Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That only persons authorized thereto by a resolution of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of this House shall have access to the minutes of proceedings marked “Confidential” and referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on the Publication of Evidence;
2. (2) that the evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information, laid upon the Table of this House on 7 June 1979, shall no longer form part of the papers of this House and shall be placed in the custody of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, notice of this motion was given yesterday. Since then one has had the opportunity of considering it. What is interesting is that at least one of the proposals contained in this motion was certainly never considered by the Select Committee concerned.

It is perhaps necessary to look briefly at the history of this matter. The issue to which this motion relates is the evidence which was heard by a commission of inquiry, colloquially knows as the Erasmus Commission, the function of which was to inquire into the alleged irregularities in the former Department of Information. Many debates in connection with that evidence took place in this House. All that the House received at the time were the reports of the Erasmus Commission, without the evidence. After considerable demand from the Opposition benches the executive ultimately agreed that the evidence would be made available to this House. Because it was suggested that there were matters contained in that evidence which might possibly be of such a nature that it would jeopardize the security of the State, it was proposed here in the House, and agreed to by this House, that a Select Committee was to consider that evidence and that until such time as the Select Committee had considered the evidence, no person other than a member of the Select Committee was to have access to the evidence. That proposal was carried by the House on 7 June 1979. On 4 February 1980 the House adopted a further motion on similar lines.

Throughout this side of the House took the attitude that whereas it was important that the evidence should be seen by hon. members of this House and by the public as such, we at no stage wished to do anything which would jeopardize the security of the State. The origins of this concept in fact came from this side of the House. When the proposal for a Select Committee was accepted, we agreed to it readily because it was really something we ourselves had suggested.

The Select Committee sat for a considerable period of time, has gone through that evidence, has sifted it and has made certain recommendations. Because the report has been tabled, I should also point out immediately that there was by no means unanimity about what should be excluded and what not. I submitted, as did other hon. members, that parts of the evidence which had been excluded were not matters which jeopardized the security of the State in any way. Yet that that evidence was excluded purely by a majority vote in the Committee. I refer here to what is said in the report, in the proposal we put forward on page 27. I quote—

That is a matter of fact, because there is no question that there was a difference of opinion. There is also no question that there are differences of opinion on the grounds which I have advanced.

The situation is now that the evidence having been tabled in this House in terms of Standing Order No. 206, it being marked “confidential” and thereafter referred to a Select Committee, this evidence in its entirety is now the property of this House. It now belongs to this House. It is at the disposal of this House, and this House can decide what to do with it. The hon. the Leader of the House now suggests that this evidence, which is now in the possession of this House and which this House is supposed to hold for itself and for posterity, should go back to the executive. Why should that take place? Why should that take place in these circumstances?

We submit that what has happened in regard to the former Department of Information is one of the most historic things that has happened in the history of the Republic, and even earlier, in the history of the Union. What has happened here has affected South Africa, has affected the Government, and has in fact brought down people in the highest of offices in the State. That this should now cease to be the property of this Parliament is utterly unacceptable to us in these benches. These are historic things. This is a matter which is of historic importance to this Parliament, and that we should now have this taken away from us, that it should now go back into the hands of the executive, is utterly unacceptable.

Why?

Why? I shall tell hon. members why. Because it happens to have brought down the man they thought was going to be the Prime Minister of South Africa. [Interjections.] It brought him down. It brought down a man who was the State President. It led to a new Government being created. It changed the whole complexion of Parliament and of the Government of this country. It changed the situation in the NP. It created a Prime Minister who might not have been the Prime Minister. All of that, and those hon. members ask why this should not remain the property of this House. [Interjections.]

You have still not told us why it should. Tell us.

The deaf who wish to be deaf will never hear.

Tell us why. You have not yet told us why.

Let me analyse the proposal. Let me assume that evidence has in fact been excluded which in no way affects State security. Nobody in this House will even be able to form a judgment, other than the people who were on the committee and they are now debarred by the rules from referring to the evidence which has been excluded. In other words, I cannot get up here and, to take a hypothetical example, say that what has been excluded is evidence which affects Minister A in respect of matter B and that it has nothing to do with State security. The rules of the House do not allow me to do that.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member is trying to work his passage back and is apparently having a somewhat rough time in doing so. He must not now try to prove himself in a debate of this nature. Everybody on that side knows what the hon. member is trying to do. They see through him. He is as transparent as a piece of dirty glass.

I have already worked my passage back.

Let me return to the point I was making. The issue is that if one gives this evidence back to the executive, nobody in this House will ever have access to it again unless one waits for 30 years, until the archives become public, assuming the documents go back to the archives in their original form. Only then will one have access. At this moment no judgment can be made by anybody on that evidence.

I propose to move an amendment and then to demonstrate why I move it. I now move as an amendment—

1. “(i) the minutes of proceedings marked ‘Confidential’ and referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on the Publication of Evidence; and
2. (ii) the evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information, laid upon the Table of this House on 7 June 1979.”.

That means the only persons who will have access to the evidence will be those authorized by resolution of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of this House. Only such persons will have access, firstly to the minutes and, secondly, to the evidence.

The hon. the Leader of the House has found that acceptable in regard to the minutes because he has suggested that in his motion. In other words, he is prepared to trust the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of this House to decide from time to time who should have access to the minutes. We accept the reason why that is necessary, because if anyone can have access to these confidential minutes they might become public, in which case it would be apparent what has been excluded and that might, in certain circumstances, jeopardize the security of the State. If the same rules apply to the evidence, what prejudice can there be if it is kept as the property of Parliament, if Parliament maintains it and if only those persons who are authorized by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, on which the party of the hon. the Leader of the House has a majority, have access to it? What is important is that it then remains the property of Parliament, where it rightly belongs. It is our property, it was given to us by the executive and it is fundamental that it should remain with us and should not cease to be the property of Parliament. It is a fundamental issue which is at stake. This House is vested with the responsibility of being the watch-dog of the people of South Africa. Ours is the responsibility to see that the executive does its job, to see that there are no irregularities in the conduct of government, and to execute that responsibility we have been elected by the people of South Africa. That responsibility can be discharged better if this evidence remains the property of this House so that the test of history can show what really happened in this matter. I say this because it is apparent that not all the evidence which in our view is relevant, is going to be made public. Therefore with all the safeguards, with no suggestion of opening things that could jeopardize the security of the State and with every safeguard required for the security of the State, we ask that this be kept the property of Parliament, which is the guardian for the safeguarding of the interests of the people.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly difficult at this stage to react to the motion by the hon. member for Yeoville. His conduct was true to type. I have just been advised that the Whips on our side of the House were not informed of the amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Who informed us of yesterday’s motion?

However, as chairman of that committee I have to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville. But I do not have a copy of his amendment before me. I do not have a written document to which I can reply.

He has no manners.

The Leader of the House has it in his possession and he showed it to you. I saw him do it.

He has no manners.

I do not need to be taught manners by an uncouth fellow like you.

Order!

That is quite correct.

[Interjections.] It is true that while you were in procession to open the House, the hon. Leader of the House had me summoned from my bench, Mr. Speaker, to advise me of what the hon. member for Yeoville was intending to move today.

He has no manners.

There is such a thing as common decency, even in debates between opposing parties in this House. [Interjections.] I wish to state it as a fact today that the hon. member for Yeoville deliberately devised a clever manoeuvre. However, that is how we have come to know him. [Interjections.] We on that Select Committee are thoroughly aware of the frustrations of the hon. member for Yeoville because he could not succeed in obtaining further political ammunition against the governing party from the proceedings of the Select Committee. That is the problem of the hon. member for Yeoville. He has a further problem, however. In respect of the final report of the Select Committee there were a few paragraphs with which he did not agree, although his objections were without rhyme or reason. His problem was how he could launch a further debate in this House to rehash the hackneged events surrounding the former Department of Information. All the hon. member for Yeoville wanted was an opportunity to say something in this House. All the hon. member wanted was an opportunity to cast further suspicion on matters. What are the facts, however? The evidence before the Erasmus Commission was tabled in this House in its totality.

A Select Committee was appointed, consisting of representatives of all the parties in this House, and that Select Committee went through all that evidence over a long period. After that the Select Committee came to this House with recommendations. What the hon. member for Yeoville has done this afternoon, to say the least, was to cast a serious reflection on that Select Committee. He has cast the aspersion that the Select Committee did not go into the evidence objectively in accordance with its terms of reference. The Select Committee reported to this House on the criteria which it has set itself, the criteria it would apply to determine what evidence should possibly not be published. What were those criteria? They were: That the security of the State should not be jeopardized; that the identity of individuals, and more particularly the identity of foreign associates of the former Department of Information, should not be divulged unless it was in the public interest; and that evidence that would be detrimental to the general interests of the State, should not be made public. It is interesting to note that as far as these criteria were concerned— and I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville would differ with me on this—the Select Committee was unanimous. It is clear from the report that the draft report moved by the hon. member for Yeoville and the report adopted by the Select Committee, were absolutely identical on this point.

Now, it is a fact that with the report he proposed moving, the hon. member for Yeoville, typically in accordance with Prog philosophy, wanted the vote of the minority to prevail over the vote of the majority. He proposed that only those sections of the evidence on which there was absolute unanimity, should be omitted. Surely, one could argue with as much reason that all evidence in respect of which there was a minority motion before the Select Committee, should be omitted and that this, too, should be omitted because the minority felt that it should not be published. The PFP and the hon. member for Yeoville must now decide what they want. If they want a minority veto, it can not work only one way, but it has to work both ways. If he wants a minority veto in respect of what should be published, it is no more than fair to claim that there should also be a minority veto in respect of what should not be published. After all, he cannot have his cake and eat it.

What did the Select Committee recommend? The recommendation of the Select Committee in this regard is obvious—I could almost say it is common sense. The committee recommended that the minutes of its proceedings and its resolutions should be tabled as a confidential document. It could not be otherwise, or else one would be making public everything that should remain secret. After all, it could not be otherwise.

That is not the point in this debate.

I am not as stupid as the hon. member thinks.

What is the motion of the hon. Leader of the House to which the hon. member for Yeoville is opposed? The Government tabled the detailed evidence of the Erasmus Commission in the House. A Select Committee consisting of members of the House was appointed by you, Sir, to go into that evidence in detail. That Select Committee made recommendations to this House, it recommended that as a matter of public interest, certain sections of that evidence should not be made public, for reasons which I stated to hon. members. Consequently, as far as I am concerned, the evidence in its totality as tabled, has served its purpose as far as this House is concerned. It could serve no further useful purpose to retain that evidence in the possession of this House. No one, not even a person with the vivid imagination of the hon. member for Yeoville, could read any sinister motives in the motion of the hon. Leader of this House.

I wish to conclude by emphasizing that in my view, the hon. member for Yeoville has merely sought an opportunity this afternoon to try to sow further suspicion. He was seeking an opportunity for further personal publicity, which he will probably get; but he has done no service to this Parliament. Consequently, I do not believe that his amendment can be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton served the Select Committee well as its chairman and I give him his due. But he saddened me this afternoon with his utterances. I believe he has gone completely overboard, and I want to say to him that he must be extremely cautious of the tack he took when he started his address here this afternoon, where he stated that he was acutely embarrassed because this side of the House had not displayed courtesy.

Are you a Prog?

I am a member of the NRP, in reply to that hon. member’s interjection. The hon. member for Barberton said that he was acutely embarrassed by the fact that this side of the House did not display courtesy to the Whips on that side of the House. I want to say that I saw him discuss the contents of the amendment with the hon. the Leader of the House, and I therefore think he should stop this line of attack because he may embarrass the hon. the Leader of the House, who yesterday introduced this motion without any reference at all to Whips on this side of the House. Let us just get that point clear. I do not accept the hon. member for Barberton’s argument. We have before us a motion of the hon. the Leader of the House, and I want to ask the hon. member for Barberton whether the contents of this particular motion were ever discussed at any meeting of our Select Committee.

That is a good question.

Was this motion ever placed before any meeting of our Select Committee? Was it ever discussed in the Select Committee, of which I was a member, that the evidence of this commission would be returned to the executive? I have no recollection of that and I do not think that any hon. member who sat on that Select Committee can say that he has a recollection of that. I believe the hon. member for Yeoville has traced the events accurately to this day. There were many, many weeks of reading, followed by further meetings, arguments and deliberations in the Select Committee here in Cape Town. There was a lot of frustration and a lot of concurrence—let us remember that—in respect of the release or otherwise of certain aspects of the evidence. However, in spite of all those months of work we find ourselves in a situation today where, shortly before the House met, we had the evidence tabled with the ommission of certain sections and of certain names. This debate is what I call the debate in the dark because we cannot debate that which we cannot talk about. This is the predicament in which we find ourselves. Some time ago, I think it was during the Information affair, we had an hon. Minister talking about trying to catch a black cat in a dark room. Well, that is exactly what this debate is like. It is like trying to catch a black cat in a dark room.

A fat cat.

The problem is that this evidence is going to be tabled with certain omissions. The motion of the hon. the Leader of the House which is before us states quite categorically that part of the format that will be retained in this House will be the Minutes of Proceedings marked “Confidential” and that only persons authorized thereto by a resolution of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders shall have access thereto.

But that is not the full record of the proceedings. The minutes merely represent the decisions that were taken. In order to keep the full record of the proceedings, I respectfully submit that every page, every name and every shred of evidence and every one of the exhibits that we examined during our deliberations should be kept in this place with the minutes. That would keep the whole thing in tact for posterity. The hon. member for Pretoria Central, who was so vociferous just now—this great hit-and-run expert—kept repeating “Why?”. He asked “Why should it not go back to the executive?” “Why must it be kept here?” I shall tell him why it must be kept here. It must be kept here because this Select Committee proved for once and for all the value of this Parliament, its traditions and the value of the work it does. That is why it must be kept here. I do not care if a set of the evidence goes to the hon. the Prime Minister’s office. That is quite in order. Let the executive have a set of the evidence. However, a full set of the evidence, must, as part of the record, be retained with the minutes of the proceedings of the Select Committee in this House. This is for posterity, for the generations to come and for the Governments to come, because one can get access to that through the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders in this House. I cannot see any objection to it. Nobody can raise an objection. The hon. member for Barberton has argued this afternoon, and on what tach? He merely launched a vituperative attack on the hon. member for Yeoville. It is not for me to defend the hon. member for Yeoville, bless him. He can look after himself more than adequately. However, the hon. member for Barberton could not give one convincing reason why this evidence should not be kept in this House. There is not one reason. I should like an hon. member from that side of the House to give us one reason why this evidence should not be kept here in Parliament as part and parcel of the record.

