Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Mr Speaker, we know the hon. the Minister of Transport in many moods and by many nicknames, but one thing of which you could always be sure was that the hon. the Minister knew his department and gave direct, although not always popular, answers to the questions put to him. If you asked a question you got an answer. Whether you liked your answer or not was a different matter. But the hon. Minister knows his department, and that is why this debate has been a strange one because the Minister appears to have been evading issues which were put to him throughout the whole of this Budget debate so far. It was an unpopular Budget; it was a Budget which will lay a further burden on to the shoulders of the people and particularly on to the shoulders of the working man who has to catch his train to get to work every day and who is going to find the dwindling, if not already absent, margin between expenditure and income become even smaller as a result of this load which is placed on him. One can understand therefore that there should be some reticence on the part of the hon. the Minister but one would not expect him to evade questions to the extent to which he has evaded questions put to him throughout the week during which this debate has proceeded.

Sir, I want to look at a few of the questions which hon. members have detailed and specified and to which the Minister has either given evasive answers or which he has completely ignored. He has followed his well-known tactics but he has followed them to a greater extent on this occasion. He would jot down a word and then get up and answer a question quite different from the one put to him. Let me give an example of this. When I raised with him the question of planning and the diminishing number of additional trucks taken into service each year he ignored the question in the first place and answered another question which I had not asked at all. He explained a difference which I had myself referred to between the numbers taken into service and the net figures given, but he did not explain to this House how it was that over the last four years a smaller net number of goods vehicles has been taken into use each year after deducting the number removed from service. So, while we have an increasing demand for transport facilities, the number of vehicles available and on order to carry the goods has not kept pace with that demand. When we raised this issue with the hon. the Minister he gave us an answer to a question which we had not asked; he said that when you placed an order you did not always get delivery in the same year. That is not the issue, Sir, The issue is that for four years in a row, each year fewer new trucks have been put into service, more trucks have been sanctioned and after four years we have not closed the gap. That is an example of what I call the evasions of the hon. the Minister. But there have been others.

Try another example.

I will give some more. The hon. member for Maitland and myself raised with the hon. the Minister the question of the special committee which for ten years has dealt with the problem of staff shortages and where non-Whites could be used with the agreement and consent of the Staff Associations. What happened when we raised this issue. Sir? The hon. the Minister started a quiz-kid effort while I was speaking; he tried to get me to specify what grades we recommended should be taken over by non-Whites and what jobs should be done by Whites. We came back and said, “But you have a committee dealing with this particular task; tell us what negotiations have taken place; what jobs have been investigated; what recommendations have been made and what has been the reaction from the Staff Associations?” Sir, we are not the committee. We are the Opposition and the hon. the Minister is the Minister in charge. He has a committee to deal with this issue. It is not for him to ask us to run the Railways for him; it is for us to ask him what he is doing about it; it is for us to deal with the issue in broad principle, as we have done, and it is then for the Minister to say, “This is what I am doing”. But time after time we raised the issue and the hon. the Minister evaded it; he skirted around it and did not give us a straight and clear answer. I want to repeat the undertaking given by the hon. member for Yeoville by way of interjection that we on this side of the House will support any steps taken by the hon. the Minister to utilize non-White labour provided it is done in consultation and by negotiation with the Staff Associations. Provided the Minister follows the time-tested procedure laid down by this side of the House—Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister smiles; of course it is laid down by this side of the House; the hon. the Prime Minister knows it.

The Minister will not deny it.

The Minister will not deny it. Provided the hon. the Minister follows that procedure, he will have our support and we will not exploit the matter for political purposes.

Let us take a few more examples. The hon. member for Zululand raised with the hon. the Minister the problem of conveying sugar from the bumper crop that is expected for 1971. He said there had been difficulties when there was a normal crop and this year there was expected to be a bumper crop plus a bumper crop of mealies. He asked what the Minister could tell the House and the sugar farmers of Zululand in regard to trucks and traction to move the sugar crop this year. The hon. the Minister did not answer. He said he would write him a letter. Did the Minister not say he would write a letter?

I told him that the Management would do their best to transport the sugar cane.

That is not an answer. That is what the Minister tells us every year. That is a generalization; we want an answer. Has this been considered by the planning section? Has it been considered and investigated, and can the Railways carry the traffic offered? Because sugar cane in its raw state is a perishable. It must be delivered at a specific time whilst the mills are crushing. It must be cut at a specific time and it must be delivered within a certain time. It is no good saying: “We will investigate and see what we can do.” That is not the answer.

We have other examples. The hon. members for Yeoville and Salt River, in dealing with planning, quoted over and over examples which prove beyond doubt that the hon. the Minister was aware, and has been aware since 1957 and 1958, of the intended increase in ore exports from South Africa. They asked for a reconciliation between this indisputable fact and the excuse which is made that the Railways could not carry the traffic because they were not advised and warned by the industries concerned. The two things do not go together. Here we have factual recorded information that it was known that these increases would take place, yet the Minister blames the industry for not having given him advance notice.

Questions put by the hon. member for Salt River were evaded again. He pleaded with the Minister to consider not loading the rates on coal to the Cape power stations because of the increased electricity costs it would lead to. He dealt with this matter at length, but the Minister completely ignored the question and gave no answer at all.

The hon. member for Umbilo raised the question of pensions for non-Whites. Over 50 per cent of the employees of the Railways are non-Whites and the hon. member for Umbilo raised an important issue in regard to the pensions of the non-Whites and the present position of their compulsory savings, but no answer was given to that.

The hon. member for Port Natal raised the question of Richard’s Bay and I want to repeat it. I want to put it in specific terms and ask the Minister whether there has been an investigation by the C.S.I.R., whether there has been an investigation completed into tides, range and other aspects of the harbour, and if so, whether there has been any report from the C.S.I.R. in regard to this. Because there are disturbing rumours in circulation, and either those rumours have some basis of fact or we expect the hon. the Minister to stand up and say categorically that there have been no problems in this regard and that he has had no adverse reports. What he said was that we are moving along according to plan and the harbour was not due to be brought into use until 1976, but he evaded the question whether snags had been struck, whether there were difficulties and whether there had been any investigations and reports. So one could go on.

There were other questions to which the hon. the Minister gave answers, but answers which I submit were unsatisfactory. I want to deal with just one of these in regard to the Minister’s attempt to have a little fun at my expense, when he quoted what I had deliberately stated as being a hearsay figure, of 800 vacancies for checkers. He tried to make out that I was trying to say that that was the figure. In reply the hon. the Minister said I did not know what I was talking about; I had said that there were vacancies in the harbour and I had quoted them, but that I thought the figure was higher for the whole complex. He said that the fact of the matter was that the establishment for checkers in the Durban complex is 912. I want to ask the Minister: That, I assume, includes the harbour?

Yes.

Then he went on to say that there are 255 vacancies. But last week I asked a question on this. In the harbour alone there are 302 vacancies and 72 posts temporarily filled. The hon. the Minister quoted it, and I have his Hansard manuscript here. He quoted that figure himself; he quoted it from my Hansard, viz, 72 temporarily filled and 302 vacant. Then in trying to mock me he said in the whole complex there are 912 and 255 vacancies. Sir, how do you have 302 vacancies in a section of the establishment and 255 in the overall total? I would like to see how the Minister works that one out.

Now I want to turn to another issue where I am unhappy about the Minister’s reply, and that is in regard to the disciplinary system. This is an old issue which we have raised over and over again.

It is a hardy annual.

Yes, it is a hardy annual, and the Minister gives the same answer. I am wondering whether we are on the same wavelength, whether we are not perhaps on different wavelengths. If the Minister in his reply is referring to the articulate employee, the man who has a good educational background and a high standard of intelligence, a man in a position where he has responsibility, then I will accept that the disciplinary system is a satisfactory one. It is a system which gives an opportunity for a man to defend himself and to go through various channels. But the cases we raised are not in connection with the articulate man but of the simple worker in the lower grades who probably has only passed Std. 6 or Std. 8, the man who has difficulty in expressing himself and putting his case. Those are the people who have the problem, and that is why I ask whether we are on the same wavelength. When the Minister says that the staff associations are satisfied and he is satisfied, these people are the people who can work out their defence and who can make use of the channels which are open to them, but many others cannot make use of these channels. And let us face it: They are up against the establishment, and I use the term “establishment” in no derogatory sense; I use it in the sense in which the Minister is loyal to his officials. If one of his officials makes a mistake, the Minister will 99 times out of 100 cover up for him. That is the Minister’s loyalty to his officials, in the same way that in any organization you have loyalty from a senior man to his junior. Only if there is an inescapable need to take action against an official will the machine operate. But at many levels it never gets to an enquiry; it never gets to the Railway Board, or even to the System Manager. It is the machine, the establishment, which it is not always possible to buck. Sir, I asked a question today. A man who alleged that he had been assaulted had plenty of witnesses. The Deputy Minister said there had been an enquiry, but no disciplinary action had been taken. Just to test whether he had done his homework, I asked in a supplementary question whether it was a case of assault.

It was not.

It was not?

No.

Then may I refer to the question? The question was: “Whether any employee or former employee of the Railways in Durban alleged during 1969 or 1970 that he had been assaulted by a senior official,” and the answer the Minister gave was “yes”. That is the question and that was the answer. But when I asked the Minister whether it was assault, he said: No, if it had been assault they would have taken disciplinary action.

He alleged assault, but the finding was that there was no assault.

In other words, all the witnesses were blind. All the witnesses imagined what had happened. We will ask some more questions on this. I will ask whether any staff association officially took up this matter and what action was taken. This is what I mean by the establishment. There are times when the establishment acts as a wall through which one cannot break. I accept that there are channels, that the machinery is there, but I want to say that I sometimes find it very difficult to understand the justice which it dispenses.

I want to give the case of a conductor who was having trouble with his eyesight. He booked off to go and have his eyes tested. It was found that his glasses were totally unsatisfactory and that he had to have a new pair. He was examined for them and they were posted to him. They went astray in the post, as so many things do today. Eventually a repeat pair was posted to him. In the meantime he had been continuing with his work and getting people to help him to read truck numbers by lantern light at night, because he could not see without his new glasses. In this process, the day before he got his new glasses, he made a clerical mistake by transposing the truck numbers on one siding with the truck numbers on another siding. So he was charged not on one count, but on two counts: One, for showing certain trucks in a siding in which they were not, and the other for showing other trucks in a siding in which they were not. So he committed two offences by that terrible mistake. The mistake was corrected, the trucks were correctly loaded, they were correctly handled and correctly despatched. Not one cent was lost to the Railways. He was tried. The charges included a third charge, on which he was found not guilty, of not reporting some tarpaulins. I heard about this in conversation with some men and not from him himself. I heard other men talking about it and saying that this was the sort of incident that hurt them. Consequently I took it up with him and asked him what the facts were. I then wrote to the System Manager and set out all the facts. I said that I felt that perhaps there could have been a miscarriage of justice here. I got a reply which said:

So, the facts were known. I personally checked them. I contacted the oculist and got the date on which the examination was made and the date on which the glasses were posted the first time. I checked up that they were lost and I checked up the facts concerning the second pair. I obtained all that information and sent it to the System Manager. Then I am told that no miscarriage of justice took place. The man was punished and fined R4 on each charge, that is R8. I asked him why he did not appeal. He said that he was not allowed to appeal under a fine of R10 recorded. I checked up and found that he was allowed to appeal. But I checked with a number of railway servants and they said that they were all under the impression that, unless it was a recorded sentence of R10 or more, they could not appeal. He did not appeal because he thought he had no right to appeal. This one case is not the end of the world, but it is an example of the sort of justice which I find very difficult to understand at times.

I have here a whole file of other cases. It would be impossible to go through them all. There is, for example, the case of an engine driver who demanded to be relieved after 14 or 16 hours service. He demanded his 12 hours rest. Then there are cases of people who, it appears, have been punished because they demanded their rights. Admittedly these people have their channels, but time after time one hears, not from just one or two people, but from railway servants in general, the same complaint about the so-called “bush courts”, which is the generalized name for the whole system of disciplinary procedure. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not know. I know we have welfare officers and vocational officers, and that there is machinery for this sort of thing in the Railways, but I feel that somewhere something is wrong. So often there are cases where one finds it difficult to follow the logic, the justice and the fairness of the procedures which are followed.

Sir, when we raise these matters here, the hon. the Minister asks us why we do do so here. What are we as Members of Parliament here for? I believe that one of our tasks is to plead for a little humanity when it comes to dealing with people. I know that there are rules which must be followed. I know that there would be chaos if every case were to be dealt with on its merits, but somewhere there must be room for a little compassion, and for the realization that there are human beings involved. There are human lives at stake.

I do not have the time to deal with this matter as I would like to, but there is another case I should like to mention. In this particular case the person in question had a qualification which the Railways refused to recognize. I fought for over a year. I approached the British Consulate in order to obtain documents and photostats from Britain. I did everything humanly possible, and the Railways each time wrote back and said: “We cannot review the situation. We do not accept this qualification.” Eventually the man died, the one thing he had feared, because it meant that his wife was left without adequate protection. This was because he was not given the promotion which I felt was due to him. I studied the reports he had written and the work he had done. I checked with the people with whom he worked, but each time the Railways wrote back and said: “His certificate is not acceptable. He does not have the qualifications. He cannot be promoted.” Technically that may be so, but I had certificates and letters from all over, indicating that this man had passed tests that were equivalent to those recognized by the Railways, and yet his qualifications were not recognized by the South African Railways. Because the man was a foreigner, an immigrant to South Africa, he could not rewrite the tests here, because of his language difficulties. This is one of those cases where I feel that there could have been a little compassion and a little relaxation of the rules. What is more, Sir, I found that, when I took this case up, this person not only failed to qualify for promotion, but was in fact reduced in rank. That, I am told, had nothing to do with the fact that I had taken the matter up. It just happened because of an O and M investigation!

These are the cases that make one sore and that make one feel that we are too hard and too inflexible, and that we in Parliament have a purpose. That purpose is to bring such things to the attention of the Minister. If we fail to do so, or even if we do not approach the Minister in the first instance, it is our duty to bring to the attention of Parliament these things which we feel are wrong. We are sent here to represent people. We are not sent here to be rubber stamps for the Executive. We are not here merely to thank the Minister. That is not our purpose and it is not the purpose of those hon. members opposite. The whole speech of the hon. member for Carletonville consisted of “I thank the Minister”, and he sat down. Even the Minister said that the hon. member for Carletonville had not said anything and that he had only thanked him. Sir, that is not what we are sent to Parliament for. We are sent to Parliament to represent people. If we are wrong sometimes, so be it. If we make mistakes sometimes, so be it. I would rather make ten mistakes and be hammered ten times by the Minister than let one fair and just case go unpleaded and unfought for in this House. And so, Sir, I say to the hon. the Minister that we will continue to raise the things which we think are unfair. We will continue to raise those cases which we believe are wrong, and the Minister is free to continue to hit us. Where we are wrong he can make a monkey out of us as much as he likes, but we will continue along the lines I have indicated because that is our duty. That is the task for which we were elected to Parliament by the electorate.

Finally I should like to say that this Budget is a sad budget for South Africa. It is a budget burdening the people and a budget showing that within day-to-day administration there is scope for tremendous compassion to be applied, and for improvements to be made, if this Railway service is to play its part in the life of South Africa, as it should.

Mr. Speaker, nobody has ever denied the Opposition the right to express doubt about any of the actions of the Government or about the actions taken in respect of the Railways. What we do want to charge the Opposition with, is that their actions in this regard are inconsistent. Sir, just listen to what the hon. member for Durban Point had to say during the Third Reading of this Bill today. What did we get from the Opposition that was in any way positive during the last few days we have been discussing this matter? It came from the hon. member for Yeoville, who had to call three American soldiers to testify on what they had found was good on the South African Railways. If this had had to come from them, we would have had to wait until tortoises grew feathers. However, complaints of this nature, isolated complaints, are being piled up to the ceiling. If they were to express some gratitude together with their criticism of the large group of officials who have to keep the wheels of this huge organization turning, it would be appreciated by these officials. When it comes to the officials, I want to say that they also like to hear this being said occasionally: “We are grateful for what the officials are doing”. In what way did the hon. member for Durban Point cast doubt today on the discretion of a senior official in the South African Railways, the System Manager of Natal, a person who had insight documents before him which he scrutinized and on the strength of which he had to pass judgment? The hon. member quoted from a letter here and threw it aside as if to say: “That man’s judgment is worth nothing” That is the way they judge officials. These are the people who hardly ever receive any praise, but who are overloaded with criticism, even if it is not such outspoken criticism as in this case. All we can do is to ask our Railway officials to take note of criticism such as this. This very matter, particularly one aspect thereof, could have been raised in a much more positive way. The hon. member said officials did not know they could lodge an appeal. He made a great fuss about that here. A much more positive way in which to deal with this matter, would have been for the hon. member to suggest some method of letting officials know what ways and means they have at- their; disposal. Instead of doing that, suspicion is being sown in general against the disciplinary structure in the Railways, and for that purpose isolated cases are being singled out.

It is· because they do not have a policy.

The hon. member for Randburg is right when he says that, i.e. that people say things like that when they have no policy. But let us look at what else the hon. member said. It is now suddenly being alleged that the committee appointed by the Minister to investigate and make recommendations on the employment of non-Whites in White posts is in accordance with the policy of that side of the House; now it is suddenly United Party policy. In actual fact, this committee was appointed by the hon., the Minister as long ago as March, 1969, and only last year hon. members opposite were Still unable to say how they would deal with this matter. However, the steps we took as long ago as 1961 have now suddenly become United Party policy.

That is an old policy.

I shall come back to the fact that they were still unable last year to tell us how they would deal with this matter.

Another aspect mentioned by the hon. member concerns the question of the increase in tariffs. In that regard the hon. member- merely said it was going to increase the cost of living. This matter was dealt with by the hon. member for Rand-burg in his speech during the Second Reading debate. As I see it, there is no reason why the cost of living should go up to any considerable extent as a result of this increase of 10 per cent. But if the cost of living does, in fact, increase to a considerable extent, i.e. if unrealistic adjustments are made by commerce with a view to making exorbitant profits, there is only one group of people we can point a finger at. (Interjections.] I did not say that the cost of living was not going to go up at all. The hon. member should listen; he will then be able to follow what I am saying. I mentioned a “considerable” increase, an increase out of all proportion. The problem we are dealing with here, is that the State does not have the machinery at its disposal to exercise realistic control over the effects of its financial measures, in other words, to ensure that no demands beyond what is actually essential are made on the public. The staff associations of the Railways have already threatened a boycott of commerce if commerce should introduce unjustified increases—in that case those Staff associations will on their part be acting in concert. Sir, I do not want to say anything about an organized ’ boycott, but I have a great deal, of sympathy with those people whose well-earned increases are being absorbed in an, unjustifiable way as a result of unjustified price adjustments made by commerce. However, I believe that We have both a Joint and individual duty to act as watchdogs and as such have a twofold duty to fulfil. In the first place, it is our duty to exercise the necessary thrift and, in the second place, to see to it that there is no exploitation. We should report to the proper authorities any cases of exploitation. We have to do this in order to be able to give unscrupulous profiteers their just desserts. The Railways have a duty to fulfil, a duty which is in the national interest. And it is the responsibility of commerce to ensure that this increase in tariffs is not used as a smoke screen behind which to make unjustifiable profits.

The hon. member for Durban Point again raised the question of planning. As a matter of fact, we heard a great deal about planning in this Railway debate. Considerable capital funds are going to be spent in the coming financial year and we will be concerned about the way this money is going to be spent unless there is adequate planning. There are two things the United Party has found fault with. Of every aspect which did not meet with their approval they said that it was due to a lack of planning and to an incorrect labour policy. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Durban Point said he did not want to allege that we were wrong all the time. According to him, we now and then have a stroke of luck and occasionally we do the right thing.

You should listen to your officials.

The hon. member says we should listen to the officials when they advise us and that we should have more confidence in their judgment. May I ask hon. members opposite also to follow that advice? Allow me to quote two instances where they can do just this. In saying this I assume that when one has confidence in a person one will certainly follow his advice. In his report the General Manager says that the Railways are directly affected by prevailing economic tendencies, tendencies which, to the Railways, mean a greater demand for transport facilities. For that reason, according to the General Manager, the Railways cannot relax its programme to improve rail facilities and the carrying capacity of the Railways, and, furthermore, the Railways should continue with its policy of long-term planning to keep pace with the transport requirements of the country. Let us accept once and for all that long-term planning is an integral part of the policy of the Railway Administration. Since this is what the General Manager;, states in his report, I want to ask hon. members opposite to accept what he says, just, as they want us to do. The Railways are entering the coming financial year with this integral element of long-term planning.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that planning should be judged according to the results it achieves. When we look at the results of the past year, we find magnificent results we can draw attention to, results which speak volumes especially when one takes the enormous size of this undertaking into consideration. It is an undertaking which is also subject to fluctuations of surpluses and losses, to droughts and over-production and staff shortages. Despite these problems the Railways not only succeeded in maintaining their productivity, but even in increasing it. Could they have been in a position to do this if there had not been proper planning for every sector of the Service? The fact that there is no other undertaking in South Africa which is able to show the same amount of productivity as the Railways is something the Minister boasts about and which we are proud of. Since we are entering a new financial year, we want to issue a challenge to other undertakings in the country to follow the example of the Railways. For this achievement on the part of the Railways there is only one key word—planning. Surely, this magnificent achievement can only be attributable to planning.

However, there is another aspect in respect of which the hon. member for Durban Point should accept what the officials say. He should accept what they say in regard to the safety of the Port Shepstone railway line. After all, did not the engineers submit a report on the safety of that railway line? Only yesterday we had to ask them whether they accept the findings of the engineers. But we have not had any reply from them up to now. My advice to hon. members opposite is also to accept the advice of officials when they ask us to do so. For that reason they should also accept that what was at issue here, was not the safety of the Port Shepstone railway line, but a difference of opinion in their own ranks as to how the labour policy should be applied.

As far as the coming year is concerned, there is another aspect one should draw attention to. This concerns commerce and industry. Since demands are being made on our transport system, demands are likewise being, made on commerce. This applies to two things in particular. Firstly, that there should be closer co-operation on the part of commerce as far as empty trucks on sidings are concerned. This factor alone increased the loss in truck days by 17 per cent during the past year, as against the corresponding figure for 1969. The demurrage has been increased, but this does not solve the problem. The only solution is that optimum use should be made of the trucks and that the turning times should be reduced.

Sir, the second point concerns the delivery of goods outside the normal working hours as well as night-delivery. Many positive suggestions have been made to commerce and industry in this regard but our appeals did not meet with the desired effect. It is also imperative for the coming year that not only should transport facilities be demanded from the Railways, but that the consumer on his part should also fulfil his duty. Strong and sustained criticism is sometimes levelled by organized commerce at the way the Railways are being operated and of the policy of the Railways. One wonders whether the time has not come that criticism and doubt should with the same diligence be expressed in regard to the poor co-operation we receive from individual members of organized commerce and industry. These people have a greater responsibility than merely striving selfishly to make profits. Let us also consider the interests of South Africa as a whole. When they are keeping a truck at some place or other, they should appreciate the fact that they are keeping it from somebody else who may want to use it.

Sir, I want to go further and I want to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville said in one of these debates, namely that the Minister is an intelligent person but that he unfortunately associates with the wrong people—meaning his fellow members in the Cabinet—and that his policy is the wrong one. The Opposition did not tell us what was wrong with it. We stand by it that the policy of the Minister is the correct one. The people administering the national affairs and the affairs of the Railways are the right group of people and what is at issue here, is the well-being of the majority group and what we are dealing with here, is the well-being of South Africa also as far as this Railway Budget is concerned.

The hon. member for Germiston started by accusing us of having a new policy, namely that non-Whites will be used in other jobs in the Railway service. Sir, I would like to ask the hon. member where he has been over the last few years. Surely he knows that the hon. the Minister, just prior to the election, made a statement in this House in which he said categorically that if it was in the interests of the Railways he would use non-Whites in White jobs even without the approval of the Staff Associations or of the trade unions. Surely he knows that the hon. the Minister gave us that assurance; the hon. the Minister will not deny it. Having re-thought the question the hon. the Minister came back and said that he would do so provided it did not create any problems or any unrest within the Railways, and the hon. the Minister then set out to compare his new policy with our old policy. Where was the hon. member for Germiston? Their new policy is simply our old policy. This has been our policy for years, and the hon. member for Germiston should know it; his Minister knew and he should have known.

Sir, the hon. member spoke about long-term advance planning, and he said that this was part of the policy of the Railways.

Of course.

He then had the temerity to quote the hon. member for Yeoville who said that the test lay in the results that were achieved. Sir, when it comes to results, then I am afraid that the long-term planning of this Minister has not really achieved what he hoped it would achieve, especially when you consider the difficulty that there was in 1969 in moving our bumper maize crop of that year, the trouble we had last year in obtaining trucks to supply fodder to the drought-stricken areas, the trouble we had in getting coal because there were no trucks available and the problem that we had in moving the sugar crop last year, not to mention the untold troubles of the timber industry in moving their product. The hon. the Minister knows that this is so, and I want to say to the hon. member for Germiston that if this is the test of this advance planning of which he is so proud, then I am afraid that the hon. the Minister has failed. Whether it is due to circumstances beyond his control is something which only the hon. the Minister can tell us.

Sir, I want to talk this morning particularly about the problems caused by the inability of the Railways to move timber. The hon. the Minister knows that the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association (SATGA) and other timber organizations have made repeated requests to him and to the Management of the Railways, to do something to help them out of this problem. They are experiencing greater and greater difficulty in getting their timber away to the market. The irregularity of truck deliveries has affected many growers, particularly the larger growers. Sir, if a grower has asked for a quota of eight trucks a week and he only receives five a week for two months, his position becomes extremely difficult if for the next few weeks he gets 11 trucks. True, he ends up with an average of eight trucks a week, but it makes his position extremely difficult if for two months he has to load only five trucks a week and then 11 trucks a week for the next two months. As I have said, the Railways have discharged their liability and that is to provide a certain number of trucks, but I do request that an attempt be made to give growers regular deliveries of trucks.

