Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, I just want to announce that the part appropriation will be presented on Monday, and the reply to it will be given on Thursday, 28 February. For the rest, the House will follow the Order Paper, as printed.

Then I also wish to announce that the House will not sit on Wednesday evening, 27 February.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That is not what The Cape Times said this morning.

In spite of what has appeared in the Press, this motion deals with District Six, an area about which it has been said that in order to clear up the slum conditions there, it must be barred to those people who have always lived there. According to the Government, it is an area that could not be cleared up and improved as long as it remained accessible to Coloured people.

District Six has often been the subject of debate in this House before and members of the National Party have often tried to base their arguments on the false premise of slum clearance. They have often alleged that slum conditions in District Six became so bad that the Government had to intervene and that it was for that reason that the area was declared a White group area. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development advanced this argument only two weeks ago. An argument like this is the height of cynicism. It is an insult to the Coloured population, and it is so transparent that in the absence of any other good reasons, one cannot help but think that the real reasons for the Government’s initial action in District Six were so indefensible, so unchristian, that they could not dare to make those reasons public and to test them in a public debate.

Order! Hon. members must avoid accusing one another of un-christianliness in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and say that it was immoral. In a statement on this argument issued by the Moderator of the D.R. Mission Church, after readily conceding that slum conditions and exploitation did in fact exist in District Six, they say the following—

They go on to say—

These words are very clear and objective and penetrate to the heart of this problem. They go on to say—

The important test of the validity of this argument advanced by the Government is actually to be found in the present standpoint which the Government has adopted in regard to District Six. District Six has now been cleared to a large extent, if one can speak of clearance when it has been turned into such a big desert.

What has it been turned into?

It has been turned into a desert. Most of District Six has been lying, bare and disused, in the hot Cape Town sun for several years now, and in spite of that the Government refuses to listen to the repeated pleas on the part of prominent academics and other individuals and organizations, as well as those from public bodies like the Cape Town City Council and even a Government commission, viz. the Erika Theron Commission, to declare District Six open once again, whether to all races or to Coloured people only. If it was the Government’s only motive to clear up District Six and to improve conditions there, there is no reason at all why Coloureds, Asians and other races cannot be resettled in District Six once again today. Members of the Government have argued that there are few, if any, Coloured people who can afford to live in District Six today. I want to ask, with respect, whether these hon. members know what they are talking about. Do they know how many Coloured buyers sometimes have to pay more for a building site than a White buyer would pay for it, and do they know that the shortage of erven for Coloureds is causing prices to rocket? In any event, is there any reason why economic and sub-economic housing cannot be built for Coloureds in District Six in the same way as they are going to build houses for White policemen and Defence Force personnel, or like the ACVV old-age home which will undoubtedly be erected there with Government assistance?

I should also like to request the attention of the House in connection with a few practical and, broadly speaking, apolitical aspects of the situation in District Six. There is a great deal to be said for workers, especially workers in the lower-income groups, being able to obtain housing as close as possible to their places of employment, because these workers must make a living on a fairly low income, and heavy expenditure on transport between their homes and places of employment can easily become a nightmare for people in this position. From the point of view of the authorities, those workers are putting tremendous pressure on public transport services if they do not live within easy reach of their places of employment. As far as Cape Town is concerned, this problem is not merely a theoretical one, because anyone who knows anything about our Railway services, is aware of the fact that serious problems are being experienced with the overloading of the railway line, particularly the section between Salt River and Cape Town station. If 10 000 employees who are at present employed in and around Cape Town, could now be settled in District Six, it would necessarily afford dramatic relief of the pressure on that line. As far as those who travel by car are concerned, we could advance a similar argument because large numbers of workers who have to travel far, make demands on the road building programmes and on traffic services. The enormous expense necessarily incurred by local authorities in order to provide such services, need scarcely be mentioned here.

It would also be interesting to calculate what the Government’s obstinate attitude in respect of District Six is going to cost South Africa annually in wasted fuel. I may just mention briefly that it would pay a person who works in Cape Town rather to spend between R6 000 and R8 000 more on a dwelling house if he could obtain a house within walking distance from Cape Town rather than to buy a house of the same size, but at a lower cost, in a place like Mitchell’s Plain, for instance. This shows the high costs that people must incur because they live in places situated so far from the centre of Cape Town.

Brief mention must also be made here of the position of the shiftworker or overtime worker in particular, who often goes to work or returns when the public transport services available are irregular or even non-existent. A person in this position has his life considerably complicated by his dependence on such transport services, and he should be placed in a position where he has a choice of living within a reasonable distance from his place of employment.

Furthermore, as everyone knows, there is a considerable shortage of housing in the Cape Peninsula as regards Coloureds, Asians and Blacks in particular. Waiting lists are already running into five-figure numbers and an applicant could easily wait seven years before obtaining a house or flat in the Cape Peninsula.

Bearing this in mind, can the Government afford to allow an opportunity to go by to use such an eminently suitable piece of land as District Six for accommodating these people? It is almost impossible to believe that the Government’s present standpoint is the very opposite, viz. that at the moment it is looking around for an area in which to resettle the remaining inhabitants of District Six and by so doing, to leave more dwelling space unused in District Six and to aggravate the shortage of dwelling houses and housing elsewhere.

†Any housing development in District Six will have the advantage of not having to contend with major infrastructural projects. Public transport is within easy reach inasmuch as this will be necessary, in such an ideally situated residential area. Electricity and sewage services can be provided with ease. The area is surrounded by a good road system and connections can easily be made. There are still a number of churches, schools, venues for public gatherings and business premises within and around District Six, which can assist in building a healthy and balanced community at relatively low expense. Compare this with the enormous expense of providing infrastructure in an area such as Mitchell’s Plain, an area which is far away from the central Cape Town area.

The Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, the Cape Town City Council and other organizations have over the years complained of the paralysing effect of an uninhabited District Six on business in central Cape Town. One can readily understand that the removal of 20 000 odd people from the periphery of the city must have a very substantial effect on economic activity in the city itself. The fact that there has been no development to replace that population obviously makes the problem worse and even gives momentum to decay in the central business area. The Cape Town city council loses a potential rates income of R¾ million annually as a result of the fact that District Six is largely uninhabited. This is a loss which the council can ill afford. This additional financial burden has now to be borne by the ratepayers of Cape Town. This is a grossly unfair burden upon a public which supports the idea that the Coloured people be allowed to return to District Six.

If a Coloured person whose family has been removed from District Six considers all these very compelling and practical reasons why they should be allowed to return to District Six, they must feel very bitter indeed about the Government’s insistence that the area should remain White only, particularly because the Whites have shown no or very little interest in the area. No satisfactory reasons have been advanced why this situation should remain. It is perfectly understandable that the public of Cape Town particularly, across the political spectrum feel so strongly about the issue.

It is understandable that large public companies yield to the slightest pressure not to become involved in business and industrial development in the area, often at great cost to themselves. We note from this morning’s Cape Times that the Total oil company has also withdrawn from its site in District Six. This trend will continue and will be supported by all right-minded people in the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.] I can assure the hon. members that any public company will think twice before buying property in that area or involving themselves in any development, in spite of the criticism they have endured from Government members.

Appeals have been made to the Government for a rethink on the issue, but these have been met by successive refusals, the one less impressive than the other. The last refusal came from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. He stated as a first reason why the Coloured people should not return that so much money has already been spent on District Six that the land has become too valuable for economic and sub-economic housing. This argument is fallacious, in view of the Government’s plans for establishing housing for police and Defence Force staff in the area, and in view of the plan to build a technikon there: In the one case therefore economic and sub-economic housing and in the other case a building development which will not yield much of an income for the Government. Secondly, this argument is unfair in view of the fact that the Government itself has spent money in the area, very often unnecessarily so. Thirdly, it is a callous argument in view of the fact that it is actually those people in the economic and sub-economic groups, irrespective of race, who most need accommodation centrally in the metropolitan complex of Cape Town. I do not believe that the request in the many appeals which have been made, including my own, have in any way been unreasonable, or difficult for the Government to accede to.

This request does not require a major departure from Government policy. I was surprised that the Prime Minister did not use this great and ready opportunity to undo the harm done, and to give effect to his promises of a more tolerant administration. The limited number of Whites in and on the fringes of District Six are even now living in harmony with their Coloured neighbours. They will not stand in the way of such an opening up of the area.

District Six represents an exciting opportunity to build something new; to add to the tolerant and harmonious nature of life in Cape Town; to establish something which fulfils all sound principles of town-planning and development; and above all an opportunity to rectify the injustice committed against the Coloureds and other previous inhabitants of District Six. The injustice of District Six is a continuing injustice, because the injustice lies not only in the original proclamation, but also in the Government’s continuing refusal to allow the people of District Six to return there. The positive side of a continuing injustice such as this is, however, that it carries with it the potential that the injustice can be rectified, and this is what I plead for. My plea is that the Government must take this opportunity to restore some goodwill at this late stage and at this late stage to do what is so obviously necessary in District Six, and that is to deproclaim the area so that it can once again come to life and be a lively, useful and vibrant part of central Cape Town.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member for Green Point and stating the point of view of this side of the House, I wish to explain that both the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I shall participate in this debate. We decided on this somewhat unusual step since, on the one hand, we have a shared responsibility in respect of District Six in a certain sense of the word at the moment and, on the other hand, with effect from 1 March 1980, the hon. the Minister of Community Development will be taking over the control and administration of the Group Areas Act in terms of the rationalization programme.

The hon. member for Green Point now regularly makes a habit, when making a speech, of using the most insulting adjectives he can find in the dictionary. We on this side of the House really wish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and perhaps also the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP, would take him in hand and teach him that the quality of an hon. member’s contribution in the House is not determined by the degree of insolence that he can stoop to, but by the clarity and correctness of logical and factual arguments. [Interjections.]

Apply that to your policy.

As far as the essence of his argument is concerned, I shall reply to that in the course of my speech. I first wish to refer to a few unrelated points he made. He dealt with travelling distances to people’s place of work. He heard the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development on this point during the no-confidence debate. Certain facts were put to him, and he had the opportunity of checking those facts. But what did he do today? He repeated precisely the same old argument that he used during the no-confidence debate, without reference to the facts and, if he did not agree with the arguments which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development put to him, without refutating them. I wish to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in this regard on that occasion (Hansard, 1980, col. 318)—

The hon. the Deputy Minister said this after he had quoted to the hon. member that 1 067 heads of families with their families who had lived there, were either pensioners or unemployed.

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

No, Sir. These were facts put to the hon. member. Surely debating in the House should be conducted at a higher level than merely always coming and raising a lot of generalizations without also confining oneself to the facts that have been brought to one’s notice.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member and it struck me that although the motion, according to its wording, was clearly directed at planning aspects and the reconsideration of the group character that should be given to that area within the framework of the Group Areas Act, the hon. member said nothing about that particular aspect but confined himself solely and exclusively to the development of the area. He did not state whether he wanted the area to be looked into with a view to having it proclaimed as a Coloured group area. I therefore wish to ask him whether he wishes this to be a Coloured area or an open area.

Read the motion.

The motion does not answer the question. The motion is to the effect that the matter should be reconsidered and that “the relevant proclamations” should be withdrawn. Can I infer from that that they should not be replaced by other proclamations?

That is correct.

Must it therefore be an open area?

That is correct.

Right, Sir. Then why did the hon. member not just answer my question? Then we should have saved two minutes’ time.

Surely we need not devote hours to an argument on the question whether it should be an open area or not. After the no-confidence debate, even the hon. member for Green Point ought to realize that when it comes to exclusive communities, a concept of which exclusive residential areas are an integral part, there is no intention whatsoever on the part of the NP to allow open or grey areas. On the contrary, we will continue in a fair and just manner, to convert residential areas where members of various population groups are still living alongside one another, and to create for each group its own community and its own living space. As far as exclusively trading areas are concerned, the Government has of course clearly stated its view-point. Industrial areas are already accessible, or they could be made accessible to members of all population groups in appropriate cases. As soon as the legislation that is now being drafted, becomes effective, it will also be possible to identify trading areas and proclaim them as free trading areas.

In this regard, the standpoint of the Government is clearly outlined in the White Paper on the Riekert report. It is therefore not impossible that within the framework and the parameters defined in the White Paper, areas may be identified in Cape Town and certainly in District Six, that could, after proper investigation, and subject to clearly defined conditions, be proclaimed as free trading areas. However, as far as residential areas are concerned such a thing is out of the question. If, therefore, we want to have a constructive debate today, it has to revolve around the question whether District Six should be declared a Coloured area or whether it should remain a White group area.

Well, what is your reply to that?

I shall give the hon. member the answer. In the course of the no-confidence debate, the hon. member for Green Point referred to District Six as the most hurtful and dreadful case of racial discrimination that had ever occurred in South Africa.

It is one of the worst.

That is strong and forceful language, Sir, that has now been repeated by the hon. member in different words. What is the hon. member really saying if his points are related to the facts? He is saying by implication that it amounts to discrimination against the previous residents of District Six that they have been removed from an area where some of the worst imaginable slum conditions prevailed. What an absurd standpoint to assume! Have facts, then, no meaning for the hon. member for Green Point and his party?

What were the facts when we took the relevant decisions in approximately 1966? In the first place, the conditions were shocking. The hon. member can go on repeating until he is blue in the face that this is a cynical argument, but by doing so he does not escape the facts. The then city engineer of Cape Town—not an NP politician—had this to say about District Six—

I emphasize the word “complete”—

So you make it White!

Does the hon. member accept that this was the case? [Interjections.] Thank you. But then he exclaims very emotionally in this House that we have destroyed a community.

You have.

We lanced a festering sore and healed it. That is what we did. Drastic and comprehensive steps were necessary—the hon. member should at least concede that—as a result of the slum conditions. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister who the city engineer was?

I have only a limited time to speak during the discussion of this motion. [Interjections.] In the second place, Whites owned 55,4% of the land, Coloureds, 25% and Indians, 19,5%. In terms of value, the White properties represented 67%, Coloured properties 18% and Indian properties, 14%. But because it does not suit the argument of the hon. member, he says it is irrelevant who the owners were.

It is irrelevant.

Since when has the right of ownership been irrelevant? Since when has the right of ownership in South Africa, the question of who should be entitled to live on property or who is entitled to property, been an irrelevant aspect? [Interjections.] We do not find it strange, of course, that the hon. member finds that irrelevant since after all, it is he and his party who also hold the view that the rights of owners are worthless but that the rights of squatters are unlimited. [Interjections.] In the third place, White owners were guilty of gross exploitation of Coloured people. I do not think we need prove that to hon. members, since it is a generally accepted fact. Surely all that justified a thorough-going inquiry, and such an inquiry was duly undertaken, not by politicians but by objective and impartial persons on various occasions. Those investigations then resulted in the proclamation of District Six as a White area.

Now, what were the considerations? From the point of view of planning, this decision was a well-founded, rationally justified one. In brief, the following considerations turned the scale in this decision. The clearing up and eradication of undesirable conditions were essential. The location of District Six also made it an area with a high potential value, an area with a natural contiguity to the city centre with a view to expansion, contiguity to a city centre that has a need for space to expand since it is enclosed on all sides owing to geographical factors.

As history now proves it to be?

From these indisputable facts of location and the resulting high value, particularly after replanning and development, certain inescapable conclusions come to the fore. A new District Six could not be a purely residential area, and in particular it could not be utilized for low-cost housing.

Why not?

Motivate your argument.

I shall tell you now why not. In cases where costs must be recovered, there were few Coloureds who would have been able to afford living in the new District Six. Those who would have been able to afford it, had then already been settled elsewhere and those who had to be removed were the less well-to-do, predominantly poor people and they could not, therefore, have been resettled in District Six. However, hon. members say costs are no argument, and then advance the argument that there are going to be members of the police and members of the Defence Force. The State is making provision for 20 police living units and 50 Defence Force living units.

All of them White.

What is involved here, is a piece of land that is 95 ha in extent. After all, the Coloured policemen and the Coloured members of the Defence Force have all been properly accommodated.

At what cost?

Oh, really, that is no argument. Costs are a factor in property development and whoever does not take that into account, is headed for bankruptcy. It is only people such as the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Green Point who advance such arguments. I have never yet heard the hon. member for Yeoville advance such an absolutely self-destructive argument, the argument that the State should ignore costs.

Nobody said that.

But that is what the whole argument amounts to. We have to take costs into account, and since we have to take costs into account, we must concede that this is a high-value area and that it is not suitable for the housing of the lower income groups.

Against the background of these considerations, the decision to declare District Six White, was a responsible one. It was not a racist-inspired act of oppression, as the hon. members of the PFP wish to make out. [Interjections.] Something else the critics of the Government’s actions should take cognizance of, is that what has been done in District Six, is only half the story in any event. They are so inclined to forget the other half. The fact that those who used to live in miserable conditions, have been resettled in far more attractive surroundings, is being dismissed with a mere gesture. It is alleged that we have driven the Coloureds into the Cape flats. For convenience sake they are losing sight of the fact that Walmer has been declared a group area for Coloureds, with the addition of certain attractive parts. That area is altogether 66 ha in extent. It is also being forgotten that the Government kept its promises about Salt River and Woodstock and had, towards the end of 1979, added yet another 24 ha and 8 ha of Coloured area respectively to those two residential areas. As a matter of convenience, all that is being lost sight of. The added areas border directly on the original areas. The fact is that in the place of the 95 ha, which was the original extent of District Six, 98 ha has been reserved for Coloureds in the immediate environment. Now add to that Schoone Kloof, Schotsche Kloof and Kensington—all of them near the city centre—and surely it can be seen that it is not true that the Coloureds have been ousted from the immediate or near vicinity of Cape Town.

I should have liked to elaborate on the advantages of Mitchell’s Plain, where a modern city is being established, and also Atlantis. These are developments that spell out prosperity and progress, that hold out new prospects for the Coloureds. However, time does not permit me to say much about that. However, allow me to point out just one more aspect. Bellville was established and the Whites, with initiative and dedication, developed new living space for themselves there, in consequence of expansion and as a result of the need that had arisen. In places such as Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis, new opportunities are being created for the Coloureds to obtain their own Bellville, their own Cape Town, their own attractive community and city, to play a part in it, and to build it up from scratch. I do not call that discrimination. I call that the blazing of a trail for that population group to enable them really to come into their own. Even if those who used to live in District Six were to look back on District Six with nostalgia and a degree of tragedy one day and they had to choose between what they had and what has been created in its place, they would most certainly elect to live in the new and better conditions—and I believe that is already the case today. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House are as sympathetically disposed towards the Coloureds as any other group professes to be. We have great understanding for the nostalgia with which the history of District Six is interwoven. However, it was our task, and we regarded it as our bona fide duty, to heal the sore of District Six to the best of our ability, a sore which a previous United Party Government and the civic authorities allowed to develop to the point where it posed a serious problem. We have made a great deal of progress in that regard. We are stating clearly here today that we are not going to be driven off our course, not by the PFP, nor by threats and intimidation.

Every now and then the newspapers are full of the activities of a few individuals who wish to obstruct the development of District Six. It is ironical that economic intimidation against legitimate business undertakings and against professional people is coming from the very people who pose as the great protagonists of the so-called “rule of law” and human rights. I believe that in a civilized country, entrepreneurs and professional people are entitled to carry on lawful business, practise their professions and be protected against threats. It is legitimate to participate, to have a part in the development of District Six. We want a reply from the Opposition today. We want to know where they stand. Do they agree that economic intimidation in connection with District Six should be countered?

Against the background of the facts I have stated and the arguments I have advanced, and in consideration of what the National Party Government has done in the field of community development since 1948, I accordingly move the following as an amendment—

1. (1) to expedite the development of District Six as much as possible;
2. (2) to afford effective protection against economic intimidation to individuals and companies wishing to participate lawfully in the development of District Six.”.

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. the Minister who has just spoken, should be regarded not only as having sounded the final death-knell for District Six, but also as having sounded the first death-knell for areas such as Woodstock and others. The hon. the Minister has made it very clear that he …

Part of Wood-stock has been declared a Coloured area.

Part of it is open. The hon. the Minister has made it clear that he is opposed to grey areas. Part of it is grey. If that is so, we have another case of broken promises. In this regard I need only refer to the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission. From what the hon. the Minister has said here, it is very clear to me that the person in that party who has actually emerged victoriously from this, is the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, because that is the view that he advocates.

†I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Community Development—he is going to speak later on—by way of an interjection referred to people who are “terrorizing” public companies. From whose policy has economic terrorism emerged? Whose policy has made it possible for that sad situation to arise in South Africa? Is it not the policy of that party which resulted in a situation in which this sort of thing is possible? The hon. the Minister has said it. I did not say that economic terrorism has been committed in South Africa. But where it exists, it is a direct result and consequence of the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] For years people have been forcibly removed and have been denied certain rights and privileges. To be honest, who are the people who for years have been terrorizing? If that is the level on which we have to debate, then I should like to say that those people who have implemented and who are responsible for this type of policy which has resulted in this sort of situation in which one cannot even find a public company buying in areas where it wants to invest its money, are the real terrorists. They are responsible for creating this situation.

