Mr. Chairman, before I try to reply to the various aspects raised by hon. members, I just want to point out that it will not be possible, within the time available for the debate, to reply in full to specific points made by hon. members. But I should like to assure them that the points they specifically mentioned to which I cannot reply now will be replied to in writing at a later stage. This applies to questions put to me on specific subjects. I hope they will accept this.

Before I reply, I wish to state that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has drawn my attention the question of pirate whaling. I should like to take this opportunity of making a statement in this particular connection. Immediately after the rumours and allegations about the pirate whaling activities of the boats Yashima Maru, which now seems to have been re-registered in Panama as the Cape Fisher, and the Suzan and the Theresa, also registered in Panama, had come to the attention of the Department of Industries and myself, an intensive investigation was undertaken and inquiries were made to find out the true facts as far as possible. This was also done in respect of the Sierra. A file with a labyrinth of facts concerning the re-registrations, changes of name and alleged earlier activities of the boats was prepared, and even in the short time available, certain steps were initiated and planned by the department, with the positive co-operation of other Government departments, with a view to combating the pirate whaling activities which these ships are alleged to have in mind. Hon. members will understand, however, that for obvious reasons, it is not advisable to disclose any details of the proposed measures at this stage.

South Africa is a member country of the International Whaling Commission and has done its best in the past to observe strictly and faithfully the spirit and the intentions of the rules of the International Whaling Commission. Accordingly, it enacted legislation several years ago to prohibit the use of any South African ship or boat for purposes of whale processing and freezing. In the light of the latest developments, attention is being given to the possibility of further legislation in this connection. The present problem is that the pirate whaling activities are not taking place or, as far as can be ascertained, intended to take place in South African waters, and that South Africa, like any other country, cannot take extra-territorial action against foreign ships. The ships involved in the alleged pirate whaling activities are not registered or licensed in South Africa, for example. Moreover, only about 17 countries are members of the International Whaling Commission. In this connection I have to point out, therefore, that for a matter such as this one to be dealt with at all effectively, international co-operation is a prerequisite and of vital importance. Where pirate whaling is practised or allegedly going to be practised outside the area of jurisdiction of South Africa, I want to express my disappointment and I want to censure the conduct of those countries that connive at and approve of these reprehensible acts. Drastic steps must be taken against those bodies that are found to have a mortgage or an interest in the alleged pirate whaling activities.

I am making this statement because I gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an undertaking that I would inform him at the first opportunity.

I think I should now try to deal with certain aspects raised by hon. members in the debate.

The hon. member for Heilbron referred in his speech to allegedly misleading advertisements by manufacturers of so-called coffee and tea creamers, and made a plea for action to be taken against these advertisers. He also said that the manufacturers of these products should be compelled to note the fat content of the product concerned on the labels on the containers. The Government shares the hon. member’s view that advertisements should in the first place, and in general, contain accurate information about the qualities and the advantages of the product which is advertised or the sale of which is propagated. For this reason, a provision was introduced into the Trade Practices Act to prohibit advertisements which are false or misleading in material respects. Furthermore, the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa drew up an advertising code laying down various standards with which advertising material must comply. Most media and advertising agents, as well as the SABC and various other associations, are members of this Authority, with the result that these standards are recognized and upheld on a broad front. The hon. member alleged in his speech that the advertisements of the manufacturers of coffee and tea creamers misled the public because the advertisements were designed to create the impression that they could help to lower a person’s blood cholesterol. In this connection, I want to say that I am not such an expert as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on the various possibilities of agricultural products which can be used for specific purposes. Although I am a little older than he, I have no need of the stimulant to which he and the hon. member referred, i.e. those stimulants which are not fattening and which are more nutritious than dairy products. The hon. member will understand that I naturally cannot give an expert opinion on the matter. However, I want to point out that in their advertisements, the manufacturers of these products will naturally emphasize only those points which will promote their own product and not a rival product Nevertheless, there is legislation in terms of which business undertakings using false and misleading advertisements to promote the sales of their product can be charged. Parties that feel aggrieved by such conduct on the part of advertisers are therefore entitled to take the necessary steps. It is not the task of the State to act on behalf of the interested parties, whoever they may be. As regards the publication of details regarding the fat content of the products on the labels of the containers in which these products are marketed, the position is—as far as I know—that the ingredients of the product are already given on the labels. In this connection we must understand that if it were made compulsory for the fat content to be noted on the labels of these products, such requirements would also have to be made applicable to dairy products such as milk, butter, cheese, and so forth, because we cannot discriminate. I hope the hon. member sees the dilemma in this connection.

†The hon. member for Walmer has apologized that he could not be present for this debate. He has to attend a debate in the Other Place. I would like briefly to reply to his discussion of the motor industry. He has pleaded for more and further relief for the motor industry as regards the prescribed conditions of sale. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Government recently reduced the prescribed minimum deposits on passenger cars and on light commercial vehicles. Particulars of the new deposits were published in the Government Gazette of 30 March. In terms of the new conditions of sale, a deposit of 20% is required in respect of the purchase of passenger vehicles on credit, and the repayment period is 36 months. In the case of light commercial vehicles, the deposit has been reduced to 30%, and the repayment period is 30 months. With this we have therefore, in line with our general policy of stimulating the economy, taken steps also in regard to the conditions of sale of motor vehicles as well.

I now come to the question of Escom, and in this regard I should like to refer to the speeches of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for East London North. Before I do so, however, I again have a request to make, and it is a very serious one. I think the report of the Board of Trade and Industries is a very difficult and involved one, and for the sake of fairness I believe we should not discuss that report and any action that might be taken as a result of that report in an emotional or hysterical atmosphere.

*No one is more aware than I of the adverse effects, on the country’s economy and on people’s standards of living, of the increase in the cost of energy in general. There is also a second point which I must mention in all fairness. For a long period we have been using imported crude oil, for economic and other reasons, as an important form of energy. The prices of this particular product have soared. My information is—and this is of course no definite or exact information—that there are going to be further large increases in the price of crude oil, apart from the fact that it will in fact be available. This will greatly add to the burden resting on Escom. It will most probably change—and I want to emphasize this—all estimates hitherto made on the basis of the historic pattern of energy consumption. I do not want to take the matter much further now, but there is one more thing I want to say. I do not intend to condone anything that is wrong. I am even prepared—I did so yesterday—to say to what extent Government decisions were responsible for the fact that the power tariffs did not rise gradually and that, because we had no capital inflow, the tariffs had to go up in greater bounds than we would have wanted, economically speaking. Therefore I am not for one moment trying to evade responsibility in this connection. Nor am I prepared to condone anything which is wrong. What I do say, however, is that we must approach this very complicated matter in a rational atmosphere. That is all I am pleading for. The report on Escom is a very important document It was initiated by me and my department The idea was not that the investigation should necessarily reveal that something was wrong. It was done because Escom absorbs an enormous amount of capital and because its capital requirements have to be considered in the light of its obligations in terms of the law, but also relative to the obligations of the rest of the public sector and the needs of the private sector. That is why the investigation was done. A second reason for the investigation was the debate that is being conducted about the cost of electricity in various geographic areas. The object was to see whether it would be possible to establish a uniform tariff structure. Therefore I just want to ask again that we should approach it in this light. I am not saying that we should not criticize it.

†Let me now come to my reply to the hon. member’s question about management control in Escom. I am fully aware of the fact that Escom was severely criticized in the Press because the Board of Trade and Industries allegedly reported that Escom lacked effective control structures in its management It is important to note in this particular regard that the board in its report basically only discusses and criticizes Escom’s budgetary and costing systems. The report states that prior to 1977 the systems in use were not adequate to meet the real demand. I am talking of the budgetary system. With regard to the systems currently in use, the criticism of the board is not directed against these, but at the fact that they were not fully implemented at the time of the investigation. The board specifically states that it is satisfied with the new planning and control system developed by Escom. In Escom’s report to me they state that, in spite of severe manpower problems in this area, considerable progress has been made in achieving a satisfactory implementation of the complex and very sophisticated systems developed by themselves.

*I want to say that one of the most important factors inhibiting our economic growth is the shortage of trained people. This applies to this particular field as well. I do not want to sound dramatic, but I wonder whether we realize what a burden is generally imposed upon a few people in the country to keep the country going. This applies to us in this House as well.

†I now want to turn to the reserve plant margins for Escom. I should like to invite all the parties to come and have a private discussion with me on the question of power generation in this country. Obviously I cannot divulge all the information in this regard openly in the House. I am, however, quite prepared to extend the invitation to hon. members to come and talk to me about it so that I can give them full information on a confidential basis. The question of the reserve plant margin is complex. I wish to state that Escom has given me satisfactory proof that the reserve plant margin for future years will not be as high as is believed by the Board of Trade and Industries in its report. The plant margin envisaged by Escom is not out of line with the margin considered essential by other electricity suppliers elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, Escom believes—as I do—that the growth rate in the demand for electricity will be much higher than is envisaged in some pessimistic quarters, also because of the reasons I have given hon. members.

*Then I come to the question of decentralization concessions. I shall discuss this in general. I hope hon. members will understand if I first want to dispose of the general matters.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider going into the emphasis which is apparently being placed on retained income for financing Escom? The point I am trying to make is that we should find out whether this is not too great a burden on the consumer.

My general reaction to this is that I shall go into the report in every detail. However, I submit—and I think the hon. member will accept this—that that can only be done effectively once I have received the reaction of all affected parties in detail. Then I shall naturally go into the whole question of the retention of moneys. After all, I have indicated that the creation of a capital development fund is to a large extent a matter to be approved of by the State President. I have also undertaken that the contributions to this fund will be referred to the Priorities Committee, the committee allocating the financial or capital resources of the country. We will therefore do what the hon. member is asking for. All I am asking is that hon. members must co-operate with me so that, if the position is to be improved, it can be improved effectively and also rationally.

*As far as the decentralization concessions are concerned, I should like to make some general observations. Many hon. members discussed this subject. The hon. member for Klip River, as well as the hon. members for East London North, Griqualand East, King William’s Town and others, discussed it.

And Standerton.

Although the hon. member for Standerton did not discuss it verbally, he did discuss it with his eyes. The acceptance by the Government of the Riekert Commission’s recommendation that section 3 of the Environment Planning Act be deleted does not mean—and I want to emphasize this—that the commission is subordinating the decentralization of industrial development to any other consideration or charging the basic approach to it. In fact, I said yesterday, and I want to repeat it now, that an acceptable level of dispersion of economic activities on a geographic basis is a high economic priority of the Government. There is not a single hon. member who would disagree with me about that. Decentralization remains a top priority, and we must do everything in our power to promote it.

The argument advanced by the hon. member for Klip River is a valid one. He said it was better to create job opportunities in areas where there are sufficient labour and scarce resources available, rather than to do the reverse. That is the whole philosophy of decentralization. As far as I am concerned, the other arguments he advanced are equally valid, i.e. that industrialists who decentralize should not be compensated only for the cost disadvantage. I accept that we must go further than merely compensating for proven costs and that they must be placed in a superior competitive position as against those who have not decentralized. I also agree with him that the provision of jobs and job opportunities should be more strongly emphasized in our decentralization scheme than is the case at the moment. The existing scheme—and I want to emphasize this—stresses the removal of capital-intensive industries rather than of labour-intensive industries to the decentralized areas, which in my opinion is not in the interests of our country nor of the areas we want to serve.

The Government’s decision about section 3 and the considerations mentioned by hon. members make it essential, I believe, that a total revaluation and revision be undertaken in respect of the existing decentralization benefits concessions, and I intend to order a detailed investigation in this connection as soon as possible. Secondly, I want to say that I do not think that concessions alone are enough to regulate the movement of people. Other measures will also have to be taken—we must not have any doubts about that—measures which will be of a regulating nature, and then we must not be accused of unjustified discrimination. The hon. member for Walmer will understand why it is not possible for me to grant decentralization concessions in metropolitan areas such as Port Elizabeth. I shall leave the matter at that.

†I want to refer to the East London-Berlin area without going into detail. I think there is ample evidence that would indicate that the Government is fully aware of the problems of that particular area. However, we are not only aware of it; we are taking special steps to improve that position. The fact is that there are liberal decentralization concessions available to that area. Secondly, special steps have been taken in establishing a plant for the distribution of steel products by Iscor. This plant is being heavily subsidized by the State. However, I should like to warn again that it is possible to create an impression about a particular area that is so pessimistic that nobody would want to go there in any event.

*I think that in pointing out the needs of areas—it is our duty to do so—we should go about it in a positive way, as the hon. member for Griqualand East did yesterday. I want to compliment him on that. That is the way we should go about it. If we are to succeed with decentralization, we really and truly cannot decentralize at every town. If we are to succeed, we have to accept certain broad concepts. I do not want to enlarge on these now. I may have the time to do so in the debate on my Planning Vote.

†The hon. member for Walmer also referred to the motor vehicle industry in general terms. He has expressed himself in favour of a local content programme for motor vehicles which will make the motor vehicle industry self-sufficient and independent from import sources.

*I understand the hon. member’s motive, but he will forgive me if I use his speech as an opportunity for saying something else. South Africa should not try to embark upon a course of isolation. It is not in our interests. In my opinion, South Africa’s industrial strategy for the future must be regulated by a number of things. The most important one is the strategic consideration, and in the light of this we often have to do things which cannot be judged by economic standards. Secondly, South Africa should move in those directions, in its industrial strategy, where it is best able to compete. Thirdly, it should move in those directions where it can enable the industrial sector of the economy to employ the optimal number of people. This factor is the one which has to make the greatest single contribution to employment on the road ahead. Fourthly, we should not see our industrial development as one which should play a dominant role as against the neighbouring States in Southern Africa. I really believe that we shall come to the stage where we shall have a rationalization of industrial development in respect of economic co-operation in the various countries which will render them complementary to one another. I want to emphasize that we can do many things, but we shall achieve nothing if we cannot afford it.

I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the private sector in South Africa—by the private sector I do not mean only commerce and industry; I mean the private sector as a whole—for the contribution it has made and is still making to the development of the country. I also want to warn that we should guard against making “profit” into a swear word in our debating. If we do that, we must not pay lip service to a free market system. Then we must say that we are moving in a socialist direction and then we accept what that means, and then, really and truly, nothing will be left to distribute in the end.

The hon. member for Alberton made a positive and interesting contribution with regard to the fishing industry. He emphasized—and I agree with him—that we must continue our research so that we may fully utilize the resources without harming them. This is a division of mine which has many troubles, because we are concerned here with an asset which everyone wants and which no one wants to pay for. I do not want to take it any further. At least the marine products are still present in South Africa’s coastal waters. So we have not yet been guilty of wasteful exploitation, as have many other countries, which are now driven by this wasteful exploitation to come and exploit our resources. In this connection I hope it will be possible to take steps to protect our resources as far as possible.

I now wish to make an announcement in connection with the economic development programme for 1978 to 1987. I think it will interest hon. members. As is already known, there were some misgivings, in respect of the previous economic development plan, as to whether the general approach that was followed still met the planning needs of South Africa. The office of the Economic Adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister then instituted a comprehensive inquiry, at the recommendation of the Economic Advisory Board and with the consent of the Government, into suitable planning approaches. Such an inquiry was then instituted. On the basis of this inquiry, a new econometric model was drawn up which can serve as an aid to the Government in determining the effect of certain economic policy measures in the long term. It can also serve as an information framework for the private sector, subject to a few assumptions concerning adjustments in the Government’s policy, within which they can plan their own economic activities. I think we may welcome this development. The latest economic development programme, dealing with the period from 1978 to 1987, is now being finalized by the office of the Economic Adviser and may be tabled in Parliament before the end of the present session. I shall do my best to make this possible. In this development programme, a great deal of attention has been given to the quantification of the possible effect of Government measures aimed at resolving the important structural and other problems of the economy, and attention is being given to this.

The preliminary findings have also been discussed in detail with private businessmen, and on the basis of the initial projection, certain assumptions have been made. Firstly, it is assumed that for an exercise of this kind, we cannot depend on any material net inflow of foreign capital, so that we have planned for an average zero balance on the current account of the balance of payments over the period. I think hon. members agree that we must be conservative. Secondly, it is assumed that the strict discipline of expenditure maintained by the authorities in recent years will be continued. It is assumed that the gold price will steadily rise in accordance with overseas price mechanisms and, fourthly, that the growth and price rises recently experienced by the Republic’s major trade partners will be continued. This exercise shows that on the basis of these assumptions—which I want to emphasize are conservative assumptions—the real gross domestic product of South Africa will be able to grow by about 3% to 4% a year over the next decade. At the same time, it is estimated that employment will increase more slowly than the employable population. According to this estimate, therefore, unemployment will rise even beyond its present high level. However, I want to emphasize that several inquiries have been ordered by my colleagues and myself in order to indicate the course we should adopt to resolve the structural and other problems we are experiencing in our economy. Unemployment in South Africa is not only due to a cyclical movement in the economy. It is developing into a structural problem and it requires urgent attention.

If allowance is made for the possible effect of these measures, the preliminary projection indicates that the growth rate can be increased to such an extent that the unemployment rate will eventually begin to decline. However, it is predicted that the production capacity surplus which exists in the industry at the moment will cause an initial rise in the unemployment rate before it begins to go down. If it is assumed, therefore, that a higher growth rate and the exportation of goods and services can be realized more rapidly than is possible according to our friends in the private sector, the prospect of a growth rate in the gross domestic product is even more favourable, and it is predicted that the unemployment rate may also go down even further. Conservatively seen, I certainly take an optimistic view of the long-term possibilities for the South African economy.

In spite of the results of this projection, however, I believe that the high unemployment which we have at the moment, and which is expected to continue over the next decade, justifies further measures. For this reason, I attach great importance to the working group which is investigating industrial strategy and which will submit guidelines in this connection to me.

In the few minutes I have left, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. He made a long speech and expounded his own philosophy. He emphasized the interests of the consumer. I shall discuss this more fully in the debate on the legislation on competition.

I also thank the hon. member for Germiston-District for his speech. Like other hon. members, he emphasized one particular aspect. That is, firstly, that the interest taken by the world in Africa is not primarily for the sake of Africa, but is motivated by self-interest. Therefore Africa is a pawn in the total power struggle in the world. What is also true—and we shall have to take greater cognizance of this—is that we are also covered by that argument. I am glad that this is the message which emanates from here. Our destiny is closely bound up with what happens or does not happen in Africa. The hon. member spoke about the establishment of a foundation for economic co-operation. I have already indicated that I support that concept.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg discussed the nuclear power-station. I want to refer to that briefly. I thank the hon. member for his positive ideas. I want to put it to the hon. member that we share his views with regard to the expansion of nuclear power-stations. For strategic and other reasons, we and Escom are compelled to ensure that the location of our power stations does not render the country vulnerable, but will reduce the country’s vulnerability. In the second place, it is true that where coal is available, the cheapest source of power generation is naturally Escom, because of its use of coal. However, where we are faced with long distances, we have to use other forms of energy for the generation of electric power. I shall reply to the hon. member in greater detail about this at a later stage. I have made a note of it, and I shall send the hon. member a written reply, if he does not mind.

As regards the speech of the hon. member for East London North, I just want to refer to one important aspect of it He asked me a question about the future of Berlin. We should not speculate about the future of Berlin. I should be glad if everyone would now stop speculating about Berlin. We are speculating about the future of Berlin, and the questions we are asking in this connection are creating uncertainty among the people in that area and also among potential investors. I really want to ask that this kind of thing be stopped.

The hon. member for King William’s Town made a plea on behalf of East London with regard to the advance of R6 million which came from the Department of Planning. This is an advance of which the capital contributions have to be repaid next year, and on which the interest rate has been increased from 2% to 9,25%. The hon. member must realize that there are several areas that are having similar problems. The idea was that these loans would be repaid from the sale of premises in those areas. This applies to the area to which the hon. member referred, as well as Richard’s Bay, Kimberley, Newcastle and several other areas. We know that because of the economic recession, the expectations have not been fulfilled. Therefore I shall consider the problem of East London, together with the general problem, and see whether we can find any means of helping those local authorities. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with this reply.