There is every reason why it should.

Are they going to send a set to the Guinness Book of Records?

We must remember one very important thing, and that is that Parliament was seized of this evidence on 7 June 1979. Parliament, in terms of what will be found in this report, was seized of this evidence on 7 June 1979. It belongs to Parliament and must therefore be part of the record as much as the minutes must be part of the record. I should like to quote Standing Rule 206. It states quite clearly that—

I want to ask this House whether any member of that Select Committee has been guilty of a breach of privilege in respect of this evidence. Has one shred of that evidence been leaked? Not one word of it has leaked. Now why all of a sudden does this have to start? Why is it considered now that this is going to start happening? I cannot understand this argument. Why should these documents not be retained in this House? Does it make any difference? It should not make any difference whatsoever. I believe that, to send these documents back in toto to the executive, is in fact a reflection on the workings of the Select Committee. I therefore heartily endorse the amendment the hon. member for Yeoville moved here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments raised here this afternoon sounded very complicated. Let me tell the House what the facts of the matter before us are. There was a discussion here last year on a commission and its report. The commission tabled a report and a lengthy argument then took place here across the floor of the House with regard to the evidence. At that stage it was said that the evidence should be dealt with in a specific way. I also wish to say that it has never been the practise to table the evidence of all commissions, only the reports. Be that as it may, in view of the impasse which arose from the arguments, the Government decided to appoint a Select Committee to go through all the evidence, which comprised thousands of pages, in the spirit of the discussions that had taken place here. The committee had to bear in mind that there was probably evidence constituting a danger to the State which should not be made public. The committee had to look into the evidence and hon. members on both sides of the House participated. All parties in the House accepted responsibility and participated. The Select Committee deliberated for months, and now it has completed its activities and has submitted a report. The report, which is not very long, has been tabled here. But apart from the report, there was also the evidence before the committee, which consisted of two parts, namely that part which the Select Committee, in co-operation with hon. members on the opposite side of the House, separated from the rest and marked confidential. What we are concerned with now is that part of the evidence, which only amounts to approximately 2% of the total evidence, whether it be one page, or 20 or 50 pages. The question is: What are we doing with that part of the evidence? The fact of the matter is that copies of the full record and the documentary evidence is going to be tabled tomorrow. What is Parliament going to have before it? Parliament is going to have possession of and access to everything that was said, except that part which the Select Committee of the House removed. So, nothing is going to be withheld. Everything will be available to the country, the Press and the House. Only that part on which agreement has been reached, is being removed, and it is now being proposed that something should be done with that part. The motion is that it should be returned to the Executive so that the Executive can keep it in safe custody.

Or destroy it?

Or destroy it? What is under consideration now, is that part. My information from officials of Parliament is that from a technical point of view, Parliament is not really equipped to keep such confidential documents under lock and key. Consequently, they have to be kept elsewhere. The Executive will not take the documents and destroy them, or anything of that nature. They will be kept in safe custody. The present Executive, and any future Executive, will decide what further steps they will take in connection with them. However, the documents will be dealt with in the way all other confidential documents are dealt with. I wish to tell the House …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the Executive were to decide to destroy the documents, it would mean that there would be no record whatsoever available anywhere in the country?

I have not consulted the Executive on this aspect. The hon. the Prime Minister is not present, but I can give my personal undertaking that the Executive will not destroy the record. I can give the House that assurance.

And if Jaap Marais’ party were to get in?

Come now, let us be reasonable. The argument of the hon. members of the Opposition amounts to this: They think that that part of the record which has been marked confidential, should not be treated as confidential. They would prefer that this be made available to everyone to read. [Interjections.] That simply cannot happen. I repeat that the copies of the full record and documentary evidence will be made available to members, to the country, to the Press and to the libraries that are entitled to them. That part which hon. members on the opposite side, in collaboration with us, have removed and put to one side as being dangerous to the State, will be kept separate. The Executive will lock that away for future use and handling. That is what this is all about. I have nothing further to say. What I am doing now, is to carry out a commission in a accordance with a decision of this side of the House. The Select Committee examined the evidence. Consequently, my statement is also my reply to hon. members.

It is a sad day for Parliament.

If the hon. member is labouring under the delusion that it was the intention of this side of the House all along to divulge everything, regardless of whether there was evidence that constituted a danger to the State, he is making a mistake. [Interjections.]

Nobody said that.

Nobody is even asking for that.

So I wish to tell hon. members that any confidential document of this nature or of any other nature which finds its way into the hands of the Government for scrutiny, will be regarded as confidential and will be kept in safe custody. To hon. members who want the assurance from me that the documents will not be incinerated, I wish to say that they will be kept in safe custody.

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

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he confirms paragraph 5 on page 8 of the report of the Select Committee, the paragraph which reads that the report shall be printed and published with the omission of those parts indicated by the Select Committee, because his reply would be of dicisive importance to me in my decision as to whether or not I am going to support the amendment. It seems to me that there is uncertainty on this matter.

The Government has received this report of the Select Committee, and has accepted it. The hon. member is now asking me whether I also accept paragraph 5. Of course, I automatically accept it. We have received this report, we have accepted it, we have had it printed and we have tabled it in Parliament. Surely it would be absurd for the Government to accept a report and then to say that it was not going to implement certain recommendations. After all, that is not correct. Consequently, I give the assurance that the Government accepts the recommendations of the commission in this paragraph. The Government’s intention with this motion is to arrange the further course of events, to publish that part which the Select Committee decided should be made public, and to lock away that part which the Select Committee decided should be kept under lock and key and not made public. That is briefly my reply. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we have nearly reached the end of this very important debate now. It is an important vote that we have been discussing here, important because of the fact that it is of such a nature that it affects everyone in the country.

I think it is a good thing to refer to specific matters that were raised in this debate.

The last speaker last night was the hon. member for Eshowe. One would like to associate oneself with him and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, since they spoke about the sugar industry, a very important industry. It is an integral part of our economy and I hope and trust that the requests of these two hon. members—both most probably connoisseurs of the sugar industry—will not fall on deaf ears because sugar is going to play an important role in the future when we discuss energy and the utilization and application thereof in this House in the years ahead.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also raised a very important matter, viz. export. As everyone who is involved with export knows, this Government is doing brilliant work with its subsidies, encouragement, attempts and programme to bring about and encourage exports. The Government should be felicitated by the private sector.

The hon. member for Berea raised two points that are definitely very interesting. Firstly he spoke about coal. I do not have to stress the importance of this once again. I simply have to refer to an international report which appeared in London yesterday, in which it was alleged that coal is going to be one of the greatest energy resources in the world. Therefore the hon. member must bear in mind that the Government is not exporting coal simply to earn foreign currency; the Government also realizes the importance of coal. Coal is exported by means of a quota system.

When one talks about exporting coal, one must realize that it can be divided into four categories. I shall mention one example: There is bituminous coal which can be used in power stations, and then there is anthracite, coke and dross coal. The Government does not work on a quota system when it comes to exports. It is not exported merely to earn currency. It is controlled. With all due respect, I refer the hon. member to the Petrick report. The hon. member must read it and see what coal is.

The hon. member raised another important point with regard to the fuel price. I thought that the HNP had won Berea when the hon. member spoke last night, because it seemed as if he was following through their strategy by alleging that the Government is making phenomenal profits from selling crude oil and petrol. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to spell out to us what the composition of the petrol price is. The public needs this information.

I know what it is.

It seems as if the hon. member does not know what it is and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister please to spell out if possible. For instance, take the price at the pump on the Rand, the rail costs, the retail markets, the landed cost of imported petrol, customs duty, road fund, SFF stock-piling, transport, oil pollution, SOF, excise duty and Equalization Fund levies which are always changing. These are things that one must take into account when one talks about the price of fuel. This is what one must look at. One cannot simply say make the price of fuel 44 cents per litre or ask for more Sasols, because it costs money after all. One cannot manufacture petrol in a pressure cooker. One must look at this and therefore I am asking the hon. the Minister please, if he agrees, to spell this out to the public so that they can know that the Government is not making a profit on petrol. The public must bear in mind that it is a privilege to be able to drive a private car. How many times has the motoring public of various countries—I am referring to Japan and USA—come to a standstill because there was no fuel? It is a privilege still to be able to obtain fuel in South Africa for use in ordinary cars, and we must not abuse it. We must not make political capital out of the fuel price. We must consider it a privilege still to be able to travel by car in South Africa, and we must conserve our fuel. We must adopt a sensible attitude on the price of fuel.

I now want to come to a matter which was raised by other hon. members too, for instance the hon. member for Vasco, the hon. member for Maitland, the hon. member for Von Brandis and, to a large extent, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti too. I think we could discuss this for quite a long time. Years ago the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and myself discussed the profit motive, entrepreneurship and what constitutes a free economy. What I said during the debate at that time, I say again now, that I believe in the profit motive. I believe in entrepreneurship and I also believe that everyone should contribute towards the economy in South Africa, no matter who he might be. The hon. member spoke about “system analysis” and “production per unit of capital investment”. This is all very well and good, but we could debate for hours on this type of terminology. The hon. member must bear in mind, however, that it is not the duty of the Government to do this. The Government takes the initiative. The Government creates the framework for a free economy system, and I believe that we have a free economy system in South Africa and that every man, as the hon. the Prime Minister spelled out in the Carlton Hotel, should make use of it.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that many members of the public are living beyond their means. It is time for us to come down to earth. It is time for us to realize that we must live within our means. The future is not going to request this of us. The future is going to demand it of us. There has been talk about industries, and we spoke specifically about Sasol, but the retailer is most probably one of the most important components of the entire free economy. I should like to refer to an article in The Cape Times. The headline reads: “Retail Sales Set to Soar 19% by the End of the Year.” This is very important. However, it causes concern in this sector of retail trade. The concern was recently expressed in Port Elizabeth at a congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. Under the heading “Klein-handelaar Word Gedruk” the following was said, and I quote—

A speaker pointed out that the consumer does not necessarily always buy at the factory price when he buys from the manufacturer or wholesaler. Often people present themselves as wholesalers, but when members of the public arrive there, they are served too. It is not only the retail businesses that are served. If the man in the street walks into a wholesaler today, is that wholesaler not ethically obliged to serve him? The wholesaler is exploiting retail trade and South Africa cannot afford it. I want to indicate why South Africa cannot afford it, and I quote—

This is retail trade—

However, these people are one of the largest sources of sales tax, and that is why it is important.

I should also like to break a lance for the Advisory Bureau for Small Businesses. I want to quote how this Advisory Bureau sees the small business in South Africa. On page 2 it says that the small business—

I sometime wonder whether the large businesses realize this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Overvaal has dealt with two points to which I should like to refer briefly. The first is that he seems to regard elementary things such as being able to drive a motor car as being a privilege in South Africa. One of the tendencies that is developing in this country is that many things which have in fact been taken for granted as being part of our normal life, are suddenly becoming privileges. I do not believe that that is the correct approach. I think that South Africans are entitled to lead normal lives, like any other people in the world. This whole concept of having to thank the Government for everything and having to regard oneself as privileged verges on the idiotic.

You are misquoting me.

The second point, one I am going to deal with in some detail a little later on, is the complete fallacy which is being broadcast that South Africa has a free enterprise economy. The reality is that South Africa has a form of oligarchal socialism. There is no question about it. In some limited sectors a certain degree of competitiveness is allowed, but we had the spectacle yesterday of the hon. the Minister saying: “Well, it may well be that monopolies are a good thing sometimes.” How can the whole concept of the market mechanism and of competitiveness operate in a monopolistic situation such as is in fact in many instances being encouraged by the Government?

I do not think the NP has as yet come to the real crux of this debate. That is that there have been very many people waiting for this debate. Included in those people who are waiting are the housewives, the lowly paid people and the elderly people who are struggling to make a living in this country and to exist here.

Where do those people buy?

Those people have been waiting expectantly for this debate to see what the NP Government can produce in regard to the most fundamental question that is worrying them, the question of inflation. Having listened to the hon. the Minister yesterday, I can say that so far he has not produced one single thing to give any comfort to the bulk of the people of South Africa who are being hit hard by inflation.

Nonsense!

The fundamentals of any person’s existence are food, clothing, shelter and transport. In regard to all four of those the hon. the Minister and the Government can offer the people of South Africa nothing except continually rising prices and continuing hardship. It does not need anybody to convince the people who walk into the shops, the supermarkets or wherever they go to buy their daily needs, that the Government has failed in respect of this fundamental question. The hon. the Minister promised us he would speak again today and I want to ask him to tell South Africa what the Government is doing about inflation and about rising costs, because the people of South Africa are utterly dissatisfied and fed up with a Government that is unable to deal with their fundamental problems.

There are other people who are waiting to hear what is said in this debate. What about the exporters in South Africa, the people who have made a balance of payments position possible in South Africa that has given prosperity to many people? What is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to tell South Africa about the implications for the exporter of the higher rand and the implications for the exporter of the problems in the economies of our trading partners?

Who is the Deputy Minister?

What is the hon. the Minister going to tell us about these things and what are the exporters going to hear from him?

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. member who the Deputy Minister is to whom he referred?

The hon. member must not waste my time with nonsense. [Interjections.]

