The State concedes that although there is a need, it cannot grant the old lady of sixty a pension, because her husband invested his lifelong pension and they can live on R400 a month. Taking into account the cost of living, the inflation rate, the interest rate and the fact that these people live in the middle class sector, not in the subeconomic sector, and have to pay high rents, rates and water and electricity bills, it is not possible for a couple with a child at university to live on R400 a month. This is just one example of cases where the hon the Minister should look at the means test.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is discussing a matter which has already been dealt with. We thrashed this matter out thoroughly last week.

It is amazing that today, when this House is half empty, I was especially asked by the Whips to take part in this debate and this hon member interrupts me … [Interjections.] I do not use political debates or waste time in Parliament to get at the wives and children of hon members and make unsavoury statements as the hon member did yesterday. [Interjections.] I run a free community advice office in Ottery and from day to day I meet many needy people from the Ottery-Parkwood area. This is a free service. Unlike the hon member for Tafelberg we do not charge a fee to speak to people. [Interjections.] The hon member for Tafelberg charges a consultation fee of R4, which I think is absolutely despicable and disgraceful. A needy person once came to my office with a receipt for the R4 he had to pay when he approached this hon member for help. I do not run an office on those lines, because the need of those people who come to us is indeed very great. In the concrete slums there are many decent citizens who are caught up in terrible socio-economic conditions.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether he was aware of the amount required by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in order to increase the monthly pension of people of colour. I am directing my question at the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House. Was the hon the Minister not able then and is he not able now to make available the money which the hon the Minister of Finance apparently cannot agree to? Sir, I am addressing the hon the Minister who deals with finance in this House. Are we merely administrators of money given to us? That is the question, Sir.

I want to repeat what I said earlier, viz that the disparity in pensions will remain a very sore point in our community. As long as it exists, that disparity discredits us in our communities. Are we going to wait until the White component of Parliament decides to narrow the gap? Or do we have the power to equalise and to correct a situation which, for a long time, has been unacceptable and immoral?

That is a very important question.

At this, the Second Reading of this House’s budget, Sir, I want to draw attention once again to the plight of the pensioners. We have to eliminate the disparity in pensions; pensions should be equal. Therefore, any powers which the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House has, must be used. The hon the Minister must use his power, Sir, and I plead with him to wipe out this disparity in pensions which exists on the grounds of colour. There is no way in which disparity in pensions on the grounds of colour can be defended. I trust that the hon the Minister, as the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House, will be able to intervene personally and assist our very needy pensioners.

The time has also come for us to clean up some of our educational institutions. I am thinking especially of the small number of rowdy, rebellious students at the University of the Western Cape—this minority of rebellious students who, on a daily basis, are using their presence on that campus to bring about a situation of chaos and disorder. I feel that every legal effort should be made to rid that university campus of this rowdy, rebellious minority. The students at UWC have been given sufficient opportunities over the years—not over days, weeks or months, but over years! They have had years in which to express their feelings and to state their case by indulging in stayaways, boycotts and whatever. They have made their point. Now their attitudes continue to frustrate the opportunities of many sincere students who are striving to attain tertiary educational qualifications. It is time that positive, concerted action was taken against the rowdy students so that the UWC campus can be cleaned up.

The behaviour of those rowdy students is a disgrace to people of colour in this country. I believe that any State aid to such students is money down the drain—money which could so easily have been utilised much better elsewhere.

I trust that the hon the Minister will be able to address the problems I have mentioned, especially the problem at the University of the Western Cape and the disparity in pensions, and I hope he will be able to do so as soon as possible.

I want to conclude, Sir. Yesterday, in the debate on the SABC and the Bureau for Information, we heard about the tremendous imbalance in the personnel corps—there is a small number of so-called Coloured personnel as opposed to the White personnel, apparently because the people of colour are lacking in experience and qualifications.

I want to say once again today that I do not believe that there are so many cases in which people of colour are not competent enough or that they should become more qualified to be appointed to more of the senior posts in many of our departments. I want to ask the hon the Minister, therefore, how many persons of colour are employed by his department at present and what the most senior post is that a person of colour is presently occupying in his department.

I have another question to ask the hon the Minister. It relates to the transfer of personnel. How sympathetic are the officials of the department when transferring personnel? I am thinking now of the recent case of a junior clerk. This man had been working for the administration for about seven years in a clerical position. Now I know that when it comes to being transferred to another part of the country, many young men and women have great difficulty in deciding what to do. Some parents are not willing to allow their children to be transferred a thousand miles away or halfway across the country, and there are some young people who, because they cannot adapt socially or otherwise, refuse to be transferred. This young man, a certain Mr Parsotom, is walking the streets of my constituency today.

Why?

He is a nice young man. Today, for causes perhaps best known to himself or to his family, this young man is lost to the community.

Why?

He is walking, as it were, in skid row. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the question of transfer did not perhaps play an important part in this man’s becoming a social dropout. I am not painting a lily-white picture of this man, but his parents have been in touch with me and he is, as it were, lost to his family, the community and the department. I believe that it is because he refused to be transferred to another part of the country where he was asked to work for the department—among other reasons—that he was given the sack by the department.

I should therefore like to appeal to the hon the Minister to go into this question of transfer, especially when it involves younger people and even married people. It is very difficult for people who have been born and bred in a certain part of the community and a certain part of the country to decide, within a matter of days, to move lock, stock and barrel to another part of the country where they will be total strangers.

Mr Chairman, today I want to speak once again about the disgrace of people not being at their posts doing the work for which they are paid. Last Friday we sat here all day and did not see a single hon member of the Official Opposition. If I see them here in the House on a Friday I get a fright, because then I know something is wrong. I have seen no sign of them all week either. I wonder where they can be. I am sure they are down there in Natal, inciting the voters against the LP. That is why they are not at their posts.

As I said, Sir, I get a fright when I see them here. I see the hon member for Ottery is walking out. I should like him to remain seated, because he made certain allegations here which cast a reflection on this House—a serious reflection! The hon member for Ottery said the hon member for Tafelberg charged R4 per consultation.

We in this House are paid to do our work. We receive allowances, and if that allegation is true, it is a serious charge that is being levelled at all members of Parliament. I feel that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the matter.

Immediately.

Immediately. The allegations the hon member made here must be investigated. As members of Parliament we are going to run into trouble if the voters get to hear about this. I am convinced that the Press has picked this up, and if the newspapers carry the story, this situation is definitely going to be exploited. I am asking for the immediate appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations made by the hon member.

This very day!

It must be done this very day.

Order! Hon members must please not prompt the hon member for Ravensmead. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, at times I work so hard it makes me quite ill. I am overworked, because I work for my people day and night. During the past week I held meetings till one o’clock every morning, and that is how my people have come to know me. People phone me at night, because I do not unplug the phone. I work all hours of the night. If my people need me, I get up. Last year, during the floods, I worked right through the night one Wednesday until my leaders had to speak to me. The Official Opposition makes all kinds of statements outside Parliament, but I do not think they really do their jobs. They are never here. They are wasting their voters’ and the taxpayers’ money. We must look at these things. Hon members of the Official Opposition are never present in the House. I greatly appreciate what the hon member for Ottery said here, but where was he last week when the hon the Minister’s Vote was being discussed? Now he is absent again. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Griqualand West wants to make interjections, he must please return to his seat. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I think the poor hon member is dissatisfied because other hon members do not want to join his party. Recently I asked the hon the Minister to reply to us and not to evade our questions.

I now want to refer to the question of bursaries and want to link up with other hon members who also spoke about this. Law-abiding children—the hon the Minister must tell me if I am wrong—are having a difficult time of it because there are insufficient funds available. I speak under correction, and the hon the Minister must please correct me if I am wrong. I have two law-abiding sons who do not believe in the system adopted by the CPTA. Such children are exploited at school. I did receive a letter in which it was stated that my children would be assisted, but no promises were made. I cannot accept that. Before I came to Parliament, I received certain promises from the hon White Minister that if funds were available, we would be assisted. That is why we Coloured people are lagging so far behind. One is always simply told “if there are funds available”. Provision must be made for our people. We have been lagging behind for years now. Money must be made available for things we feel strongly about.

We have been neglected for too long now. Here in Parliament, which is a place where discussions can be held, we are discussing the hardship we have been suffering for years now, because we had no platform from which we could speak. Because we use this as our platform, however, certain White members of the public hate us. We are not harming them. They have had seats here throughout the years, and they have said ugly things about us. We have simply had to endure that. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not try to excite the hon member for Ravensmead. It is not right.

Wind him up!

Sir, we have been neglected for far too long. I want the White members of the public, who have been against us for so long, to know that when we speak our minds it is not because we hate them. We merely want to correct all the statements they have made about us. They grow angry, however, when we speak about those things. There are even White Ministers who say we should not talk like that, because it is hurtful to members of the public. Sir, how much have we not been hurt throughout the years! We did not have a platform. Surely we must get things off our chests now. They will simply have to endure this until they set matters straight.

Sir, financial provision has to be made for those two boys, and also for other law-abiding boys who are given such a raw deal at school as soon as they do not want to implement a certain policy or do not want to boycott. I want to make a serious appeal—not only to the hon the Minister, but also to the hon the State President—that those children be assisted in obtaining bursaries. They now have to wait a year before they can return to school. They had to go and work, Sir.

Those who throw stones get the bursaries!

Yes, I was about to say: Those who throw stones get bursaries …

Order! No, the hon member must deliver his own speech. The hon member Mr Solomon must please not try to prompt the hon member for Ravensmead. The hon member may proceed.

The children are writing tests. One of my hon colleagues, who is not present at the moment, argues with me, saying the schools close next week. Sir, there is going to be a school boycott from the 6th to the 8th. I want to bring that to the hon the Minister’s attention, because this House pays the teachers and principals their salaries. The principals in the Cape are very shrewd, however. I do not know where they get the money, but they have the best possible lawyers and advocates to prove their innocence, even though there are certain things they have actually done. They are shrewd. There are teachers who no longer have jobs because they did not want to support boycotts. I cannot understand that, but when investigations are carried out, a wonderful report is submitted to the Minister, even by the inspectors. Sir, those reports contain untruths.

Yesterday a young lady came to me for assistance. I am going to deal with the matter differently. I am now going to use a roundabout way and circumvent the hon the Minister; then and only then will I bring the matter to his attention. I must have some firm ground to stand on first so that I can put this young lady’s case. Because she did not want to boycott shortly after she had accepted a post, the principal told her he would fix her. Sir, she has three children. Her husband divorced her—because he is a policeman and she was being threatened for being married to a policeman. They had to divorce in order to guarantee her safety. That is the kind of thing that is happening in our country. Do the investigations probe deeply enough? No, Sir, they are very superficial. This is the case throughout our departments—when investigations are carried out, they only scratch the surface. There are investigations that I myself have to carry out.

The UDF and similar organisations are crafty. We do not have enough ammunition—I am not speaking about violence now—to neutralise them.

I am asking the hon the Minister—they are lagging one year behind at the moment—to make the necessary funds available, because funds are available. Funds are very easily made available for other things in our country, but nothing is being done for these law-abiding children. We push these children aside, and what do the UDF and CPTA do in the meantime? They get umpteen cheques from various companies. There are companies in our country which bedevil matters for us. [Interjections.] There are no youth centres for our children. Our children have a backlog of 300 years, but there are various playgrounds and facilities for White children. They must not come and tell me that the Whites pay for that. I understand that, but when my great-grandparents worked in kitchens for food and clothing, they were not paid money so that we could be educated. The Whites could send their children to school, and that is why they are earning bigger salaries. Our children have only recently started obtaining matriculation qualifications. They were too poor to get an education, because our people did not have the money for that.

I used to do a White man’s job. He was the foreman, but he could not do the work. He received a much better salary, however. That is why I could not educate my child. Now they are saying that the Whites pay for their own youth centres. They can do so, because they have earned big salaries. They have held down better jobs. I know it. When a Coloured man wanted to drive a pick-up belonging to the company he worked for, they nearly murdered him. He was an Indian; I saw it with my own eyes. Only a White man was permitted to drive a pick-up; a Coloured man was not even allowed near it. If one took a pen and wrote something even remotely intelligent on a piece of paper, one was summarily dismissed. One was not allowed to pick up a pen. I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.]

Now that we are enjoying a few privileges, however, they are getting irritable with us. As soon as we urge them on a bit, however, they say that one cannot do everything overnight, but nothing could be done overnight with the salaries we used to earn. That is why we must be helped. The UDF has no trouble, however, getting R250 000 from abroad, from countries such as Germany. I have the facts; I know what I am talking about. They are trying to obtain a power base from which they can turn our children against us, those who are opposed to violence and want to negotiate. The hon the Minister must convince the Government to make more money available so that youth centres can be built for our children. We must have such places so that we can teach our children. Now, however, we have take them to some or other little house. If there were better places for our children to meet socially, it would be possible for us to do a better job of informing our children and the school boycotts would come to an end. There are too few of these places for our people, however.

For years now I have been speaking about the rent our people have to pay. It is not acceptable. A pensioner paid me a visit in my office in Ravensmead yesterday. He said that he had always paid R30 per month. Because he is now regarded as a new tenant, he will have to pay R60 per month in future. The Ravensmead management committee normally transfers houses to one’s children when one passes away. When the children get the house, however, they are regarded as new tenants and their rent is doubled. I know of someone who has five children and who is earning R120 per week. Previously he paid R50 in rent, but now that he is regarded as a new tenant, he has to pay R124 per month. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Ravensmead. He is a practical person; he is down to earth and has the interests of his voters at heart.

I want to support the hon member’s proposal wholeheartedly. The hon member for Ottery made an allegation here against the hon member for Tafelberg. This allegation is a blot on the name of a public figure and the prestige of the House. I believe an inquiry is essential to clear the air and to safeguard this House against such accusations. The appointment of a committee of inquiry will have to be considered seriously to investigate this matter and clarify it.

I shall return to the appropriation which we are discussing. At its historic congress at Eshowe the LP decided on certain objectives. Its short-term objectives were to uplift its people as soon as possible in the educational and socio-economic spheres as well as in respect of housing and community life. The LP indulged in retrospection and took a look at its position. It worked out a future course for itself and it is obvious that in its wisdom it considered our people’s position as regards education. We as a less developed community require education to uplift us to the heights where we can talk to Whites as their equals about the South Africa we want for tomorrow.

This is why the allocation of bursaries to children in our community whose parents cannot afford to keep them at school has to be of paramount importance. Unfortunately certain events occurred which shrouded this aspect in uncertainty. It was decided by the department earlier this year that bursaries would not be awarded again this year. When this caused a commotion and students started to boycott, this decision was revoked. First there were to be no more bursaries, but loans were to be granted, and then the loans were revoked and bursaries were granted again. As the hon member Mr Douw said earlier, only 42 bursaries were awarded to students this year.

How will we as a party succeed in our objective to uplift our people from the stranglehold of ignorance? How are we to uplift our people to a higher level? I always take a leaf out of the Afrikaner’s book. If we look at the development of the Afrikaner and at the early thirties when things were very difficult in the country, we see that the Afrikaner put his education first. To him the development of his people was a prime priority. He used it to train his people and to educate them so that they are the people who rule South Africa today.

The LP also reached such a decision in 1983. I believe that it was the goal of the party to uplift our people so that they could ultimately rule this country with the other people. We really believe that something must be done about this. At present we are riding the crest of the wave, because we are the people who take the lead in our communities. Our ship will be scuttled by this matter, however, viz the fact that funds are not available for the upliftment of our children. We need bursaries to be able to educate our children and train them to the highest levels of which they are capable. Something very drastic will have to be done about this.

We are already preparing ourselves for next year. Parents should be informed now, because they must know where they stand. They must know whether the department has bursaries or loans available for them so that they can plan in advance. It is very important that as many bursaries as possible be made available to our people.

I now want to come back to upliftment work. The year before last I made representations that the department should launch an urgent investigation into the opening of a branch office at Trompsburg in the Southern Free State. This would facilitate the activities of the department enormously. If ever people required the attention of the department, it is those communities. I do not want to repeat how our people are struggling there, because the hon the Minister has personally come to know those areas. I believe that if the hon the Minister accedes to my request to open a branch office at Trompsburg, the most central point in my constituency, it will be possible to investigate problems of the Southern Free State in greater depth.

I also spoke here once last year about the extension of the syllabus to the junior or senior secondary level at schools such as those at Trompsburg and Koffiefontein. I gave a detailed explanation of why we felt that those two places should receive preference above others. To date we have not heard a word from the hon the Minister’s department or the Department of Education and Culture. I want to bring the matter to the hon the Minister’s attention again now. I believe that it is the policy of the administration to take the school to the child. Those places are strategically well placed to be able to admit children from those areas. This would also result in savings for the department. Those two places are the obvious ones where the school syllabus could be extended to Std 10.

A town like Trompsburg, for example, could accommodate children from Edenburg, Reddersburg, Rouxville, Smithfield, Wepener, Zastron, the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, Springfontein and Philippolis. Oppermansgronde could be the feeder source for the Koffiefontein school as well as places such as Jacobsdal, Petrusburg, Luckhoff, Fauresmith and Jagersfontein which could all supply the school at Koffiefontein with the necessary pupil enrolment.

I have also on occasion discussed deficiencies which exist in the provision of health services. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in our administration is aware of the situation in this constituency. I want to repeat it again today. Nowhere in any of the constituencies of the Southern Free State is there a clinic for our people. I do not know how to emphasise this strongly enough. The proverb runs: “A sound mind in a sound body”. How can my people have good health and make a valuable contribution if they do not even have a clinic at their disposal? I have pleaded before and am pleading again this morning with tears in my eyes. Sir, we have no health clinics. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has visited my constituency on two occasions already. Every day his officials play a major part in assisting that constituency. They are hampered in their efforts, however, because we have no health clinics in the entire Southern Free State. Something must be done to help our people. Something must be done to help the Department of Health Services and Welfare to do the upliftment work among our people which was envisaged at our congress at Eshowe in 1983. I believe that a clinic for the upliftment of our people will be used. It will address health problems which people in the constituency are experiencing.

I also want to thank the Department of Housing for its assistance with the housing problems we had at Luckhoff, Jagersfontein, Zastron, Petrusburg and Reddersburg. Sir, they moved mountains for us. Hon members cannot know how relieved we are that housing problems are being seriously addressed. I want to repeat my request, however, that lengthy processes which are still impeding development in these areas be done away with. At present we have a great problem—a shortage of housing. Floods came and washed the roofs from over our heads. We expect a cold winter and the first snow has already started falling. The people are in a difficult position. The hon the Minister will know this because he comes from a constituency which is situated not far from mine. The winters in the hon the Minister’s constituency are also severe, but those in mine are even more severe. In my constituency we have snow and hard frost in winter. Our people will die of cold if something is not done to help them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank all hon members who participated in the debate. The discussions centred mostly on bursaries, regional offices, etc. I shall try to provide individual replies to all enquiries.

The hon member Mr Douw informed me that he had to board a flight shortly and could unfortunately not be in the House for my reply. I understand this, but shall nevertheless reply to his speech. In the first place he spoke about a regional office in Johannesburg. He said that regional office was too small and asked for suboffices to be provided in the Transvaal. I want to bring it to the attention of the House that we are continually involved in research in an attempt to establish where expansion can take place, but we have to bear in mind that there have to be adequate funds. We can only budget for expansion upon completion of such investigations. I have taken cognisance of the fact that he wishes suboffices to be opened at Nelspruit and Klerksdorp.

I now come to the matter of bursaries. This is something which was raised by many hon members. The hon member mentioned a boy in Klerksdorp and sketched a very clear but pathetic picture. These disciplines at technikons are something which the former Minister of Education and Culture emphasised very strongly and we want to encourage them. This particular matter must be investigated again.

The hon member Mr Douw then referred to boycotts and said something very important, which is that education should make provision for political guidance. I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. I want to appeal to hon members, however, that as MPs they should have far more contact with teachers and students. It is almost as if they are on one bank of a river and we on the opposite bank. As the proverb reads: “Nobody is nearer to God than an atheist. He only wants to be moved in that direction.” I think that our children have a burning desire to be in contact with us, but we are the ones who have to take the first step. Co-operation comes from two sides. I want to encourage MPs and ask them to try to gain the confidence of our teachers and our students in particular.

The hon member spoke inter alia about the history syllabus at schools and proposed that it be expanded. I should like to associate myself with this and hope that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will go into the matter.

The hon member for Berg River referred to job creation. I assume that the job creation to which the hon member referred is outside the Public Service. We know that many matriculants are hanging about and are unemployed. I want to add, however, that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and his department create many job opportunities. Unfortunately this is work which suits only the lower-income groups. The only work we can offer people with matriculation or better tertiary qualifications at this stage is in the Public Service. In this regard I want to mention—I dare not miss anything which is said about the economy; I watch the TV programme Diagonal Street regularly, for instance, and I hope hon members do the same—that economic conditions are gradually improving. As economic conditions improve, more money will be available to create more job opportunities.

The hon member went on to refer to Government contracts. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was permitted by the Ministers’ Council to instruct management boards to act as building contractors themselves. Of course, certain requirements have to be satisfied. A beautiful school has already been built in my constituency through the agency of the management board. This is something which hon members could well bear in mind.

The hon member also referred to a tender which was postponed from 16 May to a date somewhere in June to accommodate a White contractor—as the hon member expressed it.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon the Minister may proceed.

This is a matter which I shall have investigated personally. We can definitely look into it.

The hon member then referred to a certain girl who was obliged to go to the Proteaville Technikon, because in terms of welfare regulations it was the only condition under which she could obtain a bursary. In this regard I want to refer the hon member to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. The hon the Minister is an expert in that field.

I want to thank the hon member for Heidedal for his concern about matters in his constituency. The hon member also referred to the question of bursaries. In this respect I want to repeat that bursaries can be paid out and that they certainly are paid out on merit, depending on the availability of posts. It is very important that hon members take note of this. When we grant children bursaries, we enter into a contract with those children which includes inter alia that they will take up a specific position in the administration. If posts are not available, however, obviously we cannot enter into such contracts with students. The availability of posts therefore obviously influences the allocation of bursaries. Of course, I am speaking about conditions in the administration; and then we always have to take into account whether funds are available.

The hon member also alluded to branch offices. Welfare does receive preference. The hon Minister involved tries to open branch or suboffices wherever he can, but I want to say that Bloemfontein already has one.

The hon member also requested me to provide more money for education. Sir, every department budgets for the year ahead according to its needs. All that we do in the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services is to provide the money which is requested. We try to obtain it and to furnish them with it. If more money is required for education, therefore, that department must budget accordingly. I want to point out to the hon member, however, that the amount appropriated for education in the entire country 10 years ago was less than is being appropriated for this House alone this year. We have already obtained in excess of R1 billion for education.

The hon member discussed loans, but I do not know to which loans he was alluding. If he takes up the matter with me privately, perhaps we could clear it up.

As regards the creation of employment at schools, I want to point out that as a school develops, it qualifies for the creation of certain posts. It is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Culture to make provision in this respect.

†Sir, I want to thank the hon member for Daljosaphat for the high evaluation I was given by him; I sincerely appreciate it. Some hon members in this House felt uncomfortable because the hon member referred to the population growth rate. However, I can appreciate the hon member’s point. The Departments of Education and Culture, of Health and Welfare and of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture must all work together in this regard. When we reach the stage where people are educated, where they look after their health and have decent homes to live in, we shall have done exactly what we decided to do at Eshowe. We would be busy with socio-economic upliftment. If we succeed, we will also indirectly have attended to population growth. When the population grows at a slower pace, less funds will be required because, of course, all these children—wanted or unwanted babies—eventually become a financial liability of the State. I think this also covers the hon member’s idea of foster parents and orphanages.