In this regard I want to deal particularly with the railway line between Greytown and Pietermaritzburg. The hon. the Minister knows that SATGA and the local associations have made repeated representations to him and to his department in this regard. The position is that for the year 1970 SATGA requested 496 trucks per week on that line alone. I am sorry to say that during that year the average delivery for the whole line—I am not dealing with individual stations or individual growers at this stage—-was 459 trucks per week. This means a shortage of 37 bogies every week. Do you know, Sir, that SATGA has estimated—and I know that these figures have been sent on to the Management of the Railways—that the- loss to the growers on that line alone in that year was R211 000, based on 37 bogies for 52 weeks at an average of 27½ tons of timber at an average net price to the grower of R4 per ton. I will come back later to the question of the amount received by the growers. For this year, 1971, I believe that they have ordered 532 trucks per week. This is the requirement on this one particular line, the Greytown-Pietermaritzburg line only, but the Railway Administration has only been able to guarantee 438 trucks per week. Sir, this is a shortfall of nearly 100 trucks per week or over 5 000 trucks in a year. I must admit that at the moment, during this high-peak period, the timber growers in that area are getting all the trucks they need. In fact, they are at the moment getting more than they have actually asked for. But, Sir, if this average of only 438 trucks per week is maintained, the loss to the growers in that area alone is going to be R672 000 for this year. It is estimated by SATGA that at the present rate of provision of trucks, in other words at the present rate at which the Railways can move the timber in this area, the timber growers in the Republic in this year will lose over R1 000 000 due to the inability of the Railways to move their timber. Sir, this is my answer to the hon. member for Germiston with regard to the question of advance planning.

Sir, there is another aspect. The timber industry must expand in this country. There was a report in Tuesday night’s Daily News to this effect under the headline—

This is a report of contract to supply Japan with a tremendous lot of timber. The comment of the South African Wattle Growers’ Union adds—

Sir, this hon. Minister is the key man in this particular enterprise. If we are to export, then the timber must be moved to the coast and the harbours must be able to cope with the exports. With the dwindling foreign exchange which is being earned by our gold mines, Sir, here is an opportunity to make it up. This hon. Minister is the key man and I must appeal to him today on behalf of the timber growers to plan ahead for this and to take whatever steps he considers necessary to see that the timber growers are given the opportunity of performing this service for the Republic as a whole. Can the hon. the Minister handle this export? We would like to hear from him today whether he can handle it. Dealing with the Greytown line, how far has he got with the improvements to that line? I know it has been planned over a number of years and that a further amount has been allocated to it again this year. There is another point which is worrying the timber growers in that area, namely whether this line has now reached its designed capacity, and if not, how far has it got to go before it does reach its designed capacity; and, finally, when will it be electrified?

On the question of the movement of timber, we were told by the Minister last year that he had ordered 250 of the new type SE.2 trucks, which are especially designed for log timber, but as far as we can make out, only 165 have been delivered. Can he tell us when the other 85 will be brought into service? There was also, last year, a plan to convert 100 SE.1 trucks to SE 2’s, specially for timber, How far has the Minister got with that? Have any of these been brought into service, and if all have not been brought into service, when will they all be brought into service?

The final point with regard to the timber industry is this question of the 10 per cent surcharge announced by the Minister. I was very sorry to find that the 10 per cent surcharge applies to the conveyance of timber, because the rate for the conveyance of timber already is abnormally high. The Minister knows that SATGA, SAWGU and the various other timber-growing organizations have made representations to him on this point, but here he has seen fit to impose a further 10 per cent rather than accede to their request that the rate be reduced. Do you know. Sir, that a timber producer sending wattle from the Pietermaritzburg area to Welkom for the mines receives R7.20 per ton for the timber he sends, but of that amount R3.80 is taken up in railage? This is more than 50 per cent and it leaves the timber grower a net figure of R3.40 per ton, from which he has to pay for the felling, the cross-cutting, the transportation to the station and the loading, and this after 10 years of growth. If this 10 per cent surcharge is to be added, this timber grower is not going to end up with R3.40, but he will barely get R3 per ton for his wattle. I feel that for the grower to get a gross 41 per cent of the price that is paid at the point of delivery is just too shocking for words. I want to ask the hon. the Minister today in all sincerity to reconsider this rate, a rate which was already inordinately high before he placed this 10 per cent surcharge on it. I want to ask the Minister whether he will indicate today that he will meet SATGA to discuss the question of this 10 per cent with a view to lifting all or part of this 10 per cent surcharge. I have put these aspects to the Minister in all sincerity and I hope he will accept my. representations in the spirit in Which they are put and that he will see his Way clear to meeting the timber growers in these respects.

Unfortunately I now have to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister what I consider to be a shocking episode which can only redound against the good name of the Administration, an episode which has shown a complete and arrogant disregard of human feelings. It is an episode which took place towards the end of last year. During last year the Railway Administration in its wisdom decided that pensions, particularly to Bantu, would be paid through the Post Office, with effect I think from 1st April this year. In order to get this in order so that it could be computerized they sent out questionnaires to station masters throughout the Republic to be completed in respect of the Bantu pensioners who receive their vouchers through these station masters.

What is wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with that, but just wait. This was in March last year, but up to the end of November a number of these questionnaires had not been returned, notwithstanding repeated requests from the accounting officer. Certain station masters had neglected to return the questionnaires. Then, I believe that an arbitrary decision was made by an accounting officer at head office that he would withhold those pensions until such time as the questionnaires were returned. Sir, this was shocking. The questionnaires were never sent to the pensioners. The onus was not on the pensioners to complete and return them, but on the respective station masters. This is where I must take the hon. the Deputy Minister to task for his complete and total arrogance in replying to my question which I put to him on 12th February, and particularly to the supplementary questions I put to him. From his reply to my question, I found that in December, 1970, 640 Bantu pensioners had not received their pension through no fault of their own but through the fault of the station masters who had failed to return the questionnaires [Interjection.] I will deal with the Deputy Minister in a moment. These 640 pensioners did not receive R14 867 in pensions and allowances for December, for Christmas. Sir. and this they discovered on 21st December when they went in to get their vouchers. This was due to an arbitrary decision, and that is why I say it does not redound to the credit of the Administration. This is why I am bringing it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. At the end of January 362 pensioners did not receive R8 408 for the same reason, not through their fault but through the fault of station masters who were inefficient and did not do their work, because these pensioners had been in.

I now wish to deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister. In his reply he said that questionnaires sent to pensioners for the purpose of identification were not timeously returned in these specific instances.

[Inaudible.]

With respect to the Deputy Minister, they were not sent to the pensioners, and this he will find if he investigates it, instead of sitting there in his arrogance and talking nonsense in reply to my supplementary questions. [Interjections.] What did I ask him, Sir?—

And this is his arrogant reply—

And when I asked how they were sent, he said they were sent through the postal authorities in the normal way. That is how worried he is about these people and their feelings. He has a complete and arrogant disregard of human feelings, especially for people who are not White. Would he have done the same to White pensioners, to White voters?

It was the fault of the pensioners.

It was not the fault of the pensioners. He cannot prove to this House that one single questionnaire was sent directly to one single Bantu pensioner. They were sent to the station masters where the pensioners draw their vouchers and the onus was on the station masters to obtain the particulars from the pensioners and return them to head office.

Must he get them from the bush?

He can get them. That is just the question I was waiting for him to ask. It shows that he does not know what is happening in his own Railways. He knows, or he should know, that vouchers are sent to station masters and that the pensioners appear and collect those vouchers from the station master, and at that stage the onus was on the station masters to complete the questionnaires and send them in.

And if they do not come in time?

But they had all been there. They drew their pensions for October and November—in fact, from March—and they drew their pensions every month. [Interjections.] When I asked the Deputy Minister, arising further from his reply, whether these questionnaires were not in fact sent via station masters, if not in fact to station masters, his arrogant reply again was that “it was sent through the Post Office in the normal way”. He was not interested in investigating. That was the whole question. He has shown a complete and arrogant disregard for the feelings of these people, and they are people. Sir, I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House with this. I bring it to the notice of the hon. the Minister, knowing that he will look into this matter and will see that in the interest of his Administration such an episode does not happen again.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must pardon me for not following on what he said. My time is limited. I leave him in the kind and gentle hands of the hon. the Minister and I believe that he will receive excellent treatment.

Mr. Speaker, in the dying moments of this Budget debate since we are coming to the end of it now, I want to say that if there was any message whatsoever in this Budget, or any central theme, it was the theme or message of productivity and of growth. This is being proved by the enormous capital projects provided for in this Budget. We have heard from the Opposition how inflationary this Budget is going to be as a result of the increase in the tariffs. It is very, very slightly inflationary. Previous speakers pointed out that it may lead to an increase in inflation of a mere .02 per cent. Where would one find a better and more effective method of curtailing inflation than by increasing productivity as is being done ih this Budget? This is a long-term project, the success of which will be proved in future.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville who, in his Second Reading speech, protested to high heaven here and said that the increase in tariffs had given rise to shock and indignation throughout the country. Where was the shock and the indignation? The only people who were shocked, were Mr. Paxton of the Chamber of Commerce and the hon. member himself. I want to say that, if the hon. member had looked at all the newspapers, he would have noticed that any person who had made an intelligent observation of the economic situation and of the way in which matters have developed, would have realized that an increase in tariffs was imminent. We all know that the Railways are a very large integral factor of production in the overall economic set-up of South Africa. In other words, the Railways are affected by everything which happens in the general economic situation.

When we look at the tariff history of the Railways, we find a very peculiar and important factor, namely that the tariff fluctuation has always very slavishly followed the economic pattern prevailing in the country. The tariff history of the Railways can actually be divided into five basic facets. The first facet in this development took place between 1910 and 1920. During that time it was found that tariffs increased consistently at irregular intervals. These increases took place up to 1920. From 1920 to 1930 there was a second peculiar phase in the tariff history. During that time there was a process of steady decreases in tariffs which took place at irregular intervals. This process continued until 1930. In 1930 we again had a strange and sudden increase in the tariffs. Then we come to the third phase, i.e. from 1930 to 1944. From 1930 onwards there was a sustained, regular reduction in tariffs at very short intervals. The first increase after that was in 1944. From 1944 to 1954 there was a sustained increase at irregular intervals. From 1954 to 1970 one finds a very peculiar pattern, namely that increases took place every four years, in other words, there were regular increases every four years. One may ask oneself what the reasons for and the background to this peculiar pattern in the tariffs was and then it is quite clear that these increases can be attributed to two economic periods. The first economic period was from 1910 to 1944. This is the period one may call that of an unstable price structure period.

That was the period in which the lack of equilibrium between demand and supply simply had to be adjusted by the economic laws. There was not much in the form of assistance from the Government. Neither do I believe that economists knew precisely what to do at that stage or that they were acquainted with the tendencies at a very early stage. We therefore had periods with a flourishing economy and inflation, as well as periods of depression and acute unemployment. These were followed by periods in which the economy flourished. In other words, the price level varied or oscillated between a minus or retrenching position right across the point of equilibrium back to the inflation level. That was the period of expansion and retrenchment. But since 1944, that means, in the post-war period up to the present, we entered a new phase in regard to the economic control measures. From that time onwards we entered a period of greater price stabilization. During this period corrective manipulative measures were applied by the Government. These measures were applied by governments throughout the world in respect of all economies. We then entered a period of sustained growth and full employment. It was in this period that economic development programmes were initiated, programmes for which provision is made in the budget and for which advance planning on future action has to be done. In this way the tendencies are known at an early stage and one knows exactly what to do.

As regards our present period, i.e. a period of growth, the price level is being maintained above the point of equilibrium. The economy no longer allowed the price level to drop below the point of equilibrium thus causing a retrenched economy and total unemployment. But now we find that the price level oscillates within the plus, growth or inflation sphere. During this period the enormous price fluctuations were eliminated. There was also a period of full employment. These are all major advantages. Unemployment was virtually eliminated. However, this position also had its disadvantages. What one finds now, is a price structure within the inflation sphere, in other words, in the price increasing sphere. There again one has two danger points, These are too high and too low a point. In the period we are living in at present, the oscillation of the price points between an inflation of I to 3 per cent is regarded as normal. This is what the fight against inflation is all about. Attempts are being made to maintain the price level below 3 per Cent. If one succeeds in maintaining the price level below 3 per cent, one is assured of reasonable price stability. Inflation is not something that can be eliminated completely. When speaking of price stability in these times, one does not mean static prices. There is no such thing. Nowhere in the world can inflation be eliminated completely. The major disadvantage of this is that we are living in a period of sustained price increases and inflation. Even though it is normal, it nevertheless remains at 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent. The erosion of the purchasing power goes on continuously and is ever-present. These are the phenomena we have to live with. It is an integral part of our economic system.

The Railways also has to live with these phenomena. The Railways is a prisoner of the economic system in which it exists. When price increases occur outside the Railways, the railway tariffs must of necessity be increased at some time or other. The Railways are a prisoner to that economic situation for various reasons. The reason for it is that the Railways have certain contractors doing business with it, and business firms outside the Railways are increasing their salaries. This means that the Railways- have to increase their salaries as well. This is the present situation. Now, the price stability of the Railways has to be maintained and judged according to the prevailing rate of inflation. It is quite interesting that one has a period in which changes in prices occur every four years. This is something I cannot explain. It will require considerable research to be able to explain that. However, it boils down to the fact that over the last 16 years definite price stabilization took place during periods at intervals of four years.

From 1958 to 1970 the average rate of inflation was 2.84 per cent per year. If the Railways wanted to maintain the exact position from 1966 up to the present, it would have had to effect increases of 2.84 per cent four times. This amounts to 11.4 per cent. However, the increase amounted to only 7.2 per cent. That was the average increase of all the tariffs. I think one must accept that there is not one private institution or organization in the country today that can compete with the Railways as far as labour productivity and price stability are concerned. Let us compare the position. From 1964 to 1970 the labour productivity of the Railways was 4.5 per cent per year. As against that, the labour productivity in the manufacturing industry of our country over the same period was 2.1 per cent. The economic development programme provides for a labour productivity of 2.7 per cent. This is indicative of the enormously high productivity in the Railways. As regards price stability in the Railways, from 1948 to 1970 the Railways maintained an average increase of 2.7 per cent per year as against a rate of inflation of 3.8 per cent over the same period, in other words, a difference of 1.1 per cent.

The Railways of South Africa are not placing a burden on the taxpayers of the country as is the case in other countries. I want to furnish hon. members with some interesting information. The taxpayers in Britain pay the Railways Rill million every year to keep it going. The taxpayers of Canada pay R63 million in this way every year. In Belgium the figure is R48 million and in Denmark R37 million. Then we come to Japan, which is always being held up as the country which is making such wonderful headway and progress. The taxpayers of Japan pay the enormous amount of R385 million per year to keep their railways going. Just compare our Railways with the position in the rest of the world!

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Opposition has agreed to shorten the debate by ten minutes so that we could finish the debate before 12 o’clock. I can assure them that it will not be used as a lever to Shorten the duration of Railway debates in future. I do not really feel in a belligerent mood this morning, so I will employ the gentle word and charming smile.

Will the hon. the Minister not suffer too much under this strain?

Eight hours are allocated to the Committee Stage of the Railway debate. There is no limitation on the number of times that an hon. member may speak. If I therefore do not reply satisfactorily to any point, the hon. member concerned has an opportunity of rising again. If he has not the opportunity, he can ask one of his colleagues to raise that point as has been done on several occasions. During this Third Reading debate the hon. member for Durban Point came along with a charge that I evade questions put to me or that I do not reply at all. I have always prided myself on my courtesy in replying to matters raised by hon. members. As far as is humanly possible, I normally reply in every detail. I did so yesterday for instance in regard to the question of ores raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis. There I replied in detail when I dealt with the question of the transportation of ores. I have also always replied to hon. members by letter when I tell them that I will go into a certain matter. They can vouch for that. I do not know why the hon. member for Durban Point lays the charge against me that I evade questions and do not reply to them. As I say, they have an opportunity to raise the matter again, even during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member said that I did not reply satisfactorily to his charge that the number of trucks taken into service every year is less than the number of trucks ordered. I will reply to that matter in detail now.

I said a reducing number.

Yes. The reason for the reducing number is that we are ordering and building trucks with a higher carrying capacity, for instance the new ore trucks. The new ore trucks have a much higher capacity than the ordinary ore trucks that were used in the past. Consequently, less trucks are required to carry the same tonnage. The position is that for the financial year 1966-’67 5 451 trucks were authorized. 6 793 trucks were ordered and 7 496 trucks were placed in service. The reason why more trucks were placed into service than were ordered, is because there was an overlap. We ordered trucks in the previous year and they were placed into service in the following year. 969 trucks were scrapped. For the year 1967-’68 the position was as follows: Authorized —5 605: ordered—2 063: placed into service—6 507; scrapped—838. For the following financial year, namely 1968-’69. the position was: Authorized—4 617; ordered —875; placed in service—4191; scrapped —996. For the financial year 1969-70 the position was as follows: Authorized— 3 983; ordered—3 852; placed in service— 2 838; scrapped—1 002. For the financial year 1970-71 the position was: Authorized —5155; ordered—-6 074; placed in service —4 232; scrapped—1 185. These are the details. I do not see why I should refuse to reply to a question or why I should evade a question. Surely, hon. members do not for a moment think that I am afraid to reply to a question or that I deliberately evade a question because I am afraid of the Opposition.

The hon. member also wants to know what has been discussed by the standing committee, which consists of representatives of the Management and the staff, and deals with the employment of non-Europeans in certain jobs. I am not prepared to give information in regard to the discussions of that committee, to this House or to the-public. It is a confidential matter.

But you expect us to reveal all our plans and intentions.

But the hon. member and his party do not have any plans or intentions. The only policy hon. members on that side of the House have in regard to this matter is something I stated 20 years ago. They are now only repeating it. I never said—and I repeated it in 1954 in my capacity as the Minister of Labour— that no non-European will ever be employed in a position formerly occupied by a European. This standing committee has been in existence for years before the hon. members on that side of the House thought of this labour policy of theirs. It is only in recent years that we hear that their labour policy is that they will resolve the acute shortage of labour by having discussions with the trade unions and if the trade unions agree, they will employ non-Europeans in positions formerly occupied by Europeans. We have been doing this for many years. However, the discussions that takes place in that committee, are confidential. Hon. members on that side gave me the assurance that they will not exploit the position, but why do they then want this information? Why do they want to know what the committee discusses and which jobs will be given to non-Europeans? They give me the assurance that they will not exploit this position, but still they want these details. Why do they want these details? They must have an ulterior motive.

Government members always say that we want to throw open the gates.

So the hon. member wants to exploit this information. In other words, they want to turn round and say: “You accuse us of wanting to throw the gates open, while you are doing it yourself.” That is what they want to do. If that is not their motive, why do they want the information? It is obvious that that is the reason why they want this information. That is why this question is on the Question Paper every year, namely, how many Bantu are employed in positions formerly occupied by Whites. They want that information to say that we are throwing open the gates for non-White employment. That is the reason. That is why I am holding this hon. gentleman and his party to the undertaking they gave that they would not exploit the position in future. Well, if they are not going to exploit the position, then they do not need this information. They know we are doing our best to meet a very difficult problem; they know that we have many difficulties to contend with. I have many difficulties to contend with.

Can you make that undertaking mutual?

Yes. If the hon. member’s party ever comes into power and they follow this policy we shall not exploit it.

Another difficulty I have with hon. members opposite is that they confuse planning with operating. Apparently they are not quite sure in their own minds what planning actually implies. I think I ought to give them a lecture one day and tell them what the functions of the planning division are, what the objects of a planning division are. If I do that it may clear up their confusion. Let me illustrate this confusion on their part. The hon. member for Durban Point said that I did not reply to the hon. member for Zululand about the availability of trucks for the transportation of sugar. He said that the hon. member for Zululand wanted to know what planning there was in this respect. But what has planning to do with the supply of trucks? It is an operating matter. The operating section of the Railways is a very large section with an Assistant General Manager in charge. This section is responsible for the movement of trains and the supply of trucks. It is not the task of the planning division. You see, Sir, hon. members are confused. I told the hon. member for Zulu-land that the Management was doing its best to supply the maximum number of trucks to the sugar industry. What more could I say? What other particulars could I give? Then there is the question of ores for export. It was alleged that I did not reply to this either, that I merely placed the blame on the ore producers. But that is not correct. The hon. member has been in this House for many years and he ought to know by now that one cannot build a railway line within a week. When we are suddenly, without prior notice, faced with a demand for trucks for the export of I million or 2 million tons of ore, do hon. members opposite expect that these additional trucks should have been standing there empty waiting for them? Obviously they cannot. Apart from the supply of trucks, there is the question of the capacity of the line that has to be considered.

In regard to pensions fór non-Whites, a question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, I replied to that on a previous occasion. This is not the first time it has been raised in this House. Why should I every session reiterate explanations which I have given time and time again? After all, repetition is tedious and I do not want to repeat unnecessarily. I gave the hon. member the reason why a pension scheme for non-Whites has not been introduced. The hon. member knows, therefore, what the position is. What we did was to introduce a savings scheme for Coloureds, a scheme which we are extending now also to the Bantu. They are quite satisfied and happy with that.

The hon. member also said that I did not reply to the hon. member for Salt River in regard to the 10 per cent surcharge on coal for power stations. The hon. member asked that this 10 per cent surcharge should not be applied in this case. Well, the only reply I could give the hon. member is that I am sorry, I cannot agree to do that. I say so now and hope that satisfies the hon. member.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether the C.S.I.R. had ever investigated Richard’s Bay. But that information I gave time and time again in the past. The hon. member should remember what happened in previous sessions; then he would not ask needless questions; I have a report here which says that the C.S.I.R. has been experimenting with the construction of a model already for some time. We have to have a model and tests before we can start planning and building a harbour. That ought to be obvious.

When did you tell us that?

I gave that information during previous sessions. The C.S.I.R. had been busy with these model tests for a considerable time. A final report on the model tests, tests which have to be carried out to determine, amongst other things, the most suitable layout, is now expected to become available by the end of August, 1971, i.e. about 4 months.

Did they submit interim reports?

No. They complete

their tests and then submit a report. That has been done in all cases where there have been extensions to harbours in the past. As I was going to say, this report will be four months later than originally expected. The C.S.I.R. is however of the opinion that it might be possible to make up lost time. However, of that there is no certainty. As I have said, they have to complete these model tests before we can start planning and building a harbour. For instance, we have to know where the entrance is going to be, how the tides are, the nature of the winds and of the waves, etc. We have already established that there is a channel heading out to sea for about two miles from the mouth of Richard’s Bay harbour, a channel which is sufficiently deep to accommodate ships of 150 000 tons. This is the reason why we are limiting ships to 150 000 tons. The harbour itself is deep enough, but the channel leading to the harbour is not sufficiently deep. These are matters with which we have been busy for some time, for a considerable time.

Have they discovered any unforeseen snags?

No. The model tests have however not yet been completed. Personally I think Richard’s Bay harbour will be one of the finest harbours we shall have on our coast. It is a natural harbour; it is a shallow harbour, the same as Durban harbour. As it is, you do not require a harbour with deep water throughout. If there were deep water throughout you would have trouble with wave action. The hon. member for South Coast accompanied me when we had a look at Kosi Bay. When we came to Richard’s Bay he agreed with me that Richard’s Bay was the ideal spot for a harbour.

Then the hon. member again raised the question of the checkers’ vacancies. Figures the hon. member gave were the figures applicable at the 22nd February, 1971. Since then, however, there has been a considerable improvement. Learners have since completed their courses and have been taken up into some of the vacancies. As a matter of fact within a month there has been an improvement of 132. That is the reason why there are only 255 vacancies now, much less than the number · quoted by the hon. member.

It still does not add up—252 plus 132.

Well, I have given the hon. member the information I have. If the hon. member has any further queries, I can go into the matter and write to him.

The hon. member also spoke about the disciplinary system. This, of course, is a hardy annual, and I have replied time and time again. He says that workers in lower grades, grades which require only a Std. 6 certificate, do not understand it. Then he also says that the establishment acts as a wall through which they cannot break. But that is not correct. Who is this establishment? And what happens when there is a disciplinary infringement? First of all, an enquiry is held by an experienced enquiry officer specially trained for that task. This enquiry is held and the officer finds the man guilty or not. Thereafter he submits the matter to the disciplinary officer, who is a superintendent. He then decides on punishment. The servant concerned has the opportunity of appealing to the head of his department, then to the General Manager and eventually to the Disciplinary Appeal Board where that servant is represented, or he can appeal to the Railway Board. Furthermore, he is allowed to have one of the members of his particular staff association present to assist him at the appeal. What more does the hon. member want? In the Civil Service there is no system like that. There there is no appeal at all. Railwaymen, however, have not only the right to appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board, where they are represented by their own people, but they can also appeal to the General Manager or to the Railway Board and they can have one of the members of their staff association there to assist them. What better system can there be than this? As a matter of fact, the present system works very well. The hon. member mentioned two cases. The trouble is that hon. members only hear one side of these cases. A person who has infringed the Disciplinary Regulations will obviously put the best excuse forward. He will never admit that he is guilty, but will try to persuade the hon. member that he is as innocent as a new-born babe and that he has been unjustly treated by the Administration. The hon. member for South Coast was very indignant because I called for the file of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member

should not say “Hear, hear!” so quickly. She does not know what I am going to say. She may be anticipating something which I am not going to say at all. If the hon. member for Durban Point receives a complaint and comes to my office I shall call for the file of the complainant and give him all the particulars in connection with his case. Then he would know all the particulars and the reasons why the servant was found guilty. There is nothing to hide. The hon. member is a Member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, I have already given him particulars of such cases in the past. Why then raise these matters in the House, only one side of the case? Surely it is only elementary justice that you should hear both sides before you come to a decision, [Interjections.] If the hon. member comes to me I will call for the files and give him the information. He does not need to go to the System Manager.

