Mr. Speaker, may I, with your leave, inform the House that, apart from the one o’clock news broadcast over the radio, of which hon. members are aware, no further news on the hijacking of the aircraft has been received between one and two o’clock. Certain negotiations are, however, taking place, and it is likely that further news will be received in the course of the afternoon. Should this happen, the hon. the Leader of the House will convey it to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, although we were opposed to and divided on clause 1 of this Bill, we as a party support the Third Reading, because this measure will improve the situation which exists today. The overall effect of this Bill will certainly be to bring about an improvement, and we welcome particularly the provisions of clause 10, which remove what has been an unfortunate festering sore which, I believe, has not been to the credit of our country and in the interests of the image of the Force; I refer here to the continuous repetition of sentences upon people who, whether misguided or not, are doing what they believe to be right Therefore we will not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill as it stands. Our view remains unchanged. I believe that without harm to the Defence Force and without harm to the security of the country, we could adopt a more understanding attitude towards those whose religious views differ perhaps from the views of the majority of us. Here I exclude, as I excluded at other stages, those who are being totally unreasonable in their approach to the question of national service. I refer to those who have views which they hold strongly and whom we could meet without harm to the Defence Force. Notwithstanding our failure to achieve what we aimed at in this regard, we support this measure as such.

*I believe this Bill to be an improvement which will be welcomed, apart from the other technical provisions effecting an improvement. In passing, I may just say that I hope the recommendation which was unofficially made to Customs and Excise, will also enjoy the support of the Minister, possibly in another capacity than the one here in this House. The Minister may possibly be aware of the fact that we as private members made certain representations to the Minister of Finance in regard to the question of customs and excise dealt with in this Bill, in so far as it relates to the men serving on the border. We believe that those men are fighting in the interests of our country. They risk their lives; they live under very difficult circumstances, and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill which is going through now, I hope that through the negotiations which have been initiated and with the support of the hon. the Minister of Defence, relief will be given in regard to customs and excise on our borders. With these few words I am pleased to give our support to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Sir, there is no need to make a long speech. I just want to thank the hon. member for the support he has given the Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. As far as the representations in connection with customs and excise are concerned, I may give him the assurance that I, too, have already made the necessary representations.

Bring some pressure to bear on him.

No, it is no use bringing pressure to bear on the Minister of Finance; one has to reason with him. In the second place, I just want to tell the hon. member this: We differ on one single minor point in the matter of dealing with national servicemen, but if the hon. member occupied this responsible position on this Side, I believe he would have adopted the same standpoint I did. We must not give people the opportunity of making an onslaught on a principle as long as this Parliament stands by that principle. If Parliament wants to change the principle, then I am in its hands, but as long as Parliament itself stands by the principle of compulsory military service, it is my task, if I want to do my job, to maintain that principle. I think that is the difference between us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

1. (2) The Minister may in consultation with the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government, and on such terms and conditions as the Minister may deem fit, guarantee the repayment of any moneys raised, borrowed or obtained by the corporation in terms of subsection (1) together with any interest thereon and any charges incurred in connection therewith.

Sir, in my Second Reading speech I dealt with this matter in full. I think this clarifies the position now.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, with the explanation I have already given, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill deals with the funds of the Meat Trade Control Board of South-West Africa which was established in terms of Ordinance 20 of 1962 as a body of control for the Territory’s meat industry.

At present the Ordinance provides that the Administrator (now the Minister) may make regulations prescribing the way in which the moneys of the board are to be utilized. Such regulations exist at present, but on the basis of legal advice which has been obtained, these regulations are not adequate for the purposes of the board. For this reason it is suggested that the Ordinance, in so far as its provisions relating to funds are concerned, should rather be brought into line with the system followed by the boards of control of the Republic under the Marketing Act.

Consequently provision is being made for the establishment of a general fund, a reserve fund and a special fund, which will be controlled by the board. The usual administrative expenses of the board will be paid from the general fund, whereas expenditure from the other funds will be subject to the approval of the Minister.

The moneys in the special fund are set aside for purposes directly connected with abattoirs in the Territory, and represent that part of the board’s levy which previously accrued to the Farming Interests Fund. Therefore the establishment of the special fund does not involve any additional burden for the producers.

Sir, this side of the House is prepared to support this legislation. It is a very short piece of legislation. Its object is to bring the position in respect of meat in South-West Africa into line with the position in the Republic, but I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the reason is for bringing in section 6 (B) (2), which reads as follows—

Why is this clause brought in? As far as I know, we do not have a similar regulation in the Republic. If the hon. the Minister is able to give us an explanation in this regard, we are prepared to support the Bill.

As regards the funds of South-West Africa, there was a special levy for the building of an abattoir in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and also for having a factory at the Windhoek abattoir. This is only to provide for special cases which are not as essential in the Republic. In South-West Africa the farmers themselves suggested years ago that there should be a special fund for the purpose of building an abattoir so that meat which could not leave the Territory because of foot- and-mouth disease could be processed in a factory and subsequently exported. That section is being brought in simply to provide that the fund may be utilized for this purpose.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments contained in this Bill provide, inter alia, for metrication in the wine industry at producers’ level. Terms such as proof strength, leaguer, ton, etc., are being metricated. For example, under the proposed terms, the price of wine will be announced per hectolitre instead of per leaguer.

