Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a great privilege to me to be able to move this motion in this House this morning. I should therefore like to thank the members of my party for giving me the opportunity to raise in this House a matter which is in my opinion a very important one. I believe that this motion is in the interests of the whole of South Africa, and therefore also in the interests of every member in this House. Therefore I hope that we shall discuss this motion in the light of the fact that what is discussed here could influence the future of Parliament itself, the future of every member present here and the relationships between the various races in South Africa. I very urgently call upon the hon. the Minister who is to reply to this motion to regard it in a favourable light and to agree to the appointment of the Select Committee concerned. There is one problem which I should just like to dispose of straight away. The fact that it will not be a Bill before the Select Committee is no reason, in my opinion, why the motion should be rejected. I think if we, as a Select Committee of both Houses, can consider this matter, it could in fact be a source of strength to the Government instead of the Government’s committing itself to certain principles and then having the Select Committee review the matter in that light.

†I also want to say that it is very far from my intention, in moving this motion today, to attempt in some underhand manner to introduce the policy of my party, as an alternative, in the discussions in the House today. I must be very honest and say that we hope, at a meeting of our Federal Council tomorrow, to appoint a constitutional committee of the party which will continue with the sort of discussions we had in the old UP, discussions which resulted in the drawing up of our policy of race federation, a considerable amount of that policy having been adopted, in broad outline, in the proposals the Government has formulated. What I wish to do is to direct a very sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to allow Parliament, this elected body of people, to consider the future in a Joint Select Committee. Every single one of us here knows that the future is going to bring us very considerable changes. We stand at an absolute watershed in history and I think that every member who is not conscious of that fact is not in tune with what is really happening in our country and in the world at large. It is said: “The old order changeth, yielding place to the new.” Politics in this country is going to undergo a radical change as a result of the proposals the Government has already made. If anybody is competent to consider these changes and how they can be implemented, to consider how we can get away from the politics of yesterday, which have governed so much of our thinking and even today tend to colour the thinking between parties, it would be such a Joint Select Committee. In the atmosphere of such a committee—I want to stress that it must be a Select Committee of both Houses so that the whole experience of Parliament can be brought to bear on this problem—this matter can best be discussed. I believe this would be to the very great benefit of every person living in South Africa.

I think the Government can view the matter in the light of the fact that they do have an immense majority. I believe that for the White man that is a source of strength in the present situation in which we find ourselves, because the Government can act with complete confidence. They can make proposals, they can adapt those proposals and they can make changes if they have to without it affecting their electoral chances. It is not going to result in victories being chalked up for other parties or anything like that at all. It will be a sign of strength for the Government, with the majority they have, to allow this matter to be considered by a Select Committee of Parliament. It will be to the credit of the Government and to the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

I believe that the minor parties, the Opposition parties, also have a role to play. I think it is important that it should be recognized that there is not a monopoly on “wysheid en verstand”, but that that can be held by anybody in the House; and that people do have a contribution to make. All parties have ideas which may well be of considerable benefit if they can be considered in a light which is not the political light which governs everything that happens on the floor of this House.

I believe that Parliament and its Select Committees should be able to identify problem areas—we should be able to think about the powers, privileges and functions of Parliament—to put forward the expert opinion which is in the House. I want to stress that Parliament has a body of knowledge available which can be channeled to the considerable benefit of everybody in South Africa. It is possible for a Select Committee also to get outside opinion and expert advice and to suggest solutions, which in many cases may be solutions none of us here might have thought of as yet and which may turn out to be absolutely vital if we are going to survive. I want to state categorically that the purpose we must have is to survive as a White community in the country with the message we have. I shall deal with that point a little later on. What I want to suggest is that it is important that there should be a consensus among Whites if we are going to negotiate with other groups. I cannot stress it enough that politics is changing. The politics which has divided us in the past is yesterday’s politics. The minute a change is made in the constitution, a change which gives power to other groups outside Parliament, the whole political set-up in the country will change and the things that divided us in the past will become things of yesterday. I believe we have already achieved a certain measure of consensus in this House. The fact that the Government has come forward with a proposal to set up three Parliaments—one for the Whites, one for the Coloureds and one for the Indians—is already an example of how we have come closer together as we have in the past when a measure of that sort was proposed. I believe the Official Opposition in their own minds doubt the efficacy of the old qualified franchise which they in the past put forward as their policy in the past.

There was no doubt as to the question of one Parliament.

Well, if there is no doubt as to one Parliament, that is an attitude which the hon. members are entitled to assume. I believe it is certainly possible to achieve a broad measure of consensus as to what the ultimate objective is going to be. I could not help noting this morning that we have achieved a great deal of consensus in this House. According to a notice on the notice board, the hon. member for Simonstown is the captain of the PRP cricket team tomorrow! If that is a straw in the wind perhaps we are achieving more than we realize.

I do not think I ought to play under those circumstances!

There will be a lot of no-balls bowled.

The question of the changeover from the Union Parliament to the Republican Parliament was a matter which was considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses and it was done, I believe, with considerable advantage.

The Government could well afford to allow this House and the Other Place to appoint that sort of Select Committee also to consider the powers, privileges and functions of this Parliament if we accept as a basis for discussion—and that I propose to do in my motion here today—the three-Parliament plan of the Government. If it is necessary to refer to anything else that we might be considering, I am doing it as a means of illustration that there can be alternatives which might be considered in that Select Committee. I have circulated the notes from which I am speaking to the Government and to the PFP in an attempt to ensure that the intention that I have in introducing this motion is clearly understood. As I have said, it is not an attempt to plug any particular line, but an attempt to try to get Parliament as a body involved in the changes that are going to take place.

I believe that somewhere or another, whether in the framework the Government proposes or not, something will have to be done whereby continuous consultation can take place even if it is between the three Parliaments proposed by the Government and the Black community in South Africa.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens addressed a constitutional conference which was held in Pietermaritzburg the other day. He outlined six areas where decisions had not yet been taken in relation to the Government’s proposals, namely fiscal arrangements and budgeting, the division of functions between the different Parliaments and between the State President, the amendment of the constitution, the legislative procedures to be followed in relation to the three bodies, the function of the President and the method of representation. These are matters which are part of the life of Parliament. I therefore believe that Parliament itself, by means of a Select Committee, would be able to sort out these problems and the additional problem that I have mentioned, namely that somewhere there will have to be a consultative over-arching body which would include—however one would like to see them—the Black homelands and Soweto as an autonomous unit. There will have to be some sort of arm’s length relationship. One may like to call the White, Coloured and Indian Parliaments the inner ring and the other groups may be called the outer ring, or in whatever way it may be structured.

I want to raise the question of sovereignty and the question of the nucleus state. If one discusses the question of sovereignty, we accept that this Parliament is a sovereign Parliament having sovereignty over every single person living within the boundaries of South Africa. Every single person is affected by what we decide here. However, we are going to give away sovereignty to the Coloured community as we are going to give sovereignty to the Indian community. In whatever measure, it has to happen, for example, that there will be a sovereign Coloured Parliament which will take decisions affecting the Coloured people, decisions which this Parliament cannot influence. The same applies in the case of the Indian people. There is going to be a division of sovereignty. The sovereignty of this Parliament is to an extent going to be given away and handed over to other groups. A great deal of power, if not absolute sovereignty, will also be given to the area of Soweto in terms of what the hon. the Minister said here the other day. Sir, who can discuss the question of the powers of ultimate decision or the question of divisions of responsibility better than Parliament itself?

If a Select Committee were established, Parliament would be able to consult with other bodies. Other Parliaments are going to be involved directly in this matter, and we are going to have to try to attain a situation where there is continuous and close consultation between these bodies. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to make sure of, and that is that when sovereignty is given away, what will then remain, i.e. this Parliament, will be a bastion of power for the White community. I do not say that in the spirit of wanting to plead for “baasskap” or domination or anything of that nature, but if the White community is to continue to act and operate in the way in which it should in South Africa, that will have to be ensured. We have at the moment a leadership role, and it is a role in which in the course of time we will be joined by others. That has to happen. Nevertheless, if the White community are to act, they must act with the confidence of knowing that there is a place where they are secure.

That place can only, as I see it, be this Parliament. In this regard I want to stress the value of the White community, and in this connection I want to stress again that I am not talking about White domination or White “baasskap” or anything of the sort. The White community is, however, the fuel cell of development in the whole of the future of South Africa, and we will draw others to us. We will be the inspiration of other communities. We will create among those communities the sort of state of mind which in fact underlies the whole of the Western system, a state of mind which makes people work in the way in which they work and live in the way in which they live. If the White community is going to function effectively, it has to function from the base of having a bastion of power from which it can operate. That place I would see as this Parliament, whatever powers are given to other bodies and whatever the relationship between this Parliament and the Black communities may happen to be. There must be a place where the White man is going to be secure, not a place from which he can dominate others, but a place in which he cannot be dominated.

I want to suggest that taxation is one of the weapons or means whereby the sovereignty of the White community in their own Parliament can be assured. In making this suggestion I am at the moment referring to just the White Parliament, but I am using the White Parliament as an illustration, and the same would apply also to the Coloured and Indian Parliaments, which are minority groups like ourselves. I believe we have to find a means whereby one can levy tax and therefore have money at one’s disposal to allocate to one’s own civil service in order to carry out whatever functions are reserved for one’s own Parliament. If such a position could be attained, that would ensure a situation in which no other body outside would be able to dominate the White community, the Coloured community or the Indian community. The question of the sources of taxation which would have to be made available to each of those groups, as well as the question of sources of taxation which would remain for the general use of the community as a whole, are questions which I believe Parliament itself would be completely competent to decide on. Parliament itself would be the ideal body to work this out. I think this would provide an absolute guarantee of sovereignty for each of these groups in the plural situation into which we are going to develop.

A further question I want to raise is this: Where is the State going to be? At the moment the State is here in this Parliament. At the moment our people owe loyalty to this body, and we are the expression of South Africa, the power source of South Africa. What happens in South Africa, happens here. If we give away power to other groups, where is the State going to be? Where will the focus of loyalty be, the loyalty which is going to cause people to fight for South Africa, to love and defend South Africa? A focus has to be created somewhere which will be the centre of loyalty of all the different communities in South Africa. What, for instance, will make the people of kwaZulu go and fight on the borders of Bophuthatswana? How do we see the State, and where will the State, the centre of loyalty, be?

I would like to draw a comparison with the State into which we are going to develop in terms of the Government’s own proposals. I am not much of a nuclear physicist. The facts about nuclear power have changed a great deal since I was told about it anyway, but I do understand something about the workings of the atom …

Stick to archery and bull’s eye!

I am pretty good at that too. If one takes the nucleus of the atom one finds other bodies which rotates about the nucleus in fixed planes, in a fixed relationship. This goes on for ever without the bodies coming into contact or conflict, or in any way hindering the path of each other. They are always there and always moving; they are in a constant relationship. If one causes that body to explode, one gets a nuclear explosion of such cataclysmic result. I think what we have to look for in this country, is something which will be the nucleus about which the various bodies is going to move in a predetermined and fixed relationship.

Having said that, I would like to ask: What is going to be left for this Parliament to do?

What will the politics be in this Parliament? What will we fight about if the Coloured and Indian communities look after their own affairs, and the Black communities are all citizens of other countries? Why do we need so many members as at present when Whity is talking about Whity’s affairs? What is the purpose of so many members? A joint Select Committee could very easily consider that kind of problem. If one gives away sovereignty, one is considerably reducing the sphere of competence of this Parliament, and I think Parliament itself should be cognizant of that and should be party to which powers are being given away and should know exactly what is going to be left and what the sphere of its competence would be.

There is also the question of the consideration of alternative models. The Government has made a broad proposal, a proposal which has been sketched out and outlined. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, for instance, spoke about the proposals at the constitutional conference that we attended. However, there are tremendous areas which have not yet been filled in. I would like to think that the Government has not pinned their hopes to this, has not nailed their colours to the mast. The hon. the Prime Minister has said there will be a lot more consultations before legislation is introduced into the House. Surely, it is competent for Parliament to consider alternative models. There might be other ideas which can come forward and which will lead to perhaps a better solution than the one which has been suggested. Or are we now to accept that what has been said is the law of the Medes and Persians and that there can be no departure from what has been laid down? The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will bear me out that there was a very clear thread running through the conference, namely a very, very considerable measure of resistance, if not an outright rejection, from the Black, Coloured and Indian communities to those proposals. I think Parliament should be beware of that and should take cognizance of the fact that if the new constitutional plan is to start off without the consent and the goodwill of the other groups who are going to be affected, it is likely to be a dead letter. Let us understand that if we make a proposal of that nature and it does not work, it will not be possible for us simply to say that we will go on in the old way. Proposals have been made to change, and if the change does not come about, the aspirations and the hopes that have been built up would be all the more high and all the more exacerbated. The situation will then be far more serious than it is at the present time.

I should like to think that the Government would want to appoint a Joint Select Committee which will have the opportunity to consult with the academic community and to obtain information on other models and how they could work. One of the points which struck me at that conference was the question of the acculturation of the Black community which has been taking place until now. The Black culture, the Black community, is submerged in a situation in which the White man’s culture—theatres, cinemas, books and papers, etc.—are absolutely dominant. That situation is at flood level and the ebb is now going to set in. We must make no mistake about that. We have already heard from the hon. the Minister of Justice of the seriousness of the views held by the Black Consciousness movement. This is a movement which is going to gain strength, which is going to be centred in the language and the culture of each of those groups and which is going to say to the White man and the White man’s culture that they have had enough and that they want their own. This is something we have experienced. [Interjections.] I do not believe hon. members have realized how intense this feeling is, how rapidly it is growing and what effect it is going to have on the existing situation here in South Africa. It is something which can be channeled in a beneficial direction and if it is not channeled in a beneficial direction it can cause immense difficulties.

I should like to raise one question regarding the Inkatha Gazu movement. I merely want to say that this is a movement which must not be underestimated by this Parliament, because here we have one of the major Black groups in South Africa being organized to gain political power. We must make no mistake about that. When the Black people say that they constitute 70% of the population in South Africa and that they are going to translate that fact into political power, this Parliament should be really be very much aware of what is going on.

One of the messages which has emerged is that, whatever we do, any constitutional change is not going to be a final solution, but that it will be a settlement of outstanding differences. It will get the groups together so that they can work out a modus operandi. However, the problem is that the political forces in the Black community have not yet emerged as they are still in the process of building up. Whatever constitution is drawn up—it may be a constitution which will work for a period of years—has to have built into it a method of change. We are not able to take a final decision and say that is the final constitution for South Africa, because, as I have said, the power forces among the Black community have not yet developed to the point where they can make themselves felt in the way in which they are going to make themselves felt in the future.

This Parliament, in considering its own position, powers, functions and privileges, has this wealth of knowledge and depth of experience. I am a great believer in Parliament. I believe Parliament is a body which, if it is tested, can produce results which are often startling, even to itself, in the wisdom it can display. So I think a proposal of this nature will assist us coming to a settlement which can open the road towards a final solution. A revolution will destroy us all—Black, Coloured, White and Indian. It is something which nobody can consider with equanimity in any way at all. What we have to do is to find a means by means of which tensions can be relaxed. We have got to find a means by means of which the confrontation between White and Black, which today is at the Pretoria level—the total confrontation for total power in South Africa—can be broken down so that politics can be created within each of the different groups so that the political tensions will be with those groups so that the political tensions will be with those groups, and only residually will the groups meet. The message of pluralism quite definitely is that the mass of the people wish to stay apart, but that mixing takes place at a root level. I think Parliament in putting its mind and wisdom to the service of all South Africans in the future would do a great service.

I hope that this motion will receive the support of the House and that the Leader of the House will agree to appointing such a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Mooi River who has just resumed his seat. I also want to apologize for not having been here when he started, but I did follow the greater part of his speech. It is quite significant that the hon. member should have stood up here this morning and endorsed some of the cardinal principles which this side of the House have always stood for and advocated. Shortly before he resumed his seat, he stressed, inter alia, that all the evidence showed very clearly that the various population groups wanted to continue to exist separately—he used the word “apart”. This has been one of the most important facts which this side of the House has stressed over the years and has regarded as an essential point of departure for any political approach in South Africa. For that reason I want to say to the hon. member that we welcome his motion this morning and that we are willing to take part in the discussion because it at least indicates to us that a section of the Opposition has seen some light over the years. This year the NP would have been in power for 30 years, and this is so despite the fact that when it came to power in 1948 the Opposition, which at that time was still a strong Opposition, calculated that the NP Government would only govern the country for a very short time at most. In spite of that pessimism, the National Party Government went on to lead and establish spectacular developments in South Africa, not only in the economic sphere, but also in regard to political stability and constitutional development. There is no era in the history of South Africa in which as much constitutional development has taken place as during this period. Here I need only call to mind the establishment of the Republic of South Africa, the creation and development of not merely self-governing, but totally independent Black States. I think we can say with certainty that we have reached the end of a vitally important era and that we are at present on the threshold of a new era. I regard the motion of the hon. member for Mooi River as an express desire on their part also to take part in the constitutional development in South Africa. I hope he is speaking on behalf of the entire Opposition, but I very much doubt it.

You are quite right.

Looking at the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members, I have my doubts. However, I want to leave it at that. I take it that he only has the right to speak on behalf of his own party. We are also aware that the hon. member usually adopts a reasonably positive standpoint and tries to make a good contribution.

This motion by the hon. member for Mooi River stresses for us what have been some of the most important points of conflict in our politics over the years. That is why the hon. member is today adopting a fairly positive standpoint and expressing the desire to cooperate. This suggests an opposition which does not only want to join in a discussion but also wants to make a contribution. We welcome this wholeheartedly. Indeed, we have always felt that the Opposition not only left themselves in the lurch but also left South Africa in the lurch. They left South Africa in the lurch by never making a contribution with regard to irreversible developments. They fought every important measure passed.

I have in mind, for example, the debate in this House which preceded the establishment of the Republic. I had the privilege of sitting here, and what took place here could only be described as a spectacle. Today hon. members opposite—I am tempted to say—are quiet about it because they are ashamed. [Interjections.] It is true that the Opposition have left themselves and South Africa in the lurch. That is why we find it encouraging that the hon. member for Mooi River should have moved this motion today, a motion in which he intimates that they, too, want to express their opinions.

However, what has occurred in the meantime? The developments which the National Government and the leaders of the NP initiated have in fact given the non-White a very major say in the constitutional development of South Africa, in their own passage towards independence and in their own process of progress. However, what has become of the Opposition? They have been left behind. I hope the hon. members of the Opposition realize that they have been left behind. They have become politically irrelevant. However, they are beginning to feel this. [Interjections.] The responsible non-Whites in South Africa have become leaders, leaders not only in name but leaders who also make an important political contribution with regard to the development of South Africa.

We need only cast our eyes back and look at the results of the recent general election. The hon. member for Mooi River virtually admits it in so many words. What did the White voters of South Africa say to the Opposition? The White voters of South Africa told the various opposition parties very distinctly that they were not regarded as people or as parties who could lead the development of South Africa and to whom the future of South Africa could be entrusted. Even the Official Opposition had a number of very narrow victories. I have an idea that many of their victories were merely ascribable to the confusion which prevailed in the ranks of the Opposition and among supporters of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

You had some narrow ones too!