*The hon member for Ottery had a great deal to say about a means test. Unfortunately this falls under the department of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, so the hon member had better apply there.

†He referred to a gentleman who wanted to make an investment in order to provide for a pension for his wife, who was exposed to a means test.

I want to point out to hon members that social pensions are paid out by the State in order to improve people’s quality of life. However, that does not mean that people should not do something for themselves. We know the old adage that God helps those who help themselves. We do ask people to take care of themselves. I was asked whether I was aware of the funds required by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Population Development. I certainly am aware of it, because it was included in the budgets of the different departments. I am aware of the hon member’s needs.

The hon member also wanted to know whether my department was able to give. Yes, we did give. We gave what was asked for. This House approved the Budget.

*We have to bear in mind, however, that all departments were requested to prune their budgets by 30%. This applied to all departments.

†I was asked whether we were just administrators of money allocated to us by the White man. Certainly not. If we were merely administrators it would not have been necessary for this House to approve the Budget. We budget for our needs and then we present our Budget to this House for its approval.

The hon member spoke about disparity. This House as a whole addresses this issue at every available opportunity. We do it here, we do it in our constituencies and we do it at every committee meeting. I can assure the hon member that we do address that issue. As regards senior posts the hon member wanted to know how many Coloureds are employed and in what posts they are employed. He certainly cannot expect me to have that information readily at hand, but I will supply him with the facts in writing, as requested.

I cannot totally agree with the hon member when he refers to Mr Parsotam, even more so when he refers to him as “that beautiful young man”. I am not going to place the bonafides of this particular gentleman on record, but I would like to assure this House that he was not transferred. I am not aware of the fact that this gentleman has become a dropout, but according to the hon member for Ottery this man has become a dropout. The transfer he was offered was in the interest of his future. I want to assure this House that we always try to look after all our officials and clerks, but again we must help people so that they can help themselves. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Ravensmead complained about children who did not receive bursaries. We have already investigated the case of the two children who did not receive bursaries. I have written letters to the hon member concerned already. I think these are the same two children to whom he is referring. I want to impress upon hon members that when they complain to our department about bursaries, we already have information at our disposal, because the child must have filled in an application form for a bursary. In this case the bursary forms were held back by certain schools and did not reach us. Nevertheless we have already supplied bursary forms and I have given instructions that those children’s applications be considered although they were late.

It is certainly unpleasant and untrue that the hon member should say that our children are neglected by certain Whites. People are too inclined to say that Ministers seek favour with their officials when they protect them. Hon members should realise that as the Minister I have the final say in my department. To some people it is a cause for regret that some of our officials are White. An official has to abide by the regulations and the laws which are prescribed to him. Submissions are presented to me in accordance with this and I am able to use my discretion. When they give me good advice, hon members can surely not expect me to brush this aside and say that I do not accept the advice because they are White. Please do not let us argue like this. I want to assure hon members that nobody is neglected.

Educational matters obviously fall under the Department of Education and Culture. Youth centres fall under the Department of Health Services and Welfare and rentals under the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

The hon member for Southern Free State was the last hon member who spoke. He aptly said that the LP strove for the socio-economic upliftment of our people and I want to assure him that we try to carry out our decisions. He said a great deal about bursaries and said inter alia that it was a disgrace that only 42 bursaries had been awarded. No, not only 42 bursaries were awarded; 42 bursaries which were not educational bursaries were awarded. We have never withdrawn bursaries. The Department of Education and Culture decided that new bursaries would not be awarded, but that existing bursaries would still be paid. We also carried out this policy as regards non-educational bursaries and continued with existing bursaries. When that decision was revoked by the Department of Education and Culture, we simply carried on with our bursary schemes because we did not take or announce any decisions.

We still make bursaries available and that is why I hope and believe that our entire undertaking will not be scuttled. The hon member also referred to a branch office. I want to repeat to the House that our department has decided to decentralise, but hon members should remember that Rome was not built in a day. We cannot erect branch offices everywhere simultaneously. We do not have the necessary staff and the funds to do this in one fell swoop, but the matter is receiving priority.

Now I have to tread on the hon member for Southern Free State’s corns. [Interjections.]

Sidestep!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister when non-teaching bursaries are refused?

It is governed by regulations. Applications are treated and attended to on merit. There are various reasons why bursaries are refused. The income of the parents may be too high or the subjects chosen for a particular course may not be the correct ones. If the requirements of the regulations are not met we cannot grant a bursary.

Mr Chairman, may I also ask the hon the Minister when the subjects for a non-teaching course are not the correct ones?

This happens very often in respect of law students. If a student does a BA with law subjects he does not qualify for a bursary. That is just one example. I do not have all the regulations at my fingertips right now, but that is one example.

I am not convinced.

Order!

I shall be able to furnish the hon member with all the requirements if he wishes.

I shall now come back to the treading on corns which I mentioned. When my corns are bruised, I like to bruise the other chap’s coms as well. [Interjections.] The hon member for Southern Free State must listen now. He said that he had dealt with school affairs during the discussion of my Vote last year. He said that he had made a request last year when he was not satisfied by the Department of Education and Culture or of Health Services and Welfare.

The hon member created the impression that I had not listened to him. It seems to me that he wants to shed the tears that he talks about every year on my shoulder. [Interjections.] The hon member praised the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare …

Order! Hon members must please give the hon the Minister a chance to complete his speech.

He showered praise on the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare with regard to matters about which he comes crying to me. I am totally unable to make this tally. [Interjections.] I want to request the hon member to get his priorities straight.

The hon member spoke about the flood disaster.

[Interjections.] He is not listening now and next year he will return to the House with the same story. He spoke about housing in flood-ravaged areas. A Flood Disaster Committee has been formed; there is also a division which deals with rural areas and one which deals with housing. I want to suggest that the hon member approach the Minister involved because he will be able to give him the necessary advice. I consulted with the hon the Minister about the same matter yesterday and can go to my voters this afternoon and assist them in this regard.

†Mr Chairman, I think I have done justice to all the questions and I should like to thank hon members for their contributions.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the Draft Resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) the acquisition by the Administration: House of Delegates of the property known as Odeon Cinema; and
2. (2) all the allegations of maladministration, corruption and bribery relating to the alienation, acquisition and leasing of property, including the allocation of business sites and premises, the awarding of contracts involving State funds and all matters incidental thereto,

the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

In moving this resolution I shall be very brief. I believe that from the time this House was constituted, there have been continuous allegations and counter-allegations. I believe that at some time or other everyone in this House will feel that there must come a time when all this should come to an end. None of us has the prerogative to convict anyone until he has been properly tried. Therefore, I shall be very brief.

All I want to say is that it is time all these allegations and counter-allegations that have been going on for so many years, came to an end. I must say that I am pleased that no one has objected to this. Let justice take its course and let those who are guilty pay the price.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We could not anticipate that precedence was to be given to Order No 21 and therefore, Sir, we could not supply you with a list of speakers. Under the circumstances, I appeal to you to allow the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to speak, as he rose first after the hon member for Southern Natal had spoken.

Order! If the hon member for Moorcross objects to the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture taking the floor at this stage, I am willing to suspend business to enable the Whips to provide me with a list of speakers. [Interjections.] This is in terms of the ruling handed down by Mr Speaker yesterday.

Mr Chairman, in order to facilitate the continuation of debate, I shall withdraw my objection.

Order! I still want to make it clear to hon members that I shall be going strictly by the list of speakers I have in front of me. The hon member for Moorcross must inform me of any speakers that are to be added to it. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I just want to set the record straight before I speak on the draft resolution before us.

Yesterday there was a great deal of speculation in the Press and the media that the Peoples Party of South Africa had collapsed. I want to state here categorically to the country that the Peoples Party of South Africa is as strong as ever in its resolve to remain and to carry out its duties in the service of the community. Therefore, all speculation in regard to the collapse of the Peoples Party of South Africa is without foundation. [Interjections.]

One of the pillars of the Peoples Party of South Africa is our belief in clean administration, and we support this draft resolution for that reason. For far too long this House has been subjected to allegations and counter-allegations regarding maladministration, bribery and corruption, and I believe it is about time the House of Delegates rid itself of this type of stigma. For that reason it is not only vital that the House of Delegates rid itself of this stigma, but it is also important to the community and the country we serve that this stigma of bribery and corruption and maladministration be rooted out from the body politic of the people we serve. [Interjections.]

This, then, is what we stand for. We stand for a clean slate, and having wiped the slate clean, I believe we shall be able to go ahead and serve this community and to fulfil those pledges we made when we went to the electorate in 1984.

I want to make it abundantly clear that having wiped the slate clean, we will go to the polls and we will face them with determination and without any fear. [Interjections.] This is what we stand for. We have not collapsed. There is no collapse. We are as determined as we ever were before. We want to wipe the slate clean and go ahead in the service of our people and country. [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to say that we have the support of the hon the State President in this regard. I believe the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made mention of this fact in his concluding remarks in the House of Assembly yesterday, namely that the hon the State President himself would be supportive of a commission of enquiry.

Therefore I believe that even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said so and we are at one on this. We are not in conflict with one another. I believe that the NPP also stands for a clean administration and if we have nothing to fear, why should there be this reluctance? The fact that there has been this reluctance is what concerns the Peoples Party of South Africa. Let us not deny the fact that there has been a reluctance in certain quarters. I am not going to mention any names because I do not believe that …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister explain to this House why, when we on this side of the House originally called for such a motion, he was one person who opposed it?

I do not believe that is true, Mr Chairman. I deny that with the contempt it deserves. We have been consistent in our resolve and I believe that that hon member should bring me proof of that allegation. I am sorry that I have to point a finger at him. [Interjections.] I reject this with the contempt it deserves. As far as I am concerned there are reasons why we broke away … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you for your protection, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] This is a serious matter and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I think this is a serious matter and we need this cleaning process which will take place as a result of the establishment of this select committee. It will have the effect of cleansing the whole administration and we will then be able to go ahead and do the work which we came here for.

Mr Chairman, the stigma which attaches to this House does not derive only from the allegations that have been made. The hon the Deputy Minister has referred to this stigma and I believe it arises from what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council refers to as grasshoppers … [Interjections] … and what I refer to as the metamorphosis that occurred when grasshoppers became cockroaches. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, can the hon member quote me where I have referred to people as grasshoppers?

In this House. The stigma attaching to this House also derives from other odd situations. When this House by an overwhelming majority adopted a resolution on 20 May 1988 and when the PFP yesterday sought to reaffirm, inter alia, that resolution, we found …

Order! I would like to request the hon member for Reservoir Hills rather to keep to the resolution.

Mr Chairman, I was just referring to the allegation of stigma made by the hon the Deputy Minister. I was just pointing out that the stigma arose from the conduct of hon members of this House which, I trust, hon members will correct in the future.

Insofar as the motion is concerned, this should have been moved a long time ago. It should have been done a very long time ago, but of course the composition of the House was slightly different a long time ago. [Interjections.] Certainly one must get at the truth. Whatever the truth may be, it should be exposed and unearthed so that all hon members of the House and the public of South Africa will know precisely what the facts are. From that point of view I have no difficulty in supporting this resolution.

Mr Chairman, in the past there have been calls for a commission of enquiry into the allegations and counter-allegations levelled by hon members of this House. I then stood by the principle that if one does not present a substantiated motion to this House, I cannot go along with such a call for an enquiry.

The draft resolution we see on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Southern Natal is definitely a pointer to the results of the findings of the Committee on Public Accounts on the Odeon Cinema. Therefore we now have a specific call that a select committee needs to be appointed and report on this. This opens the door for the allegations which were previously made in this House to be brought before this select committee for investigation as well.

I say to the hon members of the PFP that in the past we stood by our principles and those principles still pertain and prevail today, simply because we have a specific issue on the agenda. Perhaps in the investigation it will be demonstrated that there are other issues that need to be investigated. As my benchmate said earlier, we do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we make allegations and do not prove them. I am concerned, as is the hon the State President, that the hon the State President will not give protection to any member of the Cabinet or Ministers’ Council or any hon member, if he is subject to an investigation of this nature.

I think we have a paramount responsibility and a duty to ourselves and to the hon the State President that we put this House in a position where, as my benchmate said, we can go and face the electorate saying that such and such is the result after this investigation. We need not be afraid of such an investigation. If I had to be subject to any enquiry, I need to face that enquiry, simply because I want to prove myself innocent of any allegations that have been made. Therefore, without any hesitation, this side of the House and in particular the Peoples Party of South Africa …

And Solidarity!

… and Solidarity have no difficulty with this draft resolution. And that speaks for the alliance!

Mr Chairman, quite obviously we on this side of the House—the members of the PFP and our little alliance here … [Interjections.] … fully support the draft resolution that is before the House. I make mention of my alliance, because, after all, the existence of that alliance was very ably demonstrated by members of that alliance yesterday, when my amendment was put to this House.

When we were members of Solidarity, later, when we became members of the PRP and now, as members of the PFP, we have consistently said in this House that it is precisely the allegations and the counter-allegations of corruption and irregular allocation and disposal of land, that have brought the image of this House in our community to a very low level. We have consistently said that we do not point fingers, but we would prefer that a judicial commission of enquiry be appointed, under the full glare of public scrutiny, so that the allegations and the counterallegations, such as they are, could be fully investigated and a finding made on them. We believe that only once such a finding has been made, the matter could be buried finally. Quite obviously that is still our line of thinking at the moment.

I would like to refresh the memory of the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs when he says that he did not oppose the appointment of such a commission of enquiry previously. I have respect for that hon member. I would like to ask him to refresh his memory. If he looks at Hansard, he will see that he has, in fact, opposed such calls for a commission of inquiry. However, I am pleased that—even at this late stage—he has been able to understand cur argument. He has now come out in full support of this draft resolution that is before the House. I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has nothing to hide. I am sure he will support this call, as well. Indeed, I believe all hon members of this House will support this draft resolution. Only those people who have something to hide and who are afraid of the truth, will oppose such a resolution.

I believe this draft resolution will have the support of all hon members of this House. I daresay that after the battle that went on in this House yesterday, this resolution might well redeem the image of this House in the eyes of the community. I therefore urge all hon members to support the draft resolution that is before the House.

Mr Chairman, I was actually not going to take part in the debate. However, I need to set the record straight about a few comments that were made. As Chief Whip of the alliance, I would like to apologise for any inconvenience.

Yesterday I attempted to advise the hon the Leader of the House that it was the request of the alliance that this draft resolution be given preference. We tried to negotiate this. Unfortunately I saw that, without any reference to me, it was put on the Order Paper as item 21, hence we were not in the position to furnish the Chair with a list of speakers. I have had a discussion with the hon the Leader of the House this morning.

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

Yes, Sir.

Yesterday the hon member for Stanger asked me whether we could put this item on the agenda.

That is not a question!

Order! I want to appeal to hon members not to bring in issues which are not relevant to the business in the House. The hon member for Stanger should have raised these issues when the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare moved for precedence. This debate should have taken place then. The hon member must please confine himself to the resolution.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I was merely responding to your problem. If the Chairman is satisfied, I will not pursue that question any further, except to say that I, on behalf of the opposition, have made many attempts in the past to try and get a motion of this nature to clear the air in this House for once and for all. Unfortunately those motions were blocked previously.

Today I am pleased that this resolution will go through. I am pleased that the alliance is strong on this particular resolution. I will also be pleased if, after this resolution is passed, the committee will do its work. I am positive that the alliance will grow from strength to strength, and the public at large will benefit from such an exercise.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution before the House for the very reason that I have very serious misgivings about the stigmas attached to this House, and Parliament as a whole. The attention of the country’s population is on this House. It is therefore right to cleanse the image of this House. When we face our electorate, we have to have some proof of our function in this House. As it stands, the general feeling of the entire South African population—not only the voters of this House—is that they are convinced that this House has been riddled with corruption and maladministration.

Allegations! Allegations!

The community believes it—there is no question about that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member claims that this House is riddled with bribery and corruption. [Interjections.]

Order! Did I understand the hon member for Camperdown to say that the public outside believes it?

That is right, Sir.

Order! I think it is permissible. The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

I advise the hon member for Moorcross to keep his ears and his eyes wide open.

My eyes are wide open—I do not even need glasses. [Interjections.]

He must keep his ears open too. A large cross-section of the South African population believes that this House is riddled with corruption and maladministration. In order to clear the issue I support the draft resolution before the House.

Mr Chairman, my side of the House also supports this draft resolution. [Interjections.]

You have no choice!

No, I do not think that remark is relevant.

Order! Can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council please state what the remark was?

He said that I have no choice. Let me substantiate what I have stated …

Mr Chairman, I said that he has no choice because the draft resolution will obviously be carried.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

There has always been a call in this House for a judicial commission of inquiry and there are reasons for that. Firstly, it will be independent and objective.

The following draft resolution of the hon member for Moorcross appeared on the Order Paper on 19 May 1988:

1. (a) Education and Culture;
2. (b) Budgetary and Auxiliary Services;
3. (c) Health Services and Welfare; and
4. (d) Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

While we are supporting this resolution, we want to express certain shortcomings. Firstly, it is definitely restricted and the net is not wide enough. [Interjections.] Secondly, we regret that it is not independent. Thirdly, hon members in this House have made allegations in this House from time to time and they have also referred to these allegations outside the House from time to time. Here I want to request that the composition of the select committee will be such that it will be completely impartial. [Interjections.] I want to make a request that when the parties submit names of persons to be appointed to this select committee, they must ensure that those who made the allegations are not members of this select committee. This is a fair request. We support the draft resolution.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, yesterday we listened to the very lengthy introductory speech on the Housing Vote of the hon the Minister of Housing and I want to take this opportunity to compliment him on the very comprehensive report he represented yesterday. At the same time I also want to convey my thanks to the hon members of the Ministers’ Council, the Director-General, the Chief Director of Housing, Mr Carstens, and all officials of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for their contribution to this comprehensive report.

The hon the Minister in part of his report yesterday mentioned Operation 25 000 and here we must congratulate him for taking the initiative to try to solve the acute housing shortage of our community. It is not an easy task for a Minister to make a commitment, but 25 000 housing units—houses as well as serviced stands—will be built in a period of three years. It has been proved in the report before us that in the first year over 8 000 such units were achieved. I think we have seen the progress that has been made in the Department of Housing after it was taken over by the present hon Minister of Housing and I want to place on record that we feel that this pace of the development of housing must go ahead.

It has been said that the hon the Minister has spent a lot of time on looking at the issues of housing in the Transvaal. I want to state here this morning that that is not so. If one considers the percentage of money that has been spent on housing in the other provinces then we in the Transvaal have been neglected for far too long. Since the hon the Minister has tried to tackle problems with regard to those sectors in the Transvaal where there are shortages it is not going to be prejudicial to those living in the other provinces. It is going to be to the benefit of the community at large.

I want to touch on a few aspects of the speech made by the hon the Minister on the housing policy. With regard to the housing code the hon the Minister mentioned the change in the R1 000 policy of building homes. I still feel that this limit is not in keeping with the times in which we are living and the increase in the rental formula as stated by the hon the Minister on page 16 of his speech should be changed to about R15 000 which is more reasonable today. I know it is a policy decision that has to be taken by all Ministers together, but in this regard the hon the Minister must make his input so that he and the other hon Ministers of Housing can find consensus so that this limit can be increased.

On page 9 of the report the hon the Minister also spoke about the availability of land for housing. Here too, I must say that we are proud that the hon the Minister during his period as Minister of Housing has achieved the goal of making land available for housing. Here I am speaking of areas that have now been identified as areas for housing. Apart from those in the Transvaal, there is one in East Rand and in his speech the hon the Minister also mentioned Villa Lisa and Windmill Park.

I think I should support the hon the Minister in going ahead with these areas. The availability of land is still a problem for us but, as the hon the Minister strongly emphasised yesterday, we hope that the hon the Minister will now really devote his energies to putting what he said yesterday into practice so that we will be able to see that in future the availability of land will not be a problem for us.

We also note that the hon the Minister has a special paragraph under the heading “inside planning and expertise”. Here, too, I think we are adopting the right course. The various announcements made in the course of the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday are welcome, as is the increase in the limit for first-time homeowners from R40 000 to R45 000, with the limit of the one-third subsidy remaining at R40 000. Also welcome was the hon the Minister’s power to increase the limit in certain instances to up to R65 000 and R75 000 with the price of land included. This is something to look forward to in these days of rising housing costs. I hope that the power vested in the hon the Minister to use his discretion in agreeing to these limits will be open to him and that he uses this particular discretion.

In the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday I think he missed out on the sale of land to institutions and religious organisations. I hope that in his reply the hon the Minister will re-emphasise what the policy is as far as this is concerned. We know that we are saddled with problems that we have inherited. The problem relates to the prices of religious ground and institutional ground still not being resolved after years of negotiations because of the attitude of the municipalities that this must be capitalised and the cost worked out from the particular development itself. We do not regard this as the right answer. We find that after completing certain schemes, municipalities only finalise these prices five to six years after the completion of these schemes. We have seen this in my constituency of Laudium. As regards the scheme that was completed in 1980, the final prices were only made available eight years afterwards and the prices are now R2 000 to R3 000 higher than the original prices quoted to those people that bought those homes. It is unfair to the people who purchase those homes that such a long period should have elapsed before the local authorities worked out the final figures relating to this particular project. The people now have to pay an increased instalment for their homes as a result.

Coming back to the matter of progress reports, as far as my constituency is concerned I am very happy to note that the hon the Minister has mentioned the progress as far as the development of Lotus Gardens is concerned. This area has a long history, and apart from the fact that the planning, as the hon the Minister mentioned, has reached an advanced stage, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister this morning. On this particular ground that is registered in the name of our Housing and Development Board there are some 300 existing units that belong to the old leper hospital. This land is not being used for this purpose because leprosy is no longer a certifiable disease. This whole colony—as it was called at that time—or community has been occupied by the Department of Health to house some of its psychiatric personnel of the Westfort Hospital. This is a ready-made little community and township that belongs to us. I do not even know whether our department is aware of the fact that this falls under and is in the hands of our department, and we should take possession of it to relieve our acute housing shortage for the time being.

As regards the low-cost housing scheme of 350 units in Laudium itself—the White block—the hon the Minister knows about it. The Minister of Housing at the time—the hon member for Red Hill—made a special visit when he became Minister. Certain undertakings were given that this whole situation was a temporary housing scheme, and it was about to collapse. Certain proposals and suggestions were made. A technical committee was established by the Department of Housing. However, years have elapsed and still no report has been forthcoming and no finality has been reached in regard to either selling these units to the individuals occupying them at such a price that they can reconstruct them, or rebuilding the units.

The hon the Minister also failed to mention whether any progress had been made with the establishment of a new Indian township to the north of Pretoria, namely at Akasia. I hope the hon the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in so far as that is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I begin my speech proper, I want to respond very quickly to the hon the Minister of Housing. Whilst the massive document he produced yesterday made reference to certain factors in an attempt to suggest that something positive was being done, in the main this document merely gave a whole host of detail which was superfluous and which did not really address itself to the real issues affecting the Indian community and the housing problems affecting the community as a whole. [Interjections.]

