as Chairman, presented the First Report of a joint meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

J W GREEFF Chairman

Committee Rooms

Parliament

13 May 1986

Mr Speaker stated that unless notice of objection to the Report was given at the next sitting of one of the Houses, the Report would be considered as adopted.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is responsible for the overall planning of virtually every aspect of our society by means of various directorates. I know that one has to be careful of praising the hon the Minister lest he see it as a split in the PFP, but I cannot help saying that the only aspect of planning that I could not find in the department’s annual report was that of divine planning. It seems that the hon the Minister is not as vain as some people may think!

With regard to the White Paper on Urbanisation, which is a development strategy, one can say that the planning and allocation of resources must be done with a view to redistributing these resources in order to reduce inequalities in our society. In other words, the cake is to be cut in a more equitable way. A strategy can also be generative, thereby increasing the size of the cake.

The planner unfortunately sometimes suffers constraints which not only inhibit him from achieving either redistribution or generation, but are actually prohibitive of development. The constraint in our society is still the group membership in both constitutional and spatial ordering which inhibits growth.

Time prevents me from going into detail, but the spatial ordering of our urban environment will still be dictated by the Group Areas Act and not by the natural forces of urbanisation, as is claimed in the White Paper.

*The White Paper on Urbanisation compares unfavourably with all the other glossy documents issued by the department, but that probably proves that one does not need a pretentious packaging if one’s product is good. The document deals with a broad series of guidelines and confirms all the good things that have ever been said about urbanisation.

As far as implementing this is concerned, I should like to mention only three matters, viz house ownership, provision of work and control structures. Good, affordable housing has a stabilising influence on the community, because it creates happy families. The method according to which people occupy houses differs a great deal among the respective population groups. Among the Whites it is mainly home ownership on an economic basis with employer assistance for many people. For the most part Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the urban areas pay rent on houses that are provided by and highly subsidised by the State. Home-ownership is emphasised very strongly in the new strategy, and this applies to all groups, even the very poorest, and is encouraged on an economic basis.

In so far as inequality in housing contributes to tension in South Africa, one must judge the White Paper on the basis of the extent to which it has a redistributive effect on the allocation of resources. If one looks at the regulations that influence the selling price of Black residential plots, regulations R2624 and R1141, one sees that the price of a fully serviced plot of 250 square metres is R3 800 and the price of a residential plot of 800 square metres—with tarred roads, which means the plot is fully serviced—is approximately R5 500. This indicates that there is subsidising to a small degree, but in comparison with other economic schemes I am involved in at present in White and Coloured areas, there is no excessive subsidising of the plots. For the most part, therefore, people get what they pay for. I know there are larger subsidies in the old schemes.

In reality this sudden movement to economic home-ownership as the norm means a redistribution in the wrong direction if one takes the old policy into account. Wage packages are still based on the old pattern, especially in the case of Black and Coloured workers. In the past these people aspired to cheap houses provided by the city council, but now they are being forced to lower their expectations, because those subsidies are not yet being relayed as wages. It is no wonder, therefore, that the “comrades” reject home-ownership as merely another plan of so-called apartheid-capitalism to perpetuate injustices. They say the State cannot supply them with houses and they have to be satisfied with even less now in the free economic system. Naturally hand-outs are not the solution to this, but we must look at some of the policies and try to adapt them.

I want to mention two of these to the hon the Minister. Firstly, most Whites have access to 100% financing for housing, because they either work for the Government, which can guarantee the 20% deposit, or they have employers who can make collateral investments for them. It is not so much the repayment that prevents people from taking mortgage loans, but mainly the prerequisite of a deposit. It is especially difficult for Blacks and poorly paid Coloured workers to save a 20% deposit on a loan of even R10 000 or R20 000. In addition, many people work for smaller organisations and even for larger organisations, which cannot make collateral investments in the present economic conditions. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister please to look at section 40 of the legislation on building societies so that 100% loans can be granted on loans amounting to say R10 000 or R20 000. The Government must either guarantee the 20% or even …

Order! Hon members must lower their voices.

Another possibility is that the untaxed possession of a property be regarded as sufficient deposit.

A further matter is that of the auxiliary measure of one third of bond interest according to which the person who owns more receives a larger subsidy. I believe that position should be reversed or that the subsidy should at least be equalised. Then the Government can say that every first houseowner will receive a certain amount. This will contribute to redistribution because it can justifiably be said at present that that scheme enriches those who are relatively rich and perpetuates inequalities.

Lastly I want to mention the control structures. We all know that the group basis of management is rejected by most people. I want to ask the hon the Minister to concentrate initially on establishing the administrative structures and appointing technical staff to implement what is being envisaged in the White Paper. I want to ask the hon the Minister not to cause this to miscarry by burdening the urbanisation strategy with political structures, which are rejected.

Mr Chairman, there has recently been a great deal of unrest in the Eastern Cape about the consolidation packages announced there a short while ago. During debating on other Votes this matter received attention from time to time. Arising from discussions held in the recent past with the Ciskei Government, the South African Government decided that the trust territories in the Eastern Cape corridor, namely Mooiplaas, Kwalera, Mgwali, Hekkel, Wartburg, Koshen and Lesseyton would no longer be incorporated with Ciskei and those areas would remain part of the RSA in consequence. [Interjections.] The Government of the RSA is already in the process of taking over the administration of these areas which has so far been carried out by Ciskei. As a result, all the services in this area will be provided and administered by the RSA within the foreseeable future.

As regards compensatory land already purchased and to be purchased in that corridor, further negotiations are being entered into with the Ciskei Government and announcements in this regard will be made in the course of time.

A certain industrial strategy is also being followed regarding the development axis between East London and King William’s Town. In conjunction with the regional development strategy which is an overall strategy in its entirety and which was accepted by South Africa and the TBVC countries in 1982, it has been confirmed again that the Berlin area should receive preference in the promotion of industrial development. Two industrial development points, Berlin in the RSA and a point nearby within the Ciskei, have been identified and the most attractive incentive measures in Southern Africa have been offered to industrialists establishing themselves in this area. Up to the present, industries have been established only in the RSA portion of the greater Berlin area.

In order to attain the accepted regional development objectives it is necessary for Ciskei to share in the development of the Border region on a competitive basis. Consequently the Governments of the RSA and Ciskei have decided that the establishment of a Ciskei component should now be undertaken in a greater Berlin area to ensure a meaningful joint undertaking. The Berlin area is highly suited to industrial development in consequence of its strategic situation regarding infrastructures, the provision of services and future urbanisation on a linear axis between East London and Dimbaza.

As a result of a shortage of suitable land and overoccupation of existing industrial land within Ciskei, the incorporation of further land for industrial purposes as far as it affects Ciskei has become essential in the greater Berlin area. On this head it has been decided to incorporate certain lands with Ciskei for industrial purposes while adjacent land in Ciskei will be reserved for light industries. The site involved comprises approximately 440 hectares and is situated to the west of the existing Berlin industrial area and to the south of the Berlin-Blaney railway line. It comprises portions of the following farms: 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916.

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

If time permits, I shall reply to a question at the end of my speech if that satisfies the hon member.

This area comprises approximately 440 hectares and should now be seen as the final border between the RSA and Ciskei in the Berlin vicinity. This incorporation will contribute to the development of the area in the future urban complex consisting of the RSA and the Ciskei components. Close co-operation is essential between the two states to ensure the vigorous, co-ordinated and harmonious development of the complex for the benefit of the region as a whole. Development at Berlin, as in the East London, Mdantsane, King William’s Town, Bisho and Zwelitsha areas, has to be structured in an interdependent way to be able to obviate counterproductive action.

In this decision-making process we examined the expansion of employment creation action in the area in general, the improvement of living conditions of an overpopulated community in this area, the stabilisation of the Border areas and development within the independent states. To be able to accomplish this and attain these objectives, consultation took place with the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union among others with which we conducted discussions and which indicated its opposition to such a linking up but also indicated that it would accept this situation for the sake of the broad strategy.

Such institutions as the King William’s Town municipality, the East London municipality and the Government of the Ciskei were first consulted on the matter and either indicated their full or partial consent to it. One component which was singled out was that a bypass should be made possible to the north of the industrial area to be established. At a future stage of the process this will be investigated further to determine whether it is practicable.

I wish to close this portion of my speech by saying that we shall also send letters and maps with all the relevant details to these components with which we have negotiated—namely the four institutions I have mentioned—so that they may remain fully informed on the state of affairs.

In the course of this debate a few speakers raised various points and I should like to respond to them. The first was the hon member for Mooi River who also spoke during the discussion of the Development Aid Vote about the announcement of the Transkei consolidation package and the effect of the Weza forest as a whole.

I wish to stress it very clearly that he raised this here again and, as regards this announcement, it is of a preliminary nature and the hon member, just like other hon members—I am thinking for instance of the hon member for South Coast who has already made certain contributions—will have to give his evidence on standpoints or changed consolidation plans to the commission when it hears evidence.

The hon member for Ermelo announced during the debate yesterday that they would hear evidence from next Monday. It will therefore be a duty in that respect to give evidence on every standpoint they recognise.

He also said on the subject of the total consolidation package we had tackled in recent years that its execution had already amounted to R1,3 billion. That is correct but we should remember that at this stage the R1,3 billion comprises only 20% of this year’s appropriated amount for National Education and Education. The amount required for the total consolidation action should therefore not be taken out of context and judged per se. It should be regarded as part of total State expenditure in order to achieve certain objectives it has set itself.

A further point raised by the hon member for Ermelo dealt with the uncertainty regarding existing borders and other borders still to be determined. Other hon members raised this matter as well. The necessity of bringing certainty to the minds of farmers on the border as well as those in Black states cannot be underestimated. In this regard the hon member for Ermelo stated most explicitly how far the commission had already progressed in its activities and the announcement of programmes.

A final announcement has already been made concerning seven of the Black states. I gave an indication of its execution when the Development Aid Vote was discussed. When the hearing of evidence on Transkei is completed and an announcement made on this, the borders of eight of the ten Black states will already have been finally determined. That is creating certainty—we have already made great progress in this.

In addition, the hon member for Ermelo very clearly explained inter alia the activities and functions of the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

Are Coloureds also to be appointed to the commission? [Interjections.]

It is interesting that after the rearrangement of departments, the Commission for Co-operation and Development is now responsible to and has to report to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

A further important point raised by the hon member for Ermelo was that the Commission for Co-operation and Development had made such progress with consolidation plans of the national states and the independent states that it had reached a concluding phase. We accept that we shall soon be able to conclude those matters. It will then be the responsibility of the executive arm of the Department of Development Aid to carry out the decisions.

The question is asked with justification on what the functions of the Commission for Co-operation and Development will be in future. The hon member for Ermelo adopted certain standpoints on this. I think one has to take into account that the extent of the urbanisation of Black people, the demands this will make and the situation of unrest prevailing in urban areas will demand urgent attention from the Government today and in future. The task entrusted to the commission a few years ago after its membership was extended to 12 is related to surveys they have to make on available land facilities for habitation in urban areas, expansion in the industrial sphere and the question of the decentralisation of industries as well as where towns should be established. The needs of those people will have to be addressed urgently regarding all these factors so there will certainly be a task for the commission in that sphere.

I think other aspects raised by the hon member for Ermelo, namely the political negotiation and rendering of assistance by the commission, can be of inestimable value to the hon the Minister in the process. In that respect, too, I think the Government should pay urgent attention to furnishing those people with security in future. [Interjections.]

One matter I wish to state very clearly is that the question of the need for land and the necessity for urbanisation among Black people will have to be tackled urgently and methodically in future. If that is not the case, we shall run even greater risks in time to come as regards unrest and problematical aspects which may arise within Black communities.

The hon member for Innesdal spoke about the radical redistribution of land without specifically illustrating the format of the redistribution. Consequently I do not wish to comment further if we do not know exactly what we are going to do or if there are no proposals on the subject.

Albert is not satisfied with that!