If I may then continue with my discussion, I want to point out that the past 30 years have confirmed that the National Government and the NP have not been blind to the changes which have taken place in the world. After all, we ourselves witnessed the establishment of the UN. We saw it happening. We watched the further developments. Moreover, the NP was not blind to developments in South Africa. Indeed, we adopted a policy of separate development. After all, we never held the standpoint that development could not take place among our Black people and among our Coloureds and Indians; on the contrary, we created the opportunity for the leaders of those people to come forward and to take over the real leadership. Not all of them utilized it equally well, but nevertheless the opportunity was there. The opportunity is still there today.

In contrast to this, the Opposition was decidedly negative. What I take even more amiss of them is that their extremely negative action, through the liberal English Press, did a tremendous amount of harm to the image of South Africa abroad. What they believed the policy of the NP to be, what they believed was a policy of suppression, was published abroad. That is the image which the world was made to form. [Interjections.]

They must not squeal about it now.

That is why I want to tell the hon. members that their own people are talking to them, even the hon. member for Pinelands. I understand that on the day of the election he was terrible concerned as to whether he would make it. Apparently he took his legal representatives with him too assist in counting the votes and making sure that he obtained a majority of votes.

Where was your candidate? He helped the NRP.

In the meanwhile, while they were playing such a negative role and assisting, actively co-operating, to make the image of South Africa abroad an unfavourable one, a negative one, and building up a tremendous amount of suspicion among the non-Whites, the Government unflaggingly carried on working out a new political dispensation in South Africa by way of thorough investigation and consultation with the Black peoples, as well as the Coloured population and the Indian population.

Consultation on the basis of “take it or leave it”.

The appointment of the Erika Theron Commission was at the least the expression of a desire on the part of the Government to afford the Coloured population, in a proper and responsible fashion, the opportunity to declare themselves, and to submit all the circumstances and evidence to show why a change in the political dispensation of South Africa should be effected. I can point out that opportunities have been afforded. Among other things, there were six Coloureds who were members of the commission and one of them was a CRC member of the then Federal Coloured Party. However, the Labour Party, the majority party in the CRC, also had the opportunity of serving on the commission. They were not excluded from it, but they refused to play a role. Therefore they, too, adopted a negative standpoint. More than once it was clear that they were subsequently very sorry that they had adopted such a negative standpoint. Responsible people among them were sorry that such a standpoint had been adopted.

However, the fact is that by way of a wide-ranging investigation, discussions and the hearing of evidence, the Government produced a report which ultimately had also to contribute towards the new dispensation. This attests to the fact that there is extensive consultation and that there are opportunities for people to express their opinions. The Government has carried on with this at Cabinet level. At ministerial level the matter was taken further and work on the new dispensation is going ahead with great zeal.

Are you also going to refer to the motion itself?

The hon. member must give me the opportunity to continue with my speech; unfortunately my time is getting short.

The hon. member for Mooi River is now requesting the opportunity, by way of a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament for the opposition parties also to make a contribution—that is what his motion amounts to …

Which will even include your caucus.

A Joint Select Committee surely entails representation of the Opposition parties on the Committee, does it not? He is requesting an opportunity to express his opinions, too. I welcome that attitude and idea, but then hon. members opposite must begin to make a positive contribution. As I already said, I am sincerely convinced that in the past they have done the cause tremendous harm in the past. However, if the Opposition had acted, in general, as the hon. member for Mooi River is doing, there would have been a different state of affairs. He has made speeches in this House from time to time about which I, and, I believe, other hon. members on this side too, have felt that we could agree whole-heartedly. Did he have the official support of the Opposition? No, I fear not. He did not have that support.

We have now reached the threshold of a new dispensation, in that we are going to have a new parliamentary system. There will be three separate Parliaments, but in fact one parliamentary system, because the three are brought together and united in a Cabinet Council and a single State President. We must not, therefore, over-emphasize the concept of three Parliaments, while disregarding and losing sight of the unifying link established by the State President.

Are you running away from it?

Oh really, if the hon. member has not yet studied it and I have to give him a lecture on the subject, then we shall have to do so privately. However, he ought to be able to do so himself. It is there, and as far as I am concerned, all the opposition parties are definitely welcome. I hope, too, that it will be possible for the Government to afford them the opportunity to make their contribution since they are saying here this morning that they should like to make a contribution. However, this will only be done if the Opposition—and I should like to stress this—recognizes that South Africa can only develop in an orderly fashion if the plurality of its population is recognized. The hon. member for Mooi River has said this, but I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands says it.

Why are you cross with me this morning?

I do not know. I merely mention it for his edification because he is listening with such interest. I hope he learns something.

But I hear nothing.

I say that this will be done as long as we recognize the vital fact which the hon. member for Mooi River has recognized, and as long as they, too, value the protection of the identity, security and the right of self-determination of the White man. We do not want to create a dispensation in which we introduce the Coloured or the Indian—even if it be by way of qualified franchise—in order to establish a progressive Parliament or a majority in Parliament. However, that is what they are striving for. They are seeking aid among the Coloureds, among the Indians and among the urban Blacks in an effort to come to power.

And abroad.

They, too, are South Africans.

The third condition is that they, too, must realize that the political dispensation which will come into being must afford protection to private initiative and that we must not establish a political dispensation in which one population group can use its political power to strangle another population group economically. The hon. member for Mooi River has more than once discussed the importance of the individual and the private entrepreneur. He states that those people must be retained. I say so too. The fourth condition is that we must ensure that neither the Black man, the Coloured nor the Indian will be afforded the opportunity in politics to ride the entrepreneur—in this instance chiefly the White entrepreneur—and by so doing kill by strangulation the economy of South Africa, because what would we have then? What would remain then, not only for us, but for the Black man and the Brown man as well?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg has spent a great deal of his time trying to persuade us that the record of the NP over the past 30 years has been one of a sweep towards some ideal, with no problems and various qualities of fairness and justice. I agree with him that we are in a new era, but what we are now witnessing is, in fact, the dismantling of all the legislation and structures of petty apartheid that we spent so many years fighting. I think that is something historians will write about and point to. How dare he make the proposition that there has been this grand sweep towards a new era when we spend so much time talking about an opera house that was barred to Blacks and about Basil D’Oliveira who could not come to this country to play cricket. [Interjections.] We are now, however, busy watching the Government spend hours, weeks and months changing those very policies.

I want to get back to this motion. I am sure there is not a single member here who is not aware of the very strong traditions and the powerful and influential place that this Parliament has in the life of South Africa. In fact, in moments, perhaps, of depression I sometimes think that there are some institutions in the country which still have ultimate public confidence and which can be used as growth points for future dispensations. One is the Supreme Court of South Africa, and I believe the Parliament of South Africa is another such institution. I believe that we must look at the new dispensation very carefully to see whether we are not, in fact, going to jeopardize the traditions, facilities, powers, functions and prestige of Parliament as we know it.

I think it is interesting to remember that the powers and the position of Parliament generally are to be found in two Acts of Parliament, viz. the Constitution Act of 1961 and the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act of 1963. I think it is interesting to recall two things: Firstly, that no single member of a State department—no Minister, no humble ganger on the Railways—may perform any act or purport to perform any act which will have validity unless this Parliament has expressly authorized him to perform that act. That is an interesting thing, and I think that sometimes we forget that the authority of the State and all its officials stems from this particular Parliament. Secondly, I do not think it is usually realized that not a single cent of public money may be spent by the State or any Government agency without the specific allocation of it by this Parliament. We are therefore in a hallowed place. It is also interesting—and no political scientist has yet referred to this—that, apart from these two Acts, this Parliament’s position, influence and prestige are affected by two other matters, which are largely undefined—and rightly so, because this gives flexibility and suppleness to our Constitution. I refer to constitutional conventions and the State President’s prerogative, both of which are expressly preserved in the Act of 1961. I have heard no reference from any Government spokesman to the effect their new dispensation will have on those two very important elements in our constitutional structure or, conversely, to the effect those elements will have on the new dispensation.

I want to say that the total effect of the legislation I have referred to and of the conventions and the State President’s prerogative may be summarized as follows: Firstly, that this Parliament is absolutely sovereign in every single sense, provided—and it is a small proviso—that procedurally it has to meet in a joint sitting and get a two-thirds majority to change the equality of the two official languages—with that exception, it is substantively and procedurally absolutely sovereign; and, secondly, that this Parliament is also a court of law with certain definite criminal jurisdiction over both members and strangers; and, thirdly, that members of Parliament have specific individual rights. Those are the three elements, summarized, of the constitution as regards this Parliament.

I should like to suggest that the Government’s constitutional proposals, which from now on I shall call the “new dispensation” because that is what the Government has in fact called them, have been only minimally made available to the public. This dispensation has been made available in a document which was used as an advertisement in the general election but, apart from that, I am not aware of any in-depth exposure of the new dispensation to the public of South Africa. However, from what has in fact been given—and it is precious little—it seems clear that two matters have not been affected and will not be affected by the new dispensation, viz. the individual rights of members and the criminal jurisdiction of this Parliament as a court of law. What is, however, vitally affected is the other element I referred to, viz. the absolute sovereignty of this Parliament. I believe that the hon. member for Mooi River is totally wrong when he says that in fact the sovereignty of this Parliament will be inevitably and irrevocably affected by the new dispensation.

I think we must ask the Government whether Parliamentary sovereignty is in fact going to be affected by the new dispensation. Let me put what I believe to be the two crucial questions. Let us assume that Parliament is to transfer certain powers to the Coloured and Indian Parliaments. I then want to ask the Government—in fact, I asked it on many occasions during the general election and it was also put during the censure debate three weeks ago: Assuming that powers are to be transferred to the other two Parliaments, will such transfer be revocable or irrevocable? I think this is an absolutely crucial question, and, unless we get clarity on that, it is a waste of time to have a Joint Select Committee of Parliament sitting to determine what the effect of the proposals will be on Parliament. The answer to this question has very important consequences. If the transfer of powers is, in fact, irrevocable there will be not only a transfer of jurisdiction, but also a partial surrender of sovereignty. I think the hon. member for Mooi River will see the difference between a transfer of jurisdiction and a partial surrender of sovereignty. If the transfer of power is irrevocable, we are not seeing a new dispensation in South Africa; we are seeing a new order, an entirely new order. Then, for the first time in the world, we will see sovereign Parliaments operating within one territorial area. However, if the transfer of power is revocable, the question is: What do we have then? We have one sovereign Parliament remaining, and we have effectively a perpetual White veto. That is what tore the old UP apart; that is the interesting thing. I can remember that the hon. member for Simonstown was determined to hold on to the idea that this Parliament, while transferring power to the UP’s proposed federal assembly, would hold on to that key of White domination, which was the ability to revoke the new dispensation and the transfer of power. However, the Government has never answered that question. We expect an answer and until an answer is given, all this discussion is academic.

There is also a second question, one which is even more important. Assuming a transfer takes place of powers over matters exclusively of Coloured and Indian concern, what happens to the matters of common concern? Again, I put this question many times during the general election. I never received an answer. It was again put during the censure debate. Look at the programme of this House last year. A total of 127 Bills were passed. I would like to ask Government members: How many of those 127 Bills could possibly be referred to as matters of exclusive White, Coloured or Indian concern? Half a dozen, or perhaps only four! Look at the list. Certainly over 100 of these Bills dealt inherently and inextricably with matters of common concern to all the peoples of this country.

I want to know, the public are entitled to know and the House is entitled to know before indulgence in time-consuming and expensive Joint Parliamentary Committees, which Parliament is going to legislate on matters of common concern. That is the crucial question. Is it going to be the White Parliament—in which case, of course, there is no question of a further surrender of sovereignty—or must all three Parliaments pass a Bill? Will it perhaps be the State President or the Council of Cabinets? However, my point is this: This is a crucial question and until it has been answered—and it has not been answered yet—the Government’s new dispensation is so ambiguous and shrouded in obscurity, that it is not possible to structure an inquiry by a Joint Parliamentary Committee on these proposals.

Mr. Speaker, there are other objections to the motion. It presupposes that the new dispensation, despite its ambiguity, will in fact be implemented as it stands now. But the Government has promised to consult with Black people on possible changes, and until this is fulfilled, it is again totally premature to pass this new dispensation to a Committee of both Houses to study.

Finally, there is the taint that the new dispensation is being imposed by one group of this country upon other groups. I say that unless one can get prior consensus for a constitutional structure, it is pipe-dreaming to think that this dispensation will in fact have the consent and approval of the groups that have not been consulted. It is unthinkable that any Opposition Party should lend any plausibility or respectability to this new dispensation by suggesting that it will in fact co-operate to inquire into how it will affect this Parliament, while all these ambiguities are present and this taint still exists. I think the Official Opposition would be doing a disservice to this House and to the Republic if it were in fact to swallow this package as if it were inevitable and as if it could not be changed, and then solemnly to sit on a Committee to see what the effect would be on the day-to-day running of Parliament. Therefore, Sir, I have no doubt that the motion should be negatived. The Official Opposition will have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republic of South Africa has developed through evolution and not revolution. There has been no judicial break with the past. The whole process which led to the passing of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was in accordance with existing rules of constitutional law. A characteristic of evolutionary constitutional law is its stability. It shows that the State has the ability to solve domestic problems in accordance with its constitutional law. At the same time, dissatisfied people come to know that systematic pressure over a long term can bring about the changes which they desire. Those who only have their wishes fulfilled after a long fight for them also learn to appreciate what they have received, and not to hand over power to the demagogues once they have obtained an extension of their rights and powers. The fact that well-known institutions are maintained, although in an adapted form, means that authorities and subjects know how to work with the adapted institutions and are quicker to see and stop dangerous, autocratic or unlawful behaviour or tendencies.

We are being asked today to appoint a Select Committee. A Select Committee, whether a joint one or not, is a highly effective instrument in the hands of the parliamentary system. In 1923, Speaker Krige established what it’s most important function is. According to Speaker Krige, Select Committees are—

Sir, I consider members of both Houses to be the best people to investigate certain national affairs. Many of us may not hold advanced university degrees, but are highly qualified in wisdom, experience and knowledge, and can therefore utilize the specialized knowledge of experts outside.

To come to the motion which has been moved, viz. that we must look at the powers, privileges and functions of Parliament in the light of the proposed constitutional changes, I would not have wanted to shoot this motion down this morning simply because it came from one of my political opponents. Sound evolutionary growth can only flow from a healthy exchange of opinions. Indeed, this forces and compels one to return to the root, the origin of our institutions, and to travel the road there and back impresses one with a sense of what is valuable and what is worthless in history. A Select Committee could fruitfully take note once again of the meaning of general concepts and terms like “State”, “authority”, “power”, “law”, “rule of law”, “human rights”, “fundamental freedoms”, etc. It would do well to take note of the origin and general nature of the power of authority in the State, the sources of our constitutional law, the development of the parliamentary system as well as the influence which Christianity has had on our political thought and action. Last but not least, an inquiry of this kind could also subject the situation in Southern Africa to an honest and responsible scrutiny.

An in-depth investigation of the powers, privileges and functions of Parliament also brings one to a reconsideration at and a revaluation of democracy. From a purely academic viewpoint, any hon. member of the House would have probably have wanted to be an active member of such a committee, but the harsh reality of the South African situation has taught us that solutions are not so easy to find.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Mooi River does seem to have implied that the proposed constitutional changes of the NP may be a basis for discussion. However, a joint committee of this kind can only succeed if one basic fact of Southern Africa is accepted as being absolute and indisputable, viz. that we are dealing with a variety of peoples or ethnicities in Southern Africa. The person who cannot or will not see and accept this fact cannot and will not be able to co-operate successfully on a committee like this. However, if this is accepted, there is another ideal which we must also strive after responsibly and sincerely. This is that the points of contact, the levels of intersection, of peoples in Southern Africa must be arranged in such a way that respect, appreciation and understanding for the status, human dignity and unique characteristics of the other groups are not disparaged or questioned.

I am aware of the fact that the enemies of the NP and those who are ignorant of the policy and ideals of the NP are in fact accusing us of disregarding this attitude. I do not, however, have any doubt in my own mind either about the attitude of the NP or about its declared policy concerning this aspect. I therefore never feel guilty of or plead guilty to this. Let me make it clear, however, that the hostile world, and here I include the PFP, clearly shows through its history and standpoints that it attaches no importance to the survival of my people and other peoples in Southern Africa. Indeed, this is what the whole political struggle in Southern Africa is all about. As far as the NRP is concerned, I think in all sincerity that they are pursuing two irreconcilable ideals. On the one hand they accept multinationality in South Africa, and on the other hand they are also striving after a completely unitary community.

Therefore, a Select Committee could in fact be of use if it were to meet after the Second Reading debate had been concluded and the fundamental premise had been accepted by this House, whether unanimously or by means of a majority vote. I believe that with its sound, realistic basis and humble, Christian attitude, the NP has already sorted out the problems which used to be experienced within the White population of South Africa. In other words, the NP has amicably settled the old problems of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. I believe that the NP policy concerning the Black peoples is already beginning to bear fruit in Southern Africa. I also believe that the blueprints for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa are becoming increasingly clear.

I therefore appreciate the standpoint and attitude of the hon. member for Mooi River. However, my expectations can only be stimulated and satisfied by the leaders of the NP.

I believe that the NP and its leaders have understood the realities of the situation in Southern Africa over the years. In spite of the strong opposition which we experience from an extreme left-wing Opposition Party like the PFP and the ignorance of the other peoples in South Africa as to our true nature, I believe that the NP and its leaders will really give us an indication of the solution to our problems. That is why I look forward to the speech which the hon. the Leader of the House is going to make today.

Mr. Speaker, I support the contentions made by the hon. member for Groote Schuur in his address to the House. No doubt the motion moved by the hon. member for Mooi River was well-intentioned. The hon. member for Mooi River endeavoured to argue the motion on a non-party political basis. However, we find, as the hon. member for Groote Schuur has told the House, ourselves unable to support the motion, because it presupposes that the Government’s proposed constitution is a fait accompli in South Africa and can be made to work. In our point of view we reject the Government’s plan because we regard it to be a constitutional monstrosity and that both the plan and the manner of its presentation to the country are totally out of touch with the realities of the situation in South Africa. As the hon. member for Groote Schuur has said, we believe it will be fatal if at this stage this House gives any degree of respectability to that plan.

The motion suggests that a Select Committee of the House should be the machinery for considering the changes implicit in the Government’s plan in so far as Parliament is concerned, but we believe that the functions and the powers of Parliament have to be seen as an essential element of the constitution of South Africa. We believe these are matters which should be determined not by a Select Committee of this House but by a far more widely representative body of the people of South Africa.

The first and most fatal weakness of the Government’s plan is that it is the product of the NP. That initially makes of it a plan which cannot be accepted and which cannot work in South Africa, because the essential features for any constitution in any country to endure, are that that constitution must have the broadest possible acceptance and respect from the people for whom it is designed. That is absolutely basic. One can design the finest constitution technically imaginable, but unless it is a product of the people of the country for whom it is designed, it cannot endure. That means that on the basis of this plan, which has been the product of congresses of the NP, no enduring constitution for South Africa can be devised.

Certain essential features should be present before a constitution can be accepted and become a reality in any civilized community. In the first instance I believe that machinery must be set up which can be open to all the people, which can operate in the open so that the people can see and submit various alternative constitutional proposals. There must be that sort of machinery; not meeting behind closed doors at party congresses, but machinery which is open to all people to participate in and to see what is being done, to hear what is being discussed and to exchange ideas about constitutional proposals.