*I think this House should, in the first place, convey its thanks to the hon. member for Green Point who has availed himself of this opportunity to move his motion, as it affords us an opportunity to debate something which cannot be swept under the carpet. It does not happen every day that a Government or a party is afforded the opportunity to turn over a new leaf and to try to compensate for its senseless acts and attitudes of the past. Hon. members should be grateful for this opportunity and they should make full use of this debate. They should accept the motion of the hon. member for Green Point.

But reply now to the facts.

Sir, the hon. member for Mossel Bay must speak louder, because I cannot hear him. South Africa and good race relations could today experience a great boost if hon. members opposite would support this motion. Can you imagine the effect that would have on South Africa? By accepting this motion a new situation would be created in South Africa, a new era would be heralded in, an era in which a lot of the damage that has been done in the past could be rectified. We know of all the damage that was done to race relations, especially between Whites and Coloureds, at the time when apartheid run amuck in this country. This was the case especially during the 1950s and the 1960s. In those days there was only one driving force behind the Government’s actions, namely to take rights and privileges away from the Coloured community. District Six was a victim of that driving force. But now at least we have moved into an era in which even on the part of the Government the emphasis is starting to be placed on granting rights to people.

*There are, however, various questions we have to pose. What is virtually a hostile attitude prevails with regard to these matters on the opposite side. If a person merely suggests that District Six be declared an open area, hon. members on the opposite side say that that would only take place over their dead bodies. I cannot understand why the Government is so hard-hearted towards the Coloureds. Surely there must be reasons for this. Are they psychological reasons, or what? Why this forbidding attitude? [Interjections.] We come to the facts.

You are a “bitterbek”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

I would still have been able to understand it if there were hon. members on the opposite side who maintained that they believed it was absolutely essential for the protection of the White man in South Africa that District Six remain a White area Not one of them is, however prepared to say it.

But that is not our argument.

Then what is the argument? Let us accept that it is an impassive attitude. However, they could possibly have told us that District Six occupies a special position in the socio-historical heritage of the White man. There is not one of them, however, who maintains that this is so. Neither is there one of them who disputes the fact that the socio-historical position occupied by District Six, forms no part of the White man’s cultural history. It is a part of the history of the Coloureds which can never be erased.

You are probably talking about the 39 steps.

I wonder whether the hon. member should not rather go and play marbles. When one hears the name District Six, one associates it with the Coloured community. The hon. the Minister said they had Schotsche Kloof and the Malay quarter. Since when are we to accept that Schotsche Kloof, the Malay quarter and Kensington compensate for the loss of District Six?

Oh shame, just do not start crying.

It is said that I should not cry and that they do have a part of the Cape …

I was speaking of Walmer, Salt River …

Does that constitute the compensation which these people receive? The hon. the Minister has already made his speech and he may give his arguments to the next speaker. Surely there is a difference: Upper Cape Town is Upper Cape Town and Lower Cape Town is Lower Cape Town. These are not the same people and surely these places do not take the same place in their history as District Six does.

†We have also heard the old arguments today about the original situation. Nobody denies that the reasons mentioned are valid reasons for city renewal—but not for the destruction of a whole community, not for the banishment of people and for telling them that they can never come back. That is not a reason for making conquered territory out of District Six, because that is the way the Government is treating this matter. Let us accept it had to be cleared up in terms of city renewal. There were squalid and inhuman conditions there. No one in his right mind would deny that. District Six was in need of social upliftment. Why did people have to be punished in addition? Neither do I believe that those who advocate turning District Six or part of it into an open area for Coloured occupation, or whatever the case may be, are advocating the return of those conditions. Why always try to compare it and say: “Well, do you want to have that back?” Nobody is going to advocate that. If this motion is accepted, there will be a controlled resettlement and redevelopment of the area, and that will be the task of the Government, of the local authorities and of private entrepreneurs. Will hon. members opposite try and make out a case that the development by the Government, local authorities and private entrepreneurs will be of such a nature that they will deliberately develop and re-establish a slum area? Why do they talk about a “return” to those conditions? What utter rubbish to use as arguments! Residential and business development in this area will obviously be of such a nature that it will not be for sub-economic and lower-income groups. It will be for the middle and higher-income groups. I still believe, however, that provision should be made to have a balanced, central part of the city for socio-economic and sub-economic development by the Housing Commission and the local authority. Does the Government really believe that private entrepreneurs, be they Whites or be they Coloureds, could go there and, hey presto!, the next moment they start farming with squatters? Where do they get this idea from? On what do they base it? Is there any precedent for that sort of thing?

That is not our argument.

This is the argument they keep on using. They keep telling us about the terrible conditions that existed and how it would be impossible to bring back the people who used to live there, because they are now all living happily in various parts of the Peninsula Why do they use that sort of argument, instead of starting to look to the future? [Interjections.] Why do they not look at this area and say: “Here we have land. Why can’t we here, at least, give everybody a legitimate say and a share of this part?” Why do they always have to look back and use those old arguments?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member is pleading for District Six to be opened or for it to be a Coloured area.

According to the way we read this motion, that area would become an open area, if the motion is accepted. I have also made it quite clear that I believe that in this area development for Coloureds should be allowed. I have already said that there should be economic and sub-economic housing. So I have made the position quite clear, and the position of my party is that the local authority should decide on the character of the area, and not the Government dictating from a central position to the people of Cape Town the way in which they should develop it and telling them to keep their hands off it. That is the attitude of my party.

Apart from economic development, let us accept that there were situations which developed in the past as a result of antiquated building restrictions which in turn resulted in the sort of conditions that existed there, such as a lack of control, etc. But we must introduce the other point here as well. We know that the standard of living of people of all race groups has improved. Nobody can deny that.

That is the result of good government, is it not?

Oh, it is not just good government! The level of debate from that hon. Minister is very elementary today. I accept the fact that the standard of living of people throughout South Africa has improved, but that is not a process that started with the NP; it is a process that has continued ever since the formation of Union in South Africa, during the 1930s and during the industrial revolution and development that has taken place in South Africa. It is not just due to the NP. I want to say that the person who taught me this sort of thing in the past was the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he still belonged to the old United Party. He knows his history just as well as I do. Why not give the Coloured person a chance if he can afford to buy here in an open area and can in fact compete in the open market as well? Why is the Government scared of him? Why does the Government not want to give him a chance to buy here? Why deny it him? This is the question the Government must answer because it is denying him this chance deliberately. Does it imply by denying him this that, because he is a Coloured, he will never be able to live there decently?

Do you stand for economic discrimination?

I said that in part it was a question of establishing a balanced city complex. Part of it will also include that.

*It happens nowhere else in the world that people are simply banned.

†Then the hon. the Minister comes here and uses as an argument, a silly argument, that 1 600 of the Coloureds there worked in Simonstown and elsewhere. What does that prove? 1 600 out of how many worked there? [Interjections.] Yes, of course, this happens nowhere else in the world. It can only happen under this sort of Government with their insensitive approach to this sort of problem.

There are really only two choices as far as this matter is concerned, but judging from the reaction and judging from the hardness of heart of the NP, I am afraid that they will decide on the one which is the choice of disaster for race relations in South Africa. The one is to continue to do exactly as they are doing here today, and that is to treat District Six as if it is part of conquered territory. The Government has in effect said: “We decide and we have cut you, the Coloureds, out of it.” They put forward all sorts of arguments, like the argument we heard about the development of Bellville. When the development of Bellville was commenced with, were all the Afrikaans-speaking people thrown out of Oranjezicht? Did they do that or did they start with a natural development? Why come with all these sort of things? What has one to lose? If one continues on this basis, it is quite clear that the only thing which can happen is that there will be a deterioration in race relations. The hon. the Minister of Community Development spoke of—and I must say that he must have given the matter consideration before he used those words—economic terrorism that has been taking place in that area.

Who used that term?

He did. The hon. the Deputy Minister started it. Believe it or not, here we have a Government consisting of 135 members and with all the political power in their hands, but they cannot protect a public company against economic terrorism.

We will.

Oh, they will?

How?

How?

Wait and see.

Why does the Government not accept the other alternative? As I have said, there are two alternatives. The one is to continue to treat the problem in the way they are treating it and then, as a consequence, to be faced with this type of thing, which the Government admits is a problem; the other way of counteracting the problem is to declare the area an open area and to go back to the sort of situation where no stigma will be attached to the public company which is prepared to purchase land there and to develop it.

How shall we ever succeed in opening your eyes? If something has to be opened, and has to be declared open, how are we to open your eyes?

The trouble is that that hon. Minister is permanently “toe”. Even if he sits here for another 20 years, his eyes will never be opened.

It is for those reasons that we support this motion. Imagine the significance of it should this area be developed as an open area where no stigma is attached to anyone who buys there or develops the area Imagine the new South Africa we can create. Do the hon. members opposite realize that they stand in the way of the creation of compassionate image for South Africa? It is not the Opposition who are sabotaging this possibility. It is not those who organize boycotts or threats of boycotts of companies who may consider developing the area. It is the Government who has to accept that responsibility.

Sir, I do not hold out much hope for this motion. I know the hon. the Minister for Community Development is going to speak later. I have never attacked him for having changed his political allegiance 6 to 7 years ago, and he knows it.

You are welcome to do so.

I do not want to. He was free to decide. Let it be on his own conscience. I have had 15 to 20 years in politics during which time I have learnt much from the hon. the Minister. One thing which I very vividly remember is that that hon. Minister used to advocate with conviction the creation of a compassionate society in South Africa. If he is still dedicated to that—and I hope he is—why does he not use his powerful position as Minister to that end? Surely, if he is still committed to that, he can influence the Government on this matter. It would stand as a monument to the hon. the Minister and perhaps also to his party that after all these years the NP had become committed to the creation of a compassionate society in South Africa. With those words, Sir, we support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the hon. member for Durban Central, it became clear to me that the flirtation between the NRP and the PFP was developing into an engagement. I want to say frankly that it would be very fitting, particularly as far as this hon. member is concerned. Originally I did not include him in this report in The Argus of 1 August 1979, but I think I shall do so now, for judging from his actions here he will answer well to the description in The Argus. The article in question appears under the headline:“A look at the two PFP leaders”. In connection with the present leader it states—

I think this hon. member has identified himself and is well matched to the other prima donna who performed here this morning. I think he ought to fit in well.

Let us now examine what he said. The hon. member for Durban Central said that the area should be declared an open area. If I understand him correctly he means that District Six should be an open area, which means that Coloureds, Black people, squatters and anyone else can go and live there if they wish to.

Where are the squatters going to come from?

I shall come back to that in a moment. If this is what the hon. member meant, I want to ask him how he reconciles this statement and argument of his with the evidence he gave in public before the Schlebusch Commission on behalf of his party, where he said, inter alia, that a person moving from one municipality to another should be reclassified? Surely he is being neither consistent nor logical here. These two statements do not tally with each other. Where does the hon. member get the right this morning to come forward with the argument of an open area unless the engagement between his party and the PFP has forced his mind in a different direction and he now repudiates the evidence he gave before the Schlebush Commission? I want to ask him which one of these two standpoints he now endorses.

Precisely the same standpoint.

Both?

I have just said that the local authority must decide. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave evidence before the Schlebush Commission on behalf of his party, and now that the flirtation is in progress, a completely different trend and facet is appearing in their policy. They are going to find themselves in the position they were in before with their double-talk and in that way lose a few more members.

Let us examine what the hon. member went on to say. He kicked up a tremendous fuss, with melodramatic gestures, after the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy had referred to economic victimization and economic terrorism. The hon. member became quite incensed about this and said that it was the Government’s fault that this had happened. Let us accept that argument for a moment. May I ask him whether he approves of economic victimization and terrorism being waged against the firms in question.

No.

Despite the fact that people are doing this, he still supports the motion, however, and allows himself to be taken in tow on this issue. I am going to demonstrate to him by whom he is allowing himself to be taken in tow. I am going to point out to him that he is associating with people whose association is not really going to pay him or do him any good in future.

Alex Boraine!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come to the arguments of the introducer of this motion, viz. the hon. member for Green Point. He made various points. I think the time has arrived for us to go into the history of this question of District Six, and I want to start in 1938. The first person who agitated and held meetings in 1938 on the clearing up of District Six, was Dr. J. D. Vorster. In Die Burger of 5 December of that year he wrote:“Raad agiteer nou, maar wil nie die nood verlig nie.” In 1938 Dr. Vorster began to have petitions signed, to hold meetings and to beg the Cape Town City Council to do something to improve the situation. However, nothing was done about the matter. Why was nothing done? The reason was that most of the people who owned property in the area at that stage, were Whites, inter alia, city councillors, and who consequently exploited the area without being prepared to do something about the conditions there.

I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point a question. I hope he will reply to the question, and if he does not have the courage of his convictions to do so, he may as well ask the hon. member for Sea Point to reply to it. Unfortunately the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House, otherwise he could perhaps have replied to the question if the hon. member for Sea Point is unable to do so either. I want to ask the hon. member whether he moved his motion out of principle or merely out of political opportunism. [Interjections.] The hon. member need merely nod his head. He need only say “Yes” or “No”. I see he is throwing his hands into the air. Apparently I must conclude from that that he does not know.

I shall reply. Be careful, I am going to speak in a minute. [Interjections.]

The Red Dean says he will reply! [Interjections.] I hope we will in fact receive a reply. Let us for a moment accept the bona fides of the hon. member for Green Point that he moved the motion on the grounds of principle. I want to put it to him that in that case he is not being politically honest in respect of himself and the Coloured community of the Cape Peninsula, because if he were honest in principle, he should not have spoken about District Six alone. District Six has never been an exclusively Coloured area. Originally District Six was not a Coloured area. In the first place it was a White area which subsequently became partly Coloured. The reason why I am saying that the hon. member is not politically honest, is that if he regarded it as a matter of principle…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to describe the hon. member for Green Point as politically dishonest?

I cannot concede that point of order. “Politically dishonest” is allowed. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for my saying so is that if the hon. member wanted to be firm of principle he should not have discussed District Six only. He should also have discussed an area such as The Acres which is situated in my constituency and which was exclusively a Coloured area that was changed into a White area. He should have discussed Oudekraal, one of the most historic Coloured areas which was a Coloured area right from the start when the Whites first arrived. It is situated in the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point. Perhaps that is why the hon. member for Green Point is not aware of it. If he were firm of principle he should have discussed those areas. Then he should also have gone further and discussed White areas such as Elsies River from where Whites who lived there close to their work were moved to other areas. If he had done this, he would have had an argument. However, he came forward with District Six and merely did so out of political opportunism. I shall say why I am saying this. That hon. member was a member of the Cape Town City Council from 1 September 1976 to 28 February 1978 and as far as I was able to establish, neither he nor the Cape Town City Council came forward with any motion or representations or any of the emotionalism we have on District Six these days, during that period.

You are speaking out of ignorance.

Let me explain where this whole story has its origin. The hon. member and his party have now allowed themselves to be taken in tow by a few individuals. The individuals who took them in tow are firstly, Mr. Cassiem Allie who, according to The Argus of 13 February 1980 “was listed in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act and could not consequently be quoted”.

This is their leader now!

The second individual who is taking them in tow—and I say this in all humility and piety—is Father Van Rensburg.

And the third is Father Boraine! [Interjections.]

What does Mr. Trichard, the president of the technical school, have to say about Father Van Rensburg? I quote—

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

I want to give the hon. member a piece of very sound advice. I think the hon. members opposite are once again allowing themselves to be taken in tow by these individuals for political gain. Ultimately they are going to be sorry. They are going to pay dearly.

If one really examines what has been happening here, surely one must realize why they have come forward with this topical motion at this particular juncture and why this matter is now being presented so emotionally. One of the hon. members on this side of the House will deal with this matter more specifically in the course of the debate. Surely the “facts” we have before us at the moment, are incorrect. The “facts” being used here by everyone and which were mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point, are incorrect.

†He said that the City Council of Cape Town, the Chamber of Commerce and others were against it. However, if one looks at the facts these people are using, one sees that they are not correct. In a circular of the Chamber of Commerce it is said first of all that the total area required by the technikon for a consolidated campus is 21 ha and accounts for 22% of the overall District Six group area. But that is totally incorrect. First of all, the total area under consideration covers 16,83 ha. This area makes out only 16,6% of the total area They go further and distort the facts completely. They distort the facts to serve their own purpose. They say that 348 houses on the proposed site will have to be demolished. However, on 25 October 1979, only 204 houses were in existence on the proposed site. If the alternate development of the technikon is agreed upon, only 166 houses will in fact be affected.

The third point made by the chairman is that 20 ha more will be far too small and will leave no room for expansion. If we compare his with other technikons we find that the Johannesburg technikon is situated on 10 ha of land, the Durban technikon on 12,5 ha and the Pretoria Technikon on 15 ha.

*Moreover they allege that the Cape Technikon will have to pay tremendously high property rates. The hon. member for Green Point said—

†According to the Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa 4 373 properties in District Six were valued at R29,98 million. Municipal rates in 1976 amounted to R455,726 million a year, which means that the annual loss to the area amounted to R3,64 million.

*Owing to a lack of time, I just want to make a few last remarks in conclusion. An attempt has been made here in which people allowed themselves to be taken in tow. It seems that even the city engineer of Cape Town made deliberate errors by indicating figures and measurements incorrectly with the purpose of placing the whole matter in a totally incorrect perspective.

That is a scandalous allegation.

I said this seemed to be the case. If the hon. member for Green Point says it is scandalous, he should go and read the newspaper reports on the matter and then inquire why those figures were furnished so incorrectly. In contrast to this the Government has surely tried to solve the matter in a good and fair way. Even the city engineer of Cape Town says, with reference to South Africa—

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a lot of time on that politically dishonest member for Vasco. He did not say a great deal and I do not want to waste too much of my time on him. [Interjections.]

I should like to make one point. The hon. member referred to Father Van Rensburg by name, a person who, of course, could not answer for himself. The hon. member suggested that Father Van Rensburg had received a message from the Lord that nobody else had received. It is quite clear to me that hon. members opposite have been deaf for a very long time. In the second point I want to make I should like to address myself, in his absence, to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs, who spoke during the no-confidence debate.

Order! The hon. member used the words “politically dishonest”. He must withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on that?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, 10 minutes ago I raised a point of order when the hon. member for Vasco described us as being politically dishonest. I was then told that I was out of order and that it was not a point of order.

I shall go into the matter. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs. He made a statement here in the House in connection with Father Van Rensburg. I think it is really time that that hon. Deputy Minister withdrew this untrue remark. He said, inter alia—

That is the people squatting in Sea Point, Green Point and everywhere else. Father Van Rensburg had nothing to do with it. The hon. the Deputy Minister should put the record right.

Now, I come to the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning, who has taken part in this debate. It is very interesting to see the kind of help that is needed to try to buttress and bolster up the very weak argument that unfortunately people from the Cape have been able to do this.

He is a responsible honourable Minister.

Oh, he is a very responsible Minister. [Interjections.] I heard his arguments. I heard his defence. I just want to say, however, that it was a very weak effort indeed, because although we listened to the voice of the hon. the Minister, we heard the spirit of the hon. the Minister of Tourism. Unfortunately that is the kind of spirit that is beginning to work in this House, and it looks as if he is winning hands down. [Interjections.] That hon. Minister took exception to the strong language used by my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, and he suggested that the hon. Leader of our party, or the hon. Chief Whip, should reprimand him and ask him to change and moderate his language. Let me, however, ask that hon. Minister to go and talk with the Coloured people themselves who were involved. Their language would be unparliamentary, from beginning to end, unprintable, because they feel so deeply about this. Since they do not have the right to be in this House, because of the policy of that hon. Minister, and cannot speak for themselves, we have to—ineffectually, I concede immediately, and not on their behalf—try to represent a spirit and point of view that is being heard all over Cape Town, in fact the whole of the Cape Peninsula. If the hon. the Minister does not want to accept my word, I urge him to go and talk to the members of the Coloured community themselves, because in the end, what this debate is all about is whether we are prepared to allow people to have a choice, or whether we are going to decide where people are going to live. That is what it is all about. When those Coloured people were moved out of District Six in 1966, and in subsequent years, they were never consulted. They did not ask to go to all these wonderful places the hon. the Minister has been describing. They asked to stay, but they were moved out. That is the fundamental difference. That is what this debate is all about. They can quote figures, and I shall do the same.

Would you say that is what this debate is all about?

In reply to the hon. the Minister, this debate is all about whether or not people should have the right to live where they want to live.

In any circumstances?

In any circumstances. Our policy is well known. [Interjections.] Let there be no pretences. I shall try to respond, as honestly as I can, directly to the question raised by the hon. the Minister.

That must be very difficult.