I say this with respect, and whether he agrees or disagrees is his business. I am entitled to my opinion about what comes before this House. In saying this, I am going to substantiate what I have to say. 1 think that in presenting his lengthy document, the hon the Minister should, in the first instance, have done what other departments do. He should have made a booklet of this and given it to us in advance, as is done by all the other State departments. However, to have read all the details out to us was unnecessarily time-consuming and took up a lot of the time allotted to this debate. [Interjections.]

The other aspect I now want to come to, is the fact that the hon the Minister made several references to the various committees—extra-parliamentary groups, if you like; or action committees—such as the Cato Manor Residents’ Association, the Durban Central Residents’ Association, etc. He referred to these committees as not being fully au fait with what is happening in so far as the rental formulae and the good work that is apparently being done by his department are concerned.

I beg to differ. I believe the converse is the true situation. I believe that the Department of Housing is not taking cognisance of what the community-based organisations are saying. I also believe that if one reads the documents that have been submitted to the hon the Minister by these organisations and one analyses them correctly, one will see what is going on.

I just want to cite one instance from this document issued by the Durban Central Residents’ Association. To my mind, this organisation is not a radical organisation. In fact, as I read this document, this organisation is attempting to protect the people, that is to say the Indian community, which has been affected, as well as those other communities in the lower socio-economic groups who have been subjected to a lack of housing and to exploitation.

In this regard I want to make reference to the Rent Control Board provisions. It is a shame that because of the concept of own affairs and the splitting of housing under own affairs, our community, which previously enjoyed the protection of the Rent Board, no longer enjoys that protection. If we say that we are here to serve the less fortunate people in our community, then should we not have taken serious note of this?

This anomaly was highlighted some two years ago in this Chamber and it was suggested then that the House of Assembly would use its own machinery to address that particular problem and overcome it. Sad to say, however, people are being affected by the lack of rent control and certain unscrupulous landlords are exploiting our poor people. I think we should do something positive about that particular aspect.

We will only get rid of the whole Rent Control Board issue if, in fact, we get rid of the Group Areas Act. I am all for the phasing out of the Rent Control Board if one allows a free, open society, if one gets rid of the Group Areas Act, and if people are not exploited.

That is when you will need the Rent Control Board more.

That is a matter of opinion. I am prepared to debate that with the hon the Minister at a later stage, and to discuss that matter with him. I believe the cause of exploitation has been the Group Areas Act. The cause of this must be the question of supply and demand. That is a fact. This is the problem.

I believe various positive actions need to be taken if we want to sort out the housing problem in this country. With all due respect for the enthusiasm of the hon the Minister of Housing and his Operation 25 000, I believe there are other factors that need to be considered. I think there should be the establishment of a national housing policy to cater for all sections and economic groups regardless of race. We need one national policy, not separate policies. This whole question of own affairs for housing must be done away with. We need to look at things more on a national basis.

There should not be subsidisation of rentals by this formula alone, but the other component factor must be looked at. The hon the Minister made reference to the various charges as having caused pressure—sewer charges, electricity charges, water charges, refuse removal charges and administration charges. To cite an example, the rental component in an old age home is R7,50 per month, but with the other charges added on and with electricity the total cost for a single occupier is in excess of R100.

I must give the House one further example. I have not done a survey to be able to give an overall average figure, but I know of one particular example which illustrates the situation. If a pensioner receives just over R160 per month, how can he survive in this climate? Therefore subsidisation would take care of that particular aspect as well. In my opinion there has to be a partnership between the Government and the private sector. I believe that for this partnership to succeed the Government should stop threatening legal action against those organisations who are prepared to make accommodation avaiLable to people needing housing regardless of race. There are cases where the State itself is stopping organisations that want to accommodate people of colour within their housing estates, so as to make it possible for them to have reasonable accommodation in a good and conducive environment. Therefore the Government must stop threatening organisations with legal action. Through those threats they are in fact breaking up any attempts to bring about a partnership between the Government and the private sector. There has to be goodwill and what militates is the unfortunate Government policy of the separation of races to that ridiculous level.

I believe that if we want to do something tangible, we should look at these things. If the hon the Minister of Housing, with his colleagues from the other departments, could address that problem and even in his role as a Cabinet Minister get that message across loud and clear, we could get that partnership between the Government and the private sector to work.

Once and for all I want to make an earnest appeal. I want to appeal to this hon Minister of Housing and to whoever may be the Minister of Housing in the future. I made this appeal before this present hon the Minister of Housing took office and I do so to whoever may succeed him subsequently—be it in five years’ time or one month’s time—that we must resist the temptation of allocating properties to utility companies. The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture attacked this method. I want to repeat once again that the allocation of properties to utility companies is not the solution for the provision of housing to the lower income groups. In fact, what is happening with the allocation of properties to utility companies, is that they are only fronts for certain individuals and organisations who want to exploit the situation with regard to the Indian community who are denied housing and the land for housing. I believe that these utility companies, which are fronts even for some of the politicians, as it were, through their families etc, are causing a great deal of embarrassment even to the House of Delegates. I want to suggest that we must get away from the allocation of property to utility companies once and for all. Those utility companies that get land and build houses on it are in fact not catering for the lower income groups.

I believe that the solution, if one understands the Indian community clearly, is to be found in the fact that the Indian community is self-supporting. If given a piece of ground, they will, through sweat, hard effort and work build the house. They will get together with their family and relatives in the extended family system, mix the cement and the sand, and put together the bricks and the mortar and build their own homes. They have done it before and they will do it again. We do not have to allocate serviced sites to utility companies to exploit the less fortunate members of our community. I believe that this type of approach does not go a long way.

If one takes a housing budget of R200 million, and if a small piece of ground costs R10 000, one would be able to cater for 20 000 families. One would not have to wait for five or ten years to provide housing. Then one would also create an opportunity and a challenge to the family to put up a unit which is suitable for themselves. When a person builds his own home, he will protect it and cherish it, because his effort, his heart and his soul will be in that home. There should not be structures where he feels he is being exploited.

I have before me a document of 21 pages which makes some very serious allegations and indictments in respect of an area in Pietermaritzburg. It is submitted in this document that whilst a utility company tendered a higher price for the land, it was allocated to this company. The impression is created that the Housing Board would give land to a particular utility company on the basis of its tender, but when one looks at the details of the document, one finds that the said utility company which tendered a higher price will in fact spend R1 200 000 for servicing costs while the utility company which tendered a lower price was only going to spend R750 000 for servicing costs. This means that the higher price for servicing, the higher price for the land and the extra cost for building will all be added and will accrue to the eventual home-owner who will be saddled with that cost. The calculations in this particular case I have before me show that 81 would-be homeowners would be obliged to pay close on R1 million more. By any stretch of the imagination, that is exploitation of an unfortunate community.

I would want to reiterate that the solution, especially for the Indian community, is to give them serviced sites. I have tested my community on that basis. I have spoken to my constituents about this. My constituents welcome the opportunity. If they were given serviced sites, they would make their own effort and arrange their own funds. I believe that even if the State wants to turn around and give the serviced sites at a nominal price to the would-be home-owners, it would still be cheaper than to have utility companies selling homes at R40 000 a piece, which saddles the home-owner with a bond repayment of 30 years on R40 000 capital. I believe with the capital of R40 000 four families could be accommodated. If one gives it to one family it will only help one family, and that family will be saddled with the repayment over 30 years.

I believe if a family is given a serviced site, the burden would be much less, the materials they use would be bought for cash, they would not have to be subjected to bonds, and they would not have to pawn their jewellery or sell it for repayments or have all these other pressures. I think this is the challenge facing us. I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister of Housing to take serious note of this.

He indicated last year that there would be a phasing in of self-help sites. I think greater emphasis should be placed on serviced sites, instead of worrying about utility companies that are stigmatising this House. It is not only stigmatising this House, but also certain hon members of this House. It is alleged that some hon members of this House, through their extended families, are involved in utility companies with land being allocated by this department.

The hon member must give that information to the select committee.

The select committee will do its own work. If the hon the Minister is aware of such instances, he must also give this information to the select committee.

I am not aware of any such instances. The hon member says that he is aware of such allegations.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister a question. He has a housing board of six members who are involved in allocating land to utility companies. However, in my opinion, it has an executive committee that takes all the decisions—not the entire board. It is a six man committee, but only four members can take decisions. The two people who are left out of that executive committee are the people who should be there to take decisions. They are academically more qualified and academically more competent to be part of that executive committee.

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

I am prepared to take questions at the end of my speech. I believe those six members should be the executive on their own. Why is this six man committee being reduced to a four man committee? That leaves certain suspicions in one’s mind, especially when it is alleged that some members have time to serve on an executive committee when they have to be at work at the technicon.

Yesterday, during the course of his speech, the hon the Minister of Housing made reference to public organisations, or action committees, as he called them. I do not believe we can run away from the realities which do exist. We cannot run away from the reality that this committee does have an influence. I would like to state categorically that not one single hon member on this side has the same support that Mr Roland Parshotam has in Cato Manor. I challenge any hon member to tell me he has more support in Cato Manor than Roland Parshotam.

I believe we need a partnership with those people. We need to work in harmony. I went out of my way to ensure that there was some sort of linkage. It is unfortunate that that effort has now been destroyed. It is unfortunate that there is now conflict.

That is not correct!

It is true! I have been talking to the man personally. I am aware of this. If it is not true, why is it that the Cato Manor committee that was established by this House on a multiparty basis, has never sat or met since the hon Minister became the hon the Minister of Housing?

Mr Parshotam does not want to sit with you.

Ever since the hon the Minister took over that particular portfolio, that committee has never sat or met. Now he tells me across the floor that Mr Parshotam does not want to sit with me, but he never convened a meeting. He never said that to us in a formal manner. There is no point in interjecting over here as if we are being treated with contempt. If that was a problem, we should have had a meeting. We should have discussed it in the right forum, in the right place. That never happened.

We need to ensure that people do not fear action committees. We need to ensure that there will be an understanding. The hon the Minister of Housing says the rental formula is the best in his opinion. He should be in the position to go to the tenants in his area and address them on this subject. He should explain to them that they have been misinformed. He should not use advertisements of companies who deny that the contents of it had been discussed with them. Afterwards they say they had nothing to do with it. That is not the way to get the message across. The hon the Minister must go and meet the people! He must go and tell the people that his formula is the best. That is the way to do it. There is no point in fearing the action committees.

I believe the solution to this particular problem is the establishment of regional committees throughout the countries. We need to set them up without fear and in a calm atmosphere. We should not only negotiate with people within establishment politics; we should also negotiate with people outside establishment politics—for example, extraparliamentary groups.

We should discuss the issue. I did this in Stanger many years ago when I called the ratepayers’ organisation together. When we were together, we managed to get answers. It was only unfortunate that the then chairman, Mr S Naidoo, went and destroyed what was agreed to by us and the community organisations.

Order! I regret to advise the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! I am afraid that cannot be allowed.

Mr Chairman, I am entering this debate on a very low key. Fortunately or unfortunately for the hon the Minister of Housing, I do not have the venom and the fire in me today to be vociferous.

The doctor is not here.

Yes, unfortunately he is away too. [Interjections.] I have been making representations in the housing debate since 1985 regarding the religious sites in Marlboro Gardens. I have been informed that an advanced state of negotiation has been reached with regard to this matter. As recently as yesterday I had a call from Marlboro. The people there are very concerned because thus far they have heard nothing. Obviously the prices of buildings are escalating all the time. I want to say to the credit of the department that a high school was built in Marlboro before the people moved in. This emphasis on education is laudable.

So, too, we know that our community, like other communities, places a very high emphasis on the religious requirements of our people. It will be to the advantage of the communities concerned in Marlboro Gardens if the question of the prices of land that has been earmarked for religious institutions can be settled once and for all. I do believe that there is some problem insofar as the rebate on the subsidy is concerned. Knowing the hon the Minister to be a religious person, we hope that it will be possible for us to find the money somewhere along the line from some other source to compensate the communities. This problem does not only exist in Marlboro Gardens, but also in Laudium and Standerton. Let us compensate the people in those areas so that they can get on with the job of practising their religion as they are required to do.

I now wish to come to a matter that was raised in the debate when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was in this House. It concerns the question of land on the East Rand. I want to concede that the hon the Minister of Housing has pulled out all the stops in trying to find a solution to the problem of housing in that area. The statement regarding Villa Lisa is before me but unfortunately I think the first house will only be ready for occupation in December 1989. That is a far cry from the present requirements. The solution to the problem would be the acquisition of Windmill Park. Windmill Park proper, as we know it, with 200 plus stands, houses and vacant erven would afford immediate relief to the people of Actonville. The adjoining 375 ha could be developed almost immediately.

Another sad aspect in the Benoni area is that the people living in Springbok Flats in Benoni are facing prosecution because according to the law they are living illegally in those flats. It is no fault of theirs. They are there because of the circumstances in which they find themselves. They are there because there is no alternative accommodation available to them in Actonville. I implore the hon the Minister to use his good offices to negotiate with the authorities to stop all prosecutions in the Benoni area until such times as alternative accommodation has been provided for the people living in the so-called White areas of Benoni.

Insofar as Leachville and Larrendale in Brakpan are concerned, I believe that we should not give up because Brakpan has said they would buy that land themselves. We should continue making representations in that respect. Yesterday my hon colleague, the hon member for Actonville, said that he did not see any possibility of the Whites of Brakpan occupying Leachville and Larrendale in the next 100 years! I tend to agree with him. If it was the prime land they claimed it to be then that land would have been developed a long time ago. It is only because people who have been disadvantaged, ie the people of Actonville and the Indian community in the surrounding areas, have been making representations for that land that the Brakpan Town Council now claim that they want to provide housing for the White community there. We must pull out all the stops. For far too long the Indian community, or should I say the Black community of this country, has been told where to live without being given a choice.

On the East Rand Villa Lisa may afford relief, but without Windmill Park which is contiguous to it, Villa Lisa on its own will not be viable. Windmill Park will make Villa Lisa viable. We could have a thriving community living in that area. People will then have the opportunity of choosing where to live, whether it be in Windmill Park, Villa Lisa or possibly in the future, even Dawn Park.

The history of Dawn Park as we know it is that in the early eighties when representations were made for Dawn Park the then Minister of Community Development, Mr Pen Kotze, told us in Benoni that Dawn Park was required for the Whites of Delmore Park, because Delmore Park was going to the Coloured community. We know—and statistics prove this—that today Dawn Park is a ghost town like Windmill Park. The Whites refuse to settle there. This is so much so that in a local newspaper circulated in the Actonville area called The Beam, the Dawn Park shopping centre is being advertised for sale. That speaks volumes in itself.

I think the time has come where we have to make representations on a stronger basis. We have to be strong and resolute in our representation. I do not believe that because of the objections of a few people the Indian community that has suffered on the East Rand should continue suffering. We must remember and bear in mind that because Benoni is the hub of the East Rand and with industries moving to the border areas in Natal … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to my colleagues for affording me the opportunity to complete my speech.

I want to re-emphasise once again the fact that if we want to have a solution to our housing problems we must defuse the conflict between the extraparliamentary groups and those of us involved in housing at this particular level. Every one of us in this House must make an earnest commitment to that, namely to defusing the conflict and assisting in achieving a total partnership in that particular direction, and understanding the problem rather than being at cross-purposes.

The other point I wish to make note of is that I want to say, with respect to the hon the Minister of Housing, that we had more housing in Stanger from the Department of Community Development than we have had in the last four years! Regardless of the fancy figures that have been put forward here, those projects that were completed were all Community Development projects. I have a letter in my possession. I have met the Minister. I accompanied a very high-powered delegation to meet him with a view to resolving this matter in the presence of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. Sad to say, from September up till now we have had no success. I have before me a letter from the town clerk which was addressed to the hon the Minister of Housing, and I am sure he has a copy of it—the date is 19 May. The contents of this letter are revealing. There is no point in saying in this House that the local authorities are unco-operative when local authorities are co-operating. Stanger has always been the third largest Indian settlement in Natal, and why is Stanger being victimised? Is it because I am the MP for Stanger? I have said before in this House that it is not Yunus Moolla who needs housing; it is the people who need housing, and if that is the reason why Stanger is being victimised, then the people of Stanger are being victimised.

Call for a select committee.

There will be more than a select committee by the time I have dealt with this issue, Mr Chairman. What is more, I wish to quote this letter for the record:

This was addressed to the hon the Minister of Housing. The letter goes on as follows:

I was present when that decision was taken and I can submit copies of correspondence inquiring about the progress following our meeting. The date is 11 September 1987, and it goes on to say:

It goes on and on, Mr Chairman. It then comes to a point where it says the following:

I have had it off the record that as regards that Stanger file, the officials could not do a thing. A note was appended to it that the hon the Minister would handle it personally. Why this is so, I do not know.

Can you prove that?

I was told that; I have not seen it.

Do not make statements …

The delays speak for themselves. I have to go by circumstantial evidence indicating that something is wrong here. Here in Stanger our projection for figures relating to housing needs for the Indians is as follows:

By the year 2000 we will need 7 000 units. We need this; the people of Stanger need this.

What is being done? Nothing is being done. It is being blocked. I want to say something about the hon MEC to whom this matter has been referred. When he was the chairman of the local affairs committee and we wanted to provide housing for people in the lower income group at a ceiling of R130, he was responsible for pushing up that ceiling and denying the poor people a home in that particular area, namely Extension 14 in Stanger. Go and ask the flat owners in Stanger whether that is not true. What is more, we are going to be subjected to that type of interference again. Who is going to pay the price? It will be the poor people of Stanger.

I must make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister please to respond to this letter in a more positive way. Let him please help the people of Stanger, even if I have to beg him to do so—not because I want to be a beggar, but because I want to speak on behalf of those people who are suffering. I see those tears. Those tears fall onto the carpet in my office. We can be insensitive here. We can be callous about it and play petty politics but I want to say that we should not play petty politics with housing. That is my appeal to the hon the Minister.

There is no point in saying that the local authorities are doing nothing. What about the situation in Durban? Is it not true that the House of Delegates wants to take over land from the Durban City Council for housing purposes, and that we want to renegotiate with them? My hon colleague will deal with that in due course. What is more, I know the motives behind this. Those motives will also be revealed one day.

With those words I want to make the appeal that if we want to depoliticise housing we should not make a political meal out of people who need housing. Let us not go to the Eastern Transvaal and, for the sake of votes, say: “You want housing? You have got it”, or “You want a swimming pool? You have got it”, or “You want floodlights? You have got them”. I was in the Eastern Transvaal over the weekend and I was told that not one of those promises had been kept. We must stop playing with the feelings and the emotions of people who are desperately in need of housing.

Mr Chairman, I wish to compliment the hon the Minister on his excellent report, which provides a very detailed account of what is going on not only in our own constituencies but throughout the Republic. I must admit that this is a very detailed report. I believe housing has become a very important issue in this country, so much so that one could easily call it one of the pillars of the whole country’s constitutional reform programme. No doubt this issue will determine the future of the reform process in this country.

If hon members listened to the radio this morning, they will have heard that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on housing, and someone said that approximately 20 million houses would be needed by the year 2000. I believe we must address this issue very, very carefully and we must make provision for the attainment of this goal.

I now want to come straight to my constituency, and to mention the following points. I am not very happy about the housing programme in my area. I do not want to blame the hon the Minister or the department for this but not a single Government house has been built in this very large area, where virtually thousands of families are living under very poor and deplorable conditions. The situation is still the same there purely because of the very difficult problems we have been having in regard to obtaining land and the proclamation of land in those areas under the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and, I think, the Department of Community Development, in that a great deal of the land had been given to other communities and we later had to make an adjustment.

I also want to mention that in 1982 the Government agreed to move industry away from Pinetown and New Germany. Only after strong objections were raised by all concerned, such as the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce, the Pinetown—New Germany Council, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning agree not to remove the industries from these areas.

There are over 2 500 families in my constituency that are in need of homes. It is also our intention to house all these people who need homes in the areas they presently occupy. Here one has a very difficult situation because this entire area comprises rural areas such as Matola Farm, Dassenhoek, Welbedacht, Northdene, Wyebank and other areas. These are settled communities, although they may be a little small in comparison to other large areas, but they do form a community nucleus, which I believe is a very important thing in this day and age and we should therefore try to keep them together so that we do not create social problems by breaking up settled communities in these areas.

I wish to express appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department for the excellent manner in which the land problem is being handled in this very difficult area. I must say that we have been dealing with very difficult situations, because we wanted to find ways and means of distributing land amongst the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the Blacks in that area. Because of some mistakes made in the past we had to bear the brunt and I am indeed very grateful that at last consensus has been reached regarding these areas. I hope that all the communities of that area will now engage themselves in this very difficult house-constructing programme.

I am also aware that land has already been acquired and more land has been identified for the Indian community in these areas. As this issue is very sensitive, we cannot give any further details. However, I am very pleased and satisfied that a substantial amount of land has been identified in order to meet the demand in that area.

The hon the Minister in his report indicated that in the next few years he envisages the sum of R10 million being spent in this area. This certainly gives hope to all in the Dassenhoek, Welbedacht, Matola Farm, Wyebank and Northdene areas that their housing problems will be resolved. Here I would like to mention that we need to do this in order to revive the industrial programme that we have agreed to in that area. Whilst the industrial sector and other things are developing—in Pinetown we will shortly see the completion of a very huge business complex to the value of about R300 million which will be opening shortly and which will provide parking for 2 500 vehicles—one must take a hint from this project to the extent that this area is really growing. If anyone is to invest money in a commercial enterprise, one must have the background of an increase in the number of people or the population of the area. In that direction I wish to express the view that serious consideration be given, in view of industrial and commercial and other project developments in that area, to this area becoming a focal point of migration of our citizens.

I would also like to appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing as well as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture that we are experiencing a bit of a problem as far as our educational requirements are concerned. I hope that this small problem will be addressed jointly by the two hon the Ministers and if need be that the correct machinery for the purpose of furthering the education of our children in that area will be engaged as priority number one.

In conclusion I also want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for having initiated various inspections in these areas. I also wish to say that whilst he and his department and others were doing this, they did not advertise it and did not get any publicity. There was an agreement that we wished to solve the problem in that area and I believe that by doing that and working silently behind the scenes in order to achieve consensus amongst the various race groups in that area, this was well done. Recently the newspapers published a picture of that entire area and one found the anti-government forces such as the UDF, etc who were responding favourably.

I believe this is good work because the Indians, Coloureds, Whites and Blacks have to find a place to live somewhere. Not far from now I see them living side by side. One cannot run away from that, when we are looking for and finding solutions to many of our problems in this country. We should never lose the very important group recognition of different race groups, because we have to work with them and stay with them. In the industrial sector, etc one will find that people of colour work shoulder to shoulder in order to keep alive the economy of this country. Should the economy fail, the entire country would become useless. There would be very little left for us in the future.

I would briefly like to refer to Savanna Park. The blame concerning this project cannot be attached to the present hon the Minister of Housing. However, I wish to express my deep concern regarding any further delays in this regard. I believe that while the sewer problem in this area is being attended to, housing could also be started side by side with it, so that these two things can be completed together so that we do not have any delay which would escalate cost factors. I want to make an earnest appeal that we look into this and start the development of housing in that area as soon as possible. I also want to thank the department for its assistance at all times, whenever we had any difficult situations in these areas.

Mr Chairman, I am somewhat disturbed after reading this report delivered by the hon the Minister of Housing yesterday. I would like to make the point that there are several irregularities in this report. Unfortunately the time allocated to me does not suffice to highlight every point.