Therefore the term hectolitre (26,4 gallons) is being substituted for the term leaguer (127 gallons) so as to bring this into line with other countries who have metricated.

The conversion factor of one metric ton of grapes at 20 degrees Balling, being equal to 6,364 hectolitre at 20 per cent strength, is being retained as this affects the effective quantity of wine which the producer may produce under his quota. For metrication purposes the strength of brandy is also being increased from 74,2 per cent to 75 per cent according to volume.

The present set-up is that one fully paidup share of R1 is allocated to each member of the K.W.V. on his becoming a member. When he stops farming or dies, his shareholding is cancelled and paid out. Consequently the position will arise in due course that each member will hold only one K.W.V. share. Based on the present membership and the anticipated entry of new members, this means that the share capital of the K.W.V. is likely to decrease to below R10 000. When the assets and the scope of the functions of the K.W.V. are taken into account, it is in the interests of both the organization and its members for its members to obtain a larger shareholding. This is rendered possible by the issue of bonus shares. Consequently it is the intention to issue such shares in more favourable years, and part of the financial surplus will be utilized for this purpose. The board of directors of the K.W.V. is under no obligation to allocate bonus shares each year. Repayment of bonus shares will also take place only in the event of farming operations being discontinued or in the event of the member’s death.

Since non-members also make a contribution to the surplus declared, it is being proposed that any cash bonus declared be paid to non-members as well in proportion to their contributions. The same position will apply in respect of that part of the financial surplus which may be converted into bonus shares in any year. Bonus shares can be issued only to members of the K.W.V. and consequently amounts will be transferred to a special account in the case of non-members until such time as such non-members are entitled to have it paid out to them.

In addition provision is also being made for certain provisions of Chapter II of the principal Act to be suspended. In this regard it may be mentioned that wine farmers and co-operative societies experience problems from time to time with the sale of their liquor to licensed retailers.

At present members have to enter into contracts, with the approval of the K.W.V., with licenced retailers in order to sell their liquor directly to them. Payment must be effected through the agency of the K.W.V. However, the retailers are not willing to enter into contracts with producers. They want to order the wine as required by case and pay directly for it instead of paying to the K.W.V. In terms of the proposed amendment it will be possible to eliminate the present cumbersome sales method. The K.W.V. will in any event still retain sufficient control over such transactions.

We on this side of the House are in favour of the principles embodied in this Bill and, consequently, we support the measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The existing surveyor-generals offices were established in terms of the Land Survey Act, 1927, which Act is also applicable to South-West Africa. The four provincial offices have their headquarters in their respective capitals, and those of South-West Africa have theirs in Windhoek. As the Act reads at present, the powers and duties in respect of the prescribed survey functions are vested in the surveyor-general of each province or territory. The Act also provides for a Director of Trigonometrical Survey and lays down his functions. The headquarters of the latter are situated in Cape Town.

Each of the above-mentioned six offices is in fact an autonomous organization, and taken together they form the survey branch which, for ministerial and secretarial purposes, falls under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, there is no substantive post for handling the purely administrative task in so far as planning, organization, co-ordination and control of the six organizational components as a whole are concerned. The Act does make provision for a survey board for the promotion and the efficient performance of the functions of the survey branch. Another provision contains the appointment of an officer to be styled the Director-General of Surveys, to whom the functions of the board may be assigned. The said officer shall be either a Surveyor-General or the Director of the Trigonometrical Survey or any other land surveyor. The Surveyor-General of the Transvaal is the present Director-General of Surveys and therefore holds a double position.

The rapid development of our country in various spheres is making increasingly greater demands on the survey offices. On the other hand, an increasingly greater shortage of the specific or specialized professional and technical manpower in the survey offices is being experienced. In order to cope with this situation, it is essential to give consideration to taking measures in order to ensure increased efficiency in the performance of the work, to eliminate overlapping services and to bring about more effective utilization of available manpower.

The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, assisted by the Public Service Commission, investigated the matter and found that the existing problems could be eased to a large extent by consolidating the functions of the Surveyor-General’s offices and those of the office of the Director of the Trigonometrical Survey and establishing a central governing body so as to ensure purposeful, integrated services by this branch. In order to give effect to this, an amendment of the Land Survey Act is necessary.

The necessary amendments are contained in the Bill before the House at the moment. In the first place, provision is made for an administrative post for survey functions as a whole. The appointment of the officer concerned, who has to be a land surveyor and will also be known as the Director-General of Surveys, will be made subject to the provisions of the laws governing the Public Service. Furthermore, this provision has the effect that the present post of Director of the

Trigonometrical Survey will be abolished, a post which will also be incorporated with the overall administrative organization. This will ensure that the loose co-operation of the present set-up will come to an end and that a well co-ordinated service will be established. The new organization will have its headquarters in Cape Town, a step through which any appreciable transfer of staff will be obviated.