Between the approach of the hon. member for Newcastle to the Riekert report and that of the Government there is absolutely no difference. Neither the Riekert report nor the Wiehahn report recommended the abolition of differentiation. If they had recommended it, it would have been a stupid recommendation, because it would have denied the society in which we live. What they have asked is that we should remove unnecessary measures restricting the utilization of the country’s manpower. There is no one who is arguing against that However, the commission also recommended that this be done in an orderly manner. This is in fact our duty. Therefore, we must again temper idealism—in whatever direction it may tend—with the realities of life itself. The hon. member entered into dispute with the hon. member for Parktown. I do not want to take that any further. I just want to thank the hon. member for his view of things. I repeat that I shall try to table a White Paper on the Riekert report before the end of this parliamentary session, so that we may have in-depth discussion of it, a rational discussion in order to prevent everyone from drawing his own conclusions about who says what and who thinks what.

The hon. member for Griqualand East expressed some beautiful thoughts. Naturally, I shall not react to these now. It has been the standpoint of the Government that it would prefer not to appoint agents to propagate specific areas among entrepreneurs. Secondly, it is our standpoint that the Government has a limited role to play, in the sense that it has to create the climate, but that it must not be accused of entering any further into the economic life of the country. It is very difficult to reconcile all these things.

The hon. member for Yeoville has his misgivings about the free market system, and whether he…

He is not here at the moment.

He apologized. The hon. member asked—and this is very important—whether we were aware of or had investigated the fact that some countries were stockpiling imports of our basic metals and minerals, thereby strengthening their position to take steps against us eventually. I want to say at once that this is a sensitive subject which we cannot freely discuss here. However, I want to say in all responsibility that I think things are going to become difficult for us. However, I do not think that general sanctions against South Africa would succeed. It is interesting that our economic bargaining power as an importing country that imports from us is stronger than that of an exporting country. We must understand that. [Interjections.] Of course it is true that stockpiling is taking place. But surely I have said that the policy decisions taken by countries are decisions about their own interests. This also applies to my own country.

The hon. member for Worcester spoke about the Western Cape. I shall come to the Western Cape in a little while under my Vote. The hon. member also discussed ethanol. I just want to tell him that we are continually investigating the alternatives. However, these must be practical possibilities. As far as ethanol is concerned, I have received a deputation and told them that the Government would not prevent anyone from manufacturing ethanol. If there are people, therefore, who think that it can be done economically, they are free to do so. The hon. member also spoke about productivity. We must remember, however, that productivity does not only mean working harder. It also means working more efficiently. I want to say that the greatest contribution to the improvement of productivity in our circumstances can be made by two things, i.e. the managerial skill of an enterprise and the standard of our education and training. These must be high priorities. I should prefer not to discuss them now.

I also have to thank the hon. member for Florida for his kind remarks. He spoke about exports. Let me tell him at once that I think exports are one of the top priorities we should have in this country—for economic, but also for political reasons. The hon. member knows that I have received the report of the Van Huyssteen study group on export promotion. I have referred it to a technical committee to consider its practicability and to make recommendations. I have received that report and I shall announce it at a later stage. However, I must give the private sector some certainty so that they may not be confused about this matter. Furthermore, I just want to emphasize that the hon. member is right in saying that we are not yet export-orientated in this country. We still want to export occasional surpluses, while export concerns are built up on sustained performance. There is no other way of doing it. I share his view that when there is an economic upswing, the exporters should not look only at the local market, but should maintain the foreign markets as well. Secondly, I want to tell the hon. member that the marketing of our products is related to the marketing of our country. There is no doubt about that. In my opinion, our marketing requires new directions, methods and geographic targets. I can assure the hon. member that we shall do so. Then I just want to say that the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has decided that conference with our foreign trade representatives should take place on an annual basis. We have also decided that the private sector should join us in this particular connection. Furthermore, I have told the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we should arrange a conference of all our representatives abroad so that we may all feel the same about the matter and so that we may be more efficient. Then we can also identify target concepts for ourselves. This is in line with what the hon. member would like.

The hon. member for Vasco spoke about the Western Cape. If he does not mind, I shall reply to that in a little while. With regard to the influx to our cities, he pointed out the rising cost of the creation of an infrastructure and the social evils. I agree with him. He also said that we should develop the Western Cape socio-economically. From every point of view, the Western Cape must be the home of the Brown and the White people living there and must give preference to these people. I want to emphasize this, and speculation about this matter must now come to an end.

I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for the attitude he showed in his speech. I share his views. He asked what the reason was for the rise in food prices. I shall not say, as my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, did, that another Minister is responsible for that. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about the fact that production costs have risen very rapidly. Oil price rises not only affect the price of oil products and the higher cost of transport, but virtually every other input. The chemical industry depends on crude oil and it filters through to the price of fertilizer and chemical agents. Therefore we must view the matter as a whole.

The hon. member for Parktown explained his concept of the distribution of income. I do not want to argue with him about that, but I think that broadly speaking we agree with one another.

I want to conclude by thanking hon. members for their contributions. I want to thank them for having conducted the debate on a level and in a spirit which does credit to this House.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 21.—“Environmental Planning and Energy”:

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to the post of Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. He has had a marathon session over the past two days during which he made two very significant speeches to which we all listened with great interest. Many of the matters he discussed during the Vote on Economic Affairs fall within the bounds of environmental planning and energy to such an extent that they form a good basis for further discussion.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the rationalization he applied in bringing together under the control of one Minister the portfolios of Economic Affairs and of Environmental Planning and Energy. I believe that it was a very intelligent and very worthwhile move which will produce good results, because these two fields are very closely related in respect of the work that has to be done in them. Obviously, the work of the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy involves planning which must in large measure be carried out by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. I hope that the hon. the Minister, in taking control of the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, will remember that there is an extremely close relationship between the conservation of the environment and the ability to continue to provide for the people an economic environment in which they can prosper and lead happy lives. Once one understands this concept, one understands that one cannot have economic growth at all costs. In particular, one cannot have it at the cost of the destruction of one’s environment, because the environment is the basis on which a sound economy must be established.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak about one particular aspect, and that is the environment which must be created for people. Socially, an environment must be created in which people can live happy, secure and satisfying lives. Economically, an environment must be created in which people can contribute, to the best of their ability, to the economy of their country, but particularly an environment in which they can grow individually and achieve the best possible return for their efforts and the application of their talents. When one plans in respect of the environment and the economy of a country, one is in particular planning a social and economic environment in which the population will be the happiest and will achieve the greatest satisfaction and in which the country will achieve the best possible results.

I should like to refer to one particular aspect, and I want to do so without being contentious. The aspect I refer to is the Group Areas Act, I believe the Government has shown signs this year of moving away from many aspects of discrimination and petty apartheid. We on this side of the House are extremely pleased about this and the Government can rest assured that they have our support in and our gratitude for what they are doing. I should also like to point out that until the Government is prepared to do away with measures such as the Group Areas Act, it will not achieve the permanent results which are important for creating the kind of environment that I spoke about for the people of South Africa. It is terribly important for this hon. Minister, together with the rest of the Cabinet, to give attention now to moving away from measures such as the Group Areas Act which is the most obnoxious apartheid measure that this country has. Only then will real progress be made. The material cost of the application of the Group Areas Act can be calculated. It is probably several hundred million rands. What cannot be calculated, however, is the tremendous cost as a result of shattered human relationships, the suffering, the resentment, the suspicion and the loss of trust that has been created by the implementation of the Group Areas Act. That is an incalculable cost. I do not believe one could ever make reparations or that one could ever get away completely from the consequences of the implementation of that Act. I do believe, however, that if the Government were now to be prepared to remove that Act and its provisions from the South African scene completely, the Government would create a basis for future peace and prosperity for all the people of this country.

One does not have the time to enumerate once again the shattering experiences of communities as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Nor has one the time, at this stage, to speak about the numbers of families that have been broken up and the numbers of people whose lives have been destroyed by it, or about the vast social problems that this Act has created. I think the Government is as fully aware of all that as we are. I believe that the Government must now start doing something about it.

The statistics speak for themselves, and I should just like to mention a few of them. The statistics about the number of families moved up to 1977, and the ones still to be moved in the future, are interesting to look at. 1 927 White families were moved up to 1977, with 302 still remaining to be moved. However, 69 872 Coloured families had already been moved, with 15 795 remaining to be moved.

Families?

Yes, families.

They have better living conditions.

Certainly, in some cases they have better living conditions. When this takes place with the cooperation of the people concerned, I have no problem, but when it destroys communities and shatters the lives of individual families, I think the Government must say that it is not going to continue with this and that if people want to move back to areas in which they lived previously, the Government will make it possible for them to do so. 33 737 Indian families had been moved, with 12 348 families still to be moved. In the case of Indians, as well, if they want to move, let them move, but if they do not want to move they should not be forced to move. If they want to return to where they had lived before, they should also be allowed to do so.

Now I come to figures for traders. There was a statement that the hon. the Minister was not going to continue with the moving of certain traders, but 21 White traders have been resettled, with 78 still to be resettled. 109 Coloured traders have been resettled, with 220 still to be resettled. In the case of Indians, 1 843 have been resettled, with 3 235 still to be resettled. I think it was in June last year that the hon. the Minister made a statement to the effect that in most of the areas of the country the traders would no longer be moved, but then he said that in the Transvaal certain special circumstances prevailed in regard to their being moved in the Transvaal. The new Cape-based and Cape-inspired Government has shown that it is prepared to tell the Transvaal where to get off, and I think that as far as the moving of Indian traders in the Transvaal is concerned, the Government should tell the Transvaal where to get off so that they will no longer be moved in the Transvaal either.

I just want to point out that as far as existing group areas are concerned, 757 862 ha are provided for Whites, 88 956 ha for Coloureds and 40 551 ha for Indians. If one ever thought the Group Areas Act had any moral basis whatsoever, which it can never have, not matter how fairly one tries to apply it, and no matter how one tries to argue its merits, these statistics in themselves would disprove that. I believe that the injustice, the iniquities, the unfairness and the discrimination that have flowed from the Group Areas Act, aspects which are so obvious from the statistics and from the dismal suffering and unhappiness that this Act has created, are sufficient motivation for the hon. the Minister to decide that he will, here and now—in conjunction with other programmes and measures to remove petty apartheid, to improve the lives of all South African people and to improve the economic and social environment—announce that he is going to take positive steps, in fact is going to make representations to the Government to persuade it, once and for all, to scrap the Group Areas Act and make a new start.

I just want to say in conclusion that no single step the Government can take will make a greater contribution towards improving the South African political climate and towards improving race relations than that particular step will. There are many other things that could be done, but that step, more than any other, will be a major contribution towards an improved life, better relations and more security for all the people of this country.

You are talking nonsense.

How would you like to be moved out of your home? Just think about it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Bryanston could have pointed out many other, more praiseworthy things, positive things, which the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy has done for South Africa. Basically, however, what he did today was to launch an attack on the Group Areas Act. He says it has disrupted people. Judging by the picture he has painted of the resettlement of people, one would swear that the Coloured people and the Black people resettled in terms of the Group Areas Act had landed up in desperate and dreadful circumstances. Surely the hon. member knows that the vast majority of Coloured people and Black people removed from certain areas to other areas, have landed up in better areas, since they have been removed from slum conditions to areas where they could be placed in proper accommodation. However, the hon. member would never say that.

Where that is the case, I steadily concede that. I am talking about the other cases.

He says if people want to live at a particular place, they should be able to live there. From that I must therefore conclude if people preferred to live in shanty conditions and slum conditions, the hon. member and his party would be satisfied that they should live in those conditions. This party is not satisfied that people should live in such conditions. Every time people are resettled, they are placed in areas where better conditions prevail.

On this occasion I wish to address a welcome in the first place to the present hon. Minister of Health and of Social Welfare and Pensions, who was previously the Minister of the present Department of Environmental Planning and Energy. I am pleased that he is present. On behalf of this side of the House I wish to convey my sincere appreciation to him and to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training for what they did for the present Department of Environmental Planning and Energy when they were still responsible for it. I wish to thank them sincerely for their contributions to the department.

I further wish to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. Minister Chris Heunis, the new Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. We welcome him on the occasion of his first handling of the debate on this Vote. We wish him strength. We know that with his dynamic approach he is going to make a great success of this department. We already have a very pleasant working relationship with him.

Then, too, we also wish to convey our sincere congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Pen Kotzé. We just wish to tell him that if he is going to be as good a Deputy Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy as he was a Chief Whip—and in fact he has already started showing this—we can expect great things from him in his new capacity.

Only, he must not be so cunning.

I returned from Beaufort West this morning and at Beaufort West, the NRP candidate had a poster which read: “Keep our politics clean.” However, looking at the result, it does not appear as if they fared so well with this request. Consequently, I therefore wish to make another request today, and I trust that my request will fare better. The request I wish to make, is: “Keep South Africa clean.” Politicians, academics, cultural leaders and others are very fond of talking enthusiastically and with great sincerity about our beautiful country, South Africa. The thrilling beauty of our country is being sung by authors and poets, and quite rightly so, since South Africa is indeed a beautiful country. However, South Africans are marring the beauty of this lovely country of ours in a frightening and repugnant way. If every empty cooldrink tin, beer tin, plastic bag, cardboard container or motor car wreck dropped or left behind by litter-bugs across the length and breadth of South Africa were to emit the stench of a mongoose, the stench would drive us from this beautiful country of ours.

I am grateful that the hon. the Minister and the department have tabled the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Disposal of Containers Bill here. On this occasion I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the members of the commission, including the hon. members of the PFP, the NRP and the SAP who served with me on this commission, for their contributions. I am convinced that the members who served with me on this commission will agree that strict, purposeful, energetic and swift action should be taken against littering in South Africa. For that reason I wish to request the hon. the Minister to accept the recommendations by the commission. I also request that the proposed legislation be piloted through Parliament during this session. In this regard I quote from page 5 of the commission’s report—

These things that are being thrown away do not find their way to places set aside for that purpose by municipalities, but they land alongside our roads, at our picnic places and wherever they mar this beautiful country. [Interjections.] I am not dealing with the trash that has landed in Parliament.

During my return journey by train from Beaufort West to Cape Town, I specifically made a point of observing this. If one looks at the beauty of Table Mountain, a great tourist attraction in South Africa and a mountain the beauty of which is admired by all, and one then looks down to the ground on which we move, one sees that cooldrink tins, beer tins and plastic bags are strewn everywhere. Along every main road one finds that wherever one stops today, at every ten paces there is a beer tin, a cooldrink tin or a plastic bag to mar this beautiful country of ours. It is for that reason that I state that this proposed legislation is essential.

Laudable efforts have been made by local authorities, by the “Keep South Africa Tidy” organization, the Council for the Habitat, the Environmental Board, and the “Pik ’n blik” Organization. All of them have done excellent work in this direction. “Pik ’n blik” is an organization established by Metal Box, the Crown Cork Company and Iscor. These people collect 200 tons of tins every year.

I cannot understand “Pik ’n blik”.

If the hon. the Minister cannot understand it, I wish to tell him that the English name is “Collect a can”.

I thought the hon. member was talking about the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Apart from the defacement, there is also serious wastage of our natural resources. Large quantities of this solid waste is already being used in reclamation processes, and those who are engaged in doing this deserve praise.

I have made inquiries at a bone meal factory. They pay R90 per ton for bones. At Saldanha Bay, we get ±R30 per ton, free on board, for our iron ore. When I think of the quantity of bones that find their way to refuse bins in Johannesburg or in Cape Town every day and ultimately land on a refuse heap, I think of the manufacturer who produces the essential bone meal for the meat farmers of South Africa and who pays R90 per ton for the bones. For the farmer, that bone meal costs R220 per ton, and we throw the bones into the litterbins of South Africa and they are ultimately buried as waste. Consequently we should also look into the utilization of these raw materials that are so essential to us. 100 000 tons of used tins land on our municipal disposal premises every year. In that way we are simply wasting the metal that is lost to South Africa every year and rusts beneath the soil.

I therefore wish to make a plea today that the recommendations of the commission be accepted and that the legislation we proposed to counter this evil that is marring the beauty of South Africa, should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible so that there can be co-ordinated action in South Africa against the onslaught that is being made against us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to speak after the hon. member for Kuruman, particularly where he has referred to the beauty of South Africa and to the efforts that are being made to keep South Africa clean.

I wish to raise another aspect of the beauty of South Africa, namely the efforts which are being made to conserve the environment. During the past 40 years we have made remarkable progress as far as conservation is concerned. If we review the situation briefly, we find that the Central Government and the provincial administrations see to the necessary Acts and Ordinances, and therefore the correct management and for punishment where necessary when the laws are transgressed. There are various departments. There is the Ministry of Agriculture that looks after our national parks. There is also the Department of Forestry that looks after our mountain catchment areas. There are the provincial administrations that look after the reserves for various purposes. There are divisional councils and municipalities that are also contributing their part with regard to reserves and recreational facilities. There are various institutes, the CSIR, universities and museums, which are all active in the field of research with regard to conservation of the environment. We also have youth organizations and our schools. They are all engaged in making people aware of the environment. Besides these we also have many voluntary organizations and persons that are playing a major role in this task.

In the planning of certain projects by various bodies, a very thorough study is made of the scenery and the natural life of the environment We can therefore state that the general public have already become aware of the necessity of conservation and we are proud of what has already been achieved. However, one can never feel complacent about such an important matter. We think of the new technological developments such as atomic energy, we think of the population explosion that is threatening us, and we think of the fact that more and more food will have to be produced and that agricultural land is going to become scarcer, and we think of the fact that even residential space is ultimately going to become a scarce commodity. We also think of the great need man has for recreational facilities. All these factors exert a major influence on the environment.

I now find that in the midst of all the endeavours on our part, there is a serious lack of co-ordination. In this, I see a great task for the Department of Planning. Many of the persons and bodies referred to are acting on their own without any thought of coordination between them. I therefore regard it as the task of this department to effect such co-ordination.

I wish to quote the events pertaining to Table Mountain as an example. Over the years, Table Mountain has received the attention of various persons and bodies. Many persons and bodies have tried in their personal capacity to do something there. However, the situation gradually deteriorated. In 1977 the Department of Planning decided that a commission, known as the Table Mountain Commission, should be appointed. Dr. Douglas Hey, certainly the most suitable man for this task, was appointed as a one-man commission. I do not think we could have found a better person in the whole of South Africa. I wish to thank him for what he has accomplished as a commissioner. When his appointment was mooted in the course of a debate during 1977, I said he was a person who was well equipped for the task and I wish to confirm today what I said at the time. He has undertaken a thorough study and has submitted a well-considered report.

In the 1977 debate I referred to three things that would be necessary to solve the problem of Table Mountain. Planning should take place in such a way that both the human and the environmental needs should be considered. That means that both the conservation and the recreational aspects should be borne in mind. In the second place, I said statutory powers would be necessary, because without these it would not be possible to rectify the matter. In the third place, I said sufficient funds would have to be found in order to resolve the matter.

I find it interesting to note from the report that Dr. Hey agrees with many of the things I said at the time. He has made excellent recommendations, for example that the entire mountain range of the Peninsula above the 152 metre contour line should be declared a natural area in terms of section 4 of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act This Act provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Administrator, undertake an investigation and may stipulate that land should only be used for a particular purpose.

This provision, that an order can be made that land should only be used for a certain purpose, is, in my view, very important and as far as Table Mountain is concerned, such an order should be made immediately. I duly make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should take such a step immediately and without delay.

Dr. Hey has also recommended that various Acts should be made applicable to Table Mountain, but in particular I agree with one particular recommendation in this regard. He has recommended that this matter should be arranged by means of special legislation. I really do not believe that the problem can be solved in any other way.

However, there is something in this recommendation on which I differ somewhat with Dr. Hey. Perhaps he had a provincial interest in mind when he said that the problem could best be dealt with by the Cape Provincial Council. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that this matter is of such great national interest that either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Planning should pilot through the legislation and should be responsible for the control. I believe that only an Act of Parliament would have the effect of enabling all the departments and persons and bodies exercising control at present, and all the owners, to join forces. Particularly since State-owned land is also involved in the matter, I believe that the provincial administration would not be the correct body to exercise control.

I also agree that substantial funds would be necessary, not only for the current expenditure of such a scheme, but also for the buying out of affected properties. It would cost a great deal of money. I agree with Dr. Hey’s recommendation that these funds should be raised on a basis of a one-third contribution by the State, a contribution of one-third by the provincial administration, and a one-third by the local bodies that have an interest in the matter.