I took it up with the System Manager.

The hon. member does not need to go to the System Manager: he can come to me. I will call for the files, in spite of what the hon. member for South Coast said and give him all the information.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke about the difficulty of moving timber because of the insufficiency of trucks. It is not always a question of insufficient trucks only; it has to do with the capacity of the line too, and the capacity of that particular line has almost reached saturation point. But there is planning taking place to increase the capacity of the line. I cannot give the hon. members the particulars at the moment, but if he writes to me I will be able to advise him what we intend doing to that particular line. Then, of course, there is seasonal traffic too that has to be taken into consideration. Especially during the winter months we have to move a lot of coal. Then the allocations to timber growers and certain other loaders have to be reduced. However, we try to give them as many trucks as we possibly can.

What about electrification?

I will write to the hon. member and give him the particulars.

In regard to the tariff on timber, I am afraid I cannot make any further exceptions. The hon. member for Salt River wants the 10 per cent surcharge not to apply to coal for the power stations; the hon. member for Newton Park wants the 10 per cent surcharge not to apply to fruit; the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wants the 10 per cent not to apply to timber. If I start making exceptions there will be no end to it. I think there are so many commodities that would be exempted from the surcharge that I cannot possibly consider it. I am afraid I will not be able to do it.

The last matter he raised was the question of Bantu pensioners. I can only give the hon. member the information at my disposal. These are matters which the Minister does not deal with; they are dealt with by the Management. Sir, this is the information—I hope I will be able to give it to the House before 12 o’clock—

Arrangements were made with the postal authorities to pay Railway pensions to pensioners who had no accounts at banks or building societies. The postal authorities agreed to the proposal with the proviso that the personal particulars of each pensioner, as it appeared on the payment document, should be the same as that appearing on their identity cards or reference books in order to enable postmasters to establish identification.

Pension warrants of Bantu pensioners were distributed through the various Railway departments for transmission to the individual pensioners, and in February, 1970, when the warrants in respect of the months March, April and May, 1970 were despatched, all the departments were furnished with a supply of certificates to be completed in order that the identity numbers of the pensioners could be recorded and printed on the payment documents which were to be despatched to post offices as from March, 1971.

Despite numerous reminders sent to the pensioners in respect of whom particulars are still outstanding, no response has been forthcoming in some instances. The matter is, however, being vigorously pursued.

I will have the matter raised by the hon. member investigated to see whether it was the fault of the station masters.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the matters raised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

It being 12 noon the House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion, as printed in my name—

In pausing to reflect upon this motion, we cannot help mentioning the fact that the sixties as a decade was a period of unprecedented highlights, a period of unprecedented economic growth in South Africa and of unprecedented industrial development. But, Sir, when I think of the sixties, I find that the establishment of the Department of Planning remains a highlight to me in those years. Therefore, my motion reads that, in the first place, this House expresses its appreciation for the work which the Department of Planning has been doing in regard to regional planning, and, in the second place, requests the Government to accelerate the planning and development of decentralized growth points, I think it is only logical and obvious that we phrase this motion in two parts. If it had not been for the examples we have of the work done by that department in the sphere of regional planning, we would not have given consideration to viewing it as the very machine by means of which we are now to proceed in the direction of decentralization and development. It is for that reason, therefore, that we consider it to be a prerequisite for additional development on the basis of what has already been achieved.

Mr. Speaker, the spadework for regional studies goes back more than 25 years, but it is only in recent times that we have become aware of the problems arising from the fact that in certain areas we are over-concentrated. In this regard I may just mention that our major economic and industrial development has been concentrated. in a few large cities, which cover less than 3 per cent of the surface area of the Republic of South Africa. In recent times the disadvantages of this trend to the country as a whole are being appreciated very fully. At a later stage I shall come back to this for a while, and I do not want to elaborate on it now. Sir, these co-ordinated surveys by the Department of Planning have three advantages. In the first place, they have very clearly brought to our notice the problems of certain backward areas, or let me rather refer to them as vast, remote areas. In the second place, they have very clearly brought to our notice the potential of those areas. In the third place, they have had the effect of activating the public of those parts to go on paying attention to those matters and to initiate systematic development in those parts. An example I want to mention here of the fine results of and the interest in such a regional union, is the one in regard to the Western Cape, which was undertaken and published in 1964 under the chairmanship of the present Secretary for Planning.

This study and its findings and recommendations gave rise to additional studies by the University of Stellenbosch on, amongst other things, the transport problems in the North-West. This was instrumental in motivating and activating local initiative and local associations to carry out further investigations into this basis. Therefore I want to make the plea that the department should continue with that great and fine job which it has been doing up to now under the guidance of capable officials and a capable Minister. I realize that if we want to combat effectively this problem which I want to mention in the course of my speech today, it can only be done with the assistance of this department and under its guidance.

I want to motivate my case under two headings. The first is the problem which arises at over-concentrated growth points, and the second is the problems of these areas to which decentralization should take place, which are becoming increasingly greater the longer one waits with this decentralization. Our experience at the existing industrial centres is that this causes serious problems for us. I cannot elaborate on this matter at any length. I think that as a nation we are very conscious of the problems caused by the over-concentration of industries, and I am going to mention them merely in passing. One of these problems is the pollution of our air and of our water, and another is the traffic problems which are caused by it—and I have rather very good experience of them every morning, as we all have when we dive to the Houses of Parliament, especially those of us who come in rather early. We have the problems of supplying those areas with sufficient water, which is becoming very scarce at present. We have the problem of transport to those areas, which is becoming more and more acute, and we have the relations and social problems, which are born out of this over-concentration of industries. I want to lay particular emphasis on the fact that these relations problems, the relations among the various races and peoples living together in a common fatherland, will be facilitated considerably if decentralization takes place. I do not want to elaborate on this matter but merely mention it in passing.

But I want to confine myself more specifically to problems which exist and arise and become greater from time to time in those areas to which decentralization will have to take place in the near or in the distant future. As those problems are becoming greater the longer we procrastinate, I want to make this plea today, on the basis of our experience in the past of the work already done by this department in the short time in which it has been in existence, i.e. that the department will continue with this work, that we shall accelerate it and that the Government will place at the disposal of this department the means for carrying out in a minimum of time a task which is a very great and almost impossible one. One of the problems I want to mention in those areas to which decentralization should take place, is, in the first place, the depopulation of the rural areas which is taking place at the moment as far as the White population is concerned. This I do not want to discuss, as so much has already been said and as there have already been investigations and authoritative publications in regard to this matter, and I merely mention this in passing, not because it is unimportant, but because I think enough has already been said about it and because the time at my disposal does not permit me to go into this matter in detail.

But there are other serious problems. Now, I am sure you will forgive me, Sir, if, on the basis of the knowledge I have of the area in which I myself live, I use that area as an example to outline the problems which are fairly common. I want to mention the North-West, the area in which I live, and the constituency which I represent, Namaqualand. I want to use it as an example to outline effectively the problems which exist and which are becoming greater and greater and why it is so imperative for us to take immediate action. In referring to immediate action, I mean immediate action, for those problems are becoming greater every day and are creating a situation with which we shall find it difficult to cope in the years that lie ahead.

The first problem I want to mention, is the wasteful exploitation which is taking place in that area. I know I am using a very strong word in referring to wasteful exploitation, but wasteful exploitation is in fact taking place in those parts owing to the complete absence of an infrastructure. Let me just explain first what I mean by the total absence of an infrastructure, which is responsible for this state of affairs with which I shall deal briefly in a moment I am referring here to the total absence in those parts of economic means of transport; and in referring to economic means of transport, I do not merely want to bring up again the old story of a railway line. We know that modern science has various ideas on economic transport. But if one considers that we are dealing here with a constituency such as mine, which extends over 36 000 square miles, that there is not one single mile of railway line in that entire area, and that our roads are restricted to a carrying capacity of 20 tons per axle, you will realize, Sir, that we very definitely cannot apply the modern methods of economic transport there. In that area we cannot apply the modern methods of transport effectively. That is why I say that we have a major problem in regard to our infrastructure.

A second serious problem which we have in those areas, is the price of power. Of course, this can partly be blamed on the absence of effective transport, and on the fact that we have not yet been integrated in the circular power unit in South Africa. Consequently we are obliged to develop our own power there, and the most economic way of doing so, is by using coal. That has the effect that in that area we cannot supply power under 5 cents per unit, and that the largest undertakings there are unable to generate power for themselves at less than 31 cents per unit One can, therefore, deduce for oneself what it costs to go on with our industries there. In a moment I shall deal with the by-products of these industries.

A third part of our infrastructure that causes grave concern and creates major problems is that, although in name we are situated along the lower end of the Orange River and are therefore supposed to be one of the best-watered parts of South Africa, the price of water in those parts is simply exorbitant I may just mention that the price of water at the principal town, Springbok, is R1.25 per 1 000 gallons at this moment. When the cost disposal is added, it comes to an additional R1.25 per 1 000 gallons. As there is so little water, proper sewerage systems cannot be installed there. Furthermore, despite the price of water, members of the public are restricted to a maximum consumption of 3:000 gallons per month.

Order! The hon. members in the corner over there should not make their speeches now; they can do so when I call upon them to speak.

Hon. members will realize what an effect this has on our local public. I have, therefore, now mentioned the price of power, the price of water and that of transport. These matters are pushing up one another. We simply cannot start anywhere to make a breakthrough, as these matters from an insurmountable problem. I know that the department has not yet had the opportunity to attend to our parts but, when it does, we shall be able to solve those problems immediately with fairly good planning—and I know that the department plans well. As I have said, these problems are forming a vicious circle and creating conditions which are making matters absolutely impossible for us and which are creating extremely unhealthy conditions for South Africa.

At the beginning I said that these matters were giving rise to a serious form of wasteful exploitation. In referring to wasteful exploitation, I am thinking, in the first place, of the mineral resources of that area. Mr. Speaker, afford me an opportunity to pause for a few moments at certain aspects of this matter. Hon. members are aware that Namaqualand is the second largest copper-producing constituency in South Africa. That copper renders a very important contribution to the economy of our country. Perhaps few people realize this. I am not going to furnish hon. members with those details now. Recently the copper price fell by more than 331 per cent. Along with that tremendously high infrastructure, we have already had the problem—in spite of the high price of copper—that we could not exploit our low-grade copper, since we were restricted in our mines to skimming off the cream, to “taking out eyes” to a certain extent. This has resulted in a very serious situation. We know that in the not too distant future we shall have to find other mineral resources to replace our gold exports. That is a matter which we must take into account. As our copper resources are slowly but certainly being exhausted and skimmed off from the top, it will be impossible to re-exploit the low-grade copper at a later stage. Hon. members will agree with me that, in the absence of an infrastructure, it is absolutely impossible to reach our low-grade copper. This has the effect that we are leaving more than half of our exploitable copper underground. If we had had the necessary infrastructure, we would have been able to exploit it. Hon. members will agree that— if that infrastructure is eventually created there—no mine can subsist on its low-grade product only. Both the high-grade and the low-grade ores are required in order that the product may be developed. This is the serious situation for the entire economy of South Africa which can develop there.

I want to mention a second mineral. It was my intention to Say something about diamonds, but I am afraid that time will not allow me to do so, for I promised to finish my speech within a certain time-limit. I therefore hasten myself to come to the question of the pegmatities in that area. Pegmatite is becoming an extremely important mineral. A pegmatite is a mineral deposit containing a variety of minerals. It contains certain most lucrative minerals as well as other minerals which are less lucrative. However, a pegmatite is a deposit with an unpredictable content. It has to be processed before one can find out what it contains. One of the minerals in the pegmatite which we need so desperately nowadays when it comes to space travel, is tantalite, but because one does not know where that tantalite is, the practice has developed here to “take out the eyes”, as we call it. When the tantalite is on the surface it is simply dug out, and in that manner the deposit is being robbed of its potential.

That deposit contains a second very valuable mineral, and that is beryllium, which we require in the atomic industry and are going to require to an increasing extent. Once again, owing to the lack of an infrastructure, we are engaged in extracting the rich spots and leaving behind the rest of the deposit.

In the third place, in that pegmatite one finds spodumene, from which lithium is extracted. Sir, you know how essential lithium is at present; you know how dependent we have become upon lithium in modern times.

That deposit also contains two other basic minerals. If we had had the necessary infrastructure there, any of the pegmatite deposits could have been exploited for those two basic minerals only, i.e. mica and felspar. Those two minerals are being sold at relatively low prices. I want to say that on an average felspar forms more than 80 per cent of the whole basis of the pegmatite. Therefore, if we had been in a position to process that basic mineral, which is being used in the ceramic industry, it would have been possible to exploit the pegmatite deposits from one side to the other; we would not have exploited this wealth wastefully and we would have been able to exploit the entire deposit and to make it available to South Africa. Sir, you will agree with me that if we have to proceed on this basis of exploiting the deposits wastefully and “taking out the eyes” only, we shall reach a stage where we shall eventually have to create the necessary infrastructure, although the deposits will by that time be so poor that the exploitation thereof will no longer be lucrative. Then we shall find ourselves in the position where we shall not be able to exploit those valuable resources for South Africa. That is why I am making this appeal to the Department of Planning, with its tremendous potential and with its extensive proven services. That is why I am also making an appeal to the Government to enable this department to carry out those valuable services even faster than was the case in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member is, of course, framed so widely that in reality it embraces almost all the activities of the department concerned. Accordingly we thought it would afford us an opportunity of exchanging ideas about the functional activities of this particular department and the extent to which it is fulfilling its obligations. The hon. member raised one or two general matters and then concentrated upon his own constituency. He will not expect us to reply to that.

I just want to say that, as far as his introduction is concerned, he pleaded for decentralization. We have made this · point previously. We also accept it, but there are two factors we must bear in mind. The first is that at the moment South Africa has the same amount of decentralization as we find in Brazil and in the Argentine. These are two countries which are on comparable stages of economic development. The second point to be borne in mind, is that, as has also been indicated by Dr. Rautenbach, the present secretary of this particular department, unless favourable economic circumstances exist for such decentralization, industries in these decentralized areas will naturally not be able to flourish.

This motion of the hon. member consists of two parts. In the first part he expresses his appreciation towards the department for the work they are doing in the field of regional planning. As far as the activities of the officials of the department are concerned, we readily associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member. However, we want to take it further. We would like to say that the activities of this particular department are restricted, and that its own productivity is hampered, by various factors. I may just refer to a few of them. This department is responsible for planning in a very wide field. There is scientific planning economic planning and the so-called physical planning. If one wants to handle these things properly. one must of course have a huge staff. When we examine the staff registers of this Department, we notice that it has approximately 200 officials on its fixed establishment at the moment. It is not clear how many of them are technically or professionally orientated, and how many of them are purely administrative officials. Possibly the hon. the Minister could inform us in that regard, but from the nature of the work they do it is very clear to us that they have a tremendous burden as regards ordinary administrative matters. In order to illustrate what I have in mind, I want to point out that according to the latest annual report of this department it had to deal with approximately 480 applications in terms of section 6 of Act No. 88 of 1967, i.e. applications in regard to the subdivision of land. This is work which requires lengthy and protracted research, and it must take up a tremendous amount of time. However, this is only the beginning. We also notice that, over the same period, they had to deal with the proclamation of more than 600 group areas. As rapidly as things are being built up on the one hand, they are being broken down on the other, because over the same period almost 50 group areas had to be deproclaimed. They had to deal with this as well. This too would require a tremendous amount of administrative activity. In the same period, there were 1 000 permits which had to be dealt with under the Group Areas Act of 1966. Eighty allocations and 12 appeals had to be dealt with. Then we come to section 2 of the Physical Planning Act. In this period, 584 applications had to be dealt with, and under section 3 there were almost 1 600 applications. If a department is burdened with activities of this nature, it must necessarily happen that its main function, which is macro-economic planning, will suffer as a result. In this regard I actually want to address a request to the Minister. We feel that the Department of Planning is so extremely important and we should so much like the Department to concentrate particularly on its long-term function, that we want to ask him whether he would not leave some of these administrative matters to which I have referred to some of its more loquacious colleagues.

We are discussing regional planning here. I notice that there are 15 controlled areas. The choice of these areas is also interesting. In the main they included the Witwaters-rand, the Goldfields, both in the Free State and in the Eastern and Western Transvaal, and certain other areas such as Richard’s Bay and other pieces which have been inserted. There are also large areas which have been left out. We accept that a department of this nature cannot cover the whole of the country immediately, but it is nevertheless noticeable that the Cape and Natal are being somewhat neglected. What we find extremely interesting, of course, is that the homelands are completely excluded. Surely everyone accepts that South Africa has one economic foundation, and that we should be viewed as one co-ordinated economy. Now, in the case of the homelands, which are in fact the display window of the Government, and where we expected they would want to do everything in order to undertake regional planning in those very areas, we find that they fall completely outside the context of this department, because they are specifically excluded. We find this astonishing. The inference we must draw here, is that at the moment planning is not so much based on creating optimal situations and achieving the optimal utilization of our economic resources. The activities of this department are restricted by the ideology of the Government itself, because they are concentrated on the ratio of race groups one must have in industry. This restricts planning.

Industrialists want long-term planning. They are entitled to it. They must know where they may establish their industries in order to gain the maximum benefits. But we often find that they do not get this necessary information. When one examines the activities of this particular department, one finds, as I have indicated, that they are based on saying that this is a White piece and that a Black piece and that such and such should be the ratio of race groups. In reality we thus get a form of industrialization on the triplicate basis. We get a form of industrial development according to the permit system. If one examines the activities and sees how much attention must be given to the issuing of these permits, it is clear that if we continue on this basis, we will limit our economic development, which the hon. member advocated, to a tremendous extent.

†In the second part of the motion of the hon. gentleman he advocates that the development of decentralized growth points should be accelerated. This, of course, brings into focus the whole philosophy of the Government on this issue of decentralization. The hon. the Minister of Planning is relatively new in this position. We are therefore anxious to try to determine what his own philosophy is on an important matter of this kind. He has given us, I believe, a very keen insight as to what his own thinking embraces. In November last year, the hon. the Minister addressed, I think, the Federated Chamber of Industries. In his address he made, as far as I can see, some most interesting points. The hon. the Minister conceded in the very first instance that there is at the moment uncertainty and that there is, in fact, a decline in industrial investment. He tried to play this down to some extent, as one would expect him to do. But he emerged clearly in this speech of his as a protagonist of the growth approach in South Africa. I want to indicate that in his speech he expressed himself in this way—

These are precisely the sentiments of this side of the House. Is this not what we have been saying all the time? How can the hon. the Minister reconcile this with the actions of his senior colleague, the Minister of Finance, who has deliberately aimed everything he has done over the last year at damping our economy? Seeing that the hon. the Minister has taken this sentiment from this side of the House to that side of the House, is it perhaps true to say that whilst his heart might be on that side of the House, his head is still with this side? Is this a form of political schizophrenia that is manifested here? I want to ask the hon. the Minister if these are his sentiments and he stands for a rapid growth rate in South Africa, how can be reconcile it with the actions that the Government is taking. After all, we all know that if we were to grow at a 5½ per cent growth rate, the implication is quite clear that manufacturing industry must grow at 7 per cent. We also know that investment in these particular areas is at least 20 per cent less than that which is required to sustain a growth rate of that magnitude. Now we ask, what is he doing about this? Why does he go and voice these pious sentiments when he talks to industrialists outside while the question is what he is doing within the Cabinet itself to ensure that we can sustain that growth rate? Does he assume the guise of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Is he Dr. Jekyll when he talks to industrialists and Mr. Hyde when he comes to his own department, to the Cabinet? Not only did he emerge in this speech as a protagonist of growth, but he also expressed some interesting views on precisely this question of decentralization. He put it this way—

I assume he was referring to the Bantu homelands when he said this and that the way he put it is only a very euphemistic way of phrasing it. In any event, this statement of his does not stand up to any analysis. What are the social reasons he referred to? He was obviously referring to border areas when he said this because this is the way the Government is implementing this philosophy of theirs. What, then, are the social advantages in siting factories way outside the borders of the reserves, thereby requiring the workers to travel miles to and fro every day? I cannot see any social advantages inherent in that. What are the economic advantages of a system in terms of which one is forced to site factories way out in the decentralized areas when according to every indication it costs R6 000 to employ an additional African in comparison with one-third of that figure in the established industrial areas? Mr. Speaker, this does not make economic sense. If the hon. the Minister is in fact interested in economic and social reasons, why then does he not site these factories and industrial activities right within the homelands? Then he would enjoy social as well as economic advantages. In addition, one will then be able to get industrialists to develop these areas with their own capital instead of having to take the money needed for that out of the pocket of the taxpayer. That would make economic sense. It will be noticed that the hon. the Minister studiously avoided any reference to political factors which induced the Government to accept this policy. Were he to be honest with us and were he to say that there are important social, economic and political reasons for increasing the carrying capacity of the Bantu homelands, we would support him on that issue because that is the line we have been taking.

The Minister then went on to deal with positive and negative reactions to the situation and to my mind made an important announcement. He said—

Here again we find precisely the view of this side of the House—in fact, this is what our quarrel with the Government has been about. If the hon. the Minister says to me that he wants to be positive and introduce inducements and incentives, what then, may I ask, are the inducements given by section 3 of the Physical Planning Act? There is in fact no inducement there. On the contrary, it is mandatory, it is imperative, for industrialists when they want one additional Black man in their factories to come and seek permission to do so. The hon. the Minister must realize that what follows from this is that business activity is becoming completely circumscribed. Business, it must be remembered, is a dynamic totality and the moment you begin to freeze artificially one aspect of it you dislocate the whole. This is exactly what the department is doing now with the application of this Act—disrupting the process of business.

What is more, there is a whole series of fringe effects which follows in its wake. To begin with, there are endless red-tape and delays. If you have to handle 1 000 permits and all sorts of other things it must obviously lead to delay. If an industrialist wants to employ one additional Black man in his factory in the Western Cape, he has to go to three Government departments or agencies. The fact of this is that an element of rigidity is being introduced into the system, as well as uncertainty on account of the delays. If this system worked so well, why then was it necessary for the Government to appoint the Rieckert Commission and also the Reynders Commission? Furthermore, what they are doing here now is to appoint new people to inquire into the activities of their own planners. Well, one certainly would not do this if one was happy with the system. No, Sir, the Government must admit that the whole thing was a ghastly mistake; they ought to have the moral and political courage to say so. Another by-effect is that it is forcing companies to massive investments of the wrong kind. I know of one company which over the next few years will have to invest R10 million as a result of the fact that they have been denied the labour they need, forcing them to acquire sophisticated machinery. It is, in the light of this, quite understandable that we have an unbalance in our foreign trade account. It is quite clear that we are spending money on issues on which we ought not to be spending money. That is also the reason why our exports are suffering. We can only export adequately if we go in for long-term planning. In view of all the uncertainties induced by the machinations of this department, there is no such certainty and that is why our exports are suffering. But even where industry is cajoled to move into a new area, into one of these decentralized areas, they immediately encounter a whole host of hazards. It is interesting to note that the word “hazard” derives from the Spanish word “azar” which means “the wrong throw of the dice”. As such it is most applicable to this particular case. In cases where they go to these decentralized areas they find that an infrastructure is lacking, they find lack of co-ordination between the central planning department and local authorities a lack of transportation, while the way in which the system of incentives is being administered is, to put it most euphemistically, haphazard. One finds that an industrialist is in fact doubly penalized in that he cannot expand where he is at the moment but when he moves to another area he does not have the basic facilities that he ought to have.

This motion asks the Government to accelerate this kind of planning. I can merely say “heaven forbid!” If we were to do this on a more massive scale than it is being done at the moment, we will land up in a much greater mess than we are in already.

There is a host of other issues to which I would have liked to refer but time does not permit me to do so. So I want to conclude by saying that this motion in its present form cannot be supported by us. We know that the Department of planning contains some first-class men, men of high calibre. What we would like to see, is that the opportunity is created for them to get on with their real job—long-term macro-economic planning. At the moment they are being inhibited by a thousand and one administrative activities of the kind I have illustrated and by the fact that they cannot plan in the broadest possible sense but only within the rigid ideological framework of the Government’s policy. If, on the contrary, they are allowed to plan in the proper sense of the word it would be to the real advantage of all of us and of South Africa.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

The hon. member for Hillbrow, who spoke before me, pointed out that this motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand is actually a very broad one. He himself spoke in broad terms, and with our mutually agreed upon time limits it is difficult for me even to try to argue with him.

You cannot.

No, I can. Before I state a few specific points about the motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand, I first want to make a few remarks about the underlying philosophy of this motion, remarks which I think the hon. member for Hillbrow, in his great wisdom, can nevertheless profitably listen to. I want to point out that the concepts or the terms “growth”, “progress”, “change” and “development” are today actually the key terms to the second half of the 20th century. Today the debate no longer concerns change as opposed to non-change, and the world and we in South Africa accept it as such. The big question in South Africa is simply, as it is elsewhere in the world, how we can direct this growth and change; how we can guide it or how we can manipulate it for the benefit of the people around us. Around this truth, Sir, a totally new science has developed in recent years in other countries and in South Africa. Some people call it ecostics; others call it regional planning and still others call it special structuring. You may call it what you will; the fact remains that in our young and lovely country a totally new science is developing in this respect at various universities. And about the precise meaning of the basic points of departure in this manipulation of growth and of development, there is mainly general agreement today; in fact, there is general agreement throughout the world about it. It is concerned with three basic aspects on which I do not have time to elaborate now. In the first place it concerns better conditions for man’s existence, chiefly within the regional context; secondly, the spiritual development or evolution of man, chiefly within the regional context and thirdly— this is probably the most important—the full development of national identities among such communities. Sir, since the establishment of the Department of Planning in 1964, and the teaching of Planning as a subject at several of our universities, this whole new idea or concept has also begun to receive attention in our country on behalf of the Government. Sir, here I am not going to try to make an analysis of our entire planning structure, but in passing I just want to mention the basic construction of our Department of Planning without elaborating on that in detail. Firstly there is the Economic Advisory Council; there is the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries; there is a Scientific Advisory Council; there is the Natural Resources Development Council and the Planning Advisory Council and lastly—and I should like to express a few ideas about this—the establishment of countless regional development associations. At this stage, if my information is correct, there are about 60. 65 or 70 of them in South Africa, in the parts where a start has already been made. This is all evidence, Sir. that we in South Africa have not lagged behind. In respect of two facets of our entire planning structure I should now just like to emphasize a few basic things, beginning with regional planning. In questions of economic prosperity and progress we have in recent years learned increasingly to think in South Africa in terms of the regional context and to look at certain large complexes. We have learned that regional thinking, or regional planning, if I may call it that, always lends force to our representations. The individual unassuming community has learned to accommodate or see its interests in a broader pattern. We have also learned a second truth, i.e. that the creative ability of human beings themselves is always their most important asset. Natural resources are essential, but not a decisive factor of development. If the entrepreneurship and the development orientation is not there, there is stagnation and poverty. I want to try to depict this more accurately. Where the creative power of human beings is lacking, poverty prevails.