†I come to the other very important issue. I want to ask: What is in fact the economic strategy of South Africa? The hon. the Minister will know that the people in South Africa are concerned about their future and their security not only in respect of the planning of a political structure, but also in respect of the whole issue of the economy of South Africa and in respect of the distortions which exist in our economy. With everybody talking about a total onslaught, the question one has to ask the hon. the Minister is what the total onslaught on South Africa is. The total onslaught on South Africa is not merely the military threat of Marxism; it is also the offering of an economic alternative for South Africa, the alternative of Marxism, which in fact is finding itself to be more and more of an attraction to a section of the people of South Africa. May I again draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a concept, which is not a new concept, that was put forward by the president of the Chamber of Mines? If anybody can be regarded as being symbolic of capitalism it must surely be the president of the Chamber of Mines. He has been reported as saying—

Meaning capitalism—

What he draws attention to is—

The question that we need to ask is: Why do they not associate capitalism with democracy? The answer is a very simple one. It is because they do not experience democracy and because they do not get and enjoy the fruits of capitalism in South Africa and are not truly part of that system in South Africa. The reality of South Africa is that we have in South Africa a system which is full of economic distortions. The first of these distortions is a geographic distortion. The decentralization policy of the Government has failed and lies in pieces around us. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with decentralization. What it does mean is that decentralization because it is motivated by ideological reasons has resulted in being a failure for South Africa. Let me give hon. members an example. Four of the largest districts out of the 275 districts in South Africa contribute 42% of the GDP, based on the last census figures. The district of Johannesburg alone contributed 19% of the GDP. From that alone can one not show that there is the most dramatic distortion in regard to the geographic position of the GDP in South Africa and that decentralization has been an utter failure? Why has it been a failure? It has been a failure because the Government has committed itself to a very simple principle, and I quote from the words of a previous Prime Minister—

In other words, one puts the politics first and then tries to fit the economy into the politics, whereas the reality of life is that one seeks to develop the economy and adapts one’s political structure to the economy. That is the tragedy and that is why decentralization is a major failure. If one looks for distortions in the economy, the distortions are not only geographic. There are also distortions in respect of education, training, the distribution of skills and in respect of the gaps between income and wealth. So, as an economy, South Africa finds itself in a most distorted situation. And what is the hon. the Minister doing about that? What does he seek to have as a strategy to deal with the real problem of South Africa, which is an economic problem and which can only be solved if one gets to grips with it and seeks to deal with these distortions. It does not matter how many Schlebusch Commissions one has. It is the economy which is at the root of the problems of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the hon. member for Yeoville, one would say that inflation is a phenomenon which occurs in South Africa only, and that it is a problem which can simply be solved within South Africa in isolation. Surely it is a world-wide problem. Surely it is not something which occurs here in South Africa alone. Furthermore, I want the hon. member to remember that the economy, in the form that we took it over from the old United Party in 1948, was anything but a model of private initiative. I think that inflation was even more rampant after the end of the Second World War. The present Government is encouraging private initiative to achieve with everything at its disposal, and I feel that the hon. member for Yeoville is laying the blame at the wrong door.

However, to my mind, we must all face the fact that inflation is a great problem throughout the world. We should rather fight together to solve that problem. I do not think it is worth while to make cheap political capital out of the question of inflation. I should, in fact, like to refer to the question of inflation this afternoon. I should like to make a request of the hon. the Minister to guide this House and the people of South Africa in this regard. In an editorial in Die Transvaler of 25 April 1980 it was said—

The writer continues—

The price of very few products, commodities or services, if any, have dropped over the past 30 years. This applies to any country in the world. Where this has in fact happened it was caused by interfering in the principles of the free economy system. The disadvantages that emanated from that, often outweighed the advantages. It has been discovered that measures like price control, rationing, etc. aggravate that problem within a very short while, practically without exception.

A very appropriate description of this phenomenon that I read recently, is that if the pressure within a cylinder is excessively high, it will be no use trying to shift the needle of the pressure gauge by manipulating the gauge from outside. The pressure in that cylinder will remain just as high as it was, and it may even increase.

The consequences of inflation are being experienced daily by us in this country and by people in all the countries of the world. One simply has to look at the media, and I refer to a few newspaper headlines which have appeared in the past month. They are: “Lone en Salarisse is aan die loop”; “Kospryse gaan aanhou styg”; “Suikerverhoging is net die begin”; “Inflasie is weer hoër”; “Melkprys sal met 20% styg”, etc. These headlines are indications of economic pressure that is becoming excessively high. This generates discord and bitterness amongst the people of South Africa. I do not think we can escape that. An economist said recently that it impedes the building up of capital, impoverishes people, makes nonsense of planning, generates discord and bitterness and can ultimately cause a community to perish.

The opinions of economic commentators with regard to the cause of the problem, are divergent and also depend to a large extent on their political convictions. I want to refer briefly to a few opinions from both sides of the fence. An American called Dr. Reisman, a professor of economics at the Pepperdine University in Los Angeles, simply describes inflation as follows—

In the May issue of Businessman’s Law, the well-known financial expert, Mr. Macaskill, says the following about inflation—

He further alleges that, in order to compensate the workers for the loss of buying power, wages are increased. In doing so, the State forces their income into a higher tax bracket. Then the buying power of the wage earner is less and he has to pay more tax on what he earns.

I shall refer now to a more moderate commentator, Dr. Jan Hupkes of the Business Management School at Unisa. He says—

His attitude is also that at most, we will be able to modify our actions so that they will not give rise to further inflation in the future. He goes on to say—

Emanating from Dr. Hupkes’ prediction, we already have the opinion of the Bureau for Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch which says in its latest opinion poll that although South Africa may be able to boast a growth rate of almost 6% this year, we are also faced with the position that a salary explosion is building up and the indications are that the salary account may increase by 21%.

Our big problem in this regard is that we are saddled with a limited skilled labour class and as a result there is a great demand for the services of these people. The demand leads to the salaries continually increasing. However, these are problems which cannot be rectified by politicizing in the House. Dr. Rudolf Gouws, senior economist at Nedbank, recently said the following in this regard—

I have quoted economists who say that inflation is caused by the Government of the day and others who say that the Government does what it can to solve this tremendous problem that is being experienced worldwide.

The residents of the Republic of South Africa, however, are subjected to both schools of thought and they are also experiencing the erosion of their investments and a drop in the value of their money. With all due respect, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate what steps the Government intends taking to oppose inflation in this beautiful country of ours.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of this debate, which I have found very interesting to listen to, I should like to thank all hon. members who have participated, because they have covered a wide field. I do not pretend to be omniscient, as it sometimes seemed a few speakers on the other side of the House were professing to be. They explained the problems and created the impression that they had the solutions, but they did not help me either. Unfortunately I cannot come to this House with an inexact type of science and say that the Government is able to solve this or that completely. It is simply not possible to do this in the light of the economy as a whole. The situation is very fluid in this respect. There are many plans which one can sometimes devise, but which are not always successful. Sometimes, too, there are plans that are very successful, but we can never expect our opponents to thank us for those in any case.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about the sugar industry and the Stabilization Fund. It is always easy to be wise after the event, but if at the time he referred to, we had been able to forecast all the price movements and that the depression would last this long, we could have ensured the building up of the Stabilization Fund a little sooner.

You were warned at the time.

We may be able later on, perhaps after the high world market price has come down and after the drought, to aid these people in a better way. That is so, but at that time the local consumer public wanted their share of the good prices and the good returns.

That was a wrong approach.

They did want that. Even the sugar industry wanted their share.

They wanted what they were entitled to.

They had their share. They did not make part of that share available to the Stabilization Fund. As far as I can remember, they did not propose that the Stabilization Fund should be bolstered at the time. We could not have foreseen the length of the depression, the price problem and that the drought would occur. I feel as sorry about this as the hon. member does. As far as that is concerned, it is a problem, but it is not one we can solve at this very moment. It is just impossible to do so. The hon. member for Eshowe also referred to this.

Mr. Chairman, I did put a specific question to the hon. the Minister.

Order! Does the hon. member want to put a question?

I want to put a specific question to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Does the hon. the Minister agree with his colleague who, when he was the Minister of this department, said that when good times came back again and money flowed back into the Stabilization Fund, the amount in the Fund would be allowed to build up to at least the value of one year’s crop before the Government, or any Minister, decided to perhaps tamper with this inflow through the reduction of the local price of sugar?

I am not going to specify, but I can assure the hon. member that I shall certainly consider a proposition like that after consultation with the sugar industry.

The hon. member also referred to inflation, as did so many other hon. members. He has put forward what the man in the street has really known all along, and that is that one must live within one’s means. But if we always live within our means, then there is no prospect of growth and of a better living, and therefore it is only natural that one’s desire for growth and all that might get one into trouble later on. That is so, but we are at the same time trying to educate the public as far as that is concerned. The Co-ordinating Consumer Council and various speakers try to do that from time to time. All of us—the hon. member, the private sector and the businessmen—should contribute, each in his own way, to fighting inflation. In 1979—and this might sound paradoxical in view of what I have said—this country did live within its means. The country had a very large balance of payments. What it actually amounted to was that our savings were much more than what we spent at that time. One therefore has to consider more than one aspect and not only approach these matters in a simplistic way. However, I am not against what the hon. member has said. He is, after all, entitled to his opinion, and I am glad he has spoken about this specific problem, the biggest of our problems at the moment. I can tell him that it is a problem that will not easily be solved, but that we apply our minds to it. We certainly have plans in this respect. I can tell the hon. member for Yeoville—he is not here at the moment—that some of the best brains in this country and in the world have been battling with this problem all along. Last night I referred to this and asked him how he could expect this Government to solve a problem that has baffled the best brains that have been applied to it for many years. It has come to be accepted as something with which we have to live.

*The hon. member for Vasco made a positive contribution, which showed that he had made a study of his subject. He covered a wide field. He raised the central thought that we should try to make the economy more supple. I do want to point out to him the idea behind our plans for rationalization. In their later phases, all laws, including those relating to the economy, will be scrutinized. I can assure him that it is recognized that important things have gone wrong in the structure of the economy, things which the Government could not always have foreseen. However, in the later phases of the rationalization plan, various laws, relating to the economy as well, will receive attention.

The hon. member also discussed national productivity. I do want to point out to him that the ideas he expressed perhaps indicate that he is not aware of the fact that the National Productivity Institute already has instruments and means of determining the relative shares of the various production factors in industries as far as the promotion of productivity is concerned. The promotion of productivity is the enemy of inflation. The approach must be to combine labour, capital, intermediary inputs and so forth as far as possible, so that the best or lowest unit cost can be obtained. We all realize this. Through their studies, these people can already determine, merely on the basis of a statement of an industry’s cost increases, to what extent that industry is absorbing costs by means of greater productivity of labour and capital, so that the general productivity may eventually improve. This has already worked very well in Iscor. It has been proved that the study and aid of this organization helped Iscor to improve its productivity by 5%. For such an enormous organization this was an achievement.

It is interesting—I have the figures with me—to note, as far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, the extent to which the production factors have individually contributed to the total productivity. Intermediary inputs have contributed plus 0,31% to higher productivity. I am referring now to last year’s manufacturing industries and I get my figures from the annual report of the Board of Trade and Industries. Labour contributed plus 4,95% to the increase in productivity. Unfortunately, there was a deficiency in the case of capital utilization, for this contributed minus 1,62%; so it made a negative contribution. I just want to point out to the hon. member that there are methods and an institute available to industries and even to sectors of industries, to help them. We shall have to make increasing use of these.

I must honestly say that as far as price control is concerned, it has virtually become a habit of the Price Controller lately to expect each company in respect of which he accepts his responsibility of fixing prices to indicate to what extent productivity has been promoted.

The hon. member for Albany highlighted a local need. As a person who also comes from a rural area, I always sympathize with local requirements. I quite understand the hon. member’s problems. His constituency is one of our main regions, and the way I see the economy, there will be an opportunity in the future to make use of specific assistance. However, we cannot be expected to give concessions in an arbitrary way to one particular town or place, so arbitrary that they will induce businesses to stay there. We cannot do that, because our responsibility is too wide. Nevertheless I sympathize with this cause, and therefore I think that I should briefly summarize some ideas at this stage.

As hon. members will recall—I am now discussing decentralization in general because so many of the hon. members referred to it—I appointed a panel round about October consisting of some of the private sector’s really knowledgeable leaders in the economic as well as the business fields. The panel is under the chairmanship of the economic advisor to the Prime Minister, Mr. Marius de Waal of the IDC. They received specific instructions. What was said by the hon. member for Albany as well as by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and others concerning decentralization, growth point and regional development problems, and even the rationalization of development schemes, has a bearing on what I am now going to say.

This panel initially singled out three tasks —after studying our economy over the past 10 years—which it wanted to deal with as a matter of priority. This was only in October last year. The rationalization of the existing development corporations was the first task to which the panel gave its attention. Secondly, attention was given to a revision of the objectives and the instruments of the decentralization policy.

I do not find it strange to admit to the hon. member for Yeoville—I see he is not here at the moment—that we are not satisfied with the development of the decentralization policy. Of course its development leaves much to be desired. That is why it was decided to have it investigated.

The revision of the objectives and instruments of the decentralization policy is an aspect to which I wish to refer specifically. It is related to the question of an alternative to section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act. Since 1967 we have been finding that this Act has not quite been serving its purpose, especially in the last few years. The centralizing magnetic power of the metropolitan areas is just too great for this, and interference always has to be restricted to a minimum. The formulation of the guidelines for a national economic strategy, within the framework of the total national strategy, is a task which the Economic Advisory Council has of course long been working on, and the panel is also making a valuable contribution to it at the moment.

Our six guidelines with regard to the form which this strategy should take have been accepted by the Economic Advisory Council. The panel is therefore proceeding along those lines. The matter has already been discussed with the private sector, with all bodies that are concerned with it and can make contributions to it. It has also been amended, and I hope to be able to submit proposals to the Government for its approval within a week or so. Very satisfactory progress has also been made with the rationalization of the development corporations. I want to add that in the process, the proposals which have to be formulated with regard to the creation of a development corridor for Southern Africa have been taken into account at all times. But that is only by the way. It does not fall under my jurisdiction, but it does link up with this. The hon. the Minister of Finance has also referred to this.