I think the hon member for Turffontein spoke specifically about land for Black urban habitation and the need for this. I think that is a task I have already addressed and which can receive urgent attention as he serves on the commission himself. Because he actually lives in an urban complex, he will be able to make a great contribution on this.

The hon member for Sundays River made a very important point. He spoke of the problematical aspects of the acquisition of land, whether it was for the consolidation of Black states or for addition to Black urban complexes. He also pointed out the problems people experienced in its acquisition. I wish to state very clearly that in acquiring this land the Government and the State go out of their way to reach an agreement with the prospective seller and that cases in which such an agreement is not reached are minimal. We also accept in the second place that the Government is the best purchaser of land and in general pays the highest price although it calculates its prices on market value. In the third place we accept that in the purchase of such land there may always be a certain degree of dispute and that one will then have to resort to arbitration.

The second part of the hon member’s speech on the consequences to adjoining owners is very important. This involves stock farmers in adjacent areas, the problematical aspect of stock theft and security and terror aspects. The hon member referred to the success the Police achieve there and said that to continue farming was becoming impossible. He also drew attention to the potential electrification of fences.

The Government has adopted a definite standpoint on the erection of fences; we also assumed a clear position in the case of independent states. We have made great progress concerning this in conjunction with the Agricultural Union. In the case of national states a programme has already been announced by which we also proceed with the erection of fences on the announcement of borders. A stand has not yet been adopted on the electrification of fences—the costs will be high.

I wish to state very clearly that the best possible manner of creating relations across borders is not necessarily only by the erection of fences. The best way lies in mutual relations between individuals on either side of the border.

The hon member for North Rand actually indicated by means of a interjection that he could bring about efficiency and co-operation specifically by means of his relations with people. This is certainly one of the most important aspects to be able to accomplish this. [Interjections.] Nevertheless the Government accepts that this is not the only solution and that it bears a responsibility too.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development also made a contribution here involving all disciplines, namely the Defence Force, education and the entire infrastructure. In addition the economic and living conditions of farmers on the other side of the border are also involved. All these disciplines have to contribute to provide motives for a solution in its entirety. Financial aspects then have to be evaluated and the commission is actually busy providing this input on which we may expect a reply as well.

The hon member for Nigel spoke inter alia on farming adjacent to Black areas and the possibility that these lands could be purchased. I wish to tell the hon member we accept that there are problems in certain areas, as I have already mentioned, but we cannot solve such problems merely by the purchase of land and so place the responsibility on the State. We shall also have to attempt dealing with these specific problems in other ways. It is not only in urban areas that this can possibly occur but also in country districts. In the light of that …

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

Mr Chairman, various questions remain from hon members to which I should like to reply but my time is actually very limited. If any time remains, I shall reply to a question from the hon member for Nigel at the end of my speech.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke on the amount of land which should be evaluated and made available for Black urbanisation. Not only the identification and quantity of land are involved here. Another related aspect which will have to receive incisive attention is the fact that expansion will not only be able to take place horizontally in Black urban areas but that a more intensive vertical extension of occupation will have to come in such areas. I accept this will form part of the commission’s task relating to the investigation which will have to be done on this subject in future.

Mr Chairman, if a moment remains, I am prepared to reply to the hon member for King William’s Town now.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister confirm that the area known as Newlands will remain part of the Republic of South Africa? Furthermore, in relation to the area he describes as lying to the east of the confirmed boundary between East London and King William’s Town, which is now to be given to Ciskei as an industrial development area, will the road which is at present the boundary fall within Ciskei or will the area which is to become part of Ciskei be circumscribed by the new road? What is the status of that road? Could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us, Sir?

Mr Chairman, the 440 ha in the Berlin area will extend across the existing dual roadway and therefore form part of Ciskei. As a result we have also announced that representations have been received for a bypass to the north of the industrial area intended for incorporation. This is a subject which will receive attention. The administration of Newlands will be taken over by the Republic of South Africa; further discussion on this will take place after negotiation with Ciskei.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know of the hon the Deputy Minister whether he does not care that farmers are being robbed blind by bandits … [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot permit the hon member to make a speech in the form of a question.

I can only tell the hon member for Nigel that the Government has the greatest sympathy with people in distress and is considering every possibility of combating inconvenience people may suffer across borders. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Deputy Minister was referring to the future of the commission, I believe it very important that either the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister should indicate to us during this debate whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint members from the other two Houses of Parliament to the commission in future.

As the hon the Deputy Minister concerned himself with spatial regulation here as well, I wish to put it to him that, as regards the matter concerning Moutse and Rust De Winter, practical people—inhabitants of that area—made proposals which they submitted to the study groups of all parties. Those are people living there who consequently know local conditions; they are also aware of conditions in neighbouring states. I therefore believe that proposals made by those people are truly of a very practical nature and would result in far greater satisfaction to all three population groups than is the case with current efforts with which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is occupying himself.

I should like to add that in dark times such as South Africa is experiencing at present I believe it wise not only to depend on constitutional philosophies and theories but also to note the realities of history and especially those matters history has taught us we do not want to happen in South Africa. This caused me to reread the Shah of Iran’s book. Part IV of that book deals with “the destruction” and in it the Shah describes the Soviet-orchestrated pattern of revolution which brought his regime down. When one reads that portion of the book, one notes eight clearly distinguishable phases in which this process fulfilled itself. The first phase occurred when the mass media were used to excite world opinion against the so-called evil and oppressive target regime. This took place over a number of decades.

The second phase was that in which leftist spiritual leaders were involved to lead the masses and be followed by the naїve because of their credibility.

The characteristic of the third phase was that the more the target regime liberalised conditions in the country, the more revolutionaries used this to indicate weakness and consequently to increase their demands.

The fourth phase saw the revolutionary masses creating demonstrations—riots at funerals and such occasions.

The characteristic of the fifth phase was that the youth were emotionally incited to violence, acquired the feeling of power and murdered moderate antirevolutionary targets.

The sixth phase saw trained revolutionaries using weapons and explosives in attacks on police stations, government installations and power stations, murdering moderate leaders and carrying the country to the brink of chaos.

In the seventh phase revolutionaries instigated school boycotts, boycotts and strikes and escalated riots to paralyse the country.

During the eighth phase the USA Government appeared on the scene and through the State Department withdrew all support from these beleaguered allies and intimidated the stumbling regime into capitulation and into phasing in the new revolutionary government and supplying it with an attractive face and further by calling it a national democratic government.

In conclusion the Shah commented on the American general responsible for the final fall. The Shah said the general was commented upon as follows in a court:

That was the USA Government’s final contribution. The method used in Iran is standard. Since then it has also been used in Nicaragua and in the Philippines—with precisely the same results.

It is certainly true that South Africa is also experiencing a Soviet-orchestrated effort to bring the ANC to power. Surely that is true! When one examines these steps through which the process fulfilled itself in Iran, it appears true that South Africa already finds itself in the seventh phase of that process and even in a certain portion of the eighth. This was revealed here by means of American intervention—open interference—in the internal affairs of South Africa. In addition it is true that this Government is promoting that revolutionary process exactly according to the textbook. The Government is not combating that process; on the contrary, it is promoting it!

The first matter I wish to mention is the lack of certainty and clarity on where the Government is heading with South Africa constitutionally. Yesterday we experienced one of the best examples of this when the hon the Minister made certain announcements on the second tier of Government and his Director-General explained further on television last night. Consequently I say South Africa is very much more uncertain on where we are heading today than we were before the announcement was made. The announcement provided no certainty at all.

I can illustrate this uncertainty. This hon Minister is the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I now ask him to indicate in the course of the debate whether he agrees with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this matter or not. He should indicate to us whether he also believes South Africa could actually have a Black State President. If he cannot or will not tell us this, it is merely an indication to us that the Government is unable to provide South Africa with clarity on where it is heading.

Further, we are not experiencing reform here but integration. We are experiencing common, pure integration! The hon the Minister said he was broadening democracy; his announcements yesterday totally removed the scrap of democracy we had in second-tier government. [Interjections.]

In addition the hon the Minister spoke of devolution of power. This was as Langenhoven said: “Hy het na bo geval.” This should have been the case in local authorities. We should have expected local authorities to have greater powers and more important functions now and that they would have become powerful bodies to protect group interests but their powers are being transferred to regional services councils. The powers of second-tier government are being moved up—to the Central Government. We now exercise control over education, health and local authorities in Parliament. Legislative power is also being moved to Parliament— the Government has fallen upwards.

The hon the Minister says he is busy with reform but the Black people say they do not want this reform. On 30 April Bishop Tutu said in the Cape Town city hall: “Who said we wanted reform? You cannot reform Frankenstein; you destroy it.” He wants to destroy the entire system. He is seeking power and is not interested in reform. Chief Buthelezi told the hon the Minister he first had to release Nelson Mandela—it will be the coup de grâce to this Government if it does so—and abolish the tricameral Parliament before he would continue discussions with the hon the Minister.

A further problem is the Government’s uncertainty. It cannot produce what it has promised; it has not been able to fulfil anything of what was said in the past.

The Government is also actively supporting revolutionaries. The chairman of the Northern Cape Development Board said only seven boards were assisted with interim finance of millions of rands. All boards under which the Black communities were less riot-orientated and more stable and supported the State throughout had to pay in full and received no support or recognition from the Government whatsoever. In reply to a question the hon the Minister said he had subsidised the revolutionaries in those affected areas by R168 million but he left the peaceful, the people supporting the Government, entirely in the cold.

Partition is the only answer because the most important sphere in which the Government fails is that of group security of the various groups. The hon the Minister cannot tell us how he will protect the various groups’ rights and interests. Prof Arnheim has written an article again, in Die Ekonoom this time, in which he says the constitutions and the bills of right written in Africa lie like confetti across a bloodied country. They mean nothing. That is all the Government is giving us.

There is one people and a homogenous community in Iran. The only aspect which affected the people’s security was the enormous development the Shah brought about. This caused them to clutch at an outdated system and an exiled spiritual leader to recover their old security but it also gave Russia the opportunity of enforcing and establishing its will there.

We have various peoples and a heterogeneous community in South Africa. Group security has been totally undermined and the Government is playing straight into the hands of the enemy which is why we say partition with international borders is the only way to recover this security. Partition is the only way to control conflict. Where partition exists everyone feels safe and everyone knows no one else has a say in his affairs. Partition is the only true extension of democracy because everyone, without any qualifications, can then obtain a say in the affairs of his country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg had a great deal to tell us about the role played by leftist radicals in a revolutionary climate. I should also have liked to have him expand a little on the role rightist radicals play in such a climate. He expounded many matters in his speech but, when he got to partition, he still failed to tell us precisely what partition comprised. He shied away from that entirely just as his leader, the hon member for Waterberg, did yesterday.

I find it interesting that there was a pattern running through the speeches of hon CP members yesterday and today if one analysed them. The hon member for Nigel appealed to the hon the Minister to purchase certain land in his constituency for Black people so he agreed in the main with the hon member for Innesdal that Black urbanites should have more land.

No! No!

The CP frontbenchers then objected to the fact that a Black mayor would dare to request that more land be made available for Black urbanites on the East Rand.

Where were you when the hon member for Nigel was speaking? You are quoting him incorrectly!

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

Mr Chairman, I do not have time to reply to a question now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Boksburg must know he is wrong …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Boksburg may proceed.

I did not quote the member but that is how I understood him. He made a fine appeal to the hon the Minister to purchase land. [Interjections.] That is the type of argument one receives from those ranks.

I wish to put a few questions to those hon members on the Government’s reform process. My first question to them runs as follows: If they proceed with their policy of partition, what are they going to do with the Coloureds and Indians in the Transvaal? Are they prepared to create a homeland for them somewhere in the Transvaal? [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon member for North Rand will reply to this because he also complained to the hon the Minister that he had not received an answer to his letter in nine months. I now put one question to that hon member: Is he proposing a homeland in the Transvaal for Coloureds and Indians? [Interjections.] There is a deadly silence.