In the second place, the proposed consolidation of functions and establishment of a central governing body has had the effect that the first ten sections of the principal Act. which deals with the administration of the survey offices, had to be rewritten. Apart from defining of the powers and duties of the holder of the administrative post, it regulates the establishment of surveyor-general’s offices for regions defined by the Minister of Agriculture, the appointment, powers and duties of the surveyors-general and the establishment of the Survey Regulations Board. In fact, this is largely a repetition of the existing provisions, with a few additions.

Recognition is granted to the existing surveyor-general’s offices. Although the new provisions now provide for the establishment of offices on a regional basis, additional offices are not envisaged in the foreseeable future. What is in fact envisaged, is standing statutory authority should it become necessary in the future to establish additional surveyor-general’s offices or even to consolidate existing offices.

The fact that the Survey Board no longer exists and that the designation “Director of the Trigonometrical Survey” will disappear, has also given rise to the consequential amendment of certain provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act, and the Universities Act with reference to the constitution of the Deeds Registries Regulation Board and the Board for the Recognition of Land Surveyors* Examinations, respectively.

Apart from the amendments with reference to the administration of the survey offices, section 30 of the principal Act is being amended with reference to the requirements which are to be complied with before a survey-general may alter or cancel a general plan in respect of any proclaimed township. A judgment given by the Appeal Court in 1968 showed very clearly that an amendment of the existing provision was necessary so as to simplify the matter. As the provision reads at present and in view of the judgment given by the Appeal Court, one single owner, lessee or mortgagee of an erf in a township may obstruct any change in lay-out, alteration, and so forth, by withholding his consent without furnishing any reasons. This means that a surveyor-general may only give effect to a request for alteration when either a court order has been lodged or all erf owners, lessees and mortgagees have granted their consent. Furthermore, in terms of the said Appeal Court judgment, the court will only be able to accommodate an applicant in a case where it is an impossible task to obtain all the signatures and to go into the merits of an objection.

As a result of representations made by the South African Law Society and talks held with the surveyors-general, it has been decided, in consultation with the provinces, to amend section 30 and to alter the various Provincial Ordinances accordingly so as to make provision for an improvement in control. The proposed amendment of section 30 has the effect that the surveyors-general and the Registrars of Deeds will be able to give effect to decisions concerning alterations to plans, which the Administrator will approve after instituting a full investigation and giving notice to erf owners and other interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this measure. There are certain items in the different clauses we should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage, but as far as we see this is an administrative measure which brings about reorganization within the department: for instance, it brings in trigoonometrical survey under the Director-General of Survey. What is also interesting is that it establishes regions under a surveyor-general in the place of the provinces as has been hitherto the case. We think this is a step forward and therefore we oh this side of the House support the measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal before the adjournment last night, I put a number of questions to the hon. member for Langlaagte arising from the meeting that he and members of his Bantu Affairs Committee had with people in King William’s Town in January this year. Hon. members will recall that this entire interlude was hallmarked by the fact that he was not prepared to answer certain very elementary questions. I do not intend to dwell on this, but I just want to sum up very briefly by saying that the representatives whom he had met at this meeting were allowed to put their cases even though they had precious little time to prepare themselves. I believe they were allowed to ask two questions, but any suggestion from that side of the House that there was discussion or dialogue is untrue.

What do you mean by “dialogue”?

Or discussion then, discussion between members of the commission and the people whom they were meeting. I think we can leave it there. Judging by his silence I should think that by this stage he is probably thoroughly ashamed of the proceedings which took place in King William’s Town and of his part in it. I take it that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will be ashamed too, and the same applies to the hon. member for Aliwal. Earlier in this debate the hon. members for Wolmaransstad and Langlaagte made great play of the attitude taken up by Gen. Hertzog when the 1936 legislation, the Native Trust and Land Act, was debated in this House. They, in line with other hon. members on that side of the House, have tried to create the impression that the terms of this legislation are something to which the Nationalist Party has felt itself bound ever since that legislation was passed. If there are any hon. members who dispute what I am saying, perhaps they would indicate it. But this is hot so. Those who have read the Hansard of that debate, through all its stages, must be well aware of the fact that the official stand taken by the Nationalist Party when this legislation was before the House, was the exact opposite of what we heard from these hon. members yesterday. If they had read Hansard carefully—the hon. member for Langlaagte gave out that he had—they would have seen that Mr. J. G. Strydom outlined the attitude of the Nationalist Party in the clearest terms when the Bill passed its Third Reading stage on 1st June, 1936. Mr. Strydom had made it clear that the official attitude of the Nationalist Party was that the Government should not indulge in the large-scale purchase of released land. [Interjections.] That hon. member might dispute what I am saying, but I am afraid that if he does, he just does not know what he is talking about. I shall show him in a few moments. Mr. Strydom —I am afraid I must spell this out in reply to that…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer questions at the moment. Let the hon. member listen to me. Mr. Strydom, on behalf of the Nationalist Party, took the view that the released areas were in fact areas that were to be bought by the Natives, as they called them then, or the Native tribes. The only way in which he saw the Government buying land in released areas was when purchase of areas by Natives—Bantu we call them now— had been of such a nature that White farmlands were surrounded and the White farm-owner was then prepared to sell. Mr. Strydom put the position very clearly in the Third Reading debate. He said (Hansard, Vol. 27, Col. 4733)—

I do not want to spend too much time on this, but I want to say that Mr. Strydom made the position of the Nationalist Party perfectly clear.