On occasion the present secretary for Planning, Dr. Rautenbach, mentioned the following beautiful example that illustrates precisely what I want to say here. He said (translation)—

That is so. There are other parts of our country where the Strandloper reigned in his day, i.e. along the frost-cold Atlantic ocean. And what did he do? His furthest development was to fill an empty ostrich-egg shell with water and to bury it in the sand. There his true creative ability ended.

It is against this background that I should like to emphasize three aspects of our planning structure in South Africa today. In the first place I want to ask whether the time has not come for the Department of Planning, on its own initiative and within the regional context, to place greater emphasis on that human spark, that creative ability in man. I can motivate this on a broader basis. If we do not do so, and if we do not activate this underlying philosophy more purposefully, we shall run into a situation in which this fine new structure that is developing in respect of our regional development associations can develop into pressure groups on the Government. Secondly, the initiative must be taken on behalf of the authorities themselves for the greater geographic rounding off of our regional development associations. At this stage there are about 60 or 65 of these associations. There is overlapping. In many respects these regional development associations themselves do not really have the vitality and the creative ability. This is so because they are geographically too small. As in several other countries of the world the time has come for the Department to be much more purposeful in the creation of this new pattern. Lastly I should like to ask whether the time has not come for us to grant greater jurisdiction to our regional development associations within our country’s planning pattern. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I am just mentioning it in passing.

The second thought about which I want to make a few emphatic remarks within this planning structure is that in respect of a very popular and important concept in South Africa, i.e. the concept of decentralization. One could speak on a broad basis as the hon. member did. However, I want to try in very simple language to emphasize only a few aspects. In the first place growth and development are characteristic of all forms of life, human communities included. On the other hand I want to emphasize that, alongside this, completeness and maturity are also characteristic of the living organism. Every tree knows its own height. An anthill or a beehive never grows larger than Tygerberg or as big as Table Mountain. But in respect of the human community this truth is never so obvious, and of necessity it becomes the duty and the charge of the authorities either to impose restrictions or on the other hand not to stimulate that growth. In South Africa this truth is frequently initiated by a strong socio-political element. Today, as the hon. member referred to here, there is the handling of a Black majority in South Africa, and in this country we are engaged in a policy of separate political entities, territorial apartheid and freedom for our country’s Black people. It is in places such as this that we are creating similar patterns, where the Department of Planning with its border area industries and its other inducements has done an enormous amount of work in recent years, a facet that I do not have the time to elaborate on at the moment. But this brings me to another aspect. I want to allege that when it comes to the creation of such new growth points, or a new order in respect of this situation of White-Brown relations, I do not think that in recent years we have progressed as we ought to progress. Here in the Western Cape it is true that three-quarters of our Coloured population are today gathered together in a metropolis in the vicinity of Cape Town. If we look at our process of spacial structuring we shall find that the time has also come for us to look ahead with totally new imagination and energy at the future patterns of these important parts of our country. In passing I just want to mention a few figures. These are new figures that were released very recently, about fourteen days ago, by the University of Stellenbosch and their Faculty of Planning under Prof, Page, in which the following was pointed out. Prof. Page says that between the years 1960 and 1965 the the Brown people of Greater Cape Town increased at a rate of 6.65 per cent per year. Measured against the average national growth rate of 3.22 per cent in the same period, it means that the Brown people are therefore immigrating to the metropolis from elsewhere at the alarming rate of 3.43 per cent per year. Then he goes further and says that unless this stream is checked we shall, in the five years up to 1975, have a crowding together of 574 000, or more than half a million Brown people here around Cape Town alone. You know, Sir, that means tomorrow or the day after. During the same period the average growth rate of the Whites here was only 1.82 per cent per year, as against the national average of 1.69 per cent. In passing I want to thank the Government in the light of this motion for stating this problem. The announcement was made that in respect of this question of over-population and over-concentration, a new growth point was purposely going to be created in the vicinity of Darling and Mamre, a new area where we can give new people and a new generation the opportunity, also as far as White-Brown relationships are concerned, to create new growth points with new structures and new imagination, and to also give a totally new content to these important parts of our country, the Western Cape.

But that is not enough. If we analyse the pattern today in this beautiful old traditional part of the Western Cape, then it is true that at present one of the most beautiful valleys in our country, the Paarl-Wellington valley, is showing signs of overconcentration, of lopsided growth, and also signs that some of our best agricultural lands in South Africa will be absorbed by the population explosion, particularly of the Coloureds in the Western Cape. And since we have now heard on the one hand from the Government about a new growth point in the vicinity of Darling and Mamre, a creation that can serve as an absorptive force in respect of Cape Town and its environs, I want to make a plea this afternoon to the hon. the Minister that we should, for the sake of the future growth pattern here in the Western Cape, also immediately begin creating or at least giving attention to a point at this beautiful valley where we can also apply this principle of decentralization. This can be done in the vicinity of Porterville, at the old traditional Coloured townships of Saron and Gouda. These are surroundings that can also serve as a handy decentralized point in respect of the Paarl-Wellington neighbourhood, an area where there is a township such as Porterville, with a beautiful, neat infrastructure on which further development can take place. There is the nucleus of an old traditional Coloured township. It lies on the main transport route to the North. It is black agricultural land. Take note, as far as our sine qua non, our water, here in the Boland is concerned, this greatest concentration of the Boland’s water potential lies in this particular vicinity. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, a plea that when we are looking at the future pattern of this larger Western Cape area, we should also immediately regard this particular vicinity as supplementary to what the Government envisages in the vicinity of Mamre. Here there is also an opportunity for new people and a new generation to begin creating new structures and new links, also in respect of our White-Brown relationships here in the Western Cape.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg mentioned that where human beings do not create there is no economic growth. This is our problem with the Department of Planning. They do not create. They proclaim and classify areas as growth points, as Kimberley, for example, was classified as a growth point for Coloureds, but this still does not bring industries to that area. It still does not help us to develop that area. I want to agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that decentralization must take place and that areas such as those at Mamre must be developed as new growth points. It then depends on the spirit of enterprise of the person or individual to do the creative work.

The motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand expresses appreciation for the work done by the Department of Planning in the promotion of regional plan-nine· I have the fullest confidence in the officials and also in the workers of the Department of Planning. I also have the fullest confidence that they will do their best to carry out their big task in the interests of the country, but their efforts and endeavours are restricted and handicapped by the artificial, ideological policy of the Nationalist Party Government In the latest annual report of the Department of Planning it is stated that the Government decided to accept the growth rate of 51 per cent as a policy target for the six-year period from 1967 to 1973. There the growth rate is already being damped and the sights set low. The report further acknowledges that the growth rate in the gross domestic product in 1968 was quite a bit lower than the average annual growth rate of 5.5 per cent, projected in the economic development programme. It was R158 million less than the economic development programme projection. R158 million is a lot of money for one year. The true results represent a growth rate in the economy of only 3.5 per cent. The manufacturing industry’s production increased by only 3.3 per cent. The reasons for this are clear. This is the result of the damping, retarding economic policy of the Government. The Government imposes restrictions instead of planning positive, truly economic industrial growth and development, as they ought to do. The very first thing the Government did was to restrict the decentralization of industries to industrial settlement on the borders of future, independent Bantu republics. This was particularly foolish and absurd since the borders of the homelands had then not been determined yet.

They have still not been determined.

In spite of that, industrial border areas and growth points have been established at places such as Hammarsdale, Rosslyn, Brits, Phalaborwa, etc. In some cases the borders of the homelands have been moved to the industries in order to justify the policy and the ideology of apartheid. Such a policy discriminates against the under-developed North-Western Cape, against the development of the Northern Cape and other areas where there will not be future home land development, and for example Natal, which has almost totally been proclaimed a border area.

The economic consideration ought to tip the scales in the choice of growth points. The decentralized industrial growth points will have to be planned everywhere chiefly on an economic basis. We shall have to plan for our industries to produce so economically and efficiently that South Africa can compete with exports from abroad and will even be able to export in competition with other exports to countries abroad without the granting of State protection of subsidies.

At the recent annual general meeting of Federale Volksbeleggings Dr. P. E. Rossouw said in his chairman’s address that additional proof had been forthcoming about certain imbalances and distortions in the economy assuming greater proportions. In addition he said (translation)—

He also said—

What could these constraints be that Dr. Rossouw speaks about? On the East Rand we see how the industrial growth is being retarded by the policy of the Nationalist Party Government. We see how the Government’s policy is there working against the additional industrial areas that must be proclaimed. We see how on the East Rand no further proclamation of industrial areas is being allowed. In most of those towns there are no more industrial stands to be purchased. Neither can the industries expand any further at all. At Benoni, for example, the municipality no longer has a single industrial stand available for industrialists. Along the Apex industrial area of the Benoni, for example, ideal, open, level stretches of land were still available only recently. This lies along the railway line, away from the residential areas and is ideal for an industrial area. Now it is called McKenzieville and is being developed as a residential area, irretrievably lost to industrial development in the future. Striking examples of misplaced and poor delimitation and planning one can find everywhere on the East Rand.

On Brakpan’s coal ridge and a certain industrial area stands had to be relinquished beside the railway line in order to retain industrial stands at Van Eck Park where there are no rail links at present.

You leave Brakpan alone.

At Springs there are no more industrial stands available either. That is how drastically the East Rand’s industrial growth is being restricted by the Department of Planning.

Present-day industries on the Witwaters-rand are not being allowed to grow and develop freely, even if they have the land for that development. It is only allowed on application by means of a permit in particular qualifying cases. Industry complains about restrictions in the employment of additional Bantu labourers if it wants to develop and increase its production. It is only with a great deal of trouble and bother that the necessary permits can be obtained. These steps are not taken because Bantu labour is scarce, but in order to promote a particular ideology.

†It is the same misplaced political ideology which prevents iron and brass foundrymen from employing enough moulders to produce at full capacity. The job of moulders is reserved for the White man only. It is a physically hard, unpleasant and dirty job and Whites dislike it with the consequent shortage. I have been told by economists that Bantu can be trained in two months to do the job under a White overseer and they are eager to do so. In the meantime manufacturers are burdened by the fact that the production is down to 75 per cent of their furnace capacity. They have to import iron and brass fittings which could be produced in South Africa. This increases the problems we have with our balance of payment and at the same time it reduces our standard of living.

Additional examples of bad planning are easy to be found. Actonville, for instance, the Indian township which has been built to house the Indians of the whole East Rand, is an example of this. Its expansion is limited by the railway line on the one side, an industrial area on the other and by mine ground and other municipalities on the other side. It will not even properly house its own present Indian population living three families per shack in some of the condemned houses. They also want to put all the Indians of the whole East Rand there. Some have already been displaced. They are now desperately planning and they are building three seven-storey blocks of flats at an enormous cost to the ratepayer. They are at the moment creating an over-populated slum in Benoni. This Department of Planning and the Government’s policy will cause economic stagnation on the East Rand and it could easily become a future depressed area instead of pulling its own weight with well-planned steady growth. Where there is no movement and no growth, there will be nothing but stagnation.

*Before the establishment of the Department of Planning and the coming into power of the Nationalist Party Government, there was better planning and industrial settlement on the East Rand than there is at the moment. [Interjections.] My hon. friends opposite are making a noise, but I shall prove this. Even before the Second World War Benoni realized that the gold-mining industry is a vanishing asset and that it would not continue for ever. There was consequently positive and active planning for the development of primary and secondary industries on the East Rand. Thus the economic viability and growth of the East Rand would be preserved if the mines should be exhausted and have to close down. The farsightedness of Mr. Morry Neustadt, a town councillor and a provincial councillor for Benoni for more than 30 years took the lead in this industrial development on the East Rand.

Order! The hon. member must not refer to his notes so frequently. He is creating the impression that his speech is being read. The hon. member may continue.

Today the public still honours him as one of the citizens who made the greatest contribution, and they are still calling him “Mr. Benoni” in the language of the people. During the war years the United Party already had the Dunswart Iron and Steel factory at Benoni, a factory that was producing bombs and mortars for the war effort. They also erected the Satmar petrol company, of which my father was the chairman. We see how frequently this Government would like to appropriate for themselves the honour that they are the only people responsible for industrial growth and the industrial explosion here in South Africa. However, the United Party has sufficient indelible monuments, bequeathed as a proof of the great contributions they made.

The hon. member for Namaqualand asks that there should be more planning and decentralization, so that there can be more growth and development in Namaqualand. With the sites set for a growth rate of 5.5 per cent, however, growth will not take place quickly in Namaqualand. With a higher growth rate, sufficient to keep the existing and established industries going, growth will also gradually take place in Namaqualand. A railway line could even be established from the rich iron ore mine at Sishen to a deep sea harbour on the West Coast, for example at places such as Boegoe Bay, from which exporting can take place, as my father proposed at the time. There would thus be a strong possibility of the necessary development also taking place in the North-Western and Northern Cape. The restrictive, damping political planning of this Government will have to make way for a more stimulating, scientific, socio-economic approach to stimulate the industrial growth. Then there will be sufficient confidence and growth to be able to combat inflation and give us that necessary high standard of living that will make South Africa strong enough to withstand the onslaughts from countries abroad.

Speaker, one fact in this debate has become very clear to us this afternoon, i.e. that we on this side of the House believe that in South Africa we shall have decentralization of industries, or what have you, to the depopulating parts of our fatherland. It became clear to us this afternoon that first the hon. member for Hill-brow and subsequently the hon. member for Benoni have a totally different philosophy about that. In his concluding paragraph the hon. member for Hillbrow also said, in connection with this matter, that he hoped the Government would not hasten decentralization, but rather keep it in check a little. One of the reasons the hon. member furnished was that it costs R6 000 to employ a Bantu labourer and train him in the border industry areas, while I think he said that it costs one-third of that amount in the metropolitan complexes.

The hon. member for Benoni went further and said that the Government is discouraging development on the East Rand. They are wanting to encourage it. The fact of the matter is that this Government does not do one thing and neglect to do another. Industrial development, wherever it may take place, is supported by this Government. However, the difference is that this Government wants to follow a policy that will grant every part of South Africa its rightful share of the development of the fatherland as a whole. That is the most important point. In this connection I should like to touch upon a few matters this afternoon, because we do not have much time.

We are aware of the fact that appreciable progress has already been made with the development of decentralized areas in the last few years. This success achieved in this connection definitely testifies to the fact that good co-operation was obtained from industrialists throughout South Africa and that they have decided to establish themselves in these decentralized spots. In addition it is also conclusive proof of the Government’s policy that decentralization of the manufacturing sector to places that are near to the Bantu homelands is a practical policy embodying extensive benefits for everyone. In fact, the rate at which industrialists made use of the opportunity for resettlement near the Bantu homelands even surprised the biggest optimists. However, it is true that the undertakings that have evidenced the most extensive growth are in most cases situated near to the metropolitan areas. I can refer to Rosslyn, Hammarsdale, Brits and others.

These places are in truth in much more favourable positions than the far-off growth points, and this I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The former are situated near to the markets and can very conveniently obtain supporting services that are furnished in the large metropolitan areas in their immediate vicinity. We do not begrudge these border areas any possible development, and we are proud of what they have already achieved. However, it is also important for us to take note of the development of those identified growth points that are situated in far-off places and have a back-log that they do not necessarily need to have. I just want to tell the hon. member for Hill-brow that when he comes to the Free State platteland again looking for votes I shall have this Hansard with me and I shall show those people that the United Party wants their votes but does not want to give them their rightful share of the development of the Republic.

I still have the Hansard in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told my people that they want to take their votes away from them. Hon. members opposite must now sit still. I only have a short space of time in which to make my speech. They must not bother me. On another occasion we shall fully square accounts with hon. members opposite. On the 21st of April there is an opportunity for the United Party to do something, but they are too scared and now Albert Hertzog must help them in Ladybrand. The hon. the Minister of Planning is probably aware of the fact that the development of border industry areas such as Zastron and Harrismith in the Free State, and also others that are situated far from metropolitan areas, has thus far not come up to expectations. There are also other places outside the Orange Free State that are experiencing problems with proper development. There are good economic, social, political and strategic reasons why we must have development in those far-off centres, and at a rate that is relatively much more rapid than that taking place at the present moment. Anyone who claims that it is the Government’s fault that these places have not developed as desired, testifies to a lack of insight into the basic principles underlying the policy of decentralization. We realize that a time dimension is of necessity linked to the process of industrial development and industrial decentralization. But I am nevertheless of the opinion that the time is now ripe for the establishment of addition assistance and inducements for these faraway growth points over and above the present incentives and inducements for border industries. We have reason to believe that such action has become urgently necessary, and we believe that in a place such as Zastron, for example, that is situated on the border of a homeland, we shall have to offer industrialists special inducements. The hon. the Minister’s officials have all the factual evidence about this matter. A socio-economic survey was made by the University of the Orange Free State, assisted by the University of Pretoria. The hon. the Minister’s department has that factual information at its disposal, and I am not going to detain him with that any longer.

But what is most closely bound up with the foregoing—and this I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance through the hon. the Minister—is the question of the availability of financing facilities from banks. Experience teaches that industrialists that have established themselves in growth points near to the Bantu homelands are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain financing facilities through our normal commercial banks, merely as a result of these credit restrictions that we are now faced with. In the light of the necessity for the present-day growth rate of the manufacturing sector in general to increase, but in particular the manufacturing sector in the border industries, I want to ask if there is no possibility for relief to be given to those industrialists along the same lines according to the same pattern as that obtained by farmers with the droughts just recently.

Sir, in the third place, since we are pleading for decentralization, there is still one important factor, in our humble opinion, to which attention can be given, and that is the aspect of the development of growth points other than merely the industries. The Government’s policy of the restructuring of the geographic distribution of economic activities embodies, to my mind, much more than the mere decentralization of the manufacturing sector. To my mind it is indeed also a matter of the decentralization of the tertiary sector, away from our metropolitan areas where this is at all possible. Sir, to prevent this extensive crowding together from continuing it is necessary for attention to be given not only to the decentralization of industries, but also to the tertiary sector. I am of the opinion that the State authorities themselves can set an example worth following in this connection. Many Government and semi-Government offices exit that are not location orientated. Such offices or institutions can therefore very practically be situated in a place such as Bloemfontein, for example.

What about Zeerust?

I am referring to Bloemfontein; today I am not speaking about Rouxville; that is a subject all on its own; this centrally situated city is one of a few places offering excellent facilities for the establishment of private and public institutions in the tertiary sector. Sir, I remain convinced that it is in the national interest to take practical steps for the decentralization of more Government and semi-Government institutions. The State will have to be prepared to take the lead itself in this connection with a view to preventing excessive crowding together in good time. I am not criticizing, but I want to tell you, Sir, that it is with great regret that I learned that institutions that recently had to change their location, for example the Wool Board and the Medical Research Institute, were not settled in Bloemfontein. I also want to add that the Institute of Literary History could also have been established in Bloemfontein or in any other place in the White area of the Free State without any inconvenience worth mentioning.

It is too hot there.

It is hot, but if it were not for the Free State where would you have been? Sir, the milk that the hon. member for Hillbrow drank came from the grass of Fauresmith. Sir, I want to conclude by making an appeal to the Minister in respect of three matters. In the first place we shall have to have special incentive measures in respect of industries that are necessary in far-off growth points. In the second place industrialists must be accommodated in respect of credit facilities from banks, as I have explained. And lastly attention must be given to the decentralization of the tertiary sector, and in this connection the State must play a leading role.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, made an impassioned plea to the hon. the Minister for what sounded like economic aid to the Free State. I am not quite sure that this is a subject falling under the control of this Minister. I think that this would have made a very good. budget speech.

I said “through the Minister of Finance”.

Sir, I recommend the hon. member to make this speech again at a later stage. Perhaps he will then have a more sympathetic hearing.

I want to comment here on the planning of the Nationalist Party, and their policy as far as planning is concerned. All of a sudden this word “decentralization” has become popular, as though it is something that has just been discovered and is now a panacea which is going to solve all the problems of South Africa. Those of us in Natal can look at the Nationalist Party with a rather cynical smile when we hear them uttering the word “decentralization”, because in 1948 the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal undertook the planning for the whole of the Tugela Basin. The physical planning of the Tugela Basin was undertaken in 1948 by a United Party controlled provincial council. The physical planning was completed. The whole matter was investigated and everything was ready for the decentralization and development of industry in Natal. Hon. members on the other side had not done one single thing to help with the physical decentralization of industry, until suddenly last year they fell out of bed and decided that they were going to establish a third Iscor at Newcastle. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness. The activities of his department are circumscribed. They are too limited, because of the ideological policy of the Government. This limits the hon. the Minister and his department to physical planning; in other words to the mere allocation of areas for industry, for residence, etc.

When we are dealing with an area such as the Tugela Basin, which has the most vast potential, what we need is something more than the mere physical planning of that area. We need something which will include social planning. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. Whether he has to go to the Cabinet or how it can be done, I am not certain. To give full fruit to the planning of the Tugela Basin it is necessary that there shall be created a body which is super-departmental, to use that word, to embrace the activities of various departments. I believe that the development of the Tugela Basin is being kicked off now by the establishment of the third Iscor at Newcastle and the future development is going to make this one of the fastest developing industrial areas in the whole of the world. Let us face it; this is what we have on our hands. If this thing is handled right, it can become one of the fastest developing areas in the world, but we have no authoritative co-ordinating body which is going to direct the physical planning and which will also plan for the social requirements of the people in that area. ¡[Interjections, j The hon. member for Newcastle says I am uninformed, but I have been listening with great interest to the discussions taking place in the Tugela Catchment Association and I study anything that comes from the Department of Planning in regard to this area. I want to say to the Minister that a prime necessity is a body of this sort which will co-ordinate the activities of the various State departments. One of the first problems that arises is to clear the Bantu locations from the watershed of the Tugela River. This immediately involves two departments, the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Agriculture, as well as the Natal Agricultural Union. Without the clearing of those Bantu locations there is no future for the Tugela Basin and the hon. the Minister of Planning must realize it, because I believe that a great deal of the industrial future of South Africa depends on the development of this area. Obviously we need here top level men, scientists, ecologists, economists and engineers, people who can give their attention to what is needed to take authoritative executive decisions. This is what I am asking the Minister to consider. It is not possible for this area to have a planning body of that sort which, as I say, will be not departmental but super-departmental, not something to infringe upon the rights of any particular department but to co-ordinate the interests of all the departments? I mention, for example, a study which I believe ought to be made now. The Bantu people in the Tugela Basin by the year 2000, if development goes as we hope it will, will be living very much on the standard on which the White man is living today because of the fantastic opportunities that will be offered them. Who is going to commission this study to look into the requirements of those people for recreational, social and cultural amenities, just to mention one instance?

I wish to draw to the Minister’s attention a development which is taking place in Great Britain, where they are planning and actually physically constructing some 13 new towns which are designed to draw people away from areas like the Greater London area; to draw away the surplus population. One of those new towns is the town of Milton Keynes, which is being planned as a city to have 250 000 people by the end of the century in what today are five small villages. There has been established a corporation by the Minister of Planning in Britain, a corporation which has executive powers, which has finance, which can commission studies and which has had engineering consultants plan out in detail in their reports the progress which can be made and plans for the city which tie together all the various problems that arise when you have high density living. We had a committee appointed by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This kind of thing, the bulk factors in those areas, living densities, all have to be planned in detail and I really believe that the Minister’s department is circumscribed and it is limited in what it can do in the practical implementation of planning.

It is all very well to allocate areas, and the Tugela Basin has been a fallow field for many years, but now the time has come to look at the practical problems and to plan for those problems. To mention merely water, we have a Department of Water Affairs which carries out planning. Their function is to store the water. There is a site above the Spioenkop Dam where a water purification work can be erected which will be able to supply, by gravity, purified water to all the major centres in the Tugela Basin. Who is going to co-ordinate those local authorities? Who is going to ensure that they are saved the expense of erecting small and locally duplicated water purification facilities when one can, just by creating one area, solve all their problems? There is the plan put forward by Professor Matthews of the Natal University, which shows that one can, by connecting up the Mooi River, the Bushmans, the Little Bushmans and the little Tugela rivers by means of pipelines and canals, deliver into the Spioenkop Dam 88 million gallons of water per day above the amount the Tugela River delivers. This water can generate electric power on the way. There is power, there is water and there are Bantu areas nearby to which the water can be pumped absolutely free of charge, because the electricity is generated by the passage of the water. Why can one not. then use that water and that power to develop high density settlement of the Bantu people in areas which are today becoming the despair of South Africa? Anyone who knows any of the Bantu areas there, such as the hon. member for Newcastle, will agree with me. If we could use this free electricity to pump water, we could put irrigation settlers there. This would not affect the Tugela Basin as the 88 million gallons of water per day are surplus to the requirements of the Tugela Basin.

That scheme is already under consideration by the Department of Water Affairs.