The hon. member for Kuruman has stated that Table Mountain is a national asset. I agree with him. Among the 21 main tourist attractions in South Africa, Table Mountain attracts most visitors, even more than the Kruger National Park. However, it is very important that the board that is appointed, should not rely on the State alone. I wish to make an appeal to voluntary organizations and individuals to throw in their full weight in support of this matter.

Then, I just wish to refer briefly to another matter. This concerns the first island reserve that is going to be proclaimed along our coast. The S.A. Nature Foundation has recommended that St. Croix should become an island reserve. I think it is a very good idea. I understand that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has already agreed thereto.

St. Croix lies only 20 km from Port Elizabeth, and six kilometres from the nearest beach. There have been suggestions that St. Croix should become part of a new ore harbour. However, it seems to me that this has at least temporarily been shelved. There is an abundant bird life on St. Croix. It is the easternmost point in Africa where the Cape Penguin breeds. At the moment there are only about 30 000 penguins left and their numbers are dwindling rapidly. There are only 80 pairs of the threatened sea swallow left in the world. Of these, 70 are on St Croix. St Croix is also the breeding place of the Black-backed gull, the Cape cormorant, the White-breasted cormorant, the oyster catcher, the blue heron and the black-headed heron. The extremely rare shearwater was also discovered there recently. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thank you very much to the hon. member for Kuruman—I am not certain whether any hon. member on the opposite side did so—for the words of congratulation and encouragement he addressed to me. I sincerely appreciate his gesture.

Man’s growing awareness of the quality of his environment is a world-wide phenomenon, one which we have really been experiencing over the past decade only. Whereas the authorities here in South Africa have paid attention to the human environment to a greater or lesser degree from time to time over the past few years, the idea of environmental conservation is one to which we have started being fully alive and which has gained acceptance in the most recent years only.

It is a pleasure to be able to say today that virtually all bodies in our country are involved in this aspect at present, and that there are approximately 200 voluntary and private bodies involved in environmental matters in the Republic of South Africa. In this department the Council for the Environment is giving its continuous attention to all aspects of environmental conservation and environmental violation. The council gives advice and co-ordinates the actions of the various interested bodies operating in this field. For the execution of specialized tasks, it appoints special working groups which avail themselves of the specialist divisions within Government departments, the provincial administrations, the local authorities and even those at universities in order to involve these bodies in the activities of the council.

Studies which have been undertaken by the working groups of the Council for the Environment, include, for example, those on noise disturbance, environmental research, sea pollution, atmospheric and air pollution, solid and toxic waste and littering. I am mentioning these merely to give a few examples. It is as a very result of the initiative taken by the working group on littering, that draft legislation was referred to a Select Committee of Parliament which resulted in the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the Disposal of Containers Bill. Today I want to convey the heart-felt gratitude and appreciation of the hon. the Minister and his department to the chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman, and all the hon. members of that committee for a fine job of work done by them in this regard. [Interjections.] I am gratified to be able to say that the Cabinet has agreed in principle to the recommendations of the committee as contained in the report. Unfortunately we shall not be able to introduce legislation as early as this year. It will be possible to implement the recommendations only after the financial implications and staff implications, as well as the tax aspects, have been settled after mutual consultation and the necessary legislation has been drawn up in collaboration with the Department of Health. That is the position as far as the recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry with regard to containers are concerned.

In pursuance of what the hon. member for Humansdorp said, I, too, should now like to refer to the report of the Hey Commission. The circumstances which led to the appointment of the Hey Commission are known to us all. The commission’s report became known in September 1978 and was tabled here in May 1979. From the comments and the recommendations which the department received in connection with the report, two things are very clear. In the first place, the majority of the recommendations of the commission is acceptable to all interested parties and bodies, and they are strongly supported. In the second place, the most important authorities concerned with this area, agree that it would be ideal to have this whole area under the control of one body, one organization, and consequently that that body would have to see to the management and conservation of the mountain range.

Because of the considerable financial and expropriation problems which this would entail, it would not be possible for us to achieve our objective with regard to this whole project in the foreseeable future. For that reason the idea of establishing a body of control for this area, a body which will consist of all the owners concerned, private and official, is generally acceptable.

The key to the solution of our problem in connection with Table Mountain, is to be found in our having to find the co-ordinated implementation of a uniform control and management policy which all the land-owners will be able to respect and carry into effect. Now it is true, as the hon. member for Humansdorp said, that there is a difference of opinion on the question of who is to have control of the management board of Table Mountain which is to be established. I can tell the hon. member that the Cabinet has considered this matter. I am pleased to be able to say that it will also be possible to satisfy the hon. member fully with regard to matters concerning control. After this commission’s report had been considered by the Cabinet, the Cabinet decided to accept the recommendations of the commission in principle, with the exception of the recommendation relating to the authority which will be responsible for the coordination and conservation of the area. Secondly, the Cabinet decided to invest the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy with the responsibility for the coordination of the area and decided that a management committee, in respect of which particulars as well as the required legislation still have to be worked out, for the area was to function under the authority of the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. Thirdly, it decided that the financial and staff implications involved in the implementation of the recommendations, required investigation. A final decision could be taken only after clarity on all these aspects had been obtained. Fourthly, it was decided that the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, in collaboration with the other bodies concerned, should identify the borders of the area with a view to reserving it as a natural area in terms of the provisions of the Environment Planning Act.

Table Mountain has already been declared a national monument, and I want to say today that Table Mountain is a national heritage. Table Mountain is situated here at the southern-most tip of the African continent as a mighty fortress, as a witness to the birth of our nation. Table Mountain stands here as a majestic beacon, showing all who pass here where the fairest Cape of all is situated. On the basis of this Government decision the Table Mountain range—from Lion’s Head and Devil’s Peak, including Constantia Mountain, Muizenberg and Karbonkelberg right up to Cape Point—becomes a national heritage, protected and preserved as such. I should like to express my appreciation to the Hey Commission for the very excellent job of work done by them and to all interested parties who made contributions in this regard among others, the hon. member for Maitland.

If I had the time to do so, I should have liked to refer to the “Keep South Africa clean” plea made by the hon. member for Kuruman. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister recently presented the “Keep South Africa clean” organization with a cheque of R80 000. This organization is doing a very thorough job of work. I hope, however, to say something more about this aspect at a subsequent occasion.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the NRP, I want to associate myself with the words of thanks and encouragement which have been extended to the new Minister and Deputy Minister of this department as well as with the thanks expressed to the Minister who administered this portfolio before them. Having said that, I want to refer briefly to the statement the hon. the Deputy Minister has just made to the effect that he does not anticipate legislation relating to the disposal of containers being introduced this year. I do not altogether agree that this is bad news. In the interim period we could very well try something to see how we can deal with this problem without having to introduce legislation. I believe that with a little bit of education and suitable motivation we could try—and the hon. the Deputy Minister could consider this—to negotiate with large municipalities in this country with regard to the selective collection of household refuse and waste. I believe that in the time between now and the introduction of legislation in this regard we could get a very good idea of how far the public are prepared to co-operate in the initial sorting of their household refuse into such major categories as tin-cans, empty glass bottles, plastic material and general organic waste. I commend this as a thought because I believe that co-operation of this kind and the involvement of charitable institutions, such as the Moths organization—which presently collects glass for recycling in certain of our larger cities—would perhaps delay or do away completely with the need for legislation.

We do not always need legislation to cope with these problems. Very often people cooperate voluntarily, and a lot more can be achieved if one harnesses people’s cooperation for a project such as that. We do funny things with our environment Let us consider the average history of tin cans in which one buys various products, ranging from soft drinks to canned foods. We mine the metal, and in doing so we scar the earth. Then, with an enormous input of energy, and at enormous costs, we smelt the ore, refine it and eventually convert it into the containers which we then fill. The contents are then used and the cans are dumped somewhere, usually on land that could be used for other purposes. We are therefore scarring the land at both ends of the cycle, when we extract the material with which to make the product and when we later discard the manufactured container.

I believe that there should be a great deal more re-cycling of products of that nature, because this ties up with another portfolio of that hon. Minister, and that is the energy side of the Environmental Planning and Energy portfolio. We know that if we were to re-use the tin cans that can be collected, we could save 50% of the energy input. We could save this 50% of the input by using the scrap steel for the production of new steel. I believe that these aspects overlap and I therefore think we should be giving them more serious consideration. The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the numbers of metal cans that are re-cycled, but compared with the numbers that end up on refuse dumps throughout the country, that is a minuscule 2½%. Although it is admittedly a fair start, I believe that we have as yet only scratched the surface and that there is a great deal more that we can do in that regard.

Secondly, I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to energy, because I believe that energy is still one of the crunch issues of 1979. I believe that what we should have is a change in our basic philosophy about, and approach to, energy. I believe that we should be trying to move away from the so-called hard sources of energy, which are capital intensive and centralized and which very often require a lot of foreign exchange to finance them—I also think the hon. the Minister would agree that any centralized energy source is always strategically at risk—towards the greater use and incorporation of what we might call soft energy sources. In that category I would classify solar energy. I believe that the hon. the Minister should look very quickly and thoroughly at the contribution that solar energy could make to the overall problem facing this country at the moment I say this because solar energy itself is free and is very plentiful in this country. If we could have a system encouraging all private householders to incorporate solar water heaters in their homes, I believe that this, in itself, would lead to an enormous saving of electricity in this country.

Have you any specific ideas about how they could be encouraged to do so?

Yes. I am glad the hon. the Minister has asked me that question because I do have some specific ideas. I believe that the Government departments should co-operate to encourage building societies to make loans available to all householders who wish to install solar water heaters. Over and above that, I also believe that the Government should consider having the interest on the repayment of the extra portion of the bond, needed for financing the solar water heaters, tax deductible. I recommend that for the hon. the Minister’s serious consideration because that, in itself, would be quite a significant incentive for the average householder who would be saving money every month on electricity consumed. I calculate roughly that the added repayment on his bond would be between R6 and R10 per month, depending upon the initial cost of the solar water heating unit that is being used. If he could then claim back, as a tax deduction, the interest portion of that, I believe this would be a further incentive for people to consider installing solar water heaters. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister that one will then be bringing the cost to the householder down to that of an economical unit relative to the high capital cost of our total energy needs. One will then not be concentrating an enormous amount of capital for instance R2 000 million in the case of Koeberg, at one point Such a power station costs a lot of service in terms of interest One will be bringing the energy-producing unit to the householder and one will be encouraging him to be more aware of the problem of energy and how he can contribute towards its solution. The costs to the householder will then be brought down to a more realistic figure.

Finally, there is the factor of ownership of the unit once it is paid for. This all serves as further motivation for the householder. I think the hon. the Minister agrees with me—I see him nodding—and I hope he will give a little consideration to that. I could point out further that the solar water heaters could in their construction have a local content of 100%. All round, as I see it, there are therefore advantages in a scheme like this. I think it is something we could make a start with very soon. It is not necessary to wait two, three, five or 10 years with it. It could be undertaken immediately with a little bit of help from our friends, in Government.

Finally, I come to the bad news in so far as the hon. the Minister is concerned. Sir, the residents of Sherwood are up in arms at his proposal to change the nature of this area.

How can they be up in arms about a proposal I have not made?

Well, they have their suspicions that the hon. the Minister is about to come with a proposal in that regard. They got wind that it is going to happen and they are up in arms about it already. One can imagine how much more they will be up in arms if the proposal does see the light of day. I want to direct a plea to the hon. the Minister. The community of Sherwood is a very nice community. It is a stable and law-abiding community. It is a very happy community. Instead of moving them away, what about giving them a little more land so that they can reach the stage where they will qualify for some local services like a post office, a swimming bath and the various things that make a community viable and give it a feeling of community spirit?

Talk to Horace van Rensburg about that.

No, I am talking to the hon. the Minister; he has the final say on this. It is no good his passing the buck to the PFP. It is the hon. the Minister who has the power to see to it that the community of Sherwood is left where it is. There are 1 700 people there who do not want to move, and they have been there for a long time. I commend that to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea devoted most of his speech to solar energy. I believe all of us in this House agree with him that it is something that has to be investigated.

If I may say something further about energy, I want to point out that countries throughout the world and the industrial countries in particular are at present engaged in intensive research in order to find substitutes for the fuel and energy resources, particularly the fossil fuels which we know today. Since we too have been trying over the past few months to centralize our research in this field, and since we also have to carry out this research with limited manpower and limited funds, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot evaluate those fields which could in fact be investigated and researched so that we can then make a systematic and concentrated effort to investigate those fields which offer the best possibilities. We must not simply investigate everything in a diffuse manner, for example solar energy, wind energy, etc., but we must try to concentrate our research in those fields which hold out the greatest possibilities of success.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Kuruman as far as the report of the commission and of the Select Committee is concerned. In his absence I should also like to thank Mr. Pio Meyer for the hard work he did on that commission.

I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I personally am very sorry that this Bill cannot come before the House during the present session. While this commission was in session, we sent a very senior official of the Department of Planning and the Environment overseas. He went to attend a world conference and afterwards gave evidence before us. The gist of his evidence was that there was a worldwide clamour for central control over littering, recycling and environmental conservation. As there are in this country, there are ad hoc rules and regulations to be adhered to in the rest of the world as well. Municipal authorities apply their own rules and also do their own research.

Among the inquiries we received, there was also an inquiry from England under the royal seal. They were keen to know how much progress the commission has made in its work. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that we could be in among the front runners as far as the planned control of environmental conservation, littering and the recycling of natural resources, solid and other refuse are concerned. We appreciate the Cabinet decision to accept the report in principle.

In the few moments I still have at my disposal I should like to dwell on section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act In the debate we have just had on the Economic Affairs Vote the decentralization or deconcentration of industries have already been discussed. This whole concept of decentralization is contained in section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act together with the White Paper of 1971 in which the Government’s policy on decentralization is set out This section makes it an offence for anyone to erect a new factory and employ Black labourers or expand an existing factory and employ relatively more Black labourers than the ratio provided for in the White Paper. In the 12 years of its existence this section has been debated more than any other subject on planning in the debates on this Vote. The ratio in the White Paper used to be three Black employees to one White employee, but was subsequently amended to become 2,5 Black employees to 1 Coloured or White employee.

I do not want to discuss the whole concept of decentralization. The hon. the Minister said that he wanted to deal with the matter again. I just want to refer briefly to all the criticism that has already been levelled at it. It has been alleged that section 6 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act was in conflict with section 3 of the Environment Planning Act. It is also being alleged that section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act makes provision for Black people to live in a certain area, but that in terms of section 3 of the Environment Planning Act they may not work there. On the other hand it is alleged that this delays development because it creates uncertainty in the private sector. It is alleged that this section 3 and the White Paper have no regard for the fact that a swift upsurge in the economy is sometimes necessary. The hackneyed expression is also used, of course, that this draconian measure is responsible for the fact that 100 000 Black people in urban areas would have been employed had it not been for section 3 and the White Paper that stipulates that they may not work there. The answer to this criticism has been given ad nauseam and, therefore, I do not want to go into it.

One thing we must accept, however, and that is that decentralization is here to stay. It is not a South African ad hoc phenomenon peculiar to South Africa or to NP politics, but a worldwide fact and economic reality. For that reason I believe one cannot get away from it. I am convinced however, that in the light of the fact that this measure has been on the Statute Book for 12 years now and that we have now gained a great deal of experience in respect of decentralization, it is essential for us to take an intensive look once again at the contents and functioning of this section and to adjust it in such a way as to bring it into line with the practice which we have been adopting over the years.

It is good to have a vision, it is good to do long-term planning, but I believe that when we talk about decentralization, we must guard against creating expectations which we will ultimately not be able to satisfy. For that reason we should rather not declare so many growth points that it will eventually not be possible to pay concentrated and meaningful attention to some of them. At this stage I believe we should rather evaluate those growth points already declared and determine which of them are the most viable, even if only in the short term. At present we must concentrate on those which we believe we can now develop successfully. It is all very well to say that we could do the physical planning, build the physical roads, create the water resources and supply electricity at the right places, but the more refined planning has to be done too, viz. the statutory planning.

Consequently, I want to ask the hon. the Minister that when we take another look at the functioning of both the White Paper and section 3, we must do so in a practical way and not make a political issue of it. It would not be in the interests of any of us if someone should say: “Yes, now you are running away from your own creation” or that kind of thing.

This is not what it is concerned with. It is a question of what is in the best interest of the whole of South Africa and all its people. Then if it is necessary for us to change, adapt, delete or replace certain things, we must have the courage of our convictions to do so. The hon. the Minister knows that he has the planning group behind him if such action should be essential. We are prepared to stand by it. We must not cling to what is perhaps obsolete.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the concluding thoughts expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Pretoria East. At the same time, I also want to react directly to the plea which the hon. member for Bryanston made for the abolition of the Group Areas Act. I want to tell him at once that I disagree with him on that matter, because I believe—without reservation—that ethnically separated residential areas are fundamental to peaceful and orderly coexistence in a multinational country.

South Africa is on the threshold of drastic constitutional changes which clearly imply that the Coloureds and Asians are well on their way to equal political rights. These greater political rights and responsibilities imply certain physical developments too which will have to be planned at a faster rate and on a larger scale. This was spelt out brilliantly by the hon. the Minister in a discussion of his other Vote yesterday, in a speech which in my opinion deserves the congratulations of everyone in this House. This trend is clearly underlined in the reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions as well, viz. the expansion of the free enterprise system to all our population groups, and it is also the logical corollary of the Government’s policy of stable and evolutionary development.

It is well over 17 years ago that the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd declared that the policy of separate development was not a means of entrenching discrimination, but a means of moving away from it. A policy of separateness, yes; but also a policy of equal opportunities.

It is also true that we have made tremendous strides in realizing this ideal which all of us on this side of the House are striving after. However, it is also true that we shall still have to do a great deal in certain fields as regards the application of the policy before we are able to feel satisfied.

In this regard I have in mind in particular the planning of group areas for Coloureds and Asians in such a way that the free enterprise system can apply unrestrictedly here as well. We are aware of the shortage of housing for these groups. A great deal has already been done to wipe out these backlogs and this effort is proceeding unabated. I believe, too, that we have reached the stage where the emphasis should no longer be placed so much on State housing, but on making land available, on living space rather than houses. In any case, the State cannot be expected to provide everybody with proper housing.

To illustrate exactly what I mean, I should like to refer to a situation which I encountered in my own constituency. I am not doing so because I want to lower the level of this important debate to the discussion of local problems, but because I believe that the situation in Benoni is symptomatic of conditions in other parts of our country. When I was elected there, there was only one group area for Indians, viz. Actonville, which was originally meant to house all the Indians of the East Rand. This area was hopelessly over-populated and the situation so bad that I was not prepared to let it remain as it was. Consequently the Group Areas Board investigated the conditions in the constituency and then, in co-operation with and with the aid of the Ministry and the department—for which I am sincerely grateful—a second group area, Rhynsoord, was proclaimed. That greatly alleviated the situation there and for that, too, we are sincerely grateful.

One should also admit in all honesty that this created new problems. The Indians were permitted to buy the existing houses, some of which were formerly occupied by Whites, in accordance with a permit system, with their own money. The same applies to vacant plots in the vicinity. In other words free enterprise applied there. Because the land was limited, the competition among the middle-class and well-off Indians was so keen that the prices of plots soared far beyond their normal market value. This in turn resulted in accusations of exploitation. It also led to discord between those Indians who could obtain plots and those who could not This again led to accusations of preferential treatment.

As is fitting, the Whites and Indians in Benoni live in separate residential areas, a principle which I still support wholeheartedly. A White man of Benoni with R30 000 at his disposal, can with very little effort obtain a very comfortable house on the East Rand. An Indian with the same amount of money at his disposal, or even twice or three times as much, cannot do so, however, because there is not enough land available for the Indians. That I cannot, with the best will in the world, describe as equal opportunity.