Secondly, all the people must be able to express opinion on whatever proposals are put forward.

Finally, if a constitution is to endure, whatever plan is evolved by that machinery, that plan must be submitted to the people for approval by way of a referendum. Then, on that basis, a new constitution should be able to be capable of enduring and succeeding. However, this has not been the case with regard to the proposals which face us at the present time. All these features are missing. The constitutional proposals have been the product of NP congresses, having considered recommendations made by Cabinet committee. We are told in NP pamphlets—and here one can again quote a question-and-answer election pamphlet—

One can just imagine the sort of penetrating questions by members of the NP congress.

What do you know about that?

I can judge by the example of the sort of penetrating questions which were put to Cabinet Ministers by its other agent, the SABC, in its televized broadcast. This would appear to be the same type of penetrating question which I believe would be asked at a party congress. In any case, it is totally inappropriate …

Talk about the motion.

I am talking to the motion. The motion deals with the proposals of the Government with regard to a new constitution for South Africa. And I am saying that it is totally inappropriate that that plan should be put forward to the people of South Africa through the various congresses of the NP. It was presented on that basis. It was then suggested that a mandate should be sought from the people of South Africa on the basis of these proposals. The mandate was a mandate sought by a section of the South African population, an election in which only the White electorate participated. The leaders of the Coloured community and the leaders of the Indian community have already indicated that they reject the plan. The largest population group in South Africa, the African people, have not even been consulted and have been specifically excluded from the constitutional proposals. I want to make the point, and I want to make it in all earnestness, that if this is the situation, that if the overwhelming majority of the people of the country are not consulted about a plan, or if they reject it when they are consulted, then that plan has no chance whatsoever of succeeding as a constitutional plan for the country.

Wait and see!

The hon. gentleman says: “Wait and see!” We can wait and see, but the fact is that the Black people have not only been deliberately excluded from the plan; they can never be included in the plan, because if they are included it will upset the very delicate balancing machinery which is there to ensure that there is an entrenchment of White supremacy in South Africa. That emerges from every section of the plan as one reads it. If one looks at the plan in regard to the election of a State President, we are told that there will be an electoral college which will contain 50 White, 25 Coloured and 13 Indian representatives. If one looks at the composition of the President’s Council proposed in the plan, we are told that it will contain 20 elected by the White Parliament, 10 by the Coloured Parliament and 5 by the Indian Parliament, and 20 thereafter to be appointed by the State President. The Council of Cabinets will consist of three Prime Ministers, six White Ministers, three Coloured Ministers and two Indian Ministers. The largest population group in South Africa can therefore never be included in this plan, because they will upset this sort of balance which entrenches and ensures that there will always be White supremacy throughout the constitution.

That has nothing at all to do with the motion.

That is for the Chair to determine. I think the Government probably realizes that if people are excluded from a constitution there is no way that they can be included in the constitution. Their only recourse for that sort of situation would be to move to destroy the constitution, and this is the fatal weakness in the plan proposed by the Government. This is the reason why no one in South Africa with the real interest of South Africa at heart can have in mind, can possibly countenance, enforcing a constitution on the majority of the people of the country who have not even been consulted and who have not given their approval?

How would you know about the interests of this country at all?

The hon. member for Mooi River used the word “pluralism”. Certainly, there is a degree of pluralism in the Government’s plans. There is also pluralism in the way in which they present it, because it has two faces. It has one face to the Coloureds and one face to the Whites. In pamphlets conveniently distributed by the South African Department of Information the Coloureds are told that the plan is not a cut and dry one, that it is not one which will be imposed on the people, whether they like it or not. What is being said to the White electorate? I have quoted this before and I make no apology for quoting it again. Again on the question and answer basis, a reply is given in one of the election pamphlets to the question of what the position would be if the Coloureds or the Indians held their co-operation in the implementation of the plan. The NP replies—

Which is correct now? The State Information Department tells the Coloured community that this is not a cut and dry plan. The NP tells the White electorate of South Africa that it is a take it or leave it plan, that they lay the table and those who do not like it can do without. What is correct now? There is this duality in the whole situation, and we want to reiterate once again that if we are to have a constitution in South Africa which is going to endure there must be the fullest possible consultation amongst all the people in the country. It must earn the respect and the acceptance of the overwhelming majority of people in the country and it must be sure that it is a plan which can cater for the needs of every section of the South African community.

On that basis we cannot accept the Government’s plan. On that basis we cannot accept the motion that a Select Committee of this House, as proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River, can in any way add to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals on this very fundamental issue. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave devoted a large part of his speech to quoting from the election pamphlets of the NP. I want to point out to him that we are aware of all those facts. These are facts which were presented to the voters and which they accepted, despite all the propaganda which the hon. member and his party came up with.

Now, of course, the hon. member for Musgrave has once again harped on the old string of a national convention. I now want to ask him the following. If a national convention is in fact convened with the purpose of creating a constitution for the Republic, and the constitution is drawn up and accepted, does it not mean that the hon. member is putting the national convention above Parliament? How then is this to be reconciled with the question which the hon. member for Groote Schuur asked about the sovereignty of Parliament? Is the PFP not putting a national convention above Parliament now? I believe this is a question to which they owe us an answer.

Once again it has become very clear that the PFP is prepared to sacrifice the Whites in South Africa without compunction. This is something which we on this side of the House reject completely.

We have before us a motion by the hon. member for Mooi River. It is a motion which we will not summarily reject. Nor do we want to do this. However, I believe that the time is not ripe for the motion which he has moved and the stage at which he has requested the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. member knows that many discussions are still being held. The day before yesterday he heard the reply of the hon. the Minister of Defence to a question in this House. Furthermore the hon. member knows that the Coloured and Indian population groups are still involved in discussions. He also knows that there is a Constitution Action Committee amongst the Coloureds, a committee which arranges symposiums from time to time at which these matters are discussed.

During his speech the hon. member for Mooi River expressed concern about this Parliament, about the survival of the Whites and—I therefore assume—of the Coloureds and Indians as well. However, I also noticed an attempt in his speech—and I consider it an honest attempt—to find a solution to the problems of South Africa. Therefore, if one ignores the emotional outburst of the hon. member for Musgrave, we are dealing here with a matter which requires all of us to handle it in a very, very careful way. It concerns the political weal and woe and political future of people of three population groups in the country: The Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Let us grant immediately that of the three groups, the Whites are the most advanced. There are various reasons for this which I am not, however, going to mention now. For that very reason the White population group has a responsibility towards the other population groups: The Coloureds and the Indians. Apart from that, the White population group also has the right to promote its own interests.

That is why, when the proposals are studied, I want to point out that in respect of the Coloured and Indian groups, the Whites say two things which they accepted last year on the occasion of the general election. Firstly, they say in those proposals that the place of the Coloured and the Indian is by the side of the White man; that is to say, in that portion of South Africa which remains after the Bantu have been fully provided for. This, then, also serves as a reply to the statement of the hon. member for Musgrave when he referred to the Bantu. That is why the Government said that the Bantu peoples were not being involved in the new dispensation. The White, Coloured and Indian population groups must find one another in the portion of South Africa which remains.

When one analyses the proposals, one finds that full justice is done to this principle. One does not find anything about White supremacy in the Government’s proposals. One does not find anything about the domination by one group of another. We do recognize in the proposals that the three population groups—the White, Coloured and Indian population groups—can and must exist in the country in their own right. We even go further, because we recognize as a basic principle the maintenance of the identity of each one of the three groups.

Sir, if you were to study those proposals, you would see that the Government does not say anywhere that one group is better than the other. One group is not placed above the other. These three groups must co-exist in South Africa. That is why the Government has often extended a hand of friendship to the Coloured population group. Not only have we extended our hand, but we have also worked over the years. I do not want to say that we have not made any mistakes; some mistakes have probably been made on the way. However, there has been an honest attempt to provide for the needs of our Coloured and Indian population groups. Once again, the proposals of the Government are proof of the hand of friendship, our honesty and sincerity in helping these population groups.

There is a second point which I want to mention. It is not only a question of co-ex istence in that portion of South Africa which remains; a dispensation must also be worked out according to which the Coloureds and Indians can fully exercise their rights as full-fledged citizens of South Africa. After all—and we have said this on many occasions—we have a unique situation in which we are dealing with unique problems. That is why we must look for a unique solution to the problems. If one looks at the proposals of the Opposition parties for a Government in this country, one sees that they all want to make changes to the Westminster system. That is why, when the Theron Commission suggested that a committee should be appointed to determine whether changes should not be made, the Government immediately accepted it. It appointed its committee and after very, very hard work we received the proposals which we have before us. When I say that we must work out a dispensation for these three population groups, I know that we will not and cannot move away from another basic principle, and this is the right to self-determination. If we look at these proposals once again, we see that the right of each of the three population groups to determine their own affairs is built into and laid down in this. Is this a sin?

Impossible!

It is not impossible! It can be done. If there is goodwill and if we have the right spirit and the right attitude, it can be done and we are going to do it and we will succeed. There are indeed Coloured leaders who think differently on this matter. We talk to those people too, not only to some of them. We talk to those people. Then the idea is expressed that they also want to manage their own affairs. This is why the Government came up with its proposals and said that they would have the right to manage their own affairs.

Let us be honest this morning. If we go back in history to Union, we see that no government has yet had a cut-and-dried solution to this problem. Nor has the NP had it over the past 30 years. We have never laid claim to this, but we have said that we want to open up this avenue in consultation and cooperation with the Coloured people. That is why we have these proposals before us. Let me say once again that this is not a cut-and-dried solution. In the pamphlet, South Africa’s New Constitutional Plan, published by the Department of Information, the following is said—

I must conclude now. These proposals must be the basis of a new constitutional road which will offer everyone, Whites, Coloured people and Indians, the opportunity to become full-fledged citizens of South Africa. That is why I ask the NRP and the SAP to cooperate with us. I cannot expect the other people next to them to co-operate because they will not. I ask: Let us accept these two principles and work peacefully and calmly together to make these proposals a reality in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn laid strong emphasis on the right to self-determination of the Coloureds and Indians. It is, however, the aim of the motion before the House to involve this Parliament in that same right to self-determination in order to enable members of this Parliament, this highest authority elected by the voters of South Africa, to be able to participate, too, in the process of self-determination. That is why we moved this motion here. The object is to involve Parliament in the process of change which is to come.

†I want to thank and to congratulate the hon. member for Mooi River for having brought this private member’s motion to the House. I want to say that his call for a Select Committee carries the full support of the NRP. The pity of it is that, when a motion of this nature is introduced, a clearly worded motion calling for a Joint Select Committee, when such a motion is introduced with a speech in which it is made clear that the object is not to debate the policies or the respective views of parties but to debate the merits of having a Select Committee, we find once again that the PFP, the Official Opposition, opts out of that process of parliamentary government. They take the line of headon confrontation which is the only line they seem capable of taking. They refuse in advance to participate in a Parliamentary Select Committee …

To do what?

“To consider changes in the powers, privileges and functions of Parliament …” That is how the motion reads and that is what the Select Committee would consider.

Read on!

“… in the light of the constitutional changes proposed by the Government”. [Interjections.] We want Parliament to consider what these changes would mean to Parliament. The PFP, supposed to be a part of Parliament, washes its hands of any responsibility not only towards Parliament, but towards the people who mistakenly put them here. They come here and spend all of their time on a head-on attack on the Government’s plan. But that plan is not the issue before us. The issue is what effect it would have on Parliament.

But that is the Government plan. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the PFP confirm by their interjections that they take the line that because they are opposed to the Government’s proposals they therefore will have nothing to do with it; they will participate in nothing; they will make no contribution; they will not attempt to improve or alter that plan or to make it workable. They reject it out of hand and the only alternative they put is the hon. member for Musgrave’s idea of employing the machinery of a national convention open to all the people. When by way of interjection we asked “which people?” he said: “All the people in South Africa.” A public meeting of 25 million people at which every person can put his proposals, at which every person can argue them and at which every person must accept them, which will then ultimately lead to a solution! That is the contribution to debate which the Official Opposition makes in respect of the future of South Africa!

Speak to the motion, Vause!

Having listened to them, I want to put it on record that they do not deserve to enjoy the privilege of participation in a Parliament which they are not prepared to serve on a Select Committee in regard to the future of Parliament itself. [Interjections.]

I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Piketberg, too, tried to play politics with this motion. Instead of dealing with the issue, he also played politics.

Tell us whether you support a free constitution.

I want to make it clear—to place it clearly on record—that we totally reject his suggestion, which, I admit, was put very cleverly—it was too clever by half: he was so sharp that he cut himself—that this party has now accepted separate development, has accepted Government policy and that we now want to go along with the Government.

Anybody reading your motion will come to that conclusion.

Go back to your cave! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Piketberg said the Opposition had stayed behind on the road. He said: “Hulle het agtergebly op die pad; hulle het geen rol gespeel nie.” Is it not interesting that the very plan he is talking about, the very plan which gives rise to the call for a Select Committee, is based on the concept of population groups being left to themselves to handle matters of intimate concern to their own people, a concept which was born of the old UP concept of a race federation? That plan developed out of it, but we believe the Government have not taken it to its logical conclusion. Not only does this party, like its predecessor, have a role to play but that role has played a vital part in changing thinking even in the ranks of the Government.

Let us look at the motion. Having dealt with the red herring from the hon. member for Piketberg and the runaway attitude of the Official Opposition, the question is: What is the situation that faces us? The Erika Theron Commission, after deep and careful consultation with the Coloured people and with Coloured people represented on it, recommended that the Westminster system be reexamined. This, to us, was a welcome recommendation because there are many of us who have for years been saying that the Westminster system did not work in South Africa. There are many of us who for years have pleaded for a new approach to constitutional government in South Africa. The Erika Theron Commission brought matters to a head with its recommendations. That recommendation enjoyed our full support and our backing as far as a review of the Westminster system is concerned.

However, I believe that is when things went wrong. This was the opportunity to pool our thinking, to pool the experience of all those who, for many years, have been involved in thinking, in consultation and in debate over this whole question of the future constitutional structure of South Africa. It was an opportunity for all parties to get together and to bring the other races into the consultation. Instead of that, we got a plan which was drawn up in the secrecy of a Cabinet Committee, without consultation in advance and even without drawing on the experience and contributions of members of this House. It was even done without consulting that party’s own members. I challenge the hon. member for Piketberg—in fact, every other hon. member here—to say which of them sat in that Cabinet Committee and participated in the drawing up of the plan. Not one of them. Not one of the members of the Government side of this House was given the opportunity to contribute to the plan until it had been presented to them and until it was said: “This is the plan …” [Interjections.] The plan was presented to a special caucus and it was presented to the congresses of the NP after it had been formulated. [Interjections.] I hope I will be shown factually wrong. Then we would have one more element brought into it. Then the NP members of Parliament were consulted. However, the Coloured people, the Indian people and the White people who are not in the NP, were not consulted in any way until the plan was presented to them. Now, I welcome the fact that, even if it is only after the Government called for and received a mandate, it now says that it will go back to the Coloured and Indian people and will consult with them again. I welcome that because the plan, as it is now, is full of undecided issues. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made that very clear during a symposium which he addressed in Natal. He is supposed to be the father of this plan. I want to ask him: Did he draw up this plan? Did he sit on the committee which drew up the plan? When he appears before a symposium in Natal, nine-tenths of his contribution is to say that these are open issues still to be finalized or decided, that many issues are still open and have to be detailed, and that a whole lot has still got to be brought to a final conclusion.

Therefore we have an open-ended plan without the final detail, and the motion before the House seeks to bring the members of the House into the discussion which will round off that detail and try to remove the things which will not work, or cannot work in the outlined proposals. By appointing a Select Committee, the members of the House will not only be brought in but will be enabled by the resolution, if adopted, to take evidence, and consult with other race groups and thereby to enjoy the benefit of their views. They will not be talking as the Government, as the Cabinet or as the Executive; they will be a Select Committee of Parliament talking to people from other bodies with whom we want to consult and whose views, co-operation and agreement we seek. If this motion is rejected, it does not only exclude the Opposition, it excludes every member on those Government benches as well. I believe there are some members on those benches who have a contribution to make. There are some members on the Government benches who I believe have given thought to these problems. There are some members who could make a worthwhile contribution and who could take a worthwhile part in discussion on the very issues referred to in the motion.

Their Chief Whip does not agree.

The Chief Whip might not be able to make a contribution; I did not include him, but I do believe there are some members who have not had the opportunity but who have something to contribute.

It is quite clear that the PFP have nothing to contribute. They admit it. They run away. They wash their hands of responsibility. I know that we in this party have got something to contribute, because we have been consulting for years with people. We had a constitutional committee in the UP and it is being revived by this party. The party has spent years studying constitutions. It has consulted with hundreds of people and, from that, I believe that we can bring a contribution to constructive debate. This is the issue I want to emphasize. At the beginning of the session I said that our role and our task was to seek to bring constructive debate into the House and here we are trying to do it. We are trying to create machinery so that there can be creative, constructive and positive discussion and debate. The PFP says that we are few, but there are few of them too. That is so to some extent because South Africa has not debated these issues and because they have not had an opportunity to look at them as they could be looked at within the atmosphere that a Select Committee can provide.

We sit in the House as the elected representatives of the White electorate of South Africa and I believe, as such, that every single member here has not only the right, but also the duty to participate in something which is going to affect the lives and the destiny of 25 million people. If the House should reject this suggestion, the members in the Government benches and the PFP will be rejecting their responsibility towards Parliament. The Government members will be accepting and branding themselves as rubber stamps to the Executive. The hon. member for Rissik made a responsible speech, but he put it clearly by saying: “We shall leave it to our leaders. We have confidence in our leaders; they will do it.” In other words, the NP members of this Parliament see themselves as nothing more than rubber stamps for what their leaders dish up. [Interjections.] That is the implication of not seeking to participate in such a Select Committee. The implication is that the hon. members leave it to their leaders and are prepared to say “ja, baas; amen, baas; ons stem saam”. [Interjections.] I do not believe that is worthy of hon. members on the Government side because this Parliament is the seat of sovereignty and of political power. It is here in this House and through the members of this House that there should be participation in a major new constitutional plan. If the hon. members of the NP think they have got nothing to offer and the hon. members of the PFP admit that they have nothing to offer, it means that we have made this proposal, this offer, in vain today. The Progs would not have anything to do with it and the Government says that they have nothing to contribute and that they leave it to their bosses to tell them what to do.

You are talking yourself out of the leadership.

I believe this is a test for every one of us. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training is not in the House. However, there are others who think like him, for instance, the hon. member for Klip River. I want to ask the hon. member if the proposed plan of the Government is a sharing of power.

No.

There we are. It is not a sharing of power.

It is joint consultation and responsibility. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior: Is this plan a sharing of power?

Carry on with your speech.

The hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to answer. These are the sort of issues that a Select Committee can deal with. We at least have honesty from the hon. member for Klip River. He says that there is no sharing of power in the new plan, but that there is joint consultation and responsibility. There is no sharing of power. The hon. the Deputy Minister should also have the courage to say where he stands. Does he believe there is sharing of power, or is it consultation?