The panel is practically ready to submit proposals to the Government with regard to the rationalization of corporations. It has not confined itself to a mere review of the present incentives to decentralization. I should like hon. members to listen to this carefully. I cannot spell out the details here today.

The hon. member for Yeoville has asked to be excused. He cannot be here now. I accept that.

I cannot spell out the details of this, but I can give hon. members a general impression of what we have in mind. The panel is practically ready to submit its proposals, but it is not going to confine itself merely to review measures. It is also going to review the objectives of decentralization, if that would satisfy some hon. members. Of course this has a bearing on the constitutional dispensation we have in mind. It also has a bearing on the consolidation of the national States. This new dispensation will apply to the whole country and will be submitted in due course. However, it has drastic financial implications, so there will have to be wide co-ordination. It will now be expedited. Rapid progress has already been made. Then it can be submitted to the Government for its decision. That may take weeks, but if I can arrange it, it will take place this year.

The replacement of section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act has already been discussed. However, we want to see it in context with the rest. This, too, will be submitted to the Government at a later stage.

Finally, I just want to emphasize that an industrial strategy for the Republic is being worked out by Dr. Klue, the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. He concerns himself with the basic aspects of the industrial sector, while the Economic Advisory Council and this panel confine themselves to the guidelines for our national economic strategy. We are co-operating very closely with this panel. Since this monumental task which these people are performing has almost been completed, I just want to convey my thanks to the members of the private sector who gave their assistance in this connection. Since it was published last year, and because I cannot remember all the names at the moment, I shall not mention their names. They really did good work. They came from all sectors, such as mining, the manufacturing industry, etc. The chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. De Waal made great sacrifices and made a valuable contribution in order to change and improve the direction of the South African economy.

As far as the report of the University of Port Elizabeth is concerned, I want to tell the hon. members for Albany and East London City that it is in my hands. Because it is a realistic document, because its findings are realistic—although one does not necessarily agree with them all—because it links up to a large extent with the new dispensation regarding the way in which we should henceforth conduct the country’s economic strategy, and because it is of a delicate nature, since it extends over the borders of the national States, such as the Ciskei, it has to be dealt with according to a certain procedure. Therefore it may be some weeks before I am able to publish the report and before it can be sent to the interested groups for their opinion. The final report for the Western Cape will be ready at the end of May.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is envisaged in this new plan that there will be one policy for all non-independent homelands or will some be given greater advantages than others because of the situation they find themselves in? In other words, is it envisaged as a total economic scheme which will affect everybody equally or will some areas be singled out for greater attention than others?

It is a total economic strategy for Southern Africa. That is the final goal we have in mind. In the meantime, as far as the constituent parts of the policy are concerned, these will evolve. But there is no idea of discrimination although the economy of certain areas differ from that of other areas. We also have to do with historical developments in regard to the distribution of industries and people in the economy. There are metropolitan areas and also outlying districts and retarded areas. So it is not an easy matter. I assure the hon. member that there is no intention of approaching this problem in a fragmentary manner.

*The hon. member for Maitland spoke about the small businessman. It is a fact that on the whole, one small businessman cannot help another. Because various hon. members spoke about small businesses—because they employ so many people, because they constitute the majority of businesses and because they are so important among the Coloureds, Blacks and Indians in particular because of the job opportunities they create —it is important to spell out a policy concerning this kind of undertaking. The panel also gave its attention to this. Everyone realizes that there is a need for assistance for the small businessman to enable the small business to flourish and to make it a greater factor in our economy. There is a need for some form of incentive for the small businessman and for some form of aid and support. Attention is already being given to the small businessman in various ways. The department is already giving financial support to the Small Business Advisory Bureau at Potchefstroom, as the hon. member for Roodepoort noted. The Industrial Development Corporation has already provided more than 1 000 of them with instruction and training and rendered assistance to them as well. The Economic Development Corporation is helping the Black man in the same way, and the Coloured Development Corporation is helping the Brown man. The Indian Development Corporation already has a record which does not compare at all unfavourably with those of others. We know that a small business development corporation has been established in the private sector, and Dr. Rupert has announced that he can have it absorbed into a general body, a body which can obtain financial support from the public as well as the private sector. However, it will concentrate specifically on the needs of the small businessman. The question has been asked whether we should not combine all these efforts, and the panel has made a suggestion in this connection. It has been said that we should achieve greater efficiency through concerted action. In order to implement the hon. the Prime Minister’s proposals which he made at the Carlton Hotel, we must investigate the rationalization of the existing development corporations, but in the process we must also give attention to this problem. For this reason, there have been talks with the corporations. Proposals have been made to me, or proposals will be submitted to me. However, I have had an opportunity to examine them.

I do not want to anticipate the recommendations, but the idea is, broadly speaking— and a decision still has to be taken about this—that the existing corporations, i.e. the EDC, the CDC, the IDC, the small industries division of the IDC and perhaps the mining corporations as well, should be absorbed into a single institution which will be equipped, among other things, to serve the small business needs of all the various population groups as far as financing, training and after-care are concerned. All these aspects have financial implications, and that is another problem we have to sort out. It will function on a regional basis. However, the idea is not to deprive the private sector of its role. We are not going to enter the sphere of private initiative. Where the dilemma is too great and the private sector cannot help, this institution will play a supplementary role. I think I have said enough now about the Government’s approach to the small businessman. I think I have replied to the criticism expressed yesterday and this afternoon. Of course there are hon. members who have different opinions on this subject, but these are all ideas that can help us.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis said that the present trend, as far as the small businessman was concerned, seemed to be away from helping the small businessman. I think I have already replied to that adequately. I know how he feels, but I do not think that he need worry about that. He also referred to the taxation aspect. In that respect the trend is also towards a more equitable burden on the taxpayer. There are tax reforms taking place. That is not actually my specific area either, but nevertheless this is the way I see it.

*The hon. member for Moorreesburg once again made a plea with regard to his particular region. It is a region that I am very fond of, so I am always sympathetic to his pleas. In all fairness, however, there really are limits to the Government’s ability to embark on one major capital project after another. I am glad the hon. member said that he did not want to ask the Government for money. This places a responsibility upon those who are interested in this idea of his of a semis works—which is not dead—to take this into consideration when people approach the Government with certain proposals. That I agree with the hon. member’s sentiments, however, should not be doubted by anyone. He also referred to the diesel project at Atlantis. Not much was said about that. That project is still in its initial stages. However, we hope that it will eventually give a major boost to the economy of the Western Cape. I honestly believe that this will be the case and that it will create job opportunities for those who need them. We are having problems with the high protection tariffs and similar things which some people complain about and we are having problems with adaptations of various companies, such as the motor vehicle industry, the people who manufacture cars and other vehicles. These are all problems we are trying to overcome, and I believe we shall succeed in doing so. I am glad that the hon. member referred to that particular project, for I think it is an achievement that the Government had the courage to embark upon it while many people were very sceptical of a project which is strategically of great importance to us.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central spoke about export promotion. I have had a statement prepared on the subject.

†I shall limit my remarks as far as this is concerned to a short summary of a statement I can release today. We know that exports have always played and continued to play a vitally important role in our economy. Ministers have emphasized this over the years. We have had expert committees examining this problem. Export incentives were investigated by the Van Huyssteen Committee and later other working committees. They had to work out the cost to the Treasury of such incentives and also the way such incentives were to be implemented. Very intricate problems are involved in this export incentive drive as we see it. Various aspects have to be taken into consideration, aspects which one sometimes sees very simplisticly. After all these committees and working groups had deliberated, a specific export incentive plan was put before the Government. There are four categories of goods and commodities involved in this. Category A relates to specific compensation. It involves assistance to compensate exporters for the higher cost, as a result of the protection of domestic industries, of raw materials and other intermediate products used in the production of goods for export. This is a new development. The second category involves assistance to compensate exporters for the degree to which the value-added component of their export production is lower than that of foreign competitors as a result of the influence of tariff protection afforded to local industries. This is also a new development.

We are thinking about 10%. Category C deals with discretionary assistance and category D with export marketing assistance. These are the categories on which we are operating at the moment. According to category D income tax concessions in respect of foreign marketing expenditure are provided for in the existing system. Categories C and D will be kept intact. As I have just pointed out, additional tax concessions will be made to categories A and B. It is the intention to keep these forms of assistance intact and to apply any additional tax concessions for the implementation of categories A and B.

I know there has been a great deal of impatience because people tended to think that the Government was indifferent. But these extensive studies took a lot of time. It also took a lot of time to reach these conclusions as all the financial implications had to be considered. The Government was therefore not indifferent. I think this feeling is unfounded, although, I agree, people have waited a long time. I just want to remind critics of the Government that cash disbursements to the export sector provided on the Vote of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs increased in three years from R43 million in 1977-’78 to R138,5 million in this year’s budget. Secondly, the income tax concession in respect of export marketing expenditure is at present estimated at approximately R100 million per annum. Thirdly, exporters reap substantial benefits from rebates of duties on items imported for use in the manufacturing of goods for export. Fourthly, the annual grant to Safto—the South African Foreign Trade Organization—has recently been increased to R250 000. Fifthly, the services of the export promotion branch of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs continue to be available both in South Africa and in 37 foreign countries, at no cost to the exporter. It costs a lot of money to keep these people there. They do a great deal of good and patriotic work. I want to make a point of this. It is the custom, an annual event, that people from all comers of the world meet to discuss and compare results to see in what way we can improve our export programme. However, be that as it may. I can now announce that the Government has agreed to make available in the form of income tax concessions as from the 1981-’82 fiscal year an additional net amount of R100 million for the implementation of the new system of export incentives. I refer to a net figure of R100 million since it is estimated that approximately R80 million will flow back to the Treasury as a result of increased production for export following upon the implementation of the new system. It therefore means that a gross amount of approximately R180 million will be available for the implementation of the proposed scheme. This is actually for categories A and B. We also have the service sectors and the primary sectors, and the Government has a standing committee in mind to examine this system. This committee will consist of members of the Government, members from the private sector and from the many other bodies concerned with this. We still have to work out certain aspects of the new system of incentives.

I furthermore want to mention that as regards assistance for raw materials and other intermediate inputs used in exported products, hon. members who are interested in the subject will know that an important change was recently effected in so far as exporters can now import such intermediate inputs free of duty under the provisions of customs tariff 470.03. This has been the case from 1 September last year. I referred to that yesterday when I spoke about the export processing zone which the hon. member for East London North proposed. These new benefits will apply to all qualifying exports which will leave the country after 1 September 1980. Although there are still a number of practical problems which will have to be resolved before the new scheme can be implemented, I announce the Government’s decision at this stage in order to assist exporters with their forward planning of sales in foreign markets. There still are a number of practical problems to be ironed out, but, as I have said, the proposed standing committee, which will consist of representatives of Government departments and various interest groups, will be established to follow up the problems and bottlenecks we will experience with regard to the implementation of the new scheme. In regard to those service and other industries that might feel at the moment that they do not automatically qualify, they can consult with this committee, and I think that any request they make, will be sympathetically considered. I believe that this is a very important decision on the part of the Government and is an adequate answer to what the hon. members for Yeoville said with regard to doubts concerning the Government’s attitude towards exporters. The ball now is in the hands of the private sector to avail themselves of these opportunities.

The hon. member for Edenvale mentioned consumer protection. He had doubts with regard to the Government’s attitude towards free enterprise. I have to tell the hon. member that the Government has a duty towards the consumer. That is so. However, the Government is not the only institution that has specific responsibilities as far as the consumer is concerned. Businessmen in the private sector also have a responsibility, and so has the consumer himself. The Government nevertheless set up the Co-ordinating Consumer Council in which the various interests are represented. The council is being subsidized to the extent of approximately R500 000 each year. They should educate the consumer. They have a duty in this regard. They can be the mouthpiece of the consumer. Therefore, as far as that is concerned, I think the Government has done its duty and still is doing its duty.

The hon. member for Berea spoke about energy matters and was concerned about the exports of coal. He made calculations that seemed fairly impressive at the start, but if one thinks a little more deeply about these things, one has to ask where all this capital will come from for a fourth Sasol. Where will it come from if it does not come from the export of the coal that we now have available and do not need?

From those countries that would like to import the fuel instead of the coal.

From the people who over-subscribed the share issue 35 times.

Hon. members can come to me with any kind of proposal and I shall consider it, but I have to tell them that it is not as easy as they make out. When the Government is confronted with the problem of fuel scarcities, it has to stand on its own feet. That is the way in which economic growth in general terms takes place. The economy does grow in countries when they move from primary products available to them to the manufacturing industry and eventually to heavy industry and technology, which we so desperately need at this stage. So, with all the capital projects, as things stand at the moment, I think the hon. member has an unreal vision of this, because we have a scarcity of capital. First one has to obtain this capital and it can be obtained from the export of coal which we have in abundance. It is estimated that our supply of coal will last for at least another 100 years. After having obtained the capital, we may eventually reach the position where we can achieve, through better technology and available capital, what the hon. member has in mind. I am not in principle against what he said, but as far as the practical aspects are concerned, I cannot agree with him.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I do not have enough time at my disposal to answer questions.

As far as the price of fuel is concerned, it is directly related to our costs. As the hon. member for Overvaal suggested, I am willing to make available to individual members the spelt out figures of how we arrive at the final price of fuel. I have those figures with me but I do not consider it to be in the public interest to divulge or publish them for everybody to see.

*The hon. member for Eshowe made a sympathetic speech to which I have already replied to some extent. I am looking forward to having further talks with him and the sugar industry. I am sure that we shall find some way out of this difficulty. I believe I have also replied to him to a large extent as regards the Stabilization Fund to which he referred.

I want to thank the hon. member for Overvaal for a speech which showed that he has great insight into the economy and its problems. In my opinion, he dealt very effectively with certain hon. members in his reply. I should prefer to leave that aspect there, otherwise hon. members might feel hurt if I said that they took a real drubbing. I am grateful for the fact that he asked me to spell out the price of fuel, but I very much regret that I cannot disclose it to the general public. Hon. members know that the disclosure of fuel prices is subject to legislation and I really have very good reasons for not wanting to make them public.