This situation, in my opinion, lends itself to political exploitation by people who are not favourably disposed towards us. The Packer case in Pretoria is proof of this. But I want to admit at once that a great deal has already been done to try to prevent situations like that. Apart from Rhynsoord, I also have in mind the development of areas for Indians like those at Marlborough and Claudius. For Coloureds similar areas are being developed at Blaauwskop, Fleurhof and Harmoniestrand. All these developments have taken place in the course of the past year. As a matter of fact, proposals have been published for the development of group areas in 29 centres and a total of 61 group areas have been declared all over the country. In my opinion these are gratifying developments and will contribute a great deal towards eliminating the kind of problem which has been experienced with regard to Actonville and Rynsoord. Nevertheless, I feel that we have reached the stage where this planning should no longer take place on an ad hoc basis or on a municipal, constituency or local level, but that coordinated and comprehensive regional or even country-wide planning is required to overcome this situation.

If at all possible, therefore, I call for a physical, comprehensive planning effort which will, first of all, make it possible for Indians and Coloureds to have enough land at their disposal, so that with their own money, they can acquire properties, for themselves, according to their abilities and according to the prices determined by supply and demand and, in the second place, that they ought to be encouraged to undertake township development themselves. In the third place, I appeal for consideration to be given to making available industrial land in the vicinity of such residential areas, so that job opportunities can be provided according to the natural population growth and so that they would furthermore be afforded the possibility of themselves entering industry to an increasing extent.

As a result of the increasing world-wide energy problem—which will not soon disappear—I believe one should in any case plan in such a way that wherever possible, people do not have to travel long distances to their work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank hon. members sincerely for congratulating me in my new capacity. In the second place I should like to thank my predecessor, now the hon. the Minister of Health, for the work which he did. Of course this is not an old department, and we are consequently involved in a process of growth and evolution. My predecessor did splendid development work, something for which I should like to praise him in public.

Furthermore, I also want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his maiden speech in his present post. I think he did very well indeed. I also want to thank him very much for relieving me of a great burden from time to time. If I had been able to make a personal choice, I would not have chosen anyone else as my Deputy Minister.

I now turn to the hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member made use of the opportunity—and I am not reproaching him for doing so—to state the political philosophy of his party on the use of land and on my department’s views on the matter. I believe he is entitled, in this respect, to state his standpoint in regard to the Government. I also believe he is entitled to state his standpoint on me and on my own view in this respect. Of course this is not possible unless we formulate for ourselves a definition of politics or of the politics of the State. I think we shall have to realize that the politics of the State is nothing but a regulating function of the society of a country. In the nature of things this regulating function will from time to time vary from country to country. Consequently there will never, as I see it, be finality in respect of the methods by means of which this regulating function will be carried out. Consequently I want to say in the second place that any political party which adopts the standpoint that it is wrong to change its policy—and by that I also mean its mode of action—is a party which is either dishonest or stagnant. I make no apology to anyone because the NP, the party to which I belong, has been capable, in the period during which it was responsible for the planning of the country, to do what the circumstances of the time required it to do. [Interjections.] A change in policy is no reason for complaint. It is solely the reflection of the dynamics…

And a vision.

… and of a vision. If we examine this society of ours, there is one outstanding feature which typifies it, namely its extremely high conflict potential. But the fact of conflict potential is not unique to our own country. It is present in virtually every society in the world. Where it differs, however, is in respect of the causes of the potential conflict and its degree.

The hon. member for Kuruman, together with the hon. member for Humansdorp, waxed very lyrical about the physical beauty of the country. It is the country’s diversity and its contrasts and contradictions, which contribute to its physical beauty. These physical contrasts and contradictions are however not confined to that sphere only. What we see in nature, we also see in the population of our country. There we see the same, if not greater diversity.

Everything which can give rise to conflict in a society is present here. Different nations, languages, ethnicities, levels of development, traditions and different and frequently conflicting national aspirations—these are all present in this country. Test the success or failure of the National Party Government over more than 30 years by the extent to which it has succeeded or not succeeded in carrying out its regulating responsibility. Test it against any available norm that can be found. Then I say today, in all modesty, and also with gratitude that there is not a country in the world with a comparable set of circumstances which has this degree of order and stability which we have in our own father-land. [Interjections.] With that I am not saying that we have found the perfect answer to the intensity of our relations problems. What I am saying is that none can emulate our country in this respect.

Between the hon. member for Bryanston and myself there is a fundamental difference in premise, for he sees the population of this country as being merely a racial grouping. I do not agree with him. I do not think that the only differences in the population are racial differences. I know that there are other bases of difference as well. I also want to say that differences do not imply inferiority or superiority. But he who denies the differences, forfeits the right to lay claim to the regulating function of the society.

Business interrupted at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was interrupted, I was telling the hon. member for Bryanston that our premises on this country of ours were fundamentally different. I ask the hon. member to explore with me for a moment the path of the philosophy of the National Party and the method which it employs to implement that vision. On a previous occasion I indicated—and I am not going to take this any further today—what I thought the national objectives were which we should pursue in this country. I want to go further and tell the hon. member that separate development is, in the first place, no ideology but a plan of action and a method of regulating society. Secondly, separate development is not the caricature which people to the right and to the left make of it I think it is time we told one another this in a calm way. It is a pity that those people in this country who differ with me politically present an image to the people in this country and to the people abroad which is not in keeping with the objectives or the methods.

Sir, what are the foundation-stones of separate development? It has five foundation-stones, and in this connection I associate myself with what the hon. member for Benoni said. I just want to mention in passing that there are people in this country who whisper about development, but bellow about separation. There is no place for such people in this society. There are also people who do the opposite. Not one of these schools of thought represent the essence of what we are trying to do. I ask again: What are the foundation-stones of separate development as a plan of action in order to achieve a well-regulated society? In the first place it is based on the concept that the constitutional development of a country and the constitutional institutions of a country must be mirror images of the society they have to serve. Secondly, separate development is geared to preventing the domination of one group by another group, hence, too, the domination by White people of other people. Thirdly, it is intended as a basis for separation, separation not as an objective, but in order to avoid conflict situations. Fourthly, it is intended to eliminate discrimination. Fifthly, it is intended to create development opportunities for the entire population of the country. Let us argue with one another on how we do things, but I ask, in Heaven’s name: When will we in this country stop questioning one another’s motives? Let us differ on the best way of implementing these things.

What are the problem areas in South African society and what are the problem areas in our politics, in view of the regulating function which we have to fulfil? The hon. the Prime Minister has already said this, and I just want to emphasize it. The problem of this country is a universal one. Only, it exists in a far more concentrated form here in our own fatherland. The problem is to devise and preserve a method by means of which the rights of minorities can be protected. Why do people in this country—in this House as well—level the accusation at us that when we speak of protecting the rights of minorities, we are speaking of protecting the rights of White people only? Surely there is not only one minority in this country. Surely there are a series of minorities in South Africa. Surely there is no numerical superiority here in the ordinary sense of the word. Of course we must find a method to give other minorities the right of decision-making over themselves, and of course we must develop a method to afford other people the opportunity, in respect of those things which are commonly identifiable, to be co-responsible for decision-making over such things. Surely the methods which the hon. members opposite hold up to us, the models which they hold up to South Africa, have already been tested.

Where?

Where, in Africa and in countries of Europe. [Interjections.]

Which one?

Oh, please, Sir.

Order!

Do not make wild assertions.

Order!

He is only now realizing that he has lost a by-election.

I do not want to quarrel with that hon. member—honestly I do not. I really do not have time to give attention to cynical trains of thought. However, I am quite prepared to speak to people with a vision. Do hon. members know what that hon. member’s model for South Africa is? One qualified vote once, and then it is all over.

And then he flees the country.

I think…

You do not have much faith in your fellow South Africans.

… that the future of this country does not depend on what other people want us to do, or even on what they can do to us. I believe that the future of our country, of our peoples, is going to depend on our ability to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of all the peoples living here. Let me say in all sincerity that the world has tried in vain to bring justice to minorities. The list of wrecks is a long one.

I can quote many examples in illustration of that. The world has tried in vain for decades—no, centuries—to ensure that people enjoy what we term fundamental rights, but have not up till now been successful. The majority of the people of the world are suppressed, and this is evidence of the failure to find an answer or a solution to this problem. Let me say quite candidly that we shall have to be prepared in this country— and let there be no doubt about this whatsoever; it is for our future and for the sake of all the other peoples living here—to succeed where the rest of the world has failed. That presupposes our building an unique model for the country that we live in.

That is correct.

This does not mean that we regard one group as superior to another. It merely means the acceptance of the inherent differences that there are. It is not a question of dividing people. People should not be divided because they are different. The differences should be accepted if one is to live and co-exist in peace. A political philosophy which does not acknowledge this basic and fundamental fact, can never succeed in our society. Let me take it further. The White people in this country too constitute a minority, but a minority with a difference. In many countries minorities have no political rights; in South Africa there is a difference, because here the political rights and the political decision-making are in the hands of the White minority to a large extent.

What then is fundamentally our task in this country? It is to ensure that the other minorities in this country can effectively share in decision-making without substituting one form for another.

Now that you are asking the right questions, you may get the right answers.

Mr. Chairman, please, I appeal to the hon. member to allow me the opportunity to continue.

We have to have a formula to ensure that such substitution will not lead to domination. What I am going to say next, will not at all be said with a hostile intention. The official Opposition cannot be supported for the very fact that fundamentally their policy lacks the safeguards which people require if there is to be any sort of stability in relationships in this country.

Why do you think we would have no pact with them?

I want to tell the hon. member one thing: They will never espouse the PFP, although they are having an interminable engagement.

I say in all candidness that the formula which the official Opposition is propagating for South Africa will bring no rights for anyone. On the contrary. It will destroy rights, including those of the Black people.

That is not the principle.

Of course it is the principle. It will take away the political rights of the Whites and it will also take away the rights of the majority of our other peoples.

*That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston—he need not agree with me—that if he understands my basic premise, he will also understand that if we grant people self-determination over their own group, there must also be a geographic content that goes with it I ask him in all fairness to test what has happened in this country during the past 30 years—it is not perfect and the society is not free of injustices; there is no such society—against what happened in the previous 300 years in this country. I ask him then whether more justice has not been done to human rights during the past 30 years than the preceding 300.

You should ask Basil D’Olivera that.

I could react to that, but I do not want to function on the level of acrimony on which the hon. member functions.

I want to ask whether there is not more participation by all the population groups in the economic life of our country now, than in the previous 300 years. Are the people living in group areas not better housed now than they were before? There is another test. What I am now going to say, I am saying in utmost earnest If we had to adopt the policy of the official Opposition, what would the physical appearance of this country be? We would have a repetition of Crossroads. That is what they want for South Africa and for the people whose rights they claim they want to promote. [Interjections.] If it were the case, that hon. member would be able to understand it, because that is all he can understand. I have no intention of abolishing group areas, but I do intend doing something else. I intend ensuring to the best of my ability that the concept of fairness is upheld in the allocation of areas to the various population groups. In that way I shall prove that my party’s policy is not that of separating people, but of making them “separate, but equal as far as possible”. That is what I intend doing. There must be no misunderstanding about this, there is no person who is more aware of the terrible responsibility which this entails than I. For that reason I am advocating that we should consider South Africa, its people and their norms. My earnest request is that we should understand that the society in which we are living as a complex one. I find it difficult to imagine that there can be a society which is more complex. Hon. members must forgive me if I say what I think I should say. As a White nation we do not consist merely of individuals, but also of groups. Surely it is not wrong to be a member of a group. The fact that I personally have an intense preference for my own people, surely does not presuppose that I have a dislike for other people. Then why should such a false image of my party be presented? Our existence is, after all, a combination of the tangible and the intangible. Surely we are part of a stream of ideas and thoughts. Surely we want to do nothing but indicate our dissatisfaction with the present situation and concentrate on improving it. Surely we want to crystallize these ideas and thoughts into tangible plans. There is nothing wrong with that. Surely it is part of the process of living. What is true of me as an individual and of other hon. members, is also true of our groups. We are the aggregated product of all the people and their ideational world. If we give expression, in the Group Areas Act, to the physical planning of the country, we are engaged in the second stage of the regulation function, and that is to regulate the physical environment so that the political and the physical regulation are not divergent, but synchronized with one another on a parallel basis.

In this spirit I accepted this portfolio, and in this spirit I wish to do my duty.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston crossed swords with the hon. Minister on group areas and it is most certainly not necessary for me to defend the hon. the Minister. He asked whether the people who had been removed were at present better off or worse off. But he is putting the question to the wrong people. If he wants an honest answer he should ask the people who have been removed. I have never encountered one of those people who wanted to go back to the slums where they used to live. Since, in the nature of things, I was involved in this sort of thing a great deal, I know under what circumstances the people lived, and I also know where they live today. I have never encountered a single one, not even one of those who complained when they were being removed, who is asking today to be taken back to the shanties where they had to bring up their children. [Interjections.] It does make a difference when a man has lived in a hovel and he moves to a house with electric lights and warm water laid on, where there is a little garden in which his children can play, where the bedrooms are separate, and where they do not all have to live in the same room. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Bryanston did not want electricity to be laid on to the hovels.

The hon. the Minister has stated here today that we should find methods of enabling minority groups to make the decisions reflecting them themselves. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he meant that those minority groups also included the official Opposition, because I think the time has arrived that they, too, should make meaningful decisions on their own future. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has set out here today the philosophy behind the policy of his party and how, as he sees it, it has to be implemented in the interest of South Africa.

Do you accept that?

Even if I were to accept it, I am not in the Government and I cannot apply it. If, what the hon. the Minister has set out, is the intention of the Government—and I believe it is—then they must go ahead. Do not continually look over your shoulder; go ahead and apply it. Do not allow obstacles that are being placed in the way to put you off. Go ahead and do what you believe is right. If I had been in power, I should also have implemented the things in which I believed. One sees the road as it lies ahead of one. As conditions change, one has to adapt oneself to the changed conditions. But go ahead and do the things that are in the interests of South Africa.

I now wish to return to serious matters. In the first place, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kuruman and congratulate him on the work his commission has done. I wish to express the hope that the results of the investigation by his commission will be clearly manifest from the legislation that still has to be introduced. I trust that important results will flow from this investigation.

We have a wonderful country, but it breaks a person’s heart to see how our own people are despoiling it. If one observes the beer cans and plastic bags in our beautiful little streams, one can only come to one conclusion, and that is that our people are selfish. They want the beautiful places for themselves, but they do not care in what condition other people find them. For this, not only legislation is necessary, but also education of our people. Our people will have to be educated on how to use the facilities of our country. Nor is it only the public who have a need for that, but I am afraid the officials of our authorities as well. I wish to quote one example. On occasion I stopped along the road between Oudtshoorn and George. I stopped under a tree. The lay-by was neat and clean. There was a concrete container in which the waste, the tins and the bottles, could be discarded. The public did indeed do so, but when I stood on the edge of that layby I could see where the concrete container had been emptied. Whoever was responsible for emptying it, had simply tipped the contents over the edge. The container was therefore not even necessary.

The hon. member for Pretoria East has said that we in South Africa could be among the front runners. I am proud to be able to state today that the city I represent, is indeed among the front runners as far as that aspect is concerned.

Not at all!

Oh yes! This week we had the honour of being designated the cleanest city in South Africa. It cost money, investigation and training. The city council of Port Elizabeth had to commission a trained official from overseas, for there were no people in South Africa who had been trained in this direction. I wish to pay tribute today to this Mr. Lawrence, because it was as a result of his coming here that we in Port Elizabeth today have trained people who are able to do this type of work. Any municipality or local authority that envisages improvements in this direction, would do well to go and talk to these people, because I believe that their knowledge can also be made available to others.

†The hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy referred to Port Elizabeth when he reacted to what the hon. member for Walmer had to say about the area. We all know that the area to which the hon. member referred has gone through a very lean time, and is still going through a lean time. Only last week when the hon. the Minister attended a conference, he referred to the fact that in the period 1972 to 1976 this area was lagging behind other areas in so far as job opportunities were concerned.

I should like to correct you on that: I said that the area was lagging behind in terms of the job opportunities created in industry.

Yes. I have it like that in my notes, and I intended saying that the area was lagging behind in the field of employment opportunities in the manufacturing industry. That is the point that I should like to make.

The hon. the Minister gave us the assurance that continuous steps are being taken to improve the situation, and we are tremendously grateful for that As an example of this, the hon. the Minister quoted the fact that the guide plan had been partially approved. I should also like to express our appreciation for the fact that this guide plan was partially approved, and that to a certain extent the uncertainty that existed will now be ruled out. I am afraid, however, that planning can sometimes be a very long drawn-out affair, and also very costly in so far as time and money are concerned. I hope that it will not be too long before the final plan is approved…

That will happen before the end of the year.

That is very good news. The delay in approving the section that has now been approved, meant that the development of Coloured and Black housing was also delayed. I know that the local authority was very keen to provide facilities in those areas which they intended developing. They could not do so, however, because they were waiting for the guide plan to be approved. Now that the guide plan is available at last, we are all very grateful for that.

One of the reasons for the delay in the planning is the shortage of planning expertise in South Africa. This situation is aggravated by the fact that the available expertise is scattered all over the country, and is attached to different departments. In this regard I want to pose two questions to the hon. the Minister: In the first place, are we making the best possible use of our available manpower, and, secondly, should it not be concentrated more in order to put it to better use? In this regard I can perhaps use town planning as an example. Town planning throughout the country is today governed by a number of provincial and governmental bodies. A city in the Cape Province is responsible in its planning to the Provincial Administration through the Township Ordinance. Metropolitan planning—this is where our guide plan comes in—is established under the same ordinance and it also has to be referred to the Provincial Administration. At the same time, it is responsible to the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy through the Environmental Planning Act and the guide plan. To me, as a layman, this sounds like serving two masters.

Serving two good masters.

They might be good masters, but it is still difficult if one has to serve two masters. This brings about delays and difficulties, and we know it costs money. I sometimes wonder whether the delay in approving the guide plan in our case did not contribute towards this lack of employment opportunities in industry in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area.

Transportation planning and land utilization planning go hand in hand. It goes without saying that one cannot have the one without having the other. Transportation planning, in terms of the Urban Transport Act, is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Transport—here we have yet another master. We therefore now have the situation that metropolitan planning is governed by three different bodies, i.e. the provincial administration, the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy and the Department of Transport. When it comes to the provisions of Coloured housing and the administration of the Group Areas Act the influence of the Department of Community Development is also involved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. All I wish to say is that I like listening to him. He is a temperate person. One always likes to listen to a temperate person, although there is a saying that temperate people miss so much in life. Of course, I am unable to form a judgment in this regard; I am still too young. [Interjections.]

Is he a temperate person or a moderate person?

That is something the hon. the Minister will have to decide for himself. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has said nothing on which I cannot agree with him. Consequently he will pardon me if I do not react any further to his speech.

I, too, should like to refer to the report of the Bureau for Economic Research. I wish to express my gratitude for the great job of work done in such a short space of time. Then, of course, I also wish to quarrel a little. This report is, of course, an interim report, so we hope that the matter will be taken further in the next report We request the hon. the Minister not to curb this work, but to let it proceed. If, however, not much further progress than this can be made, it will also be a case of, as the poet said—

The point on which I wish to disagree with the authors of this report—and they may as well know this here and now—is the statement made by them on page 220. I believe that if there are any illusions about this, we should put an end to them here and now. They state—

That is the presumption expressed in this regard by the commissioners. Then they proceed to express their view on this in the following terms—

Now, I just wish to point out, too, what the Erika Theron Commission states about this. After all, one of the terms of reference of the Erika Theron Commission was to go into this specifically and to make a scientific study of the matter. In direct conflict with the view expressed in this interim report, the Erika Theron Commission states on page 92 of its report—

I wish to point out that this is not only a contentious matter. It is also a matter we have thrashed out for ourselves, we who have the welfare of all interest groups and of all race groups in this part of the world at heart Consequently I believe that it is necessary to reaffirm and to implement fully the recommendation of the Erika Theron Commission that it should be the Government’s stated policy that the Western Cape should be mainly a labour area for the Whites and the Coloureds.

Was that recommendation unanimous?

It is with a view to implementing that recommendation that I am bringing it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I shall not allow myself to be daunted by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I shall rather accept the decision of the vox populi, as this has manifested itself during the past few days.

I also wish to refer to another inquiry into this matter. It is an inquiry that was undertaken during the war years, in 1943. However, it was not a country-wide inquiry, and related only to the Cape Flats. At the time, the same finding was arrived at and the same recommendations were made.