These are the many things which a Select Committee should be looking at. A Select Committee should be investigating the creation of proper machinery for linking the separate bodies which will deal with matters of intimate concern at the centre, machinery for the division, the devolution and the sharing of power …

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may ask his question after I have finished my sentence. Without the three elements of division of power, devolution of power and sharing of power, no constitutional mechanism can provide respect and recognition for the rights of all the peoples of South Africa. The hon. member may now ask his question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he knows what the real implications of sharing of power are.

Yes, I certainly do and I am not scared of them. I believe there are many things on which we shall have to share power in South Africa. There are other things on which we do not have to share power, on which we can divide power. The matters of intimate concern to people, the intimate affairs of a community, need not be shared, but there are other matters common to all in which one has to share power and in which one has to accept the consequences and the responsibility of sharing power and responsibility. If the Government is going to try and bluff the non-White people of South Africa with consultation, but with no sharing of power and joint decision making, they are being dishonest to the very people to whom they are holding out this plan as a solution. There sit in this House many like the hon. member for Klip River who are not prepared to share power. However, there sit in this House others who recognize that without the sharing of power in matters of common concern there is no peaceful future … [Interjections.] … for South Africa. Judging by the laughter there are not very many of them. I accept that the majority of the hon. members on the Government side are not prepared to share power, but a minority is prepared to share power. We asked for this Select Committee so that those who hold that minority view, will have an opportunity, with the Opposition, to debate, to discuss, to seek the answers to questions which have not yet been answered by the Government, consult with those who are concerned and find a place within the structure for the urban Black man who is a permanent part of the urban community, sharing a common geographic area with the other races and living there permanently. They, too, can be brought into the scheme through a confederal link. However, it is not the purpose of this debate to say how it is to be done; the purpose is to create the machinery.

I therefore fully support the proposal of the hon. member for Mooi River. I am bitterly disappointed that the Official Opposition has opted out of the responsibility, that so many of the Government members appear to be afraid to participate in trying to deal with this as a Parliament representing the people and wanting instead to deal with it as a party political clique or caucus by adopting a closed-shop attitude.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River moved his motion in this House in a fine spirit and in a positive manner, and I shall try to deal with his motion in the same spirit. The constitutional proposals of the NP, as submitted to the Government, prove that the Government is in earnest about future relations between the White community of this country and the South African Coloured and Indian communities. A fact which is often overlooked, is that the Government appointed the Theron Commission, that the Government nominated leading Coloured people to serve on that Commission, that the Government acted on the basis of that Commission’s report, and that the Cabinet Committee had to attend to facets of that report, as behoves any responsible Government. In doing that, we acted in the same spirit as that in which we had established the Theron Commission. After the Cabinet Committee had submitted its report to the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister made a public statement. I shall read just one sentence from what he said, viz.—

It was in that spirit that the Prime Minister of this country presented these proposals to the country. A member of that committee, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations, who is also the leader of an important section of the NP, said—

In other words, he, too, presented it to his people in a serious light. After those proposals had been made known, I personally said—

In that spirit we submitted our proposals to the country.

For years the complaint from the side of the Opposition was, both inside and outside this House, that the NP lacked a proper policy in respect of the Indian and Coloured communities. For years they denied that the ability to make provision for a decent future for these communities was inherent in Government policy. And what is happening now? Now that the Government is making a positive approach not only to the country, but also those two communities—and what it says to them, it says to White South Africa as well—other methods are employed by the pitiful, ignorant member for Musgrave. Surely the accusation made here by this hon. member and others—unfortunately by the hon. member for Durban Point as well, of whom I had not expected it—that the Cabinet Committee had retreated to a small dark comer to formulate a policy, is not true. After the appointment of the Cabinet Committee had been announced, a prominent member from that side of the House at the time, Mr. Kingwill, asked the Minister of Coloured Relations a question. That was on 8 March. The question read—

1. (a) In writing to me.
2. (b) As soon as possible.

That was on 8 March 1977. But what is more, assistance came from outside Cabinet circles. The Cabinet Committee itself consulted some of our most prominent constitutional experts in the country. We did not merely meet them, but also asked them to submit written proposals to us. We deliberated with them for hours.

In the second place, dozens of hon. members on Government side met for weeks and put their proposals in writing, proposals which they submitted to us as groups. In the third place, only one Opposition party came forward and, after they had had talks with us, submitted written proposals to us. That was the SAP. [Interjections.]

In addition, prominent individuals and leaders from the Coloured community in the country reacted to that invitation and submitted written proposals to us before the committee proceeded to its final deliberations. Consequently it strikes one as strange that childish accusations such as these are being made about such a serious matter. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I refer to the question of the principles on which the Cabinet Committee based its views. In the first place, these were set out clearly, not only in the proposals themselves, but also to the congresses of the NP by us who addressed them and appeared on one platform after another during the election campaign. Moreover, these proposals were conveyed to virtually every home where people had to make their election decisions.

In the Cape Province, the NP left a copy of the proposals in the possession of every voter in every constituency in which it campaigned. [Interjections.] We even distributed them in those constituencies in which the NP did not put up candidates—I am speaking about the Cape Province; I do not know about the other provinces.

In the Transvaal as well?

In the Transvaal as well. [Interjections.] Of course! In any event, what are the principles? In the first place, the right of self-determination of the Whites is not affected. That was a fundamental principle and we still stand by that today. The right of self-determination of the Coloured community and of the South African Indian community is acknowledged within this constellation. That is how it is stated in the documents. That principle was our basic premiss.

We stated right at the outset that as far as the Black peoples in South Africa were concerned—and there, too, the problem of minorities exists—we were looking for a different system. In this regard the Government embarked upon a course which is known to the whole world. It is generally known what form of self-determination the Government has chosen for its Black peoples. We did not start negotiating with the Coloureds and Indians “to gang up against the Black man in South Africa”, as has been alleged. We started negotiating with the Black man because we have to bring about a different system in regard to them and us once provision has been made for the independence and self-determination of the Black peoples. Moreover, the principle of consultation is being maintained, while the division of power is being introduced into the system. It is inherent in this system, and at the same time we have regard to a free economy and orderly government which must be maintained. Bearing all these things in mind, we tried to formulate our proposals.

In the third place, this is a plan which must be put into operation gradually and in an evolutionary, not a revolutionary way. It has regard to the principles of peaceful coexistence, but at the same time we have not departed from the principle of effective decision-making by the Government. For that reason we have not attempted anywhere to undermine orderly Government and effective decision-making. Moreover, the sovereignty of Parliament has been recognized, because it remains this Parliament which will have to launch all these processes. It remains this sovereign Parliament which must take the first and final steps to bring the new system into being. It is a gradual process which is being put into operation. This Parliament itself, which is sovereign, will have to initiate and complete those steps. It cannot be otherwise if this has to come about in an evolutionary way. It can be otherwise only if this has to come about in a revolutionary way.

Nowhere in these proposals is there an attack on an independent judiciary. Nowhere in these proposals is there an attack on Parliamentary and Cabinet procedures as they have been established by convention. The hon. members who made such wild statements, were talking through their hats.

What is more, these proposals are part of South Africa’s alternative to the nagging from leftist circles about one man, one vote in a unitary State. Hence this howling by certain people; it does not suit their purposes. We reject the principle that one man, one vote in a unitary State or a so-called federal State, is the only solution to our problems. We reject this as being the only means whereby human dignity can be maintained as a principle. We reject this as being a recipe which has worked elsewhere and which is therefore a suitable recipe for us to try out.

Our proposals constitute a serious, honest attempt at producing an alternative which can be justified on moral grounds. We are not altogether alone in this respect. Some of the most erudite people in South Africa have publicly expressed their interest in the Government’s proposals. There have been open discussions in the newspapers about this, at a very high level at that. I am thinking, for example, of the viewpoints of Profs. Murray and De Crespigny, who evoked public interest with their viewpoints, not necessarily because they were underlining our proposals, but rather on account of their intellectual and intelligent discussion thereof. In the latest edition of Politicum there is an interesting article, written by an expert of some standing in the field of political science, Mr. Luipaard of the University of Leyden. He wrote about “majority rule vs democracy in divided societies” and as I do not wish to quote extensively from that article, I shall refer to one sentence only—

The people who make such a fuss about how objectionable the standpoint of the Government is, must not imagine that they are the only people who think; other people also think.

Suzman thinks she is the only one in heaven. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister says she thinks she is the only one in heaven, but unfortunately her singing is offkey.

Furthermore, the Government dealt with its proposals in a spirit of consultation. That was quite obvious from the reply I gave on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister on Wednesday in reply to a question by the hon. member for Sea Point. I find it interesting that although the hon. the Prime Minister gave a detailed reply to the question of the hon. member for Sea Point on the Order Paper, I was unable—I do not know whether I did not look hard enough—to find the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply anywhere in the papers. Does it not suit them? Have we now reached the stage where news media decide what the public should know or not know?

Like the SABC!

They are eager to publish what Woods’ female ventriloquist’s dummy has to say. [Interjections.]

What is more, the Government acted in a spirit of consultation with and frankness towards the White electorate of this country. We did not hide these proposals under a bushel. We went to the electorate with the results—with absolutely terrible consequences for the Opposition, as all can see!

In the third place, this does not mean that the Government will not continue to handle the matter in that spirit. Let me also say this to the hon. member for Mooi River. The attitude which the Government has adopted up to now, means that the Government will continue to act in the same spirit as it has been acting up to now.

What further steps can still be taken? Let me name but a few. In the first place, further talks with the Coloured and Indian leaders are envisaged—to begin with, talks with the majority parties in both the CRC and the Indian Council. I think it is only fair that they should have another opportunity to hold a round table conference with the Government. It is not merely a matter of their receiving this invitation; this invitation still stands. In fact, they owe it to the Government to hold a round table conference.

In the second place, the door is open to Opposition members in the CRC and in the Indian Council to hold a round table conference with the Government on these proposals.

In the third place there is the co-ordinating committee of the uncommitted persons in Coloured and Indian politics, and there are many uncommitted persons in Coloured politics, of which I have some knowledge. There is the co-ordinating committee and also numerous other committees in the country which are engaged at the present time in giving very serious attention to these proposals at symposiums.

Secondly, the Government’s chief law adviser has already been requested by the Government to do the ground work in respect of various legislative measures which may be necessary to implement these constitutional plans. That, however, requires preparation.

Thirdly, there is a strong possibility of my colleagues the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and of Indian Affairs coming to Parliament during the present year with legislation in terms of which delimitation for fully elected and representative councils may take place.

Fourthly, the Government has already taken a decision in connection with the two committees recommended in our proposals. There is the finance committee, and our proposals set out how it is to be constituted. My colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance will establish this committee. The Cabinet has decided that. Then there is also the committee to be established by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, a committee to which reference is also made in our proposals. That committee will shortly be announced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior.

Fifthly, there is the idea of a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and this has already been considered and accepted by the Government. This committee will be established as soon as there are measures to be referred to it. We cannot have the committee without our having anything to refer to it. We must process and prepare the measures to be referred to such a committee. For that reason the proposal by the hon. member for Mooi River, however well-intentioned, is, in my opinion, redundant and premature, and a premature birth is not a good thing either.

In the sixth place—and this is an important point—in terms of the constitutional proposals the Senate will cease to exist in the course of next year, i.e. 1979, but for that a specific piece of legislation will be required. One cannot terminate its existence just like that. Legislation must be introduced in that regard. Another aspect has emerged which has not occurred to the hon. members on the opposite side of this House have not given thought, but which has occurred to the Government, and that is the provisions of section 118 of the Constitution Act in respect of the provisions of section 108.

I mentioned it this morning.

It relates to equal language rights. The Government has no intention of ignoring those provisions. In fact, we regard that matter as a cornerstone of our State and its future. The Government is convinced of the desirability of having a joint session of both Houses of Parliament before the expiry of the Senate so as to make provision for proper further guarantees as contained in sections 118 and 108 in connection with language rights.

As a preliminary the Government has taken the trouble to obtain independent legal opinion. I want to quote just one paragraph in this regard. This important legal opinion contained the following important point—

The Government has already given that careful thought and has adopted a standpoint, and with the permission of the Government I am able to make an announcement here even at this stage. It is the Government’s intention to set in motion in the course of next year all the necessary processes which will ultimately render a new constitutional dispensation possible. I am fully confident that these ambitions and courageous plans will open new doors for a better South Africa. It is the Government’s firm intention to continue resolutely on the road which it has taken. In that, I believe, it will obtain the support of the vast majority of the Whites, Coloureds and South African Indians who are well-intentioned towards the country. Our salvation does not lie on the road of confrontation, but in fact on the road of consultation and responsibility, which constitute the essence of these proposals.

This morning, however, the Official Opposition dissociated themselves in advance from the processes of Parliament. The hon. members for Groote Schuur and Musgrave, on behalf of their party, stood to one side and said: “We are political strikers”.

I asked you two questions to start with and you have not answered them yet.

They say: “We are political strikers; we do not want to participate in these consultations”. They have rejected them with absolute resolution. [Interjections.] We shall watch with great interest whether they talk on behalf of the whole party on the opposite side. Time will catch up with them. The interests of South Africa will catch up with them. South Africa will grind them until there are far fewer left of them than there is now.

Mr. Speaker, in the time that is left I would like to reply to the debate. In the beginning of my reply I would like to point out that this is a private member’s motion and the whole system is intended to allow a member to bring before the House any matter which is very much on his heart and which he would like to have debated in this Chamber, the highest council in South Africa. I welcome the opportunity to have had this matter debated and I would like to thank members who have taken part. I cannot say I am altogether pleased with the fashion in which they did so or with some of the contributions that have been made. However, we have heard from the Leader of the House a great deal that we did not previously know about the proposals of the Government. It seems that these proposals are in an advance stage of preparation.

I wanted to make the point by this motion that I believe it was encumbent upon Parliament and that it would be an advantage to South Africa if we were able to discuss the problem in general, given the broad outlines of the Government’s proposals. I feel that Parliament should not be faced with a situation where the Government is totally committed to a set of proposals which would involve a question of confidence in the Government and which could affect the face of the Government should they be changed. That is the whole purpose of what I am seeking to achieve with this motion, viz. to avoid a situation where there is a built-in resistance to acceptance of any alternative models that might have been put forward. My motion asks that the House should consider the powers, privileges and functions of Parliament in the light of changes proposed by the Government. The Government is proposing certain things and a Select Committee of the House is, by definition, entitled to consider matters which are referred to it. I made a specific plea to the Leader of the House that should the motion be accepted, there should not be referred to it the specific plan which the Government propose. In the hon. the Minister’s reply I must read that the Government’s plan must now be proceeded with and that the opportunity for suggesting alternatives is gone. I gather that there is no chance of suggesting things which might bring about a more general acceptance, especially among the people who have already indicated that they, in fact, reject it. I believe we face a situation which is going to tax the Government very heavily indeed, viz. to persuade particularly the non-White population of this country that the proposals that the Government has put forward can, in fact, work because there is a considerably body of academic opinion that they cannot work.

Some say they can.

Some say they can, but there is also a considerable body which say they cannot work and that cannot be made to work. Every one of us know that they will not be made to work without the absolute and wholehearted co-operation and the goodwill of the people to whom they are meant to apply, and that is the Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa. I believe that the Select Committee for which I have asked should be entitled to take the proposals under consideration because we face a historical fact and that is the demise of a nation state. The idea of the Parliament, of the State of South Africa, is a notion which is totally outmoded and outdated. We are going to go into a totally new situation, a situation which none of us has really considered in any depth. It is going to change the entire structure of politics; it is going to change the entire structure of Black-White relationship in the country and it is attempting to involve the Coloured and Indian communities in an association with the White community which takes no cognizance of the Black community in South Africa at all. If one could have been able to suggest alternative models and alternative ideas, this might have been the highest forum in this country where authoritative proposals could have been made and if any adaptations were to be made, they could have been made in an entirely responsible fashion, in a fashion which would have led to considerable credit to the Government. I want to suggest that if one wants to consider examples of plurality in the world one can look at a country like the Lebannon. The Lebanon was one of the most successful countries in the world 10 years ago, the banking centre of the Middle East, a source of considerable tourism, a beautiful country visited by many people, a country very delicately balanced between the different constituent elements of the population. But with the introduction into the country an alien element, the Palestinian Terrorist Organization, which put pressure on the relationships between those groups of people, the Lebanon has sunk to an absolute utter disaster today.

I believe it is something which our country has got to keep in mind, i.e. that we cannot allow a situation to develop where pressure can be put upon the constituent relationships between the different groups in the country which can lead us into that kind of situation. That situation is here with us now, on our borders, and before the Government can even go into the new relationship which they propose, we know that the pressure is on us on our borders. The whole idea of the motion which I put forward was to ask that Parliament itself should be party to this. Consultation is taking place with all bodies and I think that Parliament as a body and as an institution, should have been allowed to take a hand in considering what the future of Parliament itself is going to be. For that reason I introduced the motion and I am pleased to have been able to do so.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) expresses its thanks and appreciation to the Government for what it has done and is doing for all population groups in respect of housing; and
2. (2) affirms the principle that every citizen of the country should be encouraged and, where necessary, assisted to become a home owner.

I should like to express my thanks to the House for the opportunity to discuss this very important matter here, i.e. how one can provide one’s nation with housing. In introducing this motion, I trust that we shall subject the question of housing to a very close scrutiny. Because the State provides most of the racial groups in South Africa with housing, it is necessary that we should take not of how the Government and the Department of Community Development have succeeded over the years in establishing a proud record in this respect.

The concept “community development” may be defined as the process whereby certain human needs are satisfied. In this connection I am thinking of housing and community facilities without which neither a community nor a family can be assured of a proper livelihood. It is for this reason that I am introducing this motion today. I trust that hon. members on both sides of the House will not regard the motion and the question of housing as a political football—although I am definitely not concerned about that—but as the primary and essential charge of a Government and its people. The provision of housing can in no way be a political football. If one bears the tradition of our nation in mind then each South African is entitled to be a landowner or, better still, the owner of a home of his own. We must be a democratic nation, a nation whose intention it is to give each one of its people ownership of his own home.

It is self-evident that the Department of Community Development, with what it has already accomplished and with the many letters which it has addressed to local governments, is encouraging people to buy their own homes. But I am advocating today that we should go even further and, in the process of providing housing, encourage ownership even more strongly. If we look at what has already been accomplished by the department and by the Government, and we look at what has been happening in the recent past, it strikes one how lightly people regard a situation such as the one at Mitchell’s Plain, for example. I venture to say that if Rhodesia were to transfer all its Whites to South Africa tomorrow, we would be able to accommodate the entire White population of Rhodesia in one complex like Mitchell’s Plain. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that at Mitchell’s Plain provision has been made for approximately 260 000 people and that the very best facilities any community could wish for are being provided there? Atlantis has flourished within a short space of time into one of the fine developing cities. As a very good comparison I can point out that if one were to transfer the entire population of Iceland, as a result of the volcanic eruptions which sometimes occur there, the entire population of that country could be accommodated in Atlantis and that there would still be space left over for a population as large again as that of Iceland.