Oh, no.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik does not seem to believe the words of Hansard. Mr. Strydom made it perfectly clear that the Nationalist Party—and this was to be the policy in the future—would oppose precisely this type of purchase that has been recommended to this House now. I am not making any judgment on this situation; I just want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that his party has in fact done a complete about-face in its attitude. I hope that this is the last that we will hear of their pious protestations that they all along have felt themselves bound by the 1936 legislation. There is one other thing I want to mention. While my colleague, the hon. member for East London North, was speaking last night, he made the point that there was too much doubt among the people of the Ciskei area about what was going to happen in the Eastern Cape. The hon. member for Rustenburg quite truculently demanded of him: “Whose fault is that?”, suggesting that the fault might lie on our side. I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is here, because if we are going to talk about uncertainty, I want to address some words particularly to him. I trust that he is going to enter this debate and will reply to some of these things. Quite some time ago undertakings were given to farmers’ associations in this area, and I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister is in fact aware of them. For example, we have it on record that the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Development gave certain undertakings to the East London Western Districts Farmers’ Association. One of these undertakings was that the East London/King William’s Town boundary would not be encroached upon in the purchase of new land. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of this undertaking, because I think he saw the correspondence relating to it.

As we know, the proposals before the House are in direct conflict with the undertaking that was given and I want to ask that hon. Deputy Minister whether he is now repudiating, or going back on, the promise that was given to this farmers’ association. Does he feel himself not bound by his predecessor? This is no light matter. This involves the future well-being of farmers in that area. I hope he will tell us what his attitude is towards this undertaking that was given. In fact, it was given on two occasions: It was given in 1963 and again in 1965. Even the proposals before us must inevitably lead to the sort of uncertainty mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for East London North. We have the commission making a recommendation that the village of Hamburg and certain areas around Hamburg should not be included in the released area. This is also the recommendation before this House. Does it give the local people any sense of security when in the next breath we hear from the Government that, in fact, at some later stage, consideration is going to be given to introducing the necessary legislation in terms of which the property concerned may, by a process of zoning for Bantu occupation, be added to the released area? We have one set of proposals before us, and immediately they are placed before us, we are given a warning from that side of the House that the whole situation is going to be turned upside down at some time in the future. I would ask the hon. member for Rustenburg the very question he addressed to my colleague: “Whose fault is it?” It is the fault of this Government, and quite clearly so. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—made great play of some points that were put forward from this side of the House last night. The one which seemed to concern him particularly, was our assertion that we were prepared to purchase land close to growth areas for occupation by Bantu. Well, I would ask that hon. member—I hope his colleague behind him will pass on the question to him—whether this is not precisely what his Government has done in the same area. He made great play of this point. He seems to think it was something significant. But I would ask him: What did his Government do in relation to Mdantsane, the Bantu township outside East London? There, as we all know, the position was that the Bantu people lived in several areas—“locations” they used to call them in those days—on the fringes of East London, for example East Bank location and Durban Village. This Government then bought land further out of town to establish a township. In fact, this is growing towards a small city in its own right. This land was never Bantu land in the past. How can the hon. member for Wolmaransstad ever suggest that it was? It was White farmland. It was bought to build the modem equivalent of what we used to call locations, just about twelve miles out of town. To make it look like a homeland, his Government bought a corridor of land through to the nearest Bantu area. In Mdantsane they offered the people freehold title if they wanted it. It was placed next to a growth area. I fail to see why, if that is in accordance with Government policy, they should become so terribly excited if we on this side of the House now suggest that it would be more equitable for us to see to it that Bantu are situated whenever possible close to their homelands, but also that they have a chance of sharing in the wealth of the growth points in future. The only difference from what used to be, is that while in the olden days after work a Native went home to his location, now it seems a Bantu goes home to his homeland. It is purely words. If that Government can do it, I do not see why they should be so excited about the prospect of the United Party doing the same, but doing it somewhat better.