I must point out that it seldom happens that an hon. member on this side of the House or a Minister is able to thank the Opposition as a whole, but I want to thank the Opposition spokesmen for their handling of energy matters. They recently helped me where I considered it to be in the interests of South Africa to keep news about the Salem out of our newspapers, even though people abroad were aware of certain matters. I am also aware of the fact that we sometimes do things and take decisions concerning matters of this nature which may appear unnecessary, wrong and perhaps even ridiculous to hon. members, but I specifically want to point out to them that when it comes to matters such as these, there are sometimes reasons which simply cannot be divulged. As far as we are concerned, our oil supplies are like the arms industry, and I want to thank hon. members of the Opposition in this respect for having been prepared to cooperate with us. If there are still Press people here and there who disagree with this, they have every right to do so. If there are some of them who have been hurt and who want to take it out on me, they are free to do that, too. I suppose that is their right as well.

In this connection I may perhaps make a suggestion, although I do not think one should make suggestions to one’s successor. I am referring to my “successor” because, as everyone knows, control over energy matters is to be transferred to another department. However, I want to suggest—and I speak from experience—that consideration should be given to relaxing the measures enforcing secrecy with regard to certain energy sources. However, my successor will have to decide about this as he sees fit. He will be guided by his own convictions and his own insights. This is not something I want to impose upon him. These are only thoughts which have occurred to me in the course of time.

I do not think it is necessary for me to get involved in an argument at this stage about the philosophical view of the hon. member for Yeoville as to what constitutes a monopoly and what does not. He interpreted my words in such a way as to make it seem that I said “Monopoly is a good thing”. That is not fair. I never said that. I said that a monopoly per se does not always have to be wrong or bad for the economy. Therefore I made a qualified statement.

The hon. member also spoke about inflation and said that we should spell out to the housewife what we are going to do about these problems. I have already tried to spell out as well as I could what we are doing and I have also said that we shall keep up our measures against inflation. This is a matter which is occupying us day and night. I only want to say that apart from the fact that we are going to keep a very close watch on monopolistic practices, we have also done other things which may eventually curb inflation, such as the partial abolition of import control and the abolition of the 7,5% import levy, etc. All these things will help to combat inflation.

I know what the chairman of the Chamber of Mines said about the Black people and their view of capitalism, but I also know that what the Government is doing at the moment is aimed precisely at changing that view.

I have already referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Roodepoort. The hon. member for Innesdal—who is not here at the moment—may have thought that I misunderstood him yesterday. He was only stating that the ordinary public does not always understand inflation very well. When the best brains in the world do not always understand inflation very well, or cannot find out its cause or say how it should be solved, how can one expect it of the man in the street?

I should like to thank all the officials who helped me as a newcomer to this Ministry. Finally, I want to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who made a constructive contribution.

Mr. Chairman, before this debate commences, there are a few matters on which I should like to make statements, so that hon. members on both sides of this House can take cognizance of them.

The first matter concerns an urban development arrangement which I allowed at Lenasia near Johannesburg. Some time ago the Government accepted it as policy to allow urban developers who consisted of authorized as well as unauthorized persons to operate, inter alia, in non-White areas. In Lenasia South, for example, my department sold land to a syndicate consisting of Indians and Whites to undertake urban development there. I have now learned, to my great dismay and shock, that agents have begun to sell plots in conflict with the provisions of the ordinance in question, even though the urban development has not yet been formally approved. According to the information I have received, 200 plots, each 600 sq. metres in extent, have been sold at R13 000 with a deposit of R1 300 each, in terms of an agreement with suspensive conditions. Deposits are apparently being paid into a trust account.

It has been pointed out to the syndicate in question that their actions are illegal and that the department cannot associate itself with them in any way, and also that this places the department in a difficult position in respect of the Indians. This conduct is prima facie illegal, and agents can render themselves liable to prosecution. The matter is being investigated. Here is a case in which the department, by way of experiment, tried to make it possible for the private sector to assist in urban development. But attempts are already being made to abuse this opportunity by making use of procedures which may be illegal, and most definitely through the employment of undesirable methods. Hon. members will recall what hardships this type of practice entailed for plot-buyers in the past and that this gave rise to legislation to halt such practices.

Since the department has now given private urban developers the opportunity of being of assistance, we at least expect certain statutory provisions concerning the sale of property to be complied with in this spirit. If the individual provisions are not strictly adhered to, I want to issue the warning now that the department, particularly in the interests of sound ethnic relations, will not hesitate to terminate the concessions.

Then I should also like to make two other announcements on matters of cardinal importance.

The first of these concerns the activities of the Housing Policy Council, established in terms of section 9 of the Co-ordination of Housing Matters Act, 1978. The Housing Policy Council, of which I am the chairman, met for the first time in Cape Town on 28 February this year to consider the recommendations of the Housing Matters Advisory Committee. On this historic occasion consensus was reached on a wide variety of subjects. After consultation with the Administrator, as required by the Act, I made a series of decisions in terms of the provisions of section 12 of the Act. In terms of these decisions, urban development as an industry will in future be confined to the State and statutory bodies, to local authorities and provincial administrations, and to financial institutions such as building societies and insurance companies, as well as to private undertakings, including individuals who, in the opinion of the Administrator, are competent to operate in the urban development industry and may obtain a licence for this purpose from the Administrator for every proposed project. Measures are being introduced to control the progress of urban development projects and to further regulate the licensing of urban developers.

The second announcement I want to make is that a uniform guide for local authorities is to be compiled by the provincial administrations. It will deal with the exact nature and scope of development plans, as well as the requirements which apply when such a plan is being drawn up, the purposes for which it is being used, the regular revision of, the adjustment where necessary of, and the way in which development plans must be linked to development policy and investment programmes.

For the sake of uniformity it has also been decided that urban development applications shall in the first place be submitted to the Director of Local Government. For the sake of uniformity the provinces have accepted the principle of discretion with regard to the advertising of urban development applications. Provincial administrations will in future base endowment contributions on the approach that an urban developer must compensate the local authority for the actual additional expenditure which has to be incurred by the local authority to service and administer the township in question successfully, expenditure which cannot be recovered in the form of taxation on amenities. It was also decided that these contributions must help to cover the cost of any land which will be utilized for the development of certain grounds and amenities directly beneficial to the inhabitants of the township in question. Guides on urban development will be compiled by all the provincial administrations and made available to prospective urban developers. As a result of the deliberations of the Housing Policy Council I also decided that there was no need for the introduction of a house guarantee scheme in South Africa and that an urgent appeal must be made to the private sector to lose no time in providing more units in the form of flats and conventional homes for Whites in the higher income brackets. I shall shortly issue a comprehensive statement in this regard. The need for cheaper and more modest housing must once again be brought home to persons and bodies involved in the provision of housing. It was also decided that the question of the delegation of powers of approval in respect of urban development to larger local authorities, must stand over until the investigation into the determining of uniform standards for services in towns has been completed and development plans have reached finality. In order to curb land speculation local authorities must be encouraged to levy availability fees on commercial services for all premises, vacant or developed, which can be linked to the services in question on the owner’s demand.

The above decisions will be formally conveyed to persons and bodies concerned for implementation.

The third matter I want to deal with concerns housing for persons in the very lowest income group. This is a matter of deep concern to me because it involves the alleviation of the lot of the poorest sector of the population. Owing to the constant sharp increase in building costs, increasing ingenuity is required, to provide persons in the very lowest income group, a group which, in spite of the country’s prosperity, still comprises a considerable section of the population, with planned housing. It is an undeniable fact that individual incomes among this group have not kept pace with the increased cost of housing, with the result that the housing authorities must devise plans in order to lower the costs of even the cheapest dwelling unit even further, without sacrificing those standards which are essential to prevent slum conditions.

Three years ago I invited the private sector to produce a design for a more effective low-cost dwelling unit which could be built for less than R3 000, but as one may have expected, I suppose, the reaction was disappointing. Over the years my department, in consultation with the Building Research Institute of the CSIR, has instituted an intensive ongoing investigation into the determining of proper standards for low-cost housing, and the success of its efforts has been recognized without reservation by a number of world experts. Only last year it succeeded in building an attractive face-brick home under tiles in Valhalla Park in Cape Town for as little as R1 900. However, it is realized that even at these low building costs there are still people who cannot afford the applicable rent, although heavily subsidized, and therefore that further research is necessary.

Site-and-service schemes and other so-called self-building schemes—I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is smiling—are often offered as a solution to this problem. However imaginative a person may be, one cannot escape the hard reality, as manifested in the most wretched conditions into which just such schemes as these degenerated in places such as Orlando, Sophiatown and Elsies River, where millions of rands were needed to clear up the conditions. The Building Research Institute is engaged in a project in the Lowveld to determine the measure of success with which these self-building schemes can be applied in practice. However, it is already clear that such projects can only be undertaken on a limited scale, and provided it is done under strict supervision. I concede that the self-building schemes could succeed for a selected handful of people, but for the masses housing can only be provided on a large scale by means of conventional schemes. In an effort to build even more cheaply, my department is giving attention to the design of an even cheaper type of home, one which meets the basic requirements without any possibility of degenerating into a slum. In conjunction with this urgent attention is also being given to the revision of rent formulas in an effort to rationalize rentals for scheme houses and to distribute the burden more evenly among persons in the various income groups who qualify for aid in terms of the 1966 aid legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister would not expect one to reply in detail to the important statement that he made. Let me nevertheless make one or two comments. There is the question of the abuse of the opportunity given to people to help develop property in Lenasia. We are pleased that this has been tracked down. The fact that one can get R13 000 for an erf does, I think, indicate the severe shortage of land available to Indians in the Witwatersrand. In fact, it is because of the shortage of land that one does find speculators who are in a position to exploit their fellowmen. This brings me to the question of the Housing Policy Committee’s new rules in connection with “dorpstigting” or “township development”. Let me say that we welcome these new rules. We feel that it is none too early. I think there has been a lackadaisical approach, a carelessness, as evidenced by the behaviour of the provinces and even some local authorities, a situation which has resulted in financial losses to individuals who purchased land in good faith and which has also resulted in an unfair load being placed on services to be provided by a future local authority. So perhaps the rules that are being introduced will, in fact, improve the situation. I should like to examine those further.

I shall comment, in some greater detail, on the question of low-cost housing to which the hon. the Minister has just referred.

Did you not want the privilege of the half-hour?

Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate at this time, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. I put it as an unopposed motion! On the question of a brick house under a tiled roof for R1 900 I reserve my judgment until I have seen it.

Pretty good, is it not?

How many square feet is it?

I do not know how many square feet it is, but I do not think the hon. the Minister would be able to fit into it. Let me look at the department as a whole. Perhaps no other department affects the lives of Whites, Coloured and Indians more than does the Department of Community Development. Actually, in a strange way, it is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde department, because on the one hand it has to implement the worst or most hurtful features of the Group Areas Act, destroying communities and hurting people, whilst on the other hand it is charged with the major, positive responsibility of building houses and developing new communities. So during the course of this debate we shall be dealing with both the Dr. Jekyll and the Mr. Hyde aspects. Perhaps it was partly for this reason that the hon. the Minister was put in charge of this portfolio.

With which aspect are you going to deal, the Dr. Jekyll or the Mr. Hyde aspect?

I think he perhaps has the ability to be Mr. Apartheid on the one hand, with all the hurt that involves, whilst on the other hand having the ability to be the benign gentleman handing out largesse to under-privileged people.

Father Christmas.

I want to congratulate the department and the Secretary on the report of the department for the year ended September last year. It is a comprehensive report, as one would have hoped, from a department dealing with a wide range of matters. It is not our intention to deal with the report in detail, other than to say that it is a useful reference work and a valuable aid to those of us who are interested in the work of the Department of Community Development. Certainly the most notable positive feature of the report is the money that is being spent, and the work that is being done, to catch up on the backlog of housing, particularly for the Coloured people. A serious backlog developed, and I think the department deserves credit for the work it has done. I am pleased to say that the department acknowledges the co-operation it has received from local authorities, and in particular the co-operation it has received from the municipality of Cape Town and its city engineer, Mr. Brand, in the development of housing for the Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula. So we have an impressive performance of over 20 000 houses built for Coloureds during the year.

We have a good Minister.

On the basis of those figures, it is anticipated that the backlog will be wiped out by 1985. Asian housing seems to be on target, if one also takes the private sector’s contribution into consideration. I think that one must bear in mind that this is not all new accommodation that is being provided, because many of these new houses are made available to people who are living in perfectly good houses which have, however, been destroyed in terms of the Group Areas Act. So a considerable portion of the housing provided is not additional housing, being replacement housing for those people who have been evicted, from good homes in many instances and occasionally from slums, in terms of the Group Areas Act. I think we should bear in mind that, as the hon. the Minister said in reply to a question, “74 909 Coloured families have been evicted from their homes under the Group Areas Act”. We must therefore deduct that figure from the total contribution that has been made by the department.

Would you be quite happy to leave them in their former situation?

I want the hon. the Minister to come with me to Elsies River or to Ravensmead. There he can see what has happened. There an urban renewal scheme has been undertaken. Without communities or homes having to be destroyed, it was possible by sensible urban renewal to accommodate more people there in better conditions than existed before.

A new factor is creeping into the housing situation and that is not so much the availability of accommodation but the question of cost. The hon. the Minister dealt with this and we shall deal with it further. Not so much availability of accommodation, but the cost of accommodation, is becoming a serious factor as far as the lower income group is concerned. This goes right across the board. One knows the sensitivity that exists about the increases of rentals in Soweto. That has become one of the most sensitive political issues as far as the Black community is concerned. Here in the Cape Flats one finds that even at the subeconomic level the cost of housing has gone up to the point where it is also creating social tension. I have evidence here of a person earning between R150 per month and R160 per month whose rental in the course of two years has gone up from R20,80 to R33,80. So in two years his rental increased by over 60%. Even in Mitchell’s Plain, where the people are allowed to buy their properties, there is a problem and tension in connection with payments. In Atlantis exactly the same thing is happening. It is therefore not just a question of the availability of housing, but the whole question of housing costs in relation to the mean income of particularly Coloureds and Africans in the urban areas of South Africa. I shall come back to housing.