Are we in favour of economic intimidation, or to put it more strongly, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Community Development are we in favour of economic terrorism? The answer, of course, is a flat “no”. If I, taking part in this debate, were to be asked personally whether I am in favour of groups of concerned people, in District Six and elsewhere, going to companies and private individuals and urging them to change their mind, let me say that I am 100% behind them. [Interjections.] Make no mistake about that! [Interjections.]

You are an instigator.

I therefore believe that it is a very distressing amendment we have here, an alarming one, because that hon. Minister knows the power that this Government has.

It is alarming the right people too.

It is alarming because we know the kinds of methods they use. We know that they do not always use right and the rule of law.

Obviously you know all about it.

It is very easy to detain a person, it is easy to ban a person, it is easy to use political terrorism, if one is in power, against those who stand up against one. I hope very much that this hon. Government is not going to embark on that kind of course from now on, because I believe that the concerned people in District Six and elsewhere have right on their side. So no matter how powerful one may be, no matter how one goes against them, one will not succeed. One would only do further harm to the cause of South Africa.

I want to say immediately that we are not unaware of costs. I do not know where the hon. the Minister gets that from.

The hon. member for Green Point said it is irrelevant.

Nonsense!

Of course he said it was irrelevant.

Let me refresh the hon. Minister’s memory. It has cost South Africa R55 million, so far, to turn District Six into what can only be described as a White wasteland. It is not even White, it is just a wasteland. There is nothing there.

Let us call it a desert.

I shall come back to that. Yes, that is another very good description.

It has tremendous potential.

This vast sum of money however, R55 million, just pales into insignificance when seen against the moral injustice that has been perpetrated against, and the deep hurt that has been caused to, a community, a group of people, something that will never be forgotten. As a result of that, a church very close to District Six has erected a plaque. The hon. the Minister may be aware of that plaque and he may have seen the wording, but for the record I shall quote it, as it is very short—

That is what stands on that plaque. I believe it is a fitting memorial to the actions of this Government and to the fate of those people.

I want to refer hon. Ministers and hon. members on that side of the House to a story in the Old Testament, a story which I believe has tremendous bearing on what happened in 1966.

Look at the people behind you.

I hope they will listen too. I think it is a lesson for all of us.

You can look at the New Testament as well.

Yes, I shall do that too. Just in case the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is not as familiar with the Book of Kings as he might be, I want to tell him that, if he wants to check my reference, I am quoting from I. Kings 21. It is a story of a king, King Ahab. The hon. member for Geduld and many others will know this story well. King Ahab was a very powerful and wealthy man. Living right next door to him was a small farmer who had a vineyard. His name was … [Interjections.] Yes, that is right. His name was Naboth. I am glad the hon. the Minister knows the story.

You are Jezebel, of course.

Sir, what happened? Ahab went to see this man and said to him that he had vast vineyards of his own, that he was very powerful and wealthy and that Naboth only had one small vineyard, but that he liked that vineyard and really wanted it. He told Naboth that he was going to take it from him, but that he would not just deprive him of it as he would give him something else in return. Naboth refused and said that he had been living there for years, and that he liked his property and wanted to stay there. Ahab was then in a great huff. He was very upset about it. He started sulking and went home to his palace and his wife, Queen Jezebel. Jezebel asked him what his problem was, upon which he said that he really like that little piece of land, although he had lots of other land.

We all know the Bible.

Yes, but you have forgotten it. That is the problem. [Interjections.] So what happened? Jezebel went and made sure that Naboth was killed and then went back to the king and told him that everything was all right and that he could have that piece of land. But there was also a man called Elijah. Elijah may come in different forms and in different ways. [Interjections.] I make no claim to be him. However, those who refuse to heed the word of Elijah are the ones who will suffer the same fate as Ahab, because the word of the Lord came to Ahab and said—and this is where I come right back to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is the member for Parow: “You have sold yourself in doing this evil deed and as a result you have no future.” After a while he lost his kingdom.

You are abusing the Bible in a shameful way.

I want to warn the NP. I want to say to the NP that it is powerful; that it owns a great deal and is almost invincible, but not quite; but that if the NP dares to touch the land of a group of people who have lived there for generations and to tell them, without giving them any choice, that it will give them another place … [Interjections.] They have lived there for generations. Thousands of them have lived there for generations and the Government then took it from them. It said that it wanted even that land even though it has so much other land. That is what this debate is all about, viz. the question whether a powerful Government has the right to do that. I say it has no right to do that. That is why we urge and plead with the Government to rethink this. That is why we move this motion.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says that I am a false prophet. It may well be true, but we shall find out in the course of history. The Government’s only real defence that I have heard in the no-confidence debate, and again today, is that the area was a slum, that it was an irretrievable slum. Even the City Engineer of Cape Town was quoted to demonstrate just how bad this area was. We have conceded that point from the beginning. No one denies that that was so.

In other words, it was not like Naboth’s vineyard, not so?

No, not at all. But it was land. That land was so bad that they had to take it away from the fortunate Coloured people and give it to the poor unfortunate Whites and let them take it over. What absolute nonsense!

Kings did not covet it. [Interjections.]

That was done, and the only defence this Government has offered is that it was a slum and that therefore it had to go. But there is a world of difference between urban renewal and slum clearance. Slums exist throughout the world, and no one in his right mind wants them to continue. No one wants to defend them. I do not believe, however, that the right action to take to rectify it was to declare it a White area, as was done by proclamation in 1966. What they are saying by inference is that the only way one can renew it is by giving it to another race group. It may not have been intended, but this is the inference. Why not give it to another Coloured group? Why not open it up to all? We make no apology for saying that we believe that this ought to be an open area.

Whatever you believe, you ignore the facts completely.

I have given the facts. There were over 30 000 Coloured people involved in that removal.

More.

I am giving a conservative figure. How many does the hon. the Minister suggest were involved?

I shall deal with that in my speech.

He is proud that it is more than 30 000.

We are told that some of them used to work in Simonstown. But there were 8 500 workers in the area, 90% of whom could walk to work. That is another fact which the hon. the Minister says I have overlooked.

Those are not the full facts.

Nobody has the full facts. No one has the full truth either. If it were so that the only way to rectify a slum was to kick people out, then they would have right on their side. If, however, they cannot advance that argument, they have nothing left and once again the emperor has no clothes.

Who were kicked out?

The Coloured people were kicked out [Interjections.] Were they asked to go?

Did they want to go?

Yes, did they want to go? They were kicked out. [Interjections.]

That is a most irresponsible remark.

Well, it was a most irresponsible action. It is not my commentary on it, but the Government’s action that was irresponsible.

In conclusion, I wish to advance for the hon. the Minister six reasons why I think District Six should be declared an open area. I make no apologies for that. I have made my own position very clear. I am not talking about its being returned to one group; I am saying that in my belief the way to restore and to truly renew this area is to make it an open area. I believe that there are people on the benches opposite who believe with me that that is the answer. In fact, I shall go further and say, without mentioning any of their names—that would be to betray a confidence—that there are hon. members on that side who have come to me and who have said: “We have to give District Six back to the Coloureds, because we stole it from them.”

I do not believe it. I challenge you to mention their names.

The hon. the Minister says that he does not believe me. If I say to the Minister that I am prepared to tell him in confidence their names, will he believe me then?

Yes.

I shall do that with the greatest of pleasure in confidence.

Firstly, I want to say that District Six is a blot on race relations. In 1966 the City Council of Cape Town warned that the removal of a community the size of District Six would cause such a wave of disharmony and bitterness in the hearts of Coloured people that it would be seen as an absolute symbol of discrimination. Ten years later the report of the Erika Theron Commission stated that this action probably caused “the greatest amount of resentment, frustration and bitterness of all the actions taken under the Group Areas Act.” This was a fairly responsible commission, and those were their findings. I read further—

Secondly, District Six is at the moment a financial disaster, having cost the taxpayer R55 million to turn a densely-populated suburb into a White wasteland. The final cost will be much higher. This prime land is lying vacant. Who knows how much money the Cape Town City Council loses every year in possible rates? The central business district of Cape Town continues to lose millions of rand because they have been deprived of the purchasing power of 30 000 to 40 000 people who were living in the city centre. I believe that another reason why District Six should be open is that it must be repopulated as a matter of absolute urgency. Thirdly, thousands of people still have to be removed. 15 000 Coloured and Indian people still have to be moved out of District Six.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister can correct me. My facts are these: 11 schools still cater for nearly 6 000 pupils and those schools, I assume, will have to close down. The building of the Cape Technikon will result in the destruction of approximately 200 homes. These are all conservative figures. By declaring District Six an open residential area, however, these 15 000, people approximately, will be able to stay in their homes. It means that yet 15 000 more people will have a chance of not becoming bitter because of a system which uproots them solely because they happen to be of a different colour. Fourthly, we have the worsening housing situation. Again I know the hon. the Minister will listen carefully to my figures and correct me, if necessary. In spite of the housing shortage of approximately 33 000 in 1966, when this action took place, approximately 30 000 to 40 000 people were forced out of existing housing in District Six, although that housing—and I concede it again—was generally inferior.

It was not inferior; it was squalid.

I shall accept the word “squalid” too. Fourteen years later, the housing backlog has reached a staggering 50 000. In view of the existing housing shortage, it seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility to move yet another approximately 15 000 people and thus compound the problem. Fifthly, the poorest section of the population is hit the hardest. Let there be no doubt about that fact. Removals in terms of group areas, such as in District Six, have resulted in two-thirds of Cape Town’s population, specifically the poorer section, having to live the furthest away from the city centre. It is true that the crime rate was very high in District Six up to 1966. I want to suggest, however, that there are many areas in which the Coloured people are living now, where the crime rate is as high, if not higher, according to police statistics that I saw yesterday, as the crime rate which existed in District Six at the time. I do not believe that the only answer, when one reaches a problem area, is to move people out. There is and must be another way, because very often the solution which we find proves in the final analysis to be even worse than the situation we were trying to remedy.

Finally, there is no interest in District Six as a White residential, affluent area. After 14 years—and I shall use the words the hon. the Minister suggested—District Six is like a barren desert I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has walked through District Six in the past few weeks. He probably did so many times. I walked through there very recently.

I also walked through there in 1931 and 1932.

Well, I would not know about that; I have to accept your word for that. I was not around then. [Interjections.] The only thing that came to my mind as I walked through that area was the kind of devastation I saw in Great Britain and Europe in the 1950s, when there were still a lot of towns and cities there that had not restored after the bombing. It is devastation. It is a grim situation. I believe that, if the hon. Minister and the House would accept the motion before the House, then, to coin another phrase, the desert could blossom like a rose. There is a stigma attached to District Six. No one wants to touch it. It will go down as a stigma until there is a change of heart, a renewal of spirit…

Did you say no one wants to touch it?

No one wants to touch it.

Except the Government.

Another fat cat!

Well, of course the Government can build its police colleges, its residences and so on, but I am suggesting to the hon. the Minister that the way to renew District Six is through a renewal of spirit. I want to challenge the Government. If they do not believe the situation as we have tried to outline it for them again today, I challenge them to hold a referendum. They, of course, could make the choice: They could choose either to hold a referendum amongst the Coloured people themselves, asking them whether they want to return to District Six—I think that is fair—and then, obviously, we would accept the result of that referendum; or if the Government believe that it is right to ask White and Coloured, they can do that too. I have such a strong conviction that the White and Coloured communities of the Cape Peninsula are almost at one in believing that District Six is a blot on our name that I am sure that if they were given a chance in a referendum they would vote for the restoration of District Six so that it could be open to all the peoples of the Cape Peninsula. I believe that with deep conviction, but if I am wrong, then I am prepared to be wrong and to be seen to be wrong.

You are wrong, but you would never admit it.

No. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will hold a referendum?

I shall reply to you.

The hon. the Minister says that he will reply. I think that, if the Government were prepared to do that, it could be the greatest single act of healing of our land that we have ever known, because in many ways it is not the overall, everyday incidents which hurt, but somewhere along the line something becomes a symbol and District Six has become a symbol. Those of us who have lived here know that. It can either be a symbol which points to a worsening situation or it can be a symbol of hope. I pray that this will mean that we shall have a symbol of hope in South Africa and not a symbol of despair and shame.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Pinelands did four things to which I want to refer briefly. Firstly, he admitted that his interest in District Six was quite recent. Thus I wonder whether he is really in a position to pass judgement while not knowing what the circumstances there were, as he himself admitted. In the second place he tried to give us a little lunch-hour sermon. I think he tried to draw an inappropriate comparison by applying the history of Ahab and Naboth to the Government’s action with regard to District Six.

Show me where I am wrong.

What is comparable to the example he quoted, is the history of David and Bathsheba, and in spite of that event, we read in the Bible that David was a man who found God’s favour. Thus the hon. member should compare what is comparable and not come forward with a faulty exegesis and apply it to Government action.

He is rather a weak clergyman.

We cannot accept that at all. In the same connection I want to add something. He spoke of kings: In South Africa we speak of population groups. If that party and that hon. member believe they are the mouthpiece of the non-White population groups, I want to tell them that we on this side of the House have never presumed to say we are the spokesman of the White people only. But we are also the spokesmen of the White people in South Africa. In the third place the hon. member challenged us to hold a referendum on the issue of District Six. There again I want to ask: What criterion is it that he is trying to apply? Why only have a referendum on District Six? Surely there are other areas as well where resettlements took place. Why only District Six? What about Firgrove and other place’s places where White people moved away or that were vacated to make place for Coloureds? Therefore we must be consistent. In the fourth place, this brings me to what he really tried to do. He told us frankly that their motion was a test case. It is not so much District Six which is at stake, but rather the principle of the freedom of people to choose their dwelling place. This concurs exactly with an article in Die Burger of 18 October 1979 on what prof. H. W. van der Merwe is supposed to have said. He said that District Six should be open and that it would be a precursor to having other areas opened as well. The whole agitation, the whole campaign is an effort to have the area thrown open as a test case. He even declares that beaches should be open. That is why the Opposition is exerting this intense pressure on the Government.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that a referendum on District Six is not a test. We are concerned here with the policy of political parties, and the testing ground in that case is not one of people involved in a limited situation. He will be able to make that the platform for his next election campaign.

You mean you know what the result will be.

The NP received a mandate to introduce separate residential areas in South Africa. This mandate is being carried out and has not yet been changed by the voters of South Africa The hon. member and his party are very welcome to fight an election on this issue in future.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke about District Six with great nostalgia. Perhaps one should not blame him. [Interjections.] The District Six to which he referred, that muddled confusion of poor conditions, was the product of a Government and a local authority that were not in the hands of the Nationalists, but in the hands of those who shared the hon. member’s views. That is why I understand his nostalgia. If he was happy with those circumstances and would like to have them back, I want to tell him that he is welcome to do so. However, this is no longer possible in South Africa. I think he should gradually try to become acquainted with the modern South Africa in which we are living.

The hon. member for Durban Central, as well as the PFP, advocated an open area. We have heard about the cost factor. Surely, what this amounts to in practice is that if the area is declared open, only the affluent non-Whites will be able to live there. This means the leadership element from the Coloured community. Therefore, if the leaders live there, this will mean tremendous damage, really irreparable damage to the rest of the community, for surely they cannot be deprived of the leadership of their affluent people and professional people.

This fits in with their pattern perfectly. The Opposition parties profess to be the mouthpiece of the non-Whites, the people who look after the affairs of the non-White population groups in general, but meanwhile they are only interested in the upper layer of this population group. I do not know why. In contrast, the Government has to look after all the people and, for them … [Interjections.] I have only one minute left and consequently am not going to reply to questions.

The hon. members harped on the fact that District Six was now lying there without White interest and that the Government would never recover its money. However, if the campaign of intimidation continues, surely it is understandable that Whites and investors will not be interested.

Under the cloak of donations to the technikon, some donors tried to support the campaign of intimidation, the campaign that the area should be declared open. Mr. Raymond Ackerman of Pick ’n Pay, for example, says that many people are sensitive to the situation of the new campus. I want to tell him that Nationalists are also sensitive about certain things. The NP does not believe in boycotts, but certainly not in intimidation either. No one is asking these people to support Government policy, but if they publicly enter the political arena, they will be dealt with in the political arena. They themselves chose the meeting place and if they want to allow themselves to be misled or led astray by a person such as prof. H. W. van der Merwe—who is apparently playing the apostle to pursuade certain bodies and persons not to invest money there—and land up in the political arena, then they are there of their own choice. It is not our choice.

Mr. Speaker, when he spoke the hon. member for Pinelands reminded me very much of Father Huddleston, who when the great slum of Sophiatown had to be cleared in the 1950s, stood there and said: “Do not go, my children, do not go.” We have seen the reincarnation of that kind of view here today. Many of the things the hon. member said are simply not true. He said that 90% of the people lived within walking distance of their places of work. That may be correct, but just as there was pressure of the city on District Six, because of the slums, there was pressure of the economy on the growth of industries. Industries had to be relocated, and it was in the first instance the industries owned by the capitalists of this city that first began to push into the areas of District Six. With the growth of these industries, houses had to be removed. Then there were no complaints. But just as the people were relocated in new areas in decent housing, the industries for which they had worked before also were relocated to places adjacent to where these people were placed. So today one sees Epping 1 and Epping 2 right next to the large Coloured towns. Philippi and the new industrial area of Steenberg also lie next to Coloured areas, and so on. It was not as if only the people were moved; industries and factories were also moved for the convenience of the people as part of the total…

[Inaudible.]

Epping and Manenberg are right next to each other.

So District Six was proclaimed White because of the factories?

No. I shall tell the hon. member why. Compassion is not the exclusive preserve of the gentlemen of the Opposition. I would like to say that I miss District Six. I miss the facades, the washing that used to hang across the streets, the different textures of the roads, the old fish market and so on. It was very nice, but I did not have to live in District Six.

You did not have to go there either!

I went there.

So did I.

The hon. member went walking in District Six, like I did, when it was sunny, but he did not have to walk down the streets of District Six at night after the throng had departed and the hustle and the bustle had died down. He did not have to walk down those little lanes, which became dank alleys where the Globe Gang, the Red Cats and the Zed Gang vied with each other.

[Inaudible.]

They now say it is a desert and that the sun is baking down upon this desert, but they do not remember the winters. I remember because as a little boy, when my father was District Surgeon, I used to go there with him in the car as he had patients there.

So did I.

I remember when winter hung over District Six, when District Six held its breath and waited for the summer and people wondered who would make it through the winter. That is the truth of the matter. Has the hon. member ever looked at the files of the City Health Department to see the fantastic death rate in District Six? A Gordian knot had to be cut. Now they say we must give it back. To whom? To the owners? No, we must not give it back to the owners, because these were largely White. Must we give it back to the people who lived there originally? No. They were White. They say we must give it back to the people whom the hon. members of the Opposition conveniently choose because they happened to be resident there at a particular time. It is a nonsensical argument to suit their political …

We did not say that. We said it must be made an open area.

I am fed up to the teeth with being moralized at by newspapers, Prog ex-city councillors now sitting on the other side of the House, in the City Council of Cape Town, in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, telling us how we should deal with District Six. From 1934 to 1966 they had the fullest opportunity to do anything they liked with District Six, because they were in control of the local affairs. It was their responsibility. In 1964, when abyssmal poverty hung over District Six, which we felt very strongly about, so strongly that we had to intervene, while the city council was begging its responsibility, what was happening? In 1964 they did not have the money to spend on the poor people of District Six, but they had the money then to plan the new civic centre on the foreshore, which is the one dominant object one can see from District Six. When one goes for a walk in District Six and looks down on the foreshore, one sees this great slab which cost the people of Cape Town R52 million. This civic centre was conceived in 1964, before the Government intervened in District Six. The city council spent R1,3 million on expropriation to move hundreds of people out of the path of the Eastern Boulevard, which cut a great gash across Cape Town, splitting the community.

R1,3 million was spent. In all over R6 million was spent. There was, however, not a murmur about anything other than the compensation claims of the White landlords. Not a whimper was heard about the Coloured people who were moved out of the path of that great roadway planned by the city council of this town. It is very easy to point a finger when one wants to prove a ridiculous argument. What did they do then? They put this great road on stilts so that the little Prog housewives driving back to Bishop’s Court did not have to see the slum conditions on either side of the road. For that reason they lifted the road above all of that. Do you know, Sir, what we have in Cape Town within hearing distance of a bronchial cough in District Six? There we have the Good Hope Centre. The planning of it was commenced with in 1964 by the city councillors who are accusing us today. They began to plan it in 1964, two years before 1966 when the Government intervened. What happened? The city council spent R14,5 million so that people can watch circus acts like wrestling every now and again.

Not a farthing was spent on District Six. It is a disgrace. [Interjections.]

Sir, I have had enough of the moralizing from that side of the House. We care about the people of District Six. It is always difficult moving a community of that kind. With the best will in the world it is always difficult, and some people do get hurt, which is sad. We are, however, doing our best and the hon. members opposite are not only making it difficult for us, but they are inviting in, wittingly or unwittingly, the enemies of this country, they are inviting international action on the part of the disinvestment lobbies in Washington. Sir, I reject the motion and support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker …

That will take some explaining.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a spirited red herring being drawn across the trail.