First of all, regarding the introductory paragraph, the hon the Minister compliments the officials for their excellent effort in providing housing for our people in the face of hostile and venomous criticism. I am not aware of anybody expressing criticism against officials which could be called venomous and hostile. This is one of the irregularities. On no account can the hon the Minister prove to us that hon members of this House have been hostile to officials. If I wanted to be hostile, I certainly would not have tolerated that. I have several letters here which piove that the Ministry of Housing of the House of Delegates is grossly incompetent and inefficient. I challenge the hon the Minister to deny that. I will prove it just now with correspondence. I have a whole file here pertaining to housing in my constituency. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

The hon the Minister says that the department’s prime function is the provision of housing. He then continues to say that housing is the sole responsibility of the local authorities. What is very interesting is that the hon the Minister asks hon members of Parliament to exert pressure on local authorities and he is virtually accusing local authorities of not fulfilling their duty. There may be other local authorities outside my constituency which are guilty of that. However, I would like to point out to the hon the Minister that I have here a report which is a feasibility study and recommendation by the Development and Services Board, which is the local authority in my constituency. It was published in June 1985 with recommendations for providing housing for Indians in Hammersdale. It is now June 1988, 36 months later, and the hon the Minister has done nothing about this. This report was shelved in the office of the hon the Minister. I had to get it back a fortnight ago for a very specific purpose.

The hon member for Newholme has a lot to learn about responsibilities. Every successive officer carries the legacy of his predecessor.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I am taking no questions from that hon member. I said every successor in office carried the legacy of his predecessor. The first duty of a successor to his predecessor is to go through the files. Apart from that, I wrote to the hon the Minister of Housing on 8 December 1987. I asked him for explanations for the delays. The letter was acknowledged on 17 December 1987. On 4 May 1988 I received a letter with the hon the Minister’s letterhead and handwriting. This is why I say this department is grossly negligent. I do not have time to read out the contents of the letter.

However, let us take Cool Air as an example. Cool Air has 87 fully serviced sites. According to the report, there is a complaint that there is shortage of land. There are fully serviced sites waiting to be developed for housing at Cool Air in Natal. The local authority there is the Development and Services Board. The latest reply from them, dated 26 May 1988, states that the Department of Housing: House of Delegates is uncertain whether they want to proceed. The local authority does not know whether they are able to carry the responsibility, or if the House of Delegates is going to build those houses in that area. They have a waiting list of 300 people. It is therefore a fallacy in the hon the Minister’s report to say that the responsibility lies with the local authorities. He expects hon members of Parliament to put pressure on local authorities.

There is another issue with regard to Cool Air that I want to discuss. For eight years now there have been religious sites waiting to be allocated. I, as the member for that area, have written four letters to the regional directors, asking to allocate these religious sites to the people, but nothing has been done about it. I would like to know why. They say the Development and Services Board has been corresponding with the Administration: House of Delegates and its predecessors for some six years concerning the release of these sites. It is believed from relevant information received that the commercial property is to be leased by that Administration for development by the private sector. However, no decision has yet been made on the religious sites. I would like the hon the Minister to answer to that charge. It also proves gross negligence on the part of the Ministry.

What happened here? This report is not a report. The hon the Minister is just running in circles by not giving definite figures. This report does not tell us what the housing backlog was in January 1985 and what it is today. Nobody knows. Nowhere does this report reflect the actual backlog of waiting lists for houses within the Indian community. We read in the Press about waiting lists of 48 000, 50 000, 70 000. However, nothing is mentioned in this report. It is important to know exactly what the backlog was in January 1985 and what it is today.

It is quite obvious that 25 000 to 30 000 houses are built on TV. That is where it happens—not on the land. There are houses being built in newspaper articles but nothing that the people can occupy. I think that is why those figures are not being given to us so that we are unable to assess for ourselves the authenticity of the media reports and the TV reports. Anybody can build houses on TV. I could sell 100 000 houses in this way over a period of one year. The TV screen is only 66 centimetres wide. There is hardly room for one brick.

What perturbs me most is the following matter: In Mountain Rise there were three areas to be developed by the Department of Housing. When the matter was brought to my attention, seeing that I am the MP for the area …[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to an article that appeared in the Sunday Times of 29 May 1988. The heading is: “Firm acts on HoD praise ads.” During recent times it has been absolutely shocking and disgusting to see such large advertisements placed in the weekly newspapers, praising the House of Delegates. The advertisement referred to carries the picture of the hon the Minister of Housing himself.

I would like to know what the need for this is. Do we have to advertise our deeds or should we leave it to the public to judge our deeds? This puts the entire House to shame. It has never happened before. I have never seen the House of Assembly trying to promote what they have done for the community.

Nor the House of Representatives!

We are bound to serve our community and the taxpayers’ money should not be utilised in this way. I find it rather disgusting and I would like the hon the Minister of Housing to address the House on this issue. When this article appeared on 29 May he had absolutely no comment to make. I would like to know if the enormous amount of money that has been spent on these advertisements come from the Housing Fund or whether it was taken by threat and demand from the companies that were responsible for the construction. If that is the case, it is a default of the highest order on the part of the hon the Minister of Housing. [Interjections.] It is disgusting to promote the work of the Ministry in this way. It does not only bring the Ministry to shame but the entire House and every hon member here as well. I think the hon the Minister has to explain how this came about. If it was a kind gesture on the part of the construction company, the money could have been used for many other social purposes.

I want to refer to page 33 of the hon the Minister’s Budget speech. He refers to community facilities in Chatsworth. I would have expected a much more detailed report on community facilities to have been embodied in this speech.

Community halls are a dire need in vast areas such as Chatsworth, Merebank and Phoenix. Here people could spend their leisure hours and conduct their social and other activities. I represent the area of Havenside which was established 25 years ago. A site has been earmarked and set aside for a community hall but as yet nothing has been done. I think the hon the Minister of Housing ought to know about this. I know he will tell me that it is the responsibility of the local municipality but the funds have to be appropriated by the House of Delegates. I think these are important issues that have to be addressed.

At the time when the local authorities were responsible we were criticising them from this side. Today when it is our responsibility to provide, we have to close our eyes and not even talk about it. I would have expected that such programmes would be given priority. Then a stadium was built which was not even necessary because we have sports fields. We have several in the community centres. We did not want the community hall in Arena Park at this stage. The Odeon Cinema was bought for a specific purpose, such as cultural activities, and it could have been utilised for any other function. There was no need for the Arena Park Hall. This is a shame and it is shocking when we claim that we are representing our communities and the very communities that we represent are lacking these important facilities.

I now come to the other question that I want to highlight here, ie the shopping complexes that are mentioned on page 59, which are owned by the House of Delegates. It cannot be denied by the hon the Minister that when he was a member of the SAIC he himself, in no uncertain terms, had made representations to have those shops sold to the shopkeepers. An exercise was carried out six years ago. The department was asked to investigate the possibilities and to find the necessary means of disposing of them to certain traders. I just want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the fact that three years ago when the House of Delegates took over this management there was an in loco inspection of the Mobeni Heights Shopping Centre and I was part of that inspection. The officials of the department—they were senior officials—as well as the hon the Minister at that time were at the Shopping Centre together with technical planners. They informed us that the planning had reached a very advanced stage—this was three years ago—and that it was just a minor issue that had to be resolved. I think it was something to do with the supply of water and a sink to each shop, or something of that nature. What has gone wrong? In the ensuing three years, under the Administration: House of Delegates, nothing has been done. I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to expedite this matter and to give the shop owners the opportunity to buy these shops outright.

I now want to go on to Unit 3 Shopping Complex. It is most disgusting, when we have to control and manage our own affairs, to find areas in our own communities that could have been updated and brought to the level at which they should be. When we compare these to other complexes in the White areas it makes us wonder whether we are in fact serving our communities. It is shocking. The parking lot in that area is deplorable. With the number of people who are trading outside the shopping complex at the moment that place has now become a dirty, filthy area. I was there on Monday and it was shocking to see all the rubbish thrown onto the veranda and into the parking area. I think this area needs to be inspected on a Monday morning after the weekend traders have completed their business.

I hope the hon the Minister will take cognisance of some of the questions and the calls that we make in this House and that he will address them because these are the things we want to satisfy the communities with. These are the things they want us to ask on their behalf in this House.

Mr Chairman, this is an important Vote before us and I am a little surprised and concerned that when this House is discussing such an important Vote we have so few members in the House. I am sorry that more hon members have not availed themselves of the opportunity of listening to this important debate that is going on at the present time.

The hon member for Camperdown criticised the hon the Minister of Housing because he felt that in a debate such as this, the hon the Minister should have taken the House into his confidence and should have indicated to this House what number of housing units the Indian community was short of. For the benefit of the hon member for Camperdown might I just indicate to him that I agree that the hon the Minister ought to have provided this figure, not only because it would have afforded some perspective, as regards a Vote such as his, with regard to the kind of problems that the hon the Minister faces, but also because it would give this House an indication of the importance of this Vote that is before this House. I want to say to the hon member for Camperdown that as at 17 March 1988 there was a shortage of 48 747 units and, of course, these statistics were only available as at 30 June 1987. I say this on behalf of the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

You ought to be the Minister.

The hon member for Havenside—quite correctly, I believe—criticised the hon the Minister for setting what I would call an unwholesome precedent in getting various building contractors who are involved in housing and other building contracts for the House of Delegates, to in fact sponsor large advertisements in several newspapers praising the Administration of the House of Delegates. As I said, this is an unwholesome precedent. It is not good. I believe it reflects very badly upon the hon the Minister of Housing. More than that, what concerns me is that the very people who are canvassed for their support …

Order! There are too few members in the House and the hon members that are here are all engaged in side discussions. Please give the hon member a hearing. The hon member for Springfield may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for drawing the attention of this House to the fact that they should listen to my speech!

I was merely making the point that this is an unwholesome practice that the hon the Minister of Housing has now indulged in, in that contractors who are involved with the Administration of this House are called upon to sponsor advertisements singing the praises not only of the Ministers’ Council of this House but also and in particular the hon the Chairman of this Ministers’ Council and Minister of Housing. Not only it is unwholesome; I understand from a report I read last weekend that some of these people are now saying that had they realised the concern that such action would have caused in the community, they would not have indulged in or been a party to this. I trust that the hon the Minister will in fact now desist from doing such silly things.

I have been looking at the speech that the hon the Minister delivered yesterday and I must apologise to the hon the Minister for not having listened to him in this House. However, since I had a copy which ran for something like 70-odd pages I thought it better that I should read it at my leisure. I would have thought that the hon the Minister would also merely have tabled such a speech, since I believe that hon members could have utilised their time better.

What concerns me, however, is that the impression gained by reading that speech is that it was the hon the Minister who had been able to do such wonderful things. I have been looking at the amount of funds allocated to the Department of Housing of this Administration since 1986. This is something that the hon the Minister also referred to. What is important, as I have said, is to relate this to a background of what is being done for housing in this country generally by the Government of this country. I quite readily concede that the hon the Minister is a part of that Government.

However, I should like to tell this House that if one compares this Vote to the Vote of the hon the Minister’s colleague in the House of Representatives one will find that the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives has been able to persuade his colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, to allocate to him an amount far in excess of what he would have been entitled to in terms of the 4:2:1 formula. He has certainly been able to get more funds for his department. In fact, he has been able to obtain more than double the amount the hon the Minister has been able to obtain for this Administration. Thus, for example, in the year 1986-87 the House of Representatives were able to obtain something of the order of R315 million for housing; in 1987-88, R393 million; and for the present budget an amount of R429 408 000.

Be that as it may, what also concerns me is that when I look at the hon the Minister’s report I find that an amount of R242 million is now being set aside for the provision of housing. This amount of money has, of course, been set aside for utilisation by the Housing Board. As all hon members know, the Housing Boards’ funds are comprised not only of the allocations we make from this Budget, but also of previous budgets and of what remained in the Department of Community Development.

And the returns.

And the returns; quite right. It should obviously be a great cause for concern to us that such a high amount of returns are coming from local authorities, and I think the hon the Minister quite correctly alluded to that point. Moreover, I must support what the hon the Minister said in that regard.

However, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give me a reply to a question I have raised several times, but in particular on 14 April 1988 when I asked that hon Minister whether the matter of the assets of the Housing Development Fund had been finalised; and if not, why not, and when was it anticipated this matter would be finalised. Furthermore, I asked him if the matter had, in fact, been finalised, on what date, and what the value of the assets of this fund was and in respect of what date the information was furnished.

I went further and asked the hon the Minister whether the assets in this fund were derived from (a) the Community Development Fund and (b) other sources, and if so (1) from what other sources, and (2) what amount was derived from the Community Development Fund and what percentage of the latter fund this amount represented? As at that date the hon the Minister replied that the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs was still busy finalising this matter and that the Administration: House of Delegates was exerting all possible pressure to finalise this matter.

Two further questions arise from this reply. The first question, of course, is: Are the figures available for the information of hon members of this House …

Not yet.

… and secondly, if such figures are not available, then I should like to ask the hon the Minister how he has been able to compute, for the benefit of this House, figures relating to what the Housing Development Board stands at at the present time. On page 31 of his report the hon the Minister indicates that for the year 1988-89 the Housing Development Board has assets valued at R242 061 000, and I should like some elucidation on that point from the hon the Minister.

I was also a little surprised that the hon the Minister did not take the trouble to raise an issue which is causing concern to most members of not only the Indian community but certainly to the larger South African community as well. And that concern relates to the tremendous increases in building costs that are taking place from year to year. We all know that inflation has a part to play in this but I would say that something else is wrong in the building industry in view of the tremendous increases in building costs that have been recorded.

I would merely like to say that I would have thought that the hon the Minister would have raised this issue. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the hon the Minister to take up this matter in the councils in which he sits and to ask in particular of the hon the Minister of Finance whether the increases that are now being registered in building costs are in fact justified and whether or not he would see his way clear to appoint some kind of investigation to go into this matter as well.

I think it was the hon member for Stanger who raised the issue of the Odeon Cinema. Now I do not want to pre-empt the functioning of the select committee which was appointed by this House this morning, save to ask of the hon the Minister whether his department has in fact incurred any costs in regard to the maintenance of the Odeon Cinema and in regard to the repairs to that cinema. I would like to know from the hon the Minister what these costs are to date and what the motivations for these costs have been, taking into account the fact that an amount of R1,1 million was paid for that project.

I now wish to raise an issue with the hon the Minister which I have been raising consistently in this House and which I do again because it is a topical matter. It concerns my constituency, where the Durban City Council, in line with Government policy, is offering premises for sale and for ownership to certain tenants who have occupied those premises for a number of years. Again I would like to remind the hon the Minister that these homes were built more than 40 years ago and were in fact created firstly as a sub-economic housing scheme for use by the employees of the Durban City Council and later by family members of such employees. Over the years these employees have paid rentals for these homes which at time were nominal. I would say that those rentals are market-related. Looking at the amount of rentals having been paid over a number of years one can safely say that the capital that was involved in the creation of those homes has been more than repaid.

The question that arises in my mind, when all this is done, is why these homes which have been occupied by people for more than 40 years should be sold to them at not only market-related prices, but certainly at more than double the price that they were offered to tenants living in that very same scheme just four years ago. The Durban City Council has given as its reason the fact that repairs had to be made on account of borer and beetle infestation. The hon the Minister in his speech also indicated to this House that a certain sum of money was provided by this Administration for such work.

That land belongs to the Durban City Council.

The hon the Minister …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely …

Order! Unfortunately I can only go by the times that I have in front of me. The problem is that Mr Speaker gave a ruling yesterday which has been read out to the House. That hon member may speak again if some time is provided for him. He may be given another opportunity.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Housing, having visited Pietermaritzburg at the request of my colleague the hon member for Allandale and myself, spoke to the ratepayers of the area and assured them that he was looking into the problem of housing in the area and that he would give it priority status. This has given the people in the area confidence in the hon the Minister and ourselves, but if it is not implemented it will lead to chaos.

The hon the Minister also met the local authority in Pietermaritzburg and asked them to provide water and electricity in the areas set aside for Indian housing for the building of 3 000 homes. However, up till today I do not believe that any service has been rendered or any development undertaken in that area. Since the hon the Minister has promised low-cost housing for people in that area, I hope that he will do something so that we can once again face the people. This good news was also conveyed to the people of Pietermaritzburg. Many of them have been on the waiting list for a long period. I hope the hon the Minister’s department is making progress in this regard.

Housing is a problem all over the world and it is an urgent matter which is receiving the attention of the authorities concerned. The backlog of housing in Pietermaritzburg has reached a crisis and many families are living in garages and municipal one-bedroomed houses are occupied by families of eight or more. This is not healthy and hygienic and retards the progress of the family.

Not a single house has been built in Pietermaritzburg to ease the situation since the inception of the House of Delegates. The only houses built in the area were for flood victims. These are now occupied and we are grateful to the hon the Minister for this.

The houses built prior to our coming to Parliament are of a very low standard. They are cold in winter, very warm in summer, there are no gutters and when it rains, if one is at the front door knocking for someone to open, one is sure to get wet. There are also houses where handicapped people are staying, where the toilet facilities are outside. These people have a rough time to make use of these facilities in inclement weather. The plaster of pelmets holding up curtains in these houses have also come off. Some of the houses have cracks wide enough to put a matchbox through. This is because of poor workmanship and weak foundations. The owners and tenants of these homes have complained to the Department of Housing and the municipality, but their complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

In 1981, when I was on the Indian local affairs committee, I also took the matter of these people to the council, but I was told: “They pay peanuts for the place. What do they expect?” I do not want to place the blame for these houses on the present hon Minister of Housing, but I hope that he will ask the local authorities to attend to this matter which has been left unattended for eight years.

Might I also mention that a school that has been abandoned, in the place of which a new school has been built, is causing a problem in the area. It has now become a shelter for vagrants, dagga smokers and drunkards. They cause such a disturbance that neighbours in the vicinity have complained to the local police. These are matters which I wish the hon the Minister of Housing to attend to. However, I also want to thank the hon the Minister for having come to Pietermaritzburg and assuring the people that a number of houses will be built towards the end of this year. They are looking forward to it. I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for having made this promise to the people of Pietermaritzburg in my constituency.

Mr Chairman, housing is the subject which is closest to the heart of most people, especially people who represent the public and especially those who represent communities of the lower income group. Therefore, it touches most of us when we see the delays, the red tape and all that goes with the proclamation of townships and the development thereof.

With the limited time I have at my disposal, I would like to raise a few matters that inhibit housing development and also the reasons why costs escalate, due to these delays. This has been discussed for many years now at seminars and on various platforms; it is said that the delay must be shortened. Does it really happen, though? I think a thorough investigation into this will reveal that with this red tape—whether it is on the side of the provincial administration, town planners or regional bodies—everybody wants to stick to their guns. Never mind deregulation—they are not interested in that. They only go by the book.

I have one example, and there are many others, of a township in Marburg which was acquired by the Community Development Board 11 years ago. It was eventually proclaimed in 1987. As the hon the Minister mentioned yesterday, this was Extension 14. After the proclamation of the township, people believed they could now take transfer. However, when transfers are lodged one finds this clause that says a certain property must be transferred to the State prior to any other transfers being affected. Surely when one Government department deals with another Government department—in this case, the Natal Provincial Administration—it should realise that this is a departmental transfer. It should see to it that nothing goes wrong. This clause should never have been inserted in the preliminary conditions of establishment.

I can tell hon members that there are many others. We have to look into those conditions and see to it that they do not creep in. This has caused loans to be cancelled and various other hardships. I want it to be recorded that the cooperation that I have received from officials of the Housing Board, as well as the officials of the Department of Housing: House of Delegates has been absolutely fantastic. They recognise that error—or whatever one may call it—and they also realise that that should not have been there. From Durban to Cape Town and back again, every telephone call was well-received and the matter was attended to.

One can say good things about people when they are not there to defend themselves, because they do not have to be there to defend themselves. However, when one wants to say bad things about them, they should at least be there to defend themselves.

I do not want to criticise the funds in the Budget of the House of Delegates, but I want to make mention of it, so that it does not occur again. Last year we had a carry-over of a large sum of money. I think it was approximately R28 million. That kind of carry-over inhibits our going to the Treasury to ask for more money. The hon the Chairman sits on that committee and he will agree with me that in the final analysis, if one goes to the Treasury for extra funds, they first look at one’s balance. If one’s balance is high, they will tell one to go and use that money first. We therefore have to find ways of using this money. I am not saying that we have too much money, but we got caught out in the exercise. At the end of the day we found that we had so much money left over.

This is the point that I want to bring to the notice of the Administration: If we continue in that fashion, we are going to be short of money. The House of Representatives always use up their money and then they ask for more! It is not a criticism, but I think this is something we should look at.

Let us look at page 21 of the Vincent Leggo Report. I am sure all hon members of the House of Delegates have this report. I want to look at Table 2H on page 21, which shows the needs in various areas. In the South Coast regions of Port Shepstone and Marburg, the existing group area is 316 hectares. When one turns to page 27 of the report one sees that the Port Shepstone-Marburg area requires 3 655 units and the shortfall is 2 769 units. This report, which is generally known as the Vincent Leggo report, was published in 1986. Since that time the need has increased at least twofold because Marburg is a growth point and there is tremendous pressure for housing in that area.

It is ironic that when the Marburg Town Board identifies land the White local authority of Port Shepstone immediately steps in and objects. I am sure that the powers that be know—they will also read it in this report—that there is a tremendous need for housing in Marburg. A survey shows that the Port Shepstone Council has excess land which is not taken up. Nobody knows why on earth they should object to this. Yet the Administration and the Executive Committee set up a demarcation board to decide whether Marburg or Port Shepstone should get the land. This exercise is a waste of time. By the time it is completed the shortage will have increased even more and the costs will keep escalating.

The hon the State President said that every man should be given a home so that he could become responsible, but this statement would seem to have fallen on deaf ears. To make a statement is one thing but to carry it out is something else. One can continue making statements but at the end of the day one will find that the available money falls far short of the increasing needs and demands.

I come from a constituency which has 16 local authorities, including a city and a number of towns. One of the places that we have is Richmond. In the past Ministers and Deputy Ministers visited the place, left again—and everything was quiet. When we raised some questions later the department sent out an official.

I want to say here that credit must be given where it is due. I feel that the same applies to criticism. The Richmond local authority has many hectares of land and it belongs to the ratepayers, whether they are Indian, Coloured or White. It is an asset of the ratepayers and it is held in trust by that local authority.

What do they say? The sad thing is that the official who visited them agreed with them. The town clerk is an ex-Rhodesian and he dictates what should happen. We are looking at about six or seven plots which are privately owned. The rates are paid and the land is preserved for perhaps a younger son or a brother in the family. The town clerk says that that land must first be used before we can discuss any other land. What is upsetting is that the officials agreed and they did so in my presence.

I told them that this was a free enterprise society. If somebody bought land for his younger son why should he now give it to the Government? What is this department for? Is it not for housing? Should we not buy and expropriate land? It is no good only boasting on TV and the radio—we should get down to the job. Those kind of local authorities must be dealt with.

I agree with the hon the Minister of Housing where he said in his report that there were local authorities who did not want to co-operate. I know how many problems I myself have with the local authorities. Richmond is just one of them. The matter should be investigated. The people of Richmond will be up in arms if this exercise is continued.

When the Department of Community Development was in charge of housing, the situation was bad. Yet they at least did things from Pretoria and the local authorities used to toe the line. When they did not, the department took over and did its own thing. I think that is the kind of power we need. If they will not agree to do it, let us get down to it and do it otherwise we are going to carry on dragging our feet. We should have expropriation powers and powers to establish townships and we must do that.