One of the other questions that seems to have taxed the minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite, has been the question of the 1936 land quotas. We have been asked, in relation to these specific proposals before us, what our attitude is. I want to say here and now that it is not the view of the United Party that land must be bought willynilly merely for the sake of consolidation or of meeting the quota. That is not our policy at all. Our attitude is that we are living in a modem society, a society that has changed a lot since 1936, although we still say that we intend to adhere to the spirit of the 1936 legislation. 1972 is a long way from 1936, and we have to look to the future of our country and not to the past. Our attitude is that we are totally opposed to indiscriminate buying or presently productive land and seeing it become unproductive. We in this country believe that we cannot afford this type of luxury. That is why we feel that in the interest of fairness to everybody it is our duty—and I suggest that it is the duty of every member of this House—to look at the entire situation and to try to determine how best we can arrive at an equitable solution for everybody. This equitable solution must have a direct relation to the facts of the situation. And I think one of the facts of our modern-day situation is that we are becoming more and more dependent on industrialization for our workers. More and more of our people of all races are becoming dependent on industrialization. To suggest that we should try to promote the growth of squatters or unproductive peasants on land, is entirely wrong, both to South Africa as a whole and to the Bantu people who would be so condemned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever, nor the inclination, to pass any comments on the first part of the speech made by the hon. member for Kensington last night. To use a phrase often used by his journalistic pals of the Sunday Times, one’s mind boggles at his sheer audacity in relating what was supposed to have taken place at a meeting which he never even attended. He had the audacity to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte several questions. He had no right to ask those questions because he was not present at that meeting. His version was a second-hand and distorted version of what happened there. I would advise this hon. member, though, to endeavour to rise above, and to divorce himself from the standards and the methods employed by him whilst he was a journalist of the Sunday Times.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with other parts of his speech as I proceed with my argument. We are really having a remarkable performance here by the Opposition. The Opposition is constantly propagating the policy of White leadership. Let us accept that they are honest in their motives as far as White leadership is concerned. One of the cardinal elements of leadership is integrity and honouring one’s word. One must honour one’s word not only in respect of the Whites, but also in respect of the Black man in South Africa. In 1936—whether the Opposition wants to argue about it or not—the White man gave his word of honour to the Black man that 7¼ million morgen of land in this country would be set aside for his eventual occupation. For the sake of the record I want to repeat what the hon. member for Langlaagte said yesterday evening. He quoted the words of Gen. Hertzog, which the latter phrased very clearly as follows—

Sir, the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, regarded this assurance as so important that later in his speech he put the position as follows—

He wanted no misunderstanding about it. He went on to say—

The hon. member for Kensington tried to create the impression this afternoon that the National Party of the time was opposed to the principles of this Bill. The National Party of the time was not opposed to the principle. They were opposed to the method. Unfortunately the hon. member did not read the debates. The official Opposition of the time was opposed to the announcement made by the Minister of Native Affairs that this money was to be appropriated within five years. An amount of £10 million to £12 million was mentioned. The Opposition of the time felt that there had been too much haste and that proper investigations had not been made. They were not opposed to the principle involved, as was proved yesterday afternoon. We accept that this promise was made by a White Government. It does not matter to me which Government did so. The fact of the matter is that this assurance was given by a White government and that a solemn undertaking was given to the Bantu peoples. This afternoon the United Party had the opportunity of proving their honesty and integrity. They are the people who want to assume leadership over the Whites as well as the non-Whites. Here they now have the opportunity of proving their integrity. However, at the first opportunity they have to prove it, they fail miserably in their attempt. But this is not all. Apart from the fact that there is a serious contradiction between the statement of the hon. member for King William’s Town and that of the hon. member for Transkei, we had to hear from the hon. member for King William’s Town that “we shall purchase much more land than this, but we shall purchase it where it is in the interest of the economy of South Africa, where it is in the interests of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. We shall have to provide the Natives with land next to the cities.” Sir, can you imagine a situation where they want to make available to the Bantu more than 7 million morgen of land around Cape Town, Johannesburg, Vereeniging and Port Elizabeth. In the legislation of 1936, certain guarantees are also given to the White man, namely that the 7¼ million morgen which will be allocated to the Bantu, will be taken from areas which had been traditionally occupied by the Bantu. But now the United Party, through the mouth of the hon. member for King William’s Town, says that it wants to give the Natives proprietary rights around our White cities, more land than they have at their disposal at present. They are not even able to keep their word of honour to the Whites. Where then does this story of White leadership come in?

I want to repeat something here this afternoon which I have already said in the past. The policy of the United Party as it is unfolding in this debate, is inevitably heading for a racial conflict in this country. That will be the position if they adopt this attitude to the promise which the White man made to the Black man. The Opposition is aware that the Black people are continually agitating for more land. To them it is a basic need for their survival in South Africa. Every so often the hon. member for Transkei levels the accusation in this House that, as a result of the policy of this Government, Chief Minister Matanzima of the Transkei” is demanding more and more land. Sir, here where we not only want to comply with these demands, but have to comply with them, the Opposition is leaving the White man of South Africa in the lurch disgracefully. The hon. the Prime Minister has said he considers himself bound by the provisions of the 1936 legislation and that the Black people can make demands until they became white in the face, but that they will not get more than that land, and that we are adhering to that promise of 1936. Sir, what would the position be if, on top of everything, we refuse to allocate that land to the Black people? No, I think the Opposition has proved unmistakably that it is most definitely not to be entrusted with the future of this country. They have revealed it in this debate this afternoon.