Because this report refers to a number of urban renewal schemes, e.g. for Elsies River, Ravensmead, Fair View and others, I want to refer briefly to the question of District Six. It is also referred to in this report. Only yesterday a little brochure called District Six—the Other side of the Coin came into our possession. I want to reiterate that we believe that the development of District Six—and here I want to refer to this particular pamphlet—is one of the most disgraceful concepts of a racial kind yet perpetrated in the Cape Peninsula. If I were in the Department of Community Development, I would be ashamed to claim to be the author of this document. I would be ashamed to be the Minister. It has a glossy outer cover which makes it interesting, but it contains so many half truths and certain untruths that in its totality it is a distortion of the truth.

You are an expert on that.

I want to refer particularly to pages 23 and 24. There it is argued that, while one could not get all the required community facilities there for Coloureds, “facilities in the neighbouring White areas would however make the development of a White suburb possible”. This is nonsense. District Six is contiguous to Coloured areas, e.g. the rest of District Six, Walmer, Salt River and Woodstock. Any town planner would tell one that it was more natural to associate District Six and its amenities with the rest of the Coloured area than with Gardens, Oranjezicht and Tamboerskloof, which is what the hon. the Minister’s Department is saying in this brochure. Then the brochure says that as far as the CBD and the central city area is concerned, there should be no problem because it can be serviced by people “from the rest of District Six, from Walmer, Schotsche Kloof, Woodstock, together with 43 000 residents of Kensington only a few minutes away”.

Sir, we tested it: It takes between 20 and 25 minutes per bus from Kensington and most of those people, if they want to catch a train, must first catch a bus. The hon. the Minister would know, if he had asked his town planners, that the people in Kensington in the main provide the work force for the factories in the Kensington-Maitland area and in the Paarden Eiland area. They are not the people who provide the normal menial services in the City of Cape Town.

Then there is in the brochure a series of photographs of District Six as it is supposed to have been. I want to say that it is a dishonest selection of photographs. We have checked on the photographs. We have checked on the modernity of the motor-cars and the freeways. From that it appeared that nearly all of these photographs were taken after District Six had already been declared a Coloured area in 1966. In fact, these photographs reflect the results of the plague that descended on District Six when the Group Areas Act was applied to it.

They reflect District Six as it was.

That is not true. These photographs in the main are lies.

They are fraudulent.

We have other evidence. Photographs taken at the time reflect a completely different picture. Of course there were slums, of course there were skollies and of course there were problems, but there were churches, schools, houses, clubs and cinemas and there were decent buildings which could have become part of an urban renewal scheme. This brochure is an absolutely party-political disgrace. It would be disgraceful for the NP to issue a pamphlet like this, let alone the Department of Community Development.

One of the worst features is the hon. the Minister’s sudden decision to try to develop District Six by selling off the site to the technikon. This was decided upon without any consultation whatsoever with the city of Cape Town. There was no consultation with the city of Cape Town on this issue. It was foisted on the city of Cape Town. One has only to look at the plan of this scheme which is contained in the back of this booklet to see that it changes the character of the agreed development of District Six in a fundamental way. It takes out the heart of District Six. It destroys it. It destroys the prospect of making it a viable economic or residential community. It is going to do damage to the CBD of Cape Town whereas this report says that the whole intention of District Six was to upgrade the CBD of Cape Town. In this brochure there is a picture of a shop with Babs Essop standing outside, a shop in one of the smaller chains of stores which he had at the time, and then there is the Oriental Plaza. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister: When is the Oriental Plaza going to open? Is it in fact a white elephant, is it going to be a funeral parlour? It is situated away from the consumers. There are no consumers in the vicinity of the Oriental Plaza.

The shopkeepers there are trading very well.

How many sites for trading are available there and how many sites are in fact being used? More than this, how many people applied of their own free will to come and trade there? Our information is that most of the people who have come there have been people who have been dispossessed of their trading premises elsewhere and have had no option but to come and trade in the Oriental Plaza.

I want to come back to the main question of housing and low-cost housing, because as the report indicates, the department is now responsible, I think since October last year, for the whole question of Black housing as well, although the evaluation of the need is made by the Department of Co-operation and Development. Nevertheless the Department of Community Development accepts responsibility.

From the beginning of this financial year.

Yes, from the beginning of this financial year. The Black Housing Commission was disbanded last year and this department now takes over. The fact of the matter is that we do not believe that even the figures given in the report accurately reflect the shortage which exists at the moment and the potential shortage that is going to develop in the field of Black housing in South Africa. There have been various symposiums on this whole subject and I think that in particular the figures of the symposium by the NBRI in 1978 are perhaps the most authoritative figures of a projection through until 1980. But various people like Prof. Sadie, Prof. S. P. Cillié, together with Mr. Skeen of Murray and Roberts, Mr. S. J. P. Ellis of the Department of Co-operation and Development and others, did forward projections, and their projections seem to indicate that in terms of Black housing in South Africa we would need something like 160 000 units per annum from now until the turn of the century. Little over half of those are in the non-White area of South Africa—if one wants to call it that. But even in respect of the so-called White areas, the cities of South Africa, the smallest figure that I have seen in any of these projections is that we shall have to build at the rate of 63 000 units per annum in order to catch up with the backlog and cope with the forward projection of the increase in the Black population and in the whole process of urbanization. It will mean a terrific housing programme. I do not believe that the Government has yet a housing strategy to deal with the problem of low-cost housing, especially as far as Blacks are concerned. The problem is a two-fold one, viz. the problem of the capital cost to the State and of the rental to the occupier.

The hon. the Minister has conceded, for the first time today, a degree of support and willingness to look at the question of self-help housing. We in these benches have never advocated self-help housing in the sense of squatter camps … [Interjections.] … if there is an emergency situation it is better to have people in controlled squatter camps than to have people with no accommodation at all. It is going to be impossible for the State on its own to provide the capital over the next 20 years to house all the people in the low-income groups in South Africa. It is going to be quite impossible, but all that we are suggesting is that one of the avenues the Government should explore is to see whether these people themselves cannot assist in the construction of their own houses. We do not believe that that means future slums. Core-housing, as the Urban Foundation is showing, does not necessarily lead to new urban slums. There can be a system in terms of which one can build a small house and, under control, allow extensions to be made to it. Has the hon. the Minister thought of something like that, which would enable people to have reasonable houses, and then to build on extensions to those houses, extensions conforming to certain definition plans?

That is our policy.

Then it is a self-help housing scheme. I do not want to belabour this point, but I have seen this in other parts of the continent. One could, strangely enough, go to a place like Lusaka where they also had a similar kind of squatter problem. There they encourage self-help housing. Basically they do it by seeing to it that materials of certain standards are available. There is a stock-pile of certain standard materials available, so that the people do not have to resort to cardboard or corrugated iron, but have building blocks, corrugated asbestos and reasonable timber available to them. Secondly, simple basic designs could be available for the people who want to construct their own homes. Thirdly, building lines could be set out in the townships indicating where these particular houses can be built and where they cannot be built. Construction manuals could help people to build simple houses, with training courses available for them. However, we must emphasize that it is not going to be possible for any South African Government to provide housing for the masses of people in South Africa, in the next two decades, unless we resort to some form of self-help housing, where Blacks and Coloureds, in particular, can assist in the building of their own homes.

Thank God you are not the Government of this country.

Fair enough, but I would prefer to live in a house that I built myself than in a shack somebody else has left. There are, however, two other categories of people for whom we have special concern, and the hon. the Minister will not be surprised if I refer to the less affluent White people who five on an income of R300 per individual, or married people and families living on an income of not more than R540. These are the people who, in terms of his own provision, are entitled to assistance from the State when it comes to housing. Many of these people live in the flatlands of South Africa. The hon. the Minister is aware of this. He was present for a brief while we had discussions early in this session on another Bill, the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill. Many of these people have enjoyed the protection of rent control. That is a fact. I am not arguing for or against it, but they have enjoyed the protection of rent control. Rent control, in which the private entrepreneur has had to subsidize accommodation has been one of the ways in which the State has seen to it that the burdens were eased as far as these people are concerned. It is these people, the older people and the less affluent people, living in the flatlands of South Africa, who have been cruelly left in the lurch, in particular by this hon. Minister. He still has to explain to this House, and to this category of citizens in the flatlands of South Africa, why he went back on his assurance, repeatedly given to them, that they would enjoy real protection under the Rents Act and then allowed his hon. colleague, with his support, to introduce the amendment to the Sectional Titles Act. The hon. the Minister and his department, at various levels, have had correspondence with people. He knows that there are tens of thousands of people who have lost their security. I call on the hon. the Minister to say what he is going to do and what this Government is going to do to see that they regain their security. The hon. the Minister knows that he said that he would take steps against anybody who harassed a tenant. He knows that there is, in fact, a wave of property speculators who at this very moment are harassing tenants and trying to force them into buying. The hon. the Minister knows it because I know he has had letters written to him about this. Old people who have been living in flats for ages have been told that their flats are coming into the market and that they have to buy within 15 days or otherwise lose their option to buy and be evicted from their homes.

What is the hon. the Minister going to do about this? What is he going to do for people in the field of housing? If one looks at the report of the Housing Commission of a few years ago, under the chairmanship of Mr. Fouché, one finds that the commission identified the scale of the problem. I would like the hon. the Minister to pay attention to this because the scale of the problem was that 170 000 flat units were controlled, and of these flat units that were controlled at least 50%, and probably up to 70%, were occupied by people who were in the class deserving economic assistance. I do not have time to quote the report, but I can give it to the hon. the Minister. The report says that 70% of these people had lived in those flats for more than five years and that if those flats had to be replaced by Government-built institutions, it would be necessary to build 119 000 new units. That is the figure quoted by the Fouché Commission. So, in fact, there will be a shortage of 119 000 units for these people when rent control goes. I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do. He knows that the private sector is not building flats for this category of people. He also knows that in spite of his appeals the cost of land, services and buildings makes it impossible for the private developer in the city areas of South Africa to build flats which can be let at a rental level these people can afford. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about these people. He cannot provide the houses himself, and the private entrepreneur cannot build the houses or flats at a cost which would be viable at the rental these people can afford to pay. I believe that something constructive has to be done. The hon. the Minister has to use the private sector, but he has to make it more attractive for the private sector to do so. I believe that he will have to look at some form of subsidized rental. If one of these people goes to an old-age home there is a subsidized rental for him. If one of these people goes into a house provided by the National Housing Scheme there is also a form of subsidized rental. The hon. the Minister cannot provide sufficient old-age homes or sufficient houses under the National Housing Scheme, so in some other ways he is going to have to find a formula by which he can subsidize the rental of these people who, on the hon. the Minister’s own admission, cannot afford to live without the assistance of the Government. To encourage new developers to build flats for this category of persons, I believe he will have to see to it that there are subsidized interest rates available for loans on this kind of property, or else he is going to have to see to it that there are tax reductions, by way of writing off the capital cost of the investment in order to make it financially feasible for more accommodation of this kind to be made available to these people.

The hon. the Minister has said he wants to get rid of rent control. We have argued that he has not taken into account the consequences of this. We now challenge him, across the floor of the House, to say what he is going to do, in a practical way, to ease the plight of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of the people he has left in the lurch as a result of the policies he has been applying, both as far as rent control and sectional titles are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to welcome the Deputy Minister of Community Development to the department. He was appointed to the post after we had completed the discussion of this Vote last year. We want to wish him everything of the best during his stay in this department. The Secretary of the department, Mr. Fouché, has been promoted to Director-general, and we wish to congratulate him most sincerely and wish him everything of the best and fortitude for the greater responsibility he is now going to bear.

The hon. member for Sea Point has already referred to the department’s annual report, and I too wish to express my gratitude for a very comprehensive report. It attests to the tremendous progress the department has made in recent times. It is a valuable document for anyone who is interesteds in this subject. I also want to refer to a very fine book entitled “Community Development: The South African Scene” we have received. It is a prestige publication, a report of a successful undertaking. I trust that the book and the film which will probably go with it will win many good friends for South Africa and that it will inspire the department and our nation to even greater achievements.

The hon. member for Sea Point commenced his speech by making a few positive noises, but subsequently he started to vent his spleen, not about policy, but about the tragedy of human lives in South Africa. Among other things he discussed rent control. One of my colleagues will reply to that in detail. He also discussed low-cost housing, which I shall refer to in due course.

He emphasized the cost factor in resettlement. This is true and probably creates a problem. I think that one ray of light is that the hon. the Minister announced here this afternoon that investigation was still continuing to find a way to provide housing more cheaply. I hope that we shall be able to solve this problem. However, I do not think that the problem in respect of the cost factor of resettlement is so much one of the provision of dwelling units, but instead relates to the provision of services. It is the provision of services which ultimately makes the housing project too expensive for many people to afford. I do not have the answers to that; I am only trying to help to identify the problem. I hope someone will be able to find an answer to it. Unless one is prepared to allow these people to make do without certain essential services, one must find an answer to it.

As far as the hon. member’s reference to District Six is concerned, I want to say that this subject has really been flogged to death. I do not think that any new argument can be advanced on District Six, and therefore I want to confine myself to remarking that of the 50 000 families who lived there, there are only approximately 1 000 that still have to be resettled at this stage. Without quoting examples, I want to say that the redevelopment of the area is already in progress. I want to drop this subject by asking the hon. the Minister to complete the clearing of District Six without further delay, to resettle the remaining people and to protect the people who are prepared to invest money there and to develop projects. We cannot end up having a debate on District Six three times every four months. I think we must get it behind us as soon as possible.

Last year, during the discussion of this Vote, I made representations to the effect that the control of group areas ought to be transferred to this department as it was better suited to it. I am very pleased that this has happened in the meantime, and I believe that this will enable the department to expedite the development of the areas in question, even before proclamation. This will eliminate an important time lapse, which was not possible in the past. I think this is a great improvement.