Order! No matter how many questions the hon member puts, none of them will be answered now. The hon members of the CP still have a turn to speak and they can reply to those questions then.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is a pity because we have longed to receive those answers throughout the debate; it is obviously too late now.

The urban population of this country is growing by the day and the hon the Minister and his department should take that into account. Metropolitan areas are expanding every day and land should be made available for Black, Coloured and Indian residential areas. I now wish to ask hon East Rand members whether they would be prepared to make more land available on the East Rand for an Indian town as it is required urgently.

We are not allowed to reply to you!

We do not receive those answers from them and we shall not receive them in this Committee or elsewhere.

Ask Brother Rencken!

I wish to ask hon CP members whether, in the event that they may ultimately succeed in their policy of partition and tell the Coloured and Indian communities of the Transvaal to move, whether they know with whom they would replace those people.

We are not allowed to reply to you!

Order! The hon member for Jeppe knows that I have given my ruling.

The hon member for Boksburg is infringing the ruling!

Order! The hon member for Boksburg is not infringing my ruling. You are infringing my ruling and you are trifling with the Chair! I shall tolerate this no longer! The hon member for Boksburg may proceed.

That is typical of their tactics. They cannot reply to questions. They will not answer these questions outside this Committee; nor can one get them to answer them in here—that is exactly how it goes. [Interjections.]

I wish to make one proposal and direct an earnest request to the hon the Minister. If we want orderly urbanisation for Black people, we should urgently investigate the urbanisation process of migrant labour. We in the Transvaal and specifically on the Witwatersrand know exactly what migrant labour has done to Black urbanites. The hon member Dr Venter enlarged on that in this debate and the previous one and pointed out how it influenced the Black man’s family life. I now wish to appeal to the hon the Minister and tell him it is one of the aspects of urbanisation which we have to tackle now; we can no longer neglect this.

On 4 April 1986 an Anglo-American article appeared in the magazine Finansies en Tegniek in which they said inter alia:

I am saying this because we still retain this growing tendency on the Witwatersrand 80 years later. Consequently I wish to tell the hon the Minister to expose mining companies’ bluff especially on the Witwatersrand. I think the time has come for us to pay attention to the Black people’s plea. We should give them the right of orderly urbanisation like that of Whites. The Whites of this country did not have those factors hampering their family lives and I believe we should do something about them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Boksburg will forgive me if I do not get embroiled in his fight.

We will also forgive you.

If I may, Sir, I would like to engage through you in a dialogue with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

To begin with I would like to deal briefly with the announcement he made yesterday. My problem regarding the measures he announced is the fact that he has created a system of decentralisation of authority as opposed to one of decentralisation of power. If he had decentralised power, he would have had to create elected institutions in order to exercise that power, but he has decentralised authority instead.

I intend to examine this announcement in some detail later in the light of developments in South Africa, but at this stage I wish to discuss one of the problems this country faces. If the particular road along which we are going to develop in South Africa leads to a situation in which a change of authority at the central point can result in a one-party, unitary, majoritarian form of government, the hon the Minister’s whole objective will have been frustrated. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has an avowed and stated objective, and he is doing everything in his power to make sure that he does not attain it. This is the tragedy!

As far as the PFP is concerned, we do not want to see majoritarian government in a unitary state. We do not believe in it and we have no such desire. This leads me to discuss the tragic position we find ourselves in when we talk about change. I find some of the remarks of the hon the Minister disturbing, because he includes everybody in the process of change, even my hon colleagues on my political right. They are not part of that process of change. They are part of a process of reaction. The process of change is completely different. If that is his conception of what change is going to be, I think South Africa is heading for very serious problems.

What worries me is that the hon the Minister’s language has undergone a dramatic change over the past few years, as has that of the hon member for Randburg, for example. The issue here is what we mean by the words we use. The hon the Minister is using the same language that we in the PFP were using 10 to 15 years ago and before that.

Hear, hear!

However, the difficulty lies in working out what the hon the Minister actually means. I would like to quote a few excerpts from an article by the hon the Minister which appeared in the Sunday Times of 11 May 1986. It was a very interesting article, and I want to compliment the hon the Minister on it. The hon the Minister wrote:

As a member of the PFP I could not have put it better myself.

Naturally!

It is completely in accordance with our policy. I appreciate the hon the Minister’s modesty.

Chris couldn’t be modest if he tried!

My difficulty, however, has to do with what he means by a “democratic South African society” and a “process of negotiations.”

Allow me to quote further:

I think that this too is a tremendous statement on which I would like to compliment the hon the Minister, but what does he actually mean?

One of the issues we have to deal with is what we mean by the words we use when we discuss the South African scene.

The hon the Minister ends his article as follows:

We agree with that completely—

I think the hon the Minister must have been quoting my 1965 speeches! [Interjections.]

Send him an account!

With great respect, I have to say that the hon the Minister is quoting them without acknowledging the fact. That is plagiarism! [Interjections.] When he replies, the hon the Minister will have to explain what he means when he refers to a democratic system of Government accommodating legitimate aspirations. A whole series of terms will have to be defined, otherwise we will be in an Alice in Wonderland situation in which words have the meaning which the hon the Minister chooses to give them, not their usual meaning.

What we have to do now is to engage in a debate as to what the words mean which the Government is using. It is to my mind fundamental that, if we are going to carry on a debate in regard to a constitutional future, we actually have to attach the same meaning to the words which we use.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that I believe that we are living in times of diminishing options. My party and I believe that federalism is the only real basis for power-sharing and consensus government. However, that is being pushed out of the debate. The options are being reduced rapidly by both the radical left and the right, but also by the Government by acting as it did again yesterday. That is one of the tragedies.

The Government’s constitutional reforms allow for elected local authorities on the one hand and an undefined future elected form of central government on the other hand— because I am sure that the hon the Minister is not going to tell us what the kind of central government is that he sees will eventually exist in the year 2000—with organs of authority in the middle, on the secondary level of government, which have no form of electoral process and are merely a delegation of authority from the centre. If in fact one is going to have a devolution of power, which is what the hon the Minister has in mind, it must be power which is exercised by the people; in other words one is devolving power to people to rule themselves. Devolution of power on a group basis, without a geographic base for the group for the exercise of that power, has very few workable precedents in the world. One of the very few that I can think of is in Switzerland, for example. Some of the cantons have a devolution of power to religious groups which exercise some authority without a geographic base. However, for the rest we are here in the realms of what was in fact the United Party’s race federation policy. Without geographic bases this system has very serious flaws.

Therefore one has to look to geographic bases, to a proper federation and for the safeguards which can be produced in that federation. The hon member for Boksburg referred to minority rights and the hon leader of the CP asked how one safeguards those minority rights. The only way in which one can safeguard minority rights in South Africa is to follow the kind of example which the USA has of a rigid constitution with a strong supreme court and a Bill of Rights which can be enforced so that the individual, because he is part of a whole series of minorities, feels he has that protection. If we do not do that, we are not going to find a solution to this problem along the lines of what we have in mind and of the words which the hon the Minister uses.

With great respect, I think, one of the problems which is developing in South Africa is this polarisation where the people in the centre are finding themselves squeezed out. We are getting this polarisation on every side. Make no mistake, Sir, there is a polarisation to the right in the White electorate and there is a polarisation to the left in the Black electorate. What is in fact happening in South Africa in those circumstances? The moderate people in the middle are being squeezed out and we cannot even agree on the meaning of the words. The result of all this will be that the moderates are going to be squeezed in the vice of the conflict situation between the two poles. The only people who can avoid that are the Government because they have the authority and Parliament has the power to make the changes.

Unless we do that and unless we get the centre of South African politics, whether it be in the White, the Black, the Coloured or the Indian community, on a basis on which they have a common direction and a common ideology which they are going to follow, the centre to which I believe most of South Africa belongs, is going to find itself destroyed in the war between these two polarising elements.

So, my appeal to the hon the Minister is that we should engage in a reasonable constitutional debate in which we agree upon the terminology we use and we try to find an answer to a problem which is a problem of survival for South Africa in order to avoid this confrontation between the two poles. If we are going to engage in that debate, then we shall be well on the way to proper constitutional development in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to identify three processes in South African society in which the Black man is a central figure. These three processes are of great importance to the survival of the White man and the values he represents. I am referring here to the consolidation process, the constitutional process and the process of confrontation in Black urban communities.

As regards the consolidation process, the time has come for us to tell one another that, as our obligations are fulfilled under the 1936 Constitution, consolidation should be revalued as a political instrument. We should tell one another that, if we look back upon the consolidation process up to the present, we see that the total of stated political objectives has not been realised. We can say to one another in all honesty in this House regarding the process of consolidation that, although 11 ethnically identified groups accepted independence, we should be left with the reality that 60% of Black people were outside the national states. That is why consolidation ought to be seriously revalued as a political instrument. It appears clearly from this revaluation process that it is not the entire solution but part of the political solution in South Africa.

The debate concentrated on different themes of the constitutional process. By way of repetition I want to emphasise one theme which is that there is high emotional tension during constitutional reform. Constitutional reform is very delicately balanced in South Africa with its factions, its political past, its divergent cultures and separate races. There are internal factors which can make a success of the constitutional package; these include those with whom negotiations take place, the degree of power-sharing on which there is negotiation, whether we mean business with power-sharing or not, as well as the way in which people’s fears and aspirations are to be related to each other. Those are the internal factors which will determine the success of the constitutional package but there is one important external factor which will determine the success or failure of constitutional reform. This is the third process, that of confrontation within Black urban areas.

All of us in the House are deeply concerned about the confrontation, the violence and intimidation in Black urban residential areas. I do not believe we realise the seriousness of what is developing in Black urban areas. Security action is not the final solution. Ultimately Black politicians will have to form part of a system to deal with Black violence but then they have to have access to the necessary tools of power to handle the aggression effectively—regardless of what constitutional package we negotiate. If this constitutional package is not based on a reasonably regulated and generally accepted community structure, the success of a constitutional model is doomed in the long run. If the constitutional package does not hold the promise of an improvement in socio-economic life and if conditions do not offer a prospect of improving the quality of life, it is built on shifting sand. I say we should identify social problems in this very serious situation surrounding Black urban areas. Valid grievances should be eliminated and steps taken against criminal elements; prospects for a constitutional solution would then improve.

I said we should identify the problems and I wish to do so in the light of the Western Cape which I know very intimately. In speaking of Crossroads and social problems in and about Crossroads, I am talking about Dobsonville, Munsieville, Kagiso, Mamelodi, Alexandra, kwaZekele and New Brighton. All these factors form an inherent component of all these Black residential areas.

You must also talk about Bellville.

We are going to talk about Bellville. [Interjections.]

If we look at the situation in the Western Cape over the past six years, I want to ask hon members what is behind us as regards social aspects. We have Unibel and Modderdam behind us; the struggle to make the Coloured preference labour area something of the past lies behind us; the idea of solving the squatting problem with bulldozers lies behind us. This is all behind us; the entire influx control debacle lies behind us—all of this. [Interjections.]

Ahead of us lies a destabilised community which, if it is not stabilised as regards social conditions, poses just as great a danger to my voters in Bellville as it does to the Black inhabitants of Crossroads. Consequently I say to the hon the Minister that this situation surrounding Black urban areas has to be stabilised socially.

I also wish to associate myself with the chairman of the commission as well as the hon the Deputy Minister in relating the identification of problems to new terms of reference regarding the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

I think the time has come to appoint a task group or a monitoring group for every activated Black area to draw up a blueprint for social reconstruction. This task group should have direct access to the hon the Minister and should concentrate on housing, employment creation and social security in the case of every area in order to contribute to an accepted constitutional solution. To put it like this: If one scales down Black demands in Black areas, the prospect of an accepted constitutional dispensation for all will become correspondingly more attractive.

Mr Chairman, in the short space of time available to me I shall perhaps come back to the hon member for Bellville. But I shall return later to his brief reference to consolidation, which the NP Government now apparently has dropped as a solution to the political emancipation of the Black peoples of South Africa.