When I raised it last year with the department, they had no idea of implementing it, or applying it or anything else. What I want is something to tie together the interests of this department with the Department of Bantu Administration. Something is needed to knit together all the various factors which must be considered. There are the problems of roads and an airport. An airport in this area must come. There will have to be an airport in the Tugela Basin. This, I think, is again a question of co-ordination. I think that what one needs for development is the water, the power, the transport, the people and the leadership. What I am asking the hon. the Minister is to see to it that he provides the necessary leadership by means of a corporation, an authority or by some body of people. I do not mind if these people were to be appointed. We have the people; we have the Tugela Catchment Association; we have a group of authorities there who are today associated and looking for development. They are tied together in an association where they meet together to discuss the problems they have in common. But they do not have the money and the authorities would not have the money to commission studies of the sort that I believe are necessary. I think that the hon. the Minister, by setting up an authority of this kind, would be able to fuel the development. I think we are going to experience serious problems in the future planning of this area, unless we get this co-ordinating body, which is powerful enough to cut through the red tape that is interdepartmental. It must be that way, because the Department of Water Affairs has certain specific functions to fulfil in that area; there is the hon. Minister’s department which is allocated certain areas for industrial development; there is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration’s department which is allocated certain areas for Bantu settlement. I believe that we must have this body appointed now so that we can commence building on the foundation which was laid by the Town and Regional Planning Commission by the physical planning which was done. We have to start off. We have Iscor at Newcastle. Today every single municipal authority in the Tugela Basin is waiting to see what is going to happen and in which direction the hon. the Minister’s department can move. I believe that it does not only concern this hon. Minister’s department, but that we must find something which will tie together those interests and direct it. I quote this corporation which has been appointed by the hon. the Minister and which is empowered to raise money, to make plans and to take executive action. I point the hon. the Minister’s attention to the Tennessee Valley Authority which virtually rehabilitated the whole of that area which was in a state of complete social collapse. I believe this is the sort of planning that we need in South Africa if we want to draw the full benefit from the potential of this area which will be of such tremendous importance to South Africa in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. We feel that we cannot refrain from commenting on a few matters raised here by the hon. member for Mooi River.

It is interesting that the hon. member for Mooi River referred to many surveys made and the great deal of work done in Natal, especially in regard to the Tugela Basin. He levelled the accusation at the National Party that only now things were starting to happen in Natal. I rather like the hon. member for Mooi River.

Thank you.

He looks quite refined. But the fact of the matter is that this hon. member should bear in mind that, since 1910, Natal has been the only province in South Africa which has been receiving money from the Treasury every year for the purpose of carrying out investigations into development and planning. Now, I want to know this from the hon. member for Mooi River: What has the Provincial Administration of Natal been doing with that money which they have been receiving since 1910? [Interjections.] It will be of no use to the hon. member to become excited. This is true. He is welcome to go there and take a look. I do not know whether the National Party has ever been in power in Natal since 1910 I do not think so. I readily grant this to hon. members on that side of the House.

But what has the Provincial Administration of Natal done with that money? Thesis after thesis has been written on this and on that, but they have never come forward with overall planning. I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that if Mr. Thorington Smith had been in this House today and had had to listen to what was said by the hon. member for Mooi River, I should like to have heard Mr. Thorington Smith, for he is a person who knows what he is talking about.

But here we have another very interesting story with which the hon. member for Mooi River has come forward. Last week the Bantu administration legislation of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was discussed in this House. In that legislation provision was made for an overall statutory body, which will regulate certain matters in regard to labour, housing, etc., in certain areas. What has the hon. member for Mooi River asked for today? He has asked for exactly the same thing. But he went on to say that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development was involved in the matter. That is true. I agree with that. But he went on to say that this overall organization was also to make provision for the social welfare of the Bantu in the Tugela Basin. I cannot identify myself with that. I want hon. members on that side of the House to rise and tell us exactly what they want.

I want to go further by saying that that hon. member’s party is in power in Natal But what has the hon. member asked for now? He has asked for this overall organization to be responsible for the roads as well.

They should coordinate them.

I agree with the hon. member that the Natal Provincial Administration is not competent enough to do that. But we must be consistent. He is pleading for an overall organization. Now, what should this overall organization do? It has to develop the Tugela Basin for the Province of Natal, where that Provincial Council has been receiving money since 1910 for doing everything that could be done there. And now, after all those failures, the National Party has to straighten out matters.

I suppose the hon. member for Mooi River is very pleased that I have now finished with him, but I want to conclude now. I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Planning. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Please do not think this is a chorus of acclamation (juigkoor). I shall furnish my facts. If only I had the time, I would keep those hon. members busy with facts until tomorrow. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister of Planning for the fact that, as far as the Western Transvaal is concerned, we are beginning to see the results of what is being done for us by the Department of Planning. I am referring specifically to my own constituency, where Delareyville is being developed as a border industry area. We are sincerely grateful for that, for we are experiencing major problems in the Western Transvaal. However, I do not want to elaborate any further on that at the moment. I have two requests to make to the hon. the Minister. At this stage a great deal of research has already been carried out in the Western Transvaal, and that was not done with money given to us by the Government, but with money collected by us in our own province and in our own area. We have done a great deal of research, but we as a regional development association do not have the machinery to enable us to co-ordinate that research and to draw up a master plan for us. We want to ask the Department of Planning to help us to co-ordinate that research and to give us guidance in regard to a master plan for the development of the Western Transvaal.

Then I want to make my last request to the hon. the Minister. This is in regard to something which affects us on a countrywide basis. We are 100 per cent in line with the development of the economic growth points within the Bantu homelands, but we should also be aware that we may not leave the border area development in abeyance. I just want to ask that in the whole process we should regard the coordination between growth points within the homeland, border industry areas, backward areas and metropolitan areas as forming a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively and with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this motion. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Namaqualand for having moved this motion here in the House. I want to thank all hon. members for the contributions they made in regard to this motion. I also want to thank the hon. member for Namaqualand for the words of appreciation which he expressed towards my department by way of his motion and in his speech. We appreciate them. It is good to hear occasionally that people appreciate one’s work. Since the Opposition appreciates the work done by my officials, I find it a pity that they have rejected the motion. Nevertheless, I think that every member made a fine contribution and that each of them said something that was worth listening to. I find it a pity that, to a large extent, the Opposition adopted a negative attitude in regard to these matters. Before I speak to the motion, it would perhaps be proper if I only replied briefly to the speeches made by each of these hon. members.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana on having risen here and immediately being able to respond knowledgeably, with knowledge I do not have, to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River on the planning that has been taking place in Natal over the years.

He was quite wrong.

I want to say that in that respect he produced off the cuff a great deal of knowledge, for which I rather admire him. Furthermore, I want to tell him that I also appreciate his words about the Western Transvaal. In a moment I shall refer in my speech to this idea of regional planning in the Republic of South Africa. To me the Western Transvaal remains one of the finest examples of the practicability of proper, extensive regional planning which will fit into a major, national plan for the country as a whole.

†With regard to the hon. member for Mooi River, I just want to say that the idea of a corporation which he has raised here, is something which we have actually considered when we considered the development of Richard’s Bay. It was seriously considered at that time to pass special legislation in this. Parliament to form a corporation to develop Richard’s Bay. After various discussions, however, it was decided to undertake the development of Richard’s Bay on the basis of the local ordinances of Natal. This was done as a gesture towards Natal. An understanding was reached at that time between my Department and the Administrator, as well as the executive committee, that we would develop Richard’s Bay through the various channels of the provincial administration. We are doing this at present quite successfully.

I just want to say to the hon. member, coming to the question of the Tugela basin, that we are doing a lot of overall planning as regards Richard’s Bay. I think the overall planning authority which he is looking for actually is my Department. We are doing it very successfully at Richard’s Bay. We are co-ordinating the activities and the work in a completely new project of the South African Railways, as far as harbour development and railway development are concerned. We are co-ordinating the work of the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Transport, and we have produced a plan on paper for the whole future development envisaged for Richard’s Bay up to the year 2 000. I think it is most possible under the co-ordinating guidance and authority of my Department.

We have done the same thing now with regard to Newcastle. At this very moment the physical plan of the whole of Newcastle has actually just been completed. Very shortly I will publish that plan. I also want to mention work done by my Department and all the various Departments of State that are concerned there as well as the provincial administration and the local city council. In spite of the criticism of their mayor from time to time they have partaken in the work of this planning committee all along the line. The plan that we are producing today is an overall plan for that area, for all the development that will take place there. The only thing that now has to be done there, is for the Group Areas Board to take the whole area that has been set aside for residential purposes for the next 30 years and fill in where the different racial groups will have to live. Then the matter will be completed.

Now we come to the Tugela basin. There is nothing the hon. member has said in regard to the co-ordination of the whole of the Tugela basin which my Department cannot do. I think it is unnecessary to introduce new authorities and new schemes. You know, everybody’s work, is nobody’s work, I think this is perhaps a new line— I may be over-ambitious—which my Department is envisaging for itself, but I have a lot of confidence that we will be able to cope with that very important task.

May I ask you a question? What you have said so far is with regard to the physical planning of the area. Now what about the social planning?

Sir, social and cultural planning forms an integral part of the planning of any area. One cannot exclude it.

Is your department going to do that?

Naturally. We plan for universities, schools, parks, open areas and spaces for playing grounds.

*The hon. member for Smithfield, who spoke before the hon. member for Mooi River did, made a very interesting speech here. I want to thank him for that as well. I want to say that we shall give very serious consideration to the points he mentioned. He asked for financial assistance and greater incentive measures, especially for the growth points that are situated more distantly. Ï know just as well as he does, for I myself represent a constituency which has growth points, that relatively speaking it is very difficult to develop them in competition with the large developing metropolitan areas situated nearby. I can only say that I am taking cognizance of that, and also of his proposal to the effect that we should try, in spheres other than that of manufacturing, to effect greater decentralization of Government activities in particular.

The hon. member for Benoni should not take this amiss of me, but I think that he spoke a little negatively. He said that at 5½ per cent we had already subdued the growth rate a great deal and set our sights too low. But in saying that, the hon. member owes it to this House to rise here and say,· “Look, this is the growth rate which is within the means of South Africa.” If 5½ per cent is not within the means of South Africa without problems being experienced, it is that hon. member’s duty to rise and say that 7½ per cent, for instance, is the growth rate which is possible. Then he has to prove it; otherwise his story does not mean a thing. I have had access to a scientific document, as scientific as it could be made by officials of the State and members of the private sector. They found 5½ per cent to be the desirable growth rate for South Africa at this stage of our development, viewed in the light of our labour resources, manpower, finances, etc.

Within the present labour framework.

I shall come to that in a moment. In that case the hon. member for Benoni could also run down, point for point, the present framework in terms of his growth rate; he could also tell us where the present framework is wrong and how he would change it in order to ensure a 10 per cent growth rate, which the hon. member for Hillbrow has also been advocating. The hon. member for Benoni had a famous father, and I do not blame him for having referred to his father. However, the hon. member will have to look out for his own reputation if he advocates and tries to motivate a growth rate of 10 per cent in South Africa. The hon. member for Hillbrow forfeited his reputation in this process. The hon. member rebukes me every now and then, but I want to tell him that I honestly do not think that there still are economists of repute in South Africa who regard the hon. member for Hillbrow, in spite of all the Free State milk he has drunk, as a great economist today. The hon. member has gone too far. The hon. member is a person who can put his case well, but in this respect he put it too strongly. He advocated a growth rate of 10 per cent and higher, and he even said that South Africa should have the highest growth rate in the world. His specific words were that “we, must out-perform Japan”. He said we had to stop applying the brakes and push the accelerator right down and, as they say it in English, go “flat out”. However, at that stage the hon. member for Rosettenville, who is sitting next to him, said, “Hold it ‘We do not want to open the flood-gates of Black labour over South Africa’.” These were the specific words used by the hon. member. In effect this is also my advice to the hon. member for Benoni.

I suppose I shall have to hurry up. As usual the hon. member for Moorreesburg made a very interesting speech, in which he also pleaded for the activities of the regional development associations to be coordinated and merged on a more extensive regional basis. In that respect I think the hon. member is on a very good wicket. I have already said I am of the Opinion that we should now view planning in South Africa on this regional basis in terms of a broad national plan. Now, to my mind it is only logical to say that it will be a good thing if every regional development association in these regions viewed the matter as we do. We shall have to put such a plan to them in due course. We cannot keep a plan to ourselves and expect them to think and act in terms of that plan. However, if we do put it to them in course of time, they will perhaps view the broad regional plan as we do and will perhaps be in a better position to co-ordinate their representations and activities. I think the point mentioned by the hon. member, is a good one. The hon. member also spoke about Mamre. On my Vote I shall deal fully with Mamre and what we envisage there. I have also taken cognizance of the idea he expressed in regard to Porterville-Saron. We shall give some thought to the matter.

I have already replied partly to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I want to tell the hon. member that I stand by every word I said last year in November at the banquet of the Federated Chamber of Industries of South Africa. If we could publish that speech verbatim, I would welcome it. I still say that it is the developed parts of South Africa which have brought us where we are. Who developed those parts? This side of the House provided the confidence, the encouragement and the incentive for that development. What was the position in 1961? In those days every third house in the constituencies of hon. members opposite displayed “House for Sale” notices. Can you still remember, Sir, how people left South Africa for Australia, Canada and other countries? But this side of the House kept heart. In 1961, after our becoming a Republic, when the Opposition had lost faith and heart, this side of the House kept heart and displayed faith in South Africa, and in the years after our becoming a Republic we had a growth rate of 6 per cent. Is that not high enough? I referred to a high growth rate. Is that not high enough in terms of our potential? Sir, the people who have seen to it that this country of ours has grown, and grown in a fine manner, are sitting over here. We shall not kill the goose that lays the golden egg in South Africa; I have said this before and I am saying it again. They have given us our gross domestic product; they have given us the money for our defence, for our infrastructure and for all other things, and it would be foolish to do that.

Sir, a positive approach in life is, after all, better than a negative approach. If we in South Africa had been a homogeneous population, I would have been dead against a negative approach. I would have said that we should merely concentrate on the positive approach. But in a moment I shall deal with the question of congestion and over-concentration, for we should like to do something about these matters, and for that reason I think that a positive approach is better than a negative one. The hon. member said, “Why both incentives and disincentives?” I said in that speech that, whereas incentives and disincentives “both have a role to play, I still believe that the positive forces, as with everything in life, are stronger than the negative forces”. I repeat that today.

Mr. Speaker, on my Vote we can continue our discussion on the Physical Planning Act and how I have been trying to implement it in terms of Government policy, which I endorse fully.

I have already thanked my hon. friend the hon. member for Namaqualand for the motion he moved here and the fine manner in which he did so. Nor do I blame him for trying to promote here the interests of Namaqualand. To my mind this is a good thing. This is one of the regions of our country in which there are minerals, and the minerals of the extensive backward areas of our country are, as I shall indicate now, still one of the best assets and points of growth which we have.

Mr. Speaker, I shall have to hurry up. I wanted to say something about how we started our development, our growth points, along the coastline, but I shall have to pass that by. Our settlement started here at the Cape. One can understand that this wonderfully situated, beautiful harbour here on the southermost point of this continent, at which the world traffic of the oceans had to call and which remains the southern gateway to Africa, is essentially a growth point. The same applies to Durban and Port Elizabeth and, to a certain extent, to East London. Port cities all over the world are growth points, and from port cities in South Africa growth points have also developed along our shores. But in the interior our growth points developed around our mineral riches. The people went inland in order to extract diamonds and gold from the earth. Of course, industries developed there in due course, at first industries for the mining industry, repair industries, later manufacturing industries, and still later other industries were added, also for consumption purposes. Then there was the other wonderful mineral, coal, as well as other minerals. In that way our development took place in the north; all of us know that; this is economic history, and my time is short. Later on we also had the development of Natal from scratch, and Natal and the Transvaal are our developed parts at present.

The rest of the country is an arrid part. If only conditions here had been like conditions in some parts of Europe, where farmers can make a good living on seven hectares of land, hon. members could imagine for themselves what a wonderful, large population we would have had on these extensive parts of South Africa, if we could have settled a farmer on every seven hectares of land. That would simply have been wonderful. But unfortunately that is not the case. On the contrary, those parts in South Africa which are already well endowed by nature, are the very parts which have the highest rainfall and which are also the best agricultural areas. Sir, some days I feel as though I may as well sit against a wild pomegranate on a hillock in the vast North-West and sigh, “Yes, to those who have, shall be given, and from those who do not have, shall be taken what they have.” [Interjection.1 Yes, and on top of that the locusts are devouring everything we have. But, as I said, we do have our assets as well. We have the minerals to which the hon. member for Namaqualand referred and which we can exploit. Reference was also made here to Saldanha and to iron ore. All of these are growth points which we could possibly create on the basis of our iron ore. Although we are not in a position to say this today—the hon. the Minister of Transport referred to it this week—we hope that these things will become a reality. This is perhaps only a hope as yet.

But let us go back to the developed parts now. Sir, how far can one go in these developed parts? Is there not a limit to development? I can understand that one can build a power station and that one can reach a certain stage of development, but if in due course one no longer has any land and has to construct roads overhead or underground, a stage may in fact be reached where development becomes too expensive for the community. Just look at the way the rates have soared which some of the large municipalities have to levy in order to pay for services. However, I do not want to dwell on this point. I have a quotation here which I should like to read out, but I would rather do so in the course of the debate on my Vote. This author says that in America over-concentration has at this stage become such a problem that the people do not know what to do about it, and then he goes on to say—

Sir, we have this over-concentration of people, and this is one reason why one must decentralize. If people do not like the word “decentralization”, one may as well call it the proportionate, balanced development of the country. What is the increase of the White population? I do not want to make great play of this, but do you know, Sir, that over the past 10 years the Whites in the O.F.S. have only increased by 7 per cent? The Whites in the Cape Province have increased by 11 per cent, whereas those in the northern provinces have both increased by approximately 30 per cent—the Transvaal by just under 30 per cent and Natal by just over 30 per cent. The other two provinces have lagged behind and are falling behind to an increasing extent. Is this to be blamed on economic considerations, social considerations, political considerations, strategic considerations? Is this a good and sound thing for the country? Do hon. members want to tell me that if they could change the position, without prejudicing our economy, they would not like to change it?

Then there are still these important figures: The Coloureds in the Cape Province have increased by 33 per cent and in the Free State by 40 per cent. Just as we moved to the cities, the Coloureds are going to move to the cities in the course of the next 10 years. Should we not do something to keep them in our more spacious rural areas? Has the Opposition then adopted an attitude of indifference towards such a cardinal, essential problem of South Africa? We have on so many occasions discussed here the large Bantu labour force. Would it not be much better if one could take as much of the work as possible to the large labour force, since this is also their homeland? Would that not be better? There are many considerations for our doing this.

Now we come to the growth points mentioned in the motion. We have a growth point committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Planning, but every town in the country cannot be designated as a growth point. By doing that one would defeat one’s whole object. There are not enough industries for manning so many growth points. But we are at least taking note of, amongst other things, the labour pressure. I have already referred to the Coloureds. In this regard I mentioned Kimberley. I am rather disappointed that the hon. member for Benoni did not speak about Kimberley in a more positive manner. We have designated Kimberley, as well as De Aar, Upington, Bloemfontein, Heilbron and Welkom. All of these are growth points for Coloureds. We have also designated Beaufort West. I said a moment ago that I would discuss Mamre under my Vote. We hope to do something good in Mamre for our Coloured population. There are growth points in Natal, i.e. Ladysmith, Newcastle and Richard’s Bay. We are giving decentralization benefits.

Then I want to mention again an aspect with which I shall deal fully on my Vote, i.e. that in the whole decentralization programme with a view to the proportionate and balanced development of our country, we do not look at every spot separately. We look at the country in its entirety. We plan the country in its entirety on a regional basis. We know what we are doing and we know what we want to achieve with this overall planning. There are problems. It is not so easy. It does not help to poke fun at it either. One of our greatest problems is the Opposition. How many times have I sat in this House and listened to them scaring off the industrialists from going to the border areas and developing areas. Those hon. members referred to hostile labour forces which would leave those people in the lurch.

When?

Is that hon. member, who has so much to say, in favour of our having to develop East London and Berlin? Is he in favour of that? Who of them is opposed to it? Not one of them is opposed to it, but they are criticizing it morning, noon and night.

We have had discussions here today, but this afternoon I still do not know what the United Party’s attitude is in regard to industrial decentralization. I trust that when my Vote comes up for discussion later this year, we shall well and truly settle this matter with one another. The National Party’s standpoint is clear. We want to develop South Africa in all its facets, for all of its people, in a balanced and proportionate manner. For that reason I thank the hon. member for Namaqualand for his motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all afternoon because of my interest in the subject of decentralization. I listened particularly to hear what the attitude was of the Government towards people when it comes to decentralization. What is their attitude going to be towards the different communities in particular? We have had many discussions in this House on the pros and cons of border industrial areas which today, as my hon. friend for Mooi River has pointed out, have received a new name, namely “decentralized growth points”. We had the hon. member for Moorreesburg who came very close to the question of what to do with people. One hon. member on the other side took my hon. friend for Mooi River to task because he dared to mention the question of social amenities. But surely this is the function of this hon. Minister and his Department. The function of his Department is the co-ordination of all planning. When we talk about the co-ordination of all planning, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I deplore his statements with regard to Natal and the excellent job of work which is being done by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission that goes for the hon. member for Christiana as well. What the Government is doing in Natal today is based on the investigation which that commission has done over the last 30 or 40 years. The Minister of Community Development admitted that this is the leading organization of its kind in the country, and that Minister’s Department is merely building on what they have done. I am sure the hon. member for Newcastle will agree with me, because he is somebody who is in the heart of it and he knows what is going on.

But to come back to this question of the population groups and where they fit in in decentralization, I was interested to hear from the Minister of Planning that he feels that with this tremendous growth in the Coloured population of the Cape Province and in the Free State of 30-odd per cent and 40-odd per cent respectively in the last 10 years, it is better to keep the Coloureds in the platteland. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness whether this is to be accepted as a statement of policy, and if so, whether he is going to apply that policy also in the other two provinces of the Republic; because up to now he has not applied that policy in the Transvaal or Natal, particularly in regard to the Coloureds in both provinces and in regard to the Indians of Natal. Because the policy that he and his department are carrying out in Natal today, and in the Transvaal in regard to the Coloureds, is to take these people away from where they are now in the platteland, where these population groups are established in villages and towns, and to concentrate them in what he is now calling growth points for those population groups. I hope I heard the Minister correctly and that he is now going to drop those plans, because he knows the outcry there has been amongst the Coloured people particularly where in Natal his department plans to put them into four growth points. These growth points have been called frustration points because the Coloured people can see no future for themselves in those so-called growth points, because they are going to be taken away from homes which many of these families have occupied for over 100 years. They will be uprooted and established in a large city. As far as we can see and they can see, no provision is being made for work opportunities in close proximity to the centres where they are being established.

Then there is the question of the landed people, the farmers, amongst the Indians and the Coloureds who are being moved. They are being moved to these towns and no alternative farm land is being offered to them to compensate them for the land from which they are being removed. This is a very serious matter to these people, and because of the dissatisfaction which has existed and the feeling of insecurity which has existed amongst these people, I feel that the Minister owes them a categoric assurance in regard to what exactly is to be their future. The Minister and I have previously crossed swords on this point. I made certain statements in Natal during January in an address to a debating society there. This Minister, having read a Press report of what I said, in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs on 3rd February issued a statement refuting all I had said in this regard. If the Minister means what he said this afternoon, namely that he feels that these people should be left where they are on the platteland, and that, as has been pleaded for by members on both sides this afternoon, we should have development of the platteland areas, I welcome it. I am sure that the Coloured and Indian populations of the Transvaal and Natal will welcome it also if he would only indicate that he was not only referring to the Cape Province and the Orange Free State when he made this statement. The statement issued by the Minister reads as follows—

But I want to say that at the time I made that statement it did reflect Government policy, and I do not think the Minister can deny that it was their intention to concentrate these people in certain growth points throughout Natal and the Transvaal. I sincerely hope that the statement we have had today from the hon. the Minister is a reversal of that previous policy and I sincerely hope that a little later during this Session we will have an opportunity to discuss further this statement by the Minister.

Debate having continued for hours, motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The question of what land will be available for African occupation in South Africa is an old one. We need not go further back than 1913 to find out what the position was. In that year the first Union Parliament passed an Act of Parliament laying down a uniform policy for the four provinces. It also defined certain areas in which Natives, as they were then known, could acquire land without the consent of the Governor-General and also the areas where they could not acquire land without the consent of the Governor-General. It was not intended by that Act that the boundaries that were laid down then would be definite, because the Act itself provided that those provisions would only apply until a commission, which was to be appointed under the Act, reported to Parliament. The commission which was appointed was known as the Beaumont Commission. Its functions were to inquire into and report on areas where Natives could not acquire interest in land and areas where only they could acquire land. I want to read a passage from the report of that commission, because it is very interesting—

That is very wise advice given at that time and it still applies today.

Gen. Botha was the Prime Minister at the time. He made it clear in 1913 that more land would and should be given to the Natives for their own occupation, where they could develop and manage their own affairs but, as he made it quite clear, under the control of the Central Government. Subsequently, in 1936, under Gen. Hertzog a further Act was passed amending the 1913 legislation and providing for further land to be set aside for Bantu occupation. It was recognized, however, that the areas set aside in the scheduled areas, where Bantu could acquire interests in land, and in the released areas, where they were free with others to acquire interests in land, were not sufficient for the needs of the Africans and that further land would have to be made available. Quotas were fixed setting aside the maximum amount of land which could be acquired in each province for addition to the Native Reserves. The 1913 Act definitely intended that the areas which the Bantu could acquire, would be reviewed. In addition to the appointment of the commission to guage this question, there was also provision in clause 8 that the restrictions would not apply to the Bantu in the Cape, who would be exempted so that they could acquire property to qualify as voters. It was therefore visualized that they would be able to buy outside the scheduled areas in order to qualify. So, in 1913 there was certainly no certainty as to the boundaries of the Native areas. In the 1936 Act there is no permanent boundary laid down for areas to be occupied by the Bantu, in the same way as there was no permanent boundaries laid down for areas which the Bantu could not occupy and where they could not acquire interests. For example, provision is made for excision of land from the areas reserved for Bantu occupation, i.e. the scheduled areas, which could be exchanged for land outside the scheduled areas which were for occupation by non-Bantu. In other words, land reserved for occupation by Bantu could be exchanged for land reserved for occupation by Whites, Coloureds and Indians. There is also a provision in that Act for acquisition by purchase by the Bantu Trust, of land abutting on scheduled areas One knows that a system then developed of buying land adjoining that land. It became known as the creeping paralysis system of acquiring more land for the Bantu Trust so that in effect, the boundaries of the scheduled areas could be extended from time to time as the Bantu Trust bought land abutting on it.