The amount budgeted for the department this year is approximately 20% more than the amount voted last year. With an inflation rate of approximately 13%, and increase of 20% in the budget is therefore very acceptable, but building costs rise annually by at least 20%. Consequently this increase compensates for only the first year’s increase in building costs. The first repayment of the loan of the consortium of commercial banks must also be made during this financial year and this will tap the available funds still further. In practice, therefore, the number of dwelling units that can be built out of this year’s budget will be smaller rather than greater, in spite of the extra money which has been voted. It is very possible that this situation could give rise to a drop in the rate of the provision of housing. This would be a great pity, as it would mean that it would be impossible to realize the fine ideal of eliminating the total backlog in housing.

I think that this department’s budget is going to handicap it in its efforts. Over the past few years the department has achieved great success. All the monies, the budgets that were apportioned to it, the additional R200 million made available in November 1977 and the R165 million which was obtained in the form of a loan from the consortium of commercial banks, has been spent and converted into housing. The department, the local authorities and the contractors are geared to processing these large amounts. Consequently the infrastructure is in a position to absorb a large budget. The construction of 39 000 units is approved schemes is being postponed until adequate funds are available. Funds are thus the only factor which can prevent a lasting solution to the housing shortage. Therefore, since the budget is unexpectedly small, I sincerely hope for an additional windfall of R100 million to R200 million by November, just as in 1977, and I also want to request the hon. the Minister to continue asking for something like this. He most definitely has a good cause. Housing means homeownership. It means happy and productive workers. It means the provision of employment, because for every R100 million which is spent on this, employment opportunities for 25 000 people are created. It would be a great pity if the rate of the provision of housing were to drop. This would mean not stagnation, but retrogression. The backlog could start building up again. Overcrowding and squatting conditions could increase. It would be impossible to clear up slum areas. Over the past two years we have begun to see a ray of light. Those ideals must now be realized.

According to Die Burger of 18 October 1979, the hon. the Prime Minister said—

I reiterate, therefore, that the hon. the Minister has a good cause. He also has a good ally in the hon. the Prime Minister when he asks for extra money.

I note an item of R593 000 in the budget, an ex gratia payment to the Kimberley City Council for the repair of damage to a housing scheme for Coloureds at Roodepan. This is a disturbing item in the budget. This is the equivalent of approximately 100 houses at R5 800 each. This means that more than 5 000 people could have been accommodated with the money which now has to be used to repair damage. I also noted that considerable damage has been done to the department’s housing projects at Atlantis. I should like to know what the annual extent of vandalism which has to be combatted by this department. I also want to ask whether special steps are being taken, for example through the schools, in an effort to eliminate this mischief.

The hon. member for Sea Point also referred to low-cost housing. I am not going to dwell on this at great length. I only really want to refer to one aspect of it. We know that this department is an absolutely expert department and that the world can learn from us in connection with low-cost housing. To be able to build a decent house for R5 000 today, and to be able to make it available at a rental or payment of approximately R20 per month, is a commendable achievement. The annual report also deals with this aspect very comprehensively. The department’s standpoint on site-and-service schemes or core houses as well, are fully motivated with the aid of facts based on the department’s experience.

From time to time hon. members of the Opposition argue that a relaxation should be allowed in the standard of housing. There are other requests from other quarters, too, and I even imagine that I heard recently that this standpoint had been propagated in respect of Black housing. According to Die Burger of 16 October 1979, at the International Housing Convention held in Cape Town, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development discussed standards according to a developing Western economy, which simply cannot be applied as such to the Third World conditions of a large part of South Africa. He added to that—

I do not know exactly what this statement means. The Government has always regarded the core house or site-and-service schemes as most undesirable. At the same conference at which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke, the hon. the Prime Minister also referred to this type of housing, and said—

That is why I am gratified that the hon. the Minister made this statement this afternoon and I think that, for the sake of the local authorities, the Minister should perhaps also say specifically whether the Government still stands by this policy, as far as urban as well as rural areas are concerned. Does the Government still believe that this type of housing is undesirable? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise in order to allow the hon. member for False Bay to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Groote Schuur. There are only two matters I still want to deal with briefly.

The first is this: In the annual report a request is made that all local authorities ought to carry out a survey of the housing requirements of all their people so that, in accordance with the date collected in this way, we may plan and budget with a view to the future. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the department is issuing such a request to the local authorities, whether they could not also be asked to include in this survey a survey of all unaccompanied domestic servants who are being accommodated outside their group areas. In due course provision will also have to be made for them within their own residential areas. At this stage there are no available statistics on the number of people involved.

Finally, there are three matters concerning my constituency about which I want more information. In the first place I refer to the project at Macassar which, up to a few years ago, was being developed at a reasonable rate. At the moment development has come to a standstill. What are the prospects in this regard as far as planning is concerned? In the second place, I refer to Rusthof, at the Strand, where certain extensions were envisaged. What is the timetable in this regard? In the third place I read in the newspaper that an Indian area is envisaged on the Cape Flats at Strandfontein. Is this matter still in the investigation stage? What is being planned in respect of the scope, nature and timetable in this regard?

If it is difficult for the hon. the Minister to give me the information during the discussion of his Vote, I shall be quite satisfied if I can obtain it from him in writing at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I should just like to raise a real problem in my constituency. It concerns the urban renewal project in the Jeppe-Troyeville-Fair-view area. There is at present great uncertainty among my voters, which even goes so far as real dissatisfaction, as to what exactly are the plans of the Department of Community Development in my constituency. It is not the principle of urban renewal, but rather the method being adopted by the department, which gives rise to complaints. According to The Sunday Times of 20 January 1980, the urban renewal scheme has been under way now for 14 years. I quote—

This sombre picture gave rise to a protest meeting on 19 January. The complaints there were divergent. Let me quote to hon. members a few headings which appeared in the Press: The Citizen of 19 January 1980: “Suburban residents up in arms over crime and prostitution;” the Rand Daily Mail of 19 January: “Residents of Jeppe air their grievances;” Beeld of 7 February: “Kiesers moet van Jeppe-plan weet;” the Rand Daily Mail of 23 January: “Steyn asked to look at Jeppe,” and Die Vaderland of 22 January: “Getalm met behuising.”

The foundation of my voters’ objection is that the Department of Community Development is keeping them on a string, and not finalizing its future plans for the area, nor letting them know what they are. In January I was informed by the Johannesburg regional office of the Department of Community Development that all proposals were awaiting ratification at the head office and that matters would be finalized within a few weeks. On that basis I promised my voters that I would report back to them before the end of February as to exactly what the department’s plan was.

On 27 February I received a letter from the Johannesburg regional office in which was indicated that the matter had not yet been finalized. I was informed in this respect that an indication was expected within two weeks. It is now May. I promised my voters a reply within one month, but that month has now become almost four months. I am really disturbed about this matter, and I now ask the hon. the Minister pertinently, and with all due respect: When are agents going to be appointed to sell the properties in phases 2 to 4 and the Troyeville blocks? I also ask when and how funds are to be made available to private persons to enable them to renovate their houses. Then comes the important question: Exactly what are the department’s future plans with regard to my constituency?

You ask him.

My voters are entitled to answers to these questions. On their behalf I insist, with all due respect, that this matter be finalized.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that one really appreciates the type of speech which the hon. member for Jeppe has just made. [Interjections.] I am not acquainted with his problems there, but I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to the pertinent questions which he put here. The hon. the Minister will realize that in many respects one is placed in a very bad position if one makes promises because one thinks that one will get an answer from the department, and then it takes months and months and people keep on pestering one.

†There are, of course, a number of important matters one would like to discuss. There is, for example, the question of housing and the question of rent control. I will have other opportunities, in the course of the debate on this Vote, to pay attention to those aspects. So at the moment I only wish to refer to certain activities of his department in Pageview in Johannesburg, and I wish to discuss these activities with the hon. the Minister. I know that this matter was also raised recently during the discussion of the Indian Affairs Vote and, with respect, in replying to that debate the hon. the Minister virtually hit the roof with indignation. I want to make an appeal to him. Let us rather discuss the matter of the demolition of houses and the removal of people against the present-day background, and not against the background of conditions that existed years ago. I do not regard myself as a good authority—I would be the first to concede this—on Pageview, but recently I received an invitation from certain individuals in that area, and also from a local residents’ committee, to visit the area. I went there and spent an afternoon investigating conditions. I also attended a meeting in the evening. One of the arguments the hon. the Minister uses in defence of his point of view is that the area is a very small one, so I hope that he will concede that in the space of an afternoon of being driven around one can gain a fairly comprehensive impression of the area as it exists at present. If one were to visit the area, completely oblivious of the fact that what is happening there is the destruction of a whole community that has lived there for many years, and if one thought that what was taking place was merely urban renewal, one might believe that there was some merit in what was happening. If one knows better, however, let me tell the hon. the Minister that Pageview, like District Six, is a sickening sight. It is sickening because one knows that once it is completely flattened it will never be returned to the people who have lived there and have made their living there. That is the action of a government that has made up its mind that no Indian must be allowed permanency of tenure—residentially—in the region of Johannesburg outside Lenasia which, as the hon. the Minister knows, is miles away, the kind of complete and absolute permanency that they enjoy in Lenasia.

What about a wonderful area like Marlborough?

There is no certainty about the future of some of the other areas either. That is why we have those inflated prices that the Indians have to pay for land. I know that the hon. the Minister will also argue that, as far as this particular area is concerned, demolition has advanced so far that it cannot be stopped and that now even good houses must be demolished. The other argument which is advanced everytime we mention this is that the area is small, some 8 to 9 hectares in extent.

Another argument advanced by the Minister’s department is that there is no room for parks, schools, etc. In short, the answer everytime is that it is not viable. Have the hon. the Minister and his department ever thought of making it viable? I know it is a small area. It is situated between the cemetery and the railway line. As the hon. the Minister knows, at least there is a bridge across the railway line there and the area is actually contiguous to Fordsburg, in which area there is still an Indian community. They may have a certain degree of permanency there, but on the other hand they may be the next to receive what I call the Pageview treatment. The fact remains that adjacent to Pageview there are places where schools and other facilities are available. With proper town-planning—and I request the hon. the Minister to consider this—Pageview can be made into a viable …

That is nonsense.

It can be made into an integral part of a greater section. That is what I want the hon. the Minister to consider. There already is a link across the railway line with Fordsburg. I challenge the Government to try this.

My problem is that the Government never actually gets round to trying this and planning with this in view. I cannot believe that the Government can advance one valid reason why Pageview, once it is cleared, cannot be returned to the Indians. With regard to District Six, we are being told that the Coloureds cannot afford to buy there at the current high prices, but can the same be said of the Indians? The answer is “no”. I think the hon. the Minister knows that from the high prices one sees Indians prepared to pay. I challenge the hon. the Minister also to advance one valid reason why, say, Page-view, if it should be returned for Indian residential occupation, would develop into a slum. He cannot, of course, give such a reason. The hon. the Minister should realize that people of other race groups are tired of being insulted in this way. Everytime one pleads for an area to be returned to its original occupants, the question is asked: “Would you like to have the old conditions back again?”

With regard to District Six the hon. the Minister and his department keep on telling us of the outbreak of bubonic plague there at the turn of the century. We also find that in the brochure to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred. That brochure is of course meant to be used for propaganda purposes. We are told that bubonic plague broke out and that part of the area was then demolished and that, once it was rebuilt, it developed into a slum again. It is even said that it developed into a worse slum.

Yes.

But the insult inherent in this little story is only too obvious. What are they trying to infer?

That a lot of absentee landlords were exploiting the people there.

No, Sir. Whose fault is that? Is it just the fault of the Coloureds? When it suits the Government, they say that the Coloureds own only 25% of District Six. Whose fault was it that it developed into a slum area again? Can it not be developed differently under new conditions? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister’s research into diseases at Pageview will also produce evidence of an outbreak of bubonic plague there in 1901 or an outbreak of smallpox in the 18th or 19th century.

South Africa is busy with a new constitutional dispensation. What the Government urgently needs, I believe, is a change of heart in this regard. The hon. the Minister knows what an important part symbolism has played in the history of the Afrikaner. Can he not see that District Six and Page-view, no matter how small in extent, with their past history have tremendous symbolic importance for the Coloured and Indian communities respectively? Why is it that, when all the people in South Africa are prepared to give one another a second chance, even through a new constitution, Pageview and District Six are given no second chance? Why adopt the implacable attitude that, whatever happens, the last thing that will be allowed will be for Indians or Coloureds to start with other housing schemes?

Finally, the hon. the Minister should realize that the destruction of communities such as Pageview near the city centre also leads to other problems. The question of the intrusion of Indians in flats in White residential areas is mentioned in the annual report. On page 35 one reads—

Does the hon. the Minister honestly believe that this is totally unrelated to the gradual wiping out of residential areas for the Indian community elsewhere in Johannesburg? This of course also applies to Coloureds, but I was only using this argument from the point of view of Pageview. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister will have to look at this again. In this pamphlet, as part of the problem, we find that because of its policy the Government is against residential areas being opened to all population groups. In dealing with District Six it is stated that these considerations, together with the policy of interest of harmony and self-development on social, economic and political levels, not to develop residential areas that are open to all population groups, has given rise to the declaration of planned development of a portion of District Six. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am not going to criticize him in the same way as the two hon. members who preceded me. [Interjections.] I believe that I am magnanimous enough to concede that this department, the hon. the Minister and his officials are doing their level best for us. In addition, I also want to congratulate Mr. Fouché on his appointment to a top position. I hope that he will have the privilege of improving upon his earlier achievements for many years. My thanks go to the department for everything that they have done for all the population groups in South Africa.

We simply have to go through the annual report of the department. Every page speaks of the tremendous task with which the Government is occupied, day after day. I am referring specifically to the tremendous sums of money which the department spends in the interests of the White population group, particularly on the less well-off section of the White population. Then there are also the large sums of money which are spent on the interests of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. If we consider all these things, surely we realize that it is a great privilege to participate in a debate in which the activities of such an hon. Minister and such an excellent department are being discussed.