As far as a practical matter is concerned, however—this is something which has the closest possible bearing on my constituency as well as that of the hon member for Ermelo very closely—I have an appeal to make to the Government of the day and to the Commission for Co-operation and Development. The commission was instructed by the then Prime Minister to finalise their proposals in respect of final consolidation—it should have been finalised almost four years ago—but thus far finality has still not been reached on the final borders of the Swazi homeland, ie KaNgwane. This causes tremendous uncertainty among the voters in my constituency, as well as in the constituencies of Nelspruit and Ermelo. We really would appreciate it if this matter could now be brought to a head.

I should also like to know from the hon the Minister, seeing as he has to do with constitutional development in South Africa—we know what his predecessors’ standpoints were in regard to the possible consolidation of the Swazi people; I am now referring to the consolidation of the Swazis of Swaziland with the Swazis in the Republic of South Africa—what the present standpoint of the Government is in regard to this, that is to say, if they still have a standpoint.

As far as we are concerned it has always still been the standpoint that there is only one Swazi people in South Africa, not two. It is their right to decide on their future, but we think that it is not only in the interest of the Swazis, but also of ourselves, that that people should be consolidated—particularly because it would fit in very easily with their geographic circumstances.

As far as second tier government is concerned, the hon the Minister made an important statement. It is just a pity that he made his statement at such a late stage in the debate, because it made it a little difficult for those of us on this side of the Committee to react fully to it in the time available to us. I accept that legislation in connection with this will be introduced, and that there will definitely be sufficient time to discuss it then. However, allow me just to remark—in this respect I associate myself with previous speakers, also those on the PFP side—that this announcement of the hon the Minister about a nominated executive body at the second tier of government is not broadening of the democratic base; it is the very opposite! [Interjections.] This is not decentralisation at all; it is centralisation. [Interjections.] There is also no consultation— excepting if the hon the Minister regards consultation with himself as being sufficient! [Interjections.]

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Yeoville’s speech. It was an interesting speech. I agree with him that the speeches coming from the NP side which we had to listen to—I am thinking of speeches of some of the hon members of the NP in particular—as far as language, content and basic standpoints are concerned, are exactly the same as those which the PFP and its spiritual forefathers, the left wing of the old United Party, made repeatedly in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville is quite correct when he states that what was said by members on the NP benches in this Committee, is exactly the same as the things he has said in the past. [Interjections.] The hon member for Innesdal confirmed this himself when he said that there was a time when they as Nationalists saw division of power as the solution. Now the same Nationalists see power-sharing as the solution.

Whereas in the past the standpoint was that we had made it our job to create separate political entities for every separate people in South Africa in its own separate territory, it has always been the standpoint of the PFP that this should not be done. Now the NP is expressing itself in the same vein. We have now become one political nation, while the NP in the past did everything it could to create different political nations in Southern Africa in the constitutional sense of the word. We have now reached the situation where both the Government and the PFP today hold an identical standpoint as their basic point of departure and basic view of the future, and we are merely dealing with a mock battle about the best method to implement their final aims.

There could perhaps be one difference. I just have a horrible feeling that there are several of our hon colleagues in the NP benches who have it in the back of their minds that one would be able to share political power with the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, but that one could keep the real effective political power in one’s own White hands.

Domination.

I just have a feeling that there are people who are toying with this idea, as if it could become a practical reality in the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] If one listens very carefully to how those hon members talk …

How they dream.

How they dream, yes. If one listens very carefully to how they talk and piously state that the one group may not dominate the other, and if one sees through it, what it eventually boils down to is that, as far as the Whites are concerned, it is their desire that the non-Whites should never have a final or effective say over the Whites. [Interjections.]

This is our problem in the times in which we are living. The PFP have apparently accepted the full consequences of their basic standpoints. Some hon members of the NP have also accepted it.

Wynand, for example.

Yes, like the hon member for Randburg and the hon member for Innesdal, but many other hon members of the NP are struggling because they do not know what is going on. Let me tell those hon members to reflect on it that they are at present participating in a process which is destroying one bridge after another on the road of separate freedoms for the different peoples of South Africa, without them knowing what their destination on the other side is going to look like. The NP will not be able to turn back on that road after it has burnt those bridges. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville told those of us on this side of the House that we do not form part of the reform process. That is true. However, we do not want to be part of this so-called reform process, which of necessity must lead to a multiracial, Black and dominated South Africa. [Interjections.] But where I do differ from the hon member, is that he says that we are part of a reactionary process. [Interjections.] The basic view of the CP, as far as I am concerned, was the traditional, classic policy of the NP ie that the final solution to the problem of the peoples of Southern Africa must be found along the way of separate freedoms with everyone linked to his own separate geographical area. [Interjections.] That is the only guarantee for the future, because one could draw up constitutional models as much as one likes; one can draw up charters of human rights and have them accepted; one can have constitutions adapted, but on the day of reckoning when it really matters in an integrated society, it will not be a question of constitutions, but rather one of numerical strength and actual physical force be decisive. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton made a great fuss about the Government’s policy, but we are still waiting for the CP to come up with a clear definition of …

And whose debate might this be? [Interjections.]

… a clear definition of their own policy; of their own alternative, because they do after all want to take over the Government. They want to take over the Government one day. They must tell us now where the borders of the White homeland will be, and with which coloureds they are secretly negotiating on a coloured homeland. They must come out with the truth on these matters, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is after all easy to heckle from the sidelines. Why do they not come up with their alternatives? Why do they not have them tabled, so that we can debate on it? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member for Pretoria East prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member is just wasting my time. [Interjections.]

That is a completely accurate description! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like as far as the hon the Minister’s … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I cannot hear myself, that is how much noise those hon members are making now! [Interjections.]

You are speaking absolute nonsense, man!

Order! I request hon members, when they ask for an opportunity to put a question and this is refused, not to disrupt the entire debate by making incessant interjections. The hon member for Pretoria East may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I should just like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to certain problems in my area, over in the Pretoria area, and ask that he and his department pay attention to them. It is clear to me that there are still many unsolved problems … [Interjections.]

Order!

… which exist in regard to land for residential areas for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the Pretoria area. There are indeed many relevant problems in the housing of people. The problems to which I want to refer are not new, of course. They are problems which have been raised in this house in countless debates over the years. The responsibility for all the individual functions, however, has never before been that of one single Ministry. And so I want to ask the hon the Minister, since he is now empowered to do so, to give special attention to the problems in my part of the world.

I want to emphasise that I am a Pretorian. My own area is important to me and ask I that the hon the Minister should therefore please pay special attention to it. [Interjections.] There are various arguments one could raise as to why various areas in the country are important. But Pretoria is after all, I think, the administrative capital of the Republic. [Interjections.] The Whites in Pretoria alone have more schoolgoing children than those in the Free State as a whole. Now of course we do not go about things on a proportional basis, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] But it is a completely valid argument to show how important our area is.

I would like to talk about the planning for Blacks in that area. But it would be wrong if I were then to neglect the Coloureds and the Indians. Yet we in that area all have to live together—all the various population groups together. It is a fact that Coloureds and Indians are represented by their own people in this Parliament and are therefore able to put their own case. But I think the planning of an area is a general affair, and we therefore all have a contribution to make to it. In any event the planning for the other population groups affects the planning for Whites, does it not. That is why, I think, I can discuss the planning for Coloureds and Indians here as well.

To put it in a nutshell, Mr Chairman, our area has a very small Coloured population. There are approximately 24 000 Coloureds there. But there is only one Coloured group area, known as Eersterus. A great need for housing exists in that region. You know, Mr Chairman, there are 1 800 names on the waiting list of people wanting homes in Eersterus. If we compare this to the present population of 24 000, and with every dwelling housing at least six people it is clear that there are virtually just as many applicants for homes in Eersterus as there are houses at present.

You are now arguing in favour of the Coloureds and not of the Whites in your constituency!

Oh, but he is still coming to that, Daan!

There are only 150 open plots in Eersterus, and all are situated in a part of the township where the ground is black and clayish. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that an investigation is carried out into obtaining more land for Coloureds in the vicinity of Pretoria. In this regard I therefore support the appeals of Mr Louis Dewrance, who represents that region in the House of Representatives.

Mr Chairman, the Whites in Pretoria do not really have problems as far as accommodation is concerned. But we cannot sleep peacefully when there are people of other population groups in Pretoria who are experiencing major problems. [Interjections.]

If I may just briefly pause at the problems affecting the Indians there …

Order! I ask hon members please to stop making a noise now.

Mr Chairman, in Pretoria we have approximately 24 000 Indians. They are all concentrated in one single group area—Laudium. This group area is filled to capacity. It was previously decided to extend this group area in the direction of the area known as the little dairy farms. The Indians, however, do not accept that decision. They regard that decision as implying that they would serve as a buffer between the development area for Whites and that for Blacks. They are not interested in that, although the State has already gone ahead with the provision of plots and services there. There are various alternative possibilities for the extension of Laudium. I should like to give my support to the appeals of the hon member for Laudium, Mr BoetieAbramjee, in the House of Delegates, that the hon the Minister and his department pay serious attention to territory for Indians.

When it comes to Blacks, let me say that the problems of Blacks in our area are multi-facetted, and simple solutions are impossible. One only has to look at the numbers. There are more than ten times as many Blacks than Coloureds and Indians together in our area. As a result the problems and their possible solutions are very possibly ten times as numerous. Imaginative planning for the development of our region is therefore necessary to ensure peaceful co-existence in the future.

Just to refer briefly to where Blacks live— my list is not necessarily exhaustive—I would firstly mention the Atteridgeville/Saulsville township. That area is full to capacity, and the upgrading of the present accommodation perhaps holds out the only possibility of settling more people there. [Interjections.] There is the Mamelodi township. That township is also filled to capacity and is also in urgent need of upgrading. Thirdly there is the developing Black city, Soshanguve, north of Pretoria, for which the Department of Education and Development is in fact responsible. According to a press statement—dated 6 May—made by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, R22,7 million has been set aside out of special funds this year for the accelerated development of Soshanguve. We are very pleased about that.

Furthermore, Blacks also live on smallholdings and farms around Pretoria; that land is owned by Whites. I could also mention that many Blacks live within the city limits and in White areas—mainly in backyards. A few years ago the leader of the HNP made headlines precisely because he allowed Blacks to live illegally on his property in Pretoria. [Interjections.] In October 1985 I made inquiries, and according to official estimates there were 70 000 Blacks who were sleeping “illegally” in the Pretoria city area. I do not have the actual figure. [Interjections.]

Daan is illegally in South Africa!

I say that we shall only be able to halt the growth of the number of Blacks within the White group areas if we make provision for Blacks to live within a family context and within a reasonable commuting distance from their workplace. Every White family who settles in my constituency, reflects more or less on one Black family who has to live a fair distance away from it. I am, for example, referring to working in the garden, working in the house, delivering milk, removing refuse and services in the supermarkets and shops. For every White family for whom provision has to be made, thought should at least be given to making provision for one Black family. If this is not be done, our group areas would be endangered and the number of Blacks who live in our backyards will increase.

What I am really saying, amounts to the fact that the reality of long periods of commuting and high travel costs dictate that not all the Blacks who work in Pretoria, can go and live in a Black city, particularly one such as Soshanguve. They simply have to be given the opportunity to live closer to their place of work. Soshanguve is one of the solutions, and is in fact an important component of the solution for Pretoria. But it is not the whole solution.

I should like to refer to the White Paper on Urbanisation which was recently tabled in Parliament. I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on it. I am a scientist and I like scientific work. To me that White Paper is a well thought out piece of work, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on it once again. In the Pretoria context I should just like to refer to a few paragraphs which struck me when I read the White Paper. Firstly, paragraph 4.3 deals with “General policy framework for urbanisation”. I quote paragraph 4.3.5:

That is important. If we want to maintain our own residential areas, we shall have to provide the other population groups with realistic residential areas in an unselfish way; that is to say, residential areas within realistic distances of their workplace.