The Department of Community Development has accomplished this development during the past three or four years. During the past five years—and also to make provision for the next three years—R1 milliard has been spent on housing. We do not supply housing to people who can afford to pay for it in full. We supply housing to people who, in many cases, find it difficult to scrape together the rental. It is, in other words, not township development in the sense that one builds a city or a suburb with capital which has already been provided. Therefore one is not able to plan ahead and calculate what profit one is going to make on the project. One is dependent upon the contributions of the taxpayer.

If one observes this ambitious plan and the absolute dedication on the part of the hon. Minister and the members of his department, and if one observes the method employed by him, together with his secretary and others, of entering into agreements with local authorities to obtain a better and more intensified housing plan, then each one of us must say today that we are grateful for what is being done. I think it is the duty of the Opposition, the Government, the Press and all the other people, not to credit the Government with what has been done, but to say that this Parliament, with the means at its disposal, has in the recent past made superhuman efforts in supplying housing to the people.

There is another matter I also want to raise. I believe that the houses which have been provided should not remain rented houses. The tenant should become a home-owner. He must be given a stake in his country and in the city in which he lives. He must help to build South Africa. One must make him a patriot by making him a participant. One must grant him the opportunity of self realization. Permission has already been granted to people to buy houses in Mitchell’s Plain and in Crown Gardens, in my constituency. All I ask is that this process be accelerated and that people be advised that they may buy the flats in which they are living. There is no major outlay involved, because the expenses involved in the maintenance and renovation of the flats will be far higher than the deposit which is paid over a period and which will ensure a greater capital income.

I do not want to discuss only the task of the State in this connection, but also the task of the mines. In our country, a person who becomes a miner is usually 17 or 18 years old when he starts working in the mines, but after a period of service of 30 years, he receives three months’ notice that he must leave the mine and vacate his home. For that reason I request that it must be ensured that the mining authorities make their contribution as well by affording the lessees an opportunity of purchasing the houses. The hon. member for Losberg has also advocated that this be done. At the same time the then Minister of Mines, Dr. Koornhof, told us that this matter would be raised with the Chamber of Mines. Apparently those negotiations are still under way. I request that the mining authorities should give serious consideration to not terminating the services of a person when he has reached the age of 40 or 50 years so that he then becomes the responsibility of the State, but rather to meeting his needs, for they are already receiving the instalments on the house, which they can in turn take into account for income tax purposes. There are two or three benefits attached to this. For that reason I ask that they should transfer the house to the man who occupies and who deserves it.

I want to tell hon. members what has been done in the sphere of housing for the Whites of South Africa. During the past five years, the Department of Community Development and the municipalities alone have built approximately 170 000 homes for Whites. At the moment there is no real shortage of housing for Whites. I am not talking about exceptional cases, but in this connection, too, we are making provision for approximately 5 000 houses per annum. I have already referred to housing for Coloureds. In the recent past 20 000 homes have been built for Indians. At present more than 12 000 houses are being built for them to meet a further existing need. I think that as far as these people are concerned, sufficient provision has been made for them.

Over and above all these things, R250 million has been voted for housing, of which R100 million was earmarked for Coloured housing, R50 million for Indian housing, R50 million for housing in the homelands, and R50 million for housing for the urban Bantu. It is a vast amount of money. The Railways and Harbours appropriation makes provision for an amount of R121 million for housing. This is something of which any Government, any Parliament or House may be proud of. We are part of this effort. Even if an hon. member belongs to the Opposition, he has still agreed to the spending of that money.

I do not want to discuss the good or bad aspects of squatting today. It is our task to eliminate it. The method to be employed, must be left in the hands of those people who have the right and the reason to put a stop to squatting. We must make provision wherever we can. We must make our contribution of assistance and we must encourage people to avail themselves to an ever greater extent of the opportunities which the Government has created for them.

In my view, another very serious matter is the fact that in South Africa we encounter a strange tendency on the part of municipalities. We find that from time to time, every three years in fact, municipalities arbitrarily increase the valuation of properties by 100%. These revaluations are a method of increasing tax revenue without in fact levying higher rates. In reality, the valuations are merely adjusted. When a person pays direct or indirect tax, he finds that when he no longer has an income, he no longer pays tax. But what is the situation of a man who pays off a house over a period of 30 or 40 years? He has for example now reached the situation where he draws a pension and where the rates on his property have doubled during his last years. He cannot sell his house, because he has to live in it. If he vacates that house, he is in the hands of the State. Now his rates are being increased so drastically that he can no longer cope. We request that serious consideration be given to the possibility of a pensioner having to pay for consumer commodities only. In other words, he should only pay for what he uses, i.e. water and electricity. We would have liked to see those, too, being provided free of charge, but we cannot become impractical. For sewerage and other installations he has already paid at the outset and the township developer also paid for those services then. What is actually being paid for now, is merely the administration of a city, and we have to adapt to the circumstances of the time.

When one asks that a further method should also be found to enable more tenants to become home-owners, I shall tell the hon. members why I desire that. In the first place, I believe that the South African is a capitalist, a capitalist who is often without money, a capitalist with only the hope of still amassing money, and who has the idea—as a result of his origin—that one day he will become a capitalist, that he will definitely become one if he becomes a home-owner. For that reason, we must help these people. Lenin said that if one could destroy the confidence of a man in his country, if one could destroy the confidence of a man in the monetary system of his country, one could destroy the country. For that reason I say: Let us find a method whereby we can give each person a stake in his country, by giving him ownership of his home. Let us try and find a method to restore this confidence in our people. At this moment, there is a confidence crisis in every country in the world. This ought not to be the case in South Africa, yet there are signs of it. It is for this reason that I request that we must give people a stake, just as in the case of Germany where, in 1923, they restored complete confidence in the country. This position was achieved because the German Government had decreed that a person’s salary should be divided into four parts, of which he could only spend three parts. 25% of this salary could only be spent on land and property. That is how capital is built up. It ensures that a man gets something of his own. He does not become the type of person who will run away. That which he possesses, he owns. He lives there, because it is his future and it gives him a reason for staying there. It gives him the choice to defend his possessions. In Germany, everything proved one thing to us. From the chaos which had arisen, order was re-established in 1924 because people were once more assured of the stability of ownership. That in turn created confidence, confidence also in their currency.

When one thinks about these things, one realizes that the only manner in which resistance of communism can be broken down, is by participation of the citizen in the affairs of his country. But it is no use trying to sell ideologies to people. It must be brought home to the people in a tangible manner. People seek security, the security of that which is their own. It is unwise to place people in a situation in which they have to fight for certain rights. That only creates uncertainty. That which people can call their own, must be clearly demarcated and allotted to them. I am not, of course, alleging that they need not pay for it. But people must be afforded the opportunity of owning a property.

Another aspect which we need to look at, is the question of taxes. We should try to ascertain whether it is not possible to grant a tax rebate to home-owners on the first R2 000 or R3 000 of a property transaction, subject to the condition that the amount which has been granted as a rebate, should be utilized for improvements to the buildings and the land. In this way we might experience a quicker recovery, in the building industry and on the stock exchange, for example. In this way we can also create more confidence.

Another matter which causes me concern, is the lavishness with which we set about establishing new townships, i have never in my life been a champion of speculators. Normally they know how to look after themselves. I do not think it is ever necessary to champion their cause. A speculator needs merely be given the opportunity of carving a way for himself. But the point I wish to make, concerns the prerequisites which are laid down when a new township is to be established. These are popularly referred to as “conditions of establishment”. In terms of those conditions, certain things, for example concrete rain-water channels and kerbstones, must be provided before construction work may commence. The capital which is required for those services, often lies unutilized for between two to three years before it can become productive in any way. This frequently consists of amounts of between R3 million and R4 million, depending on the size of the town to be developed. What I am opposed to is, is that concrete rain-water channels, kerbstones and other things which have to be provided in a township, make the venture hopelessly too expensive. It also has the effect of making the stands far too expensive. Houghton is always a poor example to hold up here in the House, because the people of Houghton do not easily agree with one. But in a suburb like Houghton, there are no concrete water channels and kerbstones.

They have a poor MP!

Melrose does not have concrete water channels and kerbstones. Those are things which cost unnecessary money for the size of the stands. In Houghton, for example, it costs between R2 000 and R3 000 to provide unnecessary luxuries like these. Why do we continue with it? Experts and so-called experts recommend that the side walls of garages should be omitted and that a car port is sufficient for motor cars. Conveniences which people might have installed in their homes, are omitted, and yet they spend vast amounts of money on unnecessary services. Talents and abilities which could be used for the building up of the country, are buried in the ground without ever yielding any proceeds. One is burying in the ground one’s talents and what one has with which to build up the country, without drawing any interest on it.

While I am on this topic, I also want to point out that the materials which are used, could very easily be standardized. It can be done. The town engineers of every town and city are able to prescribe separate sets of rules which one has to comply with. The regulations for Pretoria are different to those for Randfontein and those for Johannesburg are different to those for Springs. In every town or city, different conditions can be laid down. The conditions of one town or city may be more stringent than those of another, purely because there is a lack of knowledge in connection with the finance which is involved. The town and city engineers regard the work of township developers and others in that field purely as an attempt to make profits. The primary object of every municipality and the Government departments concerned, is also to supply the people with more and better homes. But that is also the object of every township developer.

My time has run out, but I request that the department should do at least one thing. Letters should be sent out to all the tenants of dwelling units, and they must be afforded the opportunity of purchasing those dwelling units.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte pleaded that we should not make of his motion a political football. I hope to be able to comply with that request. I agree with him whole-heartedly when he says that home-ownership is one of the cardinal prerequisites for a stable housing policy. His motion is, to a great extent, not controversial, particularly as far as White, Coloured and Indian housing at the economic and sub-economic levels are concerned. However, I find his motion incomplete and therefore I should like to amend it.

You have not obtained my permission!

I move the following amendment—

1. “(1) calls upon the Government to speed up its programme to provide all population groups with adequate housing and in particular urges the Government—
   1. (a) to provide security of tenure by means of freehold title or other suitable means;
   2. (b) to reconsider its low cost housing policy; and
   3. (c) to investigate and implement alternative emergency housing schemes to enable the poorest section of the population to have housing.”

Do you have a copy available for me?

Yes, indeed. It will soon become apparent why I have moved the amendment. As far as our most serious housing problems go, we in South Africa are very much part of the Third World. Two factors play a very important role in this regard. The one is population increase and the other is rural/urban migration. A major consequence of these two factors is the large concentration of low-income families in our existing metropolitan areas.

Invariably in Third World countries Governments cannot keep up with the supply of low-cost housing and large concentrations of shanty towns or squatter communities develop. Even where Governments are moderately successful with low-cost housing programmes, it has generally been found that between a third and two-thirds of the people in the low-income families cannot afford even very low-cost housing. This then in itself becomes an additional factor contributing towards the increase in shanty towns and squatter communities.

The pervasiveness of this problem can be appreciated if one looks at the percentages of the urban populations living in squatter communities in some of the Third World’s major cities: In Rio de Janeiro, 30%; in Nairobi, 33%; in Lima, 40%; in Dar es Salaam, 50%; in Abidjan, 60%; and in Ibidjan, 75%. South Africa has similar characteristics. In the Durban metropolitan area there are approximately 350 000 squatters and shanty-town dwellers; in Pietermaritzburg, 265 000; in the Cape Peninsula, 200 000; and in Winterveld near Pretoria, between 200 000 and 300 000. With the present rates of rural/urban migration as well as population increase in South Africa, there is all indication that this will increase in dimension.

What has been the traditional reaction of Governments in the Third World to this problem? The traditional reaction has been twofold. On the one hand there has been the tendency to persist with State-subsidized, low-cost housing schemes by building public housing estates and, on the other hand, to demolish squatter structures. It is now generally accepted by experts that this approach of the problem is a complete failure, and the most important reasons for this are the following. On the one hand there are inadequate State funds to provide low-cost housing at the required rate, and on the other hand there is the inability of many low-income families to afford low-cost housing even if it should become available. Here in South Africa, however, the basic approach is still for the State to persist with a low-cost housing policy generally and to demolish squatter shacks, despite the fact that it is here as true as elsewhere that there are inadequate funds to even remotely catch up with the particular Black housing backlog and despite the fact that in many communities approximately half of the low-income families cannot afford low-cost housing. This became quite evident in the Theron Commission report as far as the Coloured population is concerned.

Let us assume that the State did have available funds. What would this entail? Approximate calculations indicate that at present there are 1,1 million Blacks in the vicinity of the major metropolitan regions requiring conventional township housing. If we are to assume a mean household size of five to six persons, this means that roughly 190 000 to 220 000 township houses are required immediately—in other words 9 to 11 communities the size of Umlazi in Durban, and this does not take into account existing overcrowding.

Even if we exclude the homelands, which would be ridiculous, the Department of Community Development has calculated that over the next five years the State would have to build 120 000 houses for Coloureds, 45 000 houses for Indians and 90 000 houses for Blacks, all in all a total of 253 000 houses. Moreover, 120 000 hostel beds are needed for single migrant workers. The question that now arises is whether this Government—or any other Government for that matter—can afford to build conventional township houses for all the families living in shanties or squatter shacks. In 1976 the public sector spent R270 million on housing in South Africa, including the homelands. This represented 3,6% of the budget for that year. This is not excessive if one takes into account that countries like Brazil and Venezuela spend 7% of their budget on housing. Despite this expenditure of R270 million, however, we still have the problems I have just referred to.

If we take Benbo’s calculations on African housing needs and the Department of Community Development’s figures for Coloureds and Indians, we find that between 1975 and 1980 the total requirements amount to 1 046 500 houses. Breaking this figure down we arrive at figures of 883 500 houses for Africans, 120 000 for Coloureds and 43 000 for Indians. At an estimated cost of R3 000 per unit for Africans, taking into account construction and services, and R6 000 per unit for Coloureds and Indians, this gives us a total cost of about R3 000 000 629, or approximately R605 million per annum over the next five years. Seen in this perspective, the R250 million announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance to be allocated for housing, of which approximately R100 million is for African housing, is more a gesture of good intent than an effective measure to combat housing needs. In short, the dimension of the problem is such that the Government would have to make the provision of low-cost housing one of its major budget priorities, which is not likely to happen, simply because there are other priorities. Thus, there will not be funds available to meet the problem adequately. The conclusion is simple and stark, and it faces us all. Our most pressing housing needs and problems lie in the area of low-income families. A low-cost housing policy cannot meet the need because of the lack of public funds and, even in many cases where it can meet that need, low-income families cannot afford the housing provided. Therefore, to persist with the second leg of the traditional approach to this problem in Third World countries, viz. the demolition of shacks, is not only futile and shortsighted, but vicious in the extreme. One does not solve a squatter community’s problems by demolishing all the shacks and forcing those people to erect them somewhere else out of sight. If families need shelter, they need it wherever they are and it is only human that they will seek it where the best possible circumstances prevail.

The question arises: What alternatives are there to this dilemma? This dilemma, as I have tried to emphasize, is not a dilemma that faces us only; the problem of low incomes and low-cost housing is a problem facing the whole Third World. We must find an alternative to the futile solutions of attempting to provide adequate low-cost housing and of demolishing shacks as the only solutions to the housing problems facing low-income families. This does not imply—I want to emphasize this—that the provision of low-cost housing must be scrapped altogether; but alternative strategies must supplement it in order to suit the needs of different income groups. If we are to look at the alternatives, there are two basic ingredients. The first is the one particularly emphasized by the hon. member for Langlaagte, viz. that security of tenure is an absolute pre-condition. In this respect I should just like to quote from a paper, which I can give to the hon. the Minister if he is interested, entitled “Alternatives to the bulldozer and an economic approach to squatter housing with lessons for South Africa” by the economist Maasdorp. With regard to the question of security of tenure, he writes—

The second basic ingredient of an alternative approach is that private funds and initiative would have to be tapped. Because the families concerned are poor, it follows that the kind of housing schemes, in which their funds and initiatives could be involved, must necessarily be modest; for example, squatter communities and shanty towns. In other words, one has to rely on the initiative of the people there.

Taking all this into account, I want to suggest certain guidelines for an alternative strategy. Firstly, do not build houses for people who cannot afford them—this involves a very large number of people in South Africa, as I have pointed out—because to do so is not only futile, but also costly and it aggravates the housing problem. Secondly, accept that our housing problems are typical of Third World countries as well and accept shanty towns or squatter communities as facts, to be exploited for improvement rather than to be demolished. There is a wealth of initiative available to be tapped within such communities. I am not now talking of my personal experience; I am talking of numerous studies that have been done, and I am quite willing to give them to the hon. the Minister if he wants them. Thirdly, explore alternative ways and means to come to grips with the problem of low-income family housing. There are alternatives available. One is the upgrading of existing squatter communities. This has been done to a very limited extent with regard to Crossroads here in the Cape Peninsula.

Have you not heard of Elsies River?

Yes; I am simply giving an example. Secondly, there is the provision of serviced land for emergency and self-help housing; and, thirdly, there is the provision of core housing units. I know that the Department of Community Development has already started with this, and indeed, it refers to it in its annual report. All these alternatives can be far less costly to the State than persisting with the provision of low cost housing units. The fourth guideline is: Do not demolish as a matter of principle but only where alternative and better accommodation is available. I am well aware of the fact that there is a conventional prejudice against squatter communities. However, a great deal of research has been done in this regard and they show that quite a different situation obtains within these communities than these prejudiced ideas claim. In this respect I would again like to quote, with reference to research that has been done, from the same source that I mentioned earlier—

All these characteristics that I have mentioned happen to be true and I use them as an example of the local squatter community at Crossroads. Research reports have been completed in regard to that community showing that a large section of the people living there are involved in the so-called informal economic sector there. They get an income from it to supplement the family income. There is also a great deal of community organization and they are well established. Therefore, I can sum up my whole argument with a simple but fervent plea, particularly to the Department of Plural Relations and Development, although the hon. Minister of that department is unfortunately not present this afternoon. My plea to them is: In the name of mercy and good sense, leave Crossroads alone if you have no better accommodation to offer. If they have no better accommodation, they should leave Crossroads alone. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? Not because I am pleading for Crossroads simply on humanistic grounds, but because of the very fact that I have spelt out to hon. members the conditions that prevail in Third World countries. Crossroads is symptomatic of that situation, Mr. Speaker. We have a choice of either stabilizing that community and seeing to it that they have shelter that they themselves are satisfied with and which they are willing to improve, or we can make of these communities slumbering volcanoes of discontent in our own society. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that once these volcanoes erupt, they are not going to talk only about housing, but they will talk about all other things relating to this society to which we have become accustomed.

Secondly it is also important to follow this approach for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Langlaagte. There is no way in which one can have adequate and convenient White, Indian and Coloured housing in this society on the economic and subeconomic level if we ignore the very grave problems that confront us on this particular level, viz. on the level of low income family housing. That is why I move this amendment, and I would urge the Government to reconsider their strategy towards this category of housing.

What are the obstacles to a reconsideration of a matter of this nature? They are obvious. The one major obstacle is an ideological decision about where people should live and under what conditions they should live. These ideological considerations completely ignore the socio-economic realities impinging upon our metropolitan areas. That is one of the factors that we mentioned. To argue in some tortuous logic about the legality of a wife who wants to live with her children and her husband in a shanty or a shack and to regard that as sufficient reason to destroy that family’s shelter and to separate them, is to me one of the surest ways of creating conflict in our society. One must particularly take into account the dimensions of the problem. It is an incredible problem that confronts us. It does not only confront this Government but any future government. I may add that it would even confront a Black government. We have a great deal to learn from the way other countries have coped with this problem. We are in a far better position to tackle this problem more adequately.