No, no!

We have listened today to attacks on the city council’s actions prior to 1966, we have heard about the cost of the scheme, we have heard about the slums and we have heard about the crime rate, but only one hon. member on the other side has, in spite of all those reasons, actually said why the Coloureds have to get out and the Whites have to move in. I refer to the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy. He comes from the Transvaal and tells us: “This is the situation as far as the Government’s policy is concerned. All the other arguments are irrelevant, because even if all the arguments were wrong, it would still be Government policy not to have this as an open area.” That is what he said. [Interjections.] That being so, all the rest are red herrings. In fact the Government remains obsessed with the question of race. This is a racial decision. This is a racial Government and that is the reason why they are doing this. We can discuss some of the town-planning aspects, we can meet argument with argument, but when in the end we have placed all the rational arguments before the Government, the Government says, in spite of the rational arguments: “We believe in apartheid. We believe in the group areas. We do not believe in an open society and for that reason the Coloureds will not be allowed to go back to District Six.” It is race, race and nothing other than race that is involved. That is all it is about.

Sir, let us get some of the points raised in perspective. First of all, there is the question of slum conditions. I have moved through District Six in bad times and in good times and I want to say that part of District Six was indeed a disgraceful slum. Let us also, however, be realistic: Although parts were a disgraceful slum, in other parts there were proud homes. I know Norman Daniels used to live in Lavender Square, which was a magnificent street right in the heart of District Six. There were 27 schools, there were churches, and there were clubs. I was present at the closing-down ceremony of the Silver Tree Boys’ Club.

They are still there.

No, they have been kicked out of District Six. That was a magnificent club, but the people have been kicked out of District Six. Not only were there clubs, schools and churches in District Six, but there were also living people there, and that is much more important. There was a vibrant community there. With all its defects, it was perhaps one of the most exciting and vibrant communities in the Cape Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt there were problems, nevertheless there are other factors to be considered.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I had just dealt with the fact that the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy had said that irrespective of town-planning, financial and other considerations, there was one thing fundamental to the Government’s policy, and that is that there should be separate group areas. In these circumstances, whatever other considerations were applicable as far as District Six was concerned, the Coloureds would not be allowed there because it was going to be proclaimed a White group area in terms of the Government’s race policy. I am going to try to advance a few objective reasons why I believe this matter should be reconsidered, in the hope that these reasons, in the mood of today, might persuade the Government to have a rethink on this matter. Much has been said by hon. members, including the hon. member for Maitland, about the failure of the city council to redevelop District Six. What must be acknowledged is that by 1963 and 1964 specific plans for the rejuvenation and redevelopment of District Six, for the inhabitants of that area, were being entertained and had been presented to the Government…

No, no.

… and that by 1963 it would have been possible, over a period of 15 years, to redevelop District Six in the interests of the people who were living there.

A very small portion of it.

It was the first of a scheme of 15-year development which had already been put to the Department of Housing for its consideration.

The other point is the question of costs. Of course, a large amount of money has been spent, R50-odd million, but in considering costs I do not believe that the Government is right in only considering the capital outlay. As the hon. member for Pinelands asked. What is the price of the social tensions that the District Six situation has engendered? What is the price we are paying for racial antagonism? What is the price that has been paid for the dislocation of a town-planning scheme for Cape Town? In addition to that, when considering costs one cannot only take into account the capital outlay because there are also the running costs, the costs involved in bringing Coloured workers from way-out places on the Cape Flats each day, the costs, involving time fuel and money, in bringing these people into the city centre so that they can work and take part in other activities.

I want to look at this from a town-planning point of view because I believe that Cape Town is particularly sensitive in this field. Already, after 15 years, it must be clear to the Government that, whatever the merits or demerits of the original decision, something has gone wrong. I argue that, viewed purely from the point of view of a town-planning exercise, at the moment District Six is a disaster area.

You are also a disaster area.

The reason for this is that a town, city or region is not like a piece of dead meat to be cut up by an insensitive butcher and rearranged. It is a living creature with its character, personality, vitality, dynamism and its people. It has a propensity for organic growth, and that organic growth takes cognizance of a whole range of features, e.g. social, economic, topographic, demographic, transportational, etc. Whilst that organic growth can be nudged in one or other direction by regulation or town planning, there comes a limit. If one interferes too far with the natural organic growth of a town, city or community, that not only does damage to the growth of that organism, but it also does damage to the vitality and personality of the area. One can give it a tonic, one can give a town a bit of plastic surgery, one can cut out a diseased portion, but when one cuts off a limb one mutilates the body of the city. When one cuts out a vital organ, one has destroyed the life and vitality of the body. I believe that what the Government has done in District Six has not only mutilated the body of Cape Peninsula society, but has also killed much of the vitality that should be there.

Cape Town operates in a unique set of restraints as far as its town planning is concerned. There is the configuration of the coastline, the topography of the mountains and of the flats, there is the unique fact that all the growth must take place in only one quarter of the total segment surrounding the City of Cape Town. And there is also the problem of transportation through the narrow bottleneck between the mountain and Table Bay. Attempts to disturb this organic growth which has taken place over 300 years have to be handled with a degree with sensitivity. They have to be handled with the utmost care to ensure that extensive damage is not done to the body of Cape Town. Damage has been done to the body of Cape Town. I will mention a few areas in which damage has been done. Last year the hon. the Minister of Community Development expressed concern at conditions in the Sea Point and Green Point areas. Many of those conditions are the direct result of the proclamation of District Six as a White area. It is a direct consequence of it, a direct consequence of kicking out of the centre of Cape Town, out of Tramway Road, York Road, Green Point, Sea Point and District Six, those Coloured people who normally formed the working-class personnel, who provided the basic services, people who very often provided the after-hour services in that area. By doing this the Government not only destroyed their homes, but also destroyed the community base of District Six, the heart-beat of urban Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula. It destroyed the heart-beat of the Coloured community and it drove that new community base 15, 20 miles out into the sands of the Cape Flats, beyond the reach of the people who have to work in Sea Point, in Green Point and in the city area. That is a fact. They have been left like flotsam and jetsam on the beach as a result of this racial attitude of the Government towards where people should live and where communities should be established.

I think of the Cape Town central business district. Cape Town is essentially a trading port. Its vitality, the growth of its centre relies on people who do trade and carry on business, who buy and sell across the counter and in the market-places. Things have changed in Cape Town. The fact that airways have taken over from seaways in bringing people here, the fact that containerization has taken over from cargo ships, mean that fewer and fewer people are doing business in the city centre of Cape Town. What is absolutely vital if Cape Town, the mother city, is going to grow and to prosper is that right in and around Cape Town there should be largest possible reservoir of clientèle for the market-places of the Cape Town city centre. Yet 29 000 people have been moved out of that area. They are told that they cannot do business in that area unless they come, at considerable costs to themselves, from Cape Flats in order to trade in the city centre.

The consequence of that has been a down-turn in the whole viability of the economic progress of the city of Cape Town. The hon. the Minister says that District Six has a valuable potential because the rest of Central Cape Town is so crowded. That is absolute nonsense. The problem about Cape Town’s CBD is that is has too many underdeveloped areas. The whole of the Foreshore has not yet been developed. Cape Town on the western side of Long Street is due for renewal. This is why District Six is the wasteland it is. It is because it is not viable for the purposes for which the Government wants to use it.

One thinks of the situation of transportation. It is no use saying that some people from District Six used to work in Simonstown. The fact is that this is the overwhelming majority of the 29 000 people who lived in District Six worked in Cape Town and its immediate environments.

But that is not true.

I am not interested in the few who did not. The overwhelming majority did. We know that. People living in Bloemhof Flats are going to be ruthlessly kicked out of those flats in a few years. Where do they live and work? In Simonstown? They live and work in Cape Town, and this is where they should remain. [Interjections.]

It is all very well to talk about costs. The hon. the Minister himself would not be pleased if he, as a struggling man in a sub-economic situation, had to pay R2 a day, which is the cost of commuting between Mitchell’s Plain and Cape Town. In addition he knows that because of the very narrow window through which traffic has to pass the Salt River area and because more and more rail transport is going to be used, the bottleneck that exists is not going to be helped as a result of the Government’s plans for District Six.

The fourth consequence relates to the culture, to the personality and to the social fabric of the Cape Peninsula society. I have said that cities are living organisms. Cities are like people, not like bits of dead meat. What the rape of District Six has done has been to damage, if not to destroy, both the culture and the personality of Cape Town. It is less united than it was. It is more divided. It is less vital. It is more fragmented. It is less gay and less cheerful than it was. It is more somber and more strained than it was. Cape Town was an exciting city in which to live when District Six was vibrant and … [Interjections.] It was an exciting and vital city, but it has become dull. [Interjections.]

Order!

It has become a city not where people can live but where the Government is trying to create an area where people merely exist. The rape of District Six over the past 14 years has damaged the social fibre of the Cape Peninsula society. The Government does not realize how much it has been damaged. That society was not established by the UP or some other party, but way back when Jan van Riebeeck came here more than 300 years ago. This society has evolved into something in respect of which we who live in Cape Town, including the majority of people who do not have white faces, have been proud to say we are members and contribute towards it.

Apart from looking at it in terms of planning, transportation and communities, let us also look at it in terms of what it has done to the Coloured people themselves. Apart from the disgraceful history of what the Government has done in District Six and apart from the anguish, disruption and bitterness they have caused, things of which the hon. the Minister should be aware because that is how he felt when he was still a member of the Opposition, it has also tried to destroy—it has not succeeded—the heart-beat of the Coloured community in the Cape Peninsula.

Several racial considerations were advanced by the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning. One might call it compassion if one wishes, but perhaps it is a dirty word; one might call it justice if one wishes, but perhaps hon. members will be embarrassed by it; and one might call it common sense, but everything points to it that the philosophy propounded by the hon. the Minister is a philosophy of race and the dominant criterion as to why District Six should go. Surely it makes common sense in terms of all these criteria to make at least part of District Six available to the service personnel who want to serve the people of the city centre, very often after hours. They need a community base to which they can go back after they have finished providing these services, but that community base is not there. Surely it is common sense that the people who can least afford transportation costs should be the people who stay closest to their places of work. All those people working in the factories at Philippi, Bellville South and Epping know that Cape Town city and the built-up areas around the city require 10 000 workers to do the work, and these people are entitled to live a normal life.

Surely there is no reason other than the stubbornness, to the point of vindictiveness, of this Government’s obsession for sticking to a decision which was wrong when it was made and which has been proven wrong in practice. Surely R50 million, if that is what one is going to lose, is nothing to pay to restore the damage and to heal the wounds which this Government has inflicted on the Coloured people of South Africa District Six is not going to go away. It is not going to go away physically, nor is it going to go away as a scar on the body of Cape Town. The Government can pump as much public money into building police barracks and defence quarters, can renovate Fawley Terrace, can kick out another 400 families from Bloemhof Flats, can evict the remaining families, can coerce Indians into the Asian Plaza and can even find money for a White technikon in what should be a Coloured area, but none of these things will remove that scar on the landscape, and the stain on the character of the Government and on the character of White South Africa. If the Government persists in making the philosophy propounded by that hon. Minister its dominant philosophy, nothing it does will get District Six to grow and to become a vital entity. It will not add to the prosperity and happiness of the people of Cape Town.

When I look at that blighted landscape and the inability of this Government to pump life into a dead and fetid body, I can only say that the Government’s policy of kicking the Coloured people out of District Six, has actually placed a curse upon District Six, a curse which will only be removed when the Government allows the Coloured people to come back to where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the privilege of following the former Leader of the Opposition in this debate today, because I think his speech typifies the entire programme of the Opposition in their treatment of the motion before the House. It was a speech abounding in rhetoric, one full of emotion and one completely divorced from the facts and the true history of the situation with which we are dealing. Listening to this debate all afternoon, the most interesting feature of it for me was the complete disregard of facts by the Opposition. I want us now to look at the facts for a few minutes.

The first fact I want to state, and I hope there will be no disagreement about it, is that the differences between the Opposition and the Government have been clarified as a result of this debate. They now agree—I am grateful for it, because we are making tremendous progress—that District Six was a slum.

In part, yes.

They now agree that District Six was a slum in part. In reply to an interjection by me the hon. member for Pinelands also agreed that it was a squalid slum.

Yes.

The second thing is that they think that the great injustice we have committed is to remove Coloured people from District Six. In reply to another interjection by me the hon. member for Pinelands also said that they should never have been removed and that all should go back irrespective of the circumstances. We have made great progress in this debate, because that is now on record. I am grateful to the Opposition for that.

I now wish to talk about the squalor because there seems to be qualifications about this fact. On previous occasions I have told this House about the overcrowding in District Six. According to town-planners District Six could house about 16 000 people if it were still suitable for housing, which it is not. In actual fact it housed more than 50 000 people, in an area which was suitable at the optimum to house 16 000 people.

Where do you get those figures from?

From town-planners, experts who know something about the situation. I knew District Six as a student and I can spend time telling the House about it, but I will not Instead I wish to inform the House about a little bit of history which is not generally known. Circumstances in District Six were so severe that in 1901 there was a serious outbreak of bubonic plague in that area. That happened because of the filth and because the rats could not be controlled. The hon. member for Sea Point laughs. He laughs because he does not want to accept that we had to deal with a serious situation. He wants to adapt the truth to his aims even if he can only do it with cynical laughter. I will now quote an article which appeared in The Cape Times, written by Eric Rosenthal on District Six. Eric Rosenthal is an impartial man, a journalist of distinction.

And a Prog.

He may be a Prog.

A good man.

He is a good man and I listen to him. He says that in 1901 plague broke out in District Six on January 31. 428 cases of the bubonic plague were found there, which included 134 Europeans, 214 Coloureds and 18 Natives, as they called them in those days. We must remember that in 1901 the ancestors of the PFP were in control of the Cape Province. What did they do? They moved squads of workmen in there, gave them ten shillings a day and within a few weeks they razed these wonderful houses, over 100 acres of them, to the ground in order to stop the filth, the rats and the pestilence from spreading. [Interjections.] I am trying to give hon. members the facts. I know they are not interested, because facts confuse them, but they must not try to confuse me too. The interesting thing is, according to Eric Rosenthal—and it has been confirmed—that after they had demolished it the people in charge had to rehouse those people, but the authorities in Cape Town at the time were like the PFP. They believed that people could be housed even in squatter camps, even in filth and with a lowering of standards. Eric Rosenthal writes—

Although those places had to be broken down because of the filth, they were rebuilt at a lower standard because of lack of control by the authorities in those days. That is the sort of situation we had to deal with. I now want to deal with another fact.

Tell us what happened in 1896.

He looks just like one of those rats …

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words, but I did not say the hon. member was a rat.

That was how I understood it.

I think that if we want to understand the situation in District Six, we should take the cognizance of authoritative witnesses at the time, and not the ex post facto, prejudiced, rationalizing judgment of people like the hon. member for Pinelands, who knows nothing of the history of District Six. I should now like to quote from The Cape Argus, which at that time, and until recently, was regarded as one of the most responsible newspapers in South Africa. I want to tell hon. members what their reaction was when there was a motion before the provincial council in 1938 to establish separate residential areas in Cape Town. This is what was written in The Cape Argus in the leading article on 8 July 1938, thus a contemporary judgment by people who were living with the problem at the time and not by people like us who cannot remember what the situation was—

The United Party Government was in power at the time.

You belonged to it.

I belonged to it. The paper continued—

That is the one fact that these hon. members will not accept, viz. that the Coloured people who lived there in District Six did not own property, but were lessees. Up to 11 of them lived in indescribable conditions in one room, as I saw myself, and the landlords were Whites. Seventy-five per cent of the landlords were Whites. [Interjections.] They exploited these people beyond measure. These are the people who now get up and say—like the hon. member for Pinelands—that irrespective of the circumstances we should force thousands of people back into District Six, irrespective of the squalor. I have never, in all my experience, heard anything so silly and anything so despicable, if I may say so, as the attitude of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order May the hon. the Minister use the word “despicable”?

Order! Not in regard to an hon. member.

I was not referring to an hon. member, but to his attitude. They just want to cut short my time. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning has mentioned that the City Engineer or the Town Clerk of Cape Town found at the time that the only solution to the problem of District Six was to raze the entire area to the ground. This was said by a then contemporary expert, not a supporter of the NP Government, but by an employee of the city council of Cape Town. He came to the conclusion, after investigation by a State committee, that the only thing was for it to be razed to the ground, was to create what the hon. member for Pinelands called a “desert”, “a wasteland”. That was considered the only solution at the time. A little later, the Government asked the University of Cape Town to investigate into District Six. They came to the conclusion that it was an irreparable slum.

These are the facts of history. We had to do it whether we wanted to or not. That is why in 1966 we appointed a committee to go into the matter of the clearance of the slum area. We had to replan District Six. We had to put in new services; we had to provide for parks; we had to provide for other facilities; we had to provide for proper streets and drainage of which nothing existed …

For whom?

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Durban Central and others must cease making so many interjections.

I certainly do not have the time for questions.

Order! Hon. members have all had a full opportunity to state their views this morning and I now ask them to refrain from further interruptions.

My time is so limited and there is so much more I could add. There was a lot of talk here this afternoon that we should give District Six back to the Coloured people. The hon. member for Pinelands said they should be put back, all 50 000 of them.

I did not say anything of the kind.

They want them to go back. I want to say, however, that one can never restore District Six as a residential area. One certainly cannot have sub-economic or low-cost housing in District Six for the simple reason that the land is too expensive. The cost of land today in District Six is R48 per sq. metre. Therefore, the type of stand which we have in the suburbs of today, a quarter acre or 1 000 sq. metres in extent, would cost R48 000. I ask hon. members: How many sub-economic units can be built on such land? How could one possibly build sub-economic units on land like that? It cannot be done. There could be a small élite of the Coloured people who could go there, but then one comes to the point which the hon. member for False Bay made so correctly, so wisely and so rightly, namely that it means that one would be carrying out the policy of the old colonial administration in South Africa of which the hon. members opposite are the heirs who tried to control the situation of the other races of the country by scooping off their élite and their leaders and making them their “boeties” while they neglected the mass of the people. It is the Government’s attitude, however, that we want the élite of the communities to be the leaders of those communities in the areas where their people live. In the same way that the Whites have their suburbs such as Constantia, they will have their suburbs of distinction for their leaders, but not miles away from the rest.

Finally … No, not finally, because there is so much more I wish to say and this matter must be taken further so that we can get to the truth and this rhetoric and agitation can end.

Agitation?

Yes, agitation, the agitation to which the hon. the Minister referred and which we are going to stop—let hon. members make no mistake about it.

How?

We are not without compassion. The argument has been raised that these people must be within reach of their work. A minority of the Coloured people work in the urban areas of Cape Town. Most of them work in the industries at Industria, Bellville and other such areas. They are well housed in Athlone, Mitchell’s Plain and other areas. For the people who live in Cape Town we are making provision.

Where?

They have got Schotsche Kloof, Schoone Kloof and we have given back a large portion of District Six and I think it was in 1975 that we gave them back Walmer. They also live in such an area as Kensington. For the workers in the CBD of Cape Town we made available 440 ha of urban land almost within walking distance of the centre of Cape Town. That fact is completely ignored. Only the other day my hon. colleague gave them the whole of Salt River and a large part of Woodstock. These are facts that are ignored in order to produce a jaundiced, distorted and warped picture of the society we are trying to create in South Africa, where there will be justice for all, where there will be true compassion for the needs of ordinary men and where the Government will not set out to divorce the leaders of the community from the community in order to better exploit the community, as some of the members of the PFP do in their private lives.

Mr. Speaker, it was obvious that the hon. the Minister of Community Development enjoyed himself. And I grant him that, that he should enjoy his role as an enthusiastic discoverer of the obvious and a collector of irrelevant information regarding the motion before the House. We are back to square one by concentrating on the condition in which District Six was in 1966. We have tried specifically to steer the argument away from that question. What on earth prevents the Government from allowing Coloureds to return to District Six today, whatever the situation was at that time? How on earth the Government can argue that in order to clear a slum they must declare it White, heaven only knows! Certainly no reasonable and thinking individual can justify such an argument at all.

I was attacked earlier in the debate by the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning and Energy for not reacting to the statistics and facts given to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development in a previous debate. I did not react to them because they were useless statistics. The statistics he gave were in respect of people who lived in District Six but were employed elsewhere, away from the centre of Cape Town. That was only a fraction of the total population. It is, however, interesting to notice that neither that hon. Minister nor the hon. the Minister of Community Development bothered for one moment to give us all the facts regarding the number of employed people who lived in District Six in 1966. The number was 8 500 minimum, and that is a conservative estimate. [Interjections.] The figure they gave us regarding people who lived there and worked in other areas was about 1 200, which was a fraction of the economically active people in District Six.