Paragraph 4.3.6 reads:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, let me say at once that I am actually sorry that my time does not permit me to react in full to all the standpoints put forward by hon members. I shall, however, briefly try, at least thematically, to reply to hon members’ standpoints.

I just want to refer quickly to the hon member for Greytown’s speech. He argues that one of the constraints in the process of development and reform lies, in fact, in the group concept propagated by the Government. This is approximately in line with the overall, simplistic standpoint that one need only abolish apartheid and the blessings of heaven would descend upon South Africa.

Secondly I want to dwell for a moment on the question of housing to which the hon member referred. If he were to study the White Paper, he would find in it fundamental points of departure in regard to the future housing policy. Firstly housing is the individual’s own responsibility. Secondly, both the employer and the individual are jointly responsible for the latter’s housing. Thirdly, local authorities have a role to play in the provision of infrastructural services. Fourthly, in the final analysis the State must make a contribution as far as the really poor are concerned. In this regard the hon the Minister of Public Works is at present heading an investigation into a new policy relating to the subsidising of housing in specific cases.

A third remark I want to make to the hon member today relates to the fact that democracy initially failed in States and countries where the concept of local government ceased to exist and central control took over in all spheres. That is why I do not agree with the hon member about my first having to create administrative structures for the implementation of the White Paper; that must also take place within constitutional structures.

The hon the Deputy Minister has largely replied to the hon member for Ermelo’s speech, and in this connection I just want to say that I have equally great appreciation for the work thus far done by the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I agree that as far as the determination of the responsibilities and tasks of the Commission is concerned, the legislation introduced by the Commission enables it to make a much greater contribution to the development of the country. I am busy discussing this with the Commission and the Government and I hope we shall be able to make an announcement in this regard.

In my opinion the hon member for Lichtenburg has spent too much time reading the book about the Shah of Iran. Of course there are parallels between countries in which revolution takes place, but simply to draw a parallel and simply apply it surely cannot be a valid approach. I just quickly want to make the point that I do not think we should have any misunderstanding or illusions about the fact that there is a revolutionary onslaught against South Africa.

A revolutionary climate is being created. The people have chosen their battlefield and the battlefield is that of local systems of government. They have chosen their weapons, and these are intimidation, violence and terrorism. They have also chosen their reasons, and they are the alleged poor economic and social conditions in which our people find themselves. I do not, however, think it is necessary for us to flinch from this challenge, as long as we are prepared to tackle it properly on every front, and that is what the Government is doing.

The hon member also spoke about American interference. If he had been listening when I spoke here yesterday, he would remember or know that my standpoint in this specific context is a straightforward one. For the process that has to take place in South Africa—whether he agrees with it or not— there is only one mediator and that is the populace of South Africa themselves.

Go tell that to the hobgoblins.

I am now speaking to one. [Interjections.]

The hon member also made one of his absolutistic statements, saying there is only one answer and that is partition.

Of course.

The fact is that when the hon member was himself a member of the department, he encountered resistance from people who did not want to relinquish land to make his partition possible.

Who is denying that?

If hon members stick to that standpoint—I do not dispute the fact that partition could be an answer or part of an answer—the hon member must tell us what his divided South Africa is going to look like and what steps he is going to take to place people forcibly in their respective fatherlands. Until such time as the hon member can do so, he does not have a reasonable answer to South Africa’s problems.

That is a loaded statement!

I should like to come to the hon member for Boksburg. I want to tell him at once that he and I have something in common, ie an aversion to hostels. There can be no question of any proper form of community life or a life for individuals, within that system. That is why I want to tell the hon member that I have asked my own department to convert these hostels—in so far as they are State property—into married quarters. If the private sector wants hostels for single contract labourers, that is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the State.

The question of contract labour outside the country’s borders is a question receiving the hon the Minister of Manpower’s attention, and he will be in a position to speak about that at a later stage.

I now come to the hon member for Yeoville. When he resumed his seat, I saw some of his colleagues congratulating him. For a moment I thought they were congratulating him on his speech, but then I found out they were congratulating him on his birthday. I also want to congratulate him on his birthday, but not on his speech. [Interjections.]

†We will have the opportunity to discuss in detail second-tier government and the issues raised by the hon member when we discuss the Bill to be introduced during this session. Therefore I do not want to react in further detail at this stage to what the hon member has said.

The hon member made a point concerning terminology and the meaning of words and concepts. I share his view that very often we cannot conduct a proper debate because we attach different meanings to the words we use. I think that is a valid point, but let me explain how the hon member himself falls into his own trap.

He says he believes the answer for South Africa is “a proper federation”. However, nobody has defined “a proper federation”. Is the Federation of West Germany a proper federation or not?

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

No, please, I do not have the time.

Is it a proper federation or not? Are the federations of other countries proper federations?

The hon member made a further point. In his own terminology he said that one can only deal with the groups in this country with a territorial base. If words have meaning …

You do not understand the matter!

Naturally not—I concede that immediately. I do not believe that it can be understood. The hon member for Yeoville said we must have a proper federation to escape the problems inherent in our society. However, no matter how one draws the boundaries of the federal components, one simply repeats the problem that one experiences at a national level in a federation system.

That is where you are wrong! [Interjections.]

Right, let us discuss it at a later stage.

*Now I come to the hon member for Bellville. I want to say at once that if it had not been for the legislation on which consolidation is based, Black people would have had less land in South Africa and not more. As a result of the 1913 and 1936 Acts, Black people had access to more land and not less.

I agree with the hon member that it is important for us to understand that consolidation, as a constitutional mechanism, cannot offer any final solutions to the problems of the country. No one can have any doubts, however, about the fact that it is an important part of the answer.

I agree with the hon member, furthermore, that the socio-economic upliftment of communities in areas such as Crossroads—in speaking about that I am speaking about all the Black areas—is fundamental to the stabilisation of the communities themselves. That is why my department is engaged in an upgrading campaign throughout the country, a campaign we intend to implement in an organised fashion so as to meet those requirements.

The hon member for Pretoria East made an important speech. Let me tell him at once that I have no intention—I am not prepared to do so at all—of underestimating the importance of Pretoria. I agree with his plea that the residential or dwelling needs of all the communities—Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Asians—be given urgent attention, and I have already given instructions in this specific connection.

My time is limited, but I want to come to the debate that preceded this reply.

I am grateful for the speeches of the hon members for Innesdal, Turffontein, Welkom and Sundays River. I should like to thank them for their contributions, particularly in regard to the standpoints they adopt about identifying and making land available for our urban population and also our Black urban communities. In this regard it is important to know that the natural growth of the Black population in our cities today has already reached 60% of the total growth. This alone dictates the necessity for giving urgent attention to these aspects, and I gladly undertake to do so. I have already referred to the hon member for Ermelo.

†I would like to turn now to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South who referred to various facets or aspects of the White Paper on Urbanisation. I appreciated many of his remarks, but I must immediately tell him that it is not the Government’s policy to stifle industrial growth in the metropolitan areas. It is, however, Government policy to create new job opportunities in those areas which are not subjected to congestion to the same extent as our major cities are, and to ensure a broader geographical spread of economic activity.

The hon member for North Rand, who is an old friend of mine, should not use the kinds of terms he does use. If I have made any mistakes, I will acknowledge the fact, but I think that his accusation about ignoring elementary codes of conduct are not in keeping with the sort of people that he and I are.

Even though it is true?

Let us see whether it is true! The hon member referred to two letters he wrote to me. Receipt of his letter of 22 November 1985 was acknowledged and replied to on 26 November.

Acknowledged?

Yes, I did say it was acknowledged and replied to. On 5 February 1986 I gave him a comprehensive answer.

That is not true either.

How can you say it is not true?

Those are the facts! [Interjections.]

His second letter dated 7 March 1985 dealt with a subject relating to another hon member’s constituency.

What difference does that make? [Interjections.]

Can’t the hon member keep quiet?

The whole of South Africa must keep quiet …

Order!

Receipt of that letter was acknowledged on 18 March.

It did not refer to another constituency. It was about my constituency. [Interjections.]

It dealt with the Cinerama in Pretoria East. The hon member is aware of the fact that the application for the permit, about which he wrote the letter, had lapsed. I shall leave the hon member at that.

The hon member for Meyerton spoke in very low-key and courteous terms and I appreciate the fact. He referred to an application from the Katlehong town council for additional land for housing. I want to confirm that such an application was received by the department and that the matter is being investigated, with due consideration for all the needs of all the population groups, including the community the hon member represents.

He also referred to a report in the Sunday Times of 4 May 1986 in which the mayor of Katlehong himself is reported to have said, amongst other things:

I do not see much more in this than merely a statement by the mayor, but I reject aggressiveness when claims or demands are made, regardless of who it comes from, White or Black.

I have taken note of the standpoint of the hon member for Nigel who likewise gave an effective exposition of his community’s position. The hon member said that we are corresponding on the relevant matter, and as far back as 21 April I wrote to him telling him that I would give further attention to this. The hon member will understand that land in urban areas is in short supply and is valuable and that it is not always possible, on the basis of the prevailing needs, to create a buffer zone as he has requested.

On Friday the hon member for Stellenbosch referred to the necessity for a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the urbanisation strategy, as contained in the White Paper. I agree with him. We have made great strides and I hope to make a relevant announcement shortly.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens put certain questions to me and, as my reply is rather long, I trust the hon member will accept a written answer from me in this regard.

The hon member for Berea said that he agreed that second-tier government should be strengthened. I share that view, particularly in relation to the executive. The Bill which will be introduced will be aimed at accomplishing exactly that objective, and I suggest that we discuss the principles further when we discuss the Bill. As the same people who vote for provincial councils vote for representatives in Parliament, and as the Administrator has to account to a parliamentary standing committee, I cannot agree that he is only responsible—as the hon member put it—to the Government and not to the people. The self-governing territories and the provincial administrations are two different types of regional governments, and I do not believe that there is a thought at the moment of parity between the two.

The hon member for Sundays River has already received a reply from the Deputy Minister and that is all I want to say about that.

I understand the emotional reaction of the hon member for Umbilo because it is true that the abolition of the provincial system also sounds the death-knell of the NRP in Natal. [Interjections.] Therefore I excuse his terminology in this regard.

He referred to the wide powers of the Administrator. He will not have unfettered powers. Proclamations will be tabled in this Parliament and his administration will be scrutinised by a standing committee on provincial affairs which we envisage will be established in terms of the rules.

But you said he would have provincial powers like the State President.

The hon member’s contention that the Administrators are controlled by the provincial councils is simply not true.

They are controlled by Exco!

The Administrators are at present presidential nominees and cannot be removed from office by the provincial councils at all. So, there is in fact no control in this regard over Administrators. Parliament will in future be in a position to exercise greater control over the activities of the provinces than that which exists at the moment. The hon member is known sometimes to be not so temperate in the articulation of his points of view, and therefore I shall not react to his allegations of a “provincial dictatorship”.

*The hon member has also attacked me on the delays in the establishment of free trading areas. The fact of the matter is that the parliamentary select committee’s recommendation in a Bill on the establishment of free-trading areas has been accepted by the Government in toto. In terms of that legislation, supported by the hon member’s party, precisely the same procedure must be adopted in the proclamation of central business districts as in the proclamation of a group area. That is why I am not empowered to delegate this to a local authority.

†Now I should like to come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s party is committed to the extension of participation of all communities in the processes of government. However, when proposals are made to ensure the extended participation by other communities in these processes, the hon member, as the leader of the PFP, rejects these proposals. It is surprising that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now supports the present provincial system as effective representative government …

He did not say that.

… notwithstanding the fact that all but the Whites are completely excluded from the system. [Interjections.]

We want it extended. That is very clear.

I believe that if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is committed to this concept of extended participation, he should understand that we are in a transitional phase and that the participation by all groups in the new provincial system can lead to further developments. Therefore I suggest that we should not reject, as a matter of principle, any proposal to so extend the participation of communities. [Interjections.]