With regard to the scheduled areas as defined in 1913 and 1936, we find that the municipal areas and commanages of the villages and towns in the Transkei were excluded from occupation by the Bantu. In certain districts, notably Umtata and Port St. Johns, all the surveyed farms were also excluded from occupation by the Bantu. However, now all the farms in Umtata district are owned either by the Bantu Trust or by Bantu. The commonages are being taken over by the Bantu Trust and we know that the villages are rapidly becoming black.

The exchange of land from scheduled areas, is frequent. It is impossible to tell from time to time what land may fall in a scheduled area or be taken out of a scheduled area. Parliament has changed the schedule on four occasions by Acts of Parliament since 1956. By Act 73 of 1956 the Babanango district was added to the scheduled areas. Act 46 of 1962 brought a change in the East London area. Act 76 of 1963 added to the scheduled areas the districts of Camperdown, Pinetown, Klip River, Dundee and Nqutu and, in the Transvaal, Rustenburg and Brits. Act 42 of 1964 added two blocks to the scheduled area in the King William’s Town district and in Indwe, Pietermaritzburg and Groblersdal there were also additions to the scheduled areas.

But besides adding by Act of Parliament, this Parliament also, by resolution, can add to the scheduled areas. It will be remembered that in 1970 we passed a resolution in this House which excised Reserve No. 6 near Richard’s Bay which was substituted by land on the border of Mozambique. The United Party opposed that resolution, because we felt it was wrong for land on our borders to be given to reserves which would ultimately become independent states. I quote that to show that there is continual change in the boundaries of the reserves.

Because of this method of excision the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had to give the reply he did to the hon. member for Houghton recently when she inquired what land had still to be bought under the quota system. He gave her the figures and said—

So we found that last year, instead of the position as far as the quota land becoming better and that more was acquired, we slipped back and still have to acquire more than we had to acquire in 1969. The hon. the Deputy Minister smiles, but that is his own Minister’s reply.

All exchanges have been in the rural areas and have been done by successive governments, generally with the support of the people who were to be affected, but often it happened that it had to be done against their wishes. Often purchases of White farms by the Bantu Trust have been opposed by neighbouring farmers, for obvious reasons. Therefore, it is quite wrong to say, as the Government members so often say, that the boundaries of the reserves were laid down by the 1913 and 1936 legislation. Both pieces of legislation anticipated alterations in the boundaries by exchange and also by further acquisition. Although it was always a matter of concern for those living in close proximity to the reserves where the boundaries would be, it was not so important before the advent of Dr. Verwoerd as Minister of Bantu Affairs with his policy of fragmentation and the establishment of separate and independent Bantu states. Once South Africa was set on that course, it became of paramount importance for everyone to know where the boundaries of the reserves would be.

It is a matter of great concern, not only for the people living alongside the reserves, but also for those living inside the reserves, to know where the boundaries will be. It is of great importance that they should know that because those people living in close proximity of the reserves can find themselves in a foreign country with a totally different type of government. They could move from stability to an unknown factor. I do not necessarily mean to say that you will have chaos, anarchy, instability and uncertainty where you have a Black government. The contrary has been proved on our very borders, but we also have examples of instability after independence in unexpected quarters and of losses suffered by the non-Africans in those areas. They suffered losses because of nationalization or by discriminatory legislation by the governments concerned.

The concern and uncertainty being expressed in South Africa are not only apparent in the areas bordering on the reserves, but also in the reserves themselves. The Whites living in those parts remember that Dr. Verwoerd discouraged the use of White capital in the reserves and that he warned that if White industrialists went into the reserves or into the protectorates and their property was nationalized by the Black Government or if any other discriminatory action was taken against them, they were not to come to him for protection. The present Prime Minister has had a change of feeling, mainly because of pressure brought to bear on him by his own economists. He said recently, on the 16th September—

That protection to White entrepreneurs who go into the homelands on an agency basis, is all right, but what about those who have gone into the border areas to establish their industries? Today they may be a border industry, but tomorrow they may find themselves in a homeland. They must know what their position is to be. They must receive some guarantee.

The Prime Minister has now invited the self-governing Native states and the territorial authorities to approach him for independence. He said that there will be lengthy negotiations and that certain conditions will have to be laid down. Nevertheless he has opened the door to immediate negotiations. Just to show how disturbed those who may be affected have become, I want to say that even the traders in the Transkei who have been promised compensation if they want to leave and if their cases are deemed urgent, are asking what will happen if they stay on in the Transkei or in other reserves and are there at the time of independence. Will they also be protected? I see this matter was raised in the Other Place yesterday. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said it was quite unnecessary to raise that point, because the Prime Minister had said in this Chamber—

He gives the same reference as the speech from which I have just quoted. Quite obviously, the Prime Minister did not say that. We wish he would say that. If those words were used by the Prime Minister or the Minister, it would be a “waarborg” to the people living in that area that they would be protected after independence. That is what they want to get from this Government.

As proof of the concern of the people living alongside the Bantu areas, I recently read in this House a leading article in the Kokstad Advertiser. That paper referred to a speech made by Chief Kaiser Matanzima in which he claimed certain parts of East Griqualand, including Mount Currie district, for the Transkei. The paper pointed out that there were negotiations for the sale of two farms in progress at the time, and they were stopped at once. The buyers were no longer interested. The hon. member for Aliwal, in whose constituency these farms fall, interjected that it was three, not two. Now what is his attitude to the boundary question? We were discussing a previous Bill passed by this House, dealing with boundaries when he said—

Mr. Malan asked “Where is here an there?” Mr. Botha replied—

I have just pointed out to the House that there is no definition in either the 1936 or the 1913 Act. But he also had a word to say to me on a subsequent occasion. He said—

I asked, “In what way?” He replied—

He went on to say—

The mere fact that he said that I neglected my duty by not finding out where the borders were, proves that they do not know where the borders are. But I want to point out to him that, while that area was in my constituency, I could give the assurance to the farmers there that the Bantu Trust would not buy their farms, because that is what was happening. They feared at one stage that the Bantu Trust was going to buy on this creeping paralysis basis. I received a letter from the then Secretary of the Farmers’ Association, Mr. Bruce Young, that the Bantu Trust would not buy those farms.

Another example of concern is Port St. Johns. Although the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration have given the assurance that the area will remain White, and will be excluded from the Transkei, they have constantly been reminded that it forms a portion of the Transkei. They have just sent me a Gazette, dated 18th December, which deals with abattoirs. It gives a definition of the Transkei. It says—

It goes right on in alphabetical order up to Port St. Johns. But dealing with Matatiele it says—

The White areas of Port St. Johns are excluded from the Transkei by the Constitution Act. Yet Port St. Johns finds itself referred to as an ordinary district of the Transkei. After that speech by Kaiser Matanzima the sale of two hotels in that area fell through because of the uncertainty about what would happen.

Look what happened at Umzimkulu.

Yes, there the people received the assurance that it would remain White, but it did not of course remain White. After that assurance had been given it went Black.

I would now like to give another example of what is really happening. The other day the hon. the Minister indicated to the hon. member for Houghton that he had had two requests from Chief Kaiser Matanzima for additional land and that East Griqualand should be added to the Transkei, but that he had turned these requests. In 1968 Chief Matanzima in substantiating his claim said the following—

The second pillar on which his claim is based is the 1936 South African legislation, which paved the way for the purchase of 7½ million morgen of land to add to South Africa’s tribal Reserves. Chief Matanzima further said—

Earlier than that he made a further claim and said the following—

One can therefore see why people are worried. It is because claims of this nature are being made. On June 11th, 1970, at Nongomn, Chief Buthelezi said at the inauguration of the Zulu Territorial Authority—

We have these claims from African leaders and the public takes notice of them. The hon. the Prime Minister himself substantiated the fact that despite the 1913 and 1936 Acts there can be no finality. In Hansard, volume 30, column 5484, of the 1st October, 1970, he said the following in regard to land quotas—

So much, Sir, for these Nationalist friends who say that the borders were laid down in 1913 and in 1936. In the same speech the Prime Minister mentioned the fact that the land which had been bought up to date had cost R81 million.

R93 million.

According to Hansard he said R81 million. Sir, every year land becomes more and more expensive. After 23 years of planning by this Nationalist Government, this country is entitled to know what this Government intends doing. Is it going to add land haphazardly as it comes on the market, or have they any plan? The Prime Minister has now pledged the Government to buy an additional 1½ million morgen. Last year, according to an answer given to a question in the House, he acquired approximately 124 000 morgen. At this rate it will take him 12 years to make up the quota, and we have heard from the Minister that instead of going forward, they went backwards last year, so it will take longer. Sir, it is essential that the Government declare the boundaries of the reserves and that it commit itself to purchase the land in that area. It is not necessary for the Government to purchase the land at once, provided it gives a guarantee to the people living in that area that it will purchase their land if they want to leave or if they have to leave. Had the Government taken the advice which I gave when the Transkei problem started, more than half the traders who left the Transkei would still have been there. All they wanted was a guarantee that if they wanted to leave the Government would pay them compensation. I say that the Government should now declare the borders of the reserves and give the assurance to the people who are affected that they will pay them out if they want to leave. The Prime Minister has admitted that this land must be bought. Nationalist Party congresses have worried about this question.

What!

Sir, I have not got the time to deal with that now; other speakers on this side will deal with it. That hon. member ought to know that on the borders of the Transkei a Nationalist Party branch put forward a resolution at the last congress asking the Government to declare the boundaries of the Transkei. Does the hon. member know that the Nationalist chairman at Komga moved a resolution at a meeting of the farmers’ association asking the Government to put Komga in the Transkei? He did not get very far with it, but the mere fact that that chairman of a Nationalist Party branch was under the impression that it could be done, shows that he himself believes that finality has not been reached with regard to the boundaries and that more land can be added to the Transkei. Sir, hon. members opposite are not going to deny that farmers’ associations have put forward requests that the boundaries be declared. They are worried; they want to know what the position is going to be. This Government must now show some “kragdadigheid”.

*They must, show that they are in earnest. Sir. we do not want to see laws only; we want deeds.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Transkei, who has just resumed his seat. I listened to his historical survey of the legislation relating to the purchase of land on behalf of the Bantu Trust and the consolidation of the Bantu reserves. However, there was one thing today which left me speechless. The hon. member for Transkei made mention of the land which has to be purchased now, but what was the standpoint of the United Party a few years ago? Why is the hon. member for Houghton sitting here now, and the United Party there? Is it not as a result of this very same point at issue between the United Party and the Progressive Party? The United Party did not want to purchase further land, on the grounds of the fact that they adopted the attitude that the National Party eventually wanted to create independent homelands. Now the hon. member is saying that the boundaries should be determined immediately. He says that it must be established immediately where the boundaries are going to be. I shall come to that again in a moment, Sir. It astonishes me that the hon. member for Transkei is now introducing this motion, and that is why I should like to move the following amendment:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House expresses its appreciation towards the Government for the steps taken up to the present in connection with the acquisition of land by the South African Bantu Trust and the consolidation of the Bantu areas, and reaffirms its confidence in the Government to continue with and accelerate consolidation in so far as it is practicable”.

The hon. member for Transkei is a neighbour of mine as far as constituencies are concerned. He is the only hon. member in this House who carries a White Paper around in his pocket. That White Paper is the guarantee for White economy in the Transkei. He carries a White Paper around in his pocket with the Government’s guarantee that the rights of the Whites in the Transkei are not going to be prejudiced, unless they are properly compensated.

Where is that White Paper?

In your pocket.

Sir, it seems to me that the hon. member for Transkei does not know about the White Paper with which the rights of the Whites in the Transkei are being guaranteed. I still remember the hon. member’s reaction at the time that White Paper was published. The late Dr. Verwoerd was still in this House. The hon. member for Transkei then said that the Whites in the Transkei were worse off than the Britons who had remained behind in Kenya. Those were his words. Today the Whites in the Transkei are prosperous. They are so prosperous that they are rapidly leaving the Transkei. They are leaving so rapidly that the hon. member no longer knows what is going to happen to his constituency in the near future. The Whites, whose properties are being purchased by the Xhosa Development Corporation, are settling in my constituency. In four years’ time the hon. member for Transkei will no longer have a constituency. The result is that he would now like to have the boundaries determined.

I will take your constituency away from you.

No, Sir, that hon. member will not take over the constituency of Aliwal. That will not happen so easily.

How large is your majority at the moment.

My majority was large enough. I am in no danger. Let us return to the Transkei. What is the position as far as the Transkei is concerned? Are there any areas on the present boundaries of the Transkei which have been released? The hon. member for Transkei represents approximately 250 voters in the Mount Currie district. Those boundaries, between the Transkei and Mount Currie districts, have already been surveyed and fenced off. The result is that these are the final boundaries. What other parts between Elliot, Maclear and Ugie are released areas? As far as the Transkei is concerned, I have said—I stand and I fall by this—that except for trifles here and there, the Transkeian boundaries have been well consolidated. In the entire South African homeland complex, the Transkei is the most consolidated homeland of them all.

What about Komga?

I shall come to Komga later. This is not under discussion now.

What about Umzimkulu?

Since the hon. member is mentioning it, may I just say that the history of Umzimkulu is interesting. The former Government decided to excise the Ndowana farms, consisting of 14 farms, 27 000 acres in extent, from the Transkei and consolidate them with the Mount Currie district. As compensation for those Ndowana farms, it was decided to give the Umtata White farms to the Transkei. Eventually it appeared that the Umtata White lands which had been purchased, were insufficient to compensate for the Ndowana farms. For that reason the Umzimkulu lands, which are situated in the heart of the Transkei, were purchased. The Umzimkulu lands are also going to be used now as compensation.

Was there a promise …

Give me a chance, please. The hon. member can make his

own speech.

Was there a promise? That is all I am asking.

There were no promises, not as far as I know. The Umzimkulu farms were also used as compensatory land for the Ndowana farms. The position is now that without the Umzimkulu lands, there is still a deficit of 5 000 or 6 000 acres as compensatory land for the Ndowana farms when those farms are eventually excised completely as released areas. This is the position in regard to Kokstad and Mount Currie, and in those complexes there are no released areas any more.

But the hon. member is looking for a way out. He mentioned these Black leaders who are laying claims to more land. Why are these things being done? Why does Kaiser Matanzima say he wants larger areas of land? Is it because he needs them? No, Sir, I have known that part of the world for these past 22 years, and we are returning to a whispering campaign. I attended the hon. member for Transkei’s meeting where he asked where the boundaries were. This was years ago, and that whispering campaign and all that gossip has worked its way through to the Black man and has created certain expectations among the Blacks to the effect that they are going to receive more land. Hence these claims today for more land. We must be careful what we as Whites say and do, and we must not create false hopes among people to the effect that more things are eventually going to be given to them than they are really entitled to; because as far as the Transkei itself is concerned, except for the White complexes, there is virtually no more land which can be added to the Transkei. I am talking about the little towns and the town lands in the Transkei.

The Ciskei still has to be consolidated. Large areas of the Ciskei still have to be consolidated, but I can give the assurance that I do not think Komga is included. But we must not create false expectations and hope among people to the effect that there will be more land for them than they are really entitled to. Then we as Whites are going to cut a switch for our own backs and are creating a danger. We must act responsibly. Let us differ on political issues, but let us not differ in regard to these matters, and let us at least be honest on that point towards the Blacks.

As far as the hon. member for Transkei is concerned, he put his foot in it here today and I wonder whether his hon. leader knows about this motion, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout issued a statement the other day in regard to petty apartheid and his leader did not even know about it. I wonder whether the hon. the leader knows about this motion of the hon. member for Transkei.

You can stop wondering.

In any case, the United Party has also changed recently, because we are always taking them in tow and then we are glad to see that they want to help us and want to co-operate in this consolidation. I have not yet seen this in the past, but I hope that they will in future arise and support us when we ask for more funds for the consolidation. The United Party has never yet in the past supported us in this respect, lit is therefore their duty now to rise and to support us to obtain more funds for consolidation. The sooner they do that, the sooner the final boundaries will be where they should be. But let each one of us be loyal to what is his own, because I am loyal to the territory I represent. I will not betray my people and I will always stand by them; we must be loyal to ourselves, and we must be honest towards other people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal has given us an interesting little dissertation here. I must say that a lot of what he has said amounted to a series of contradictions. I want to put him right on just one or two points. He has suggested to us in this House today that we have tended to create false hopes among the Bantu concerning the amount of land they are likely to get.

Do you know the Bantu?

Probably better than you do. I want to tell him that, if he had only read this motion properly, he would have seen that what we want from this Government this afternoon is something which we have wanted for a long time, namely merely a definition of the boundaries of these embryo tribal States which the Government wants to create.

In terms of their policy.

Yes, in terms of their policy, as my colleague here says.

The hon. member for Aliwal also suggested, as did the hon. member for Brakpan over there, that the people of the Eastern Cape, which is my homeland as well, …

So is it mine.

Yes. He suggested that the people of the Eastern Cape are happy with the state of affairs there. If that hon. gentleman, the member for Aliwal, had been at the Nationalist Party congress in East London about four or five years ago, which I attended, it would have been interesting to have heard him trying to tell that to his own delegates there. I shall come back to this a little later on. He is now suggesting that these people are quite happy with the situation. I should like to know what would have happened had he got up and told them that they were mistakenly unhappy, since they really should have been happy.

He also said that the White people of the Transkei are now an affluent and happy society, in fact, so much so that they are bailing out of the Transkei at a tremendous pace. I do not think that one has to dwell on that for too long since it is so patently a contradiction.

I want to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Transkei which, inter alia, calls upon the Government to consider the advisability of finally determining and making known the ultimate bounderies of the Reserves. When the hon. member for Transkei referred to reserves in his motion, he meant, of course, those areas which in Nationalist terminology are to be developed to a stage where they can become self-governing territories and then obtain sovereign independence. Already, as we know, legislation has been passed through this House and is now being dealt with in the Other Place, to allow for the proclamation of boundaries for these territories. On many occasions down the years, but more particularly since the report of the Tomlinson Commission, it has been stressed both by those who support the Government directly and those who are interested to see whether this Government really is capable of putting its policy of separate, independent homelands into practice, that the future boundaries of these embryo tribal states should be defined and that the definition should be the result of the long-term planning necessary to consolidate these territories.

We have to examine the position from two points of view. Firstly, from the point of view of the Whites, the Coloured and the Indian people who will, in terms of Government policy, become the permanent inhabitants of what will remain of the Republic after the Black States have hived off. Secondly, we have to examine the situation from the point of view of the peoples of the Black States to examine whether the boundaries proposed will give them realistically proportioned countries in which they will be able to live as sovereign independent peoples with a modicum of economic self-respect and national pride. These factors are intimately wrapped up with the necessity for a speedy appraisal of the situation as it obtains today, and the need for a move to be made, as soon as possible to remove uncertainty about the future boundaries that exists in the minds of both White and non-White people.

Before going further, I want to point to inherent differences between the Government and the official Opposition over the political future of the Bantu homelands, differences that bring with them further basic differences on the question of whether geographic consolidation need be done as a matter of extreme urgency, or not. We of the United Party, for example, do not envisage sovereign independent Black States within the borders of the present Republic. We do not envisage a network of international boundaries criss-crossing the Republic, as it is today. We take the view that while consolidation in general terms, is desirable and a merit-worthy aim, we are not bound by a timetable for the fragmentation of our country. We believe that such consolidation of the Bantu areas into geographic units should be done at a sensible, unhurried pace that causes the least disruption to the people involved and to the economy of our country. But this Government with its timetable set for hurrying these Black States towards firstly self-government and then independence, is in a different position altogether. It has created anxiety among the people who might be affected by the break-up of the country, anxiety which has been voiced by its own supporters as well as those intellectuals who support it. This anxiety has not in the least been allayed by the snail’s pace at which it has moved so far towards consolidation. Let me give an example. Here I want to come back to that Nationalist Party Congress in East London which I attended. I was there when delegates from the Eastern Cape brought intense pressure to bear on the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. A. H. Vosloo, to commit himself to speeding up the definition of the boundaries of the Ciskei. I recall that the delegates spoke with deep feeling for they were reflecting the views of those they represented at the congress, people from areas which might be bought up as parts of the consolidated Black Ciskei, or areas that might abut on the Ciskei, or areas, indeed, that might remain White. These people wanted to know their future. The Deputy Minister at the time gave them very cold comfort indeed. I cannot recall whether the hon. member for Aliwal was at that congress. I can only assume that he was or should have been. If he was, he should be able to recall in fairly vivid terms how that discussion went. Mr. Vosloo, the Deputy Minister at that time, said bluntly that the Government was not in a position to afford to spend the sums necessary to bring about a speedy consolidation and therefore it could not commit itself to the future boundaries. He indicated that a state of uncertainty would continue for some considerable time. In this last prediction he was right. Some considerable time has already passed and nothing further has happened. The same Deputy Minister said very much the same thing when he opened the conference of SABRA at Stellenbosch in 1967. I was at that conference of SABRA and I was rather amazed to see the pains with which he tried to spell out the problems confronting the Government in trying to effect various forms of homeland development. Not the least of these problems was geographic consolidation. I can recall very clearly the disappointment of the delegates to the SABRA conference. These were the intellectuals who wanted to see enough done merely to allow the Government’s homeland policy to be given a chance to succeed. They were very impatient with what the Government had done at that stage and they wanted to see the pace accelerated. I shall return to some aspects of this conference later on.

Meanwhile, I think we might also examine what attitude the Government itself has taken towards arming itself with what is necessary to carry out its policy in respect of the Bantu homelands. According to the Prime Minister this Government had spent R81 million on the buying of land by October last year. This money had been appropriated in what one might call a year-by-year trickle which dwindled to an extremely low level two or three years ago, so much so that I recall Government supporters being very concerned about whether the Government was serious in its intentions. I have mentioned that the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Vosloo, was a man who tended to make excuses for the Government’s lack of movement in the direction of defining the Bantu homelands. Some time ago Mr. Vosloo was moved to another post and the portfolio of Deputy Minister of Bantu Development became vacant. It remained so for some considerable time. Then it was filled by the present Minister of the Interior. I doubt whether he even had a chance of studying his portfolio properly and I doubt whether he had time particularly to look at the question of defining the borders of the homelands, when he too was moved to another portfolio and the position became vacant again. Eventually, earlier in this session, the present hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Development was appointed. This lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Prime Minister towards the filling of the post of Deputy Minister in charge of Bantu development suggests that the hon. Prime Minister so far has not attached much importance to the position, and particularly to the question of defining the boundaries of the homelands. This L one of the major aspects of the job.

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member for Brakpan says that it is nonsense. I am only telling him what the record of his Government is in this respect. Now, in looking at the Republic as a whole, one can only wonder at how little has been done by this Government in its 23 years of power as far as consolidation of the homelands is concerned.

You had better go back to the Sunday Times.

The hon. member does not like the truth, does he? The Tswana and the Zulu areas and the Ciskei itself still look as though a shotgun has been loaded with ink pellets and fired at the map of South Africa. Even our showpiece, the Transkei, the boundaries of which were settled last century, still cannot satisfy Nationalist intellectual thought. It is little wonder therefore that there is general apprehension at the pace at which the Government has moved to give geographic substance to its rather flighty political philosophy. It can be argued that there is one exception—South-West Africa. I am glad to see that some hon. members from South-West Africa are here. In South-West Africa geographic consolidation was tackled vigorously, and I might add, expensively—so much so that after the land had been bought, a special committee had to be appointed to enquire into the reasons why some people had been overpaid for their land. But despite the astronomical amount spent, we have the picture of farms bought up to implement the Odendaal Plan being leased back to the White farmers because of the slow pace of other development.

What does seem clear to us now, is that this Government is approaching the cross roads. It will either have to make a bold move now to consolidate the embryo Black states, or finally admit that its policy can not be implemented and tell the country so in no uncertain terms. It might well announce that it now proposes to proceed at a faster pace in buying up White or other land for the homelands, especially now that it is legislating by way of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill to be able to fix the boundaries of the homelands by proclamation. However, what this Government will have to tell us is how it proposes, in the economic circumstances of today, to raise the necessary money. Here we must remember that if the Government is serious in what it says it is going to do, it will have to move fast, at least in fixing the boundaries of these homelands. My hon. leader as long ago as October 1967, when he addressed the United Party’s national congress in Bloemfontein, challenged the Prime Minister to start putting his Government’s policy finally to the test and to tell the public frankly how much it was going to cost and what sacrifices would have to be made. Until now this Government has been very much less than frank. If we are to assume that the Government intends trying seriously to apply its policy and to define the boundaries of the future tribal states in specific terms, it will have to commit itself to spending a colossal amount of money within a comparatively short period.

What do you mean by “colossal”?

If that hon. member had studied that aspect of his portfolio, he would realize that simply to buy the land would cost several hundred millions rand.

Give us a figure.

I should very much like the hon. the Deputy Minister, who should have the figure, to give it to us. I am even prepared to wait now if he will just give us a figure across the floor of this House. We must ask: Where will this money come from?

Why do you ask then for consultation?