Another argument to which I have to react very briefly is that of the hon. the Minister of Environmental Planning regarding the importance of the fact that Whites owned the land in District Six. In all honesty and reasonableness I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not more important that 95% of the resident population of District Six at that time were Coloureds. Surely, however important it is who owns the land, that is more important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) socio-economic upliftment programmes;
2. (b) communication and education; and
3. (c) continued examination of practices that cause relations to deteriorate.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when, as a young member, I made my first speech here, I spoke from the heart, as we all did. On that occasion I said a few words about the socio-economic problems in South Africa. Accordingly it is a privilege for me on this occasion to address this House again about this matter—because it is a matter of such profound importance.

There is no doubt—and I do not think there is any member of this House who has any doubt on this score—that the good relations between White and Black in South Africa form the pivot around which South Africa and our future will turn. We are fighting on two fronts at the moment, in the fanatical and bitter struggle for our survival that we are waging. On one of the fronts we are spending billions of rands on arms, and on the other front we are fighting for the hearts and minds of the mass of our people in non-White South Africa.

On the front where we are fighting the arms war, we are relatively well informed, but on the front where we are fighting for the hearts and minds of people, we are often so uninformed that one asks oneself whether we are really in earnest in fighting that war. Every White person, every adult person in South Africa, is a soldier in this second battle we are fighting for the hearts and minds of people. We plan together, we fight together and we conquer together, or else we are on the side of the enemy. Everyone must ask himself where he stands in the battle to win the goodwill of people. There is no doubt that South Africa has an enduring potential for conflict. We can defuse this potential for conflict by good relations between White and Black, or else we can set this conflict alight by negative actions. White and Black relations in South Africa have become dangerously politicized and internationalized.

It is against this background that each one of us must ask ourselves what our standpoint is. After all, it is pointless to refer to problems in other countries in Africa and in the rest of the world. We have to solve our problems here. It is of vital importance to us that we should solve our problems here. It is pointless referring to other countries’ problems. Nor will it be of any avail to argue here for days on end about an announcement concerning a period of 72 hours. Our enemies want our country, our possessions, our way of life and our ideas, or they seek our death. Now we must ask what the climate is in which we have to promote good relations. We can therefore say frankly that there is an anxiety in South Africa which borders here and there on a crisis psychosis. There is restlessness, confusion and uncertainty centring around Rhodesia, terrorism and our future. It is as well that we should give some thought to that restlessness. People get the feeling that a storm could break over us, while others feel that drastic action must be taken. There are others, too, who warn us and say that a storm is definitely going to break. There are of course extreme standpoints and emotions. There is resistance to the Whites and there is also resistance to the Black people. We hear cries of resistance in South Africa and we also hear cries of liberation. The people in South Africa are making anxious guesses about the situation in Rhodesia, and the events in Silverton shook everyone in South Africa. A South Africa without tension is totally impossible, but in this emotion-laden climate in South Africa we must keep our heads and be positive.

Let us say to each other frankly, the White man in South Africa is going to stand or fall, not with tanks and guns, but the White man in South Africa is going to remain standing to the extent that White and Black find, accept and respect one another and build one another’s own future. The White does not want to suffocate in a guilt complex, nor does he want to lapse into a capitulation syndrome, but wants to make a positive contribution to good relations between White and Black. What is the situation as regards White/Black relations? There are of course people who say that everything is wrong. Then, too, of course, there are people who say that everything is only negative. The hon. members of the Opposition are often in that category of people. However, what is important is that we ask ourselves: looking at the whole picture, what is predominant? Is it the positive things or is it the negative things? I think that if hon. members of this House want to be honest they will say that in South Africa, in spite of all the potential for tension, positive things predominate and that in this beautiful country of ours there are more positive things, more goodwill between Whites and Black, more things about which we can all be proud, more things which we can all help to develop, than things about which we could be negative.

It is of vital importance that we should ascertain for ourselves, in this relations situation, how we see, say and do things, and how those things which we say and do, influence our relations. So many practical things have been done under NP rule in every imaginable sphere of life, for example that of communication and education and also socio-economic upliftment, to give effect to the concept of good relations and in the interests of our continued existence, that we have every right to be proud. For example, illiteracy in our country has been totally eliminated. Programmes of economic upliftment have made such dramatic progress that in fact the greater part of Africa looks with hostile eyes of jealousy at what has come into being in South Africa. Dialogue as a positive step in South Africa has acquired exceptional prestige as a result of the visit of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to the Black States.

I want to point out—and I shall come back to this later—that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development also paid a visit to Soweto recently. There was a photograph in Die Beeid of 21 January. I was stunned at some of our people adopting a negative attitude to this photograph. We in South Africa should rather be pleased if a Minister of Co-operation and Development and a Prime Minister are received with great pleasure and enthusiasm by the Black people. By that we are definitely not saying—after all, we represent our own people—that we want to deprive them of the right to criticize, but let us just see the matter in some perspective. It is the task of the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his deputy ministers to do these things in a positive way, in the interests of the whole of South Africa and of all of us sitting in this House.

As I said, dialogue has acquired an exceptionally positive content. I ask that we should give more publicity in our Press and on the radio and television to those millions of positive thoughts between White and Black, to those millions of contact situations between White and Black, to those thousands of fine things that have taken place here over the years and are still taking place, than to negative things of that kind. Unfortunately this is not always done.

From time to time many surveys are carried out about the relations between White and Black in South Africa. When one wants to move such a motion and begins to scratch around, one realizes how complicated it is for any person, even for one who is trying hard to find things out, to be able to say how matters really stand as regards relations between White and Black. A number of sound surveys have been carried out. Markinor is one body which has carried out several surveys. The HSRC carries out various surveys. Then, too, there are various institutes of sociological and other departments of universities that do so too. I should like to see not only an increase in this type of survey but also greater publicity being given even to the kind of findings which we would not like to hear, because I think that in the process we shall all get a better idea of what is right and what is wrong, and of what we ought and ought not to do.

In November last year Press reports appeared concerning a survey which Markinor had carried out that same month. It caused me some concern that a report appeared in The Star under the heading “And the Attitudes to Whites improved”. Concerning that same visit there was a report in an Afrikaans-language newspaper “Swartes baie gegrief teenoor Blankes”. The point I am trying to make is that one can try to single out what is negative in each of these surveys in an effort to prove that relations are poor. On the other hand one can try to single out what is positive in order to prove that relations are good. Although we are certainly not supporters of that newspaper, I think that in its way, The Star played a very positive role in regard to some of these surveys of the relations between White and Black. When I say that I do not want to say that the Afrikaans-language newspapers are negatively orientated.

Let us say to each other in all honesty—I myself have often criticized him, and still today I differ strongly with him on several points—some of our Afrikaans language journalists have played a very positive role in the thinking of our people to achieve better relations over a long period. At the risk—he will understand that very well—of being hit on the head, I should like to say that Dr. Willem de Klerk, in spite of all the times he has angered so many Nationalists, has nevertheless succeeded in promoting positive race relations by the way in which he has stimulated our thinking. I just think that we must be sober enough, when differing with some of the journalists, nevertheless to thank them for having often been in the vanguard as far as the process of communication is concerned. I think that we have now and again shown them, too, that they were too hasty and were not quite right. I know that they have just as much appreciation for that.

There is something else which I regard as very important, and that is the role of White politics in the matter of White/Black relations. You will permit me, Sir, to say a few words about that. Much of the criticism levelled at the Government is summarily interpreted by Black people as criticism of the Whites. We must accept that in many respects the Government and the Whites are synonymous in the thinking of Black people. Accordingly the Whites, whose interests we look after and protect, must realize that in the criticism of the Government concerning certain matters, criticism which from time to time is not even really necessary, we are creating real problems of communication for ourselves. If I had the time, I could have elaborated a little on the aspect of the 72 hour provision in this regard as well.

Is it really necessary for an NP representative to tell some voters that the Government is not ensuring the survival of the Whites? When the Government looks after the Black people, is it really possible that there can be voters who can believe that 18 Ministers, six Deputy Ministers and a whole Parliament full of NP representatives—people who have all the information on the dangerous situation and the problems at their disposal, people fed with facts and information by a mighty State machine, people who are therefore well-informed—will really work towards harming the Whites or ploughing them under in the road ahead in the political or any other sphere? That leaves me speechless. In public, in the interests of good relations between White and Black, some of our nationalists should just show a touch more confidence on the road ahead, in the knowledge that there are people sitting here who ultimately and basically look after and protect their interests, but who also have to do other things in the interests of their good relations with the Black man and also in the interests of the Black man himself.

White emotions play a key role in relations politics. That is why it is so important that in our arguments with one another, we should be responsible and careful. The Whites seek security. There is no doubt about that. The NP has committed itself to giving the White people security. One of the most basic ways of giving that security to the Whites in South Africa is to bring about a dispensation in every single sphere in which we can generate good relations between White and Black. We must tell this to our people. In a certain sense we should in fact talk to our people impartially. To be honest, it is pointless trying to apologize to our people and trying to explain in all kinds of ways without speaking openly. We must tell our people openly that their security and their interests are the number one priority for the NP, but that Black/White relations are the foundation of our survival. We cannot overlook or ignore that.

We get people who walk around in public trying to arouse all kinds of emotions. Arrie Paulus and other people who are not even as far right as he is, may perhaps create a temporary impression of security among certain people by arousing emotions, but eventually the race emotion aroused by him and his henchmen and by other people who resort to that kind of politics, will totally destroy the security of all of us in South Africa. We cannot win with the kind of White who said—and let us be honest with one another—“What does Piet Koornhof know about the Black man?” There are many people like that, who imagine that they know the Black man. We know that kind of person. He knows the Black man inside out He is an absolute expert. This kind of person often bedevils relations with his stereotyped caricature of Black people as lazy, untrustworthy, irresponsible people. They must come to their senses. There is only one kind of White person who really knows the Black man, and that is the White person who treats him with honesty, humanity and respect. No other person can even claim to know a Black man. The NP does not believe in fawning obsequiousness or rifle-brandishing defiance. That is not the way to promote race relations. We have an enormous task of communication, and all our people must help us. We must all share confidence, and our message must be the right one, our message of goodwill and friendliness. I am now going to speak very frankly about this point. There is no doubt whatsoever that among many Black people the concept of human dignity is becoming an increasingly emotional one. We simply must listen to the emotional statements by Black politicians, Black educationists, clerics and other leaders concerning the concept of human dignity. We must take cognizance of them. We must tell this to our voters, too. We must bring home to each one of them that the negative life experience of Black leaders and the emotions they generate, permeate through to the masses like yeast. We must tell the people that this emotion of not being regarded or treated as a human being, is an essential element of a world-wide revolution of race emotion which is also reaching South Africa’s shores. We must tell them that it is an illusion to talk about race harmony in South Africa before the Black man has had positive experience of being accepted by the White man as a person. Separate development does not imply inferior and superior people. It implies equal and different people. If we can convey the right message to our people, then I am convinced that we shall make a great deal of progress with communication between White and Black, in the interests of good relations. It is not pleasant to say this, but it is perhaps something for our small nation to be ashamed of occasionally that in South Africa, with its complex racial structure, there are certain leaders that sometimes feel it incumbent upon them to say things about other race groups in a negative and inflammatory way, with the sole aim of strengthening their own position. That is not a healthy state of affairs. That applies to Black leaders as well as to radical White political leaders. When one reaches the point of having to stabilize one’s own position by saying wrong and negative things about other groups, one is engaged in a very dangerous type of political practice.

There are a number of myths that must be eliminated from our thinking. Here and there people still cherish these same myths, myths that do not further good race relations. For example there is the myth that we can always remain the guardians of Black people, the myth that certain types of work can only be done by Whites, the myth that we can think for Black people, the myth that we can decide for and on behalf of the Black people about their own affairs, the myth that one can tell a man that he should be proud of what he is. How often does one not still hear people, prominent people, mounting a platform and telling the Black people: “You must be proud of what you are.” Have we ever considered what our reaction would be if someone else were to mount a platform and tell us that we as Afrikaners should be proud of what we are? Surely that is not how things work. It causes a negative counter-reaction. Say, for argument’s sake, that Lord Milner had said to us many years ago: “You Afrikaners must be proud of being Afrikaners.” What then? I think we should give some thought to that.

Nor, of course, is there such a thing as absolute separation. That is another myth we must eliminate from our system. Then, too, there is the myth that Black people will only be in certain parts of the country temporarily, the myth that we can only talk to moderate people, the myth that the Black man will be satisfied to remain a poor appendage of a rich society and the myth that certain illogical practices can continue to exist for ever. I am referring now to myths such as separate counters on a racial basis, etc. I wish we had the time to dwell for just a few minutes on the emotional experience of many Black people in regard to things which we do not perhaps regard as wrong. Perhaps we should then be able to tell ourselves that these are things that we must destroy.

Years ago I too worked in a Government department. At the time—I remember it very well—when letters were addressed to Black people, we wrote to them as Monna or Mosadi. That was followed by “Groete/ Greetings.” We have permanently left behind the era of Monna and Mosadi. We are living in an era of independent and cultured people. Let us meet each other as equals and look after each other’s interest.

Then too there is the myth that a Black man will never sit with us in a restaurant. It need not be expected of us—and I want to put this clearly—to enunciate all these things in detail. If one merely uses one’s logic and one’s common sense, every Nationalist will know how these things should be handled, as the Government is also doing in the interests of harmony among all people. I just want to make one last point.

Because it is one of the really fundamental elements of sound relations between White and Black, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to institute an in-depth investigation into the whole socio-economic problem surrounding the position of the Black people in our great urban complexes. I have no doubt that the realities of the day, namely a tremendous population increase and the problems that entails have at certain points overtaken our own ideals of separate coexistence. On the basis of the problems being experienced in Pretoria, and also in many other urban areas such as Johannesburg, the entire Witwatersrand, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein, I should like to talk about the problem as a whole. In Pretoria at the moment we are faced with an absolutely untenable situation. Our people assess the policy of the NP by its practical effects. I want to say honestly that what the people see in the Pretoria area, they do not like, and they do not like to experience it. Not only are we as a party being criticized on that score, but bad relations between people occur as a result. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. 45 000 Black people, men and women, live in the Pretoria complex, outside the Black residential areas, in the White residential areas. About 20 000 of them are registered, while the others live there illegally. There is a shortage of more than 4 000 family units for Black people and there is a shortage of more than 30 000 houses for Black people without their families.

We cannot promote good relations between White and Black in South Africa if we allow this mixing, with all the problems it entails, to persist in our White cities. Problems arising out of people flocking together and problems of tension are being experienced there. Problems of tension are being experienced due to a lack of facilities and at all kinds of places where people meet one another. This is unnecessary, because it is not the essence of our policy of race harmony. We must take a very penetrating look at this. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all humility that we could consider the situation here in Cape Town. 32% of the Black people in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu are under the age of 15 years. In our socio-economic planning we must begin to consider these problems. In the light of the threat and in the light of the vital need for good relations we must give dramatic and drastic attention to this. We can handle the problem on a far greater scale with State funds.

Let us be honest with one another. The vast majority of Black people in the urban areas are not yet in a position to be able to afford to acquire accommodation for themselves by purchasing houses. However idealistic one may be, one realizes this fact if one does a projection for the next five to 10 years and considers the issue of inflation, salaries and the income limits in all the large urban complexes. If one is to solve these problems, it is essential that the State should give more attention to the issue of Black housing.

I am not concerned about Coloured housing. White housing does not cause any problem either, but among the Black people there is a housing crisis, and this is creating relations problems. We must give attention to this. We shall see how long it is going to take to solve the problem in the various complexes. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I know that he and his officials are ready and willing. However, what is the problem one encounters? We are faced with an incredible rate population increase. The hon. the Minister said that 40 cities almost as large as Pretoria or Johannesburg were going to arise in the next few decades. We can never deal with this population increase if we do not uplift these people socio-economically. The issue of the population increase is the most important fact we must consider if we seek to improve relations. It is a scientific fact that if one urbanizes and modernizes, one reduces the rate of population increase. This is absolutely imperative, because only then can one deal with all the other problems associated with the socio-economic problem.

I am convinced that if we investigate this matter in depth and there is a greater effort on the part of the State, we shall be able to deal with these practical problems bedevilling White/Black relations as well, and we shall also be able to promote White/Black relations in this field in terms of our policy, as is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, nobody will criticize the intent behind the motion moved by the hon. member for Innesdal, nor the obvious spirit of sincerity which motivated him in moving it. Thus I believe that the motion is well intended and that the hon. member has shown that he is, like all of us, genuinely concerned that there should not be a deterioration in race relations in South Africa To that extent we on this side of the House congratulate the hon. member on the motion which he has moved. However, having said that, I must add that I cannot agree with the precise wording of the motion in its present form. It is framed in terms which are far too general, too vague and too nebulous.

Because we are discussing a matter which is of such vital concern to us all, I think it is important that this debate should be carried on in as positive a manner as possible. It is important that we should try to find each other in the arguments we are going to use, because I sense that there is considerable common cause as to the need for us in South Africa to ensure that race relations are improved. I must be critical of the wording of the motion in order that we on this side of the House can perhaps understand those on the other side and that we can find each other in what we are trying to achieve.

The motion reads: “That this House requests the Government to continue building on the positive steps already taken to promote good relations …”, etc., as outlined by the hon. member. I want to join issue with him on that point to begin with. What are the “positive steps already taken”? Are they adequate, are they sufficient and are they properly directed? I think this is what we have to ask ourselves if we are to debate this matter meaningfully.

In his speech the hon. member has mentioned some of these positive steps. He referred to and gave credit to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Prime Minister for their visits to Black homeland areas, to Soweto and this sort of thing. Certainly we on this side of the House will join with him in giving approval to that sort of contact being maintained and increased between members of the Government and Black leaders and communities. We will give credit as far as that is concerned. As far as positive steps are concerned, where we believe the Government is taking positive steps, we on this side of the House will certainly give them our support if those steps are in the interests of better race relations.

Our problem in regard to this whole matter is that the totality of any positive steps which the Government may take to improve race relations is so often completely overtaken and outweighed by the steps they have taken, the laws they have passed and their reaction to issues which in themselves have been harmful to good race relations in South Africa. The whole philosophy of the Government on the race issue has in my view been harmful to race relations in this country. This is where we differ fundamentally from hon. members on the other side of the House. They have committed themselves, and we have heard the hon. member for Innesdal do the same this afternoon, to apartheid, separation, to separate development. In essence they have committed themselves to the belief that the only way you can have peaceful relations among races in South Africa is to keep them separate. In this way they maintain that you will remove and forestall areas of friction if you allow people to develop their own areas and to go their own way. This I think is the argument which is generally used, viz. that by separating people you are lessening areas of friction. If I am to understand the basic and elementary philosophy behind the NP, I think that might be a fair summing up of it. We believe it is this very philosophy which has caused people to move further apart in South Africa. We believe it is this very philosophy which has accentuated the differences between races and has led to a deterioration in relations between Black and White in South Africa.

If one looks at the steps taken by the Government over the years to enforce that philosophy, I believe that those steps have in more ways than one caused most of the animosity which exists today between White and Black in this country. I do not want to discuss the measures in detail, because there have been and will be other opportunities for doing so. One can think right back to the Separate Amenities Act, referred to in a previous debate. One can think of the discussion which took place here this morning relating to the Group Areas Act. One can think of the Population Registration Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. One can think of the steps taken to see that young South Africans are kept apart at universities for the most part. One can think of the forced removal of thousands of people in South Africa by a White Government. One can also think of pass laws, influx control, curfew laws and matters of this kind. It is these things which I believe have damaged good race relations in this country. When one talks of “building on the positive steps already taken to promote good relations”, as the hon. member does in his motion, I believe that that is hardly reassuring against the background of the legislative record of the NP on the race issue, unless it is accompanied by a revision of attitude at this stage, attitudes which have been adopted and enforced for 30 years and more in South Africa. It is not simply sufficient to say that we are going to build on the positive steps which have already been taken, unless the Government is prepared, and unless we in South Africa are prepared, to acknowledge where we have made mistakes in the past and to look at the whole structure upon which our policies and our philosophies have been built. That is what we are going to have to do if we are really going to be serious in any attempt to ensure that there will be better race relations in this country. If one talks, as the hon. member for Innesdal does in the third leg of his motion, of—

this is simply not adequate in the present circumstances. We should certainly continue to examine these matters; that is not a bad concept in itself, but in so many vital areas in South Africa, we do not need to examine anymore. We know what has caused relations between Black and White to deteriorate, and what we must do is to change, and not to just examine, the laws that discriminate against people on the grounds of race. That is fundamental to any attempt we might make hereafter to ensure that there are good race relations in South Africa. It is not sufficient just to tinker with these laws or to try to make minor concessions within them. An example of this has been the whole concept which has also been referred to in previous debates of making concessions by permit. The hon. member for Innesdal again referred to the fact this afternoon that races would be allowed to mix in certain restaurants, etc. We have seen this happen in the field of amenities and we have seen some relaxation within the framework of the philosophy, some relaxation in respect of who may visit hotels, restaurants, and other institutions, but while we on this side of the House welcome that sort of relaxation, we must point out that the method of doing so by way of permit is something which in the end is not going to work and we also believe that the very fact that permits have to be issued in order to allow people to mix at this sort of level on these sort of premises, accentuates the pre-occupation of the Government with matters of racial discrimination. The more they do this, the more confusion there will be and one will see further examples, such as the Omar Henry incident at a Newlands steakhouse, where that Western Province cricketer was refused service, the problem which the proprietor of that restaurant experienced and the hurt caused, not only to the individual concerned, but also to the community from which he came and to South Africa as a whole, because that single story can cause untold harm and undo all the good which might have been done to South Africa by the instances mentioned by the hon. member, such as the visits to the Black homelands, the visits to Soweto, etc. That single incident could do more harm to the good name of South Africa outside. This is the danger which arises when one tries to rectify these matters by way of concessions and by way of permits.