Sir, I want to make a few comments in regard to the meeting held in King William’s Town on 6th January. My constituency is also affected by the proposals considered in King William’s Town by the Bantu Affairs Commission. I attended a meeting there on 6th January, but I doubt very strongly whether the meeting I attended was the same one attended by three hon. members of the Opposition. If I listen to their account of what took place there, it is definitely not in line with the facts as I found them at the meeting I attended. Sir, I have only the highest regard for the way in which the chairman of the commission and his fellow-commissioners acted in King William’s Town on that day. It was mentioned here yesterday evening and it is a fact that that meeting was predominantly very antagonistic to the proposals which this commission had to consider, but in spite of great provocation, the commission carried out its work there with great self-control and with a fine appreciation of the situation there. Sir, let us see precisely what the terms of reference of that commission were. The terms of reference of the commission were to gather evidence and to hear people’s objections in regard to the way in which certain proposals which had been made were to be implemented. They were not sent there to purchase land; they were not sent there to negotiate with the people. It was explained to the meeting that the department proposed that these lands should be bought by the Bantu Trust, and the terms of reference of the commission were to go and test the views of the inhabitants and to explain this matter to them. The commission fulfilled that function to the letter. Members of the Opposition were also present at that meeting, and their account of what took place there is a damning judgment on themselves if it should be true. Three members of the Opposition were present there on that day, namely the hon. member for Transkei, the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for East London North.

And the hon. member for Kensington?

He was conspicuous by his absence.

Were you there?

I have not spoken on the subject, baboon.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Koedoespoort entitled to refer to my hon. friend as a “baboon”?

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member for East London North made the allegation here yesterday evening that he, the hon. member for Langlaagte, “led the meeting to believe that these figures (i.e. the number of morgen announced there) were the minimum land which had to bê purchased under that Act”. Sir, not only do I say it is untrue, but I say that if it were to be true, the hon. member for East London North had disgracefully neglected his duty at that meeting. At no time during that meeting, which lasted from 8 a.m. to after 5 p.m., did any hon. member of the Opposition who was there—and I have mentioned the names of the three members—rise in order to object to the procedure or to the way in which the investigation was taking place. Not one of them even had the courage to rise and give evidence.

We could not. You know that.

No, what did they do? When the chairman of the Eastern Agricultural Union rose and said his union demanded the repeal of the 1936 Act, they cheered and applauded together with the people. That was the contribution they made there. They sat there and said “hear, hear”, and applauded with the people.

That is not so, and you know it is not so.

Order! The hon. member should realize he cannot say the hon. member knows it is not so.

He ought to know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “you know it is not so”.

I withdraw them, Sir,

The impression is being created by the members of the Opposition who were there, that everyone who attended that meeting was opposed to these proposals. The hon. member for East London North alleged here that “they did not only ignore the wishes of the farmer in the Indwe district, but what they have in fact done at Whittlesea, where there is a Black spot, is that they have made it larger now than it was before”. Let us examine this allegation of the Black spot at Indwe. Why did the hon. member not rise and inform us of the true facts? The facts of the situation are that people rose and said they would like to sell the area known as Guba to the Bantu Trust. Why did the hon. member not add to that that the farmers’ association of Indwe was opposed to that proposal? Surely he omitted that intentionally.

And the school board.

Yes, the school board of Indwe and the church of Indwe objected to the purchase of that area. But for the sake of convenience, that is suppressed. Why do the hon. members not say either that what also happened there, was that farmers rose and offered their land to the State, in some cases more than what the State had initially requested? No, I say that the account of what happened at King William’s Town on 6th January, 1972, as interpreted by the Opposition, is in conflict with the facts of what did in fact take place there.

I want to thank this commission for the sympathetic way in which they received all the representations which were made to them. Let us face up to the facts. I know that some of the groups and people who were opposed to Certain proposals at King Wiliam’s Town, approached the commission subsequently and implored them to buy their land. I know this, because I had to act as an intermediary for some of these groups. I want to state this for the sake of the record. I am very grateful that as a result of the proposals of this commission Black spots in the Stockenstroom district are now going to be cleared up. Now a source of great annoyance to the residents there is about to be cleared away and on that account I must convey the thanks of people concerned. It is probably not pleasant for the commission or for any government to take land away from people and to make it available to other race groups, but it is also the duty of any government—and now, of course, the Opposition does not know what we are talking about—to do also unpopular things in the interests of the country. It is the National Party that is able to do those unpopular things because it is able to do so in the interests of White South Africa.

Do you believe that?

I do not believe the Opposition has the strength to do so. In this matter it has played for popularity. That is the reason why the hon. members attended that meeting without opening their mouths; they first wanted to see in what direction the wind was blowing. On the basis of that they subsequently determined what attitude to adopt in this House. The future of this country is entrusted to this Government because it does not seek to do the popular thing only, but is also able to do what is unpopular as long as it is in the interests of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Cradock will forgive me if I do not follow up on his argument, which had largely to do with a meeting which I did not attend. I shall leave it to other members on the Opposition side to discuss that with him. There are one or two historical facts he mentioned which I shall be discussing in my own speech.

I want to say that I have listened to this debate with great interest. What struck me, listening to the United Party speakers last night, was the fact that they are using very different arguments about the acquisition of land which is to be added to the African areas, from the arguments which they used over past years. I remember very well, back in the 1950s, the hon. member for South Coast and the then hon. member for Drakensberg conducting a very brisk campaign in northern Natal based on the argument that no more land should be acquired for the Bantu areas because the Bantu ruined the land. Then in 1959 it was “no more land for the independent Bantustans”, which was of course, the famous, or perhaps the infamous, resolution which was moved by the hon. member for South Coast at the Union Congress of the United Party, which in turn caused the split that subsequently led to the formation of the Progressive Party. I may say that also deprived the House of some of the ablest young members which we have ever had. These were young members who were not only brilliant but could also be distinguished by their courtesy and good manners.