I can inform hon. members about the requests that I have already directed to this department during my political career. Each time I motivated my case properly and explained it fully, and the department would react positively to it. This department has never disappointed me. They assisted me every time. I can speak of that with gratitude today.

[Inaudible.]

I hear the hon. member for Jeppe is saying something. Jeppe has a big problem. However, Jeppe also has a young, good hon. member. I want to tell him that the road to the H. F. Verwoerd Building is actually a very short one. It is just here across the street. Many problems can be solved there. [Interjections.] I express my thanks here today because I know what I am talking about. Each time I addressed requests to the department in connection with my people in my own constituency, many of them aged people, people who do not have ample income, the reaction of this department was an excellent one.

There is a fine residential area in my constituency. It is called Boetrand, a part of Klerksdorp. That residential area is named after one of our well-known, leading town councillors, an old gentleman called Boet Randles. He served on the town council of Klerksdorp for many years, and passed away recently. Mr. Fouché knows that area like the palm of his hand. In that specific residential area, the department has accomplished a wonderful task for the Whites— and I emphasize the Whites specifically, because in recent times we have been inclined to talk about Blacks and Coloureds only—by creating a fine residential area there. The Whites also have their rights, and are also receiving their rightful share. However, I am of the opinion that if the necessary funds can be found, a good few thousand houses can be built in Boetrand so that Whites who cannot afford high rentals, can also obtain proper, well-planned homes. I thank the hon. the Minister for this too.

However, I now want to say something about the town in which I live. Hon. members know that I am not keen to discuss my constituency, and recently I have already delivered two speeches in which my constituency was discussed. However, I want to tell the town council of Stilfontein in this House tonight that I do not know why they do not apply. Perhaps they do not like me. Orkney and Klerksdorp are examples. I wish I could show hon. members the requests that I have already received from elderly people and pensioners. We should like to see more provision being made for them in Stilfontein—it is a beautiful town. I am now talking about sub-economic housing for elderly people who are pensioners and cannot afford this high rental.

I also want to refer to what has been achieved by this department in Brakpan. The former hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and I addressed a meeting there once. This is where I began as a young town councillor. At the time there was a park, the Tweedy Park. I do not know what the name of the park is now. However, I want to say that a monument was erected on the East Rand through the work of the department. I am grateful tonight that I can say in this House that I began this years ago before Mr. Fouché occupied this post. The impressive concept which was realized in that town to provide for the needs of our elderly people, makes it essential for one to thank this department for it, instead of criticizing it about District Six and Pageview.

Does it please the Opposition to criticize everything and want to retain everything that is unsavoury? Did the Opposition want to retain District Six? It would be a disgrace to retain a place like that. One must demolish a place like this, build it up from scratch and make a model of it. Hon. members may go and look at Triomf. That area was cleaned up and rebuilt, and today there is a model which can be shown to the whole world. We can show the world what has been accomplished by this Government and the department which has seen to the interests of all population groups. We cannot criticize alone. We must also say thank you.

If we look at the report, we see what the department is achieving with the taxpayers’ money, although there are not millions upon millions of taxpayers, to provide for the need. I have been involved in politics for many years now, and I am honoured to say that I have never returned from that department shamefaced. When the department was able to help me, it has always done so. However, there are municipalities that can make more use of the department’s help. This is true. More facilities can be created, and that is why I am so grateful that flats in District Six are being modernized so beautifully.

Who is going to live there?

That hon. member can go and live there if he wishes. I would not be ashamed to go and live there.

What about the Coloureds?

People are always asking: “What about the Coloureds?” The impression is always being created here that the Coloureds are being pushed aside, that their living areas can be flattened so that the Whites can be settled there. This is not true. After all, we are removing the Coloureds from those chaotic conditions and giving them a better place than they had before. Who would want to go and live in a more run-down hovel? We do not act like that after all.

Give them their place back.

The hon. member for Hillbrow most probably travels in Israel a great deal. He has probably already seen what they have achieved there. I am proud to have seen how the people there work and how they develop their country. Is the hon. member not grateful for that? If he complains so much about what is being done in this beautiful country of ours, he should go and look at what is being done in Israel by a nation for which I have the greatest respect. When he has seen what they have done with regard to housing, he will also appreciate and be grateful for what the Department of Community Development is doing here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stilfontein’s contribution to the debate always testifies to a great deal of knowledge and experience. Today he spoke about Brakpan where he did such a great deal. I believe it would only be fair that the extensions there should be called Rossouwrand or Rossouwpark in honour of the hon. member. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member’s congratulations to Mr. Fouché on his well-deserved promotion.

The hon. member quite rightly said, too, that the department has a serious shortage of funds.

†We want to thank the officials of the department for the detailed and in-depth report we received. The message contained in the report is very loud and clear, namely that the department feels that the backlog in housing must be overcome, and it can only be overcome if sufficient funds are provided for that purpose. In 1977 16 863 dwelling units were financed out of the National Housing Fund, and the report goes on to mention that 39 000 dwelling units in approved housing schemes are being held in abeyance because funds are not available to implement those particular schemes. The report states that it would be reasonable to ask for another R100 million per annum, over and above the normal appropriation, in order to allow the department to erect, with the assistance of local authorities, some 40 000 dwelling units per annum. The report states that if this tempo could be maintained for four to five years the entire backlog could be eliminated completely and they would also be able to cater for the future natural growth. It must be borne in mind that the department had the use of the special loan facilities of R200 million over the last few years. This R200 million has to be repaid over a period of three years. The report does say so, but assuming that it has to be repaid in equal instalments, it means that the department will have to repay approximately R66 million a year in each of the next three years. This would mean that R66 million less would be spent on housing by the department. The amount allocated to the Housing Fund in the budget is R225,2 million, which is 20,2% more than what was allocated last year, but as the hon. member for False Bay mentioned, the increase in building costs is also about 20% per annum. This means that the additional amount voted in the budget has not helped the department at all, because that increased amount is completely wiped out by the increase in building costs. The Government is approaching the building society movement in order to release funds from the National Housing Fund. The building society movement and the Government must work out something as a matter of urgency so that the building programme for houses is not delayed in any manner whatsoever. In another debate I set out in detail how the Government and the building society movement could arrive at an agreement whereby substantial funds could be released from the National Housing Fund. I will not repeat the details of my proposal as the hon. the Minister heard those details when I spelt them out in that particular debate.

In order to ensure that the building society movement has sufficient funds, it is absolutely vital that the Government does not go ahead with the plans, plans which have now been delayed, to reduce the amount invested in subscription shares from R150 000 to R50 000. This reduction was announced in this year’s budget and we were pleased to see the subsequent announcement that the Government was going to delay the implementation of the reduction of subscription shares from R150 000 to R50 000. I hope this reduction will not be held over the heads of the building society movement, as they have to plan well ahead. As the hon. the Minister’s department has a very real interest in the building societies’ movements in relation to their financial requirements, because they also assists in helping to eliminate the backlog, I hope the hon. the Minister will heed the requirements of the building societies and their specific plea in this regard that the subscription shares should not be reduced from R150 000 to R50 000 per person.

From the report it is obvious that the department could advise the hon. the Minister on the amount that is required to be borrowed over the next five years to eliminate the backlog. In addition to the present appropriation, at least R1 000 million is needed to eliminate the backlog of White, Black, Coloured and Indian housing in South Africa. During a past debate we also discussed how this amount of R1 000 million was arrived at. In the first place I believe that the R200 million owed to the banks should now be renegotiated on the basis that the first instalment is payable five years hence. I do not believe that the instalments should be repayable as from now and I do not think that, with the present position of the banks, there would be any difficulty in renegotiating this R200 million loan.

If this loan of R200 million is renegotiated, it will leave a balance of R800 million from the original R1 000 million. The Government should succeed in obtaining at least R100 million from the building society movement with regard to taking over some of the national housing loans. The balance of R700 million should be obtained through a consortium of foreign and local loans. I am convinced that the money can be found. Obviously, private enterprise should be encouraged to play its part to the full. Concessions should in fact be offered to private enterprise to play a more active role in the provision of housing in South Africa.

Housing is of vital importance in creating a stable society in South Africa. The report shows that the department is doing its best with the limited funds it has at its disposal. There is an urgency about this matter that cannot be stressed sufficiently. I believe a consortium can be formed to raise the necessary finance to eliminate the backlog. The quality of life will take on a different turn if we eliminate the backlog in housing. This is not the responsibility of the Government alone, but also the responsibility of all South Africans who can make a contribution. A man who owns a house will stand shoulder to shoulder with every other South African in order to protect his very real and vested interests. The creation of stability is largely dependent on us solving our housing problems.

I should like to leave another thought with the hon. the Minister. The Land Bank encourages various agricultural boards to invest excess funds with it. It will obviously help the Land Bank to promote the interests of the farmers. Surely, local authorities and Administration Boards should be encouraged to invest funds with the National Housing Board which will then be able to assist the local authorities to have more money available to expedite the building of houses. Obviously, this will require an amendment to the law. This must also obviously be done in a restricted way that will not adversely affect other institutions. The Land Bank has shown that it can be done successfully. We know that there are local authorities and Administration Boards that from time to time sit with hundreds of millions of rands, and I do not see why they should not be encouraged to invest that money with the National Housing Fund. I believe the hon. the Minister should investigate this situation.

I am pleased to see that, in an effort to eliminate the Coloured housing backlog in Port Elizabeth, approximately R35 million will be spent over the next five years. I am also pleased that the department has said that, if R35 million is not sufficient, it will try to augment this amount from time to time. We know now that R35 million is going to be spent on Coloured housing over the next five years, but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could—I do not know whether he has this information available—furnish us with details concerning the amounts that will be spent on White, Black and Indian housing in Port Elizabeth over the next five years, because then we will have the complete picture in respect of housing in the Port Elizabeth area.

The South End development in Port Elizabeth is certainly picking up. In addition to the housing schemes there, the Red Cross is, as the hon. the Minister knows, commencing with a massive housing scheme for the aged with the partial assistance of the department. The hon. the Minister’s department has been most helpful and co-operative. We should like to compliment the officials who played their part to the full in this regard. Southend is still not developing fast enough. At one stage the department thought of going ahead with the pilot scheme. I understand the department has now shelved the idea of a pilot scheme. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that instead of going ahead with the pilot scheme, the department should consider giving developers some incentive and concessions to stimulate the development of Southend. The acquisition of the property, the demolition of certain properties and the development of the services at Southend cost the Government approximately R10 million. The Government has a very real and vested interest in Southend, in fact they are the owners of Southend. So I appeal to the hon. the Minister to stimulate the growth in Southend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the speech by the hon. member for Walmer. He made out a case for housing in general.

The hon. member for Durban Central is completely out of touch with what is going on in Pageview. I do not wish to go into that, because I do not have sufficient time. The hon. member does not know the history of Pageview. I shall leave it at that because the hon. the Minister will reply to him.

I am speaking today on behalf of the inhabitants of Crown Gardens in my constituency. Three years ago the hon. the Minister said that the inhabitants could purchase the houses in question. There is a problem with the subdivision of those dwelling units. Because two or three houses are on the same plot and they are provided jointly with electricity, this creates a problem. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could have a circular sent to those people to notify them that their names are in fact still on the waiting list of prospective house-owners. It disturbs them when they receive a letter in which they are informed that due to the higher income they may have to move from those houses. The agreement was that people who applied for houses would not be given notice at a later stage, and I therefore ask that there be a circular to set those people’s minds at rest.

The people of Crown Gardens appreciate what the department has done for us over the years in regard to housing. However, there are many people who are worried because of the housing shortage.

There is something which is causing me a great deal of concern. In my time I have had a great deal to do with township development and I am acquainted with the problems involved. There is the case in Lenasia where two groups borrowed money and paid it into a trust. Whatever offence they committed, I believe that there are laws by which to punish those people properly. However, I am afraid that if we implement the sanctions to which the hon. the Minister referred in his statement, it will result in far more lengthy processes with regard to township development, and that would cause more problems. At present, development plans have to be submitted. One cannot simply begin township development without further ado, and that has always been the case.

However, I have another problem. If one possesses a large piece of land in Johannesburg, for example, and the city decides to change that part into an open area in terms of its development scheme, the purchaser will not pay one a cent for it, and one will not be able to start township development. That is why this is something of a problem for me.

The aim of the department is to provide better housing, and the principle which the hon. the Minister wants to lay down is undoubtedly clear. However, when one looks at a certain section of the statement, it is clear that in practice many problems could arise. Because it is so important to us that more and more housing should be provided and therefore that more plots should be available, I shall quote the problem clause—

What really happens—and these are facts— is that the local authority notifies in advance someone who owns town A that he must now make a contribution of a morgen for Eldorado Park, for example, which is situated four, five, six or seven towns on the other side of his own town. Now that person must make contributions there, or he has to make contributions to townships developed by the municipality itself and he has recourse to no other body except that municipality which, together with the province, has granted that licence to him. I therefore believe that this matter should be investigated.

The idea is really to effect an improvement when plots are not available as is the case in Pretoria today. There is not a plot available in Pretoria today under R8 500. Whom is one eventually going to serve when plots cost R8 500? The whole problem with regard to the availability of plots is that the building societies also grant loans to home owners. They perform the function of a bank and do building society financing, but also concern themselves with township development. The problem of the person who obtains a house there is going to become greater, because he is in the hands of one body. As I say, the hon. the Minister and his department are seeking to carry out a task in an extremely capable way. However, in the process, problems are going to be created when new legislation is introduced. Recently I carried out surveys in Pretoria. A flat which cost R15 000 in March this year is today selling for R28 000. The price being asked for a house in Camps Bay which was sold for R32 000 in March this year, is R63 000. This shows that there is a shortage of certain sizes of plot. Then the building costs still have to be included. We believe that the hon. the Minister and his department have a very major task. We believe that over the years the department has done a great deal in connection with housing, but in practice, when certain township development proposals come into effect, some of them may result in an increase of between R4 000 and R5 000 per plot in the service cost structure.