In conclusion another obstacle to us tackling the problem of low income family housing is that at present, the approach to housing in South Africa is to a large extent fragmented. This was one of the major points made by the Fouché Commission, viz. that one needs a general and common approach to all housing problems. One cannot allow the Department of Plural Relations and Development to work according to certain rules while the divisional councils have to cope with certain restrictions. In the meantime the Department of Community Development is working on yet another level. On the level of low-income family housing we need a concerted approach, because if we do not solve this particular problem, we can talk and brag as much as we like about how we provide housing for Whites, Coloureds and Indians on an economic and sub-economic basis, but in the final analysis the precipitation of political conflict and of crises in our urban metropolitan areas are going to lie in these communities which we have blithely ignored up to this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of knowing about the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch, and since it is a rather comprehensive amendment I shall not begin by reacting to it. As a rule I used to listen with great attention to the hon. member for Rondebosch in the past, and I did so again this afternoon. Although the hon. member was never entirely objective in the past, he did at least try, when he discussed housing, to approach the matter in a scientific way. In my opinion he tried to create the impression this afternoon that he again wanted to be objective in this regard, but I do not think he succeeded in doing so as well as he used to do in the past. I make so bold as to say that the motion before this House today affords each member, i.e. an Opposition member as well, an opportunity to make a positive contribution in regard to this question. If they do not see their way clear to giving the Government credit for what one could describe as a modern-day wonder, it does at least afford an objective member the opportunity, by offering suggestions, of steering the Government in a direction in which it helps people in a practical way to help themselves. But what happened here this afternoon? The hon. member for Rondebosch was again obsessed with the idea of opposing. The responsibility of being the Official Opposition and of being shadow Minister of Community Development, rested so heavily on him this afternoon that he abandoned all attempts to be truly objective in regard to this matter. The hon. member’s argument revolved primarily around the Black squatter families. The recent demolitions were primarily those of the structures of unauthorized Black squatters, while those of Coloured squatters were to a certain extent re-established elsewhere. My question in this regard is therefore: What contribution did the hon. member for Rondebosch really make here today? What was his real contribution, apart from his pessimistic and comfortless view of the Black squatters, and also in connection with the former squatter areas of Modderdam, Werkgenot, Unibell—camps which have already been demolished—and the emergency camp at Crossroads? The hon. member maintains that people who cannot afford it, should not be rehoused.

I never said that.

By implication the hon. member said that people who could not afford it, should not be rehoused in the way they are at present being rehoused. In other words, the hon. member was advocation by implication the establishment of squatter communities. As a result I want to put the following question to him: What is the hon. member trying to achieve, or is he simply following the pattern his party has followed for so long, namely to create something of an atmosphere?

I do not want to become involved in a long, detailed argument with the hon. member about the former unlawful squatter concentrations in the places he mentioned, i.e. Modderdam, Werkgenot, etc. Nor do I want to become involved with the hon. member in argument about the unlawful Black squatters in the emergency camp at Crossroads. He is the one member who knows what the situation in the African countries is. He demonstrated this again here this afternoon by quoting certain facts. He has first-hand knowledge of what the position in many of those countries is. I am not mentioning this to draw a comparison, but to indicate that the hon. member knows precisely what the position in a country such as Nigeria is today. In Nigeria an uncontrolled influx to the cities was allowed to take place. Within the space of little more than a year a squatter camp with more than one million inhabitants arose on the rubbish dumps of Lagos.

The hon. member knows equally well that during the period June 1976 to July 1977—within the space of only one year—there was an unlawful influx of more than 26 000 Blacks to the Cape Peninsula or the Cape metropolitan area. They came here and proceeded to squat under the most deplorable conditions. No authorities can allow an uncontrolled influx of people to an area where there is no livelihood for them and where there are primarily no housing facilities for them. Surely there cannot in this case be any question of compulsory alternative accommodation by the State.

One thing which the hon. member for Rondebosch and his fellow party members and those who think as they do must realize and understand is that it is a fait accompli that Blacks who are unlawfully present in the Western Cape—whether or not they are squatting—have no right and no claim to accommodation. If the hon. member for Rondebosch, the former member for Edenvale, Mr. Nic Olivier, the cardinal and other office-holders and church functionaries, claim—and lead public protests to this effect—that these unlawful, Black squatter communities should first be resettled before their shanties are removed, or that every squatter camp that may arise should be declared an emergency camp and provided with the necessary services, they must accept today that even if they entreat the judgment of hell-fire upon this Government as far as this matter is concerned, it is simply not going to happen. If one is going to allow this to happen here in the Cape metropolitan area, one has no justification in not allowing it to happen in the rest of South Africa. Today approximately 2 000 of the Blacks who are lawfully present in the Western Cape are already unemployed. Completely uncontrolled influx will contribute greatly to their eventual misery. One must therefore protect them against this uncontrolled intrusion.

The hon. member for Rondebosch would do very well to examine his own role in this matter. What interest does he have in an extremely explosive situation developing here, as has already developed from time to time? Attempts to restore order were repeatedly defeated by certain Whites who incited unlawful squatters into further contraventions of the law. The hon. member should give serious thought to who his bedfellows in this entire matter are.

The hon. member also discussed the question of Black home-ownership very comprehensively. Although the Government is well-disposed to the idea of Black home-ownership, we naturally support this idea with qualifications. I want to refer to the Railways and Harbours Appropriation which was introduced this week. From that it appeared that a semi-State enterprise such as the S.A. Railways is already playing a leading part in the establishment of Black home-ownership, in order to encourage and to augment it in that way. However, one thing must be very clear. The NP’s Cape congress committed itself—and I personally commit myself—to never granting property ownership to Blacks in the Western Cape, which is the natural home of the Whites and the Coloureds.

As far as the remainder of the Republic is concerned, I believe that our support is equally qualified, namely that the Blacks will be granted home-ownership and that it will be encouraged at all costs. The hon. member has caused me to deviate considerably from our ideas on what ought to have been a very positive motion. I wish that I could have an opportunity, in the time remaining, to analyse in detail the Government’s almost superhuman achievements in respect of housing for all race groups in detail. These are well-known, and reports indicate that astronomical amounts have already spent on housing and that this is an ever-growing responsibility which the Government accepts. The report of the Department of Community Development, which was tabled here last week, testifies to that fact. This report is an absolute success story. If we were able to succeed in collating the statistics furnished there, we could see that it is an almost unbelievable achievement on the part of the Government. It is a testimonial to the extent to which the Government is in earnest about being able to accommodate its peoples. I do not want to embark upon a furnishing of the figures, because my time is limited. I want to refer only to statistics in this report. In 1974 the private sector still provided 92% of all dwellings for Whites, as against the 8% provided by the Department of Community Development. But in 1976, two years later, the contribution by the private sector had already dropped to 81%, while the department’s contribution had risen to 19%.

The figures in respect of Coloured housing are so much more dramatic. In 1974 the private sector still provided approximately 27% of all Coloured housing, but that sector’s share dropped to only 6% in 1976, as against the department’s 94%.

One cannot help wondering whether the Government should try to do even more or whether it should try to find other methods whereby the individual can be helped to help himself. Like the hon. member for Langlaagte, I believe that private home-ownership creates a new responsibility in most people, for people who are living in their own homes, do not readily throw stones. The events of the recent past demonstrated this to us. However, we are dealing with a further problem, which is that private home-ownership is developing into a luxury which, for various reasons, can eventually be the privilege of a few select individuals only. There is a variety of factors contributing to this. I want to indicate only a few of these very superficially. Firstly there is the question of rising building costs, secondly rising financing costs and finally the never-ending increase in local authority rates and service charges. Municipal and other local authority rates are probably one of the worst nightmares for the private home-owner today. The position is that this burden is becoming greater and heavier by the year. The expenditure of local authorities increases annually, while their sources of taxation naturally remain limited. Therefore they have no alternative but to recover their expenditure from the ratepayer. I could refer to a single example. The gross expenditure of the Parow municipality, which falls partially in my own constituency, was R2,17 million in 1970, but by 1977 it had risen to R7,24 million. This represents an increase of 233% over a period of seven years. Who has to bear these rising costs? They are not distributed throughout the entire community. It is only 20%, that small group of people who have toiled and struggled to own their own property, that have to bear this new burden. In addition we in this area are also subject to a divisional council tax which is levied within the municipal area.

I do not want to single out the position of the pensioner today by telling hon. members a sad story of the man who worked hard to own his own house and who, as a result of the rising costs, has had to throw in the towel. The problem is not limited to our own local municipality only. The hon. member for Randburg mentioned a very important fact in his maiden speech when he said that total municipal taxation had risen in the nine years from 1965 to 1974 from R69 million to R222 million per year, also an increase of 220% as against Parow’s 233%, which is an indication to us that this is just about the average increase throughout South Africa. Local authorities have no alternative. Money has become more expensive for them—from 8% in 1970 to 12½% in 1977. This means, in other words, an increase in the cost of money of 50% over that period. Similarly the basic costs of contracts rose by approximately 50% between 1970 and 1977. It is the home-owner who has to foot this bill. To cover that expenditure, local authorities do not always raise their taxation rate because it would appear to be too drastic, but what happens from time to time is that a revaluation takes place and the taxation is levied at the same rate, but on a higher valuation. It is in fact these higher valuations which create a further problem for us in respect of the cost of housing, because municipal valuations ure inclined to cause the market value of properties to soar. We shall really have to give thought to this problem. I am not advocating what I am now going to say, but we shall nevertheless have to begin to review the position of non-taxed State-owned property.

If we take the example of my own municipality once again, the taxable value of State-owned property is approximately R118 million. If this were taxable on the normal scale, it would produce more than R900 000 in taxable income. I do not wish to elaborate any further on the other factors which I have mentioned, because these matters have already been dealt with extensively in the report of the commission on housing matters, a report which will, in the years which lie ahead, become one of our most useful guides because it contains such a wealth of facts and data. Despite the increasing obligations in respect of home-ownership which I have pointed out, I want to associate myself strongly with the hon. member of Langlaagte today, and I also wish to request that sub-economic and lower-economic leasing units be sold selectively to inhabitants at a lower interest rate. In this regard the department addressed a circular to local authorities in 1975, in which the department encouraged those local authorities to sell sub-economic units. But it would nevertheless seem that the department will have to exert a little pressure on the local authorities and on other bodies providing such housing.

Furthermore, I want to ask whether it will not be possible to allow such local authorities or bodies to develop a miniature revolving fund for the renovation and sale of such dwellings. What I have in mind here is that it should be possible for funds to be made available at sub-economic rates for the renovation of such houses, and that those loans can then be converted to economical loans when that property is sold. As an example I want to refer to Epping Garden Village which is also situated in my constituency and in which a redevelopment scheme is at present under way. There existing sub-economic units are being renovated in order to comply with the current sub-economic standards. If some of those renovated houses can be sold and the proceeds paid into a revolving fund in favour of the scheme, it would be possible to expedite further renovation programmes considerably. In an extensive leasing scheme we have to deal with the problem of the imbalance of the communities, an imbalance which, as a result of the lowering of the sub-economic notch, can disrupt the balance even further. If I could refer to this particular community it is today the plea of the church, the school and the entire community there that some of those houses should be sold with a view to creating a more stable and more balanced community. In spite of the department’s circular, it is my impression that technical problems still arise occasionally in the practical implementation of the selling scheme.

Unfortunately my time is up and I have to conclude. Last but not least, however, I want to thank the department and the hon. the Minister very sincerely for the herculean task which they have undertaken in a community such as Epping, a community with a redevelopment programme amounting to millions of rands, and all of this with a view to creating a balanced community there.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all must thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for introducing this motion in the House. I believe we should all approach the matter in the same spirit as the hon. member for Langlaagte did and not try to make a political football out of it. In my own opinion—and I am sure in the opinion of the House as a whole—this is the most serious problem facing our country today, with the possible exception of defence. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member said. I also agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Rondebosch said. This issue is something which should be kept out of the political arena, and it is certainly an issue which demands attention.

However, I am going to take a different tack. The hon. member for Langlaagte took the tack of community development, while the hon. member for Rondebosch took the tack of the squatter problem, which is something I am not going to deal with. I would like to go into the root cause of the situation in which we find ourselves today. That is basically the question of funds or money.

When I was in the building trade—it was at the same time when the hon. member for Langlaagte was in that trade—we found that the Department of Community Development did not know at that stage, ten years ago, whether they were Arthur or Martha. Since my arrival in Cape Town I have discovered that they know they are Martha now! [Interjections.] I am not decrying what the hon. the Minister has done for his department. I think that over the years that department has progressed tremendously. I have also established that since my arrival in Cape Town. The department has gone from strength to strength and it is not at all the same department that it was ten years ago. I do not know whether I have to thank the hon. the Minister or his department or somebody else for that, but it has certainly been …

You should thank the Government!

No, I would not say that. I shall deal with that in a few minutes.

The lack of funds is the problem which faces the hon. the Minister and that is the question with which I should like to deal. That is why I cannot fully support the motion which asks for thanks to be expressed to the Government. The thanks to the Government would have been valid if we had had a fully stable situation in our housing market in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians but also in respect of Blacks.

The hon. member for Langlaagte has singled out the community development aspect of our housing problem. This problem does not affect only the first three groups I mentioned. The most serious problem we have found in this connection is in fact the problem of Soweto and similar areas. The question of a shortage of housing, improper housing and poor housing has caused unrest, riots and deaths in our country. It has done our country immense harm.

Do you then not agree with the appeal of the hon. member for Rondebosch for more housing of that type?

No, I do not; but I do not agree with the bulldozing aspect of it either. I certainly do not like the idea of slums, but one finds organized slums throughout the world. Millions of people are living in slums throughout the world and they have become organized structures. We in this country can certainly afford to get rid of such slums. I shall deal with this towards the end of my speech. I am not for one moment suggesting that the hon. the Minister’s problems are simple ones. In fact, his problems are probably some of the most difficult ones encountered by anybody in the House. How does one deal with the situation where the Press start taking pictures the moment one bulldozer arrives? He has a serious problem. However, I do not think the problem simply revolves around the question of funds. We saw that witness after witness who testified before the Cillié Commission pointed out that the single most important factor responsible for the riots and unrest in this country was poor housing, overcrowded housing and inadequate housing.

I do not think we can support a motion thanking the Government for creating that state of affairs. That is the issue I want to discuss. How do we solve the chronic shortage of housing we have at the present time? The hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned one cardinal issue in this respect, namely private ownership. Wherever there was private ownership, no unrest or riots were experienced. That is where the hon. member has his finger right on the pulse. Private ownership has to be brought to bear as rapidly and effectively as possible. That is why I endorse the second leg of the hon. member’s motion entirely. We affirm that healthy principle. We should like to encourage the Government to go forward with this principle and to push along those lines. However, I do not believe that the Department of Plural Relations and Development sees the matter in the same light as the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It is for that reason that I cannot thank the Government.

I should like to speak about the Department of Community Development. The hon. the Minister of that department has tackled adequately the problems he has. He has been faced with the problem of a shortage of funds. Mitchell’s Square has been mentioned. That is a wonderful scheme. We can do with more of that kind. It is a super scheme.

It is Mitchell’s Plain.

All right. The hon. member for Houghton tells me it is Mitchell’s Plain.

It is not that I have told you so: It is Mitchell’s Plain.

Thank you very much.

You are welcome.

According to the Department of Community Development they have got rid of the backlog in White housing in this country. We are very pleased at that. I remember that when I was in housing the backlog was tremendous. We felt we would never be able to overcome it. I was fortunate to get the first contract for timber-frame housing which the department ever negotiated for in the country. I am referring now to Triomf. The late Prime Minister Verwoerd opened that scheme at the time, and let me say that I hope that the hundred houses I built for the Department of Community Development still stand.

It is a very attractive suburb. You get full marks for it.

Thank you. As I say, that type of scheme was initiated and I think that since then it has been taken further and it has improved further. We now have schemes like Mitchell’s Plain, and this is a kind of development we need urgently.

According to figures I was given by the Department of Community Development, they built 12 000 houses for Coloureds in 1973, 8 000 in 1974, 13 000 in 1975, 17 000 in 1976 and 10 000 in 1977. That department has been extremely honest concerning these figures and we appreciate that it has made them available to us.

I can only commend the department for its ability to give us all the answers. I cannot, however, say the same for the Department of Plural Relations and Development. We cannot find relevant figures which are even close to accurate on the number of houses that have been built, the number which are going to be built and the shortage of houses or the demand.

They tell one to go to the Department of Community Development for that.

Yes, it is a political football. One ends up being shoved around all over the country.

To overcome the shortage in Coloured housing, a figure of approximately 60 000 houses, one would over a period of four years have to build 15 000 houses per annum. In addition, to meet the natural increase approximately 15 000 houses per annum is also required. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can, in fact, have his department build 30 000 houses per year. I see people nodding their heads there. I am very pleased to note that. Now it is up to this House to give the hon. the Minister the money to do it.

The figures given me pointed to a problem. Last year the number of houses built dropped quite drastically. The hon. the Minister had planned for 21 000 houses, but only 10 000 houses were built. We had a shortage last year of 59 000 houses and the number built in accordance with the housing programme dropped to 10 000. I certainly hope the hon. the Minister can fix that up in the future and deal with the problem on the basis of providing 30 000 units per year for the Coloureds. For the Indians the same ratios apply. Then one still has to meet the normal housing progression for the Whites. On that basis we should be able to wipe out the backlog in four years.

This backlog of 60 000 houses will cost our country R1 200 million. The estimates are based on a figure of roughly R20 000 per house, including provision for roads, electricity, water, sewerage, schooling, football fields and everything involved in a scheme of that nature. So R1 200 million is required to build enough houses for the Coloureds. That would bring us up to date. Can we allocate these funds? Do we have the funds? A more relevant question, in my opinion, is whether we can afford not to provide these funds? A sum is being made available of R250 million which, we have heard this afternoon, is a wonderful gesture on the part of the Government. However, it is only a drop in the bucket. The R100 000 going to the Coloureds will provide for only one-twelfth of the backlog. It will only provide for roughly 10 000 houses.

The figure is R100 million.

Yes, R100 million is correct. As I see it, that will provide for only 5 000 houses. Unfortunately, I am not a statistician; I am just a poor farmer.

I should now like to change the subject and come to the question of Black housing, and that lets the hon. the Minister of Community Development off the hook. Black housing is the far more serious a problem, and this is where we find that the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development does not seem to have the relevant figures at his fingertips. He does not know how many houses are needed. He does not know how many houses have been built. Nowhere can anyone get any confirmation of the number of houses that have been built or are going to be built. We must plead with him to offer these statistics to the House and to look into this matter himself. Obviously, he is a Minister with a new portfolio, but I urge him to do this as a priority. I have to rely on figures given in newspapers. Let me quote from an article in The Argus of 30 November 1977, which states that, according to the “Focus on Economic Issues” by the University of Pretoria, there is a shortfall of roughly 300 000 Black houses in this country: 130 000 in the urban areas and 170 000 in the rural areas. At the present rate of building we shall never catch up. In fact, the present rate of building does not even cover the natural growth of the townships. This is where I say we need to look; and we need to look carefully at the amount of money required. According to that quote, to build 300 000 houses in five years would cost R1 500 million. That only covers the backlog, let alone the annual increase. The R100 million allocated for Black housing this year covers only one-fifteenth of the backlog. We cannot go telling everyone that the R250 million we have been allocated will solve all the problems. That is only a drop in the bucket.