There is another point on which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was ambiguous and on which he owes this House an explanation. When the hon member Prof Olivier spoke, the hon members on this side of the House were given the impression that a positive attitude was being adopted and would be adopted by the Official Opposition. The hon member Prof Olivier said the following:

Nor can there be any negotiations with them about relinquishing that standpoint.

After the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech I am in the dark as to what his point of view is on this specific issue. Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agree with his colleague, the hon member Prof Olivier? Does he agree that we should not negotiate with people who use or propagate violence as a political instrument? If he advocates the unconditional release of Mr Mandela, that is a negation of the point of view of the hon member Prof Olivier. [Interjections.]

That is not true! He did not say that.

There is only one man responsible for Mr Mandela still being in jail, and that is Mr Mandela himself. [Interjections.] Therefore, I would like to say that it is time for us to stop this argument about the release of Mr Mandela until such time as he is prepared to accept the conditions for his release. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I do not have the time. My time is virtually up and I must reply to hon members. [Interjections.]

That is not what he was saying.

That is a misrepresentation of my words.

Mr Chairman, the hon member will have an opportunity to put matters right.

It is a misrepresentation of what he said.

Various negotiating parties are identifiable in South Africa, but I would like to make one thing perfectly clear today: The South African Government is not just one of the contracting or negotiating parties in South Africa for a new dispensation. The South African Government is, through the institutions established in terms of the Constitution—in the words of the hon member Prof Olivier again—the final authority in South Africa. Therefore, whatever we negotiate must receive the final endorsement and approval of this Parliament. [Interjections.]

*I again want to quote the hon member Prof Olivier. I hope he is not again going to say that I am misrepresenting what he has said. [Interjections.] The hon member Prof Olivier said the following:

The hon member went on in that vein, and I do not now want to quote him any further. Then he said:

What I am saying is that his words in that connection could be applied to his colleague, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, because if one reads his speech, one finds that he did exactly what the hon member Prof Olivier accused others of doing.

This brings me to the hon member for Waterberg. I want to say at once that I can find no fault with the hon member’s summing-up of my viewpoints. I think it was a reasonable summing-up. I appreciate the fact that he, in his own words, at least agrees partially on face value. I think that indicates progress. I think that is a supportive indication of the growth of common values and viewpoints amongst people in this country, something I have been advocating.

I nevertheless want to tell the hon member at once that I have some difficulty with his interpretation of my points of view— even though it represents a very subtle method of interpretation—because those interpretations do not accord with my views. He subtly creates the impression that the emphasis I place on the harmonising element in Christ could also mean the scrambling together of people in a unitary culture or ethnicity, which does not accord with my standpoint at all. I have specifically not advocated doing away with the diversity in our country. I have specifically advocated granting it recognition and adopting a positive attitude towards it. Let me tell the hon member at once that I do not agree with Prof Nico Smith’s standpoint. I do not agree with any exhibitionist, whether theological or political. My plea for greater emphasis on those factors binding South Africa’s people together, in contrast with divisive factors, does not deviate from my standpoint in any way.

The hon member also subtly creates the impression that my emphasis on communal values must, of necessity, embody a plea for integration, for diminishing a community’s right to self-determination and for the acceptance of Black majority government. My whole argument, however, was a complete contradiction of the conclusions drawn by the hon member.

Not all that clear at all! [Interjections.]

Let me say that when the hon member asked how we were going to avoid having Black majority government, he raised a fundamental issue. I agree with him. There is not a single party in this Committee that is not wrestling with that question, and I think we should discuss the matter with each other. Let me say, however, that the problem will not be solved on the basis of a simplistic, individualistic form of government that people want to bring from some other country and, without adapting it in any way, transplant onto the South African body politic. The hon member will agree with me about that. Nor will the problem be solved by a domination-orientated standpoint, in the sense of people wanting a puppet State, and dominating those who remain in one’s State because it is one’s state. [Interjections.]

I want to agree with the hon member that the conflict potential in South Africa is most probably higher than that in many other countries. This is brought about by the diversity of population groups living here, a reality we are all, without exception, confronted with.

It is also a fact that there are still traces of important elements of the Westminster model in our structures. There are also traces of important elements still left in this Parliament, in the sense that the Houses are controlled by the party that has won the most seats. Let me therefore say at once that that is why we speak of a concept of reform that can eliminate these built-in disadvantages. It is, of course, true—I should like to concede as much to the hon member for Waterberg— that the grouping together of all the Black people in South Africa as a unit, as one political entity with proportional representation for all groups, would mean Black majority government. I agree with the hon member, but let me tell him today that although we differ about the methodology, for us Black majority government is as unacceptable as would be domination by any other group. [Interjections.]

In all fairness I am trying to debate an issue with the hon member. The protection and participation of minorities must therefore be dealt with within the context of a model other than the conflict model. It must not be done on a numerical or proportional basis. That is the answer to the question the hon member put to me; in all fairness I am entitled to give him an answer to that question. I agree that we must attempt to move away from the conflict model that the hon member spoke about. We must move closer to the consensus model, which could assume a form different to anything we have thus far experienced or participated in in the constitutional sphere in South Africa. That is why we are advocating solutions acknowledging the group basis of our society, but not necessarily adopting numerical norms or criteria for political participation.

What, then, is the norm to be?

The group basis! Can the hon member not understand that?

No, we cannot! [Interjections.]

I can unfortunately not give the hon member the brains with which to understand it. I was not there when brains were dished out! [Interjections.]

You got it all!

Order!

There are various models being propagated in this specific context, models we could consider. [Interjections.] The eventual model will not be a copy of any of the existing models. Our society is too complex for that. That is why a composite State concept must be introduced in this country, one consisting of a variety of institutions according with the diversity of the country’s population. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg could perhaps disagree with me about this, but if we cannot manage this, it goes to prove that there are even fewer options open to us than we think there are.

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

No, I am sorry, I have only a few minutes at my disposal.

In my view we are, without a doubt, engaged in fundamental adjustments in our country. We must not form any judgments on the basis of the manifest nature of the negotiations, but rather on the basis of the manifest nature of the results. It is often not possible for hon members to experience or understand the drama behind the negotiations carried out for the sake of progress in the country. It is also true that the dramatic effect we hope to achieve, by way of the reforms carried out in our country, are often completely overshadowed by violence, terrorism and the concomitant publicity. Viewed objectively, however, this does not detract from the fundamental nature of what we are doing in South Africa.

I have asked us to refrain from party political pettiness in our debates.

[Inaudible.]

I said pettiness, not differences. I think hon members have largely succeeded in doing so, and I greatly appreciate that fact. I find nothing wrong in the fact that we organise ourselves into political parties. Nor do I find anything wrong with the fact that within a political party people have a specific philosophy about how they wish to address the country’s problems. Nor do I object to alternative solutions being presented, as long as they can be tested against the realities of the prevailing circumstances in our country.

I do believe, however—and with this I want to conclude—that there are times and circumstances in the history of countries and peoples that demand that we rise above petty differences. I firmly believe that our country’s circumstances are such that we ought to be able to do this. [Interjections.] I agree with hon members that this House, the House of Assembly portion of Parliament, has a leading if not decisive role to play in the process of the constitutional development of South Africa, if it is to take place constitutionally.

That is why I believe that a specific message must go forth from this House of Assembly to our fatherland and its people. What I want to say is that this demands greater unity, a greater measure of unanimity, from us.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? [Interjections.]

No, Mr Chairman, I have only another three minutes left.

He has not yet answered one question.

I do not mean that we should have greater unity in order to mobilise our forces against other communities in our country. What I am advocating is that we do so that we can join forces with other people in the country, with other communities, seeking peaceful solutions to the problems of our country. Nor does this statement imply party-political unity. It does not imply the obliteration of the diversity in our country either, nor a constitutional structure that wishes to ignore the multiplicity of the country’s population groups. It implies that all communities must join in combatting the revolution. A revolution is best counteracted by being tackled at every level, with the support of the action taken by the security forces. With reference to the words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I want to reiterate that I am opposed to violence, regardless of whether it is committed by Whites or Blacks, and regardless of whether it is left-wing or right-wing violence. I want to point to the seriousness of the fact that the primary question that South Africans will have to answer is not what type of democracy we can have, but rather whether it is at all possible to have a democracy.

I am one of those who believe that it is possible. I do believe that because if I did not, I would not be here. In future, we must jointly commit ourselves to the fact of a democracy as priority number one. Thereafter we can debate the content inherent in such a democracy or the definition of such a democracy. This commitment to a democracy, which I wish to endorse, must of necessity also tactically embody the rejection of dictatorships. In practice it must also mean the rejection of violence and the rejection of revolution, including the rejection of those who advocate this.

I believe that we in this House and in this Parliament can convey such an unequivocal message. I believe—and this is proved by the seriousness with which hon members have participated in the debate—that there are sufficient numbers of South Africans in the country who opt for peace, development and negotiation. There is, however, one thing we in this House owe the country, and that is not to reject revolution on the one hand, whilst on the other arguing in favour of the need to negotiate with revolutionaries. It means that we must reject it in all its stark reality and that we should cultivate the ability to protect people who want to function within the system so that they can, in fact, function within that system. [Interjections.]

Amendment put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—17: Barnard, S P; Hartzenberg, F; Le Roux, F J; Schoeman, J C B; Scholtz, E M; Snyman, W J; Stofberg, L F; Theunissen, L M; Treurnicht, A P Uys, C; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, W L; Van Staden, F A H; Van Zyl, J J B; Visagie, J H.

Tellers: J H Hoon and H D K van der Merwe.

Noes—109: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, P J; Ballot, G C; Bartlett, G S; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Breytenbach, W N; Burrows, R; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, H S; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Cuyler, W J; Dalling, D J; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Du Plessis, G C; Durr, K D S; Eglin, C W; Farrell, P G; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Goodall, B B; Grobler, J P; Hayward, S A S; Hefer, W J; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P B B; Jordaan, A L; Kleynhans, J W; Kriel, H J; Landman, W J; Lemmer, W A; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, N W; Lloyd, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, M D; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Miller, R B; Morrison, G de V; Munnik, L A P A; Myburgh, P A; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Poggenpoel, D J; Rabie, J; Rencken, C R E; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, H; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J; Schutte, DPA; Schwarz, H H; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Sive, R; Steyn, D W; Swanepoel, K D; Swart, R A F; Tarr, M A; Tempel, H J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Terblanche, G P D; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Linde, G J; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, HEJ; Van Rensburg, H M J (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H M J (Rosettenville); Van Staden, J W; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Vermeulen, J A J; Viljoen, G V N; Vilonel, J J; Weeber, A; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L; Widman, A B; Wilkens, R H; Wright, A P.

Tellers: J P I Blanché, A Geldenhuys, W T Kritzinger, C J Ligthelm, J J Niemann and L van der Watt.

Amendment negatived.

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr Chairman, the preamble to this amending Bill makes it very clear that the objects and powers of the SABC are to be extended by this Bill. The extension of the objects and powers is drastic and comprehensive, so much so that in his second reading speech the hon the Minister said this was ushering in a new era in the electronic media in South Africa.

In the first part of my speech I referred to certain major problems which one had to face at the beginning of this new era, if this new era was not to head for disaster.