We must ask where this money is going to come from especially at a time when the Government is short of loan capital. Will it prune other capital projects to provide the funds? The record of this Government does not suggest that this will be done. Will it raise money by further special taxation? If so, its intentions should be revealed to the tax-paying public. Or will it borrow money elsewhere on a long-term basis and as the hon. the Prime Minister wants to do in another matter, leave it to our children to sort out? Homeland consolidation cannot be viewed in a vaccum. Whatever is done, and particularly, whatever is done hastily will cost a lot of money and that money has to be found. I said earlier that there is another side to the picture. It is the question of what land from the point of view of the Bantu themselves will be necessary to give their tribal states the minimum space to ensure an independent existence for them. This matter has received considerable attention. Here again I want to go no further than to Nationalist orientated intellectuals who have spent a lot of time studying this. I want to refer to what Professor J. H. Moolman said at the Stellenbosch conference of SABRA in 1967. He stressed the necessity, if the homelands were to become independent, of converting them into geographical wholes with the elimination of all enclaves or as he put it “kolle”. What he meant by these spots were not Black spots in White areas only, but also White spots in Black areas. He made the point that in talking of nation building, and here he was referring to Black nations in terms of Government policy, he meant the binding together of a group of relatively compatible people with common ideals within a contiguous area. In his view nationalism, and he meant Black nationalism here, was a concept that sought to embrace all of these elements.

Do you accept Dr. Moolman’s views?

It was clear that Professor Moolman was highly dissatisfied with the pace of development by the Government. I would like to repeat one point he made which will, I think, show us how far this Government is from bringing about reality to its plans. He said:

Professor Moolman is a realist. How can we equate his realism with the record of this Government in homeland consolidation and in its general approach to the whole question? I suggest that there can be no equation of the view Professor Moolman took in this matter and the approach of this Government as we have seen it today. Most important, this Government must now begin to take the people of South Africa into its confidence and to spell out in real terms what it is proposing to do, how much it will cost and how it proposes to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Kensington. Basically I agree with them that we are dealing with a serious problem, i.e. the consolidation of, in our phraseology, the Bantu homelands. The hon. member for Kensington will not talk about Bantu homelands, but will confine himself to the term, Reserves. I just want to say, in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei this afternoon, that it was based on precisely the same pattern he adheres to throughout when we are dealing with Bantu Administration and the Department. There is always the question of fear. He cannot make a single speech in this House without trying to instil fear among the Whites or among the Bantu. If one considers the motion by the hon. member for Transkei as it is printed there, then it is very clear that in the first place the hon. member wants to emphasize that according to his standpoint there is a fear among the Whites, and in the second place he wants to emphasize that there is a fear among the Bantu. On those grounds the hon. member for Transkei now states that it has become essential that the boundaries be defined. I think the hon. member for Transkei will agree with me that his premise, his raison d’être, for this motion was to intimate to this House that both the Whites and the Bantu have something to fear. Does the hon. member for Transkei agree with my interpretation?

No, not at all.

In any case, anyone who can read and understand, will see that that is the raison d’être for this motion. The hon. member for Kensington rose here and stated that the only object of this motion was to determine the boundaries, since the National Party eventually intended granting self-government or independent states to the Bantu. Sir, these are two widely separated matters, for the hon. the Prime Minister has in fact given certain assurances to both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa in regard to this fear which has been aroused. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member for Kensington that he made one of his most moderate speeches in this House this afternoon, but I find it a pity that the hon. member linked the fact that there has been a change-over in the posts of Deputy Ministers, to a so-called unwillingness on the part of the National Party, and particularly on the part of the Prime Minister, to proceed with the question of consolidation. Sir, it is only a person who does not argue logically, who could have linked these two matters.

Sir, I want to emphasize one thing. Hon. members on the opposite side all said that this consolidation must take place. I said that we agreed in principle. There are reasons why the National Party is following a certain pattern in the consolidation of the Bantu homelands; the hon. the Deputy Minister will refer to that later. But we know that this consolidation is going to cost money, and we also know that the National Party has never hesitated to spend money to establish the consolidation of Bantu homelands. But there is one thing which we on both sides of this House must realize, and that is that we are in the first place working with people. We are working with territory where Bantu received proprietary rights in the past; we are working with territory which comprise so-called black spots, and we are working with territory which was allocated in terms of the 1936 Act.

The accusation was made here that the National Party had not made any progress along this road. Sir, I want to mention to you the figures up to and including 31st March, 1967. The hon. the Deputy Minister will furnish you with further figures in this connection. The quota of 7¼ million morgen, which was laid down in 1936, was a large quota; it was a large piece of land which had to be purchased. Up to and including 31st March, 1967 5.7 million morgen had already been purchased. That then left us with a difference of approximately 1.5 million morgen. Today it is even a little less. But the background to this matter is as follows: The basic premise in the legislation of 1936 and previous legislation was to develop the Bantu homelands at the traditional places where the Bantu had been found in the history of South Africa. Purchases were proceeded with, as I have already indicated. I can also furnish the House with figures to indicate how many black spots, and how many poorly-situated Bantu areas have been cleared. But the fact remains that those areas which we were left with, as a by-product of history, were scattered throughout South Africa. We agree that it is not so easy to consolidate those areas. We have at our disposal a certain number of morgen which, to the best of our ability, to consolidate those homelands, and for that reason we cannot simply proceed to draw lines and say “We shall buy this and we shall buy that and consolidate this.” If we were simply to buy these 1.5 million morgen which still have to be bought and which consist primarily of agricultural land today, and withdraw it from agricultural production while the Bantu are still unable to utilize that land properly for agricultural purposes, then it would surely be a criminal offence against South Africa and against the agricultural production of South Africa. Sir, I said that we are working with people here. We are dealing with Bantu, as we know them. His method of farming is to him a deeply-rooted tradition. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said in this House last year that we will give attention primarily to the agricultural development of the Bantu homelands. But the National Party knows that if these homelands cannot be developed agriculturally, it will not be fair to the Bantu people of South Africa either merely to place industries within or adjoining the homelands as such.

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington alleged again here today that South Africa is only prepared to cede 13.7 per cent of the surface area of South Africa to the Bantu. Let us get one thing clear once and for all: Does the size of an area and the number of people necessarily have anything to do with the independence of such a people? Let me just demonstrate to you, Sir, what the position is if we compare it to that of other countries. Let us take for example the Transkei where we have 121.9 people per square mile; in the Ciskei the figure is approximately 123.3, in the Natal area 120.7, in the North-Eastern Transvaal 70.9, in the Tswana areas 39.4 and in Witzieshoek 76. If we look at countries in Europe we find that Western Germany has 573 people per square mile, Japan 650, Denmark 271, the Netherlands 809, Ghana 83 and Nigeria 158. I want to make it very clear that figures such as these do not necessarily indicate the quality of the political maturity or the quality of the economic maturity of any country. We simply cannot determine these matters on that basis. The hon. member for Kensington returned to the figure of 13.7 per cent of the surface area of South Africa. Sir, it has been said in this House to hon. members on the opposite side that some of the best agricultural land in South Africa is included in the land which the Bantu are entitled to.

Hon. members are now asking that the boundaries of the Bantu homelands should be determined. They take it amiss of us for saying that the boundaries of the Bantu homelands have already to a large extent been determined. If we take into consideration the number of morgen which had to be purchased in terms of the quota and if we see what has already been purchased, if we go back to before 1936, and go back to 1913 and see what has already been allocated to the Bantu, then we see that the boundaries have to a large extent already been determined. If we still have to buy 1.5 million morgen of land, then it is to my mind senseless to ask: Where are the boundaries? In all these Bantu areas which we have today, which the United Party calls reserves, and which we call homelands, the necessary points have already been indicated, and any man who is prepared to look, will see in what direction things are moving. We cannot state categorically today that we will excise this, and add that. There are many reasons for this. The hon. member for Kensington himself said that they would proceed in a judicious manner to consolidate the reserves. But the National Party must now enforce consolidation because an amendment Bill to the Constitution Act was before the House and because other legislation is coming which points to self-government and subsequent independence. The hon. member for Kensington stated that they would act in a responsible manner. But this National Party has in fact always acted thus, so much so that that land has been acquired, the promise kept and up to date approximately R93 million spent in purchasing these lands. The National Party is aware of the fact that the purchase of further land will probably have to take place at higher prices than those ruling in the past. However, we cannot merely go ahead and buy. There are many considerations which count in this process.

I want to inform the hon. member for Transkei that my constituency also adjoins a homeland area and I know what the problems are. I know that the Tswana homeland has certain problems in regard to consolidation. But we have never yet undertaken consolidation in an irresponsible manner in that area, or in any other area. Our people know it. That is why we are of one accord with hon. members that consolidation is necessary. We are making a final appeal to hon. members, not to ask, like the hon. member for Kensington, where the Government must get the money from in view of the economic situation in South Africa. We will keep hon. members to their word, and if funds for consolidation are requested they must co-operate with us even if hon. members want to consolidate only reserves, and we want to consolidate homelands.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Christiana took us to task because, so he says, the hon. member for Transkei arouses fear and concern in the minds of the White people. He said the hon. member “het vrees opgewek”. But, Mr. Speaker, the concern is there, in the minds of the people. If a single hon. member here can come and tell me that there is no concern today in the minds of every single thinking farmer particularly, and agricultural organizations throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, then he does not know what is going on amongst these people. And the hon. the Deputy Minister has a broad grin on his face. I will remind him of just what is going on. The concern is not with the people who are going to be taken over by the department. The concern is with those people who are going to be left on the boundaries. They are the people that have concern in their minds. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows it and so does the hon. member for Vryheid. The chaps whose farms do not get into the boundaries of the Bantu Reserves, are the ones who are concerned about what is going to happen to them.

You are just trying to make politics out of the situation.

I am not trying to make politics out of it. Ours is a very simple request. The National Party has said that they were going to make independent countries in South Africa, eight independent states. They are committed to the purchase of ground in terms of the 1936 legislation. But they tell us that they are going to consolidate as far as they possibly can. Now, what prevents them from showing on a map what the boundaries would be if and when …

You would gossip too much if you knew.

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Deputy Minister must answer me. What prevents him from drawing on a map now the lines which are going to be followed when these reserves are to be given independence? The point is made in the motion of the hon. member for Transkei that this applies to Bantu reserves, because Ban u reserves are specifically under the control of this Parliament. That is the point we want to make. This should be done now while the areas are still under the control of this White Parliament. It should not be a matter of negotiation between the White Government and the future Government of an area that is going to get independence.

It should not be a matter for political exploitation. That is what you are doing now.

We are simply asking something. The Government has its policy and has been 22 or 23 long dreary years in power. All we are asking now is to have some kind of definition from them to tell us where the line is going to be drawn. It would almost appear as though we are asking him to suddenly find a pot of gold. They have no idea and they are not prepared to tell us. All they do is to refer us to the 1936 legislation. When hon. members are asked about consolidation then you suddenly hear a complete and utter silence.

Why did you not draw the line in 1936?

Because in 1936 we had no intention whatsoever of giving these countries independence. We had not the remotest idea, and that hon. member knows it as well as I do. The hon. member for Christiana went even further. He said that the Government is, of course, responsible and they do not want to take over land from the White farmers because the Bantu people are not good farmers; they are not economically developed.

Who said so?

You can study his Hansard and see what he said. He said that if we were suddenly to withdraw those great areas of agricultural land from production, South Africans would suffer a shortage of food. Let me say that this is one of the main objections to this process which is being undertaken by the Government. The hon. member for Christiana himself shows an absolute lack of confidence in the policy followed by his Minister and his two Deputy Ministers, because he has associated himself with the reservations we have about the ground which is going to be taken up. I myself in this House some two years ago raised the point that without an expanding food base inside the reserve areas, you can forget about any fancy ideas about developing industries and that kind of thing, because there can be no economic development and no rise in the standard of living of those people whatever you do and however many industries you establish there, because any increase in income will merely be exported to buy food to come into those areas. I want to say to this Deputy Minister that I welcome the fact that he has been appointed as a Deputy Minister because he is a practical farmer. If there is one thing he can do, it is to take positive and active steps to see that in the Bantu areas soil erosion is halted and that there is a rising production of agricultural products: because until that is done there is absolutely no future for the homeland policy and the growth point policy inside the Bantu areas. Until that hon. gentleman can reverse the tide which is today going so fast against Black South Africa in those areas, no development will be able to take place. [Interjections.] There seems to be some obstacle between those two Deputy Ministers and we will watch to see how they straighten it out.

But in regard to the Minister of Planning, one of the points in a previous debate which we did not mention was the fact that this hon. Minister was not prepared to exert his authority over the Minister of Bantu Administration. This is one of the problems that we have in South Africa. There are two Governments in this country; one is a White man’s Government. The other is the one run by the Minister of Bantu Administration and his two Deputies, a sort of super Government which is beyond the pale even of the Department of the Minister of Planning. I wish to draw to the attention of the Deputy Minister, when it comes to this question of finally determining and making known the boundaries of the reserves, the concern in the minds of the Natal Agricultural Union and of all farmers in Natal, and I need only mention a few of these areas where this concern is building up. There is a very strong report going about in the Natal Agricultural Union on this question of consolidation.

What are they doing to assist?

I am coming to that. Hang on. The problem which the Natal Agricultural Union has …

What did they do?

They have adopted the policy that they are prepared to cooperate with the hon. Minister’s department. They are prepared to release ground in co-operation with the hon. Minister’s department. They are co-operating all along the line, but there are certain points where they run head-on.

What is the newest resolution in this connection?

The hon. the Deputy Minister can tell me when he gets up what their newest resolution is. I want to draw the attitude of the Natal Agricultural Union to his attention, certain specific aspects where he and his department must try to take some active steps. I mentioned earlier on the question of the threat to the Tugela River. Here there are three areas of Bantu occupation in the headwaters of the Tugela River, which we have already mentioned here this afternoon and which will become the powerhouse of South Africa.

Do you want me to shift them?

There are three areas.

Do you want those three areas shifted? Tell me.

May I finish my speech? The Natal Agricultural Union has supported the representations made by the ten farmers’ associations at a recent meeting in Estcourt in the last week or so, asking the Minister what his intentions are with regard to those areas. Let me put a question to the hon. the Minister. Is he intending to consolidate them? If they are going to be consolidated, he must buy additional ground in the headwaters of the Tugela River. Is he going to do that? This is a question of planning. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister intend recommending to his hon. friend, the Minister of Planning? If he is going to consolidate them, he is going to perpetuate those Bantu people in the headwaters of the Tugela River.

Do the people of Natal want that?

I believe and ten farmers’ associations in the area believe, the City Council of Estcourt believes and the Tugela Basin Association believes that it is in the best interest of the people that those areas should be moved under an exchange of ground, which again can be done in terms of the Department of Planning, and that those areas should be cleared up and rehabilitated to safeguard the future of the Tugela River. That is merely point No. 1, but it is a point the hon. the Minister must deal with. Is he going to consolidate in those areas? If he is not going to consolidate, those people must be moved. This is one of the practical problems that this department is faced with. If he is going to draw the boundaries and he stands by the legislation of 1936, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says he does, those areas will have to remain. Are they going to remain there or are they not going to remain there?

And can you rehabilitate while the people are there?

That is the point. While the people are occupying those areas how can one safeguard and rehabilitate them? I do not believe it can be done. This is one of the difficult problems we have. I do not envy the hon. the Deputy Minister his job. When our Government takes over, I hope they do not give me that job.

You have’nt got a hope.

I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Natal Agricultural Union, the ’Npendle Agricultural Society and I have been concerned with this matter. I have been concerned with it since I first came into politics, which was some ten years ago, in 1960. One of the first agricultural shows I opened as a member of the Provincial Council was at ’Npendle. In that speech I proposed that there should be block deals with the department.

That was a good speech.

Yes, it was a good speech. I proposed that the Natal Agricultural Union should get together with the department and negotiate on a block basis so that farmers be not winkled out one after another out of an area which White farmers occupied. That was in 1960. Right now, today, the whole question is still in the melting pot. That is 11 years later. Simply no decision has been taken in 11 years. Surely to goodness. ’Npendle is a tiny little area. It is on the edge of a Bantu Reserve. It is the place where Chaka put Jobe and his impi to kill out the cannibals that were worrying his people way back in 1822. It is an old established Bantu area. It has been proposed that certain land should be exchanged with the White farmers. In 11 years absolutely no decisions have been taken. If the Government are going to create an independent Bantu homeland in that area, what feelings do they think have been built up there between the local White farmers and the local Bantu population in 11 years of absolute shilly-shallying? If anything will cause concern in the minds of the White people and the Black people in those areas, cause the sort if trouble which the hon. member for Christiana was referring to, it will precisely be the failure of the department to take active positive steps to cut through the red tape and get matters done. I believe that this is something that requires immediate attention. The hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and one or two other members were with me at Weenen. There we have a long standing dispute, something which has been going on over years. It may well be the intention of this hon. Deputy Minister to cut the Gordian knot, as it were. He indicated there that he hoped to be able to bring the matter to finality. This is not 1936 legislation. This is White ground which will have to be acquired; this is ground which, I hope, will be acquired in terms of the quota. I believe it has to be.

A further question that arises, is the question of the allocation of State land in Zululand. The Natal Agricultural Union has passed a resolution asking that the Minister should allocate State land in Natal in order to help fulfil the quota.

That is the Parks Board resolution.

No, that is not State land. It is under the control of the Natal Provincial Administration. The point that I want to make is that the report that is going around in Natal is that the consolidation that everybody has been looking for, will be undertaken next year. I do not say they look forward to this with any kind of appreciation; it might well be with a considerable amount of apprehension. The motion before the House asks that the Government should consider the advisability of finally determining and making known the ultimate boundaries of the reserves.

I cannot see what objection there can be to this. I fail to understand why the Nationalist Party has moved an amendment to this, because this is in terms of the Government’s own policy. They are committed to buying the ground. They have to buy the ground in certain areas. It has to be contiguous to existing Bantu areas. If they are going to consolidate, it has to develop in certain directions. Surely, the hon. member for Transkei has merely made available to the Government an opportunity to come forward and put an end to the doubt which is in the minds of so many people. I associate myself with the motion.

Mr. Speaker, after the first speaker on the Opposition side had finished speaking this afternoon, I immediately thought of the mountain which conceived and bore a mouse. This motion should have been a very important motion, but it was completely watered down by the first speaker. After that the other two speakers had their turn. I must say that this motion has completely boomeranged against the United Party now. While they could have said something of great significance in regard to this motion, while they could have accompanied the Government along a long and difficult road, they achieved nothing.

But I want to come to the motion. The hon. member for Transkei has had legal training. In the four years I have been sitting here, this is the most poorly worded motion I have ever seen. I shall indicate why I think so.

Let us in the first place deal with the Whites. Now I immediately want to ask the hon. Opposition, what type of Whites comprise the bulk of the Whites on the boundaries of the Bantu areas throughout the Republic and not only in respect of the Transkei? Most of them are Arikaans speaking, and Nationalists. Now these people come along and say, as an hon. member opposite put it, that “the concern is over the length and breadth of the country”. But that “concern” they are misinterpreting completely. That point on the agenda which was discussed at the National Party Congress, was in fact proposed because those people support the policy of the Government. They wanted to lend the Government the necessary support to proceed with the implementation of that policy. They strengthened the hand of the Government with that motion. It was not a motion of fear. On the contrary! The same thing happened in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Mooi River knows this. In my own constituency the people said: “How can we help the Government? How can we support it and show that the people of South Africa are behind it? We are going to adopt a motion such as this.” We adopted the motion, but it did not appear on the agenda of the congress, because it was referred to another place. This shows that the Government deserves that support from its people. Another point mentioned on the opposite side of the House, was the delay in the appointment of one of the Deputy Ministers. Are hon. members unaware of the existence of the Bantu Affairs Commission? This Commission proceeded with that work without interruption, and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development became chairman of that Commission. It has therefore in the meantime continued with that work. A further point in regard to which hon. members on that side contradicted themselves, is that they asked on the one hand for the boundaries of the Reserves to be determined and made known, while the hon. member for Kensington on the other hand asked where we were going to get the money from to do it. Surely members of the same party should not contradict one another in such fashion, and that is why the entire motion has boomeranged against them. Then the hon. member for Transkei came forward with so-called proof of the concern and the fear of the Bantu leaders. As proof he mentioned the Transkei, but these few items of so-called proof which he produced, are no proof. Has the leader of the Transkeian territory, Kaiser Mtanzima, now stampeded the entire White population of the Transkei with his claim for two farms? Do the Opposition not know the soul of a Bantu? Do they not know that a Bantu is always asking, and that even if the consolidation has been dealt with, the Bantu will still come along and ask? That is in their nature and in their make-up. If the hon. members had grown up with Bantu, they will know that the Bantu always ask and that they will Keep on asking.

Throughout the entire motion, however, I spied an underlying support of the National Party’s policy on the part of the United Party. We observed this in more than one way, and I shall come to that. I first want to refer to the land purchases. Actually, this entire motion of the Opposition in regard to land purchases, is unnecessary and presumptious. The Government is continually devoting attention to this entire matter. I just want to point out a few aspects of this matter to the hon. members. Since 1936 until the present day, R93 million has been spent on the purchase of land. Of that amount more than two-thirds was spent during the past decade or two. Only after 1948 was that colossal amount spent. What did the Opposition, who boast of this legislation having been passed in their term of government, do to expedite land purchases? They did absolutely nothing. It is this Government which is devoting attention to these matters. Of the million morgen which had to be purchased in terms of the 1936 Act, slightly less than 6 million morgen have already been purchased, only slightly more than H million morgen still have to be purchased. Then there is still the clearance of the black spots, an aspect which cannot be overlooked. The clearance of the black spots must receive top priority. We cannot merely say that land must be purchased. There are many Black spots throughout the Republic and attention must first be given to them. We also think of the separated areas, which create even further problems. I mention in particular the case in the Orange Free State at Thaba ’Nchu where 55 000 Tswanas are living. Surely it is this type of case which must receive preference before we can proceed with the purchase of land at this tremendous rate which the Opposition is advocating. Every year the Opposition has the Estimates before them and surely they themselves know what money is being appropriated for the purchase of land. Do all these things pass them by? Nor is it so easy to clear these Black spots and to purchase land. Are hon. members aware of the problems which are being experienced with the clearance of Black spots? Do they know that this land is usually registered in the names of two or three Bantu who died years ago? Very often there are heirs, although the land has not yet been transferred on their names. Then estates have to be opened and executors appointed to administer the estates before the matter can be finalized. Hon. members on that side also spoke about a master plan. They mentioned some plan or map which must be drawn up and on which it must be indicated where these consolidated Bantu homelands will be. It is not so easy to do a thing like that. Nor is this a new idea from that side. This matter of a master plan has been raised at various SABRA congresses and elsewhere. But do they know that it is unpractical and unrealistic to do so at this stage? Do they know what the political repercussions could be if this were to be done? Are they aware of the speculation which this could result in if this map was laid before the public of South Africa? Surely it is completely unrealistic and unpractical to advocate that such a map should be drawn up now at this stage. But this entire motion by the Opposition actually seems to me to be a kind of smokescreen on their part. Land purchases alone are not the decisive factor. One does not simply want to buy for the sake of buying; the ideal will also always be to have one contiguous home-and, such as that of the Venda Nation there in the far northern Transvaal. But this is not always practicable. It is not possible simply to purchase rapidly and injudiciously. We must do this slowly and judiciously.

In addition there are other matters which must also receive attention—the hon. member for Christiana also pointed this out— inter alia the carrying capacity of land.

But hon. members did not see what the fundamental aspect of our policy is. The fundamental aspect of the policy of the National Party is not so much the consolidation of the homelands—it is the consolidation of the nations in South Africa, to bring them together as ethnic units and then to place them where they belong. This consolidation of the homelands is an important facet of the policy of the National Party, but it is not the fundamental aspect of the policy. Multi-nationality is in fact the fundamental aspect of the policy of the National Party. The political implications are of greater significance for our survival as a country. The United Party knows this very well, but they do not want to state this in so many words. That is why I maintain that this motion of theirs is in fact a covert approval of the policy of the National Party. The mere fact that the motion is on the Order Paper, will be held against the United Party. In doing so they recognize the policy of the National Party, and this policy sets their minds at ease. That is why they want the National Party to expedite and carry out the consolidation of the homelands. The United Party speakers did emphasize a few less important facts, but the most important fact they did not mention. Nor dare they do so. They feel in their heart of hearts, that the National Party is on the right road.

But as far as the consolidation as such is concerned, there are many other problems. We think for example of the problem of funds or the geography, a very important problem. I mentioned the problem in the Orange Free State, which will certainly receive attention from the Government. There are other problems of a geographic nature, for example where the heartland of the Bantu homeland is and where the separated areas are. One must always take those matters into account. There is the problem of the quota. But there are also the human factors which have to be taken into account. I have had personal experience of this in my own constituency. On the one hand the people plead for the clearance of a black spot; but on the other hand they sympathize with people to refuse to sell their land to the Bantu Trust. What do these people want? We have this problem with people. We are dealing with people. The Opposition must not lose sight of this fact either.

Then there are other factors, such as economic factors, industrial and agricultural factors. It is not so easy to say to the Bantu, “There is your land, carry on”. These people do not absorb as rapidly as the Whites are able to absorb. They must systematically be brought to maturity in regard to these matters. We are now systematically bringing them to maturity so they may govern their own country. We are now giving them their own political development. They have for years already had a measure of self-government. Even in the previous century they had their own Bantu administrations. They are reasonably adept at Bantu administration. But there are also many other problems to which attention must be given. There are many other errors of judgment on the part of the Opposition, but here is one specific error of judgment which they must not lose sight of, and to which they must give attention. We cannot simply lump groups of Bantu together with all haste and speed. Up to now the Opposition has regarded the Bantu as an individual, and never as members of a nation. When we tackle this consolidation, we must know that we are dealing with a nation, a nation which will not only be there for a few years, but one which will be there for many centuries. This matter must therefore be dealt with judiciously.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Potgietersrus said at the beginning of his speech that the Bantu are forever asking and that we do not know the Bantu. I know the Bantu very well, particularly the Xhosa tribes, and I also speak their language. I may tell the hon. member that I fully agree with him when he says that the Bantu are asking for more. The more promises are made to them, the more they ask. In this respect we differ with the Government on this matter.