We believe that it is not sufficient just to examine the causes for the deterioration of good race relationships. Positive steps have to be taken and there must be a commitment to outlaw statutory discrimination. At this stage I should like to move the amendment as it is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) examination, in continual consultation with those affected, of practices that cause relations to deteriorate and the repeal of all laws which discriminate against people on grounds of race, colour or sex;
2. (2) socio-economic upliftment programmes such as the establishment of a non-racial service corps for South Africans of all ages to assist with the provision of better social, educational and other services in underdeveloped areas.”.

I think I have already motivated the first leg of that amendment by saying that I believe that a prerequisite, in any attempt to ensure that good race relations prevail, is to repeal legislation which discriminates on the grounds of race.

I now want to deal with the second leg of my amendment. Some of the words I borrowed from the motion of the hon. member for Innesdal, e.g. the term “socio-economic upliftment programmes”. We support that concept. Of course it can cover a very wide field indeed. We can think of so many things which are essential in the socio-economic field for the upliftment of people in easing those tensions.

We can think of narrowing and eradicating the wage gap between Black and White in South Africa; we can think of the provision of better housing on a massive scale; we can think of the up-grading and expansion of education facilities for all our people; we can think of improving training facilities for the underprivileged people particularly, and we can think generally of improving the quality of life for the masses of the South African population and the underprivileged people in particular. All these things need to be done, but I want to deal this afternoon—and I am glad the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is here, because I would like him to listen to the suggestion I want to make and I hope that it might find some sympathy with him and might be a thought-provoking for him—with a specific issue which I believe needs the Government’s attention and which I believe would be one way of giving effect to the mover’s request for socio-economic upliftment programmes.

I want to appeal to the Government to investigate the establishment of a non-racial service corps in South Africa for the effective channelling of the talents and the services of concerned South Africans in upliftment programmes. I am thinking of something like the domestic branch of what is generally known as the American Peace Corps which operates within the United States in underdeveloped and developed areas. I have done a little bit of research in this because I think it is interesting and because I think the circumstances can be very similar here. I think the opportunities in South Africa for such a corps are very great indeed. The American branch of the peace corps which deals with situations in underdeveloped and underprivileged areas in the United States is known as Vista, which stands for Volunteers in Service to America. Its charter is founded in an Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973. I want to quote from that because I think it is an interesting concept. The relevant Act starts off by giving what they term “a statement of purpose” and says—

It goes on to say that the idea is to get volunteer groups and volunteer individuals in the United States—

It then sets out the sort of machinery which is needed for this and which in fact operates in the United States. It includes—

It then sets out, too, that—

Then, and this I think is very important, it indicates that—

The hon. the Minister will know something of the operation of the peace corps in general. I am thinking for the moment of the local and internal volunteer organizations. I think the latter part is important, where it says they will work in their community, because this will ensure that the local inhabitants in those areas requiring upliftment are actively involved in the programme. The Vista handbook sets out what it terms three fundamental assumptions in regard to this whole programme. The first is that—

Further stress is laid on the fact that the people in the areas concerned must participate, that the volunteer groups must be identified with those people. I believe that this is an interesting concept and that the situation in South Africa, the situation which we are discussing this afternoon, invites that we consider setting up a similar type of service corps to co-ordinate efforts of people around the country in helping the underdeveloped areas of South Africa. We share a common concern with regard to all these matters. It was evident again this afternoon. We know that the security of South Africa—and the hon. member for Innesdal made this point this afternoon very well and I agree with him entirely—and our very future depends not only on our ability to defend our borders against foreign aggressors, but also on our ability to solve the very real social political and economic problems within our own borders. I can think of no better way of manifesting this concern in positive terms than by setting up the machinery to enable concerned South Africans of all races to give their services in the upliftment of the underdeveloped areas and the people who live in them.

Consider what the impact will be. I think it will be both real and symbolic. I think to have a corps of concerned South Africans of all races moving into the depressed areas of South Africa amongst the underprivileged to give them of their talents and skills and to identify with the people in trying to bring about their upliftment, would have a tremendous impact. I believe that if one could get people of all ages, whether they are retired—as in cases in America—elderly and young people, people who are prepared to volunteer one or two years for a very basic remuneration, people who are trained, e.g. teachers, architects, dentists and artisans who are prepared to give this sort of expert service and to work with people, this could have a dramatic effect on race relations in South Africa and I think it could be a real contribution to the progress and stability and racial understanding which we all seek in this country. The will is present amongst all people in South Africa. We know that it is present, because there already are volunteer organizations in South Africa which do good work. We know that there are in all sections people with very pronounced social consciences who want to help and who want to see upliftment in these areas. It needs, however, a bold and imaginative lead from the Government to make this a meaningful reality.

So I believe that such a service corps, of the type which I am suggesting, would be a vital adjunct to the paramilitary services of the Defence Force in South Africa. We know of the good work which is being done in certain areas of South Africa by the Defence Force. They second doctors or teachers to help the local inhabitants. It is being done to good effect, but it is obviously not enough. It is still on too small a scale. I see in the setting up of a service corps something which could work as a very necessary and interesting adjunct to what the Defence Force is already doing successfully. I think it would also have the effect of providing young and old South Africans with a new idealism and a practical, co-ordinated opportunity to serve their country and people in such upliftment programmes. I believe it is an important concept. I think it is a natural and practical way of meeting what the mover of this motion has called for, viz. that attention should be given to socio-economic programmes for the upliftment of people.

As I have said, the motion is well-intended. One can agree with most of what the hon. member for Innesdal said, but I believe that if we are going to be realistic about the problem, we have got to go very much further than the hon. member in his speech or as set out in his motion. I believe it is essential that we review those laws on our Statute Books which are based on the principle of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. Secondly, I believe that if we are really going to tackle the problem we should look at the question of underprivileged people in South Africa, at the immense problem of poverty in South Africa, at the immense disparities which exist which can only serve to accentuate racial friction, because they are disparities which always show the minority of Whites as the privileged group of South Africa and the majority of Blacks as the underprivileged. If we are going to do that we have got to embark upon practical, positive programmes where South Africans of all races can find each other and where they can work together and develop practical socio-economic programmes for the upliftment of the underprivileged people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave has raised certain matters, inter alia, that he disagrees with the hon. member for Innesdal as to the positive action the Government has taken to date regarding better relations between Black and White. I shall come back to this in a moment. Then again for the umpteenth time he harped on the same old string of discrimination and also dragged in the Omar Henry affair. The Omar Henry affair really illustrates the point which the hon. member for Innesdal made in the sense that although the incident in itself is something which one cannot counternance, the terrible things that have been written about this incident make South African odious in the eyes of the rest of the world. During the course of this week we read that the same sort of thing happened in Amsterdam, The Hague and other cities in the Netherlands. A group of Black people went to a restaurant and the person at the door would not allow them to enter. Within a few moments Whites arrived who were allowed to enter. It is this sort of publicity that is given to this sort of incident, especially by that section of the Press which supports the hon. member for Musgrave and his party, that aggravates this sort of situation.

I think the House should have great appreciation for the motion of the hon. member for Innesdal, as the hon. member for Musgrave has admitted. The hon. member for Innesdal has once again focused attention on a very important facet of our South African society. I think an awareness of the importance of this is present in all South Africans regardless of the national group to which they belong. A Commissioner-General once described it thus: That the Whites and Blacks in South Africa are like the black and white spots on a leopard. A bullet does not penetrate only a white spot or a black spot, and if the leopard is shot dead, it is not only the white spot that dies, but the black spot as well. In praising the Government for the positive steps taken in regard to improving national relationships, in the first place, as the hon. member for Innesdal has done, we must pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister who, accompanied by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development so zealously took the initiative to visit the Black states, excluding the independent Black States, and Soweto. The goodwill this engendered was demonstrated to us quite clearly on television. That is obvious.

Let us now look at the positive steps that have been taken in South Africa. I have with me the annual report of the Economic Development Corporation Limited. This report states that in the field of industrial development 27 factories with an employment capacity for 4 095 were established during the year. Since 1971, 21 657 job opportunities have been created. When one looks at what has been done in various facets of communal life one cannot understand why South Africa is projected so unfavourably in the United Nations and in other places. When one considers that the emigré figure for States north of the Zambezi at this stage exceeds four million, while in South Africa there is virtually no emigré figure—or a minimal one—one’s concern that South Africa is always being attacked becomes even greater. Those people who leave South Africa are not really emigrés. They are people who leave of their own free will in order to co-operate with malicious forces to overthrow peace and order in South Africa. But more than four million refugees have fled from the rest of Africa. I think this is a very important fact to be borne in mind.

In the second place I should also like to draw attention to the contribution of the quiet man in the street towards maintaining a good and positive attitude at his place of work, on the farm, in industry and in every facet of society where Black and White come into contact with one another. There are few Black people outside the Black states who do not have daily contact with a White person in one way or another. This after all is basic at this level where relations, attitudes and interests are cultivated in one another.

In the third place I want to refer to the work of the Administration Boards. It is the officials of these boards who have the most intimate contact with the Black people and in my view have to play the most important role in establishing peace and order and pleasant living conditions. These are the people who through their diligence and enthusiasm and basic knowledge of the Black people have largely contributed to the defusing of those tense situations which have been experienced, particularly as in 1966.

Of the 140 community councils established up to 1 October 1979, 119 have already entered into agreements with Administration Boards to work for them as agents. A good 10% of the total budgets of community councils is in the form of subsidies from Administration Boards. At present there are 6 330 Whites and 39 010 Blacks employed by the 13 Administration Boards in the Republic that perform this gigantic task in our cities, our towns and in the rural areas. These 13 boards have actively contributed since 1973 to the establishment and provision of the infrastructure in 34 towns. Thirteen of the 14 Administration Boards are concerned with homeland development.

The East Rand Administration Board, for instance, has on occasion arranged tours to places like Lebowa, Venda—this was prior to the latter’s becoming independent—and Gazankulu. They have invited MP’s from the East Rand to accompany them but on such occasions hon. members of the Official Opposition have been conspicuous by their absence.

The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the lack of positive steps on the part of the Government to promote good relations. But in this connection I should like to refer him to the annual report of the Information Service of South Africa. Mention is made there of a service battalion which has to go into Black residential areas to establish better relations, but do we know that last year the Information Service of South Africa mentioned 11 000 contact visits, 385 special services performed and 5 000 film shows attended by more than a million people?

But now the hon. member for Musgrave is not listening; he does not have that basic courtesy. However, I shall continue.

Information officers who operate from 14 regional offices and communicate on a personal basis daily with leading Black figures, have contributed to the forging of such strong and sound ties that Black leaders themselves after obtaining independence have liaised voluntarily on a personal and informal basis with officials of the Information Service on matters affecting extension work and publicity. The exchange of views between Black leaders and officials continues to expand and has generated mutual respect. Black women are put in contact on a countrywide basis with White women’s organizations. The Information Service co-operates with other departments and institutions in regard to the arrangements for and organization of youth camps where future Black leaders are trained. Even in the rural areas there are regular visits to make contact with Black villagers and farm workers.

The annual report even refers to a case where, at the request of a large-scale employer, groups of Black and White employees were addressed by an official. This resulted in better relations and labour peace.

Having referred in the fourth place to the Information Service of South Africa, I come in the fifth place to the aspect of training. The question which was discussed during the seminar held by the United Nations in Yugoslavia in 1965 has also been discussed in the House on many occasions. One of the findings of the seminar was the stressing of the right of groups to their own language, culture and religion. It was said—

That is precisely what is being done and is envisaged by the Department of Education and Training. I find it regrettable therefore that a person like Bishop Tutu should have said recently that South Africa’s education system is ridiculous. Nine Black states have established their own education departments. Education facilities have been extended to artisan and technical training, higher technical and commercial education, advanced technical education, education for adults and university education. Just consider the following figures. The total number of pupils, excluding Transkei, rose from 1 882 000 in 1967 to 3 400 000 in 1977. In 1950 only 8,04% of the total population attended school, while by 1979 this percentage had grown to 21,08%. Since the implementation of the Bantu Education Act in 1953, the education of Black people has been aimed at satisfying their personal, social and economic requirements, and it has contributed to raising the social and economic level of the Black communities it serves. The standard of the syllabuses laid down by the Joint Matriculation Board is the same for Black and White, and this also applies to the candidate’s qualifications for university exemption. As far as technical training is concerned, I think that the technikon planned for Mabopane East deserves special mention. The establishment of this technikon resulted from the increasing need for all sorts of technicians, business managers, administrators, paramedical staff and related professional men for the Republic and the Black States. When one looks at the general information supplied by the department in this regard, it is clear that it is in fact a vast undertaking. The hon. member for Musgrave takes no notice of these positive steps. The project is planned in three phases so as eventually to provide for 1 500 living-in students and 1 000 day students; that is, 2 500 students per semester or 5 000 students per year. The cost of phase one is estimated at R17 million and the total construction costs at R34,5 million, based on 1979 money values. We pray that this institution, which according to this information document is in the thick of things as far as a rapidly awakening Black Africa is concerned, and in this connection is entering new fields, will also contribute to a greater and richer South Africa and the promotion of national relationships.

Planning for 1980 includes the upgrading of primary education as a preparatory step to the introduction of compulsory schooling, the further lowering of the school admission age, the improvement of parent-pupil relationships, wiping out the backlog in school buildings within the next five years, and numerous other positive steps that are envisaged. With this planning the future of Black education and training looks bright.

But the motion also asks the Government to continue to examine practices which cause relations to deteriorate. I am pleased to see that Black leaders are more and more emphasizing respect for the human dignity of others, and are stressing greater trust in one another and goodwill as being prerequisites for the improvement of relations between White and Black. During the visit of the hon. the Prime Minister to kwaZulu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said the following—

And on one occasion the Chief Minister of Ciskei said the following—

In this connection it is necessary to return to the ordinary citizen to hear what he has to say when one talks to him about our South African society. I think the ordinary citizen has already accepted that certain of these practices have disappeared, for instance, separate lifts and separate counters in post offices etc. But he does object when a Black person, instead of taking his place at the back of the queue, pushes in ahead of a White woman and forces her out of the way. I myself have experienced this sort of thing on various occasions. People who have visited Salisbury and Bulawayo, for instance, tell me that the attitude there among people in the streets is far more tolerant and respectful than in Johannesburg, for example. I think these things must be mutual.

I am pleased to see that the hon. leader of the NRP is present in the House. If the newspapers have correctly reported the speech of one of the few remaining members of the NRP in the Transvaal Provincial Council, I think it is an absolute disgrace—seen from the point of view of the Whites—that a White man could make remarks such as those uttered by Mr. Oberholzer the other day in the Transvaal Provincial Council. [Interjections.] These were accusations and predictions of such a nature that, I think, the hon. leader of the NRP should take him to task. We are all in the same boat.

Did you read his Hansard?

I said if the newspapers had reported him correctly … [Interjections.] We are all in the same boat. The person who upsets that boat will himself not escape the catastrophe which follows. Everybody in that boat will go down. Anybody, no matter who he is, who makes predictions about burning houses and makes allegations about the heroic deeds of terrorists is gambling recklessly with the future of South Africa.

That were no predictions. [Interjections.]

Our watchword is good neighbourliness. When one wants to live on the basis of good neighbourliness with one’s neighbour, one must respect his privacy. One must not get familiar with him and not provoke him. Neither must one encourage him—directly or indirectly—to upset his neighbour. One must keep one’s distance. One must assist him when he needs one. We must work together on communal projects. One must not act against one’s neighbour, as a writer of Roman-Dutch Law put it, “uit enkel spyt en kegelheid”.

I want to come back to the speech of Bishop Tutu, a speech in which he also stated—it is the same speech to which I have already referred rather fleetingly—that if fundamental changes were not effected, blood would flow. Like the hon. member for Innesdal, I think that this sort of language, inside and outside this House, should simply not be used. In the interests of better and sounder national relationships in South Africa, this cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe one can agree with the greater part of the speech by the hon. member for Brakpan. When he categorized the material things that had been done for the Black people of this country and when he indicated how the Government had seen to their material welfare, the hon. member was quite correct. Certainly, on most points one cannot quarrel with him. One must accept that these things have been done. However, I believe that that is not really what it is all about.

I think the important thing here, the thing with which we should concern ourselves in this debate, is that that has been done in terms of a policy of paternalism. The very way in which an hon. member of the NP can get up here and say, “Look at the things we have done for you”, I believe, is the real problem.

That is the problem: “We have done it for you.” It is not an attitude of: “There were problems. This was how we can sort it out together.” I think this is where hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members on this side of the House …

It is merely a matter of semantics.

No, it is not at all a matter of semantics. It is an important basic difference in the approach to the whole thing. I am going to come back to that later on, expand a little on it and show how that attitude and the exclusion of people who would not work within that system have landed us in the position we are in in this country today.

However, before I do that, I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to congratulate him with his intentions in moving the motion he has moved today. I should like to congratulate him quite sincerely on many of the thoughts he put into it. He talked about us having to solve our own problems by ourselves and about having to find ourselves in this country and I want to tell him that we agree with him 100% when he talks along those lines. However, I should like again to qualify this by saying what a tragedy it is that the NP did not fight the general election of 1948 using as its basic principles the ideas formulated by the hon. member for Innesdal today. [Interjections.] I must make this point. I must look at South Africa today and then I must visualize what South Africa could have been like if the NP of 1948 had fought its election on the basis of those ideas. I cannot help feeling that we would have been in a very different situation today. [Interjections.] I must tell hon. members that recently I have taken the trouble to study the manifesto of the NP of 1948.

It was a very good one.

Hon. members say that it was a very good one. Well, I want to say that I think that from South Africa’s point of view it was a disastrous manifesto. [Interjections.] The proof of that lies in the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal today. It was an open acknowledgement that that type of politics had failed. We congratulate him on having had the courage to say so in this House in front of all his colleagues. That manifesto was not based on any of the principles or ideas which the hon. member for Innesdal had the courage to enunciate in this House today. If a manifesto that was based on the principles contained in the speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was drawn up and a general election was fought, I can only, in all honesty, wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development would have enjoyed unanimous support in the ranks of the hon. members on that side of the House for that manifesto on which the election campaign was based. [Interjections.] I want to say that it is absolutely clear to us that that would not be the case. This is where I have to argue with the hon. member for Innesdal. I have to point out to him that his biggest task probably lies in convincing hon. members of his own party and, as he has rightly said—and I agree with him in this respect—people outside this House who have looked at the pictures in the newspapers to which he has referred and who criticize their intentions and actions. Those are the people he will have to convince.

It is not our people.

The hon. member said they were. The hon. member is backtracking, because—and I wrote it down—he referred to “ons mense”.

You are also one of “ons mense”. [Interjections.]

Yes, of course. In that context the hon. member was referring to “ons mense” as being “ons Nasionaliste” and he knows it. I think he does realize it. [Interjections.]

At this stage I should like to say that the NRP is going to move an amendment to the motion before the House. I should like to move the amendment and then develop a theme. I therefore move as a further amendment—

1. (1) condemns the Government for waiting so long before realizing the need for a new approach;
2. (2) calls for more attention to be given to socio-economic upliftment programmes, particularly housing, employment and educational programmes; and
3. (3) urges the urgent elimination of practices that cause relations to deteriorate.”.

I should first like to develop a theme and I hope hon. members will bear with me, because I think it is so relevant in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. I should like to start by asking a question of which the answer might not at first appear self-evident. What do we consider to be the most serious problem facing the country today?

The Nationalist Government.