Now, I also wish to say something in connection with regional development associations. In this regard I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. Whenever we intend making representations or solving problems, we are very fond of putting questions. In this respect, I shall endeavour to indicate a somewhat new direction. I can best illustrate this by referring to the question the Master put to the widow: “What have you?” Her reply was, “I have a cruse of oil.” She was not complaining because she had only a cruse of oil. It was a reaction to the question: What have you?

In my constituency there is a regional development association that has been in existence for more than 10 years. There, I have been fortunate enough to share a region with the hon. member for Swellendam, and for 10 years he was chairman of that association—Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me—with excellent results. There are no minerals, gold and precious stones in that area. However, John Steinbeck said: “The earth gives but one crop of gold.” Once that “one crop of gold” has been removed from the good earth, the earth is often worthless. In this region which I have the honour to represent, there is still good earth however, and clean and unpolluted water and air, and healthy, balanced people.

I wish to bring this region to the attention of the hon. the Minister and tell him that what we have there, we have established during the past 10 years with the aid of our development association and various departments and their sympathy. Because of a serious shortage of water, it has not been possible for industrial development to take place in that region. However, the problem has now been solved and after many years we have found water. We should now be able to talk to people if they were to come and ask us whether they could establish industries or whatever in that region. We could then tell them what we have.

Whenever I travel through Sir Lowry’s Pass, I think this must be the place where Wordsworth must have stood when he said: “Earth has not anything to show more fair.” Then there are also the Rûens of which Petra Muller said:”… waar die dorpe yl gesaai lê soos rosyntjies in ’n armmansbrood.” [Interjections.] Then there is also the Strand-veld with its fynbos and its romantic coastline. It is here where one finds a larger number of plant varieties per hectare than at any other place in the world. The sea still smells of seawater here and the veld smells of buchu and Cotula Villosa.

Last Saturday, on the way to Hermanus, I stopped at two voters from Beaufort West whose postal votes I had to go and collect I stopped at the seaside. I do not know for whom they voted; the result…

Are you sure of that?

Two postal votes for Beaufort West. When I walked out to my car after having had coffee with the people and having said good-bye to them, I saw Blushing Brides growing in their natural state alongside the tarmac road—not behind a wire fence or on private land. Another name for this plant is Serruria Florida. Along the De Waal Drive one also sees protea and other indigenous plants that attract one’s attention, but nowhere so near the highwater mark, because a plant is sensitive to the sharp sea air, does one find the Serruria Florida in its natural state.

Only approximately 26% of the population of the area I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister are Whites. There are parts and regions where the ratio of Coloureds to Whites is 5:1. The rate of depopulation of Whites has stabilized over the past number of years. The oldest of our Coloured settlements is situated in this area. The oldest one was established in 1737. This area accommodates—and I do not wish to use an unkind word—an over-supply of Coloureds as far as the labour market in that area is concerned. One of our major problems in future will be Coloured unemployment Once we obtain the report of the Browne Committee the hon. the Minister will have to listen to us so that a decision can be taken on what we can do for the local authorities in that area. The people have to be housed and provided with services while they work in the urban areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the hon. members on this side of the House, the balanced approach of the NP is obvious. I do not like devoting time to the Opposition in a speech of ten minutes, but I wonder whether the hon. member for Bryanston realizes what sacrifices the people of my ward and the people of the southern suburbs have made to supply proper housing to non-Whites in parts such as Nancefield and other places. The graveyards of those people, that are sacred to us, still exist today in areas such as Nancefield and others, owing to sacrifices people have made. The graves of Jews and others are still to be seen there. Those of my people have been removed, and this sacrifice has been made for the sake of the proper housing of non-Whites. The hon. member must not mock at us. He must not be for ever raging and harping on the same string. He must not constantly be after our blood. There will be a time in this House when the Opposition, with their “extra-Parliamentary duties” in which they are engaged every day, are going to be called to order.

Be a little more specific.

The hon. member makes me think that he is still an articled clerk, judging by the ludicrous interjections he makes every five minutes. [Interjections.] And then on top of everything there is still Long John Silver. In English/Hebrew there is an expression: “He is absolutely ippibottle”, and we have to experience that here every day.

South Africa is a developed industrial country of the 20th century.

With a 16th century Government!

South Africa has a population with a social structure from approximately the 18th century, that is to say in various stages of development We are living on a continent inhabited by nations of the Third World, where examples of neighbouring developed industries do not exist. We are a cultural group that originated from other countries, but settled here in South Africa. For that reason the most important ministerial post in this country is the post of the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. Planning is one of the most outstanding and most important posts in this country. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that it is with great appreciation that we have taken cognizance of his actions and the work that has been performed since he has occupied this post. I also wish to express my thanks and appreciation towards the members of his department.

We live in a part of the world where oil is a valuable commodity and I therefore wish to express a few thoughts on the Johannesburg and Soweto complexes. In the days before the establishment of a Ministry of Environmental Planning and Energy, growth points were created 40 km and even further from the employees’ places of employment. At the time, we had authorities that were in conflict with one another. The municipality of Johannesburg told the Minister of Plural Relations and Development that they wanted to establish their industries at the eastern Black township adjacent to Benrose. They did so, too. The Department of Plural Relations and Development had told them long before then that the Black township was going to be moved to Soweto, and today we have the position that the places of residence of the Black employees are 45 km from their places of employment. During the past seven or eight years this has meant that approximately R375 million has been paid in transport subsidies, and with the increase in the price of fuel, this is going to increase still further.

In the remaining time at my disposal, I wish to make a plea that Soweto should be looked into and that an industrial belt should be placed around that complex. This industrial belt around Soweto would supply work to people so that, on the one hand, it would reduce the influx into the White part of the city and, on the other hand, the White employee could go to work by foot or by bus. It would also result in the workers from Soweto not having to be transported to the centre city at a rate of 2 000 per hour and a half in trains carrying up to 3 000 passengers per train length. Not only do these trains entail heavy transport costs; they also stand empty from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Consequently, during that time they are not being utilized. At present there is an enormous flow of Blacks from Soweto who want to come to the city to do their shopping. The Driessen Committee also predicts that within the next 20 years, there will be one million motor cars on our roads. At present there is a nine-fold increase in the number of motor-cars. We therefore have to realize that we shall have to create an area, a contact zone, where workers can come together. The Whites should be able to come from one side and those of other colours from other sides. Areas such as Benrose and similar areas should then gradually be phased out. They should slowly but surely be phased out. I could supply exact figures if necessary. It costs every municipality millions of rands in subsidies. For example, it costs R1 000 million every ten years to adapt our roads to new conditions. A single new access railway line can, for example, cost as much as R270 million. These are all things which we need to look at.

The land will not lie unused. Places such as City Deep, where there are still hundreds of acres, can be used for high-density housing for Whites, close to a railway line that can be utilized by the people living in the high-rise buildings. There are also the mine dumps that are now lying there useless. Those that have been worked out, can be used as beautiful parks and playing-grounds for children, whereas at the moment they are purely a nuisance. We need to look at what the future holds for us in the field of transport, particularly with the possibility of urban terrorism in mind. It must be kept in mind that a train can be derailed over that long distance of 36 km and that many people could lose their lives. It could paralyse the economy of the country. Between 200 000 and 300 000 people are brought together at their places of employment every morning. With bus transport to various centres around the horseshoe, one could reduce this to a little more than 25 000. People could travel from the various places by bus. That would of course obviate the explosiveness of situations. We know that in our community we can easily encounter explosive situations among people. Often people do not even know what is the cause. Often they have no idea why things have gone wrong. A milk-cart might for example capsize in the street. A group of people gather there. One picks up a stone and it is not long before all of them start throwing stones. Later, when one starts questioning people, one finds—and statistics have proved this—that 70% of them did not know why the milk-cart had capsized. These are things of which we in this country should take cognizance. We should also plan systematically. We should also see to it that time does not catch up with us. We should not be afraid to try out new ideas.

The Black man in this country is a much-loved person. Every hon. member has one of them in his home, but if three of them turn up in one’s home on a Saturday afternoon to help one’s servant, one says: “Take them out.” Why? Because they crowd one out. In a work situation one should try and arrange things so that people do not crowd one another out. If we could do that, we should have no problems. One often finds, for example, that 200 000 people disembark at a station. They are late and push everything out of their way. One is then inclined to say that the people are rude. However, they are not rude. They are late. They are on their way to catch a bus, and then yet another bus. They often rise at 4 a.m. and only get home at 8 p.m. We could reduce that time.

The same applies to our markets. There should be a market closer to Soweto. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Minister made two interesting points here, although he digressed from the actual subject of the debate when he said we should strive for a system by means of which we could protect minority groups and, secondly, that at this stage we have the unique situation in South Africa that the power is to a very great extent in the hands of the White minority. We agree with him and think that his admissions in this regard perhaps indicate that he has a more open mind on developments in this direction than many of his colleagues have displayed up to now.

†I have to come back to the discussion of the Group Areas Act In doing so, I shall concentrate on what I believe are possibly the most useful practical tests by which to measure this Act and actions in terms of it. In the course of the past few years there have been repeated calls to the Government from a variety of people and institutions in and around the Western Cape to open District Six for occupation by all races or, alternatively, to give it back to the Coloured people. District Six was proclaimed a White area in 1966. Since then an enormous number of buildings, some of them dilapidated and some less so, have been demolished. The reason given at the time for this proclamation and the subsequent demolition was that there were unhealthy social conditions and a high rate of crime prevailing in the area. If this was the real reason, why did the area have to be proclaimed for occupation by Whites only? The Group Areas Act was not put on the Statute Book to clear up unhealthy social conditions—let us get that straight. In spite of what hon. members on the other side have said, this was not the purpose of putting this Act on the Statute Book.

*The point has been made here that people removed under compulsion in terms of the Group Areas Act, have always been satisfied.

†I should just like to quote what the Theron Commission had to say about this (page 488)—

Let us therefore not fool ourselves: There is not nearly the sort of satisfaction hon. members claim there is.

It was said by other hon. members—I remember that the hon. member for Kuruman and also the hon. the Minister himself said it—that people who have been moved in terms of the Group Areas Act have always been moved to better areas. Perhaps this is to some extent true, because new homes have been built…

Why do you say “perhaps”? It is true.

Wait a minute! New homes have been built for them and there was water, electricity and so on supplied. Surely, that could have been provided in the areas where they lived? There is such a thing as urban renewal. It is not necessary to supply electricity and running water in what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to as “krotte”.

You did not see it. That is why you do not know about it.

That is not what was expected. I know very well what I am talking about. I have such areas in my constituency even at this stage.

Let us look at the situation in District Six today. We have there an enormous piece of prime building land lying vacant because Coloureds cannot have it and Whites do not want it. The value and the importance of the potential of District Six as a residential area is increasing by the day as a result of the ever-increasing cost of transporting people to their places of employment. This point was very well made by the hon. member for Langlaagte who said that transport problems and extra expenditure were brought about by this. There we have an area where 100 000 people could have been accommodated while those people now have to be transported from heaven knows where. Land in District Six has been for sale to White people for about the last five years, but the demand has proved to be negligible. On the other hand, residential building land available to Coloured people is still in short supply. There is, therefore, not a single convincing reason why Coloured people should be barred from District Six. In order to create White interest in the area, the Department of Community Development has now even decided to invest another R9 million in the area.

Why must the Government continue on this senseless course of turning District Six into a White residential area while there is clearly no need for it? In my view no single action in terms of the Group Areas Act has caused more bitterness and more resentment in the minds of Coloured people than this action concerning District Six. I can very well understand this. By all means let the hon. the Minister act in terms of the Group Areas Act while it exists, but I want to ask him earnestly for heaven’s sake to deproclaim that area and to let those people who live there, remain there. He must open up the area for people who need it. Let the natural process of supply and demand sort matters out there.

I now want to deal with another part of my constituency which is subject to a decision in terms of the Group Areas Act. In 1978 it was announced that the Government was considering proclaiming a certain portion of Woodstock a residential area for Coloured occupation. Because as many White people as Coloured people were living in that portion of Woodstock, I, together with a number of other public representatives of the area, called a public meeting to decide upon a course of action in regard to this matter. Our view was that the only way to protect the interests of all the inhabitants of Woodstock was to deproclaim the area so that everybody, irrespective of race, could continue to live there. We put this view to the meeting, which was attended by 450 people roughly consisting of two-thirds Whites and one-third Coloureds. We allowed members of the audience an opportunity to state their views. Out of the 20 or so people who spoke at that meeting, there were only two who did not support our stand. It became very clear that, in supporting our view, these people fully understood the alternatives available to them and the implications of all the alternatives, particularly those of our stand. Interesting points were raised by these people, some of whom were simple people. They were, clearly, people who understood the situation because it applied to them. They said, for instance, that Woodstock was peaceful during the 1976 riots when re was rioting in many other places. They pointed out that Coloured and White boys are defending our borders together and asked why the Whites and Coloureds cannot then live together. A White person said that he regularly watched television with his Coloured neighbours and asked how the Government could tell him that there must be friction when White and Coloured people live in the same area. At a later stage I drafted a letter in which I set out the reasons for our view that the area should be deproclaimed for occupation by all races. I arranged for door-to-door canvassers to ask people their views and to get support for the stand we took, and 88% of the people living in that area supported our view. Once again I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to heed the view of these people and to deproclaim the relevant area. Any other action would be a gross rejection of the voice of the people of Woodstock.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point. He belongs to a party which could not even keep its deposit in an important by-election such as that in Swellendam and I do not think, therefore, that he can expect me to react to his speech.

I want to express a few ideas on the general growth pattern of the Boland, but before I do so, I just want to say something about the growth rate in the Boland. Over the past two or three years there have been serious warnings that the growth rate in the Boland is too slow. The hon. member for Caledon referred to this. The hon. the Minister took up this matter very positively after having accepted the portfolio he is dealing with today. I want to thank him for the attention he has given this matter. One of the things he did was to ask the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch to examine this situation. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Caledon said. I do not want to say that I have carried out a study of this matter, but I have examined it reasonably well and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am somewhat disappointed, because I had expected the report to contain much more on what we shall have to do in future to accelerate the growth rate in the Western Cape. I want to express the hope that since this bureau is going to carry on its work, they will publish a report which will give us a new vision in respect of what we shall have to do in future. In this regard I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Caledon.

As far as the growth pattern of the Boland is concerned I have already pointed out in the past looking back, there are a few things which strike one. The first of these is that the Cape metropolitan area is showing definite signs of over-concentration today. I cannot discuss that now; I do not have the time. We know how our Boland waters are being sucked into this metropolitan area. I could make an entire speech about that alone. On the other hand we know that thousands and thousands of Coloureds from the Boland are still flocking in droves to the Cape Flats. I have already become stereotyped in my insistence that we are creating a world of sub-economic schemes here. We are building roads past the Table Bay harbour which are costing our country millions of rands in order to maintain our traffic. In other words, there are definite signs of overconcentration in the old Cape metropolitan area.

The second arm which has extended out of this metropolitan area over the years, was the old traditional line of growth which ran in a northerly direction along the railway line and the road to the north, in the direction of the Paarl/Wellington Valley. Today there is serious concern in this region because as a result of this old, traditional line of growth, some of the Boland’s best agricultural lands have been taken up by housing projects and here and there, in the Paarl/Wellington Valley in particular, by a form of industrial development. This is something which we shall have to oppose drastically in the growth pattern of the Boland. Consequently I want to make a friendly request—and I know the hon. the Minister is a person who can adopt a stand—that the Department of Planning and the Environment should adopt a much stronger stance in future in regard to this situation in order to protect the Boland’s agricultural land.

In this situation there remains only one alternative for us, viz. that we shall have to force our future growth and development along a new development axis in the direction of Saldanha and along our country’s West Coast with its poor agricultural land. Yesterday I received among other things a letter from the hon. the Minister concerning representations from the West Coast Regional Development Association, and in it the hon. the Minister already uses terminology which I have tried to drum in here over the years. This is that we should speak of a new development axis or line of development pushing out from Milnerton towards Saldanha Bay. In this letter the hon. the Minister accepts that terminology, and he is completely correct. We are now on the correct path. This line of development line is already taking concrete shape today. It can already be seen in the development taking place at Milnerton, the nuclear power station, Atlantis and up to Saldanha Bay.

As far as this development axis is concerned, there are a few factors which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister without motivating them, because I do not have the time. I want to ask him to give them his immediate attention so that the image of this development axis can be clarified. The first is that the railway line being envisaged from Atlantis to Cape Town, should be built in the shortest possible time, because there are already signs that the delay in the building of this line is prejudicing the growth in the vicinity of Atlantis. The second is that if we want to effect new growth here in the Boland—and the hon. member for Caledon has mentioned this—there is only one way in which we can do this on a large scale, particularly if we look at what is happening in the vicinity of Newcastle. This is that the semis works should be built at Saldanha Bay. Whether we are going to ask the private sector, Harry Oppenheimer to be specific, to construct it, is unimportant, because the fact remains that there is no alternative other than to build this semis works at Saldanha Bay as soon as possible. If the Government does not see its way clear to doing this, it should be undertaken by the private sector.

Until such time as we have clarity on the construction of those semis works, it can be said that there is a noticeable levelling off as far as the growthpoint being created in Saldanha is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that the Government has invested heavily in the infrastructure of that area. Hon. members know of the guide plan drafted for the area and they know what the Government has done to create a new infrastructure in the area. The hon. the Minister will probably also know of the water scheme of R52 million which is now being completed in that vicinity. All the necessary facilities have now been created there and we are sitting and waiting for something to happen, but nothing is happening.

In order to counteract this levelling-off in the growth process there, I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is it not possible for this area to enjoy border area benefits until such time as these semis works have been completed, as is the case now with Atlantis? We request this benefit only until such time as the semis works have been constructed there, and after that the hon. the Minister can withdraw this benefit again. I believe that this will clarify the situation.

Finally, I should like to request the hon. the Minister to allow us also to take the line of development which is being linked to Saldanha, further. Would it not be possible for us to convene a congress this year at Upington, Springbok, or wherever, through the regional development associations? All the development associations which have an interest in the matter could be brought together there in order to put it clearly to the people that this development line in fact runs much further than Saldanha. The spadework in this regard could certainly be done by the Department of Planning. A development association must, in my opinion, not only be an association which is going to exert pressure on the Government, but should also do creative work.

When referring to this area along the West coast, I have in the past used the image of the Bushmen and the Hottentots who used to walk there in former times. The furthest they were able to progress, was to make a small hole in an ostrich shell so that they could store water in it by burying the filled shell in the sand. But they were unaware of the rich fish resources along our West coast. Therefore, they had no noteworthy creative ability. This image must be impressed upon the minds of our people and the only way in which this can be done, is by the use of our regional development associations along this long line of development northwards from Saldanha.

This can be done in the same way as before with regard to the development of the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha. I think this image should be impressed more clearly upon the minds of our people.

I am willing that we should use these development associations to do the spadework in this regard. I do not want them to function as pressure groups on the Government, but I do want them to decide for themselves to participate in the creation of their own future in that region.

I believe that our development associations have lost a little colour in recent years. To clarify the function of these associations somewhat, I think it would be a very good thing if the spadework in this regard were to be begun by the Department of Planning by, in the first place, calling together the development associations and the MP’s of the region so that we can put our heads together on how we can continue building the pattern of the future and unfolding the development of this specific area which has slumbered and slept in recent years, but which is now faced with vast, new development. In this regard I can, for example, refer hon. members to the developments at Aggeneis. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will take the lead in this regard, because I think this could become a fine example of how we can instil new life and a new image into the functioning of our regional associations which play such an important and basic part in the activities of our Department of Planning.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg has again stated his case and made his appeal in this House this afternoon in his characteristically thorough way. It is always a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and I trust that his appeal will be favourably considered.