The same applies to representation in Parliament as well.

We have made no promises in this respect. In this lies the great difference in schools of thought. We on this side of the House make no promises to the Bantu in this regard.

What?

What promises of independence have we made? Never any. The hon. member for Potgietersrus also spoke about a master plan for the boundaries of the Bantu areas and told us that something like that was unpractical and unrealistic, and that a great deal of speculation would take place. I am glad the hon. member said that, as he may perhaps now realize how unpractical and incapable of implementation this policy of separate development is when carried to its logical conclusion of independence. The hon. member said that consolidation had nothing to do with independence. Later on in my speech I shall furnish proof that consolidation is very important when one talks about independence. What comes first, consolidation or independence, or independence and then consolidation? I should like to know that. One cannot grant independence to various portions and pieces of land. Before independence can be granted, there must first be geographic consolidation. That is where the entire policy of the National Party is unpractical.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei has said that this question of consolidation and the defining of the boundaries of the Bantu territories is an old one. I agree that it is a very old one. It is older than the Act of Union and it has always been a matter of grave concern to those White South Africans who live and earn their living on the borders and within these territories. It has always been a matter of more serious concern to those who reside in and around the patchwork quilt of the Ciskei, which consists of some 19 different Xhosa groups, large and small.

Since the adoption of the policy of separate development and the enabling legislation which has and is being placed on the Statute Book, this matter has gone beyond just causing grave concern. It has become one of national importance and of the utmost urgency. To take the policy of separate development to its logical conclusion, that of complete sovereign independence—a conclusion which is no longer denied by the Nationalist Party but actually asserted by the Cabinet—without defining and consolidating the areas of the different embryo states would be courting a national disaster which could well result in the genocide of the South African nation as we know it. I am not trying to be a prophet of doom. I am stating the facts as I see them, and what I see is potentially dangerous. To cite one example in modern history of this sort of thing. One of the causes of the greatest bitterness and the greatest hatred in Germany after the First World War was the artificial creation of the Polish Corridor, the free port of Danzig and the amputation in the process, of east Prussia from the father-land. All of us here know what that hatred engendered and where it led Germany and where it led the world. I believe that if consolidation does not take place a similar situation will arise within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, if the Government goes ahead with its policy of separate development without determining and defining the ultimate boundaries of the Bantu territories.

Furthermore, Sir—and I think this is exceptionally important—they must make up their minds clearly and very fast about the relationship between the Transkei and the Ciskei. These are both Xhosa-speaking territories, both basically of the same ethnic group. We had the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill in this House last year, which provided that the territory to which a citizen would belong would be determined by the language he speaks. Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister in that debate to which territory a Xhosa would belong and to this moment he has failed to reply to me. I hope that perhaps one of the Deputy Ministers who are here today will tell me to which territory a Xhosa will go. Then, of course, we have had Mr. George Matanzima making claims to the territory as far as the Alexandria district where I live. He suddenly had a meeting there and found out that Nonquase was buried there, so he made claims to that territory as well, although this is far west of the Fish River or of the Ciskei.

Is the Deputy Minister going to give it to him?

This claim was made by the then Minister of Justice of the Transkei. What is going to happen to the Transkei and the Ciskei, Sir? The electorate want to know what is going to happen. They want to know what is going to happen to the White farmers in the Kidd’s Beach and Rocklands area, a very highly productive area which is now entirely surrounded by the Ciskei. What is to happen to the farmers in the Peddie district? They have been in a state of uncertainty ever since this Government has been in power. They do not know whether any ground is going to be bought there, where the ground is going to be bought or what is going to happen, and this creates a great deal of uncertainty. What about Fort Beaufort, Seymour, Alice and Komga? This question has already been asked by the hon. member for Transkei. Another very important question is, what is the future of the port of East London and what is the future of King William’s Town?

Sir, the people want to know the answers to these questions. I can anticipate two answers that I will receive. The first answer will be that the areas were defined in the 1936 legislation, and the second answer will be that there is development taking place in the areas and towns which I have mentioned in the Border. Let me deal with the first stock reply. I can only say that at the time of the 1936 legislation, the Government of that day were not even considering or contemplating separate development as it is today. They were not considering giving any independence to anybody. Their concept was one government for the whole of South Africa, and this remains the policy of this side of the House up to the present time. Under such a policy consolidation and clear definitions were neither necessary nor in many cases desirable. The policy that had been followed by successive governments right from the days of the old colonial and republican governments was to consolidate into fragmented areas, not to consolidate into geographic areas. This was largely accepted by the governments after Union, even by the Nationalist Government after 1948 until the vision of separate development arrived, which has changed the whole picture. It has changed the whole picture so much that a policy that was once admired by the Nationalists, Mr. Shepstone’s gridiron policy in Natal, was condemned in this House not very long ago by the Minister of Bantu Administration as a cruel one. That is how the picture has changed since 1948 and since Union, because he realizes now that with his policy of independence and separate development he has got to have consolidated areas.

You are talking a great deal of nonsense in between.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister will open his ears and listen he will come to his senses. Sir, I believe it is essential for the survival and the peaceful co-existence of both White and Black that the boundaries be defined and that the areas be consolidated. It is tragically laughable to contemplate an independent state consisting of a patchwork of small enclaves lodged in the bowels of a larger and stronger country. It is not only tragically ridiculous, Sir, it is patently impossible for reasons which time does not permit me to deal with now.

The second answer which I anticipate is that development is taking place in the border areas which I mentioned. Sir, I am well aware that development is taking place in the Border and particularly in King William’s Town and East London. But, Sir, can the rate of development be compared with the rate in other industrial centres? The rate of development in the Border is painfully slow; very little is being done in that area between the Ciskei and the Transkei. I maintain that in order to maintain real and dynamic growth in these areas which are wedged between the Ciskei and the Transkei, the Government must re-instill confidence in the people and among the potential entrepreneurs. Sir, I must admit that with the economic and labour situation being what it is, it is going to be exceptionally difficult, but by determining and defining the boundaries and fixing them in legislation, they will be going a long way to restore that confidence among the people. No man who is uncertain about the future of his home or his business can give of his best to the country. In order that all South Africans shall have their confidence restored and give of their best to South Africa, I strongly urge the Minister and that side of the House to comply with the request that is embodied in the motion of the hon. member for Transkei and to define these boundaries and to set them down on paper as soon as possible.

Sir, the motion before the House is very interesting indeed, because here we have the United Party coming forward en bloc in support of Nationalist Party policy. It is not quite clear to me why they are doing this. Maybe the explanation is that after finding themselves in arrears in comparison with the Progressive Party they are determined not to be beaten again so they come forward with this motion.

*Sir, it is tremendously interesting to see what is stated in this motion. I thought that the hon. member for Transkei, who is an old member in this House …

He is too old.

… would have paid very careful attention to the wording of the motion. He mentions two things here; he requests the Government to determine the boundaries of the homelands “in order to allay the growing concern of White people living in proximity to the Bantu reserves and to stop the growing demands of Bantu leaders for additional land to be incorporated into the independent states they are led to expect under Government policy”. He intimates that we, the Government, should give them that land more rapidly. What he is implying here—it was said by the hon. member for Albany and it was implied by the hon. member for Mooi River — is that if the Government wants to carry out their policy, the Government must then do these two things now.

That is what Oliver Twist also wanted to say.

This is an indication to me—and it is clearly stated here—that the United Party would like us to do this now. That is what they are requesting here, whether they are being honest or not. Possibly some of them are being honest, and I accept that. I welcome the fact that they have now reached this stage where, because the Progressive Party has said that if there are going to be independent Bantu states, they are going to accept them as such, the United Party intimate that they will also have to do so. In other words, they are pleading for a policy of the National Party which has existed for many years and to which, as the record proves, the National Party has given a great deal of attention. It has repeatedly stated that consolidation must take place as soon as possible. It has given particular attention to the matter and will give even more attention to it. I can now tell you that, in the coming year, attention will be given to this problem at an accelerated rate. But, Sir, this is not the only point at issue here. Before I deal with the various details, I want to say that there is something which is causing me a little concern. This motion contains the words “without regard to the 1936 legislation”. I thought the hon. member would explain to us what he meant by that. These words can relate to the first two matters, but it can also relate to the entire motion, because these words are placed between commas, “without regard to the 1936 legislation”. Does the hon. member mean that he is so enthusiastic when it comes to the implementation of the policy of the National Party that we can simply abandon the 1936 legislation, and irrespective of that legislation, purchase left, right and centre? Why are these words here? What is the intention with these words? I thought the hon. member would explain to us precisely what he meant by them. The hon. member is a man with legal training. Can he tell us what these words refer to? It is not very clear. I want to bring home to the hon. member the fact that this motion is open to different interpretations. This is a typical example of the kind of attitude which is adopted by the United Party. It is I think that the discussion here was a very something which one cannot explain very clearly. In other words, if it suits them, they say one thing, and if it does not suit them, they say something else. It is necessary that we take note that this motion is now going to form part of the record of the House.

Col. 3238: Line 27: For “R1 500 or R200”, read “R1, R500 or R200”

Interpret it as you see it, in your own favour. Let us then hear what you have to say about it.

Sir, it is very clear to me that the hon. member was not certain about what he wanted. His purpose was to try to get the better of the National Party. He tried to sow confusion, so that they will be able to intimate that if this development progresses rapidly, the United Party contributed to it. If this does not happen, they will still be leaving the back door open. This is the kind of thing they are trying to do. The hon. member’s motion goes on to read: “The Government should now consider the advisability of finally determining and making known the ultimate boundaries of the reserves”. It was said by the hon. member for Mooi River and other hon. members that this ought to be easy to do. They said the Deputy Minister could merely draw a map. Sir, I can tell you that it is in fact very easy to draw a map. The hon. member for Mooi River also asked: “Why does the Deputy Minister not do it?” I shall give him the reply. The reason is “Because of my sense of responsibility”. That is the only reason.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No, you people have asked enough questions. You have had sufficient time to speak. I shall now return to the various points raised by hon. members. Before going further, I want to thank the members on this side for their contributions. They stated the policy of the National Party very clearly and comprehensively. They also touched upon certain problems. Seen as a whole, fruitful one. I also feel that there were ideas forthcoming from the opposite side which indicate that these people are in earnest about making a contribution too. However, there were certain contradictions. Here I am referring to the hon. member for Kensington. He spoke of “colossal sums of money”. 1.3 million hectares are involved here, and the hon. member can go and work out for himself whether it is going to cost R1 500 or R200 per hectare. In other words, we cannot say. How can you say to people today: “I am going to buy your land, and I am going to pay you so much because it is going to be done over a number of years”. The hon. member said that we should simply indicate it on the map so that a person could know whether his land is going to be bought out or not. But how can one give the owner of the land the price now if you are only going to purchase it in 10 or 15 years’ time? The hon. member said that the approach on that side was that it should be tackled slowly and judiciously. But that is the approach on this side as well. However, because we also have a policy to the effect that the Bantu homelands are able to acquire full independence, those hon. members say that we must make these purchases now. We realize that we, owing our policy, must perhaps move a little faster than that side would have moved. But the position is, as I say, that if we are going to take a long time about buying this land, it is going to cost a great deal more, because land values increase by at least 5 per cent every year. This means that if we are going to take a long time buying, it will cost a great deal of money. But to ask us to mention the price now, is absolutely impossible. You can give an approximation. You can go and work it out yourself. It is 1.3 million hectares, and you can establish what the average price over such a wide area is more or less. I do not think we need split any more hairs in regard to this matter.

To return to the motion where it states “to allay the growing concern of White people living in the proximity of the reserves”, I want in the first place to say that I myself live close to a Bantu area. I have contacted our farmers’ associations and have become acquainted with their problems. I know that there are people who would very much like to know. But according to the 1936 Act there are released areas, and the people know that the land must be purchased. The United Party has on occasion said that they cannot support those purchases because they will be utilized for homelands. But that is wrong in principle, because the 1936 Act provided, and we were all responsible for that, that the Bantu must receive so much land. They gave the details, and I shall definitely come back to that, of how much each province should receive. This is the first thing which must be done, and this is in fact the only promise that was ever made. The farmers who are supposedly afraid now that their land will now be adjoining the homelands, know this in any case and it is not necessary to draw new lines now. It may be necessary in future to give consideration to this matter, but if an additional 1.3 million hectares has still to be purchased and there are large released areas which have not yet been purchased, then it is obvious, and we have said so on numerous occasions in the past, that this is being purchased within the limits laid down in the 1936 Act. But I am prepared to say that if we have reached the stage where we have bought enough of it or there are problems in regard to the finalization of those limits as stipulated in the 1936 Act, then the Government will be realistic enough to say that we will make changes. They have already done so, as the hon. member for Transkei indicated. The Government has on various occasions done so. What are the hon. members afraid of now?

But the boundaries have not been determined.

The fact of the matter is that these people want us to draw the lines in an irresponsible way so that they can make political capital out of it. It seems to me this is the only approach, and therefore I will not dwell on this matter any further. I also want to say this. My experience has been that with every election the United Party has tried to make people afraid. Then they say that people are going to live near the homelands, and they will not know where the boundaries are. There will be no control. There will be foreign influence and the position will become unendurable. Then they try in that way to gain political advantage. That is what the people are afraid of.

The next point the hon. member mentioned here, was that there were a few of the Bantu, such as Kaiser Matanzima and Chief Buthelezi, the chairman of the Zululand Territorial Authority, who had now made demands. I just want to refer to what Dr. Verwoerd said. The late Dr. Verwoerd dealt with this problem and he stated very clearly in this House in 1965 that we could not pay any heed to claims of this kind from people; we had not even finalized the 1936 Act yet and we could not now discuss other land. That is very clear. Last year the Prime Minister gave the industrialists a guarantee. The Transkei Constitution Act determines the boundaries of the Transkei.

The Transkei, yes, but what about the others?

Is Matanzima not the Prime Minister of the Transkei? Surely he knows that his boundaries have been determined. Now the hon. member for Transkei wants us to determine the other boundaries, but he is frightening us with Matanzima. The other boundaries will be determined.

[Inaudible.]

The Act which has now been piloted through the House, states that those boundaries will be determined subject to changes. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member wants to know the final boundaries here. Surely it is a foolish thing to unravel this whole matter now, which must in due course be completed and laid down, and to say that this is final. The 1936 Act is an Act in which certain areas were allocated to the Bantu. We can go into the history of the matter. I want to try in the short time at my disposal to indicate what led up to this. There is a point which became clearly apparent from the 1936 Act, which people even in this country do not realize and which in my opinion is the greatest act of altruism known to me in the history of the world, and that is that the Whites of this country decided that certain land had to be set aside for the Black people, who shared this country with them. I associate with this the fact that the Black people supposedly do not have the right to say to the Whites that this or that should be given to them. With the 1936 Act the Whites performed this special act of altruism and said that they would reserve, out of the joint funds, certain lands for the Bantu. They said that the lands, which the Bantu were unable to retain in the free economy, would be protected for them. They said that they would purchase it out of the joint revenue to reserve it for the Bantu. Then these people surely cannot with justification come along and say that the Whites must give them more and more. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Christiana and others that these areas had tremendous potential. The hon. member for Mooi River mentioned what could be done in this regard. It is very important that these questions be asked. My Department and I are engaged in a difficult task of soil conservation and the promotion of productivity. It is a task which goes hand in hand with the customs and the practices of these people. We cannot now send Bantu in on a large scale to develop the areas. This would after all not be fair to these people and to the promises made to them. We will, however, do everything possible to help them develop and give them guidance in this connection. Hon. members are aware that this is not an easy task.

In regard to the question of the demands which are being made by Bantu leaders, I want to refer to what Dr. Verwoerd said. It is recorded in Hansard of 1965, column 610. At that time he was also referring to Press reports. Then too, Chief Matanzima came forward with demands and the late Dr. Verwoerd simply said that these matters would be ignored because these people were not really entitled to that. I want to tell hon. members that, if I am dealing with these matters, and demands should be made by these Bantu areas, and if they will want to discuss it, then we shall discuss it with them. One cannot give them a slap in the face. But there is no indication that the demands which are being made by Matanzima and others should frighten anyone, except perhaps if one’s heart is as small as that of the hon. member for Transkei.

An important aspect is that 1.3 million morgen remain to be purchased. It is very clear that this Government has over a large number of years, and at an accelerated rate in recent times, set about doing so. I shall in a moment furnish the hon. members with figures to indicate this. First I want to go back a little in history. As far as policy is concerned, the hon. members are pretending that these homelands were artificially created and that the National Party, with its obsession for establishing homelands, is again conjuring something out of the hat. It is very necessary that we go back to the end of the nineteenth century. Let us consider for a while what the historic position was. At the end of the nineteenth century one finds that the nucleus of areas such as Vendaland in the Northern Transvaal existed where the Vendas were concentrated and were in possession of a specific territory. That was the actual position at that time.

Then there were sections in the Letaba area where the Tsongas were concentrated in large numbers. That is the area which is today the Shangaan area of the Tsonga homeland. Then one can go further to Sekhukhuniland, or Swaziland as it existed at that time, and as it now exists as an independent state. At that time certain parts of the Barberton district and the Piet Retief district were also included. This subdivision actually existed at the end of the nineteenth century. What was the position in Natal? Zululand existed as a very clear concept, with a Zulu nation inhabiting it. Basutoland, with part of Witsieshoek, was acknowledged as a Basuto area, although the boundaries had not yet been finally determined. Bechuanaland, parts of the Northern Cape and parts of the Western Transvaal, was conceived of as a Tswana area because it was inhabited by people who gave it the features of a Tswana area. The concentration of Cape Nguni in the Transkei and Ciskei areas at that time, already gave the idea of an area in which certain people were living. In this way each of these homelands, which the National Party maintained can become independent, already had substance at the end of the nineteenth century.

If we consider further the distribution of lands, which the hon. members now want us to determine and show people on a map, what do we see was the position at that time? The position was more or less that half of the land belonged to the Whites. Why? Because the wars which persisted from the beginning of the nineteenth century among the Bantu of this country left large areas uninhabited. These were then occupied by the Whites. At the end of the previous century we therefore had the position that more or less half of the area, in the sense of surface area, belonged to the Blacks or was occupied by them in practice. The other half belonged to the Whites and was occupied by them in practice. That was the picture which existed at the time. What happened then?

With Union the British Government decided that certain areas were protectorates, particularly the areas which had the greatest concentration of Bantu. These areas were excluded and it was laid down that these areas would not fall under the Union. Then the Government, as was correctly indicated by the hon. member for Transkei, discussed these matters in 1913 and lands were set aside for the first time. The Beaumont Commission was then appointed and this commission published a report. For many years nothing was done about the matter until the Government under Gen. Hertzog stated in 1936 that effect had to be given to the recommendations of the Commission. It was then decided that the various areas should be classified. That is why I am now referring to the words “without regard to the 1936 legislation”, as they appear in the hon. member’s motion. After all, this legislation of 1936 is tremendously important legislation and I do not know why the words “without regard” should be used here in the middle of the motion. I want to accept that his bona fides are in order.

These are the demands of the Natives.

Then the hon. member must say so next time, because as it stands here it does not mean that this is according to the demands of the Natives. However, let us not waste time on this matter. I do want to say that the period between 1936 and 1948 was a period in which a war was being fought and that was the reason for many blunders in this country. Just about nothing happened during that time. After 1948 attention was really given to this matter here. It is necessary that we take note of how attention was given to this matter. The quota of land laid down by the 1936 Act is 7½ million morgen and it was provided therein that the territory was not to exceed this area. That is, in other words, the maximum amount of land which can be purchased. Between 1936 and 1960 2 331 988.6337 hectares were purchased. The amount which this cost, was mentioned by that hon. member, and it was R26 915 588. Between 1960 and 1970 1 036 507 hectares were purchased at an amount of R67 637 106. These figures speak for themselves; they are very important in the sense that they indicate that the National Party has during the past 10 years accelerated the pace. Hon. members know that originally the land was very cheap and easily obtainable. I asked one of the people who participated in the Beaumont Commission how they went to work, whether they had a pattern. Do hon. members know what those people said? “Nobody wants the land; we are taking it for the Kaffirs”. Because the National Party and I are in earnest about this matter, I want to inform hon. members that I served on a committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, the Lowveld Farmers’ Union, where the Bantu Affairs Commission had to investigate the purchase of land. Do hon. members know what a member of the United Party on that commission told me? “We cannot give these fine farms to the Kaffirs”. That is the kind of co-operation we received. I do not have a great deal of time to dilate on this. The hon. member for Mooi River must acquire some small measure of co-operation from people in Natal in respect of those three pieces of land he mentioned, so that we can do away with this approach. I do not want to be disparaging, but we must solve this fundamental problem of whether they are going to become homelands or not. I am convinced that they are going to become homelands. There are problems which have to be solved, and the hon. member for Mooi River says that the Nos. I and 2 locations in the Upper Tugela area must be done away with. Then surely he supports the National Party approach. I just want to ask horn to address such requests to me, because this promotes consolidation. Let him then suggest alternative land. I would be glad if each one of us gives this matter serious thought and makes our contribution.

It is National Party policy.

Well then, if hon. members want to approach so close as to help us without calling it National Party policy, we will also welcome it. I will not reproach them for doing so.

Sir, there has therefore, as I have indicated, been a considerable acceleration in the rate. We still have at the moment a total of 1 339 256 hectares of quota land which has to be purchased. Hon. members spoke about colossal amounts. I think we must go and work it out ourselves. This is not only land which must be purchased in terms of the Land and Trust Act of 1936 —the released areas. Our policy also comprises the clearance of Black spots. I think everyone agrees with this. We have had no objections where poorly-situated Bantu areas—or areas where there was a concentration of Bantu—had to be cleared. I have received representations from Natal and elsewhere.

The Government has really done a great deal. I just want to furnish the figures in this regard so that we can see that there has been exceptional progress. Perhaps I should first mention to hon. members that the quota land which still remains, the 1 339 256 hectares, is divided up as follows. In the Transvaal 627 202 hectares must be acquired; in the Cape 644 682 hectares and in Natal 67 372 hectares. There is nothing more to be acquired in the Free State. According to the figures which I now have at my disposal, there are therefore only 67 000 odd hectares left in Natal. The hon. member indicated a moment ago that it had again increased. The position is that tremendous progress has been made. I must once again make it clear that it is my aim and that of the National Party and of the Government to accelerate the pace.

I just want to mention to hon. members in regard to the question of black spots and poorly-situated Bantu areas that since 1960, in respect of the Republic as a whole —I also have the figures for the various provinces—a total of 163 areas has been cleared, with a total surface area of 224 000 morgen. These are black spots and poorly-situated Bantu areas. There are still 309 left, a total of 269 000 morgen, which still have to be cleared. Now I should like to dwell for a moment on this problem. As far as these poorly-situated Bantu areas are concerned—I hope the hon. member includes these, because the hon. member for Mooi River gave an indication that he includes certain areas which are situated in his province—one finds that it is not an easy task. These black spots and sometimes the poorly-situated Bantu areas are in the possession of private Bantu individuals. The Bantu who own this land have died, and the land has not been transferred to the name of their heirs. One person can therefore now have hundreds of heirs. In such cases commissioners must be appointed to determine the ownership of such land. In addition inventories and valuations of improvements to the land must also be made. A cumbersome procedure has to be followed to finalize many of these matters. It is therefore not easy to round off and give effect every facet and aspect of this problem rapidly and easily. That is why I think the Government can look back with pride on what has already been achieved. We are not closing our eyes to these problems, but we realize that it is not an easy task. That is why I think it is especially important that we must take into account that these things cannot be done precipitately.

Another aspect I want to emphasize in regard to this matter, is in regard to poorly-situated Bantu areas. Let us take location No. 1, which the hon. member mentioned, for example. One cannot merely determine that that location should be included with Witsieshoek for example. These people are Zulus and they cannot merely be told to go and stay in another place like Witsieshoek. We must ascertain where these people will fit in ethnically. In the same way we also have problems in the Pietersburg area. There is for example the Seshego location. It must first be established where these people will fit in ethnically. One cannot cram these people into Tswanaland. They are North Sothos. We must with discretion and with a knowledge of the Bantu and with dedication try to establish what their problems are and not merely interfere and cause unnecessary difficulty. The idea which is being proclaimed by the Progressive Party, and with which the United Party often concurs, namely that the Bantu are one nation, appears here as not being the case. For each of the eight Bantu nations I have mentioned, it must be established where the people come from and what their historical ties are. A person must then see where they fit in. The hon. member for Mooi River will be able to explain to us very well how quickly tension and friction could arise in Zululand if we do not take these things into account. At this stage therefore I want to make an appeal to the United Party which has, with a terribly clear conscience and with a willingness to make sacrifices for the service they are rendering to South Africa, introduced this motion here, whether or not it was well or poorly drawn up, to bear in mind that it is in the interests of White South Africa that we first meet our obligations in regard to the 1936 Act. That is what we are busy doing and what the Government wants to try to finalize with great speed. There is the question of finance which plays an important role, but let us please understand that we as Whites must not use this problem to sow unnecessary disaffection and to try to gain political capital out of it. I do not think it will succeed. Seen in this light, I feel that the discussion this afternoon has been of great value and that it has thrown considerable light on the problems. It will in future help us to solve concomitant problems. I want to refer very briefly to the question of whether King William’s Town and East London will remain White. The question is very easy to answer. I do not have any doubt whatsoever that they will remain White. There are many people who are speculating on this matter. I saw in Hoofstad that Dr. Jooste of Sabra said that certain things had to be done and that others, on the other hand, said that Richard’s Bay should remain Zulu territory and that East London should be incorporated in the Transkei. There are many people who have speculated on this matter, people who sit chatting before their log fires drawing up maps, but as a responsible person I cannot, nor can the Government, go and draw lines on maps and say that certain things are going to happen in future.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.