A last matter I want to touch on, is the question of the staff set-up in the SABC. All is not well in that respect. If things are not straightened out and if the SABC, on the threshold of this new era, does not consider its internal problems in depth, the SABC will be heading for disaster. Last year a number of people were dismissed from the SABC, and the headline of Beeid of 15 August 1985 read: “Koppe rol by die SAUK”. In addition they wrote that these steps were the worst ever taken in the history of the broadcasting service. This was merely an indication of what was afoot in the SABC. On 27 April 1986, the following appeared in Rapport:

A condition which deserves the serious attention of this House and of the hon the Minister, is prevailing in the SABC. As the most concrete indication of the rot that has already set in the SABC’s staff set-up, I want to refer in particular this afternoon to the case of Miss Moira Tuck who was the producer of Prime Time. As no other South African has, she learnt complete control of television as a medium within the space of a few years. She developed into a brilliant director; she took Prime Time to the sixth position on the popularity list; and she was given the award for the best production leader of the year last year. At the peak of her fame and her achievement—it is a South African achievement—she was dismissed and her association with the SABC was ended after she had reprimanded Dorianne Berry, who was only a presenter of Prime Time. This happened because Dorianne Berry is the wife of Robin Knox-Grant, who occupies a very high post in the SABC. The only reason given by the SABC thus far for dismissing the brilliant Miss Moira Tuck, was that they had discovered someone else in the SABC who could do the work just as well. This “someone else” is a former inspector of Indian education, Mr Shan Mood-ley, who was appointed in Moira Tuck’s place. According to a recent article in Huisgenoot, Prime Time moved down the popularity list in a few months, so that it does not even hold the fortieth place at the moment. Under Mr Moodley’s leadership, Prime Time has plunged to the bottom—from almost the very top to almost the very bottom.

There is a whole tale to tell behind Prime Time’s collapse. It was not a mere disagreement between Miss Moira Tuck and a few of her immediate seniors in the SABC. A drama, more gripping than anything ever broadcast on TV or on radio, is unfolding in the SABC with regard to the ousting of Miss Moira Tuck.

Miss Tuck got reams of publicity from the Press, and I want to praise them today. The English-and the Afrikaans-language Press brilliantly exposed the drama concerning Miss Tuck and gave her case reams of publicity over a period of months. It has not ended yet, nor is it going to, because a very serious screw is loose in the SABC.

It would not have been exposed without the irreproachable personal integrity of the brilliant Miss Moira Tuck. She decided so far and no further, and, single-handedly, she challenged the mighty SABC. If the SABC does not rectify its mistakes, it is going to come to grief against Miss Moira Tuck’s personal integrity.

The SABC is conducting a vendetta against her. After violating her contract and dismissing her, they made it quite clear to the managements of other bodies to which she would possibly apply for work that they should not employ Miss Tuck, because nothing that had been touched by her would be used by the SABC. [Interjections.]

On another occasion she was physically removed from the SABC grounds. She wanted to have a meal there with a friend, but after a scuffle she was physically removed by the guards.

The upshot was that Miss Tuck took the SABC to the Industrial Court last year. She did it single-handedly and at her own expense. After the Industrial Court had considered the matter, they came to the following conclusion inter alia:

They put her in the right. In addition they said:

They continue:

I maintain that this is the situation in the whole of the SABC, but it only came to light in Miss Moira Tuck’s case because she, with her limited financial resources, had the courage to challenge the SABC, which has money running out of its ears.

Rapport of 22 September 1985 writes the following about the matter:

This is only a small indication, but it touches the heart of the decay in the SABC. The whole new dispensation will miscarry if this is not rectified.

A few days later the SABC issued a statement and on 29 September 1985 Rapport wrote the following:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the attack of the hon member for Sasolburg on the SABC was nothing but a hysterical tirade. [Interjections.] The SABC need take no notice of him. [Interjections.] The hon member’s conduct in this House reminds me of that of the hon member for Jeppe. During the past few years he has got up quite bravely and made a strong personal attack on the hon the Minister of Defence. It boomeranged, because this House is a cruel place. Earlier this year the hon member for Jeppe asked for the Speaker’s protection in a whining tone of voice when hon members addressed certain words to him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg is one of my voters, and his tirade reminded me of an event in 1981 when the hon member for Waterberg, another of my voters, made a speech in the Pretoria North city hall. At the time he was still the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. That night he defined the NP’s policy very neatly, and when he was asked about the HNP, he said it was the “hap-napap” party. [Interjections.] I thought we were getting someone who could state principles in the House and formulate party policy clearly, but it seems we have got an hon “hap-na-pap” phenomenon in Sasolburg. [Interjections.] As his MP, I want to tell him he must not take himself too seriously. [Interjections.] If hatred and envy is his only contribution to South African politics, he will leave nothing permanent behind.

React to the matter at hand, and leave the man alone! [Interjections.]

I shall address the matter now.

I should like to support the Bill, and I want to express a few thoughts about the sources of revenue and the expenditure of the SABC. [Interjections.] We are experiencing an era in which most individuals and business enterprises have to look after their revenue and expenditure very carefully to be able to live within their financial means. This period of economic oppression is forcing almost everyone to self-examination and rationalisation. In the long term, this can only be beneficial.

One cannot but see the forced rationalisation of our time against the background of high cost structures and the ostentation one sees in many spheres and in many enterprises, including State and semi-State enterprises.

As an example, I should like to refer to the exorbitantly high cost structure which was built up in the South African tourist industry. I shall probably be permitted to express a brief thought about this. The regulations of the former Hotel Board tolled the knell for many a small hotel, and today the ordinary local tourist can barely afford to stay in one of the frightfully expensive classified hotels or motels overnight.

I am referring to these things because I should like to remind the board and the management of the SABC that their staff must keep in mind that we are living in South Africa and not in the USA. Johannesburg is not New York. We cannot apply the luxurious standards of the USA in South Africa, simply because we cannot afford to.

The State-controlled SABC-TV service was introduced in South Africa ten years ago, and we on this side of the House are justifiably proud of what has been achieved. I should like to quote a paragraph from the SABC’s annual report for 1985. The chairman of the board, Dr Brand Fourie, writes the following on page 11 :

I want to emphasise that the SABC’s chief task is to inform, to educate, to entertain and to project a positive message about South Africa’s people. That is a fine objective, and I wish the board and the staff of the SABC every success in their pursuit.

During the last few weeks, after the publication of the annual report, the SABC was in the firing-line of criticism, particularly concerning its financial statements and its financial affairs in general. To my mind the state of public opinion is summarised well in a leading article in Die Transvaler of 9 May:

In addition the opinion is expressed that it is time for greater financial expertise to be employed on the highest level. This opinion has my wholehearted support, and I want to advise the hon the Deputy Minister—since the hon the Minister is not here now—that he should also appoint experts in the spheres of finance, marketing, planning and electronic engineering to the board of the SABC.

I should like to make a few specific remarks about the SABC’s revenue and expenditure.

In the first place, the annual report refers to the TV licence fees which are approximately 5% more expensive than the combined radio and TV licence fees were 10 years ago when TV was introduced. This is not a good argument for wanting to increase the licence fees now, however. One has only to look at our population’s income profiles to realise that in many respects we are a very poor country. Most of our people are actually living in the so-called Third World. I am completely opposed to an increase in TV licence fees, because we cannot afford to make TV licences in our country expensive.

It is quite wrong of the SABC to compare licence fees in our country with those of other rich countries. The circumstances in those countries are totally different from those in our country. So many people get up and say this costs so much in America and that costs so much in Japan, but the circumstances in those countries differ from South Africa’s circumstances to such an extent that comparisons of that nature are very seldom meaningful.

A second point I want to make is related to the piracy rate. According to the annual report, the piracy rate is very low—approximately 5%. One must expect this percentage to increase, however, if the licence fees are increased. The SABC will not necessarily have a higher income if the fees are increased. Instead we shall have an even more serious law enforcement problem.

Since the SABC began to televise advertisements in its SABC-TV1 telecasts on 2 January 1978, the electronic media’s share in the advertising pool has risen from 16,5% to 37%. This has forced our printed media in particular, especially during the past few years, to rationalise, and the circulation of more than one newspaper in South Africa has been terminated. Certainly rationalisation was necessary in some cases, but the question now arises as to whether the SABC is prepared to rationalise to the extent in which it forced newspapers to do so.

In my opinion the SABC has a variety of ways to cut its coat according to its cloth. One obvious way out is to cut down on the rate of capital expenditure. A second alternative is to enter into the marketing of television services for educational purposes in a more dynamic way. We have an enormous mass education problem in South Africa. This is a great challenge, and we shall only be able to deal with it by the large-scale utilisation and imaginative use of the electronic media. Expensive licence fees will defeat this end, since one wants to use the electronic media to bring education to the masses.

A third alternative for the SABC is to make an in-depth study of the hours in which televising takes place. We have all seen that the televising hours on Sundays have been reduced, but what about late night broadcasts? How many people who do a full day’s hard work can still sit and watch TV after 22h00 at night? The percentage of people who can do so is so small that the SABC must consider its late night broadcasts.

I want to emphasise once again that we are living in South Africa, and not in the USA. We cannot afford the luxuries they have.

They can televise Network after 12 o’clock noon, instead of at night.

Really, Mr Chairman, that hon member contributes so little to the debates in this House. His contribution is inversely proportionate to the noise he makes.

A fourth possibility is to cut down on exorbitantly expensive programmes and projects. In this connection I want to refer to the Shaka Zulu project and I should like to know what that exorbitantly expensive project has earned.

I conclude by saying that the bounden responsibility of any monopoly in South Africa is continuous self-examination, and I really hope the board and the management of the SABC will take my well-meaning words to heart.

Mr Chairman, when we discuss the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, we can also lavish praise on the South African Broadcasting Corporation a great deal.

Why do you not do that?

The hon member must really just give me a chance. He is a bit too hasty. Let me tell him that.

And too nervous!

Yes, he is also nervous and he has a reason to be, particularly when he has voters in his constituency like the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon the Leader of the CP. [Interjections.]

We have good reason to congratulate the SABC on some of its programmes. I think we can thank the SABC very much for bringing the test matches into the homes of thousands of people, and that we could see that perfect kick to the corner flag of Naas Botha’s and the speed of the Springbok wing, Carel du Plessis, when he scored the winning try next to the corner flag. We are grateful for having been able to see that.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member from which university the Springbok team’s fly-half plays. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that all of us in South Africa are proud of that blonde Tukkie and the role that he played on Saturday.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order! It does not seem to me as if a division on this point is being requested. [Interjections.]

Sir, I can tell you that there is at least one Botha in South Africa about whom there is consensus! [Interjections.]

I am thinking of the fine performances of foreign gymnastic teams here, entertainment and educational programmes and the splendid athletics broadcasts which made it possible for us to watch the activities of brilliant athletes from our sitting rooms. We can therefore also sing the praises of the SABC-TV. [Interjections ]

The hon member referred to the fact that it was the SABC’s task to provide information and that it also had the job of educating and entertaining viewers. During the course of my speech I shall refer to the SABC-TV’s job of informing people, the SABC-TV, which in our view has become the mouthpiece of the NP. It is an extension of the NP’s propaganda these days. The CP objects most strongly to this, and not just us, but also the general public. [Interjections.]

There is a second matter which I want to raise. I think the programme the SABC broadcasts every morning in which an impression is given of what is happening in the Parliament of South Africa is very good. In the past there were 185 members of Parliament, and 10 minutes were set aside for this programme every morning. Attention was paid to the contribution of virtually every hon member who made a speech in this House. Now there are 308 members of Parliament, but still only 10 minutes are set aside for this programme which presents an image of Parliament and parliamentarians to everyone in South Africa. I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if the SABC could not consider spending 30 minutes on this instead of the present 10 minutes. [Interjections.] In that way full justice could also be done to the speeches made in the House of Assembly.

But I do at least want to say I take my hat off to the representatives of the SABC in the Press Gallery who often select just an essential sentence from a member’s speech, which is then conveyed to the voting public the following morning. [Interjections.] I therefore want to call upon the SABC to extend this important time. I also thought it was a very clever idea of the SABC-TV to broadcast essential parts of members’ speeches and then to broadcast them directly, so that the voters over in Kuruman can now and then hear the voices of their representatives here in the House too. [Interjections.] I thought that was a fine example, which could even be extended, but the time alotted to it is too short at present. I have no problem with the fact that NP Ministers and members of Parliament are often exposed to the viewing public.

Also to André Fourie?

For example there is the hon member for Turffontein and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I have no problem with the fact that they are being exposed to the public, because every time after these hon members have appeared on TV, even more people have joined the CP. [Interjections.]