I should like to adopt a new line this afternoon and initially, before coming to the theme of my speech, want to express a word of sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister fo opening and attending the further proceedings at a symposium in Klerksdorp in January this year which dealt with the future planning and development of Klerksdorp, Orkney and Stilfontein as growth poles in region 23—the symposium had been arranged by the previous mayor, Mr. Pierre Cronje. I appreciate the visits of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. the Deputy Minister to Klerksdorp. I appreciate their acquainting themselves with the problems and conditions and also the future prospects in that area in that way. Furthermore I am also grateful that the hon. the Minister has now approved the introduction of a guide-plan committee for the region Klerksdorp, Orkney and Stilfontein. There is already great enthusiasm among the members of that committee. They propose drafting a statutory guide-plan in the area in due course, and I believe that they will carry out this successfully as well.

We realize that local planning can only be executed in full if it adapts to and is supported by regional objectives, which in turn must fit within the limits of the national objectives. I believe that the days of individual or ad hoc planning, are gone for good. That is why I also particularly welcome the fact that the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Environmental Planning have now been entrusted to the same Minister.

When I express a few ideas with regard to future planning, and also focus them in particular on development in the rural areas, I should like to furnish a few background figures with regard to the population percentage. In 1904, 76,6% of the total population lived in areas outside municipal areas. At that stage, 47,3% of the White population were living in rural areas. In 1946, 63,7% of the total population were living outside municipal areas. At that point in time, 27,5% of the White population were settled outside municipal areas. In 1978, 51,3% of the total population were living outside municipal areas. Of the White population, 10,5% were living in rural areas last year. In other words, 89,5% of the White population were already settled in urban areas last year.

That is why it is clear that the rural character of South Africa has changed irrevocably. The fact is that in 1904, the actual number of Whites in the rural areas, was greater than the actual number of Whites in rural areas in 1978. In 1904, 529 000 Whites were living in the rural areas, as opposed to an estimated 464 000 in 1978. Now I believe that in our future planning, we should bear in mind the fact that the movement of people in South Africa is far from complete. Large sections of certain population groups are still moving and settling. Moreover, it has been projected that over 21 years, in the year 2000, the total population of Southern Africa—and for this purpose I include the independent states Transkei and Bophuthatswana—will be approximately 51 million, that approximately 5 million people will be living in Johannesburg, that approximately 40 million, or 80%, of these people will be living in the 25 largest cities. These figures will be influenced in accordance with the extent and the scope of the continued duration and expansion of the decentralization policy of the Government.

It is estimated that by the year 2000, on the average one city of the present size of Johannesburg will have to be established every year. In my opinion, these data make the creation of cities and employment areas—i.e. decentralization—more important and more essential than in the past. In fact, I think these facts change the whole manner of future planning and also require the establishment of urgent priorities, because no two of the population groups are at the same stage of stability as far as the movement and settlement of people are concerned.

Although urbanization is a world-wide phenomenon, and we are also experiencing it in South Africa, I understand that in countries such as America and Germany, people are again moving back to the platteland. I am concerned that centralization of people on so vast a scale as is being projected, will not have a beneficial effect on South Africa, particularly owing to the effects of overconcentration in the cities, of pollution, crime, traffic congestion, rising cost of living and even the occasion for increase in unemployment as well. That is why I believe that a more equal development should be obtained and effected. A great deal is being done to stimulate economic growth in areas other than only the largest centres. In this way a series of recognized and non-recognized growth-points have been identified in this country for the purpose of granting financial assistance to industrialists and local authorities in terms of a policy of decentralization. But it is important that these growth points should be suitable for development and therefore I believe that we shall have to look afresh—here I associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria East—at the growth points and their potential for development, because not every town and place can be a growth point. It is useless to pump money into towns that do not have growth potential. [Interjections.] I emphasize that I am not suggesting that rural towns should be left to their own devices. I am, in fact, convinced that the decentralization of people, or the counteracting of the over-concentration of people in a nominal number of large urban complexes, should be examined thoroughly.

In several smaller towns in our country, there are houses, business premises and dwelling and business premises which are not being properly utilized. There are infrastructures which are either underutilized or not utilized at all. I am convinced that in future planning we should see to it that we utilize these infrastructures again so that we can establish inhabitants and entrepreneurs there. In fact, I believe it would be worthwhile to know what was available and where, in respect of underutilized and unutilized infrastructures in South Africa. Possibly we could even obtain information in this regard in a co-ordinated way with the cooperation of local managements and business and commerce chambers.

I believe that there are many people who would like to settle in such decentralized areas which still have to be developed. Financial benefits are offered to the industrialists who decentralizes. But I am convinced that establishment benefits will have to be planned and devised anew for people who settle or want to settle in rural towns—therefore not only industrialists. In short, special decentralization benefits have to be developed for the decentralization of people in the smaller towns or the rural areas away from the urban complexes, or for people who settle in decentralized areas, so that the underutilized or unutilized infrastructures can be manned anew and so that there can be a decentralization of employment at the same time and fresh economic activities can arise so that smaller towns can at least be economically significant service points for the existing and specific rural communities. This is also in the interests of our smaller businessmen, because they may not disappear from the scene.

We must establish balanced economically active communities in these areas. I believe this is, in fact, in line with one of our long-term economic objectives, as stated by the hon. the Minister in the previous Vote as well. I believe that this will also contribute towards this, viz. that there should be an acceptable geographic distribution of economic activities in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with very considerable interest indeed to the hon. the Minister this afternoon and also yesterday, and to the declarations he made of policy, of intent, of idealism, etc. I want to say that if one adds it all together and take the recent steps that have been taken by the Government, I believe that what we are really going into is a total new era of politics.

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister pertinently, because he is going to have a very considerable effect on what we are going to debate in the future. What is there in the policy of the NP which is not negotiable, what is there that the NP will not do away with under their “nuwe ontplooiing”,—which is now suddenly necessary to face up to the reality of the politics in the country—apart from the fact that we will not surrender to a Black majority and that the NP has got to continue to exist? If we are going to have a new debate, we are going to have to draw the guidelines of that debate. The hon. the Minister says that the NP can be tested against its success in running the country and the success that it has had. It can be tested against that, but it cannot be tested against the success of its policy, because that policy is changed continually, time after time, whenever a period comes about where the sheer fact of what is happening in the country necessitates some new activity and some new action being taken on the part of the Government.

Clause 3 of the Physical Planning Act, an Act which falls under the hon. the Minister, is a case in point. The hon. the Minister spoke about “structural unemployment”. There is structural unemployment. There is unemployment in the urban areas, and we can take Soweto as an example of this. There is structural unemployment in the rural areas, and the area of kwaZulu can be taken as an example of it. In the urban areas the young people are unemployed as a result of the deliberate aim of the Government to restrict employment in those areas in accordance with the ratio between Black and White of 3:1 or 2½:1 in terms of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act.

That is not quite correct because…

The hon. the Minister can reply to that later. I want to make the point that this is the situation because, as a result of that particular action, industrial activity and investment, which would not only have coped with the increase in the population in that area, but which might also have drawn more Black people into the area, has been delayed and has not taken place. That was the intention under the Act I grant the Minister that this was the intention. The young people are, however, radical young people. It must be understood that radical young people—and we have had enough of our own radical young people in our time—are tamed when they bid farewell to their school or student days and go out into the hard cruel world to work. At that stage they realize that the world consists of more than hot air, hot words, striking postures and that sort of thing. For the young people in Soweto, however, there is no employment. As a result there is going to be a perpetuation of that period of their lives in which they are radicals and can see only one solution to the situation in which they find themselves, and that is the destruction of the State as it exists, the destruction of White control and the replacement of it by a completely communist, or at the very least, by a socialist system which is going to give them the sort of place in society they desire. I think this is one of the reasons why the Government now can see that section 3 of the Act has to be done away with. One has to start again taking cognizance of those young people in that area, who are the explosive element in the situation.

I also want to talk about the rural areas, and let us take kwaZulu as an example as it is an area we know well. There is structural unemployment in kwaZulu because the Black male is not wholly involved in the agricultural life of that community. That is why there has been a great pool of Black male labour there which has become available in the urban areas to function as industrial labour. When we talk about planning—and this is the point I want to make to the hon. the Minister—it is not enough for us simply to plan growth points or border areas there, or something like that, but the planning we must undertake involves not only the Black man moving out of those areas into industrial employment, but also a complete rethink on the whole question of the employment of the Black man in agriculture. I think what we need—and the department is obviously not capable of providing it—is an overall structure based on a reconsideration of the whole project, a structure which will create anew in those areas employment for the Black male in agriculture and which will keep him on that ground in a totally different way. This is something which is of importance to his whole social life and society.

Where we have had the growth of decentralized and border areas, one of the most striking examples of this has been the fact that the textile industry has moved out of the metropolitan areas to the border areas and into the homelands. However, the textile industry does not employ Black males, but it employs Black females in very large numbers. So one is not solving, or only partially solving, the problem. While industries ancillary to the textile industry may move to the border industries, one is not in this way solving the basic problem, which is the unemployment of Black males. One is merely establishing something there which takes Black females out of the traditional work they do, viz. food gathering and food growing, and concentrates them in the industrial environment, while it is the Black male one ought to bring in if this policy is to succeed.

I think that it is terribly important for us to realize that we have so far only administered a palliative. The whole idea of border areas, and even that of growth points in the Black areas, the homeland areas, is not attacking the problem at its roots. We cannot develop any one of the homeland areas on this basis. If we took the entire GNP of the Republic of South Africa to kwaZulu and rammed it all in there over a period of years, even then we would not be able to develop the country sufficiently, to the point where it would be able to absorb the natural increase of people there and fulfil what was the original intention of clause 3 of the legislation, which was to direct people back from the present urban areas, the metropolitan industrial areas, to areas like kwaZulu. I believe this requires a basic re-think on everything that we have had going.

I welcome, as I say, the new attitudes the hon. the Minister has adopted. They are very interesting indeed. I think, however, that if we are going to engage in a totally new political debate, it is up to the Government—in fact, that hon. Minister who is initiating this on this particular occasion—to tell us what the debate is going to be about and what the parameters are within which the NP is going to debate. I say this because time and again when we are prepared to debate issues with the hon. the Minister and his party, we have a definite attitude. We get up and state our point of view, but suddenly we find that it is now “die beleid van die NP”. Suddenly it is an “ontplooiing van die ou beleid”. We find that everything they have fought against in the old days “is nou die beleid van die NP”.

The original thinkers are on this side.

One can be grateful for the fact that one is seeing changes in the attitude of the Government, and the Government members are the only people who can bring about change in this situation. They are changing, but what they are changing are the grounds on which their ideas are based. We want to know what their new grounds are going to be, because if we are to continue debating with them, they must define the grounds because otherwise I do not really know why we are wasting our time talking here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about conservation matters, with particular reference to the wetlands and estuaries which are amongst the most threatened and fastest receding ecosystems in this country. I should like to move at once from the general to the particular and talk about Rietvlei. As hon. members will know, it lies roughly five miles from where I am standing. On the west coast road one crosses the bridge nor five miles from here. It is, along with Table Mountain, the last remaining important natural area, in the greater metropolitan area of Cape Town, that has not been degraded.

In winter there is a flooding of the pan of some 500 ha in extent. The flooding is caused by the Diep River which rises in the Malmesbury hills. It is a viable eco-system of adequate size and there is an enormous variety of co-existing biological forms of life in this area. The shallow water allows for a unique profusion of life cycles and food chains to co-exist, food chains moving from invertebrates, through insects to amphibia, fish and birds. Then one has, of course, smaller predators and steenbok, grysbok, etc.

Because the area is large and shallow the sun can penetrate the shallow water and then unlock, through photosynthesis, many lifesupporting energy cycles. It is interesting to note that the prevailing wind there causes an interchange of the shallow water layers, and this further helps the process.

In early summer the large mud flats that exist there become a paradise for wading birds, many of which are migrants from the Arctic. They come a long way from the Arctic and utilize the food sources that inhabit the mud-flats at Rietvlei. In summer the drought conditions cause the area to dry out. The wind also helps in this drying process. The plants are adapted to this. Some of the life forms move off while others are resistant to such conditions. Many of them change their form and burrow into the mud where they stay during the resting period while the more mobile forms of life such as the birds move away back to the Arctic and back to the rivers, the estuaries, the dams and so on of the Western Province and other parts of South Africa.

Rietvlei is the major refuge of aquatic birds in the Western Cape. 158 varieties of birds have been sighted and recorded at Rietvlei. Of many of the species the numbers run into several thousands. There are no other wetlands in the entire Western Cape where such a large number of breeding waterbirds can be found. Because of the size and the nature of Rietvlei, one gets birds flocking there. Afterwards the paired birds, like the waterfowl, disperse and go elsewhere in the province. It is an important collecting point, it is an important breeding colony and it is an important dispersion area for birds.

The wide variety of aquatic life forms and food chains creates unique feeding opportunities for various kinds of birds including vagrants and migrants such as pelicans, flamingoes, ibises, migratory waders and so on. Strangely enough, the waterbird population has been growing in the greater metropolitan area of Cape Town since the 1950s. We have had an assault upon the wetlands of the Cape. All the vlei’s of the Cape Flats have been overbuilt for practical purposes such as the big housing scheme the hon. member for Moorreesburg mentioned. The marshes of the Black River were overbuilt with a freeway. Most of the other rivers like the Salt River and the Liesbeek have been canalized. Many have been piped underground. The great wetlands of Paarden Eiland have been overbuilt. All that remains is the part at Klein Zoar. The great wetlands of Sandvlei were dredged and deepened for the development of Marina da Gama by the Anglo American Corporation. As regards Zeekoevlei, the raising of the barrage or the weir deepened Zeekoevlei as a result of which the birds which inhabit this sort of wetland moved off. Rietvlei now remains the most important refuge for these birds. Only at Rietvlei has the bird population grown.

It is interesting that Rietvlei is unzoned in the new metropolitan guide plan for Cape Town. As we stand here today, it is faced with its final threat because Cape Town has enveloped it and grown right around it. It is threatened by dams which are proposed to be built upstream. Should they be built, the flash floods which create the great pan would no longer occur and Rietvlei would be destroyed. It is threatened by potential pollution from adjacent industries and the sewage disposal works. It is threatened by overgrazing. It is also threatened by model aeroplanes, scramblers, beach buggies and human disturbance in various forms.

This important link with the other great wetlands of South Africa and other parts of the world should be saved for posterity and for the benefit of the people of Cape Town. This area provides us with the opportunity of creating nature trails and of improving the quality of life of the people of the greater metropolitan area of Cape Town. Observation towers and hides could be built for public viewing of the rich life which exists there. It would also provide a wonderful opportunity for ornithological education and research. I believe we should create a bird reserve there to be linked with the estuarine reserve which already exists at Milnerton lagoon. This is the last habitat where wild life with popular appeal exists in the metropolitan area of Cape Town. This reserve, with its backdrop of Table Mountain, would be of enormous value to the burgeoning population which was mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg this afternoon. Because of the scale, position and nature of this area, I would suggest that the best authority for it to resort under would probably be the Provincial Department of Nature Conservation in view of their experience gained at De Hoop and Rochers Pan where they are managing similar bird reserves at the moment. However, that can be looked at. I do not believe it will be an expensive exercise as it is land with a low grade development potential. The owners themselves have asked for it to be downgraded and rezoned because it is land with a low grade development potential. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to appoint a scientific advisory committee or a departmental commission, with the authority to co-opt members, to look into the position at Rietvlei.

Having said that, I should like simply to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his speech in which he spoke about Table Mountain. I want to congratulate him on his obvious grasp of the situation and on the sensitivity with which he dealt with it. I agree that the problem of Table Mountain is basically a problem of double jurisdiction leading to a conflict of interests and an absence of a common management policy. This problem is aggravated by the fact that there are too many boards and authorities that are concerned with Table Mountain, all with insufficient powers or funds. That is basically the problem in respect of Table Mountain. I agree and I should like to endorse the fact that we should see Table Mountain as a mountain chain extending from Signal Hill to Cape Point in the south of the Peninsula, and that all matters pertaining to Table Mountain should be co-ordinated under a federal authority as has been suggested by the Hey Commission.

I should like to suggest that the control and authority over the marine reserve—I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard, an appeal that has in part been granted—bordering the Cape Point Nature Reserve, should also be placed in the hands of this board or federation of authorities. I also think that this federation of authorities should be given control and authority over Robben Island. I believe that this federation of authorities would then be able to rationalize the situation concerning Table Mountain, to create a common management policy and to provide the enormously important protection for the Cape fynbos biome, which while it only occupies 0,42% of the land surface of the globe, is nevertheless the richest floral kingdom on earth. I believe that such a two-ocean marine and mountain reserve will rationalize the situation. The federation of authorities should see it as its objective to move towards the creation of one single reserve which would then resort under the province or the National Parks Board.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland expressed certain ideas in amplification of my remarks and announcements on the Table Mountain range. I want to tell him that the department will certainly attend to the matters he raised.

The Planning Advisory Board has a number of important auxiliary committees which carry out studies and research into, inter alia, coastal areas, national mountain areas, wilderness areas and beach areas. I want to point out to hon. members that the department has appropriated R73 000 for the coming financial year with a view to carrying out a systematic survey of tidal rivers along the Cape coast in order to lay down a meaningful conservation and utilization pattern for the areas. In this context the hon. member for Maitland referred to Rietvlei and the Milnerton lagoon.

†The hon. member for Maitland is a very keen conservationist and I can see the merit in his suggestions. As a result also of approaches from other sources, the hon. the Minister has requested the department to conduct an in-depth investigation into the possible future utilization of Rietvlei as a nature reserve and recreation area with a view to possibly preserving it as such against the pressures of incompatible development. The development of the potential of file area for the future will also be investigated. In the interim, steps will be taken to elicit the assistance of all parties concerned to ensure that no undesirable development takes place in the area in question.

*In this regard I also want to say something about the Langebaan lagoon. An integrated research programme launched in the Langebaan lagoon area on the recommendation of the sub-committee for ecological studies, has made excellent progress and is already close to completion. The finding has enabled the department to stipulate provisional guidelines in respect of the future land and water utilization in and around the lagoon. These guidelines were submitted to the riparion owners for their comments and are at present being revised and prepared for final approval. They should be ready shortly.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg will receive a reply with regard to his appeal from the hon. the Minister himself. As regards his idea of a gathering of regional development associations on the so-called Saldanha/Sishen development axis, I want to say that I am in complete agreement with his ideas and that I shall ask the department to go into the matter further. I think this is a project which we can undertake jointly.

Today I want to avail myself of the opportunity, with reference to what the hon. member for Caledon said here today, to express a word of appreciation to the 34 regional development associations which are operating in our country within the regions of the National Physical Development Plan. These associations are voluntary associations, but are recognized as full-fledged links by the department, because in fact they represent the widest interests of the regions. They are composed of persons and organizations with an intimate knowledge of development possibilities and problems within their various regions. They enable us to keep abreast of trends and developments within the regions, to inform interest groups within the regions on the policy of the department, and can also be used as a Forum with which to cultivate regional awareness and loyalty. The Department of Environmental Planning and Energy regards the work of these regional development associations as being of such great importance that it decided last year to make available ten officials instead of one official, to operate within the 38 regions, so that they could gain an intimate knowledge of the regions and could give effective attention to the problems and potential of the regions. I appeal to hon. members to throw their weight behind the regional associations, to furnish them with advice, and at least to display their interest in the associations. Many of our hon. members do more in this regard than others. I want to assure hon. members that in cases where an hon. member shows his interest in the associations, this has a perceptible effect on the work of the associations.

The first action within the regions up to now has been one of promotion, a task of persuasion, work which has resulted in the aim of the National Physical Development Plan being accepted today, not only by Government departments, but to a growing extent by the private sector and academics too. We are now faced with a second phase, and the time is now ripe for attention within the regions to be focused on the drafting of a development strategy, which the hon. the Minister will discuss in broad outline today. In this new phase, co-operation between the authorities and the inhabitants of the region is of the greatest importance and the regional development association can fulfil an increasingly important function because in actual fact they represent those regions in the broadest sense. I am very grateful to be able to say today that in the refinement of the National Physical Development Programme, special development problems are being identified in certain regions, and in those areas we are proceeding to establish regional development advisory committees. This entails smaller skilled advisory committees appointed by the hon. the Minister.