But there are other drops in the bucket.

We need many more drops. In fact, we need a steady stream. South Africa can afford to spend this money. I certainly believe it can. Let me make a comparison. I see the hon. the Minister of Transport is here. R1 500 million is required for Black housing, but look at the expense that he has incurred. On two schemes alone, viz. the Saldanha-Sishen scheme and the Richards Bay-Vryheid scheme, he has spent R1 200 million. He can spend that! Yet if we could spend that, we could almost cover our entire housing backlog. I am not saying that those two schemes were not necessary for our country. I am just showing that two schemes alone, schemes required by the Railways, cost the equivalent of the amount required for Black housing. Look at the SAR’s total capital requirements in the Brown Book, a figure of R8 300 million. We could build enough housing for the whole country with that amount of money!

Without peace and harmony and stability in every home, all other investments become meaningless in this country, because if we do not have that peace and harmony we are going to end up with chaos in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my wholehearted support for the motion of the hon. member for Langlaagte. I even want to congratulate him on having focused the attention of this House on such a vital problem. This shows me that the hon. member is sometimes capable of serious reflection.

There can be no doubt about the fact that all hon. members of this House realize the enormous dimensions of the problem. In this connection I refer to the statement made in this House about two weeks ago by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he said in effect that we had to build just as many houses in this country over the next 22 years as we have built during the past 3,25 centuries. I do not think the hon. the Minister made that statement just in order to sound impressive. I think the hon. the Minister meant to indicate in what a serious light he really saw this matter.

I want to deal with just a small facet of the problem, i.e. the right of ownership of subeconomic housing. Before I come to that, however, allow me to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Mr. Gaffie Maree. He represented Namaqualand in Parliament longer than any other member before him. In fact, he can look back over 16 golden years in politics. This is only granted to those persons who render hard and honest service to their people. This service he did render, as hon. members know, and in doing so he almost over-taxed himself. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like specifically to include Mrs. Maree in these remarks.

For the sake of interest, I want to refer to another representative of Namaqualand. This may not be known to all hon. members, but the very first constitutional representative of Namaqualand was none other than the later esteemed President Jan Brand of the Orange Free State. I should not like to give offence to the Free State, but the Namaqualanders believe that the President acquired his proverbial optimism in Namaqualand, and I think we are right as far as that is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you why I think that we are right. A friend of mine who is a teacher in Bushmanland—hon. members probably know that Bushmanland is a part of the constituency of Namaqualand—told me this anecdote about what happened in one of the towns in Bushmanland. It was during the examination and in the English paper the children had to complete the idiom: “It never rains but…” One of the children wrote: “Don’t worry.” Mr. Speaker, translated into idiomatic Afrikaans this can very easily be interpreted to mean “Alles sal regkom”.

However, I want to come back to the motion which is before the House and I want to ask this question: Why is housing so extremely important? In the first place, it gives the house-owner a sense of social satisfaction and security. It is important if one wants to be satisfied with one’s life and it also leads to a higher standard of living. Housing is the best form of saving and at the same time it stimulates the important building industry. Private ownership is the cornerstone of our capitalist system and the more people are owners, the stronger we make the system. It is true that the nature of any economic system is determined by the masses and not by great individuals. Most important, however, is the fact that housing is the most effective way of moving away from the dangerous problem of the have-nots. But property in the hands of people who cannot handle it or who cannot appreciate it does not solve anything. In other words, the people who must be helped are those who are really trying to become owners, but who are financially unable to do so. Land is expensive and interest rates are high, and although we have an excellent system of registration of ownership in this country, this is also expensive.

Furthermore, I want to ask myself this question: What can be done to promote ownership, bearing in mind that we have limited financial resources? In the first place I should say: Keep subeconomic housing in the hands of local authorities as far as is practicable. Why do I say this? Local authorities have the necessary land. Concerning the availability of land, of building land, the report of the Fouché Commission on building matters makes the general comment on page 5 that most local authorities have building sites available, and here it is referring to the 15 biggest local authority areas. However, it is known that the vast majority of local authorities in the rural areas have a great deal of land available in the form of the town commonage, and that no extra money is therefore necessary for the acquisition of building sites.

In the second place, employers must be encouraged to make more money available, in the form of bonds at low interest rates, to their employees for building their own houses. In my opinion, there are still too many employers who do not realize the value of a contented employee.

Let us now consider the question of interest rates. The Department of Community Development is at present lending money to local authorities for the construction of sub-economic housing at 1% interest over a period of 40 years. However, as soon as the local authority sells any of those properties, the interest rate on that part of the money immediately goes up to 9¼%. This must be recovered from the subeconomic buyer, and it is too expensive for him. Therefore, I advocate that the interest rate between the Department of Community Development and the local authority should remain 1%, even if the local authority sells the property. The local authority must charge the same interest rate when it resells the property, but the term of payment must be reduced to 12 to 16 years. This will mean that more houses will be built over the same period with the same amount of money, while the department will in fact suffer no losses. According to my information, there are almost no transactions under the 9¼% arrangement at present. Local authorities ought to be encouraged to sell existing subeconomic housing schemes, for this will mean that extra capital will be realized, which can then be used for new housing. It can even be an extra source of income for the local authority in the form of rates. Therefore one may rightly ask: Why do the local authorities not do this? The reason for this is obvious, i.e. that the interest rate will rise to 9¼%, and that is too high. Then, too, the laying out of townships and the surveying of separate plots are too expensive, and it must always be borne in mind that the prospective buyers are poor people.

This brings me to the next aspect, i.e. the high cost of registration of property. I should like to quote a simple example in this connection. There are many towns in the rural areas which can make building plots available for subeconomic housing at R100 or less. However, it costs R300 and more to survey this site, and to transfer it costs approximately R80. In other words, to have a site worth R100 registered in your name ultimately costs four times that amount. This being so, does it surprise hon. members that there are no transactions? In my opinion, the solution to this is to be found in a very useful piece of legislation which is already on the Statute Book, i.e. the Sectional Titles Act. Although this Act was primarily designed for the transfer of parts of the same building to different owners, it can be made applicable to townships as well as long as properties are linked together at least two by two. It may be necessary to make small amendments to the Act to provide for the separate payment of rates, but there need be no doubt about the practicability of such a step. I am supported in this view by a very competent and helpful official who is probably the top authority on sectional titles in Cape Town today. In fact, the Fouché report on housing matters mentions on page 75 that they find it an anomaly that separate dwellings on the same land are not covered by the Sectional Titles Act. In this way, the cost to which I have referred can be reduced by between 60% and 80%.

I want to ask a further question: Why can this Act not be made applicable to plots without buildings? In this way, title can be obtained of a specific part of a township just as one can at present obtain title of a specific part of a building. In saying this, I do not want to interfere with the business of surveyors and attorneys. I am dealing with subeconomic housing, and I think that a new field may be opened up to both those professions in this way.

Finally, I want to make a few general remarks. In the first place, I feel that alienation of subeconomic housing must take place only to persons who qualify for subeconomic housing. Otherwise it will lead to exploitation by people who have a great deal of capital available. An exception to this rule may be the case of testamentary alienation to a surviving spouse. Furthermore, I want to advocate that until such time as registration has taken place in the name of the buyer, the property should remain registered in the name of the local authority, so that death and bankruptcies never come into the picture. I make this plea because we are dealing here with the money of poor people.

Finally, I want to say that we should build houses which people can afford, and that we should design the houses in such a way that the buyer himself can add on to his house as his financial means improve or as his standard of living rises. The house which a buyer cannot really afford, no matter how attractive, does not raise his standard of living; it lowers his standard of living, and before long he will find himself on the street again.

I want to mention the example of a local authority in my constituency which completed a housing scheme for non-Whites last year. A two-roomed house cost R617; a three-roomed house, R863; and a four-roomed house, R1 092. I am sure that even this year it will no longer be possible to build those houses at those prices. But this is the type of house which the greater part of the masses can afford. I believe that this is precisely where our problem lies. I recently visited a splendid housing project for Coloured people. However, the cheapest subeconomic house which is offered for sale there costs R3 590. This is too expensive for the average poor man of that group.

Solomon said in his wisdom that a ruler who looked after the interests of the poor would have a long reign.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Namaqualand on his maiden speech. We can see that he is an able man who is going to make a major contribution in this House. May the years ahead be very fruitful and happy ones for him. We can see that he is a man who is going to make a deep impression here. We agree with much of what he said and I shall enlarge on that in the course of my speech.

†We thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for introducing this motion. We find a lot of common ground in it and we particularly like the second part regarding the principle of home-ownership. We agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei in so far as the plight of local authorities is concerned. We also agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the main problem is probably the question of finance, and with the hon. member for Rondebosch, who so ably discussed the problem of squatting and how to deal with it.

If I do offer any suggestions here today, it is not out of an intention to offer critical comment. I do so out of deep concern and from the conviction that we are facing a problem in the field of housing today. I will merely raise these issues in order to emphasize and highlight the problem facing us.

The motion, broad as it is, involves the Government and, therefore, the fiscal departments of the Government, the Department of Plural Relations and Development and the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development has done a great deal of good regarding housing. As one with experience, I want to commend them for the State Committee in which they have co-ordinated the various disciplines of town planning, viz. the provincial administrations, local authorities, national housing bodies and the Departments of Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs, into a more positive way of thinking. I do so with great acclaim. However, I think an application for housing by a local authority takes too long a time. Firstly, one has to start the scheme, acquire the land if one is lucky to get it, draw up the scheme, determine the rentals and obtain approval for the township, which then has to be registered, after which the application is referred to the department, which has to approve it with or without amendments. Thereafter it is a question of sitting back to wait for the money to be voted, and for that one can wait from one to five years. However, when the application is ultimately passed one may find that funds cannot be made available. One then faces a grave crisis because the Government has called a halt to the scheme. This is exactly what has happened already. We are therefore facing a crisis because of a backlog. At the end of 1976 there was a backlog—I am not talking about requirements—of anything between 45 000 and 60 000 houses. The backlog in housing was 36 000 in Cape Town; 5 100 in Johannesburg; and 1 000 in Durban. If, furthermore, one takes into account that 1 000 people in Nooitgezicht in the Johannesburg area have to be moved and rehabilitated and that 600 families in the Alexandra Township will have to be moved, the figure goes up very much higher.

Let us look at what the breakdown in funds means to the Department of Community Development and housing provisions in South Africa today. At the end of 1976, 81 schemes for the aged at a cost of R18,9 million was ready, but the schemes could not be carried out because there were no funds. In the case of Mitchell’s Plain tenders involving 4 960 dwellings were held up as a result of no funds. At Marionhill and Newlands East in Durban 1 065 dwellings could not be built because there were no funds. 7 239 dwellings for Indians were approved, but no funds were available. This figure included 6 622 proposed units in Phoenix and Newton which could not be built. I am aware that in Johannesburg a housing scheme worth R14 million was ready to go ahead, but that only R4 million was allocated. The backlog of houses for the Indian population in Durban was 12 200 units and in Johannesburg the backlog of housing for the Indian population was 3 000 units. As far as the African population in Soweto alone is concerned, something like 9 000 families are waiting for accommodation, whilst only 442 houses were built last year. Because of this I am afraid I cannot hand out bouquets to the Government. I quote from page 19 of the report as follows—

I also quote from the report to the effect that as at 31 December 1977 schemes consisting of 26 000 units, embracing all groups and involving R110 million, were ready for building, but had to be held up because there were no funds. Furthermore, about the same date schemes totalling 950 dwellings for Bantu were approved by the board, but also these schemes could not be proceeded with. Then, in 1976, they built 8 459 houses for Bantu, but in 1977 only 3 030 were built. I am referring to houses built nationally, not by the boards themselves. What we need in this country is a crash programme. We think, for example, of Britain and Holland which were bombed out during the war, where 500 000 houses per year had to be provided, and they did so, because they introduced a crash programme. We should consider methods such as the turnkey method which is used in the USA where private enterprise undertakes the whole scheme and completes the scheme in conjunction with the local authority. It then turns over the key to the local authority, and there you have it.

More use should be made of the private sector. Private capital should be allowed to be used for schemes as well. Firms should be allowed to provide more for their own staff. Building societies should be encouraged to provide more, provided freehold title is given. As far as White housing is concerned, we have economic housing, which I think is up to date, but the aged still need to be accommodated.

The hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned the question of pensions. This matter was turned down by his colleagues in the Transvaal Provincial Council when this was mooted to them. We need a scheme where those earning above R7 200 can purchase houses themselves, houses which could be extended. We need to stimulate home-ownership and at the same time the economy by tax deductions, tax deductible payments for rates and taxes, bond instalments, lights and water, staff salaries, and even for the capital layout over 10 years, as is done in Germany. We need tax aid for those who cannot afford to pay the rent.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to read so fast that we cannot follow him at all?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

We must investigate the system of core housing as it is done in America. I think we should encourage freehold ownership as against leasing in order to provide security of tenure on a short-term policy, and what I suggest we do, is to wipe out the slums and to wipe out the backlog. On the long-term we should plan for five to 10 years to cope with the future natural growth of population groups. The Government must accept responsibility the same as it has asked other local authorities to do for areas which they administer. I refer to such places as Ennerdale, Marionhill and Lenasia. They, too, must produce 10-year plans.

We also have a responsibility for those who are living in built-up areas which are densely populated, where the tenants are subject to landlords and to exploitation. We need to protect them. The position should be investigated to see whether we can buy up blocks of flats as they become available. As far as the Coloured population is concerned, we have the position where they have to be moved and there are 2 000 families which were affected when they went to Western Township. They have already been there for 15 years and they are still living there under bad conditions.

I refer to the case of Kliptown, which was frozen five years ago. People living there are living under slum conditions and they cannot improve their properties. The medical officer of health is obviously very concerned about the extremely poor conditions and slum conditions which exist there.

As far as Clermont is concerned, that was declared a White area, and I say that because so many White houses are standing empty, what we should do there is to make Clermont available for the Coloured people.

As far as the Indian people are concerned, they came to Johannesburg in 1885 and settled in Fordsburg and Newtown. First there was the plague and then they were hounded by the Penetration Commission. Fortunately, some years later, Lenz, a place some 30 miles outside Johannesburg, was purchased by private enterprise, was declared a group area and was then developed for the Indian population.

It had no overall plan and no proper overall facilities. However, I am prepared to concede that the department has done a lot to improve the position over the last five years, but there are still areas like Thomsville which I think require assistance.

I now wish to turn to Black housing. In this connection it is essential to build a stable and contended community. The average wage of a Black worker hae doubled in the last five years. Full rights of ownership will help stabilize the position. They must have something to fight for; something to protect. This should be the number one priority in this country. Will the Department of Plural Development now come forth with their 10-year plan? Is the Government prepared to use powers like section 17 of the Community Development Act to step into these Black areas and to provide houses itself at the expense of the board as is done in the case of local authorities? There is something like a 3,2 million permanent Black population in the cities with another 1,2 million migratory workers. These people have to be accommodated. There is a 4% growth in so far as these people are concerned. How are we going to keep up with this unless we go in for a crash programme? What is more important than political rights? But probably even more important than the establishment of community councils is that we have to establish family life. This is the cornerstone of social stability. It is a question of pride of ownership. They must have their own garden, the will to work and to be able to strive to retain the cornerstone of Western civilization I want to appeal to the Government to get away from the “51/9” house which is built in endless rows, which is monotonous, which destroys individuality and which destroys personality. I think we must create townships. The Black areas should be cut up into townships, the plots sold and allowed to be developed into proper townships. We must let them build their own houses. We can build schemes which are different, we can mix the aged, we can mix the economic and the sub-economic and let the area be developed as a proper township. On the question of ownership it is essential that it must involve freehold title. Freehold title must give the unassailable legal right to own it, to let it, to improve it, to bequeath it, and to do anything they think is necessary.

The position is so acute at the moment in places such as Soweto, with 9 000 people on the waiting list, a matter to which I have referred, that the medical officer of health will have difficulty in passing occupation because of the overcrowding. I personally have tried to help people to obtain accommodation in Soweto, but despite letters and ’phone calls one always gets a negative response. It seems to be impossible to get them accommodation when there is such a long waiting list.

I want to appeal to the Government to abolish single hostel accommodation in places such as Langa and Alexandra Township. It is places such as these, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has so ably dealt with, that bring about the whole question of squatters. If we want to avoid the problem of squatting, let us provide housing for family life. Let us not build hostels for single people—which is also soul destroying, particularly single accommodation for African women. Let us rather build the hostels in such a way that these people can bring in their familiee. They can then live together with their families and live a proper life. They are not going to destroy or break their own houses if these belong to them, but will fight for the right to protect them. They will fight to protect their families and their property and thus they will help us all to fight together for one common cause.

Let me conclude with a question from Assocom, presented to all the chambers of commerce in South Africa, and approved by them on 18 February 1977—

Mr. Speaker, the problem of the shortage of housing has been thoroughly exploited this afternoon and I think we should ask ourselves—and we have asked ourselves—what we are going to do about the problem. Obviously, the first problem is money. We need very much more of it. I would like to draw what I believe to be a very valid comparison. We find the money that we need for defence, and very rightly so—I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not criticizing defence spending. Why, therefore, can we not find the money we need for housing, which is probably one of the biggest single factors contributing to the establishment of a stable, peace-loving population? Let us especially remember that a country’s best defence is a contented population. One could put it another way: If we were being threatened externally we would take immediate action; but unhoused, unhappy and unsettled people are an internal threat to our security, and I believe we should be taking more immediate and far wider action than we are doing at the moment.

I am making this comparison, but not—and I repeat, not—to suggest that we should spend less on our defence. What I am suggesting is that we should equate the importance of housing all our people with the importance of our whole defence system. Let us introduce an immediate housing programme. We are rightly concerned with our security. So, let us call our programme HISAFE, the acronym for “Homes in South Africa for everyone”. This sounds idealistic. I am prepared to concede that, and I am quite sure that it will not be an easy task, but I nevertheless believe it is possible.

I believe we have the creativity, the ability and the necessary requirements to make the dream come true. How? By marrying, as it were, the needs to the problems. The needs are obvious: more housing for all races, but particularly for the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the low-income groups. The problems are large-scale unemployment and severe under-utilization of the building industry. We must exploit available channels so that the needs and the problems can be dealt with efficiently and result in a solution.

Hon. members will recall that during the last war the production of urgently-needed commodities was contracted out to industry. If we applied ourselves further in this manner we could engage more builders, who are battling to make a living today, and get them to contract to build even more houses on a rapid tender basis. Contractors could even be set an overall money limit and could be asked to submit their own specifications for buildings, although obviously within acceptable parameters. Houses are today a most urgently needed commodity.

By using mass-produced and commonly-used components unit costs can be very dramatically reduced. We know that basic houses are today being built at a cost of approximately R1 500 each, but simpler shell-type houses, which provide basic shelter only, can be built for half, or less than half, of this figure. If we use mass production, prefabricated concrete panels and basic functional designs, we can keep our costs to an absolute minimum.