The other area is Ixopo. This is a very sad state of affairs. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was chairman of the SAIC they paid a visit to that place and a farm known as McKenzie’s Farm was identified at that time. I do not know how many years ago that was, but it is at least a dozen or more. The land was identified and all the arrangements were made, but until today nothing has happened. People are living in old buses and shacks and nobody cares. That committee is not a local authority and it does not have many powers. What is happening is that everyone is crying out and we are supposed to be doing something. I have received a letter from the hon the Minister of Housing and I thank him for that, but I do not know what the latest developments since then are. However, I think it is now long past the time that we should do something about that area.

In conclusion I should like to bring to the notice of this House that the hearing in Marburg will take place and we want to make sure that the Port Shepstone Burough Council does not get away with this. The land is needed for Indian housing—the Vincent Leggo report is very clear on this—and the Port Shepstone Council has got excess plots that are not being used, so why on earth are they objecting? I am going to face them at that hearing and the tale is going to be told.

Mr Chairman, I share the concern of the hon member for Southern Natal with regard to the housing delays in Richmond. I went there as well and tried to see to it that the logjam there was removed. By and large some of the things he has to say about the local authority are true, but I want to assure the hon member that I have the latest report of early June and I believe that at long last the question of the land problem in Richmond will be resolved. Therefore, during the course of next week I should like to meet with the hon member to share this report with him and then we can see where we can go from there.

Allow me a little time to discuss some parochial problems that I have in my constituency. Firstly, I want to start with Ladysmith. Last June the Housing Board approved 60 sub-economic houses. One year has passed, but this scheme has not yet got off the ground. I have been told recently that tenders are going to be called for this scheme and 50 starter homes. That is not so. The designing of these houses has not yet got off the ground. My information is that the 50 starter homes are going to the local affairs committee tomorrow with the preliminary documentation. Therefore, if the information from Ladysmith is that tenders are going to be called for these two schemes, I want to say it is not so. I have established that it is definitely not so. I raise this matter in relation to what the hon Minister said on page 11 of his speech. It is headed, “Announcement”:

I want respectfully to place on record that in September last year I asked that this policy be implemented in Ladysmith. To my surprise and disappointment this was not done.

I cannot stop emphasising and re-emphasising the problem of housing shortages in Ladysmith which was aggravated by the recent floods. We have the money. Serviced land is available; money is lying in serviced land; and yet we are not implementing this policy in order to step in where local authorities are reluctant. This is one example where we can implement this policy and obtain housing for our people. I shall leave it at that.

In Bergville I have had a difficulty where the Group Areas Act has inhibited the obtaining of land. I highlighted this when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was here the other day. I do hope that something will be expedited and that we get this land so that much-needed housing can be built there.

In Greytown I inherited this from my predecessor on the SAIC. Although it was his hometown he did absolutely nothing as regards forward planning to identify land. I have a problem there in that I am awaiting group areas proclamation of land in Weenen as well. In Howick West I am grateful that at long last, after a long struggle, we now have 155 houses: this is something that has got off the ground. We are waiting for another 38 to be added, but I find that there is some land missing. We cannot find 38 lots; only 31. Be that as it may, however, the housing has got off the ground.

However, the one serious concern that remains in Howick is this. This is something I cannot understand. I have looked at my hon colleague’s report for some mention of school halls but I do not see any programme here at all. Might we have missed it? I look forward anxiously to seeing whether school halls will be mentioned in forward planning.

The Department of Housing does not decide that.

The housing department does, however, make provision for this and I would have liked to see something in this regard.

You cannot criticise the Department of Housing for that; it falls under the Department of Education.

Nevertheless I should like to see some liaison between those departments, because this is one community need that should be highlighted.

I therefore just wish to place on record—I cannot help doing this—that I am disappointed at having been told previously that this service would go on contract last July—that is 1987. It was programmed for July 1987, and I must hasten to add that this community has no hall in that area; there is no civic hall. I will not agitate for a school hall in Ladysmith where there are two halls available for the community, but let us be fair to this community in Howick. I want to place this on record and make the appeal that this service gets off the ground with the joint efforts of my hon colleagues the Ministers for Education and for Housing.

In the other debate yesterday I highlighted the delay in the proclamation of the land in Lidgetton. I understand that it is going to be advertised soon, and I am grateful for that. There is also some delay in Estcourt as regards the identification of land, but the land is to be advertised soon and that will be getting off the ground. Thus it is to be hoped that some progress will be made in Estcourt this year.

I now wish to turn to other matters. One area that is causing me concern is the low standards that prevail in housing throughout the country. I read a report recently by the South African Bureau of Standards. They have established a unit that goes around the country investigating the standard of housing. I was astonished to learn that some of these houses are really hazardous. I do not say that our administration is responsible for them, but there are houses being built today that are health and safety hazards.

I want to link this with some houses that were built in Ladysmith recently. We have these Corobrik “maxibricks”. When these bricks are used as a single-skin wall they do not prevent the elements from percolating through the bricks and causing dampness. I saw a house in the 115 scheme in Ladysmith and I have asked that this be investigated. When we had the rainy season earlier this year the water percolated through the bricks and actually affected the furniture in the house. This has not yet been remedied. I understand that this problem also reared its head in Newcastle and that they have had to put a coat of a sealing liquid over the bricks in order to prevent this.

What I am trying to convey in this regard, is that we must see to it that we do not lower our standards to the extent where we will have the South African Bureau of Standards looking at our houses and criticising us for this. This is not destructive criticism; it is an exchange of concern that we must not disregard.

The hon member for Stanger mentioned self-help housing. I agree with him that that is one area that has successfully provided housing for us in Phoenix. Unfortunately, however, when I tried to introduce this in Estcourt and Ladysmith, the chairman of one of the local affairs committees ill-advisedly actually expunged this item from the agenda. He said that this important aspect of housing had to be expunged from the agenda. It is so unfortunate that I cannot take this further.

Perhaps he had already qualified for a pension!

Probably. [Interjections.] The hon member for Stanger also spoke about allocating land to people for self-built housing. This must be looked into and the circumstances of the people must be looked at carefully because in Estcourt we have 92 lots allocated to people and half of these people cannot afford to build on these lots because they were allocated land when they are in the R450 to R500 income category. They find it impossible to live where they are, to pay their rent, to keep their children in school and to provide for their daily needs and then also to pay for the land and obtain a loan. The idea, therefore, is that it is not possible to give all the categories of people serviced land. We must be able to adapt to the needs of the people.

The hon member for Stanger also spoke about the Durban Housing Action Committee and the Cato Manor Residents’ Association. I think that when agitation against housing is propagated by these people who are leftists in their political approach, we should not discount them completely. I believe that we should open lines of communication. Even if there is 80% political agitation, one might find that there is 20% of their concern which we should share with them and which we should resolve. I therefore agree with the hon member for Stanger that we must be able to talk to these people because, after all, they are also serving the people whom we are here to serve.

I had an interesting discussion in Pietermaritzburg when the houses were damaged during the floods. The top-ranking Natal Indian Congress members were there at the hall where we had temporarily housed these people. We discussed the problem and our mutual concern for these people who were in the hall and I was able to defuse a potentially explosive situation which would have led to unnecessary demonstrations. Therefore, by doing this, I honestly and truly believe that we will be able to minimise the criticism that is being levelled at us.

In regard to housing, I just want to leave hon members with one idea, and that is that I believe that we should establish a committee across the party-political lines here in this House, a committee that can help us collectively to put our heads together to work out a strategy and norms for housing so that we do not come here at the end of our term of office and highlight some of these problems which we could resolve amicably at this meeting.

The hon member for Springfield mentioned high costs and I would like to say to him that I share this concern with him. Something is wrong in the building industry where these costs are rising astronomically. There is definitely something wrong and one cannot just say that it is inflation. Everybody pins their high costs on inflation. Annually the industries, brick manufacturers and plumbing material manufacturers will come and talk about escalating costs. However, have we ever looked at the actual profit margins of these firms? Have we ever ascertained what they actually charge for their materials? I believe that particularly in the building industry in the material supply area there are far too many monopolies. These cartels are surely colluding with one another, thereby creating artificially high prices. I believe that this area should be looked at.

Yes, that is right.

Next I would like to introduce something which might be contentious and not acceptable to a lot of people. It is human to gamble and to take risks. South Africans are no exception in this. If we look at the amount of money involved in horse-racing and gambling in casinos etc, one wonders whether this gambling instinct cannot be put to better use.

We often hear that there is not enough money to build houses. This is always the cry. There is never enough. I say that if we direct this gambling instinct towards a national lottery …

We have no casinos inside South Africa.

Yes, but the money from South Africa goes to these casinos. One cannot deny this. Anyone who goes to these casinos will be surprised to see those who are there. [Interjections.]

You are so right.

It will amaze hon members of this House if they go across to see who is there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my time is being lost. [Interjections] I maintain that if we direct this gambling instinct towards a national lottery and use the proceeds thereof for housing and for hospitals, we would be killing two birds with one stone. [Interjections.] We would allow those hon colleagues in this House who have that instinct to go and gamble.

How about own affairs casinos? [Interjections.]

Talking about own affairs, I would like to suggest that we apply to the Treasury for an own affairs national lottery. [Interjections.] Yes, we pass our own Bill here and we direct all the money that is going to the casinos towards this iottery, whereafter we share the profits of the lottery with all the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

We will make you a director. [Interjections.]

Firstly, it will not be possible to keep people from gambling. Like the oldest profession, which has been with us for all these centuries, this gambling will remain with us. However, at least this would be legalised and as such there would be much better control than with illegal gambling. Secondly, public funds could be used for housing for the public and as such the burden upon the State would be lessened and so many more houses could be built at a much faster rate. [Interjections.]

Another point I would like to raise is the strange anomaly that we have as far as housing is concerned. On the one hand we have an over-supply of housing for the White group to such an extent that there are approximately 6 000 houses standing empty. On the other hand our own people are crying out for houses. I can cite the typical example of the SATS houses. I have said over and over again that these SATS houses would have relieved the problems caused by the floods. I have been given many reasons why these houses could not be used by us.

However, I reject all of them, because these houses were lying there at a time when we needed them. We could have been given a little goodwill. The hon the Minister of Transport Services agreed to my request that these houses be used, and so did the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. All that was needed was that somebody somewhere had to get off their behind and get things going and we would have had those houses. I did not want to worry them permanently. It was a temporary measure. The houses are still there. They are being vandalised. One house was set on fire last week. Yet the 60 houses that were approved last year have not got off the ground.

These are the things that worry us. These are the totally unnecessary delays. I am told that those houses will cost R35 000 to repair. That is absolute nonsense. The people who begged for these houses said that they would spend their own money. I therefore ask: Please, a little bit of teamwork would probably help us.

I believe—and I have said this before—that it would be a good policy if we had a national Minister of Housing, looking at housing for all the population groups. We might have some type of national control now, but I think that this does not deter local authorities from keeping houses that are vacant. We have, for example, houses in Newcastle which belong to Escom and we have houses in Colenso which are not needed for the White group. If we had a national Housing Minister, he could co-ordinate the needs of all the communities and make use of houses where there is an over-supply and direct them to where there is an under-supply. This seems to me to make plain economic sense and one way that we can resolve some of the housing problems.

As far as housing is concerned, I would like to put on my other cap, namely that of Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and give some ideas from an environment-related perspective. The most important aspect in the planning of housing in my opinion is the provision of open spaces. Today we live in concrete jungles. If we look around us, we see buildings, we have noise, pollution, exhaust gases, etc. When one goes home to some of the suburbs in which we live, there is nothing of nature around us which we could share with our families. To have a piece of nature around is to have peace and harmony and from that one draws courage to face the next day. Although sound town planning requires open spaces, not enough attention is given to this.

Open spaces have a two-fold purpose. It provides opportunities for relaxation and it also has an aesthetic value, the psychological influence of which cannot be underestimated. It is not sufficient only to build houses and to decide later that there is not enough ground for open spaces. Provision will have to be made, as is presently being done, but more attention must be given to this. In the process planners can look at which natural properties can be utilised in the building complex and houses can be planned in harmony with whatever natural properties, like trees or rivulets, can be retained. In this way nature can be brought a little closer to housing development. To reinforce this concept, may I remind hon members that last year’s theme for national environment week was rivers and fountains. The planner can go a bit further and possibly lay out the stormwater drains in such a way that it flows into a natural low-lying area to form a dam.

Regarding problems experienced with local authorities, the hon the Minister said yesterday in his speech that I would touch on this. I do not know whether the time available to me will allow me to make the contribution that I would like to make. However, I will go as far as I can. In terms of legislation, local authorities should play an active role in the process of providing housing within their areas of jurisdiction. The majority do that. Housing is actively fraught with pitfalls and problems because of its complexity as a process and because of the motion effects which it generates. To be successful in the provision of housing, an integrated-plan approach must be initiated and maintained.

This is where one of the very first pitfalls lies. Once the delivery has ground to a halt, it takes time and effort to get it going again. Meanwhile a shortfall looms ahead. Housing must be tackled as one of the essentials. Coupled to urbanisation, it must be proceeded with.

Pietermaritzburg is a typical example where there is no continuity in housing. All of a sudden land was not available, and we had this lag of six to seven years. To now pick up the cudgels and put housing on-stream again, is such a long-winded process. We have hon members from the Pietermaritzburg area continuously complaining about housing.

The planned approach relies on a number of important factors. Three of these are to have a sound knowledge of the nature and scope of the housing need, the availability of land and the means and desire to meet the demand to alleviate the shortage. Knowledge of the nature and scope of the housing need is a result of investigation, projection and research. The results are used to formulate and initiate housing programmes. Apart from that, the needs should be submitted to the Housing Data Bank to be reflected on the national waiting list.

Unfortunately there are local authorities who do not co-operate fully in the updating of waiting lists. The waiting list is an essential requisite in the financing of housing projects. I make an appeal that due attention be given thereto. It takes up to five years to meet all the requirements before virgin land can be made available as identifiable lots on which houses can be built. The hon member for Southern Natal also said this. This long delay after the identification of land and the actual provision of housing is, to my mind, the crux of the whole problem. I think this is one area where intense studies should be undertaken to see whether this period can be reduced.

There are several procedures to deal with and even the development time is time-consuming, especially because it involves several contractors whose work must be co-ordinated. It is important that the Department of Housing is approached well before the time, and that provisional allocations of funds are made. Application for the funding must then be sent in. It happens far too often that envisaged housing projects grind to a halt during the provisional stage, and then much later urgent problems emerge. Needless to say, this causes embarrassment for the local authorities and the administration.

In this regard, I honestly want to appeal to the hon the Minister … if the hon the Minister is listening. [Interjections.]

He will read it in Hansard tomorrow.

No, he may not have time. I want the hon the Minister to listen.

One does not get a Deputy Minister asking questions of his Minister.

No, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister, whether I am a Deputy Minister or not. We have to provide more houses than municipalities are providing.

One does not get a Deputy Minister who asks his Minister a question in public. I have to tell the hon the Deputy Minister this.

I do not want to cross swords with the hon the Minister.

Then do not embarrass your Minister!

I said I did not want to cross swords. What I am saying now could have been discussed if the machinery had been there during the past year. I just want to leave that on the table. If the necessary machinery had been available during the last year, this could have been discussed. I would not have been doing it here. Let us therefore not cross swords here. It is not going to get us anywhere. I am talking about the general needs of the community at large. I am telling hon members how I think we should go about it in the years to come.

It is hardly possible successfully to undertake housing activities without the desire and intention to succeed. This is important. Enthusiasm and perseverance are required. Right up to the stage where the home-owner takes up occupation, and even after that, the desire and intent to provide desperately needed housing does not allow discrimination against the people in the lower income categories, by ignoring them when determining the needs and providing only for the well-to-do. Such cases are on record. I can assure hon members that every endeavour will be made to prevent families in the lower income categories being left out in the cold. It will be seen to.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, I will have to overlap a little as I spoke just before the suspension of business at lunch-time. The desire and the attempt to provide desperately needed housing does not allow discrimination against the people in the lower-income categories by ignoring them when determining the needs and provide for the well-to-do. There are such cases on record and I want to assure the House that every endeavour will be made to assure that the families in the lower-income categories will not be left out in the cold. It will be seen to that the lower-income categories will benefit the most from state-assisted housing.

There is a natural resistance to having small, assisted housing in the vicinity of the mansions of the affluent members of the community. This is an unfortunate aspect of the provision of housing in our community where people who have better homes are reluctant to have low-cost housing in their neighbourhood. I say “unfortunate” because I deem people to be people. It is purely by accident that some people are affluent while others are in the low-income category. A person who is affluent today can become part of the low-income group in many ways. There are also affluent people with low-income relatives. To me people are people and one should be discouraged from discriminating.

The way in which this resistance must be overcome is by sound planning methods and even more by persuasion. Should a local authority’s reluctance to provide housing be seated in an expectation of a high administrative burden because of arrears and the difficulties in coping with the cost of services, it should be made to overcome such problems instead of labelling them as problems which must be solved by the House of Delegates.

One of the problem areas seems to be the cost related to services. These may be so high that they cannot be afforded by the majority of families in the lower-income categories. Yet the fees in this regard are, with few exceptions, added to the rentals and monthly payments. Every now and again rent increases are under fire, whilst in reality very few actual rent increases occur.

One of the factors which contributes to higher service costs and escalating prices of undeveloped land is the large tracts of privately owned land lying idle in a number of towns. The assistance of local authorities is needed to overcome this phenomenon by pressurising owners of vacant land to either develop it or sell it for development. The problem is that there is no legal recourse to compel the owners of these vast tracts of land. I think one should find legal ways of doubling the rates on land that has been lying vacant for more than, say, five years.

One could, for example, have two adjacent plots. The one has improvements on it but the owner of the plot adjacent to it wants to keep it for investment purposes only, without developing this land. I believe that one method—I do not say that this is the only method—could be that an additional rate levy should be added to the plot that is undeveloped.

This should help the ratepayer to pay less. [Interjections.] However, our problem is the land barons.

It is the stupid Group Areas Act.

The Group Areas Act is one of the factors, but even if you open the group areas the view I am expressing here is that there is expensive servicing which is available to these people and they adopt a dog in the manger attitude. That is the type of person one has to deal with. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the new revived rental formula has been a cause of some concern and the subsequent developments in the different areas must most certainly cause hon members of this House to examine the developments with a view to seeing how best it could once again be adapted in a more realistic manner so that it will meet with satisfaction from reasonable people.

I have before me details of the formula and I want to refer to a particular category of income earners ie those who earn between R451 and R500 per month, whose rental in terms of the new formula is R113,11. A person earning between R951 and R1 000 in terms of the very same formula pays the same rent. This is something that must cause resentment and calls for protest. How can one charge somebody who is earning R500 per month R113,11 and charge someone who is earning R1 000 the same rental? Who is subsidising whom and who has made a mistake with these calculations?

I want to say with humility that in the old days we were taught at school how to count, how to divide and how to multiply and when we got answers they had some meaning to us. Today too much comes out of computers and for people who cannot comprehend figures these are accepted and passed on to be accepted by all. Immediately one looks at this formula one sees that there is an anomaly. How on earth this document could have been printed and circulated, heaven alone knows.

It was approved by my predecessor.

All I am saying is that I can understand the cause for protest, but we must put our heads together on this issue and find some answers.

I do not believe that anybody should be unduly burdened or overtaxed in respect of rent, neither should anybody be allowed to go scot-free. However, the anomaly where somebody who is earning R500 pays the same rent as the man who is earning R1 000 sounds plain stupid to me.

What is more, I have been trying to understand some of the explanations that have been provided in the document and I believe that to the ordinary man who is a householder this document conveys no guideline at all. It does not provide me with any guideline on which to come to any conclusion. It makes certain propositions and it does indicate that one might have an increase in rental or a decrease in rental. Where and how that can happen is not mentioned here. What is more, one is dealing with ordinary simple people and I am sure that much of our problems can be overcome if this is re-examined with a view to assuring that justice is done to the house-owner and to the department that has put up the money and that all these things are explained in such a way that the person who is involved can understand it. I appreciate that the hon the Minister and his colleagues are at the moment looking into this matter and I hope that this problem will be resolved to the satisfaction of all, but heaven forbid that there is a repetition of this kind of error. It certainly leaves much to be desired on the part of the department as far as people are concerned.

I want to come back to another point which was in part referred to by other speakers before me. I refer to the escalating costs of providing serviced land and buildings. Somebody referred to the fact that in recent times, looking at companies’ profit forecasts, they have all been showing record profits, and many of them are in the building trade. Nobody is against companies making profits, but one would think that when one has massive housing programmes for all communities all over South Africa, there would be a standardisation in planning and materials to the extent that long production runs of materials would result in a lowering of prices to the benefit of the consumer and house-owners. I believe that this aspect must be looked into because the cost of building materials is certainly escalating at a tremendous rate.

The fact that one roof tile today costs R1, is some indication of the extent to which prices have escalated. There may be justifiable reasons for this; I am not in a position to question it. What I do say, however, is that we have in South Africa the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the South African Bureau of Standards. Facing a challenge, as this nation does, I think we need innovation and adaptation; we need to chart new courses. The story about the brick in Ladysmith that allows water to pass through it may be due to the exceptional rains. However, I do not see any reason why material approved by the SABS as being waterproof should be found wanting. The same goes for any other material. If it is approved to certain specifications, then such products must live up to the specifications. If they do not, this must be brought to the notice of the manufacturers by the users so that the community or the house-owner does not suffer.

My plea today is that we are still constructing homes for the White, Black, Coloured and Indian people who look to the State for homes, in the old-fashioned way on the basis of plans that were approved a hundred years ago. I believe we must address this problem and examine every possibility of reducing costs and examine the possibility of introducing new elements for the construction of homes; new methods of construction and rationalisation. In this way the cost of labour, cost of materials, etc can be brought down. If this is not done then neither the House of Delegates nor this nation will be able to provide the required number of houses, as is projected in the research done by so many departments. It would be virtually impossible.

In the second place, let me tell hon members that money has to be found for development of the economy and for other purposes. If we cannot get more housing for the money that is being spent at present then I am afraid that we shall be disappointing a lot of people who look to the State and others for housing. We therefore need to depart from the old order and chart a new course. There must be innovation, and I believe that we have two fine institutions in our country, reputable and distinguished institutions, the services of which may be brought in with a view to identifying a new approach. I want to commend my suggestion to the hon the Minister of Housing, and I do so in all seriousness.

My colleague from Stanger referred to the need to lay out proper townships, with the reticulation of water, and other services—schools, playing fields etc. The land should then be made available to somebody who wants a piece of ground and wants to accept the challenge. Let the man have the piece of ground for a minimal deposit and say to him: “Go ahead and build your home; these are the specifications and the requirements.” He can thereafter add one, two or three rooms. I believe that by encouraging these people who have already given evidence by what is being done at this moment, the capital at the disposal of this House of Delegates could be used to open up even more opportunities. I think the Indian community would welcome that challenge. They have demonstrated over and over again in many places that with a bit of assistance they can help themselves. I think we need to encourage this. That is when having regard to the limited resources at our disposal, coupled with the fact that increasing costs are minimising our efforts to provide homes, we will see to it that we go a little further than we would otherwise be able to do.

I would go one step further. I believe that if a man wants to build a reasonable wood-and-iron home because it is cheap and it can be constructed quickly, he should be given that chance. [Interjections.] I was born and brought up in such a home and it has made me no less a person than anyone else. Then, after a while—after five or 10 years—he can change that home. [Interjections.] Why must we think in terms of high Western standards? Let a man build his home according to his ability to pay so that the home is not a burden to him and his family but rather a place of joy and a place that gives him hope for the future to develop from small beginnings. [Interjections.]