These committees should not be seen as extensions of our regional development associations and consequently such an advisory committee should not be insisted on in each region. These regional development advisory committees will serve as channels whereby we can maintain contact with the regions. They will function as independent channels and the work which they will do, should also be seen in this light I hope that this encouragement of our regional development associations will prevent the associations, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg said, from retrogressing into associations for complaint and pressure groups as a result of a lack of purpose, a lack of leadership and a lack of anything constructive to do.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the very clear outline he gave of the contemplated planning system in respect of conservation in this part of the world. I think we are also particularly indebted to the hon. member for Maitland for a fascinating account of the ecological scene of the Peninsula, as he sees it. I have little of value to add to what they have said, and merely wish to thank them for their contributions.

In the short time at my disposal I must descend from the sublime contemplation of a Utopian future to deal with something that is urgent and very grave. I wish to refer to the question of oil on which the hon. the Minister issued a statement only yesterday. I agree with him that the situation is indeed very serious, and might get worse. Whilst the Opec price is high enough already, I believe that the prices in respect of spot-sales have overtaken it by more than 50%. The prices at which sales are taking place today on the spot-market could be more than 50% higher than the Opec price. This obviously has very serious implications, mainly in the short term—I shall deal with the medium and long term implications in a moment. The short term implications, certainly are very serious, and for obvious reasons. In the first place they are serious because of inflation, and, secondly, because of the resulting heavy drawings on the Exchequer of money which might otherwise have been available for more useful things, such as social services or public services. The high prices will also have a marked effect on trade balances. Oil purchases at these prices can gravely impair our production efficiency and our reserves. What is in a sense even worse than this, is the possible complete failure of supply. This would lead to a partial paralysis of our transport system and, consequently, to enormous damage being done to the economy of the country. These are the unhappy prospects we face in respect of the oil situation.

In the medium term there might be a prospect of relief from improved Iranian production, and possibly from increased Saudi-Arabian production, or from new oil sources which may be brought into production on account of the inducement of higher prices. In South Africa there is the possibility of a curbing of demand, the possibility of adding to our resources by producing synthetic crude oil by way of coal liquefaction, and the possibility of adding methane to stretch our normal supplies. I think we should also add, as an outside chance, the discovery of oil. All these factors offer hope in the medium term, but certainly none in the short term, because they will all take time to develop.

In the longer term there is, of course, a prospect of the development of alternative sources of energy, for example with the use of hydrogen. These are, however, strictly long term developments. I think that only great optimists will believe that these achievements are just around the corner.

Over this broad spectrum the hon. the Minister’s immediate problem and South Africa’s immediate problem is, obviously, how to secure oil supplies in the short term. I think the hon. the Minister is faced with a series of alternatives which are not entirely enviable, and none of which afford real pleasure. In the first place, there is the possibility of increasing the price of oil products. It is a fact that petroleum products have become price sensitive, and there are increasing signs all around us that control can effectively be exercised over the quantity of fuel used, by allowing prices to rise to the point where they have the effect of reducing consumption.

Despite the inflationary effects—and it is undoubtedly inflationary—of allowing the price to rise, and despite the social inequalities inherent in the system, I believe the cost of meeting the oil bill probably leaves no alternative but to allow, in some degree anyway, for the continued rise in the price of imported oil and the additional burden which it will place on the users of oil. This will affect not only petrol and diesel, but all the other derivatives of oil as well.

There is the alternative of rationing the use of oil. Again, this would not only apply to petrol, but also to some of the other derivatives. This alternative, in my view, will be less effective because I think that undue punishment or the creation of inconvenience tends to some extent to be counterproductive in respect of that public confidence and public support which one wishes to achieve. I think the hon. the Minister may at some time really have no choice, because if he is caught in the pincher of high prices and a shortage of supply, he may have to look to both these measures simultaneously. However, I hope it will be possible to weather the short-term dangers without resorting to rationing with all the complications which flow from it, particularly in peacetime or in times of relative peace, when people tend to be not so emotionally motivated as they might be in a time of real danger.

I think that, traditionally, rationing—especially in peacetime or in times of relative peace—leads to a great deal of abuse and corruption, and requires a high degree of policing, something which one would obviously try to avoid.

This leaves us with the question of public support. I agree with the hon. the Minister that there is a serious lack of public support for attempts to rationalize and reduce our dependence on oil. To refer to merely one product of the oil barrel, namely petrol, I think that, when one drives along the road, one finds that half the population, driving along at the legal speed limit, are impatiently overtaken, and are with selfrighteous impatience pushed aside by motorists travelling in excess of the legal speed limit. I believe this is quite intolerable. I believe that it is clear that at least half the population appears to be unaware of the importance or the urgency of the matter at all. I believe the Ministers have set a good example by using smaller cars, and I believe that that example should be followed…

Do you mind if I get one that is a bit bigger than the one I have now?

No. I think the example set by the hon. the Minister and his colleagues should be followed by administrators, members of executive councils, members of Parliament, and particularly mayors and municipal officials. I think this Victorian grandeur maintained by municipalities, who attempt to be one up on neighbouring municipalities, is really out of keeping with the times and in bad taste. The time has come not for ostentation, but for ostentatious thrift. Ostentation or one-upmanship should consist in showing that one knows when to be thrifty and how to operate modestly in a situation where modesty is required and is a virtue.

I believe there is a need for a better publicity campaign. I think the hon. the Minister has got through to industry with his message and also to some public bodies. I believe the message is not getting through to the general public—and I am talking about children, Black and Brown people and all people who drive at high speeds along the roads and thrust aside law-abiding motorists. We need a lower level campaign employing music, jingles, rhymes and the kind of thing which captures public imagination and imprints it in the minds of everybody in South Africa that it is their own self-interest they are serving by conserving oil products.

Mr. Chairman, the subject of the hon. member’s speech is not only topical, but I am sure it is also uppermost in just about everybody’s minds. Just the mere thought of rationing fuel sends cold shivers down the spine, especially for those of us who had to live with it during the last war. However, I do not think that the hon. member will take it amiss if I do not take his arguments further. I merely want to complete what I was trying to say earlier on this afternoon.

*I was telling the hon. the Minister that, in my humble opinion, too many bodies were involved in planning. I pointed out this afternoon that these included the local authorities, the provinces, various departments, and so on. At the time, I did not even include the administration boards which also have their planners who operate in certain areas.

The problem is that when, for example, an industrialist attempts to establish a new industry in an area, he has to satisfy various bodies. I think that further development is in fact discouraged at times when obstacles are placed in its way because of planning.

†I think that, with all these authorities involved, there must of necessity exist a measure of confusion in thinking owing to the absence of a common denominator. Obviously, different planners have different ideas, and different authorities give different instructions to their planners. It stands to reason that, where the one is subservient to the other, as is the case between the local authority, the province and the Government department, the one may be holding back in deference to the other.

May I suggest that a thorough investigation be made into the whole status of planning throughout the Republic as well as into the best use that can be made of the available planning expertise. Under normal circumstances I would not recommend anything done in England while the Labour Party was in power. However, now that Mrs. Thatcher is there, I do not mind suggesting that we at least look at the planning in Great Britain. It is common knowledge that Britain is leading in the field of planning legislation. There the country is divided up into district planning authorities. Such a system can possibly hold advantages for our country. I must qualify this by adding: As long as the local authority is never left out in the cold. It is very important that the local authority be closely associated with whatever planning takes place, because they are the people who have got to live with the results, whether they be good or bad. I can well imagine that if, instead of operating separately in the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage, the planners of the Port Elizabeth municipality, the planners of the Diaz divisional council as well as the planners of the municipality of Uitenhage and of the smaller authorities in the area can combine, they will form a very formidable metropolitan planning group. Let us investigate the possibility of such a system and avoid further delays owing to overlapping.

*We know there is a shortage of trained town planners who have to do this type of work. I am sure, however, that where we do have these people, we should not spread them throughout the country. We should group them together so that the one may make use of the other’s knowledge and so that cooperation may take place. If we can possibly eliminate some of the authorities involved which must necessarily cause delay, we shall finalize our planning more rapidly and these guide plans which all of us are eagerly awaiting, will be released sooner and we shall derive the benefits from them sooner.

May I just conclude by also telling the hon. the Minister that we are pleased to see him in charge of this department. In the other departments for which he is responsible, we get along with him reasonably well and I am sure that, in this case too, we shall get along well with him and his officials.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all hon. members who participated in the debate for their contributions. There was a qualitative and a quantitative difference between the various contributions, but I do not intend to apply those criteria in my reply. I also want to thank the Whips who arranged the debates over the past 2½ days, because I know they had a difficult task. The hon. member for False Bay, who had a very good predecessor in False Bay, sent me a note referring to the slogan “Pik ’n blik” which I should like to read, but I seem to have mislaid it. Perhaps he can write me another one so that I may tell hon. members what it says.

I firstly want to refer to what the hon. member for Mooi River said, because I think his remarks qualify everything I want to say later. He asked me what in the NP’s policy was not negotiable. I have tried today and yesterday to draw a line in respect of the principles which are reflected in practice in national objectives and in respect of the policy which contains a plan of action and a method for achieving those objectives. I emphasized that policy was not static. On the contrary, a policy can never be static. I want to illustrate this by using the most practical example. Surely we no longer plough our fields with oxen and single-share ploughs. We plough with tractors and big ploughs, but the fact remains that we still plough and plant. The basic principle is how one finds a method inour society, which is multinational and not only multiracial, of protecting fundamental human rights. This is the basic objective, with the qualification that we want to eliminate domination of the one by the other. This is a principle. What is a practical method for achieving this today will not necessarily be practical tomorrow, and that is the point I want to bring home to the hon. member. I do not want to quarrel about this matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to do so.

[Inaudible.]

I am trying to lay down a few guidelines for the hon. member. I want to tell him that in spite of what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said, apartheid is not dead. What is dead is the concept he has of it That concept is dead. It was never viable.

What is in a name?

The hon. member must please give me a chance. He asked me a serious question and I should like to give him a serious reply, if I can. His concept of apartheid is dead. After all, it is a fact that several things have happened as a result of separate development. Firstly, more people have begun to participate in the decision-making process in the political forums of this country. Is that not true? Secondly, the leaders of the various population groups have been identified. Thirdly, since the policy of separate development took shape in its visionary and in its idealistic form, these people have been drawn into a process of consultation which did not exist in the past. Is this not true, too? The fact remains that more consultation is taking place between the various groups making up the population today than ever before. A fourth result has also emerged. As we have succeeded in implementing this policy, the possibility of contact between people has grown and instruments have been created for this purpose.

There is another aspect which is important. Through this policy, a process of evolutionary development, political and otherwise, has been initiated. This would not otherwise have been possible, because people would have felt threatened by others. It is the natural urge of self-protection which often makes people sensitive and basically selfish. This has now been defused and reduced because the one group no longer poses a threat to the other. That is the essence of what we are doing.

I want to make a further statement. I may be wrong in my evaluation of the situation, but apart from a small number of agitators in this country, I believe there is less tension among the population than ever before. I want to say—and once again I am not saying this because I think everything is perfect—that there is less tension in South Africa than in the countries of Europe, where there is not the same diversity. There is greater goodwill between the population groups in South Africa than ever before. We must be grateful for that, because if we are to succeed with the process of evolutionary development, we do not need only change in our policy. That too, of course, but in the first place, we need to change our attitude towards other people. That is what I am pleading for. I ask that we should stop regarding one another with suspicion, because the powers that threaten us first seek to bring about confrontation among ourselves, and then confrontation between White and Black. And the red lights are burning. They are constantly flashing.

We still represent the decision-makers of the country. We still have the opportunity today to determine the destiny of this country and its people, in so far as it is possible to do so. Let us do it; let us make haste to do it, not because we are forced to from outside, and not because anyone is dictating to us, but because it is required of us by the principle of justice. I shall leave it at that, and I hope the hon. member understands what my view in this connection is.

I want to thank the hon. member for Kuruman and my commission for their work in connection with the legislation on litter. A colleague of his sent me a slogan for the future: “Buk vir ’n blik en tokkel ’n bottel…”—I do not know exactly what it means to “tokkel” a “bottel”—and “siek van plastiek”. We appreciate the work done by him and other commissioners in connection with this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already expressed his thanks and has also indicated the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations.

I need not reply to the hon. member for Humansdorp or to the hon. member for Maitland. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already done so. I just want to tell them that I very greatly appreciate their lyrical descriptions of our country. It may sound sentimental, but one can only wax lyrical, as the hon. member for Kuruman, the hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Maitland did, when speaking about things one loves. And because it is their country that they wax lyrical about, I appreciate their contribution in this particular connection so much more.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Bryanston. He apologized for not being able to be present I just want to make one last remark about his speech by saying that I agree with him that in our planning of the country, of the utilization of the soil, we should strive for a meaningful synthesis of utilization and conservation. It is always difficult to achieve this, because we always have interests which must be reconciled. Nonetheless, we shall try to give both these objectives the rational attention which they deserve.

†I want to turn to the hon. member for Berea. He made two points to which I should like to respond. Firstly, he said that maybe it would not be such a bad thing if we did not introduce legislation in connection with littering this session. He said he thought that possibly people might take the necessary steps on a voluntary basis.

With a little bit of guidance.

Yes. Let me say that a lot has already been done in this particular regard by private organizations. The point I should like to make, however, is that the legislation we envisage, that recommended by the commission of inquiry, will be enabling legislation and will reflect our efforts to increase awareness of and to initiate voluntary acceptance of the need to organize, coordinate and negotiate activities over the whole spectrum of waste disposal. The thrust of our activity is therefore inseperable from and in accord with the sentiments and attitude expressed by the hon. member. On the other hand, the hon. member will understand that the Government cannot meet its responsibilities in this regard without indicating the real need to encourage uniform control and even legislation if other measures fail. In regard to this I think we therefore share the same sentiments.

The hon. member went on to stress the importance of solar heating. Let me say immediately that I share the views of the hon. member in this regard. I want to point out to him that the National Building Institute of the CSIR has since the late 1950s already been involved in research on solar energy, more specifically on solar water heating. Several documents and reports have been published in this particular regard. What is more, the institute has been busy with and involved for some time in drafting performance criteria for solar water heaters, criteria which have been provisionally accepted by the Agrément Board. In order to promote the use of solar energy in South Africa, a steering committee on solar energy and energy conservation in buildings and built-up environments was formed in September 1976 under the chairmanship of the National Building Institute. Various State departments and private organizations have been involved and are represented on this committee. The low-energy house project at Garsfontein in Pretoria, a project which consists of low-energy control houses of conventional construction, materialized largely as a result of the recommendation of this committee. Here again we see that the sentiments the hon. member has expressed find approval. The question whether this should be encouraged and promoted in such a way that the Government play a role in subsidizing—the hon. member was in fact asking for an indirect subsidy—the installation of this equipment, is another matter. The hon. member will understand that, once the principle is accepted that some subsidy or financial assistance should be given in respect of one form of energy, one can hardly argue against doing the same in relation to another form of energy. That is my problem. Having said that, let me say that I share with him the view that we should propagate those forms of energy, and the use thereof, that are there to be used and are of South African origin.

The hon. member then referred to the question of Sherwood. I understand the concern of the hon. member in this regard. However, let me explain this matter again, and let me plead again that we do not approach this matter in an emotional manner even though it is very emotive field. Following the investigations regarding the desirability or otherwise of converting an advertised area of Cato Manor from White into an area for the Indian group, the Group Areas Board submitted certain recommendations to me. The hon. member will remember that the previous Prime Minister had indicated to the Indian Council when they made representations that consideration would be given to the investigation of Cato Manor with a view to deproclaiming that particular area for White use and to proclaim it for Indian people. I stand committed to that undertaking and I am going to implement that undertaking, because I think that is the only correct thing to do.

The whole area?

Not the whole area, but a part of it. I do not want to discuss details now. After considering this matter I found it necessary to request my department to furnish me with further information regarding surrounding areas to enable me to arrive at a rational decision in respect of the Cato Manor area in its wider context. I think the hon. member will understand that I had to do this, because whatever one is going to do, is going to affect other areas. I therefore had to adopt a much wider view, and I thought it would only be fair to be fully briefed. A confidential interdepartmental investigation is at present being conducted towards this end, to furnish me with information regarding the surrounding areas as well. While I am on this subject, I want to say that there has also been a reasonable request from the Coloured people for land in that particular area, especially for their school. Therefore I cannot possibly refuse the request of these people that I must investigate all the possibilities, and I have in fact given them the undertaking that I would do so, because I think it is only fair that one should do so.

Regarding the rumours that Sherwood and other areas adjoining it are to be converted into an Indian group area, I can only do what my hon. colleague has done and that is to state that at this stage there is no certainty that the interdepartmental investigation will lead to a decision that further investigations concerning group areas will be undertaken. That is as far as I can go. In any event, the group area character of an area can only be altered after certain statutory procedures, set out in section 5 of the Act, have been followed. I hope I have now clarified the situation. I also hope that hon. members will assist me in trying to bring calm in an emotional field, at least until we have made final decisions. In trying to adjudicate on this matter, there is only one promise I can make, and that is that the relative demands and claims of all the people involved will be considered as fairly and as justly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he, when a final decision is to be taken in this regard, would just observe the fact that Cato Manor is not a built-up area while Sherwood is a built-up area, and treat them as such in the light of totally different concepts, concepts not necessarily overlapping?

I can give the hon. member the assurance with the greatest of pleasure, because it is a relevant factor to consider when decisions of this nature are to be made.

*I now want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria East. The hon. member said that as far as our alternative sources of energy were concerned, we should restrict our research and the consideration of practical alternatives to those offering the best possibilities. I quite agree with the hon. member in this connection. However, I have a problem, and the hon. member will understand it. Various research actions have been undertaken by various institutes in respect of various possible alternatives. The hon. member knows as well as I do that when one is doing something, one’s emphasis on a specific thing is always stronger than the one emphasized by the other person. Sometimes I find it a little difficult when the professional experts all give their own opinions of alternatives. When they do that, things may appear so rosy that people outside may think that I do not have any problems. But I take the hon. member’s point. It means, in practice, that where we have to conduct basic ongoing research into all the facets, there should of course be certain priorities, and these must be determined, firstly, by the economic considerations, then by strategic considerations and also by the availability of raw materials. I give the hon. member the undertaking that we shall try to do it in this way.

Then the hon. member for Paarl discussed section 3 of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. He spoke about the ratio and he spoke about the growth points. The hon. member for Mooi River also discussed section 3. I have said before, and I want to repeat it, that there is nothing wrong with taking steps in our society to assist certain communities in our population in a positive way to achieve greater participation in the economic activities of the country. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong either with taking measures to protect other groups if they are threatened or if there is evidence that they may be threatened. The Government has a regulating function. It is its responsibility. Whether we like to do it, is another matter, but it is our job. Section 3 has an important role to play as a component in a view. It has also been a component in the view of an acceptable geographic dispersion of the economic activities of our country. As such it has been instrumental, together with positive action in the form of concessions, in the development in the border areas and in the homelands, even though it has not been on such a large scale as we would have liked. Therefore it has a role to play in this connection.

One hon. member said that there were 100 000 Black young people in Soweto who were out of work. That is so, although I cannot say what the exact number is. However, applications for the employment of 110 000 have been turned down. But this is only a part of the picture. The fact is that there are 419 000 contract labourers working in the PWV area and that their numbers could have been reduced by 110 000 if the employers had employed the people who qualify in terms of section 10. These are the problems I have to contend with. I do not want to make any reproaches and one does not want to make general statements in this particular connection. However, there is a commercial consideration in this. The fact is that contract labourers are often cheaper than others, and I repeat—and I am not saying this reproachfully—that those people who lecture us and say that we must have a more compassionate society in this country run out of compassion when it comes to their cheque books. They exploit situations. I do not want to take it any further than that.

As far as decentralization is concerned—and now I come to the hon. member for Klerksdorp as well—I agree that we must look at the concessions, but we must do more than that We must initiate a process of evaluation to determine which growth points have the greatest development potential to achieve our objective of providing employment as well as our objective of obtaining a geographic dispension of economic activities. After all, we cannot turn every place in this country into a growth point. If we did that, we would be turning all these places into graveyards. There is one consolation for those of us who do not live in such growth points, and that is that we shall get some of the crumbs that are left over. Some of us will simply have to be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the table.