Apart from the Nationalist Government as my hon. Whip colleague says. I think there can be little doubt that the answer to that question, if we are honest with ourselves, is the problem of terrorists. We must ask ourselves just who these terrorists are. The problem of terrorism has arisen as a result of 30 years of Government policy. Before hon. members shout at me and say that I am seeking headlines, let me put it to them that over a period of 32 years the Nationalist policy was to ban those that radically disagreed with them, to exclude from the processes of decision-making Black leaders who disagreed with them and to force them out into a political wilderness.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

History proves that to be the case. The Government excluded from the process of decision-making people who were, admittedly, radicals, but you do not win against radicals by excluding them from the decision-making process. [Interjections.] You talk to them inside the system and you try to tone them down and to get them to stay within the system. If you exclude them and force them out they look for other avenues of expression. This is exactly what has happened. [Interjections.] The other systems may, and very often do, include violence. It is well to realize that this is what has happened to a lot of Black leaders who could not be accommodated in any form of discussion or arrangement with the Nationalist Party over the last 30 years. The attitude was that if someone did not agree with them, he was banned and if you ignored the problem it would go away. People did go away and carried on their ideals and policies outside South Africa. They found that they had a means of expression. It is a sobering thought to realize that the terrorists who are coming back into South Africa today are those same Black people. They went away with despair and hopelessness in their hearts, with a feeling that they were totally rejected by the system and that there was no way that they could possibly work within that system, and they have come back to kill.

Do you agree with that?

Of course I do not agree with it. Do not be absolutely ridiculous. Just listen to my train of thought. [Interjections.] I am pointing out to hon. members opposite the mistakes they have made so that perhaps we could look at the future and find ways of preventing other Blacks who stayed in South Africa from being influenced by these same terrorists. [Interjections.] Just listen for a while. They have come back to destroy the system.

If we look at Rhodesia and the parallels there, we will see that there terrorism started in the same way. Terrorism escalated to an absolutely frightening scale in Rhodesia Today we have a situation where Robert Mugabe could well win the elections there next week. Let us be thankful in this country that the Black leaders that have come up through the system and within the Government’s ideals, are generally speaking moderate leaders. I say thank heavens for that factor. Thank heavens for the fact that none of the Blacks who left South Africa is a Robert Mugabe. [Interjections.] The hon. members should be thankful too. I wonder how they would be dealing with the situation if you had leaders amongst the Black terrorists coming to South Africa, leaders of the calibre and influence, negative though it may be, of Robert Mugabe. We would be in a worse situation than we are in now. [Interjections.] What I want to say is that one can talk about the things we have been talking about in this Parliament over many years, something which the hon. member for Musgrave referred to, things like better education, better housing, and everything else one would like to consider.

I think that events have passed that by to a certain extent, and that, on the one hand, we are now dealing with a situation which is so serious that there are times when I wonder whether it has not already passed the point of no return, and one must be honest and question whether this has not, in fact, happened and accept that what we should be doing in South Africa today, is to hold an all-out campaign on the hearts and the minds of the Black leaders that are here, to see to it that we can promise and guarantee them a system and a country and a Government which would offer them more than the Mugabes have been able to offer the Black people of Rhodesia, to such a successful extent, that Mugabe now has a chance of winning the election. That is the crunch as I see it…

Fools rush in … [Interjections.]

Yes, but it depends whom you are referring to, and I am glad that there have been comments from that hon. member, who has had to go back to protect his constituency from the stabs in the back of a former colleague. I am glad to have heard that comment, because it is precisely people like that who should be thinking seriously about the things I am saying. That hon. member is a “verligte” member, and we usually value his comments in this House, but when he makes an interjection like that, I want to say that the right wing is also having its bad influence on him. [Interjections.]

I warn you not to talk about things that you are not properly informed about.

I make it my business to be informed about the activities of Dr. Mulder’s party, because when one listens to the speeches of hon. members in this House, it is quite obvious to a lot of us that a large part of the context of those speeches is aimed outside at that movement, far more than they are aimed at the debates inside this House. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to the matter in hand, if I can get away with fewer interjections. I think I have said enough to indicate that there is a very serious problem with which we must come to grips very, very quickly and I want to reiterate that the priority for us is to aim a campaign at the hearts and the minds of our Black people, a campaign that will prove to them that we accommodate them in a system which will give them more security than anything that the terrorists outside this country might be in a position to promise them. We are glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has visited places like Soweto. I am only sorry that it took so long before it happened—hence the amendment to the motion—but I want to say to him that it has taken too long and that I hope that he is going to hasten the programme and come to this House with schemes—not just statements, not just promises—but with some concrete evidence of how the Government is going to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the urban Blacks in a political dispensation in this country. The very fact that they have a commission sitting and that they are back-pedalling from their policy of the last 32 years, is a clear indication that they do not have a policy at the moment, and I want to make this distinction between promises and ideals held out, and a concrete policy on which people can say that that is where they stand. I put it to the hon. the Minister that the critical issue here is an accommodation for the urban Blacks; an understanding with them, so that they will know that they can always be citizens of South Africa This is what they want. When one boils down their needs, their desires and their wants, the hon. the Minister, I am sure, would agree with me. He does not disagree, so I take this as an agreement. That is the issue which is uppermost in their minds: They want to be part of South Africa permanently and they want South African citizenship. I believe that this is an issue on which the Government should have a stated policy, and not “pie in the sky when you die by and by”.

Why do you not join the Progs?

I shall never join the Progs, but the hon. member must just try to listen to what I am saying in a genuine attempt to point out to hon. members opposite some of the things that people other than Progs think about this matter, because you cannot continue to go on looking at this problem wearing blinkers. The very fact that the hon. the Minister is listening and that he does not disagree with me shows that he is prepared to listen and I hope that he is going to answer on the question of some concrete accommodation the Government is going to make with the urban Blacks in this country. That, when all is said and done, is far more important than talking about the details of housing programmes. One could spend the whole debate this afternoon talking about housing programmes, one could spend a lot of time talking about educational programmes and when one talks about education one is regaled with statistics of how many 100 000 Black children are at school and, again, this is something we agree with and support. We believe that these are important achievements, but an educational system is not just aimed at that; it is aimed at what comes out the other end of the system, what is produced, the products of that education. The facts speak for themselves. We have had them in the House this week. There are no Black veterinarians in the whole of South Africa. There is one Black doctor to 44 000 Blacks. That is the end result of this education which proves that over 30 years …

What should be done about it?

A lot more than you have been doing, if you ask, “What should be done about it.” If that is the end result of 32 years of Nationalist rule then I want to say that that has not been enough and much more urgent attention must be given to those educational needs. What has been done, worthy as it is, has not been enough.

In closing I should briefly like to refer to the position in Natal because one can only really compare the Government’s achievements with the achievement of a governing body and Natal is the only province that is governed by a party other than the governing party, viz. the NRP. If the Government had taken a leaf out of the book of the administration in Natal and 10 or 15 years ago, quietly got on with the business of meaningful change, without seeking the headlines, without dramatic tours to Black townships, but going quietly and speaking to the leaders, and if they had gone on with the business and instituted some of the changes and some of the innovations and if they had adopted some of the thinking that has emanated from that executive committee in Natal, I do not believe that we would be in the situation in which we are today. This is the tragedy. When one thinks of home ownership in Soweto, the tragedy is that we were not doing something about that 20 years ago. In moving the amendment today and in criticizing the Government for its delay I want to say that the more serious the situation gets I hope the members of that party will realize that it is not the Press and it is not the Opposition that have caused the situation to deteriorate so badly and so quickly, but it is an accumulation of the slowness with which they moved over the years and it is an accumulation of the things which they did wrong. In highlighting these things today I hope that we shall not make those mistakes again.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time within a very short period hon. members of the NRP have in two different councils made rather unsavoury accusations and drawn wrong conclusions. I am sorry that the hon. member for Berea made his contribution to this debate in the way he did. On a personal note I want to say to that hon. member that I did hope it would not be necessary for me to react in the vein in which he has now compelled me to react, because in a certain sense we have something in common, namely, that I was privileged to hear the hon. member plead the cause of South Africa in an alien field and under unfamiliar circumstances. It was a pleasant experience. I do not think the hon. member can in any way hold it against me when I say I resent the way in which he made his speech today. I want to deal fairly fully with the hon. member because the essence of his speech did not deal with the motion as moved by the hon. member for Innesdal. He simply launched a party political attack on this side of the House. I think that hon. speakers who conduct a debate on the basis of stimulating thoughts …

He moved an amendment.

May I remind the hon. member that earlier in the debate the hon. member for Brakpan, owing to a slip of the tongue, spoke about good “buurskop”, when he meant “buurskap” (neighbourliness), and I gained the impression that the hon. member for Berea interpreted that remark too literally.

We on this side of the House resent the fact that he exudes an aura of paternalism and that he seeks to accuse the hon. member for Innesdal of having said that the NP had two policy programmes, the policy programme which the hon. member for Innesdal and other members of the Government advocate and the policy programme of a number of years ago. That is far-fetched.

One would like to attribute a greater measure of political intelligence to the hon. member, namely, that he would know that the NP was trying to develop its policy and that we have already had numerous debates in this connection in order to show the success that has been achieved. During the course of my speech I shall try to point this out again.

I think the hon. member for Berea has transgressed. His speech was within the framework of parliamentary etiquette and good taste but I think the hon. member transgressed shamefully when he alleged that during the past 30 years this side of the House had restricted or forced those persons and institutions which did not support its policy to leave the country, and that we were now reaping the fruits of this in that those persons were returning to this country to destroy the system. That is nothing more than an over-simplification of the actual position.

I have never been a member of that hon. member’s party and I am very grateful for it. The fact that there are various factions in his party is due to the very fact that some of them subscribe to the findings of the Schlebusch Commission. The aim of that commission’s report was to indicate that certain steps be taken against some organizations. That was one of the fundamental aspects on which the former UP split. The hon. member is on the wrong side of the House.

The crux of the matter is that the NP did not restrict or force people to leave the country because they disagreed with the party politically. The fact of the matter—let the hon. member wag or shake his head and smile cynically—is that those people were fundamentally opposed to the system, as is evident from various court judgments. I want to put this question to the hon. member: When he piously maintains that it is due to the actions and policies of this side of the House that we are faced with the problem of terrorism today, is he implying that had the policies of the NRP been implemented over the past 30 years, those subversive elements would have been absent today? That is the implication of his statement. With respect, Sir, the hon. member’s argument is not soundly based; it is not well-considered. He speaks the language of his political neighbours. That is the type of wrangling we are involved in with his political neighbours. When we say—I hope the hon. member will be good enough to listen to me—that people like Mandela, Sobukwe and others were found guilty by the courts in South Africa in accordance with the laws of the land because they had transgressed those laws, is the hon. member’s argument that those people would not have been prosecuted under their system? Is the hon. member’s argument today that those people would not have prosecuted under their system? Hypothetically, does the hon. member argue that not only should we lift the restrictions on these people but that we should also release them and give them political asylum and political freedom, people who have been found guilty in accordance with the provisions of the laws of this country by various Supreme Courts? That is a far-reaching argument which I think is contrary to the spirit of this motion. I shall not deal any further with that hon. member. I am sorry that he has compelled me to unleash this tirade against him.

With the introduction of this well-motivated motion, we on this side of the House want to demonstrate our desire for good neighbourliness and good race relationships. We are convinced that we can achieve this through the medium of socio-economic programmes and constructive dialogue. Interesting debates are being conducted along these lines inside and outside this House with the object of maintaining an orderly and stable government because we believe on the one hand that by doing so, meaningful political aspirations can be canalized and, on the other hand that opportunities can be created for the total development and progress of all of us as God’s creations. To achieve this objective we must muster the maximum degree of unanimity. By all means let us argue about the manner and method but we must not lose sight of the major objective. Revolution is a violent method of overthrowing a government and changing social and economic orders, and I do not think we need waste any more time on that. Somebody once said that the process of revolution can only be halted if we can produce a dynamic counter to it, something that will require super-human effort. I want to state categorically today that that super-human effort is being made by this Government today. In this connection special mention must be made of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I think irrefutable proof of this statement of mine will be apparent when one remembers the extremely favourable reception the hon. the Prime Minister received on 31 August last year when he addressed the Soweto Council. I have referred to the record of that speech and I find that that speech of the hon. the Prime Minister was interrupted by applause on no fewer than 20 occasions. In the case of one specific paragraph consisting of a mere 24 lines, to which I wish to couple my speech, the hon. the Prime Minister was interrupted by applause on five occasions. I want to read the relevant paragraph and then couple the rest of my speech to it. It reads as follows—

That drew the first round of applause—

That drew the second round of applause—

Here they applauded for the third time—

For the fourth time there was applause—

It is in this way that the Government is laying the three important cornerstones it will use in its own way within the framework of its intentions and within the framework of its policy as the launching-pad for its policy programme.

In the first place, it is clearly indicated here that the Government is desirous of canalizing its good intentions through the medium of local communities and evolution. I think this can be tested against the background of the many specific projects that have been undertaken, for example, that of writing off the debt of the West Rand Administration Board, of earmarking 160 000 erven for the leasehold system, of involving itself very actively in the electrification programme and in respect of many other projects.

In the second place, the Government has clearly indicated that it does not claim to be all-wise and to have sole claim to the financial resources of the country. I think the success of the discussions held on 22 November is a striking example of this.

It will only be possible to place on record the success story of our survival and the success story of capitalism and democracy in Southern Africa if we succeed convincingly in gaining the support of the Black man for the system of private enterprise. Let me hasten to nip in the bud two arguments that may be advanced. The first argument is in connection with the attitude and outlook adopted by The Cape Times of 13 February this year in its leading article. It reads—

I do not think this is a correct analysis of the true situation. The Inkatha movement itself dealt effectively with this leg of the argument when it gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission and pointed out that political goodwill could not be bought—

Political goodwill and an improved social and economic life cannot be won by socio-economic programmes. If one were to adopt the attitude which The Cape Times adopts, one would find oneself in an untenable position. What has in fact to be done for living standards to be improved and for healthy relationships to be nurtured is to ensure that there is full employment and that training facilities are provided so that use can be made of all job and economic opportunities.

One should also have a thorough understanding of the fact that in mobilizing the production factors, namely, enterprise, capital, labour and raw materials, profit should be the motivating force. To put it differently, it means that the Black man of South Africa must not remain a labourer but should be given the opportunity of attaining a position in which he can generate capital.

A second argument that I want to nip in the bud is the argument that, should we continue with these training programmes, some people might be forced out of their jobs. One should treat that argument sympathetically and point out that economic growth is to the benefit of everyone and that it is shortsighted to argue to the contrary.

The third aspect that is evident from the quotation that I have just made is the fact that the Government’s approach is that we in this country will have to be honest with one another when we deal with those spheres where problems still exist. That is an important phase in our communications programme. At the moment we are embarking on a programme that is aimed at fostering respect. We are also training ourselves in that art. I do think, however, that we are also justified in training ourselves in the art of disagreeing with one another. During a business discussion Dr. Anton Rupert said it appeared to him that as far as the non-Whites were concerned, communication “by word of mouth” was more acceptable to them than via the Press. We shall most certainly have to evolve methods whereby communication media can be improved. I think this means, inter alia, that we shall have to communicate across a wide front, even if the agenda is a difficult one; that we shall have to bear in mind the fact that some of the participants will be subjected to tremendous pressures; and that we shall have to see to it that these discussions are converted into programmes of action.

In conclusion, Sir, I believe that when we engage in these discussions we shall have to have due regard for our respective idiomatic expressions that are the product of our various backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Innesdal is to be congratulated for introducing what must be conceded to be a constructive motion. I think he put his motion well. He put it in clear terms, and I think he touched on a subject which is of considerable interest to all hon. members who are here in the House this afternoon. He was supported by the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Krugersdorp, to both of whom I feel inclined to accord two cheers.

I think two cheers they deserve, not three. That is because of the element of what I can only describe as timelessness in their approach to the urgent question which we have on the Order Paper. To speak of continuing to build on the positive steps already taken and the continued examination of practices that cause relationships to deteriorate, does not speak for the kind of urgency which, I believe, the situation demands. I believe the hon. member’s intentions were entirely good. However, as he spoke he reminded me—when I listened to the language he used—of the expression of the poet who spoke of a land where it was always afternoon. We live in a time of urgency. We live in a time of quickening events, and to undertake a debate of this kind without conveying that sense of urgency, that sense of the quickening of events, I believe, is not to do a service to this House. We are not living in a timeless paradise. When one thinks of the pace of change in the world and in this country, when one reflects on the kind of events which shape our lives from day to day, one is reminded of a book which appeared not very long ago, a book written by a man called Alvin Toffler. The book was a sensation in a number of countries. It was titled Future Shock. Future Shock has this to say—

I believe that this paints, perhaps in overgraphic terms, a picture of the kind of dilemma in which we find ourselves, the kind of dilemma we see in the countries that catch the news headlines today. I believe that the people in those very countries, e.g. Iran, Afghanistan and others, are standing in a caboose looking backwards whilst their countries roar along the railway lines facing unknown dangers and are being tripped hither and thither by unknown, unpredictable switches to destinations they cannot anticipate.

Let us in South Africa also bear in mind that we are on a rapidly moving train. Let us look at the kind of action that needs to be taken. Implicit in the motion of the hon. member for Innesdal is the need for socio-economic upliftment programmes, communication and education. What is the effect of such programmes, what are the effects of communication and education on the people who share the country with us? For example, we all accept that the economy has a profound effect on our own social condition, but we tend to forget that the changing condition itself can, in turn, make or break our economic programme and that the two acting together can suddenly wash away all the political sandcastles that we have constructed.

Let me be more direct. There can be few countries, if any, as socially complex as South Africa is, and none where racial complexity is vulnerable to such rapid demographic, cultural and economic change. We in South Africa are indeed in the throes of a full industrial revolution, with all the characteristic consequences of such a revolution in which a peasant people comes under the impact of urbanization, of concentrated living patterns and a high degree of exposure to a sophisticated technology and culture. That is the position of the people who move in from the fields and the rural areas into the black smoke of the industrial areas. This is the sudden shock to which I referred, the impact of a strange culture upon them.

It is Government policy to reinforce plural cultures as the base for separate political structures, but praiseworthy though this may be in some ways, and loth though one may be to prevent people, in any way, from cultivating and honouring their ancient cultures, the fact is that in our world today, in the late 20th century, there is a universal eagerness, not only in South Africa, but also in all Third World countries throughout the globe, to participate in a Western style of life. This eagerness is being accelerated by the impact of industrial mass production. Not only the ideas that come to us through the media and that pervade our lives—television, radio and newspapers that reach all sections of the population—but also the material goods that come to us through the shops and supermarkets, seem increasingly likely, if we examine the experience of other countries, to reduce the old regional tribal cultures to little more than nostalgic folk-loristic memories. The effects in South Africa have already been dramatic, if we would only look up and look around us. In two generations, more often in just one, there has begun to emerge a stream of Black intellectuals, professionals, painters, poets, politicians, activists and martyrs for causes which are very often inimical to our own well-being and safety. Beside these leading classes, diluting them and often just siring them, is the steady emergence of a moderate Black middle-class, conditioned by job security, hire-purchase, cost of living, burial societies and all the other apparatus of the bourgeois society.

By the year 2000, only 20 years away, there must be, if our economy is to survive and if the portents we see around us are read correctly, 3 million economically active, intellectually fertile people who are Black in colour. They will be South Africa’s effective influential majority, because statistically the White population, for all the advantages it enjoys, does not have the population growth rate to equal such growth. It cannot produce the same number of intellectually qualified adults in the same amount of time. We cannot put any of this into reverse gear.

Therefore, if we read the picture correctly and if we will refrain from deluding ourselves about what we see when we open our eyes and look around us, we must come to certain basic conclusions. What must we do to adapt, to accommodate and to make a safe society for all of us in South Africa? This is where I think the hon. member for Musgrave’s amendment to the motion is more realistic than the one which has been proposed by the hon. member for Innesdal. If we wish to preserve the best values of our society, we must share them with others. The only real insurance policy we have for the survival of a culture, a society and a civilization in this country, is in fact to make it so attractive to others that they wish to share it with us and then wish, because they share it with us, to help us to preserve it. Without that it is idle to pretend and hope, and futile to think, that people who do not share that civilization will lift a finger to help us defend it. If there is any reason in what I am saying, the process we must adopt is quite clearly a process of acculturation. We must go with our hands outstretched to persuade other people to enjoy the benefits of a civilized way of life which we have brought to this country and which we know, from our own experience and contact with the Black and Brown people as they advance, they are anxious to adopt. If we set store by our way of life, we must go out and offer it to others, and we must do it not only by talking to our own political contemporaries or by seeking comfortable formulae of agreement with the middle-aged and the elderly, but also by reaching the young people. Who can do that better than our own young people? We must seize time by the forelock and encourage our young to engage in dialogue, and so to engage the hopes, opportunities and ambitions of all South Africans, especially their own contemporaries.

Who can do this better than the young themselves? Why do some of us then treat these activities of the young in trying to breach the gap to Black people with such suspicion? Surely they are doing precisely what reason dictates them to do. Why do we put our young in detention even, on suspicion of subversive activity, when in many cases they are genuinely trying to reach out across the barriers of race and colour in order to create a new understanding with their co-citizens in South Africa?