In 1964, when the procedure whereby land could be acquired as is being proposed today, was debated, the talk was all about the “creeping paralysis” caused by the acquisition of land which was adjacent to the existing African territories. In this debate, however, I find that the official Opposition, the United Party, is using completely different arguments. In this debate the chief Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Transkei, talked about the needs of the economy, growth points and efficient food production. He suggested that consolidating the African areas was not necessary and that it ought to be possible to bargain with the Africans to show them that they did not require any more land. The hon. member for King William’s Town talked about land being acquired near the urban industrial areas. I must say that these are much more modern arguments than the previous ones which were used by the United Party. The hon. member for East London North, very properly —and I concede right away that it was very right and proper for him—spoke about the interests of his constituents who are going to be seriously affected by this motion if adopted.

The Nationalist Party arguments, on the other hand, centred around two points: The first has been the need to fulfil the obligation under the 1936 Land Act, and the second the carrying out of the policy of consolidation of the homelands.

Now I want to put my own point of view. To me the cardinal issue at stake is the acquisition of land towards the fulfilment of the solemn promise that was made in 1936. I believe that it is a scandal that today, 36 years after the 1936 Act was passed, there is still approximately 1,5 million morgen of land left to be acquired by the Bantu Trust in order to fulfil the land quota as set out under the 1936 Act, of an additional 7,25 million morgen which was granted in terms of that Act, of which nearly 500 000 morgen in fact still has to be acquired in the Cape. I think that Gen. Hetzog must be turning in his grave when he realizes that Parliament is still debating, 36 years after he gave that solemn undertaking, the acquisition of land to be handed over to the Africans. The hon. member for Cradock mentioned something about the solemn promise which had been given by Gen. Hertzog. I want to mention some more of that solemn promise. He stated, and I quote from the 1936 Hansard, Vol. 26, Col. 2829:

That is the 1936 Land and Trust Act—

That to me is a very solemn undertaking. Lest there is still any doubt as to whether the additional land that was promised in 1936 was connected with the removal of the franchise, that is the common roll franchise, I shall give another quote of Gen. Hertzog. I shall quote from a speech of his, a speech he made in December, 1936, at Smithfield. I think that shows without any doubt whatsoever that this solemn undertaking of more land was closely bound up by the fact that Parliament had at a Joint Sitting removed the African people in the Cape Province from the common voters roll. Gen. Hertzog said:

said Gen. Hertzog—

So there was at that stage a reversal. Now, ironically enough, it is the heirs of the “purified” Nationalist Party who are doing their best to try to fulfil the quota of land as promised under the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts and it is the heirs to Gen. Hertzog’s United Party who are doing their best to thwart this effort. That is the irony of this situation. I want to say finally …

You do not understand.

The hon. member says that I do not understand, but possibly I understand just as well as he does. I am going to support the motion which we are discussing today. I want to say quite unequivocally that I happen to have the strongest objections to almost every basic principle of policy as far as the Africans are concerned that the Government propounds, though I accept that in many aspects many of the policies are already fait accompli and there is very little that any body is ever going to be able to do about that. To me the absolute minimum starting point is that the 1936 Land Act obligation be carried out. I believe that that was a solemn undertaking that was given in 1936 by Gen. Hertzog on behalf of the White people of South Africa. Having said that, I want to say that although I firmly believe that the acquisition of the remaining land under the 1936 Act is a long overdue debt to which we. the White people of South Africa, should have put paid many years ago—it is a long overdue debt that we simply have to pay —to imagine that by so doing we can consider the problem of African rural poverty as being solved, is utterly foolish. I hope the hon. chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission is listening and I hope that he does not think that he can thereby consider the problem of African rural poverty in 1972 is going to be solved by the acquisition, even to the full, of the very last morgen of land under the 1936 Act. I do not believe either that mere consolidation of these areas will solve the problem of rural poverty among the African people. And it does not matter whether the homelands are independent or otherwise; the poverty problem will still remain.

The first important question I should like to ask is how is the land acquired going to be used. I believe that that is an important question. I sincerely hope, and I should like to have some reassurance on this point, that the land will not simply be used for resettlement areas and that thousands of people will not be scooped up out of the urban areas and placed on this land. I hope that the land will not simply be used to house the families of migrant workers. I believe that the solution to Black rural poverty is not only the acquisition of more land. That is desperately required. There is a desperate land hunger, more particularly in the Ciskei, among Africans. But I believe that the problem can only be solved, in fact, by moving people off the land. I do not believe that the African areas, even with all the 7¼ million morgen acquired and added to them, will be able to support at any decent standard of living, their existing population, the natural increase of that population and still less, of course, the people who will be sent back from the urban areas. I hope that this is gradually dawning on the Nationalist Government. I hope that the reaction of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration when he came back from visiting those miserable areas like Sada, Ilinge and Dimbaza is at last beginning to penetrate. viz. that one, cannot simply resettle people there, give them minute maintenance allowances and thereafter think that you can wash your hands of them. It does not work that way.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether the Whites will have the right, in terms of her party’s policy, to buy and own land in the so-called Bantu areas.