There are MPs who are homeless too. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret to inform the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that his time has expired.

I have 15 minutes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think that in terms of the Rules, what applies to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also applies to the Leader of the Official Opposition. There is no time limit. [Interjections.]

Order! May I draw the attention of the hon Whips of the House to the fact that this must be indicated against the names on the lists of speakers. However, I think we shall allow the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to deal briefly with a number of items that I intend to speak on. As a means of contributing towards the lowering of building costs, I believe greater emphasis must be placed on the training of semiskilled workers to do repetitive jobs, as I believe that will also make a positive contribution towards reducing the labour content of buildings.

The other point I want to make is that local authorities who fail to respond to the demands of communities with regard to the provision of housing cannot simply be allowed to get away with it. I think the State must make it compulsory for local authorities to discharge their responsibilities in so far as the provision of housing is concerned. It should not be the duty of the House of Delegates to go around, hat in hand, making appeals.

However, I do understand the situation and I want to make the point that there has to be a measure of co-operation and understanding between the House of Delegates and local authorities and by their joint efforts they should be able to resolve the need for Indian housing wherever this may arise. I do not think the local authorities as such should have the right to refuse to accept the responsibility in so far as the location of land and the planning and erection of homes for any community are concerned.

I want to make a point about the sale of homes. I do not understand why anyone who is right in his head would not take the opportunity of purchasing and transferring a home because immediately that home becomes an asset which could be used to raise money if the owner wanted money for the education of his children. I just hope that those people who have not taken transfer of properties or exercised their right to purchase these homes are not listening to some people who are advising them wrongly for some other reasons. [Interjections.] That is the only conclusion I can draw.

I would suggest to the hon the Minister of Housing that he write a personal letter to each of these people, indicating to them the advantages of purchasing a home and telling them to not miss this opportunity because it will not come again. [Interjections.] I think it can only be people who want to hurt the occupiers of these homes who are advising them, if they are advising them at all, against purchasing these homes.

Even the Black people are now realising that the homes they have purchased have suddenly become assets which can be pledged or mortgaged to raise money to enter into a small business, etc. What is wrong with our community? [Interjections.]

It is more so in the Transvaal than in Natal but I appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing to send a personal letter to these people setting out the advantages and telling them that if they do not understand the procedures they may call at his office and his people will explain to them in the simplest of language what it is all about. [Interjections.]

Savanna Park was referred to in the hon the Minister of Housing’s report. I am concerned about Savanna Park because for three years it has been standing idle with its roads and other services extended. I understand that there are problems in that area, but I do not think that we should allow these problems to drag on, thereby missing the opportunity of building homes. Even if the homes can be commenced with so that the services may be linked up at a later stage, we should do that. I can tell this House that Savanna Park is located in an area to which other people may lay claim. If land lies vacant, serviced as it would appear to the naked eye, others who need homes will say: “Why must it lie idle? Give it to us.” In the meantime we ourselves have a pressing need and the people of Shallcross … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to address the hon the Minister of Housing on community facilities. Whilst we recognise that he has a massive housing programme, we also want him to recognise that in the old townships which were established by the old Department of Community Development, community facilities were neglected. That old Department of Community Development, because of their ideology, only established what we would call massive housing schemes. In their desire to separate the races in our country they established Rylands Estate, Merebank, Chatsworth and many more housing schemes throughout South Africa. In most cases they completely avoided providing the basic civic facilities and amenities.

If one takes a walk in these areas one need not ask if this is a Black area or a White area. You can make that out by the lack of facilities, pavements, proper lighting, civic halls, sports facilities, etc. Some of the sports facilities that they do have are just open grounds without even toilets. I believe that the hon the Minister of Housing should apply his mind to that as well. It is useless providing housing, which is very essential, without these basic needs in the older townships also being addressed.

Take my constituency of Rylands which was established in 1958 and does not even have a civic hall. It does have soccer grounds, but without any form of stadium. There is no community facility whatsoever in that area, but it already has 15 000 people living there. Now I am not trying to say that Malabar should not have one, but with 5 000 to 6 000 people Malabar does have a civic hall. Please, I am not saying Malabar should not have one. However, what amazes me is how one can justify that Rylands Estate, having been proclaimed in 1958, has nothing up to this moment in time, yet Malabar with only 5 000 people has a civic hall.

We get letters every year that say there are no funds available. As I pointed out to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning we took this to every level and even to the extent that we wrote to the hon the State President. The answer remains: No funds. We even wrote to the hon the Minister of Housing and I believe the latest reply we received was that the school hall that was built may provide in that need. However, he asked if it could not provide in that need, we should contact him again. We are asking for a civic hall which will serve all purposes. We do not even have a library in that area. There is nothing in Rylands Estate and near us is Cravenby Estate which also has nothing to show. It looks like we are step-children in South Africa.

Nobody ever worries about the Indians in the Cape Peninsula. Then they go and establish Pelican Park. Two-hundred and seventy houses were built. Furthermore, another 138 houses have reached completion and people have moved into them. Nobody has even thought about community facilities there.

The concern is this: Are we following the same pattern as the old Department of Community Development, just to house people without giving them community facilities? The local communities do not understand the high finance we talk about here in the House of Delegates, that money must be allocated from the Budget on a certain formula, that the formula is 4:2:1 or whatever.

When people come to Pelican Park to visit MPs they ask: “How is it that you guys have got …” Sorry, Mr Chairman, they do not call us hon members and I am quoting them. Do not rule me out of order. They ask: “How is it that you guys have got a hall all of a sudden? Where did that money come from? You have a swimming pool all of a sudden. You have tennis courts all of a sudden. Where did that money come from?” There is not a single cent for us who have been living in Rylands Estate since 1958. How do we answer that? What answer do we give them? Every day here hon members are saying that they are addressing the national situation.

People also say that all MPs run away to their homes every Friday. They only get home at seven o’clock at night. Do they swim at night? Do they play tennis at night? [Interjections.] No, these are the questions they ask us. They say that the only people making use of the facilities are people who come on holiday from Durban over the Christmas season. I am being candid. They say Pelican Park is like a holiday resort over the Christmas season. They say that the place is packed with visitors. They use the word ‘foreigners’. That is the only time the swimming pool and tennis courts are used. Was it built for visitors from Durban, while the local residents have no facilities whatsoever? It is hard for us to answer that. I dare any hon member here to have a public meeting in Rylands Estate on that issue. I challenge them openly. One cannot have it. The people are asking searching questions regarding the question of the provision of community facilities. It is making life very difficult for us, because they see these facilities in the Pelican Park parliamentary community.

I make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing. We have tried everything and we do not know where to go next, because all our efforts have failed. If one rides around South Africa to all the old established townships, one can see that they are nothing else but depressed areas. That is why our community gets so depressed. Maybe their cry against group areas is to a certain extent based on this. Whilst we are against group areas, we should examine the reasons. Why do the people long to go and live in the so-called White areas? They do not say that they want to go and live in Kwamashu or in any other Black area, because the Black and Coloured areas are depressed areas. They want to live in a White area, because every facility is provided there. “You name it, they’ve got it.”

In Cape Town people say that on the other side of the railway line the pavement stops, the electric power line for street lighting stops, the public swimming pools stop, the public tennis courts stop and the green grass stops. On the other side of the railway line is where the desert starts. In that desert one only gets depressed houses, monotonous houses, which constitute the Cape Flats area.

Have a look at Merebank, from where the hon member for Merebank hails. Since I was a young man the grass has been high. The Durban City Council hardly ever cuts the grass around the shopping centres. It is a depressed area.

One can go around and look at Reservoir Hills. It is supposed to be an elite Indian township. The price of the ground is more than the price of ground in some White areas. Look at how the city council treats us. I think it is high time that the House of Delegates applies its mind to those areas.

Look at any so-called posh Indian suburb. I use the word so-called, because it can hardly be compared with the cheapest White suburb in South Africa. Our children are growing up with a strong resistance against the system, because the system is seen to project to separate and leave imbalances which need to be addressed immediately. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rylands has perhaps fittingly made a devastating attack upon the leadership of his own party, the party which he has been supporting recently.

You are wrong!

I wish to deal with the provision of amenities in so-called Indian areas and with what he said about this.

I spoke objectively.

When he criticises people who are not using the facilities at Pelican Park, I think he forgets that members of staff who live in Pelican Park are also human beings. I noticed that they make very effective use of the facilities, which is a good thing. Members of staff also require these facilities. They should not be preserved only for members of Parliament.

People have recently come to me and said: “Oh yes, you guys have two houses!” That is true. I have one house in Reservoir Hills, Durban, which I own. I also have another house in Pelican Park, which I rent. However, a reference was made to a member of Parliament who has two houses in Pelican Park.

Two houses? Are you sure that is what he said?

Two houses in Pelican Park! The question is this: People in Cape Town complain. They say they are homeless, and how is it that one MP can have two houses which belong to the State? We have to rectify these anomalies, because this is what causes resentment among the population. MPs are perceived to be enjoying perquisites far and above what they should be entitled to.

We have this strange situation that whereas on 20 May this House said it had no confidence in the hon the Minister of Housing, yesterday the majority in this House said they had confidence in the hon the Minister. I find that difficult to understand. Of course, one must give credit to the hon member for Southern Natal who had the courage of his convictions to go and sit on the side of the hon the Minister of Housing and support a vote of confidence in him. He did this yesterday, in full view of the public. Of course, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not want to be seen either way.

We got locked out!

They got locked out! [Interjections.] They wore earmuffs. They put plugs into their ears. They did not even hear the bells ringing, and so they got locked out. That was the tragedy of that situation.

Get to the point!

Somebody said I must get to the point. The point is that this kind of flip-flopping is disgusting. I would rather deal with a man like the hon the Minister of Housing. I know exactly where I stand with him. When he does his manipulations, he does it himself! [Interjections.] He does not send surrogates to do the job for him. When he has work to do, he does it himself. He does not depend upon other people to climb in and do the work and grab the profits! Perhaps I would rather deal with a man who is someone that I know where I stand with. That is the point of the situation!

Do not look at me! I never said that! [Interjections.]

By the time the hon member for Reservoir Hills gets to the point, he will be lost!

The point is that they do not like the point, because it affects their party and their leader. The function of an opposition party is to demand an election at every opportunity. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ran away when the demand for an election was made. That is the point!

Rubbish!

No, sir. We are dealing with the question of home ownership.

It is time we get some dignity in this House, sir!

Anything that is the truth, gets under their skin. That is no good. I want to address the hon the Minister in regard to the question of 90% subsidies. I think the hon the Minister knows full well that it is virtually impossible to have land and a house together for R33 000. The subsidy of 90% on that basis is therefore absolutely meaningless. The ceiling should be doubled if that 90% subsidy is going to help the people whom it is intended to help.

Similarly, the formula for the subsidy for firsttime home buyers is not reasonable. I know that the hon the Minister did not perfect the formula himself but he must use his influence with the other hon Ministers concerned. To say that the total must not exceed R65 000 is also unreasonable. It is impossible to build a three-bedroomed house today for less than R65 000 and if one adds the cost of land it becomes impossible.

The hon the Minister promised us at a seminar in Durban that land in Cato Manor—admittedly these are sub-units—would be made available to qualified persons and would not exceed R8 000. At the time I got up and complimented him on this statement. I am sorry, however, that he did not repeat it in his report. We do expect hirn and his department to honour that commitment.

Land should be made available for qualified people at cut-rate prices even if it costs money. Similarly, core-housing should be provided. I am glad to see that serviced sites are being made available but greater use should be made of the sale of serviced sites at a low price so that buyers can obtain private money from building societies and erect their own homes. Core-housing is a concept that has been developed by the Urban Foundation and which can be used very well, provided that the sanitary facilities and the kitchen are provided. Let buyers build their own homes from suitable materials as long as they comply with health regulations.

I grew up in a tin house. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition grew up in a tin house.

We have something in common—that makes three of us.

Exactly. As long as there is adequate ventilation, let there be shelter for people at a reasonable price.

The rental formula is wrong. Regrettably, the formula is applied to the joint income of the family which is wrong. It should be the income of the bread-winner.

No, it is not the joint income. It is the income of the person who signs the agreement.

I am happy to be corrected on that aspect. It is the income of the principal bread-winner alone that must be taken into account. R800 today does not even buy the groceries for a normal sized family. To limit it to a ceiling of R800 is unfair. The limit should be raised to at least R1 200.

The formula should also be changed so as not to give an opportunity to the radicals. The radicals climb in where there is disaffection. The formula therefore has to be changed. We must not be told that there is no money because the hon the State President himself has told us that by occupying another country and by sending South African troops into Namibia and Angola, it costs the country R1 million per day. The hon the State President must be told not to waste that R1 million per day. It should rather be used to help the people of South Africa and not to subjugate the people of South West Africa. The money is definitely there.

I want to take up a comment made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he referred to the cost factor. When one reads the annual reports of companies that sell or manufacture building materials, one sees that they have a net profit of 33%. Who is paying for that? The poor consumer is paying for that. The hon the Minister should perhaps approach the Competition Board to make quite sure that competition is created in that particular sphere. We have too many monopolies in the building material trade.

I want to deal for a moment with the so-called land barons. I do not like that concept because we have an hon member in this House, the hon member for Durban Bay, and he or his company own large tracts of land. It would be unfair to call him a land baron because if he did not buy that land or if he did not develop and sell it the people would not have land to buy. Therefore, property developers like him actually aid the community. They are also saving the State money because they are using their own money to develop the property. The sooner that hon member sells some of his land the better it would be for him because he would make more money and, of course, the community would benefit from that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the speech of the hon the Minister of Housing yesterday. It must be admitted without any doubt that the provision of housing to the Indian community, like all the other communities who have suffered deprivation, is an important function. It is an extremely important function of this House.

It is also a fact that we are far from obtaining a satisfactory situation, not to mention the ideal situation. Here we have an inexcusable situation and I want to point it out to none other than the hon the Minister of Housing. In fact, I do not intend to cast harsh aspersions against him because I pity him for the position in which he finds himself. He is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which is a very important portfolio, and he has assumed another very important portfolio, that of housing.

I want to make this humble suggestion with which every hon member on this side of the House will agree and that is that the sooner wisdom prevails and he delegates this responsibility of housing to another member of his Ministers’ Council, the better it will be for housing, for himself and for the House. Also, in the meantime the other members of the Ministers’ Council are exposed to an indictment that they are not competent. Is that the position? I think that this situation must be rectified. After four years in this House and having complained about the White regime and the efforts made by it in the days when we did not have the franchise how much can we boast of our dream; how much more have we done?

The House of Delegates itself has not registered that kind of improvement for which we can hold our heads high and say: “Look we have done what the others did not do.” Therein lies our dilemma. I think our pace is very slow and that we are not really able to cope with the demand for housing. Yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council presented a report. However, very often we have these magnificent projections of housing, eg that 50 000 houses will be built at once, and the like. However, what do we see in reality? It is a very sad situation. I think what really has to be done is that this situation must be rectified.

After four years what do we see in Cato Manor? All we see is the infrastructure in three of those townships. There have been instances where houses could not be built by the House of Delegates although they had the funds. This money could very well have been passed on to some alternative, or shall we say, allied housing service such as providing water, roads and so on.

For instance, let me mention the undertaking that was given to the residents of Welbedacht. I met some of the members of that newly-formed advisory committee there and they said that an undertaking had been given that water would be provided in that area in three phases. Unfortunately, however, nothing has happened.

This is the wrong debate for that.

I now turn to the flat areas in Shallcross that require improvement and repairs. The hon the Minister of Housing is fully apprised of this since I have written no fewer than two or three letters to him. Time and again we have been told that the matter is receiving attention, but to date all the inspections have been made; more than two inspections have been made on this issue, but no improvements have been effected. Those people living there are suffering tremendously. Is this fair? Money is available, but what is wrong with the department? I address this appeal to the hon the Minister of Housing to see to it that steps are taken to provide these services. It is sometimes said that we have the money but we do not have the land. However, here is a clear instance where all that is required is the provision of services and improvements, and these are not forthcoming. If the radicals and the people occupying those homes, advance all kinds of complaints against us and seek to boycott the elections and so on, we are to be blamed because we are not delivering the goods.

I was happy to hear yesterday that the hon the Minister of Housing said that progress was being made in the Buffelsbosch township in Shallcross. I should have liked the first phase of that township to have been completed by now, which would have been the case had they kept to the time schedule that they proposed to follow. However, indications are that they are going to start operations with the second phase. This is good, and we shall keep this under observation. I want the hon the Minister to see to it that the department makes hay. I say this for a particular reason. The question of houses is a high priority in this township of Shallcross. For over a decade and a half no houses have been provided in that township, and overcrowding has reached its worst level, since Savanna Park has been delayed and Buffelsbosch has been delayed. Many of these people must be transferred to Savanna Park; there has been an undertaking and I hope that this undertaking will be fulfilled.

The other issue is the additional site for a temple hall. This certainly falls under the hon the Minister. The question of the additional piece of land needs to be finalised urgently. Likewise a piece of land has been allocated for the aged in Shallcross and I understand that that land has been taken away because it is required for a pre-school, but an alternative site has to be provided.

You will get it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised this issue of the rental formula. Yesterday I listened carefully to the speech by the hon the Minister of Housing. It gave the impression that there were no problems. However, let me tell hon members here and now that there are serious problems. Those hon members who came from Durban—the representatives of the Durban City Council on the LAC—did point this out, particularly in the category where the income is R300 or lower. The hon the Minister had to acknowledge yesterday that something had to be done for the poor people. What has to be done for the poor people? Why can this not be translated into a systemised formula which can be applied to all tenants in that particular category? This should be done rather than finding exceptions again. This has caused more confusion, resentment and rebellion in our Indian townships than anything else. It has become an excellent recipe for those people who oppose this House. I think that this kind of situation must be avoided, even though this might be a kind of national formula. This is an important matter.

The other matter relates to the Chatsworth sports stadium. None other than the hon the Minister of Housing has been a great propagandist for the building of this facility, and I want to compliment him for doing so when he was on the LAC and later in the SAIC. What, however, has happened today? The Durban City Council has asked for a loan of R10 million, and I cannot see, when we are returning millions of rand to the Government year after year, why R10 million could not be loaned to them to ensure that the facility is provided. This should be done rather than delaying it and then spending another R30 million. This is what has happened year after year; there are tremendous delays and the facilities have not been provided for the people. The people are denied all these things. In a place like Chatsworth it should be a matter of high priority.

The same goes for community halls. We are thinking of building community halls in the Transvaal, but what about Durban? I am not saying that we must not build community halls in the Transvaal or in Rylands, or in Cape Town, but we see what has happened there. There has been a problem confronting this House in regard to the identification of land. There is no point in pointing this out time and time again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, for the first time I have seen the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition react in the manner in which he reacted today. [Interjections.] I do not blame him for reacting in that fashion because the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned something. However, I just want to place on record that on 19 May, when an amendment was moved by the hon member Mr Nowbath, an amendment which was voted upon on 20 May, the hon member for Reservoir Hills and his colleague the hon member for Springfield were also party to the decision to avoid the dissolution of the House in terms of section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution. [Interjections.] Therefore, the circumstances in this House have changed. [Interjections.] That is Why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition acted in that manner.

The hon member Mr Nowbath bluffed you. Read the Hansard! [Interjections.]

That is why I am saying that the situation in this House changes so often. [Interjections.]

I want to address myself to the issues of this particular Vote with regard to proclamation. Proclamation has been a long-standing issue as far as I am concerned, particularly in the Transvaal. On 23 May 1985 we were told that the proclamation for the township of Lenasia Extension 9 was with the State Attorney and that it was expected within six to eight weeks. Subsequent to that we have had a number of communications. Now, according to the hon the Minister’s report, we have a further delay.

According to the MEC in charge of proclamations in the Transvaal, with whom we raised this issue last week, the plans were received on 11 January 1979. The final draft conditions of establishment were posted on 19 September 1983—at that time we had the Department of Community Development—but the applicant must still comply with the pre-proclamation conditions of establishment.

Now that everything is ready, the applicant who in this instance is the House of Delegates, has asked for an amendment to the establishment in view of the use of erf 8282. Proclamations for this township have been outstanding for a number of years and this matter is still not being addressed effectively. We have a number of public servants living in this area who are going to lose out in so far as their subsidies are concerned.

The other area that I am pleased to note has been afforded some kind of relief is the Pinetown-Unaville-Grasmere area. Once again, however, as I understand it, it was stated in the hon the Minister’s report that this area would be considered only after Lenasia South Extension 4, and now Lenasia Extension 13, had been completed.

People living in that area are in a predicament in that they are not so much interested in the provision of services in that area as in the sale of those houses to the people. The hon the Minister of Housing is aware of the situation there, as is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. These people merely want those homes to be sold to them. The provision of services could follow at a later stage.

We come to the question of the unification of Lenasia where I would particularly like to refer to the 55 duplex houses constructed in Lenasia Extension 10. We have followed up this issue for some time and we have tried to get some kind of directive from the Ministry of Housing with regard to the reduction of the selling price of those units. An inspection in loco was conducted by another hon member of this House and myself and we have come to the conclusion that those houses were not priced correctly in view of the inherent structural defects.

In Lenasia Extension 2, which falls under the constituency of the hon member for Lenasia West, we have an area called Greyville where there are two renting schemes. Between these two schemes there lies a vacant piece of ground which is fenced off. Perhaps the department should look at that piece of vacant ground, which is actually not of any use to any of the families that live there at the moment, so that it may be sold to either one of the constituencies or maybe subdivided to be distributed equally between the two.

The provision of 3 200 stands in Lenasia South Extension 4 is welcomed. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that while we move forward with progress and the development of stands, the present conditions should not be ignored. I speak specifically about an area called Hartebeesfontein. Two weeks ago the contractor who, in my opinion, has no right to move into Hartebeesfontein, started asking those five families that reside there to move. He has instructed the officials of the electricity department to remove the electricity connection pole. One of the residents telephoned me about this and I arrived on the spot. The contractor said that he had a time limit arrangement with the House of Delegates to finish the installation of services. Therefore, while we are progressing with the development of that area, the present occupants of that area should not be victimised in any way. Where do we expect those people to go to? They cannot simply leave their houses and go. To add insult to injury the electricity was cut off. In my opinion the contractor has no authority to issue any kind of eviction orders or to threaten our people with eviction, because their homes stand to be bulldozed and this all falls under the scope of development. That contractor could have started with his development at another part of the vast area and could have left these people until alternative accommodation was provided for them.

Certain magisterial districts fall under the scope of this Ministry, because it is in charge of the provision of school buildings and halls. If a function is to be held at one of the school halls which falls in South East Lenasia, we have a problem. The owner of a motor vehicle has to register that car in the Westonaria magisterial district. He pays his taxes to the Johannesburg municipality and appears for a traffic-fine in the Meyerton magisterial district. Any criminal cases are referred to the Vereeniging magisterial district. Therefore, in terms of the state of emergency, for any function or meeting taking place we basically have to apply to five different magisterial districts to get permission to hold a meeting in a particular school hall.

It would seem to be a general affairs case.

I know it looks like general affairs. Perhaps the hon the Minister can give us some directive as to what we can do about this dilemma. I do not understand how in one area one can fall under five different magisterial districts.