I would like to suggest that we encourage unemployed people to assist in the building of their own homes in their own areas and for their own communities. In this way labour costs can be minimized. If one went to groups of homeless people who were also unemployed and one said to them: “We have land nearby; we have the building materials; we will pay you, albeit the minimum, for your labour”, I am sure that they would jump at the opportunity of assisting in their own home building and of being involved in community self-help in this way. Their basic lack of skill would be more than compensated for by their enthusiasm and by the knowledge that they were helping themselves.

I would like to make another point. If the costs of infrastructure—for roads, sporting amenities and all the other facilities that are needed—are high, and we know they are high and that this is a limiting factor, let us shelve those services temporarily, but at the very least let us get a proper roof over the head of every citizen at a minimum cost. The extras can be added later, either individually or collectively, when time, labour and money permit.

When the hon. the Minister sums up later, we would like to hear from him some of the reasons why this can be done, not why it cannot be done. Let us agree to give some thought to the challenge and to extend ourselves so that it can in fact be done. Let us not say we cannot afford to do it; let us merely say that we cannot afford not to do it. Population projections show that, if we do not tackle the problem soon, it is going to become very much worse and that we will get further and further behind. In the context of South Africa’s problems, we simply cannot afford to let this problem get any worse.

A lot of praise has very rightly been heaped on the head of the hon. the Minister who will be replying to the debate. I do hope that, in his summing up of this debate, he will not be tempted to be complacent about the situation in which we find ourselves. I would like to put it to him that we do not have a backlog of housing for Whites in this country, fortunately so. However, picture the situation if hon. members in this House found that 20% or more of their constituents did not have suitable living quarters, if they had to share just as we know roughly 1,5 families are sharing dwellings in Soweto at the moment. We would be inundated with howls of protest and storms of telegrams and letters. The fact that that is not so is something for which we can be grateful. However, let us bear in mind that this could be a possibility and let us think how much more we would be applying ourselves to the problem if it were so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation, in the first place to the hon. member for Langlaagte who made this discussion this afternoon possible. I have sometimes complained that hon. members, particularly on the Opposition side, do not do their homework properly. I have complained that they were not, in the true sense of the word, acting in the interests of South Africa. That is why I am very pleased to be able to say that I cannot lodge a similar complaint today. This has been a debate which dealt with a very serious matter, a matter which affects us closely and which we are all sympathetic with and concerned about. The debate was conducted in an outstanding way and for that I should like to express my appreciation.

I am very glad that it was the hon. member for Langlaagte who introduced this motion. He is a person who has proved in his career that he is truly concerned about the fate of people who have a hard time fending for themselves in all respects in our competitive economic system. I have appreciation for the way in which he did it, and his appreciation for what has been achieved, is something I value. I have particular appreciation for the second paragraph of his motion, the one asking us to affirm the principle that every citizen of the country should be encouraged and, where necessary, assisted to become a home-owner. I can give the hon. member the assurance that in this respect he can count on the whole-hearted support of myself as Minister and of my department, and definitely that of the Government as well.

I believe that the difference between the NP and the NRP on the one hand, and the Official Opposition on the other becomes most clearly apparent in this respect. The PFP also talks about home-ownership. They tell us that they, too, realize that home-ownership helps to build character and creates stability. In the same breath, however, they want to ask us to give in and recognize organized slum areas, to allow squatter huts and shanties. Home-ownership in the form of such shanties can never become an accomplished fact in any event. In addition people in slum areas develop qualities which make it very difficult for them to adapt themselves later on to a higher and better standard of living.

Just to confirm how strongly the Government feels about the aspect of home-ownership, which was presented to us in such an eloquent way by my hon. friend and which was supported so firmly and clearly by other hon. members, I just want to remind hon. members that in the Government’s new constitutional plan which was discussed here this morning, the ownership of land and a house is regarded as a prerequisite for the multiple democracy we wish to create in South Africa. It forms part of our basic concept of the matter. I have here a little document which we distributed to thousands of homes in South Africa during the election campaign. I want to quote from it to hon. members—

I have it here in English only. Under the heading “Local Government” we read—and now the hon. members must listen—

Nothing can be clearer than that. It even forms the foundation of the thinking on the future constitution of South Africa: We must encourage home-ownership. I can read in advance the idea which is beginning to take shape in the head of the hon. member for Houghton: What about the Bantu? I have come to know her so well by now.

No, you are quite wrong.

In any case, the reply to that is that the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has already announced that this matter is already receiving attention because we also want to give the Bantu security of tenure in their own areas. As I know the hon. the Minister, we may rest assured that having announced it, he shall make it his task to do so, and I personally expect that we will have legislation before us to make this possible during the course of the present session.

Did you say “security of tenure”?

Yes.

I found it very interesting that there was such a large measure of unanimity on the subject of the motion. Naturally there were quite a number of hon. members who adopted a different standpoint and emphasized different points to those which we on this side of the House emphasized. As I said a moment ago, the biggest difference of opinion came from my hon. friend, the member for Rondebosch. He said straight out that we could not solve the problem with the methods we were applying; we could not solve it through the realization of the ideals we were striving to achieve. We should simply give in, allow squatter shanties and follow the example of the Third World. He referred in particular to examples in Africa as being the norm on which solutions should be based. I want to assure him that we do not accept this. Our view differs radically from his.

I think the hon. young member for Berea will be pleased to hear that we agree with him, or rather, he agrees with us. Our view is also that we shall have to make sacrifices if we wish to ensure that we provide the people of our country with proper housing.

What the hon. member for Rondebosch had to say about the Third World was in general not true either. I think the plans we have and are implementing are sound and emulable, plans. I do not want to say that this happened in emulation of our plans, but during the past recess I had an interesting experience. The Secretary had a similar experience. I paid a visit to certain countries in the Far East, not in my capacity of Minister of Community Development but in another capacity. Subsequently the Secretary visited some of the same countries. The standpoint of the hon. member for Rondebosch is not accepted there. On the contrary. During the past few years a standpoint has been accepted there which is completely in line with that of this Government. They are working on it.

I saw this in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, but particularly in Taiwan and Hong Kong. They have a problem, not only in respect of their own population, but also a problem with refugees from Red China. Japan’s problem is that the urbanization process which it is experiencing, is taking place more rapidly and presents more difficulties than the one in any other country in the world. They do not say that they accept that shanty-dwelling is inevitable and should continue for all time. They are working! It was really striking, encouraging and inspiring to see in how many respects their plans coincide with ours. Their thinking also coincides with our plans, and there is in addition agreement among themselves as regards the determination and the will to be successful. I want to recommend to the hon. member for Rondebosch that he should develop a little will-power in order to succeed in solving some of the problems which affect the human aspect in South Africa. [Interjections.] Actually there is only one difference between those countries and our country, and that is that they place more emphasis on blocks of flats. Of course this is due to the fact that they have a shortage of land. On the island of Hong Kong nothing else is really possible, because the entire island is virtually a city. Therefore they have no choice. We on the other hand can give our people a piece of land, their own tiny piece of South Africa, on which to live.

The other day I met a large number of Japanese businessmen in Johannesburg. All they wanted to see was Soweto. At first they thought we would not be able to take them there, but in the end we did. Sir, do you know what surprised them the most? That every inhabitant of Soweto has his own private piece of land, was something they simply could not believe.

It is simply not true.

In Soweto every inhabitant occupies his own private piece of land; he does not find himself in a block of flats.

Is there no over-crowding in Soweto?

Of course there is overcrowding, but every house is situated on a separate stand.

That is a different matter. [Interjections.] Every inhabitant does not have a place of his own.

I shall have great patience with the hon. member for Rondebosch. I shall deal with the matter of home-ownership—“security of tenure”—again later, but I do not think hon. members always realize what progress we are making with this matter. Mitchell’s Plain has only been in progress for a few years. Nevertheless approximately 20 000 houses have already been completed or are under construction, and all those houses fall under the home-ownership scheme. Soon 20 000 houses will have been completed for 120 000 people; every family will have a home of their own. This is a revolution in the way of life of the Coloured population of the Cape Peninsula. These are important matters, and the hon. members must realize it. We are not merely talking; we are doing the work as well, and we are making progress, while they want us to give in and knuckle under.

The hon. member for Rondebosch then placed particular emphasis on low-cost housing. He wanted us to allow shanties. We are not opposed to the idea of low-cost housing. By no means! We realize that there are sectors of the community, particularly among the Coloured community, who have to receive the cheapest of houses because there are some of them who are so poor that one can hardly appreciate it. We must therefore look after those people. That is why we are at present experimenting in my department with core houses in Mitchell’s Plain, and the municipality of Cape Town, in co-operation with us, has made a start with similar houses—with minor differences only—at lot NMH here in Cape Town. What we are opposed to, however, are shanties in circumstances which make a decent existence impossible, shanties which reinforce and stabilize the sub-culture of poverty—which is a terrible problem among our Coloured population.

What about homelessness?

I do not know anything about homelessness. There may be overcrowding, and I deplore that. There may also be an over-eagerness to move to the cities before provision has been made for them. There may also be a tendency among certain employers—which hon. members opposite probably know about, too—to employ people and to be pleased that they are living in shanties for their standard of living is then so low that they can be exploited as workers.

This does happen. That is why we are tackling the problem by not only providing houses, but also by passing the kind of measure which we passed last year to prevent Coloureds coming from the rural areas to a place such as Cape Town—other cities and towns keep on asking for the rights which they can acquire in terms of this Act—where employers employ them before they are satisfied that there is accommodation for these people. For that reason we agree—as hon. members know of course—with the finding of the expert committees of the UN which warned the developing countries that they would not be able to solve the problem with housing alone, but that there would also have to be a deceleration of the urbanization process. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the standpoint of the UN experts. We are applying it in South Africa, and not without success either. Not very long ago—two or three years ago—we began with 22 000 squatter houses here in the Cape. Because they existed and in order to prevent homelessness, we condoned their existence. They remain until ze are able to accommodate the people. During the past few years we have reduced the number of squatter houses for Coloureds in the Greater Cape Peninsula by more than 5 000. I think the figure is 5 300. These are people who have been better housed, people for whom alternative houses were found. Subsequently the “bulldozers”—if hon. members so wish—came and flattened the empty squatter shacks so that no one else could move into them again. However, the people were first accommodated. That is the position. However, I cannot, with the best will in the world, agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch that we in South Africa, who should set an example to the rest of Africa, should simply knuckle under and accept shanties and misery as a permanent basis for the lives of many thousands of people in South Africa.

Is he not ashamed of himself?

The Minister does not listen to what I say.

Then I should like to say something in particular about the very interesting speech which the hon. member for Namakwaland made. He has already been congratulated on his first speech in this House, and I should like to confirm that he created a very good impression. I think he is still going to make interesting and valuable contributions for us here. He specifically suggested that we should work through local authorities for the provision of subeconomic housing. I want to assure him at once that this is the policy of the department and of the Government. We are working every day in consultation with 900 local authorities in South Africa, and the co-operation is very constructive and friendly. There were only a few cases where a local authority did not see its way clear, for some sound reason or other—in its eyes—to doing such work, and where the department then intervened and undertook the work itself, for example at Lenasia and Ennerdale near Johannesburg. There we were not able to reach an agreement. In such a case the department intervenes and the work continues, for we cannot allow the work to come to a standstill. However, we would always prefer to cooperate with the local authorities. It is only sometimes that an agreement cannot be reached.

The hon. member also discussed the value of the sectional titles system. I am very pleased that he, with his obvious knowledge and experience in this field, is of that opinion, for although the said Act is being administered by the Minister of Justice, we are very strongly in favour of it. At present, too, a committee is engaged in investigating the amplification of the sectional titles system in accordance with recommendations contained in the report of the Fouché Commission. The Government is already giving attention to what the hon. member said in this regard.

It was also interesting to hear that the cost of surveying sites is so high in the case of subeconomic housing. I just want to tell him that, in the case of subeconomic housing, we already allow the local authorities to make a very informal survey, surveys in which no use whatsoever is made of the services of a surveyor. Consequently it costs almost nothing. Only when a house is sold does the site have to be carefully surveyed because the purchaser must be provided with a proper deed of transfer. I want to congratulate the hon. member once again and thank him cordially for his very valuable contribution to this debate.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised quite a number of interesting matters, and there was one question in particular which he put to me and to which I should like to reply. He asked: “Why the drop in the number of houses made available in 1977?” The reason for that is twofold. Firstly we are engaged in major new developments, particularly at Mitchell’s Plain, where we were able last year to initiate three additional contracts of R30 million each. One aspect of those contracts is that the builders concerned also have to provide the necessary services. They also have to prepare the township layout. This takes time and money. Of the R90 million which is being spent on this, no less than R30 to R40 million is required for that purpose alone. While the infrastructure is therefore being created it might appear as though fewer houses are being built, but this will of course make a far more rapid provision of houses possible in years to come. We also had problems with the exceptionally heavy rainfall which we experienced in the Cape Peninsula last year. This delayed the work. The water table on the Cape Flats is exceptionally high and this made it very difficult to do the necessary excavations and other work. This, therefore, delayed the work to a certain extent.

There is something very interesting which I want to point out in this regard. Although we built fewer houses in 1977, the amount of money spent on that item in that year increased considerably. In the case of Coloureds, for example, we completed 6 234 dwelling units in Cape Town alone in 1976, while in 1977 only 5 498 were completed. In 1976, however, R46 million was spent on those 6 000 houses, as against the R62 million which were spent on the 5 498 houses in 1977. The reason for that is that a great deal of the work that is being done there, is in connection with houses under construction. As far as houses under construction is concerned, we are breaking all records in South Africa.

I want to quote the relevant figures for the benefit of the entire country. For Whites there are at present 5 193 houses under construction or in the planning stages; contracts for 3 473 houses will be issued shortly. For Coloureds there are 35 645 houses under construction, of which 13 318 are awaiting only the issuing of contracts. For Indians there are 12 234 houses under construction, of which 8 900 are awaiting only the issuing of contracts. This means that as the infrastructure becomes available, the temporary drop will be eliminated almost immediately with the available funds.

This is not the first time that this has happened. If one were to look at the figures, one would see that in 1974 there was also a drop in the number of houses completed that year, but on that occasion this was also followed immediately by a tremendous increase. The figure rose from 13 000 to 20 000, and in the next year to 26 000. This is therefore a phenomenon of a transitory nature for which we will more than compensate in the immediate future.

Before I go any further, I just want to draw attention to certain facts concerning the achievements of the Department of Community Development. Let me hasten to say that the Department of Community Development endeavours as far as possible to cooperate with the private sector. All the money with which we provide the municipalities is used to conclude contracts with private entrepreneurs for the construction of houses. If one therefore considers the housing position in South Africa, one should not only consider the work which is being done by the department and the local authorities, but also the considerable contribution which the private sector is making, sometimes with the department as its junior partner—if I may put it like that—but primarily on its own account and its own responsibility.

In the 28 years from 1920, when the Housing Commission was established, to 1948, to mention one example only, we built 19 601 Coloured houses in South Africa, i.e. 700 per annum. In the ensuing 28 years, from 1949 to 1977 we built 176 886 houses, i.e. more than 6 300 per annum. During the past five years alone we built 62 000 houses for Coloureds in South Africa. This represents one-third of the total number of houses built between 1920 and the present. In that period is included the wonderful achievements of the past five years. Any person who does not want to recognize that this is an extraordinary achievement on the part of the Government and that it testifies to a real determination to get the better of this problem, is wilfully blind.

My time is running out, and there are so many things I still want to tell hon. members. I still want to draw their attention to what the Government has already done to make that second leg of the motion moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte a reality, in other words what we are doing to promote home-ownership in South Africa. We are promoting it primarily by means of assistance which prospective home-owners receive from the State. We finance and built economic lease and sale schemes for families earning up to R540 per month. Such families can receive State assistance in building the houses. Alternatively, the State builds the houses itself and these are then leased or sold to them. In addition there is the sale of sub-economic dwellings. Such dwellings are sold under certain circumstances, and if members are interested, they will find the particulars of this scheme in a circular which we sent out to local authorities in 1975. In that circular we requested and encouraged local authorities to sell subeconomic houses to lessees in appropriate cases, so that they could also become home-owners. Dwelling units under the two schemes to which I have referred are made available on the easiest of terms. A deposit of only R300, or 5%, whichever amount is the lowest, is required. This small deposit may also be paid off in monthly instalments while the prospective buyer is still leasing the house. A redemption period of 30 years is allowed. The interest rate is subsidized, for it is pegged at 9,25% although the interest rate paid by the department to the Treasury is already standing at 11% at present. In addition the purchaser is allowed to pay his instalments according to a sliding scale. It means that he pays lower instalments at the beginning of the term, and as he makes progress in life and his income rises, the instalments are increased so that the house is paid off within 30 years.

In addition we introduced the State-aided home ownership savings scheme in terms of which people may invest money with a building society with the object of building a house at an interest rate of 11%. This interest is tax-free. It is interesting to note that at present there are 1 251 people who have already invested R1 620 000 in this scheme.

The department also provides 90% loans for building or purchasing houses, which loans are repayable over a period of 30 years at an interest rate of 9,25%. These are available to individuals earning not more than R540 per month. No fewer than 30 600 people have already made use of this scheme, and the cost to the department was almost R108 million.

In addition we have a joint Housing Commission and building society loan scheme of which almost 10 000 people are already making use at a cost of R57 million to the department. Another interesting scheme is the loan scheme for public servants, of which 141 000 people are to date availing themselves at a cost of more than R420 million to the department. The Sectional Titles Act also helps people as far as housing is concerned. Quite a number of measures were recommended by the Fouché Commission to promote home ownership. We are at present investigating these measures with a view to their implementation.

I think it should be clear to my hon. friend from this how serious the Government is about promoting home-ownership in South Africa. If one takes into consideration the new plans which are being considered by my department and the Department of my colleague, the Department of Plural Relations and Development, one may expect further remarkable progress in this sphere. No one underestimates the extent of the problem; certainly not the department nor I, because we realize it is an enormous problem.

Can you eliminate the backlog?

Yes. We have every confidence that we will be able to do so. At present we are adopting a target budgeting system which is determined for a few years in advance, and I believe that it is within our grasp to make up and possibly eliminate the backlog by the end of 1983. If this target is achieved, we shall have to make provision only for current growth. We appreciate the tremendous extent of the problem. However, I do not think that it is in the character of the South African people—English and Afrikaans speaking—to flinch from a problem and to want to knuckle under just because it is a big problem. That is why I want to make the following appeal to my hon. friends in the PFP: Think about it together with us; plan together with us; think big; be imaginative in your approach to the problem in the interests of those people who really need our ideas and our contributions. Do not allow pessimism or other motives of which I am perhaps unaware to get the better of you. Think together with the vast majority in this House, together with the other parties in this House, of a solution to these great problems, for no problem is too great for a determined and purposeful South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks to all hon. members who participated in the debate and in particular to the hon. the Minister for his fine words and for the assurance which he gave us that the department is going all out to implement what we asked for. A special word of thanks, too, to the hon. member for Tygervallei for his exceptional contribution in this regard. All of us must take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member for Namakwa-land wanted to bring home to us today that we need not worry about the Progs. His entire argument was that, whether they co-operate or not, we can cope with this matter. Yet I do think the PFP has a task to perform, but they should not use the lever to be negative …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.