What does in fact cause us many problems, is the untruths, the misrepresentations that are made concerning hon members of the CP and their standpoints. I should like to indicate this to hon members. In clause 1(b) of the Bill the “Minister” is referred to, which is now being amended to the “Minister of Foreign Affairs”. I understand that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be addressing a closed meeting in Brits next Friday evening.

Never! Closed? [Interjections.]

We now want to invite the hon the Minister to hold a public meeting in Brits on Friday evening, and to bring the SABC-TV along. We guarantee his safety. It is not necessary for him, as it was for the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and the hon member for Brits, to organise 100 policemen to guarantee their safety. [Interjections.] It is also not necessary for them to bring Kallie along to guarantee their safety. [Interjections.] We shall guarantee their safety. We shall guarantee their safety, but I do not think we can guarantee that they will manage to make speeches in Brits.

Can we old United Party supporters come along too? [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member for Umhlanga that the decent Saps are with the CP, and that the liberals have joined the NP by now. [Interjections.] The hon member will have to make a choice soon because at the moment the NRP is known as the “Nat Reserve Party”. [Interjections.]

Up until now none of the hon members of the NP have reacted to the amendment of which the hon member for Brakpan has given notice, ie the appointment of an ombudsman or an arbitrator to the SABC in the person of a judge of the Supreme Court to hear complaints and to give judgement. During and after the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote the letter pages of newspapers were full of the arguments of people objecting to the SABC.

Normal companies hold annual meetings of shareholders, during which they can listen to the objections and criticism of shareholders. The shareholders can even change the board of directors of the company concerned.

Mr Chairman, I ask the hon member for Kuruman if he can tell us why the hon member for Brakpan did not raise the amendments he is raising now in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, that is a question which the hon member for Bloemfontein North himself must go and ask the hon member for Brakpan. He serves with him on that committee.

I do not serve on that standing committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member says he does not even serve on that standing committee. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members sitting behind the hon member for Kuruman who are making things difficult for him.

Mr Chairman, I do not blame my hon colleagues sitting here behind me if they try to breathe a bit of life into the hon member for Bloemfontein North. [Interjections.]

The CP states that every company should convene an annual meeting to give shareholders the opportunity to air their grievances and complaints. This is not the case with the SABC, however. The person who is dissatisfied, complains to the SABC. The SABC, the accused, tries the case. After the SABC, which is the accused, has finished trying the case, it also hands down judgement on the complaint laid against it.

It simply passes sentence on the complainant too.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says it simply passes sentence on the complainant too.

It is the judge and the executioner!

We therefore ask hon NP members to react to the amendment moved by the hon member for Brakpan that a neutral arbitrator be appointed to the SABC.

When complaints were raised during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote, he said that he would see to it that the Chairman of the Board of the SABC and the Director General would be brought here so that they could listen to the complaints we were airing here. At that stage the hon the Minister was apparently not aware of the fact that the Chairman and his Director General had been here a few weeks before and had listened to the complaints. The discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote was on 5 May and he then told us he would bring the Chairman and the Director General along so that the CP and the other parties could present their complaints. The Chairman and the Director General, however, were here on 15 April to listen to our complaints. [Interjections.] During these discussions the CP mentioned numerous practical complaints to him. I should like to mention one example to hon members. I quote from a transcript. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, there are frivolous backbenchers who do not know what this legislation embodies, and who are not interested in the legislation before this Parliament. They make jokes while we are dealing with serious matters. [Interjections.] They are welcome to continue making jokes because the voters will reckon with these jokers of Parliament in the next election. [Interjections.]

I quote from a transcript:

This man uses the Indaba idea and he speaks here of the ANC, the UDF and Azapo. Then he says that they and the CP lie in the same bed and are “strange bedfellows”. I think it is scandalous to link the CP to these organisations.

That employee of the SABC still does that after his Minister said in Bonn that all the ANC has to do, is to renounce violence and then he would talk with them. That hon the Minister recently said in this House that under the new dispensation a Black could become the State President of South Africa.

That is right!

Yes, the hon member is correct; according to the NP’s policy this can happen. If Nelson Mandela is freed, there would be nothing to prevent him from becoming the State President of South Africa. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is now making such a noise, may make as much noise as he likes. [Interjections.]

I want to refer the Committee to another matter. A week before the discussion of the State President’s Vote, a report appeared in the South African newspapers and in the SABC-TV’s news bulletin stating that President Reagan had said that President Botha find apartheid repulsive. The hon the Leader of the CP asked him during the discussion of the State President’s Vote whether he left an impression with Pres Reagan that he, the very Pres Botha, found apartheid repulsive. In his inimitable way the State President gave the hon the Leader of the CP a political reply, and in doing so created the impression that the hon leader had insulted Pres Reagan, and with that had set South Africa’s friends against him.

That evening the SABC-TV did not broadcast any part of the speech of the hon member of the CP, but with reference to this twisting of the truth his photograph appeared, while the words of the State President were quoted, in which he put words into the mouth of the hon leader of the CP indicating that he had insulted Pres Reagan.

That is scandalous! [Interjections.]

It is scandalous how the SABC-TV can distort the truth in an attempt to put the hon leader of the CP, as well as the Conservatives in South Africa, in a bad light.

Is that not scandalous?

After the discussions which the CP and other parties held with the Director-General and the chairman of the board, and after the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote, during which the CP put forward specific complaints, we find the following lie, which was presented as the truth by the SABC-TV in its news service. This is a deliberate lie, which is being broadcast to cast suspicion on the right wing elements in South Africa.

On 8 May 1986, Mr Chris Olckers appeared on the SABC-TV’s 17h45 news bulletin to report on two bomb explosions in Pretoria, and one in Alexandra. Amongst other things, he said the following, and I quote:

That is a scandalous thing!

On 9 May 1986, at 11h50, Mr J W Bell, one of the chairmen of the CP, telephoned the news editor of the SABC-TV and spoke to a Mr Van Staden. He admitted that he was responsible for preparing the news bulletin of the previous evening. Mr Van Staden, as well as Mr Chris Olckers, said that the statement that right-wing groups could possibly be responsible for the explosion was the opinion of the SA Police. Mr Chairman, see how they drag the SA Police into their lies.

Mr Olckers said the charge against right-wing elements was contained in a Police report. After that we ’phoned the John Vorster Square Police and they categorically denied that the words used by Mr Olckers were to be found in the police report. The Police testified that it was an infamous lie if Mr Olckers alleged that his contentious statements were contained in the police report. [Interjections.] This coward comes along, however, and he attributes a quote which he made in a news bulletin and sucked out of his thumb to cast suspicion on the right-wing elements of South Africa, to the Police, and cast suspicion on them too. I think that is a crying shame, and if it is true the hon the Minister ought to fire this representative of the SABC immediately. [Interjections.] I think the hon the Minister should also pack his bags. [Interjections.]

Yesterday during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote in the House of Delegates, Mr Rajbansi, one of the hon the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues, said: “The SABC treats the Indians like dirt”. I now want to tell the SABC today that they cannot do justice in an integrated service to the cultural needs of the separate population groups in South Africa. The solution is to be found in introducing separate services and separate channels for the various cultural groups and the various peoples in South Africa.

And for the Greeks, and for the Portuguese!

And for the Van Rensburgs!

I quote the following:

The image projected by the SABC, must therefore be in line with the image of South Africa which the Department of Foreign Affairs wants to project. It is very interesting that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spent a lot of time in Washington. The present Chairman of the Board of the SABC spent a long time in Washington. The present Director-general was in New York for a long time. [Interjections.] Thank heavens, I have my feet firmly on the ground, on South African soil! [Interjections.] Any influence I have, does not come from Washington. [Interjections.] I thank heaven for this. The image which we should like to radiate, is an image of the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The Ministry and the top management of the SABC-TV, however, have all paid a visit to America. That is why I do not find it at all strange that virtually every programme that appears on TV, is American. Some of them have been translated and dubbed into Afrikaans, but in each of those programmes, there is a Negro, or a Negro woman, or a Negro child who is the hero of the programme and who is embraced and kissed by Whites. This must form part of the educating process which the hon member spoke about, to prepare the Whites of South Africa for the integration politics of the NP.

That is reconciliation! [Interjections.]

The hon member says that is integration! That is the kind of integration which the hon members of the NP are forcing down the throats of the televisions viewers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is not true too that the CP members’ children are being raised by Blacks? One finds this in many of their constituencies. [Interjections.]

I cannot speak on behalf of other CP members, but my children have never been looked after by people of colour. [Interjections.] Even if his children are in fact being cared for by people of colour, it would not be an excuse for that hon member’s now having to accept political integration, cultural integration and integration at all levels for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and many of his senior staff members went and paid a visit to America and they all want to force the image of the American way of life down the throats of South Africans. The hon the Minister has his followers here—the newspapers say there are about 46 of them— and we want to ask the hon the Minister to approach the State President and to insist on a general election being held, because South Africa would like to relieve this Parliament as well as the SABC-TV of a Minister who is following the road of integration, and of a management which wants to force integration down the throats of South African viewers day after day. The CP can definitely not support this legislation.

Would you go and stand in Kuruman again?

That hon member has just asked whether I would go and stand in Kuruman again. Let me tell him that I have just got hold of an NP newsletter. In it it is stated that in 1982 there were just over 3 000 listed members of the NP in the Kuruman constituency. In the first year, 1983, their numbers dropped by 3%, the second year by 7% and last year when the Government accepted power-sharing with Blacks, they dropped by 32%. At the moment the NP only has 1 800 registered members in Kuruman. [Interjections.] If an election is held—I hope this happens tomorrow—I am going to stand again, and I will come back to Parliament! But that hon member will definitely never see the inside of this Parliament again. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Kuruman carried on here with a habit he has, namely to hit out at the backbenchers of the NP. [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon member for Kuruman how many new backbenchers that party has in Parliament. [Interjections.] This is not the first time that hon member has attacked my right to participate in the proceedings of this House. I just want to tell him that I have far more right to participate in proceedings here …

If the Progs had not been there, you would not have been here! [Interjections.]

I also have far more right to participate than does the hon member for Jeppe! I am here under the banner under which I fought an election, unlike 16 of the 18 hon members of that party sitting here. [Interjections.]

Against that background …

You are a presumptuous backbencher!

Sir, and that hon member is a very crafty political squatter! [Interjections.] He is here under a false banner. [Interjections.] If the SABC accedes to the hon member’s request … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May anyone in this House say that someone else is here under false pretences? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springs must withdraw that statement.

Sir, I withdraw it with pleasure. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman is in any case not here under the banner under which he originally came here.

Neither are you!

You are here under a Prog banner! [Interjections.]

If the SABC must do justice to this hon member’s contribution they will have to use it late at night along with Benson or Maud!

In reality there are only two hon members of that party who are here under the banner of the CP. Against this background I want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to ask the SABC to give serious consideration to the amount of time they devote to that party. I think that proportionally they get far more news coverage than their representation in this House justifies. [Interjections.]

When this legislation was discussed in this House on a previous occasion, the hon member for Pietersburg said the following, and I am quoting him:

To say that he is speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the voters outside, is extremely presumptuous. As a matter of fact it borders on arrogance, because he is also sitting here under a different banner to the one under which he originally came here. [Interjections.]

I prefer to get back to the Bill under discussion, because the opposition parties have thus far used this debate as a general debate on the SABC. This Bill makes provision for far more than merely the partnership between the SABC and M-Net. It also makes provision for co-operation with other people. When the hon the Deputy Minister made his Second Reading speech, he said inter alia:

One of the needs which I feel has come to the fore time and again in recent years, is a continuous Christian radio service. I am aware of many inquiries and representations addressed to the department in this regard in recent years. Characteristic of this need is the fact that the mission service of the NG Church inter alia broadcasts programmes to the rest of Africa from at least two neighbouring states.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19 the House adjourned at 18h00 until tomorrow at 14h45, pursuant to the Resolution adopted on Wednesday, 7 May.