If the moderates are to be discouraged from doing these things and only the extremists persist, whose fault will that be? I mention as an example the activities at our universities—the University of Cape Town and the University of Stellenbosch—where pioneer corps go out during vacations to help people build houses, to help them set up crèches and to help them develop various activities to improve the quality of their lives. The effect of this has a marked impact not only on the Black people whom they go to assist, but also on the young people from these universities who go to do that work. They come back changed as well, changed for the better. It is time for us to understand what our own social evolution is about and to engage our young people in the process. Let them be given the opportunities for which they seek: to go out to meet the people and to help bridge the social, educational and cultural gaps which exist between the various peoples of South Africa Let their respective cultures be honoured for what they are, but, for heaven’s sake, let us build bridges of understanding. Let us realize that, as in other countries where regional differences have broken down and people speak a common language, in South Africa also we need a common language, namely that of understanding even though we may express it in words of different origin. There is a void to be filled. Let us, in heaven’s name, not wait for the Russians and the Cubans to come and fill that gap. Let us create a South African way to progress, unimpeded by prejudice or racial fears and inspired by a dream of a greater South Africa with common loyalties founded on the belief in common opportunity and hopes of greatness in a unique situation. In this way I believe we can move rapidly and with the urgency which our times demand towards the creation of the kind of society which in our hearts we all desire. But we must surmount fear, engage our young in this endeavour and not be deterred by feelings of the strangeness of alien cultures. We must be prepared to understand and accept that everyone in South Africa is a South African and that each one of us has his/her role to play in bridging the gaps which still exist.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for the positive tone of this motion and for the pleasant spirit in which the motion has been discussed in this House this afternoon. I could not help thinking that I had been present in this House when some of the bitterest debates took place about the very same kind of subject we have discussed this afternoon. I think it augurs well for the future that this motion has been discussed in a generally calm atmosphere this afternoon. Hon. members know me to be a straightforward and honest person …

Hear, hear!

The only speaker whose speech I really did not appreciate this afternoon was the hon. member for Berea. He must forgive me for saying this quite frankly. I am getting the impression that the NRP is trying to crawl in under the PFP’s wing. They are really trying to outbid the PFP. To me, as an older man in this House, this behaviour on the part of a younger man was not a pleasant sight. The hon. member made remarks and generalizations which were absolutely untrue and which were not in the interests of this country. However, the hon. member for Krugersdorp dealt effectively with the hon. member. If he had not dealt so effectively with the hon. young member for Berea, I would have done so. In the light of the circumstances, I shall leave it at that. I noticed the other day that the hon. member for Durban North was doing the same. That hon. member has made many positive speeches in this House, speeches on which we could really congratulate him. The other day, however, to my astonishment, he said things which I could not believe were being said by the NRP. The hon. member for Berea, who is a young member and a person whom I should like to respect, moved an amendment which he did not even discuss at all. It is generally a fine amendment, except the first part in which the Government is condemned for allegedly having waited so long. But even with that I do not have much fault to find. However, he did not discuss his party’s amendment at all, but made all kinds of statements about terrorism and Rhodesia. It caused an hon. member on this side of the House to say: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” However, I shall leave it at that. In general, I am very grateful for the calm atmosphere in which this debate has been conducted this afternoon.

I should very much like to try on this occasion to give some perspective to the three important aspects raised by this motion. The first aspect is the socio-economic upliftment programmes. In the first place, surely we should take cognizance of the fields in which positive steps have already been taken. I refer in the first place to institutional development, where progress has already been made with regard to the traditional Black territories from the first level of tribal authorities up to regional and territorial authorities and eventually to self-governing status and, in three cases, to independent states with a constellation of Southern African States on the horizon, which I hope is closer to being realized than some people would like to believe. It is my privilege to have participated intensively in this process since 1950, when I was a young man, as young as the hon. member for Berea, a process which has led from tribal authorities to where we stand today. I can still remember how the late Dr. Verwoerd summoned us to his office at six o’clock one afternoon. The whole discussion revolved around the establishment of tribal authorities, and he asked how long it would take us to establish two model tribal authorities. We then told him, through the mouth of the late Dr. Eiselen, that it would take approximately two months. He then said that he would ensure that the money was made available and that the means would be available and that we should proceed. Today there are more than 800 tribal authorities in the Republic of South Africa The regional authorities developed out of the tribal authorities, and the regional authorities gave rise to the territorial authorities. The Black Parliaments in their turn developed from the territorial authorities, and these Black Parliaments led to the independence of three of them. Now we are talking in this same House about a form of confederation, about a constellation of States. Related to this development—I am talking about socio-economic upliftment programmes—there has been the progress in respect of the urban Blacks, from the first level of advisory committees up to community councils, and now we are talking about full-fledged city councils as our objective, and we are talking about “His Worship the mayor of Soweto”, Mr. W. Thebehali. So we have made considerable progress in that field as well.

Secondly, there has been the economic development of agriculture. Agricultural development in these national States was identified as the top priority at the hon. the Prime Minister’s conference in the Carlton Centre on 22 November 1979. There has also been economic development of forestry, mining and physical development of the infrastructure. Do these hon. members who find it so easy to make their speeches in this House realize how much it costs this country—as I shall indicate in a moment—just to create an infrastructure where none existed 20 or 25 years ago? It simply devours money, and we get no publicity in the newspapers for that kind of thing. It is not news. Nevertheless, the quiet work that is being done has an enormous effect, and that is also the reason why there is such a large measure of peace and stability and happiness in this country. I should like to tell the hon. member for Constantia that he sounds very much like a prophet of doom. I have read Toffler’s Future Shock myself. I could quote things from Future Shock to him that are exciting and positive. Unlike the hon. member for Constantia, I see something completely different happening in South Africa. I see this country accomplishing constitutional and other miracles at the southern tip of Africa for the sake of peace and fruitful coexistence, if only we can stop being prophets of doom and if we can set about the task with optimism and co-operate to make these things come true. I think it is possible, and I am very grateful for the positive things coming from that side of the House. I shall deal with them presently. However, we should be careful of behaving like prophets of doom and placing too much emphasis on these things, because that has a depressing effect on the whole country, and I do not like it. I should like to see humour emerging again, if possible. It is a long time since I heard any good Van der Merwe stories. Humour is very important in South Africa.

Furthermore, the economic development in respect of infrastructure, commerce, industry and services is not all. Thirdly, there is also development in respect of education and training, health, housing and services, other social services and sport and recreation. All these things are receiving an enormous amount of attention with regard to the Black people who are under discussion here this afternoon, as I should like to indicate to hon. members in an attempt to put matters in perspective. While from the nature of its purpose and functions, the Department of Co-operation and Development has primarily been responsible for the provision of these services, a number of statutory bodies have come into being over the years as executive organs in specific fields in order to promote the things I have just indicated. And who are they? I mention the Economic Development Corporation, which was established in my time as the Bantu Investment Corporation; the Mining Corporation, which was also established when I was an official in the Department of Co-operation and Development; the Bureau for Economic Research concerning Black Development; and the administration boards, the establishment of which I was privileged to pilot through this Parliament in the early seventies.

While we are on the subject of socio-economic upliftment programmes—with which this motion is concerned—it is certainly not inappropriate to make an exception by saying just a few words about the Economic Development Corporation. This body, like every other independent development Corporation for the national States—such as the one of kwaZulu and the one of the Ciskei—did not materialize out of thin air. They were made here, in this place where we are sitting this afternoon. Bodies which were subsequently established from the parent body by means of legislation are pursuing specific objects in order to promote the economic development of the national States. And let no one say here this afternoon that it is wrong to promote the economic development of the national States, for to the extent to which we succeed in promoting the economic and other development of the national States, we are making things more bearable for everyone in this country, for Black and White, especially in the metropolitan complexes. These objectives include the agricultural sector as well as the secondary and tertiary sectors. The most important single contribution in this connection is being made by White entrepreneurs in terms of the agency service. When I was sitting here as a young Deputy Minister, Mr. D. E. Mitchell was still sitting on the Opposition side. I remember very well the day in this House when I told him that I would show him that we would establish some hundreds of industries in the national States within 10 years. Hon. members may look up his reply to my statement in Hansard. What are the facts of the matter? In less than 10 years, some hundreds of industries have been established in the national States.

When we look at the co-operatives, we find that at the end of 1979, there were 116 registered co-operatives in the national States. This is apart from Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Of these, 75 have been transferred to the Ciskei. The annual turnover of the remaining 41 co-operatives for the provision of production inputs is R1 million, as against R656 000 the year before. The number of agricultural co-operatives in the national States increased to 43 in 1979.

They are the most important ones.

Yes, they are very important. The agricultural co-operatives for kwaZulu, Lebowa, Gazankulu and Kagwane, with a membership of 3 500 in the national States, had a turnover of R1,12 million in 1979.

That hon.

member is not aware of that.

Yes, that is why I should like to make use of this opportunity. The production of fibrous crops remains an important component of the economic development of the national States. Hon. members must please listen to these facts. Sisal products represent approximately 65% of the total production of sisal fibre in the Republic. At the present average price of approximately R600 per ton and with an annual production of approximately 5 000 tons, the revenue from this in some of the national States could be in the order of R5 million.

Let us look now at the future of the individual Black farmer. Before the end of this year, Black farmers will be established on an economic basis in QwaQwa and KwaNdebele. This has not been easy. In fact, it has been an extremely difficult task to achieve what we have already achieved.

Allow me to say something now in connection with research projects. These research projects with regard to socio-economic upliftment programmes are indispensable. What is the department doing at the moment in this connection? The department is engaged in research projects concerning efficient methods of marketing slaughter animals in the Black States. I have to work like blazes, but I am not getting any newspaper publicity for it, nor is my department. In the second place, we are engaged in research into the problem of unemployment. A very great deal is being said in this connection, but if we are to solve the problem, we very definitely have to know what to do, and we have to do the right thing, and in that way we shall get somewhere. Each of the leaders of the national States has his own service training centres to which they are attracting the young people in the present circumstances of unemployment. However, they are doing this, and we are doing it jointly with them. The position of migrant labour—with special reference to the position in Soweto—is one of the research projects that we are working on. There is also a research project which is investigating the best way of utilizing manpower in the national States. It is easy to talk about this matter, but who can really say how the manpower in the national States can best be utilized? We are investigating the position of Black handicapped persons and aged people in rural areas. We are identifying viable projects for community development among Blacks in urban residential areas. We are also engaged in an investigation into certain aspects of urban Black housing, which I shall discuss presently.

In respect of the purchase of further land for the national States in terms of the consolidation programme, we acquired 117 000 ha of land between 1 April 1979 and 30 November 1979 at a cost of R28 million. Valuations are presently undertaken in respect of a further 188 100 ha. We talk about socio-economic upliftment programmes. If these projects do not qualify as such, what in heaven’s name does?

What does the economic growth of the national States look like? you may ask. Let us examine the facts. I hope it is generally known by this time, for I have said so before, that our national States have maintained a higher economic growth rate than comparable countries in the Third World. In this way, for example, the real growth rate of 8% in the gross domestic product of our national States in the seventies compares favourably with, for example, Zambia, 3,8%; Kenya, 6,6%; and the Ivory Coast, 6%.

As regards the first section of the motion, our socio-economic upliftment programmes, let me conclude by quoting a figure which I should like to emphasize again. I am referring to Government expenditure on socio-economic development of the Black States. Do the hon. members know that in the 1978-’79 financial year, i.e. last year, a total amount of R1 108,7 million was spent on socio-economic development in the national States? R1 108,7 million was spent on the following programmes: Soil planning and conservation, R86,9 million; population settlement, R84,8 million; provision of employment and generation of income, R141 million; development of human potential, by this Government, this country, in respect of the national States, R143 million; provision of social services, R138 million; government planning and administration, R41,8 million; creation of physical infrastructure, R53,7 million; and miscellaneous—which unfortunately cannot be specified—R418 million. This gives us a total of R1 108,7 million.

Now there are people who say that the Government is doing too much for the Black people and too little for the Whites. In the light of this, I wondered whether I should quote these figures this afternoon, but upon mature consideration I felt that I should do so and that I should emphasize them again, for what are the facts of the matter? The facts of the matter are that every cent of the money was spent in the interests of the country and all its people. Because that money was spent, we have peace, quiet and stability. White people may sleep peacefully at night and have breakfast with their children. That is the point, so we should have done with that kind of story.

I seem to have the misfortune in my life of being very unpopular, but perhaps I am also fortunate in that the more unpopular I am, the more peaceful the discussions are in this House about these difficulties. This is what I found when I was in charge of the Sport and Recreation portfolio, and I am finding it in my present office as well.

As far as the housing programme is concerned, I want to highlight the single fact that for the period of 10 years ending on 31 March 1980, an amount of R241 million will have been spent from the Development Trust for the erection of 70 000 houses for Black people, with the accompanying creation of an infrastructure for the towns in the national States in which they are situated. In respect of Community Development funds, the corresponding figures are R107 million and 77 000 houses. The S.A. Development Trust is presently developing 51 towns in the national States. I say this with pride and gratitude in my heart. Just think of what it means to develop just one town, how many people must be involved, the large amount of money it costs and the sacrifice that many people have to make to enable it to be done. I should have liked to say something about housing in Soweto as well, but since time does not allow me, I shall do so on another occasion.

As for the question of communication and education—and when I talk about education in this context I do not mean academic education in the first place, of course—it goes without saying that Black communities can only develop to full self-determination if everyone who finds himself in the contact situation, where communication takes place, is properly equipped for this. Our experience has been that in spite of all the goodwill there may be in people’s hearts, if one is not equipped to do the right thing at the right time in the contact situation, one may experience all kinds of problems. The Department of Co-operation and Development has therefore drawn up a training policy which is also available to the Governments of the Black States. A special branch, “Training Assistance”, is undertaking this gigantic task, and because of the goodwill there is between this branch and various Government services, the training programmes, which are intended to teach people to understand one another, to bridge differences and to understand their different cultures, has been successful. In fact, the Governments of Black States are requesting more and more that the course should be offered in their States. Communication is also taking place by means of seminars. We have very good instructors who provide guidance at these courses, with the result that everyone who completes the course is trained to do the right thing. I may furnish the following figures in connection with Blacks who attended courses in their respective activities during 1979—

A total number of 3 368 Blacks therefore attended courses during 1979. The needs for 1980 have already been ascertained and it is planned that 9 597 Black officials will attend courses this year.

However, there has also been an active focus on the urban Black people. While the first foundation was laid by advisory committees, this was later followed by the system of urban councils, and mere advice and consultation progressed in an evolutionary manner to the situation we have today, with community councils that have brought about drastic changes in the administrative set-up of the urban Black people, since an administrative institution has now been created for them. What is more, in terms of section 5 of the Community Council Act, 1977, extensive municipal powers and duties may be conferred upon these councils, 200 of which have already been established. I want to emphasize the fact that during the last few months of last year, more than 2 000 posts were created for the city council of Soweto, and most of these posts will be occupied by Black people.

As I have already indicated, legislation will be introduced in due course in order to give community councils an even stronger municipal character. It is important, therefore, to note that institutions of this nature create a platform for direct liaison. Surely this is communication. They will create a platform for direct liaison between the Black communities and the Government. In this connection I just want to point out, too, that we have appointed six regional committees. Eighty-eight Black people are serving on those regional committees of the Cabinet, regional committees on the urban Blacks. Together with the 88 Blacks on those regional committees, there were White leaders from the private as well as the public sectors. Later during this parliamentary session, announcements will be made in connection with the 580 recommendations already made by these regional committees. I want to record my thanks to these committees. They have performed an enormous task. The communication on these committees was on the highest level. One has only to talk to the members of those committees, as well as the members of the rural committees, and they will all without exception confirm that they were surprised about the cameradie which there was and about the positive spirit in which the discussions took place.

This brings me to the third leg of the hon. member’s motion, the one about continued examination of practices that cause relations to deteriorate. Here I can state categorically that the Department of Co-operation and Development places a very high premium on the elimination of aspects which cause relations to deteriorate. Personally I have made it my top priority to try to improve relations everywhere I go, if I can. The department tries to do the same. That is why the element of co-operation was introduced into the name of the department. At the request of the department, approximately 179 research projects with regard to Black development are presently being undertaken with a view to laying down guidelines for future action. The intention, therefore, is to determine how we should go about matters. So we do not confine ourselves to lip service. The hon. member for Berea spoke of promises. We do not confine ourselves to lip service. Nor do we just make promises. We try to keep them. When we talk about the creation of good relations, we try to handle the matter in an expert way in order to achieve the best results and to be successful.

So 179 research projects have been undertaken with regard to Black development. This is being done at the request of the department and with the intention of laying down guidelines for the creation of good relations. I shall mention a few of these research projects. The first one is the elimination of areas of friction between White and Black in general. The second is the deliberate use of communication for improving relations between the various peoples. The third is the promotion of relaxed relations with the Black neighbouring States. Reports on these projects will be available one of these days. I believe they will be an important contribution in this connection.

As far as possible, Black researchers and Black academics and officials of Black States are involved in most committees that give advice and planning aid with regard to projects. Very good co-operation is being experienced.

Furthermore, I must also mention the restructuring of the existing legislation in connection with the administration of Blacks in the White area in consequence of the accepted recommendations of the Riekert Commission. In formulating this legislation an attempt will be made, as far as possible, to replace obsolete provisions and to create new streamlined ones, and also to remove hurtful discrimination from the Statute Book as far as possible. We are already working on this.

In a modern community, the welfare of that community is extremely important. This is the field that has to be entered in order to take cognizance of the things that undermine the progress of the community. With a view to implementing the provisions of the National Welfare Act, 1978 (Act No. 100 of 1978), a task which has been entrusted to me in so far as the Black people are concerned, 311 people—111 Whites and 200 Blacks—have been nominated for appointment to the seven regional welfare boards for the Republic of South Africa. This is a factor which indicates great interest in the social welfare of the Black people. I happened to be in the company of the people of Mamelodi and Atteridgeville one day. That was the day I was privileged to be able to announce that one of the Mamelodi councillors would be nominated as a member of this great Welfare Council of the Republic of South Africa. I witnessed the joy this brought to the heart of that man, who was sitting next to me, and the effect it had on the Black councillors of Mamelodi, that one of their number had been chosen to sit on this National Welfare Council. After all, it enables Black people to participate in decision-making concerning matters which affect them and to be involved in the provision of welfare advisory services to their own people.

The opportunity which is created in the work situation, in which employer and employee face each other—the latter not only as the supplier of labour, but usually also as the family man with normal family needs, such as housing—should be used increasingly and more effectively for the promotion of better relations. In this connection I may refer to the evaluation of the worker, for remuneration and promotion purposes, on merit and productivity, irrespective of his skin colour; the assurance that workers will be treated with normal courtesy and respect; the rapid and effective training of workers; the promotion of mutual respect because of the accepted cultural differences; greater participation on the part of employers with regard to pension schemes for their Black workers; and greater employer involvement in the provision of housing for their employees. I could continue in this vein.

However, I must warn that in spite of research, projects, training, welfare and material aid, whether provided by the authorities or by the private sector, little will be achieved with regard to the improvement of relations if people’s inner attitudes are not right. The whole question of relations is something that comes from the heart. If people’s inner attitude is not right, a small spark can ignite a great fire. For that reason, relations are not limited to the Government and national level, but belong more specifically to the level of personal relations, and for that reason, this ideal cannot be realized by means of laws and regulations.

It is something that comes from the heart. One’s heart must be in the right place, and it remains the duty of White and Black to create the right climate through conversations, among themselves and with leaders and young people, through youth actions and organization, so that everyone at the southern tip of Africa may live peacefully alongside one another. On the one hand, the approach to the extremely important task of promoting good relations in the country is that of constructive co-operation and mutual understanding, and on the other hand it requires us to disregard the jarring statements of irresponsible bodies and activists with their negative motives, to which some hon. members on this side of the House have already referred. We should not be so pessimistic either as to believe that the Black people do not wish to be involved in the promotion of good relations. I have proof of the fact that they are just as eager as the Whites to create good relations. I want to tell hon. members that when I talk to Black communities, I emphasize to them that goodwill and good relations with the Whites in this country should be promoted from their side as well, just as I plead with my own people that their hearts must be in the right place in respect of these things. Meanwhile, the Government is not idle, in so far as it can be involved, but it continues to identify problem areas and to have them identified by the Blacks themselves, and to afford them the opportunity of making recommendations from their side with regard to the elimination of these things.

In this connection I hope I have now replied adequately to the speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House. I wish to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for this motion. In reply to his plea I hope that I have indicated here that a great deal is already being done and that we are looking into the matter. However, I cannot tell him this afternoon that I undertake to do it. Nor can I give the hon. member for Musgrave an undertaking with regard to the matter which he raised, i.e. the question of the so-called peace corps. From what I have said this afternoon, it is clear that a multitude of boards, etc., are already working on this matter. I hope I have also satisfied him as far as possible.

I wish to conclude by quoting from what the hon. the Prime Minister said at Upington last year. I quote—

This was said by the hon. the Prime Minister, and I say in all humility that I too would like to devote my life to this.

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