Our approach to this development idea should be practical, I believe. In the first place, we are dealing with a metropolitan development which has its own momentum, but which often leads to distortion. When that happens, I believe we should move to the concept of deconcentration. In this connection I should like to refer to a practical example nearby, i.e. Atlantis. In my opinion, Atlantis is a deconcentration point, but it forms the axis, the pole, of development which is to take place in the area along the west coast. We must not do anything to delay development there, but on the other hand, we must not allow Atlantis to take away the industrial development from other towns in the Western Cape. There are towns and places in the Western Cape which are responsible for the employment of their local inhabitants. If we allowed a place such as Atlantis to become a concentration point of the surrounding towns, therefore, instead of initiating a deconcentration action to those areas, we shall have achieved nothing. We shall have to guard against this, and we shall have to identify growth points. Such points will of necessity have to be limited, and we shall have to accept that. This is the way I see future development in this connection. However, I shall refer to it again when I react to the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

The hon. member for Benoni also referred to a very important matter, and for that reason I am going to devote some time to it. In the first place, I agree with the hon. member that there is a shortage of land for the Indian population on the East Rand. I want other hon. members who represent constituencies in that area to listen to what I am going to say in this connection. In the second place, I agree with the hon. member’s statement that the prices of land have risen since land was first made available for the building of houses for Indians. This is because the demand for plots has exceeded the supply. In my opinion, this is wrong, for then there is separateness, but no fairness. The fact is that the opportunity which Indians were offered of acquiring houses and plots in Rhynsoord almost immediately relieved the housing pressure, a situation which is welcomed by a large number of Indians. The hon. member for Benoni played an important part in this connection, and I should like to thank him for this.

I agree with the hon. member that this is not the final answer to the problem of providing the Indians on the East Rand with additional land. In order to overcome this problem, my department has already made a submission to me in connection with additional land in that area. I intend discussing it at a joint meeting with the hon. member and my other colleagues. I believe that we can come to an agreement in this respect. Furthermore the hon. member pleaded for coordinated action in which adequate provision was to be made for the needs of all population groups in future. I endorse that statement of the hon. member as well. I concede that it is not possible to finalize everything. However one can at least lay down guidelines on how the development should take place.

One of the instruments which we use in this respect is the guideplan concept. It is our ideal to draw up a guideplan for every city and every town in the country some day. Then, I think, we shall probably be able to cope with this problem to which the hon. member referred. In the said plan of action recognition is given to the fact that the relationship between place of abode and place of employment is of cardinal importance. In fact, the hon. member for Langlaagte has already said this.

With the recent amendment of the Group Areas Act the door has already been opened, inter alia, for the Indians, to enter the field of industrial development as entrepreneurs. The specific statutory amendment relates to the question of industrial zonings which are not situated in a group area but which are not colour-bound either. I want to assure the hon. member that we are in agreement with him on this score. Whether we will always be able to implement it in practice as we should like to do is of course a different matter.

The hon. member for Langlaagte is not present here at the moment. He apologized for not being able to be here because he wanted to go and do elsewhere what we did in Beaufort West and in Swellendam. I wish him success in his efforts. The hon. member for Langlaagte advocated a very interesting thing. He suggested that we establish a ring, as he called it, of industries around Soweto. He emphasized the problems of transportation, infrastructure and costs. I have no reason to differ with the hon. member on that score. The concept of having place of abode and place of employment close together is a sound concept. In the guideplan we are in fact examining that specific aspect, and I think that the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging triangle is a good example of this. In fact, the hon. member held this up as an example. Unfortunately, however, there are limitations to which we as practical people must subject ourselves.

The first problem is that not everyone can find work in industries. There are other occupations as well in which people must accept employment. In the second place we must also consider the amount of available industrial land against the background of what is realistic. I think we should fly over that entire area again to see what it looks like. I want to tell all my colleagues involved in this that we should do so as soon as possible. Then, I think, we shall be able to reconcile our idealism with the realities we are striving to achieve in a more practical way.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg touched on a few important aspects. In the first place he asked whether we could not hold a congress on regional development in the specific area to which he referred. It is not quite clear to me whether the hon. member expected my department to take the initiative in this connection.

I have already disposed of the matter.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has already disposed of the matter. Consequently I shall leave it at that. The hon. member then discussed the report, in connection with the Western Cape, of the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Caledon also referred to it. I got the impression that hon. members were rather disappointed in the report.

Yes, that is definitely the way I feel.

But let us see whether there were any positive things which could emerge from the report. I think there are. I think the report is positive, in the sense that it is aimed at the utilization of the potential of the Western Cape, and not at the solution of problems, as we heard before. That is an important basic idea. Their economic analysis is identical in almost all respects to the view of the department as contained in the spatial development strategy for the Western Cape, which has been accepted by the Planning Advisory Council and on which the Government is still deliberating. I shall tell hon. members in a moment what my proposal to the Government in this regard will be. I feel that we should have certainty on this matter as well.

In addition the bureau found that the recovery measures could only be implemented successfully by the authorities. Surprisingly enough it includes a greater measure of direct intervention by government institutions in private sector functions in the economic development process. Here I have a problem. Everyone here is committed to one principle, viz. that State participation in economic activities must be limited. In fact, it must be reduced. But if we want to do what is being asked for here, I must expand and develop these activities further. The hon. member will consequently understand my dilemma in this connection. The establishment of an entirely new kind of regional development or advisory committee with amended composition could be considered to help refine the existing planning proposals. There must not be too many committees either. The formulation of development strategy and the translation of these objectives into practical development programmes must take place on a priority basis. I do not want to elaborate any further on this matter now.

Let me say at once that the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy is drawing up guideplans for the Greater Cape Peninsula and Atlantis and vicinity in consultation with the bodies concerned. The department and other bodies are also engaged in development initiatives in this area, for example the development of Atlantis and Mitchell’s Plain. Great pressure is also being exerted for the creation of new and the expansion of existing group areas and industrial areas. I am referring now to the larger complex. Let me say at once that these initiatives do not always take place on a coordinated basis, and to be able to proceed with this task in a purposeful way, it is an important prerequisite that the national policy pertaining to this area should be spelt out in clear terms. For this purpose a document has been drawn up by the department and submitted to the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. In it certain recommendations are made and guidelines indicated for the future spatial development of the area. I want to deal with this with hon. members.

For the purposes of this report the Western Cape—and hon. members who are interested in the Western Cape should listen now—has been demarcated to include region 39, i.e. the Cape metropolitan area, region 3 with Vredenburg/Saldanha as planned metropolitan area, as well as the transitional areas: Region 4 with Worcester as main town and region 5 with Caledon as main town. The regional numbers are those of the National Physical Development Plan. For practical purposes, however, the Western Cape has been subdivided into a number of smaller units, viz. the Cape Peninsula, which consists of the magisterial districts of Cape Town, Wynberg, Simonstown, Bellville, Goodwood, Kuilsriver, and then the marginal areas, which consist of the magisterial districts of Wellington, Paarl, Stellenbosch, Somerset West and the Strand. Collectively the Peninsula and the marginal areas are called the metropolitan area, and the rest of the Western Cape—regions 3, 4 and 5—the hinterland.

In this report an analysis is made of the physical resources, the human resources, the economy of the Western Cape with specific reference to the industrial structure, the existing urbanization pattern and the principal land-use features of the area. On the basis of these analyses, the development potential of the area is analysed and the conclusion is arrived at that as regards both the size and structure, the development of the urbanization axis should run from Cape Town via Atlantis towards Vredenburg and Saldanha. That is what the hon. member was advocating.

On this basis certain recommendations were made which were accepted by the Planning Advisory Council. They have not yet been accepted by the Government, but have been accepted by the Planning Advisory Council. Firstly, no further industrial areas are to be created in the metropolitan area, since adequate provision already exists for normal industrial growth for the foreseeable future. This recommendation also implies that no new industrial areas are to be created in the vicinity of Mitchell’s Plain, but that existing industrial areas should be allowed to develop normally. Secondly, it is recommended that no limitation be placed on the growth of Atlantis, except as a result of physical factors such as good agricultural land, conservation areas, areas in which construction material occurs and the security of the power station.

This proposal implies that Atlantis is the appropriate place for the creation of a new industrial area, if a demand for it should arise. With reference to a question put by the hon. member on the matter of a railway line to Atlantis, I want to say that in this specific connection I agree with him. After all, it is of no use planning the areas and then failing to provide the essential services. If we did so, we would surely be playing children’s games. I want to tell him that the Government has on various occasions indicated that it intends providing a railway connection from Chempet-Milnerton to Atlantis to serve industries in Atlantis which are dependent on a railway service. Some industries were established at Atlantis with this possibility in prospect We therefore have a moral responsibility to these industries. As a result of the latest developments, among others the envisaged establishment of a diesel engine manufacturing industry in Atlantis, it has become essential, as a matter of top priority, to proceed with the provision of this railway connection, and the Government consequently took such a decision. Positive and urgent steps are consequently being taken now to build the railway and not merely to determine its priority.

Thirdly, it is the recommendation of the specific advisory council that the provision of housing in Atlantis be brought into line with the provision of employment opportunities, to prevent our developing another dormer township there and to ensure that a balanced community in its own right is established in Atlantis. After all, we are not planning for land; we are planning for people who have to live there.

Fourthly, the industrial life in Atlantis must be stimulated as much as possible in order to establish the city as quickly as possible, and coupled with this, industrial concessions for the rest of the Western Cape must, with the exception of Worcester, be considered with the greatest circumspection. I have already referred to this aspect. I do not want to discuss Worcester now, for then I would be setting off the hon. member for Worcester again, and we shall never finish. [Interjections.]

Fifthly, growth at Saldanha must be stimulated selectively with a view to the processing there of minerals from the Northern Cape and the expansion of existing undertakings. The hon. member said quite correctly that the development at Saldanha-Vredenburg had not come up to expectations. However, I want to emphasize—and the hon. member will understand this—that we have for four years been going through the longest and most serious recession the country has experienced since the ’thirties. Not only our country, but industrial countries of the Western World, experienced this recession. The result was that no real fixed investment occurred in the country. In many cases what occurred was disinvestment. The same applies to the Eastern Cape in the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area and the East London/Berlin area. In other words, the past four years is not the norm against which we should measure the future expectations of our development possibilities, because it would be a false norm.

As general principle I want to state that no further Coloured residential areas should be created within the Peninsula, except in already proclaimed group areas or in areas which represent a logical completion thereof. In that way, I think, we shall prevent further urban sprawl and development will then be able to take place in a more meaningful way. There are other less important matters, but I intend going to the Cabinet with these recommendations and if the Cabinet accepts them, we shall arrive at where the hon. member for Moorreesburg actually wants to be.

He also asked for decentralization benefits for Saldanha. Unfortunately I cannot comply with this request, and I want to tell this hon. member why I cannot do so. I do not think that decentralization benefits are going to help him, because the people who complain most are the people who have decentralization benefits. It is of no avail doing it in this way, because we are dissipating our resources. That area has a natural development potential, related to its situation between the Peninsula and the Northern Cape. Development must come.

Just as long as you help us with the semis.

The hon. member did a great deal to help create the infrastructure which makes development possible there. I hope he will accept it in this way.

I want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his kind remarks. He was mayor of Port Elizabeth and I think he is the one person who can confirm under what conditions people used to live and under what conditions they are living today. It is a matter which has nothing to do with our political convictions. The hon. member made a very important point, but I do not want to elaborate on it for very long. He discussed the multiplicity of bodies involved in planning and asked whether it was not possible to combine the human planning abilities of the various bodies. Both are meaningful ideas and one will have to investigate their feasibility. Apart from physical planning, it is the objective of the department to exercise a coordinating function. We have already made a great deal of progress in this specific connection.

I also want to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister announced that a rationalization process has to take place, also in respect of the classification of various departments and their responsibilities after they have been classified. This is in keeping with the fundamental idea which the hon. member endorsed. I wonder whether he would not leave it at that for the moment. Let us see what we can do about this matter in practice.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I would really appreciate it. In this connection I want to tell the hon. member that various bodies have various functions. They frequently have a line function, while others have a planning function. However, we shall see whether we can achieve the ideal the hon. member wants us to achieve, even though it will not be done as soon as he wants it to be done.

I have discussed the area of the hon. member for Caledon. He knows we are also trying to help Caledon so that the area can develop. We have even conceded that concessions may be granted concerning the employment of Brown people in that area. I want to tell the hon. member that I share his sentiments in this specific connection. I also share his love for that beautiful part of our country. I think my hon. colleague has replied to the other aspects which he raised, and consequently I shall leave the matter at that for the moment.

I have already referred to the speeches made by the hon. members for Langlaagte and Moorreesburg. Basically I have also replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Klerksdorp. I want to tell him that I find the idea of selected growth points with potential an interesting one. There is also a second idea I find interesting, and that is that they should also utilize the raw materials which are available locally, for otherwise a natural development would take place and cause our cost structure to shoot up.

Tomorrow or the day after we would then be talking about the competitive capacity vis-á-vis others, and then we are defeating our purpose. I agree with him. It was pleasant to pay a visit to his people. I hear that this regional development committee is going to do a great deal to identify the development possibilities there. They will bring them to our attention and tell us where we can help if it is possible for us to do so. I want to thank him very much indeed for his contribution in this regard.

I think I have already replied to the political aspects raised by the hon. member for Mooi River. I also told him that in future the new debate will centre on only one thing, and that is the NP and the implementation of its policy. That is all it will be concerned with.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is correct. I did speak about Black employment. The hon. member emphasized one important aspect, relating to the different traditions that people have, traditions which other people simply wish to ignore, and that is that the Black worker is not involved to the same extent in the agricultural industry. That is correct. We find that border industries that employ Black women in certain cases have a large labour turnover. Do hon. members know why? When the planting season arrives, they are just not to be found at the factories. It is related—and I am not reproaching them for this—to the traditions of these people. We are not engaged in an ordinary, physical planning initiative, but with a physical planning initiative in conformity with the people for whom we are planning. That makes it even more difficult, believe me. I think the hon. member understands this.

Is it possible to involve them in it?

I think it will be possible in future, but it will be a long drawn out process. One of the greatest possibilities is industrial training, because the most effective industrial training is in-service training. However, I want to tell the hon. member one thing, and that is when we speak of the consolidation of Black areas, we are not only speaking of geographical lines that have to be drawn, but also of economic development that has to take place within the boundaries. For that reason I want to repeat that although the Government accepts that section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act is not necessary today, that does not in the first place imply that the regulation of movement is not necessary. We must be aware of this. Secondly, it does not imply that decentralization does not enjoy an important priority; on the contrary it is emphasized by it That is why the implementation of any other form, which we could possibly accept has to be related with the statement which the hon. member made in connection with the provision of employment in those areas. However none of us differ on the point that we would prefer to bring the work to the people, rather than the other way round. It is an arduous process, but it is not a process which is unique to South Africa only. The urbanization of populations, regardless of their colour, is one of the accompanying experiences as long as the process of industrialization continues. At this stage I cannot take it any further than that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to the hon. member for Maitland. Now I come finally—and with this I shall conclude—to the hon. member for Constantia.

†It is true, as I tried to indicate yesterday, that the oil situation in this country is a serious one because the situation internationally is a serious one.

*Look what happened in America.

In California.

Look what happened in California. If that could happen to that country with all its oil, how much more are we in this country not vulnerable? After all we do have that situation. In this connection I agree with the hon. member. In the short term we have (a) an availability problem, (b) a price problem and (c) a consumption problem. This implies that we will have to take steps. We may argue over what those steps should be. The premiums which are being paid at present for the purchase of certain available non-recurrent sources are more than 50% higher than the prices determined for those products by the exporter. The price of oil is going to increase even further, apart from the premium which has to be paid on it This implies, in the first place, that the levy on the price which we introduced and which was the result of the equalization of the premiums, is insufficient The hon. member is aware that in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, I was able to postpone a price increase for the end product by making use of the excise short-fall to cushion the price. However, we cannot keep on doing this. On the other hand I realize the urgency of the economic growth of the country. I appreciate the sensitive effect which an increase in energy costs would have on our ability to effect an economic recovery. That was why I was actually compelled to increase the price when I increased it That was also why I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance whether we could not cushion the price.

A general price increase for oil, internationally and locally, is inevitable. In addition, we also have a consumer problem in the sense that there is not always an understanding for the problem itself. I am not reproaching the community and the consumer for not having the same grasp of the situation, because I cannot give them the facts. I cannot give the community the facts without at the same time placing these facts in the hands of the enemies of our country. Hon. members can understand this, I am like a boxer in the ring with his hands tied behind his back. All of us here, though, can arrive at a mutual understanding if we act in a responsible way, as the hon. member for Constantia did. Then we turn this problem into a national problem, on which we do not quarrel with one another. Then we become more efficient in dealing with it. Secondly, the hon. member said—and I agree with him—that we need a sustained publicity campaign, which includes an educational element. In this specific connection I just want to say that the oil companies are co-operating with me. For example they have changed all their advertisements. Their publicity is more orientated to fuel-saving now, unlike the impact of “the tiger in the tank”, which is what we had before. SABC-TV makes free time available to us and asks us to supply them with information on an ongoing basis. The Post Office is doing the same with its stamp issues. As far as public organizations are concerned, this is already being done. Special films have been manufactured for screening between TV advertisements, depicting cartoon characters that tell oil stories. It was an expensive undertaking and I want to express my thanks to the SABC-TV for their assistance in this specific regard.

I conclude by saying that we have another problem in this regard. Our saving of fuel has been relatively successful, but our consumption of diesel is disturbingly high. I am not going to take up hon. members’ time with a lot of statistics. However, I do want to mention a few of them. The 10% price increase, which came into operation in January 1979, did not of course have an immediate effect—the actual effect comes later—on the consumption figure, because it was implemented during the school holidays, and I had to increase the price in any case. In February 1979, however, the fuel consumption figure showed a decrease of 14,96%, as against that of January 1979, I concede at once that the holiday season did in fact have some effect. The consumption figure of February 1979 in fact showed a decrease of 2,57% against the monthly average for 1973, despite the fact that there are 45% more motor vehicles on our road. This is significant I think the hon. member will concede that. It is not enough, but it is significant.

This drop in consumption continued during March 1979, when the consumption showed a total decrease of 3,3%, as against the monthly average fuel consumption for 1973. The curtailment in consumption consequently increased. This further decrease can probably be attributed to a large extent to the increase of 6 cents a litre in the fuel price as from 23 February 1979. But the fuel price is and remains sensitive.

In contrast, the consumption of diesel has at present reached a level that is approximately 20% higher than in 1973. Owing to the fact that the fuel-saving measures were from the outset implemented in such a way that we did not want to curtail the productive consumption of the product—because we wanted to assist the economy—these measures have primarily affected the consumption by the private motorist. As a result of the change in the pattern of the use of petrol and diesel oil, the point has now been reached where the country’s diesel requirements have become a determining factor in establishing the quantity of crude oil we have to import. That is why I made an appeal to the effect that we should not change over to diesel passenger cars. Here we have the practical results of people who do not want to listen. [Interjections.] Now the national interests are affected by it. In practice it means that we could have a disequilibrium in the products which we have.

That is why I am pleased the hon. member for Constantia made the speech he did. It showed an understanding for what we have to do. But I want to emphasize one thing, which is that this picture which I have now sketched for hon. members, is a realistic one. If we do certain things, however, we need not feel pessimistic. We could reduce consumption. This could be done without any restriction on economic growth. I am only going to mention a few examples of this. In the first place there could be rationalization—in the sphere of commerce and industry—of transportation. In the Greater Cape Town area there are five bakeries. All five bakeries used to deliver bread in the same area every day. They got together, divided Greater Cape Town into zones, and now no more than two vehicles deliver bread every day in each of the zones. Apart from the saving involved it also has the effect of reducing the cost of the product.

A second example is that newspaper companies in certain areas got together, and their newspapers are now being delivered simultaneously. Hon. members will understand that there are certain publications which one could never succeed in bringing together, and I can accept that.

Thirdly, one industry, simply by cutting the amount of free petrol issue to its staff to 50 litres per month, effected a potential saving of 274 000 litres per annum. I am mentioning these facts as practical examples.

I want to conclude by saying that I agree that we should start a programme. My department is holding talks with other bodies on how we can keep the attention of the public constantly focussed on this problem. But I want to add that in the longer term I am not pessimistic about the situation.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.