I have already mentioned the unification of Lenasia. The other day the hon the Deputy Minister read out a document with regard to the extension and delegation of power which leads to autonomy. I have a letter here from the Johannesburg City Council dated 23 November 1983 stating, and I quote:

This is not in keeping with our thinking, because as far as I am concerned, we are totally opposed to autonomy. Be that as it may, I want to say this for the record. The hon the Deputy Minister did raise this issue and said that this was leading towards autonomy. As the member of Parliament for Lenasia Central I want to place on record that I and the majority of the people of Lenasia …

Order! I regret to advise the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member for Lenasia Central an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I merely want to place on record that I, as the member of Parliament for Lenasia Central, am totally opposed to autonomy for that area. I quote the decision taken by the Lenasia Management Committee on 20 April 1988, which states, and I quote:

This, in my opinion, is paving the way for autonomy and cannot be condoned.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members who have taken part in the debate thus far. I will be very brief in my contribution and reply to the others who have spoken on Monday.

Most hon members dealt with matters relating to their constituencies. Some of them dealt with national policy and our common norms. I think it is necessary for me to place on record that in terms of our Constitution the provision of housing is own affairs. Also, in accordance with the Constitution, we are legally bound to follow a common norm. That is why we have a National Housing Policy Council, comprised of experts from the various housing administrations. We also have a committee of Housing Ministers, under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. In spite of the fact that we may wish to have a different type of norm to suit the particular circumstances of the members of the Indian community, it is, in my considered opinion, prudent for all Administrations to have a common policy and a common norm.

Much has been said about the timely identification of land. I want to concede that that is our major problem. One hon member referred to rent control and the Rent Board in relation to our cry to repeal the Group Areas Act. From a practical point of view the repeal of the Group Areas Act will get rid of the problem of the stratification of the South African society along racial lines. However, it will not get rid of our land problems and the satisfaction of our housing needs on the basis of the stratification of our society on a social basis. One’s problems will shift from the group stratification to the social stratification of South African society.

Controls will always be necessary, even in an open society. When one opens the floodgates in our townships, one is going to create problems, especially in the Indian community where there is a rising middle class. However, our biggest problem as far as Indian housing is concerned, is not the question of availability of land. That still remains a problem, but the biggest problem is the question of funds we require to pay for that land.

As I stated yesterday, I drew a comparison to the Durban metropolitan area. In 1983 the price was R4 000 a hectare. It was considered too expensive for low-cost housing. The cheapest price in 1988 is R25 000 a hectare. By the time we negotiate that, it may have rised to R35 000 a hectare. Compare that to the Black community in the Transvaal and the Coloured community in the Cape. The average price for land is approximately R50 000 a hectare.

The hon member for Lenasia Central raised a very important issue, and that is the unnecessarily lengthy period for which authorities and institutions have to wait to get the conditions of the establishment and registration of townships approved. We are having a problem in Lenasia. We were ready for the registration of our townships three months ago, but we are having problems with the authorities that are in charge of the registration of townships.

The hon the State President himself is worried about this. He appointed the Venter Commission to examine this. The hon the Minister of Constitution Development and Planning is at present devising ways and means to shorten the procedures so that townships can be registered as quickly as possible.

I want to make it very clear that I was very reluctant to support the dismantling of the Community Development Board and the former National Housing Commission. The National Housing Commission has not been scrapped. The Housing Act, which was applicable to all race groups, has not been repealed, because that particular Act is still applicable to Black housing in this country. The National Housing Commission is being used to provide housing for Blacks in South Africa.

Reference was made by the hon member for Springfield to the division of the assets. The Department of Public Works and Land Affairs has progressed so far that an amount of R720 million of the total assets can be allocated to the House of Delegates. The problem is that there is a substantial amount which is difficult to identify. It will probably be allocated to the various administrations proportionally. I officially want to say that this transfer has not yet been finalised. At the moment the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs still does our bookkeeping for us on an agency basis, because the sharing of assets has not been finally decided upon.

I am very appreciative of the fact that many hon members made constructive suggestion in this debate. On a national basis I disagree with the hon member for Cavendish. There has definitely been tremendous progress in Indian housing since the House of Delegates was established. There is no doubt about the fact—these are not airy-fairy theories—that we will most certainly provide about 5 700 housing units and approximately 7 900 serviced sites—unless there is a disaster. This excludes what the private sector will provide. I want to say that there is greater participation by the private sector and I think our production of homes is definitely on the increase. We must address this very serious problem. We must look at the question of affordability. We must look at the areas that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and others mentioned this afternoon. We must also look at the problem of the escalating cost of construction. If we do all that, we will most probably be able to contribute more towards solving our problems.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to core houses. Nobody made reference to shell houses. People do not understand what is meant by a “core house”. In Shallcross for example a type of core house was provided where certain fittings and fixtures were excluded. People immediately indicated that that was inferior. If one wants a geyser and other facilities in one’s house it is ultimately the end user who has to pay for it.

I am also worried about the sociological aspects. The hon member for Rylands quite correctly indicated that it was the former Department of Community Development that failed to provide basic amenities and facilities in Rylands. At that time the Fouche Commission which dealt with deficiencies in respect of community facilities had not yet been appointed by the hon the State President. One of the best things that happened in this country was when the Government accepted the recommendations of the Fouché Commission and when the Community Facilities Fund was established.

I want to place on record that with regard to Chatsworth and Rylands the provision of facilities is the responsibility of the local authorities.

The people pay rates.

Yes, one pays rates. Our Administration will guarantee the allocation of funds if the Cape Town municipality will make the necessary application. Some municipalities want outright grants which the Department of Housing cannot give.

In Pelican Park we are dealing with a new situation where we can tax people. We can add a levy to the sale price of land and also to the sale price of dwellings. From the revenue generated by those sales we will be able to provide the facilities. The local authorities in certain areas are neglecting certain communities. These communities feel neglected. In other areas facilities are financed from the Community Facilities Fund. The communities are under the impression that the House of Delegates is favouring certain areas and neglecting others.

I now come to religious sites. I know that there are problems. I know that in certain areas where one has small housing estates our formula system cannot be properly applied and it cannot be advantageous to our people. Our formula system can only benefit people in massive housing schemes like Chatsworth, Phoenix, Laudium, Lenasia, etc.

However, I want to assure hon members that we will examine this problem. Perhaps we will be able to be of assistance to the people on a national basis, utilising the National Housing Fund. However, I cannot guarantee anything during this debate as it is subject to the approval of the Housing Development Board and also the Treasury.

However, I want to say that as far as the Chatsworth sports stadium is concerned I forecast 10 years ago that the Durban City Council would show a surplus when they balanced their books in Chatsworth. I was told at that stage by the City Treasurer that I was wrong; subsequently I have been proven correct. They are definitely forecasting a profit of not less than R10 million when they balance the books as far as the land account is concerned. Therefore, we developed the view that people must sell the undeveloped land in Chatsworth if they want to use the money for a sports stadium. Today I think I can guarantee that the Durban City Council will have the R10 million to complete the sports complex.

This is not because it is in Arena Park which is my constituency. That sports stadium was planned and its model drawn up in 1962 long before the LAC was established 28 years ago. Twenty-eight years ago we were not in Parliament, there was no LAC and no SAIC. I was not responsible for the siting of the stadium in Arena Park. However, one can be assured that as sure as night follows day probably after 9 June the Durban City Council will get the go-ahead to complete the central sports stadium complex.

I want to come to other areas. I know the hon member for Tongaat is very much concerned. I made an announcement a fortnight ago that the House of Delegates was planning to provide 4 000 units in Tongaat. Our problem there is not the availability of land. Our problem there is going to be the unrealistically high price we are going to be required to pay for the land. These are not statements on the television screen; these are not statements made over the radio. These are words that are backed by real action and the real action is in Lotus Gardens, the real action is in what we are doing in Lenasia South, in Nirvana Drive and what appeared by way of an advertisement on matters relating to Tongaat in last Friday’s Natal Mercury. These are not just words. People are saying that we are building houses on the television screen. We are translating our promises, our will and our determination into reality. They are not just words; these are actions on the part of the Ministry and the Department of Housing and I am proud of my department in spite of the fact that we are understaffed and that we are overloaded with work.

In respect of the point raised by the hon member for Stanger I want to say that I sincerely hope that he has checked his facts. I received a complaint from a municipality and found that they had made half-baked applications for financial assistance. They were not able to fill in forms correctly. I do not say that the Stanger municipality has done that.

Regrettably our staff situation in the Durban regional office and at our head office has been a factor in the face of the mass of applications that have been received for approval. Also in respect of Stanger I want to say that the matter will definitely be considered at a meeting with the Housing Development Board on 8 June. Also, I want to suggest to the hon member for Stanger that he carries out an examination to find where the fault really lies, because I gave the hon member for Stanger as well as the town clerk and the delegation from that municipality an assurance that the necessary funds would be made available. Necessary funds can only be made available once our technical section approves the application and then it goes to the Housing Development Board.

I want to say that in my capacity as Minister of Housing I am required to deal with things that are the responsibility of the Housing Development Board. I am being required to virtually ride roughshod over officials. If I were to listen to members of Parliament and certain municipalities I would be accused of interference. We would be accused of maladministration and of irregularities. Thus far, then, I want to say that I am very thankful to the vast majority of hon members who have expressed positive sentiments.

I want to say to the hon member for Havenside that I agree with him that we had agreed on the sale of the Mobeni Heights Shopping Centre. However, if the hon member for Havenside heard me correctly at the meeting, I asked the trade association to come back to us with a proposal. To date they have not come back to us with the proposals which we had jointly agreed upon. [Interjections.] I shall take a question on Monday; I have a time problem.

As far as the Westcliff Shopping Centre is concerned, I accept that it is an eyesore, but I can assure the hon member for Havenside, who spoke in the absence of the hon member for Chatsworth, that the department has called for tenders. The tenders were considered by the Housing Development Board. For some reason it was not acceptable to them. I could not force them to accept the tender. It was re-advertised, and as I understand now, they have accepted the tender and the contractors will be on site.

We also dealt with the sale of the site of the shopping centre. We had problems relating to one individual, who is now being used. His words are now being used, possibly to destroy me. He registered a company. There was a problem as to who the shareholders in the company were going to be. That may have been the reason why we suspended the sale of the shopping centre, but at that time that particular individual was supposed to be a bad man. Today those bad words and those bad deeds are good. Whoever wants to listen to him, let them jump in the hole with him. If anyone wants to dig a grave for me, they will finally discover that the grave is for them also. I want to say that that is the reasoning behind our decision to suspend temporarily the sale of the Westcliff Shopping Centre.

[Inaudible.]

I want to assure hon members that I shall come back to the debate on Monday and that we are very appreciative of the fact that hon members have given us constructive suggestions today in the course of this debate.

[Inaudible.]

As far as that is concerned, we can produce many institutions of the House of Delegates engaging in public relations exercises. There are certain members of the media that take sides and who will write negatively about the system and people who use the system. Look at many institutions in this country similar to the House of Delegates. Communications and public relation exercises are important. I have just received on the fax machine a letter from the Durban Housing Action Committee …

[Inaudible.]

Of course, I know that the hon member for Havenside will have to be critical; that is his job, being an hon member of the opposition. I understand why he is upset about it. I have understanding for the predicament in which he is placed. As far as we are concerned we have to project the image of our Administration and project the image of our department.

What predicament?

There is a saying: “There are rats running in the mind of man.” I do not want to deal with that saying or explain what it means; over the week-end I shall let the hon member for Havenside have a book on rats running inside the mind of man.

I do not want to say that rats are running in the mind of the hon member for Havenside. I am satisfied that he is concerned about the interests of the people in his electoral division. I do not mind him crossing over into Westcliff. I have answered him adequately. I shall come back into this debate again on Monday, but I want to say that I am very appreciative and thankful for the contributions made by hon members so far. I have not replied to each one in detail. I shall do so on Monday.

Mr Chairman, my colleague the hon the Minister of Housing has, within his constraints and restrictions, endeavoured to meet the requirements of the South Africa Indian community in relation to their housing needs. I want to say that to fulfil the immediate requirements in relation to housing for the Indian community is not a task which one can achieve by the waving of a magic wand—neither is it expected that we should be performing miracles in order to meet the situation.

However, I am certainly reminded that my hon colleague seems to be a man “all tattered and torn and in love with the maiden all forlorn”. [Interjections.] Certainly the hon the Minister is so much in love with his work that he is tearing himself apart to fulfil his love for the requirements of the Indian community. [Interjections.]

I certainly want to tell my hon colleague that this is not an easy task, but there must always be a partnership, a mutual partnership of all people concerned who are desirous of providing homes for our people. It must not simply be left to the House of Delegates alone to perform the duty. There has to be an alert and active local authority. Moreover, the people who need these homes in the area must be vigilant in order to ensure that their needs are looked after, and then there is a need to get the ball rolling and to provide these homes. Particularly in the South African situation, it cannot simply be done overnight, but it will, in fact, be done.

Our biggest problem in relation to housing is that despicable piece of legislation, the Group Areas Act. That is what, over the years, has caused the situation we are experiencing today, and no one can deny the fact that had it not been for the Group Areas Act, land would have been freely available to all South African communities, and at affordable prices. However, because the Group Areas Act has made the acquisition of land so very difficult, prices are inflated and it is particularly a community like ours that has to bear the greatest consequences and the detrimental effects arising from the Group Areas Act.

Therefore, if any hon member of this House does not acknowledge that the Group Areas Act should be removed from our Statute Book, he is not being honest with himself. [Interjections.] I therefore want to say that the hon the Minister of Housing has a difficult task on his hands.

Land barons, particularly on the Natal coast and in the Natal Midlands and up-country, have held on to vast tracts of land and because of the group areas restrictions they are holding that land for their own sweet purposes. An example may be seen on the North Coast of Natal where valuable housing land stands under sugar cane in the centre and on the periphery of towns. One naturally expects the agricultural production of this country to continue, but not at the expense of holding excellent land under sugar cane that could be used for housing at affordable prices. When one negotiates for such land the owners ask such exorbitant prices for that land and that is our difficulty. Despite repeated requests to the hon the Minister in charge under general affairs in the Cabinet, we seem to get nowhere. Therefore that particular hon Minister and other hon Ministers should realise that their law and their Acts impede the early provision of homes for our people who so desperately need those homes.

I believe that what we should be doing now and henceforth, is to send a Cabinet memorandum—which we are preparing—to the hon the State President. He has in no uncertain terms repeatedly said that we must endeavour to get as much land for our housing and agricultural purposes as possible. In this direction the hon the Minister of Housing as well as the other hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council need to be fed with as much ammunition as possible to be used for the evaluation of our demands with the Cabinet.

In this regard I would like to say that it is no good not acknowledging the accomplishments of the House of Delegates. Verulam is an example—my constituency. Therefore I say that there should be an active, alert local authority. Verulam has established about 600 homes in the last two years, which is as a result of their alertness and keenness timeously to make applications for finance from the Housing Development Board or, in this case, through the hon the Minister of Housing. Equally active is the Development Services Board in Natal in the Redcliff area. They are also performing an excellent task.

Therefore we, as hon members of Parliament representing our constituencies, should approach our local authorities who have a very important role to play in relation to the funds required for housing purposes. In the days before the House of Delegates and even at the present time circulars have been going out to local authorities two years in advance, asking what their requirements would be in the next or ensuing financial year in relation to housing. If there is a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the local authorities, it is not the fault of the House of Delegates.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have a tremendous task ahead of us. My colleague in the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Minister of Housing, has a need to be encouraged and that encouragement he should receive in the form of understanding on the part of hon members here. His is a difficult task, so let us be constructive in our contributions in this debate.

Let us not be destructive in any way, but let us be constructive. I am not saying that there has not been any destructive criticism or comment from this side of the House. However, what has been said comes from the bottom of the hearts of hon members of this side as well as hon members of the other side and it springs from a deep conviction that we need to serve our people who need assistance most in regard to a roof over their heads.

Mr Chairman, much has been said about the backlog in housing. There are numerous problems regarding the establishment of low-cost housing and we must try and find solutions. This, I believe, will be no easy task.

Before I go any further, I must compliment and congratulate the hon the Minister and his staff on the excellent and comprehensive report and for all they have been doing to provide homes for the homeless, and also for assisting me in my constituency, although no new projects were completed. However, land for housing has been identified and once it is appropriated, it will enable us to provide much-needed homes.

In Umzinto and Park Rynie we have nearly 2 000 applicants on the waiting list. Serviced sites seem to be very popular. A sugar estate in Umzinto has offered the Umzinto North Town Board some prime land along the main road opposite the Town Board offices and I appeal to the hon the Minister that when negotiations have been completed, he will assist the Umzinto North Town Board with finance.

Approach me.

Thank you. I have visited some of the low-cost houses in Umzinto and Umkomaas. I will come back to that.

Here in Cape Town, the Chairman of the Flouse and I went twice to look at what the other population groups are doing. On one of these visits I happened to meet a Prof Ria van Wyk of Stellenbosch University, to whom I am very grateful for parting with some of her knowledge and findings regarding occupants of housing in low-cost schemes.

This afternoon I want to dwell on two aspects. The first is land for housing and alternative building techniques, as mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition earlier on. The second is the need for home economists to improve the health and general quality of life of the occupants of housing schemes. I will start with the latter.

In any international economy, the housing of a community is a prime need of the individual and the family. This must be satisfied. Scientists agree that the physical environment in which a person lives has a cardinal influence on the individual and the family. The maintenance of an acceptable quality of life is of the utmost importance in order to create and preserve a pleasant living environment in a housing scheme. As housing consumers, families often experience problems in connection with housing and technological developments, the use of water, the maintenance of sanitation and the use of electricity. Much has been said about rentals. I believe that if it is possible, we should do something about subsidising electricity and water charges to low-cost homes, even if the haves have to pay for the have-nots. Choosing and using and caring for the maintenance of appliances, choosing and caring for the furniture, the maximum use of restricted space, providing the family with food, what and where to buy, money management, hire purchase and self-help schemes are aspects that need to be considered.

I said I was going to come back to my visits to Umkomaas and Umzinto. I visited some retired pensioners from sugar companies who had been allocated homes. To my surprise I found fully carpeted rooms. I found fridges and many electrical appliances. In a couple of houses I noticed they had whistling kettles, which even I do not have!

Whisky in kettles? [Interjections.]

No, whistling kettles! I believe that these high pressure salesmen went out and robbed these people of their life savings. Now they are suffering. They cannot meet their obligations. People in the new housing schemes also experience problems in adjusting as a result of a disruption of friendship in communities. They need help in tracing community facilities and making meaningful use of them.

By reason of their field of study, home economists are eminently qualified to help families with these problems. They can provide guidance on a broad spectrum of subjects and can make a significant contribution as members of planning teams for housing schemes. They can therefore play a unique role in improving the general quality of life of the occupants of housing schemes.

Home economists must master certain skills in applying the principles of clothing construction, crafts, food preparation, etc. In this way they not only gain a head start in controlling and managing resources such as time, money and energy, but they will also learn how these activities can lead to self-improvement. These activities also present opportunities for supplementing the family income.

As a result of training, home economists can plan programmes that provide guidance over a broad spectrum of subjects. Short-term activities such as crafts, clothing construction, food preparation, entertainment and instruction can result in long term activities and goals, such as knowledge and better techniques regarding health, household management and child rearing.

I now come to low income groups. I want to make special reference to people who are relocated from squatter-like areas. These people need counselling and instruction even before they move to a housing scheme. Facilities for family instruction should therefore be created at all housing projects. The families concerned should be aided to function independently, to make their own decisions and to carry their own responsibilities. People should be helped to help themselves. For effective counselling there should be a community centre in each community where a home economist can play the very key role in co-ordinating activities. Liaison with health and welfare services, as well as cultural, educational and recreational organisations is necessary in order to explore common ground. The co-ordination and combination of the various existing services should be the starting point of this exercise. There should be no overlapping and provision should therefore be made for additional and supplementary services.

These serious problems cannot be solved effectively through a unilateral approach. A multidisciplinary effort is of the utmost importance for this. From the above discussion it is clear that home economists who have the necessary initiative, determination and motivation, can do much to improve the quality of life of sub-economic home dwellers. Counselling, home economics and low-cost housing schemes should be accepted as an essential part of the development of communities.

The occupants of low-cost housing schemes usually have no say in the decision-making processes involving the houses. It is, however, an acknowledged fact that planning should not be done for the people but with the people. The self-respect and recognition resulting from participation can have a positive influence on the home as well as on the family and community. The opposite has already been proven where dissatisfaction and rebellion have occurred in some low-cost housing areas.

In the past the emphasis was mainly placed on the physical aspects of the housing of less privileged groups. Little attention was given to the social and cultural values of the occupants because there was little knowledge concerning the preferences, objections and living patterns of the socio-economic groups. As a result of this lack of knowledge, the planners made certain assumptions about the needs, aspirations and standards of the future occupants which contributed to the dissatisfaction.

Home economists who are trained in research methods and have a unique background knowledge of needs and functioning of families are especially able to determine the aspirations, preferences and objections of families, the cultural patterns—for example the eating habits and needs of family members—and the influences on housing designs and interiors by means of questionnaires or informal observations and conversations. They can analyse the advantages and disadvantages of various designs in conjunction with the architects and planners. They can help to make realistic decisions regarding, say, open or closed plan designs, the size of rooms, the allocation of space etc.

We must turn away from the idea of providing low-income groups with complete ready-built houses. Self-help schemes should be encouraged as prospective home-owners often do not possess the knowledge, skills or financial means to plan and build their homes. Local authorities should involve experts to help them with these problems.

According to a report of the President’s Council in 1985, support should be given by the local authorities to offer advisory services with regard to self-help schemes. This is a matter that will have to be addressed in future. In 1978 a report of the World Bank also supported this concept.

Home economists do not only want to be involved in the physical planning, but they also want to make a meaningful contribution to individual development and the development of happy communities through their involvement in health, education and social, cultural, economic and leadership development. I want to make an earnest appeal that the hon the Minister and his department should seriously consider the appointment of home economists in all housing schemes with the goal of creating happy communities in our evolutionary South Africa. Home economists have been successful in housing schemes of the other race groups.

I now come to the question of building materials. Unless alternative building techniques and materials are used, price increases will probably make home-ownership an unattainable dream for most people. It is estimated that the average South African citizen could face an annual rise of about 30% in building costs, depending on the imposition of value-added tax. There is no way in which traditional building materials and techniques can escape the ravages of inflation and costs will rapidly outstrip the buying power of more and more would-be home-owners. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, because housing is an emotive issue which has an impact on family and community life it has changed from a socioeconomic to a socio-political problem. The creation of a stable and productive social infrastructure should be the aim of the State, its agencies, the private sector and the community. The major factor influencing stability is the provision of housing. Housing is, of course, one of man’s primary needs and it is an inherent wish of people to acquire a home of their own.

Accelerating changes in lifestyle, coupled with escalating living costs will have a considerable impact on future living patterns. While the shortage of accommodation and the growing need for it is of staggering proportions, the cost of housing for lease or purchase is increasing at such a high rate that the number of “unhousables”, a term previously applied to the mass of Black families, now embraces all races.

To get an idea of the size of the problem the National Building Research Institute has released figures showing that the housing shortage is 832 000 homes for Blacks, 52 000 for Coloureds and 44 000 for Indians. In the White sector there is a surplus of about 37 000 homes. By the year 2000 at least four million new homes will have to be built over and above the backlog. Fears have been expressed that in about 20 years time South Africa will have a population of 80 million, a population that it can ill afford. That fear has been expressed by the MP for Houghton in the health debate in the House of Assembly. I want to read an extract from the Cape Times:

In the foreseeable future, at best the crisis can be alleviated but not resolved. To achieve even the former goal there will have to be radical changes in our thinking and approach to the entire process of housing procurement including residential planning, financing and subsidies, availability and zoning of suitable land, housing densities, design, and building standards for more modest housing and rationalisation of house and plot form and size.

In addition urgent and greater attention must be given to residential aesthetics whereby an acceptable living environment must be created for all levels of housing. The stage has been reached where housing must be implemented as a social art and not as an exercise in building construction. Consequently the broad objective must be to provide homes rather than houses, to foster community belonging and participation.

The introduction of new approaches is a logical development of increasing social awareness of the role of housing and the need to provide shelter for many families as soon as possible. In finding solutions to sociological issues associated with housing, and ways of creating an attractive living environment, creating the “city beautiful” is the current international theme, with careful thought being given to the siting of houses in relation to each other, to the street and to town aesthetics. Although much has been accomplished elsewhere, in practice little attention has been given to social and environmental issues in Indian housing. A new approach, particularly in low-income development, is long overdue. As a result many housing schemes are being developed which have no soul. As the occupants have nothing to be proud of, the quality of life degenerates and another slum is born.

An example of such developments is the pensioner cottages in Belvedere as well as the new housing scheme built in Canelands, which are being referred to as the Indian Compounds. It is ironic that the people who built the foundations of the modern South African economy have been completely forgotten. I am referring to the rural communities.

The drought in Natal from 1978 to 1981 was less well-documented than that which occurred in 1983 but was probably even more devastating in its effects on poorer, more rural people. Thick red dust covered all the vegetation adjacent to the gravel roads. The perennial streams flowing through most rural areas either dried up or were reduced to a trickle and contaminated with typhoid and cholera. People were sick and dying because of the lack of clean water. A decade has passed since 1978 and that problem still prevails in the rural areas.

Way back in 1986 the then Minister of Housing announced R10,5 million for development for Shakaskraal. However, some two years have elapsed since then and up to this day nothing has been done. The Development and Services Board is in charge of that area and I have taken up the issue with the Development and Services Board at the level of the Parliamentary Provincial Committee which was held in Pietermaritzburg. Mr Peter Miller, the member of Exco, stated that on 28 January he had sent some correspondence to the House of Delegates but had received no reply to date. A reminder was subsequently sent in April. There was still no reply. As a result he was unable to address my problem.

However, whenever I had taken up the issue I was given to understand that sewerage was the problem. I have raised this problem before in this House. I cannot see how a sewer could be a problem, since money is available from two sources. One is the Provincial Revenue Account, which gives a grant-in-aid, and the other is the Department of Water Affairs. The latter department gives an outright grant of one third of the cost of new sewer works and provides the balance of two thirds on a long-term loan basis payable over 30 years. I cannot understand where the problem lies, since the Development and Services Board has utilised this fund in the South Coast region—in San Lameer and Umzinto. There are examples where they have utilised this fund; why must we have these excuses? The same principle could have applied in the North Coast area.

Coming to Tongaat, land had been identified for the extension of Belvedere. That was done way back in 1986 while the former Minister was still in office. We visited that place then, while the late R Mohangi was still living. He was then the MP for Tongaat. I should like it to be placed on record that that land was identified a long, long time ago.

As far as private housing land is concerned, I should like to point out that land along the Coast is at a premium. One must take cognisance of the fact that land along the Coast is in high demand. It is also one of the most productive areas we have.

If one takes the case of sugar, one can cut one’s crop every year along the Coast because that is a frost-free area, whereas in the Midlands one has to harvest one’s crop once every two years. Moreover, the yield of the annual crop on the Coast is far higher than the two yearly crop inland.

Furthermore, one will find that everyone wants to settle along the Coast. There is plenty of land lying fallow and idle in the Midlands and other regions. I think it is fair that those people who live in the Sugar Belt should be accommodated in the Sugar Belt, whilst those people who live elsewhere should be accommodated elsewhere. I do not like to see our sugar industry destroyed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, earlier in the year when I moved a motion in this House, I stated that it was the wish of every man to one day own his own home. I say this because once a man owns his own home, he is a settled person. He has a better frame of mind and he is able to give his family a better lifestyle so that they can be stable. I think that once the children of the family of this nature have grown up, they are able to take up their respected place in society. This view was amplified in the preamble to the report presented to this House by the hon the Minister.

I should like to join my other hon colleagues in congratulating the hon the Minister of Housing on his report, and I should also like to compliment him on certain aspects which I am about to mention. First of all, he did indicate to us that it was the right of the local authorities to provide houses for their residents. I fully agree with that statement, and I am glad that he has indicated that his department will step in if and when local authorities do not play the game.

At this juncture I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the swift action they took during the flood disaster last year in relocating those people and providing them with houses, and in bringing life back to normality.

There has been a great deal of discussion in this House this afternoon, as well as outside this Parliament, about the new rental formula, and I must agree that the new rental formula is confusing. It has confused a lot of people; even the officials of the Tongaat Town Board.

I should like to refer here to the salient parts of clause 3(1) of the formula which states that the new formula will bring relief to the low-income groups. While I concede that in certain respects the rent formula has been beneficial, particularly to the ownership people, for the last couple of weeks I have been dealing with a communication concerning the rental formula which was sent out to a lot of the tenants. Some of the people I have seen appeared to be concerned that their rentals have come down. I told them it was quite in order and that it was a subsidy from the State. However, I cannot see how the Tongaat Town Board could send out circulars to a certain group of people living in the low-cost homes to the following effect—maybe I should just mention the points here.

The income here is R162, the existing method of rental is R84,82, including electricity accounts of R24 plus a water account averaging R4. The new method now states R80,32, to which we have to add the electricity of R25 and R4 for water. This brings us to a total of between R112 and R115. How is one expected to live on a mere R50? That is left over from R162.

I approached the local authority in this matter who admitted being confused about the formula and who therefore directed me to clause 323 of the formula where it states that the House of Delegates has made it very clear that those who are receiving low incomes, should refer this matter to the relevant welfare departments. We know that earlier this year the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare stated very clearly that all he has to offer the pensioners this year is a one-off R60 bonus. That means R5 per month. We cannot go and see these people about temporary relief. We must go there on a permanent basis. Surely there is something wrong here.

Arising out of this I would like to ask a few questions. In connection with these formulas, was a routine circular sent out by all the local authorities and municipalities on the same basis or are there any hidden factors that the municipalities are now levying which we do not see?

Hon members must understand that the extra-parliamentary forces no doubt are using this rental formula to get a lot of credibility and mileage among our community. Whilst the hon member for Stanger mentioned that we should have communication in this regard, I am in agreement with him provided that the communication is on an equal basis where there is respect for both sides.

I can tell this House about the case where an invitation was extended to me two weeks ago by the Civic Association of Tongaat. The letter was very derogatory, because it stated that:

Had the tone of that letter been that I as an MP for Tongaat should come and explain this to the community there, I would have accepted that invitation. On the other hand, members of the town board were invited to the meeting and when those two members arrived they were flatly refused a chance to speak and the microphones were pulled away from them. [Interjections.] How do we communicate with these people when we all know full well that the extraparliamentary forces are picking us out because we are participating? To them we are sell-outs, and yet when we try to explain to the community that we have a reason to be here to help those people, those forces are using this as a means to gain credibility.

I believe the hon the Minister of Housing should have another look at this formula and consider something more simplified. I cannot agree more with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that there are flaws in the formula and that computers should not dictate to our people what they should do.

The next question I come to is the identification of land—particularly in Tongaat. I was a bit disappointed yesterday when Tongaat was not mentioned in this written report. However I feel happy, because this morning I received a letter from the hon the Minister of Housing in the post indicating to me that land had been identified and advertised. This was also mentioned by the hon the Minister earlier this afternoon.

But we do not want a Buckingham Palace. [Interjections.]

All right. The hon the Minister of the Budget also pointed to problems along the North Coast. There is beautiful land very close to the towns. I do not see why we should not exercise our rights and take that land rather than identifying land that is far away from the amenities and the hub of activities of the town. What normally happens is that land that belongs to the Indian farmers is taken away and the land that belongs to the White community is never touched.

One has to look into this. I would also suggest that when we are looking at land, we should not look at land near the rivers. I think last year’s flood disaster showed us that our people who live in homes there, suffer when there are floods.

I think much has been said about the quality of the homes that are built for our people, the construction and the material that is used. We have seen evidence of this during the floods last year, where the mixture of the mortar that was sometimes used, contained too much sand and as a result homes were washed away. I think one has to be very careful when awarding contracts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, housing is a most important factor, and particularly to the Indian community, because of the artificial shortage created by the application of the law which is presently prevalent in this country.

A community which has a roof over its head is a settled community. People without roofs have all sorts of impediments, difficulties, and social problems like drug abuse, etc. Especially where there are large blocks of flats, as we have in Actonville, one finds all sorts of evils. The people who live in those flats live in the anticipation of getting homes. Now that there is some hope, although it is still in the distant future, I think that there might be some light. It is said that one can give an Indian a pondokkie and he will make a palace out of it if he knows that it is his own house. As long as he lives in someone else’s house, renting it, there will be very little improvement.

What the House of Delegates has done about the provision of housing for the aggrieved community, in fairness and with due respect, leaves much to be desired. I do not want to be critical. I just want to state facts. In comparison with our counterpart, the House of Representatives, we find that we are lagging far behind. There may also be some shortcomings and misgivings there, but let us look at the positive aspects and compare and see if we have matched anything like Rabie Ridge or Blue Downs. Forget about the prices. What I am trying to say is that Rabie Ridge evolved from a piece of open veld where there was nothing and became a reality in ten months and now there are 700 homes, a school and sporting facilities.

What has the House of Delegates done for the people of the Indian community in the last four years. In October we have local elections. What can we show the people regarding what we did for them? If the Coloured people go for an election, they will be assured of coming back to Parliament, but when we go for an election, it will be asked of us what we have done for the people. What do we have to show them?

Our people are law-abiding and did not want to break the law. However, in Benoni, because of frustration, and because there is congestion and trouble and evil in the community, some of the families had to move into White areas. With no land or houses being made available to them, they have no alternative. However, now notices have been served to those people to vacate their homes and they are threatened with legal prosecution. I think the House of Delegates must take a firm stand and see to it that those notices are withdrawn immediately. We must bring relief to our people. If we cannot bring relief to our people, nobody else will do it. The party of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will not do it. They are out to get our people removed from the White areas, but our people cannot go away because they have no alternative.

Villa Lisa in Benoni, for argument’s sake, has been proclaimed, but it will take a long, long time before our people will be able to move into Villa Lisa. In Windmill Park, adjoining Villa Lisa, there are ready-made houses which people can take over immediately. It will ease the shortage. The people who are illegally occupying homes in the town can perhaps move into those houses. I know that the White community in Windmill Park is frustrated. Why do we not demand that we want that area for our people as well? If the White community is also as frustrated as we are, why can everybody not live in peace and harmony next to each other?

I now come to Villa Lisa. It is no use having plans and maps, architects and bricklayers. These things all go together and they should be coordinated like they did in Rabie Ridge. The people who design the infrastructure, should also do the building. The people who get the building contract, should also be responsible for the infrastructure so that houses can be built at the same time. In this way we can provide houses by the end of this year. By December people will be able to have homes in Villa Lisa. We must take the initiative. If we do not do it, nobody is going to do it for us!

I now come to prices. I do not know why there is a delay. We just cannot sort out this question of prices. Palm Ridge is an area already occupied by the Indian community. For many years people have not been able to get transfers, because prices have not been fixed. My real concern is Marlboro where the religious community want to put up their religious structures. However, there are no fixed prices. The House of Delegates keeps promising that things will be done tomorrow, this week and next week! There still are no fixed prices!

That mosque and vernacular classes could have been built three years ago. Now the people will have to pay approximately 60% more for erecting these buildings. Why are we doing this! Why are we causing these impediments? It is we who are doing this to our people. We are supposed to help our people, and not to cause impediments. The Whites have caused our people much suffering, but why should our people suffer at our hands, too? We must remove all impediments in their way. I think we should see to the grievances of our people immediately. If we are not going to do this, very few people will see their way clear to come back into this House. I can assure hon members of this.

You must sacrifice your goats!

We have come into this Parliament to serve our community, and not to fight ourselves. We should not be concerned about ourselves. Why do we not give some attention to the needs and requirements of our people? Why do we not pay attention to that? That is our priority. Our community is our priority—not us! Our own needs are not important. The needs of the community is important. If hon members can place that before anything else, then they can truly be called leaders in their communities. Time has proven that all true leaders of communities die as paupers.

Is that so?

I am telling you!

Yes, the hon member is right.

Those people who look after their own needs only, and who die as rich people, cannot be called leaders of their communities, because they have not served their communities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the cry for housing is not unique only to South Africa or the Indian community. It is an international problem. Because of the Group Areas Act which causes such imbalances in the supply and demand principle, the shortage of land for housing for the Indian community is more pronounced.

This afternoon much has been said about the need to provide low-cost homes, land and selfhelp schemes to assist people to build their own homes. I am concerned about large tracts of serviced land that are at the moment available in Chatsworth. I know the hon the Minister of Housing had an impasse with the Durban City Council in order to procure that land for sale to the community at a reasonable price.

This has been going on for some four years now and I wonder if any finality has been reached in this matter. The building costs are soaring and people are demanding land on which they can build but we have not heard anything more than what has been said before. I hope the hon the Minister will give his serious attention to this and bring us a favourable reply on Monday.

Within a week!

Another important aspect is the provision of crematoria. Since the time the Indians settled in South Africa we have helped ourselves. We have provided our own schools and many other amenities for our community. [Interjections.] However, we are finding it extremely difficult to provide a service such as a crematorium.

In Southern Natal—an area stretching from Port Shepstone right up to Phoenix—there is only one crematorium. It is in Clare Estate and it is owned by a private enterprise. That too is being threatened with extinction because the Umgeni River is flowing beyond its bounds. In Chatsworth there is a site allocated for a crematorium but the Durban City Council is adamant that it is not its responsibility to provide such a facility. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Housing if it is not possible, now that we have the House of Delegates, to make this crematorium in Chatsworth a reality? The people of Southern Natal will then be able to send their dead away peacefully in a crematorium that will be close to them instead of having to travel many kilometres away to a crematorium that is far away.

There are also other aspects of the Indian community that have to be looked at. One of these is the provision of community halls. It was the intention of the Durban City Council to have a community hall in each unit and sites were identified for this purpose. However, nothing has come of this and the reason given is a lack of funds which must emanate from the Community Facilities Fund.

At the moment there are only three community halls in the whole of Chatsworth and this has become insufficient for the provision of various activities for the community of Chatsworth. The hon the Minister of Housing must endeavour to obtain these facilities, even if the necessary funds must be borrowed. This will then become repayable when identified land for housing and other business properties are sold and funds are realised from those sales.

We are already begging them!

The hon the Minister says that he is begging the City Council. I think we must insist on them because the community desperately needs this facility. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is rather unfortunate that I have to enter this debate at the tail-end. Many of my hon colleagues have stolen a march on me this afternoon by discussing matters that I wanted to raise as well. Nevertheless, I think that by emphasising these matters, one stresses their importance. For that purpose I will reiterate some of the matters that have been dealt with.

Right at the outset I would like to compliment the hon the Minister of Housing and his administration on having produced such an edifying and progressive report. To my mind it was a very exciting report and nothing like this has been produced since the advent of the House of Delegates. As much as the present hon Minister of Housing may take credit for the bold strides taken in housing issues, this could to some extent have spilled over as a result of the initiative of the former Minister.

I agree that the provision of decent and affordable housing is pivotal to attaining and maintaining a stable community. This invariable helps to stem the proliferation of communism which requires a fertile ground to take advantage of any discontent in any community. Of course, one will always have people who are critical of anything the House of Delegates does for the comfort of the Indian community. I attribute this to mischief-making and an effort to try to brainwash those who are illiterate, or—I am merely quoting from Hansard—they possibly have empty craniums and therefore they know not what they do.

The new rental formula as set out in Circular 5 of 1987 has confused a lot of people—even some hon members of Parliament—and I therefore implore the hon the Minister of Housing to convene a meeting of the study groups of the different parties, and to brief us fully on this aspect. The report does highlight some aspects of the new rental formula, but I am of the opinion that some municipalities have taken advantage of the relief afforded by the House of Delegates by increasing their own hidden costs such as administration, refuse removal, rates etc. Our community is not aware of this and Press reports to this effect must be issued so that the community will know the truth and not be misled and manipulated by people intent on this type of mischiefmaking.

Another worrying factor is that the House of Delegates charges an interest rate of 17% on all loans to those desirous of purchasing homes whilst one can obtain loans from a bank at 13%, and in addition, benefit from a discount of 25% for paying cash. I discussed this with the hon the Deputy Minister more than three months ago but to date I have had no satisfaction. I do realise that for some time now the hon the Deputy Minister was pre-occupied with other matters and now that the dust has settled I do hope that he will be able to apply his mind to this problem. The deadline for the sales campaign on housing ended on 30 June and I am hopeful that the hon the Minister of Housing will announce a further extension of time.

The hon the Minister’s recent visit to Pietermaritzburg was a very fruitful one and has brought tremendous credibility to the House of Delegates. Even those who are against the House of Delegates praised the hon the Minister who undertook an in loco inspection of Northdale homes. I am happy about the many assurances given by the hon the Minister to the Northdale Municipal Tenants and Ratepayers Association with regard to the cost of these homes. I understand from the hon the Minister that his department will be reporting to him on this aspect and I hope that this will be expedited as most tenants wish to purchase their homes.

The folly of Copes Folly still seems to be haunting us. In spite of almost three years of negotiation and its eventual expropriation no progress has been made. Although the hon the Minister has announced that the House of Delegates will undertake the development of this project, it seems as if someone is dragging their feet.

I am unable to explain this situation to people in my constituency. We need approximately 4 500 houses urgently and if the problem is not addressed timeously, the housing problem will be catastrophic in Pietermaritzburg. I realise that the hon the Minister has tremendous problems with regard to the buffer strip to the quarry, which could deprive us of about a thousand homes, but this could be circumvented by creating open spaces to provide for recreational and community facilities. Having excised the buffer strip, at least 2 000 houses could be provided.

Now that Jesmondene has been given the green light, a further thousand houses could be provided by the private sector. This is still insufficient, and hence we must now look at Whispers, which is contiguous to Copes Folly, which has no servicing problems and a further thousand houses could be built. Therefore the House of Delegates must now in all haste acquire this area before options are taken and the House of Delegates is held to ransom by unscrupulous exploiters.

It has been reported via the medium of the Press that the House of Delegates is interested in further expansion in Bishopstowe. I wish to point out that to my knowledge this is not a contiguous area to Copes Folly … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes left to me I shall try to be as brief as possible. I wish to address myself to the hon the Minister in regard to the rental formula. Much has been said in this regard. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the rental formula should be devised in a realistic manner. Some speakers—the hon member for Allandale as well as the hon member for Tongaat—have amplified what I have to say. However, my particular concern is with the local authorities. The local authorities levy charges which are unrealistic. The breakdown is rates, administration charges, general lighting, arrear interests, electricity charges and water accounts.

I refer in particular to the Merebank Subeconomic Housing Scheme. If one adds together the rent and the municipal charges it is more than 50% of the income. This is grossly unfair when the rental formula allows for only 25% of the income. One finds that the people have to pay 50%. These people are very, very poor they are pensioners, widows, grantees and unemployed people. It is shameful that 15 to 20 per cent of their income has to be paid in rates.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he goes into this matter seriously and considers these local authorities subsidising these municipal charges to a great extent. This will alleviate the problem to some extent. There is no point in providing for a realistic rental formula of 25% if one finds that the municipal charges are in excess of this.

In the Durban metropolitan area they get a R15 million per year subsidy.

I take the hon the Minister’s point. I want to say to the hon the Minister that affordable rentals should be worked out taking into consideration such expenses as food, clothing, transport and medical expenses. People should not be cheated into paying more than 50% of their income.

Mr Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister of Housing on his report on housing yesterday. I think it is a fantastic achievement, and better than expected. However, one thing has been forgotten; I think that the hon member for North Coast has been projecting to the year 2010. I think that is too far ahead. What we must do is project from year to year.

The population increase among the Indian population is approximately 12 000 per annum, and 3 000 more houses are required every year if every family is to be provided with a home. The 12 000 houses that are in the pipeline at the moment will take some years to materialise, by the time the plots are serviced and the houses are built. Then, in the four years it takes those houses to materialise, there will be a further shortfall of another 12 000 houses. Therefore, the backlog of housing will be continuous.

Unless the Group Areas Act is done away with, we will always run short of land. Land is a major problem. Without land I do not think we shall be able to provide sufficient homes for the Indian community. This is the major obstacle in trying to provide homes for the Indian community.

I think I should suggest to the hon the Minister that he give Villa Lisa priority. Perhaps that may be on our programme for the next election. If Villa Lisa is developed and built immediately, before we go for the next election, I think we could then point out to the Indian community how quickly we had developed Villa Lisa, and we might have a better chance of coming back to Parliament.

My main concern is my constituency. I am quite happy with what is happening in Cato Manor. Cato Manor will soon get off the ground. Work will begin on building the houses this year and I think the pace of building will accelerate during the coming year.

However, the main problem is Clairwood. Clairwood is an area in which a good many of the people are renting their accommodation. Now Clairwood has been opened up and people will start building homes and making alterations and additions to those homes.

There are some very poor people living in single rooms. They rent such rooms, or they live in garages or outbuildings. These people will be pushed out immediately. There are hundreds of families in need of immediate attention. Unless something is done for them, those poor people will have nowhere to go.

Today one cannot get an outhouse in the Indian community. One cannot get a small outhouse of, say, two metres by three metres. One cannot get a garage either. Where will those poor people go? They will be stranded.

Therefore something must be done to compile a list of how many people are living there and the number of people in those families, as well as their income and so on. Whatever is necessary, must be done. Then the necessary records will exist in order to see what best can be done for them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have a time constraint, but within that time constraint I should like to say that in this very important debate on housing I was shocked that a so-called intellectual—a very knowledgeable man who professes to be very learned in this House—namely the hon member for Reservoir Hills, should have revealed to us that there is an hon member for Parliament who owns two houses at Pelican Park. I am shocked, simply because …

He does not realise the circumstances.

… of the circumstances in which that person is placed. This man has no concern for the suffering of the disabled and the comfort of those whose interests we are trying to promote in this very House. God bless this hon member.

In the limited time I have at my disposal, I want to address myself to the hon the Minister. I am mindful of the development that has taken place in Phoenix, but with a population of 26 000 people, I speak as a former sportsman when I say that we have a very urgent need for a sports stadium in Phoenix.

The Durban City Council has the money, I promise you.

I want the hon the Minister to use his influence and his good offices to ensure that we have a central sports stadium in Phoenix. I am being hounded by the sports authorities there.

The next important point is that in 1984 I made an appeal to the former Minister of Housing with regard to the housing of the Campbellstown pensioners, who are former workers for the Huletts company. However, when I look at the geography or the location of Phoenix, I see that we cannot move anywhere to the west, or the north, or the south because we have reached certain perimeters. The only way one can advance is toward the east.

That has been decided. Do not labour the point. That has been decided and accepted.

I thank the hon the Minister for having displayed that interest in Phoenix, and I want to reiterate the need for a sports stadium to be erected there.

Debate interrupted.

Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Bill [B 86—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Justice).