Under the Progressive Party policy there will not be a question of the so-called Reserves. You have to have certain protected areas for people under present circumstances who cannot compete with White people who would buy up their lands. But in a society where you have a multi-racial country, where all people are free to move, free to exercise their talents, free to buy land anywhere else, the situation will resolve itself. Those people who want to sell their land, will sell their land and those who do not want to sell their land, will not. That is our policy.

I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for King William’s Town when they talked about industrialization and urbanization as being a solution to the problem. It solved the poor White problem and I believe it could solve the poor Black problem. But what I want to say is: Just supposing that already all the land under the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts had been acquired, does it not occur to them that they still have to acquire more land?

Did you hear my speech?

Every last word of it.

Did you not understand it?

Yes, I did.

Well, I answered that.

Well, therefore they should not be objecting to the acquisition of this land, because it does not preclude further acquisition of land near the industrial areas and near the urban areas. The hon. the Minister cannot say …

I gave my reasons why we do not want this particular land to be bought.

There was an overall objection in principle, not just to this particular land. The hon. member made a long speech saying that the acquisition of this sort of land was no good and that it had to be near industrial areas and growth points. I have understood every point he made. I say that even with the acquisition of this land, which is a solemn pledge in terms of the 1936 legislation, that further land should and must be acquired in the urban areas near the industrial growth points.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether she believes that land should be bought just for the sake of buying land in terms of the 1936 legislation?

Yes, I think that the provisions of the 1936 Act have just got to be carried out. And this proposal must be carried out, because this is adjacent land which has always been envisaged as being land that could possibly be bought up. It is all adjacent land to the existing areas. That was laid down in the Act long ago. When the quota areas, the scheduled areas, were set aside, it was always envisaged that more land would have to be bought. This land should have been bought years ago and I do not know why this House is debating it today. It is 36 years since the 1936 Land Act was passed. It was never envisaged that it would take two generations before the land was acquired. Gen. Hertzog made that very clear and so did the then United Party when they supported that legislation. I want to say that I am dead against cramming people back into these areas, because I do not believe that even with every last inch of the 13 per cent of the land which was set aside under the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, those areas can ever hope to support the existing African population at any decent standard of living, or the natural increase. I fully support the claims of African leaders for more land if their areas are to be made viable, although I doubt that even this in fact would achieve that purpose. I believe it can fairly and equitably be argued that just as in 1936 there was a quid pro quo for depriving Africans of the common franchise by giving them more land, so we can say that there should have been a quid pro quo in 1959 when they were deprived of the communal franchise in this House. I believe that we should have given more land at that time as an additional quid pro quo, because then the concept of temporary sojourners and a return to the tribal areas by 1978 was envisaged. I think it should have been obvious at that time that the existing land, even if fully acquired under the 1936 Act, would never ever be enough. I am glad to see that one of the architects of the plan, Dr. Eiselen, came out in support of this only this month and stated that the African leaders were justified in their claims for more land.

I want to say finally that I have considerable sympathy for the people who are going to be moved as a result of this motion. I fully understand the plea put up by the hon. members on behalf of their constituents and I believe that that is absolutely right. I am always sorry for people who have to be moved; I am sorry for the hundreds and thousands of Africans that have been moved under Proclamations and Black spot removals. Indeed, even under this resolution, as has been pointed out, Africans are going to be moved from so-called Black spots. I am sorry for the 110 000 Coloured and Indian families who are disqualified people under the Group Areas Act. Thousands of them have already been moved and many of them still have to be moved.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I am simply saying that when removal schemes are under way —and to some extent this is a removal scheme—people always suffer and that I am sorry for them. I believe it is hard to give up one’s land. As a rule White people are, of course, handsomely compensated. I want to say that under a rational multiracial policy such as my party proposes, such removals would not take place compulsorily, but only if people desire to move and if they offer their farms for sale so that they may be bought by people of different races. As the reality of the situation obtains, however, we have a Nationalist Party Government in power and we have homelands that are desperately short of land. There is a desperate land hunger amongst Africans and that is going to grow. I believe that the very minimum starting point that this White Parliament can operate from is at least to see that the obligations which were undertaken 36 years ago by another White Parliament are fulfilled. I will therefore support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed this afternoon to find that the hon. member for Houghton supports this motion. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Houghton, having expressed the views that she has previously expressed in this House, cán support what can be no more than a move to remove more unfortunate Bantu families and to place them in such places as Sada, Ilinge, Dimbaza and others. She in her own words said that she hoped that this was not going to happen, but surely she knows that under this Government it is the only thing which can happen. Since when has she been bluffed? Of all the members in this House, since when has the hon. member for Houghton allowed herself to be bluffed by people such as the hon. member for Langlaagte? No, Sir, I am afraid that I am completely at a loss this afternoon; unless, of course, she is engaged in her favourite pastime, which is in some way to try and attack the United Party, not the Nationalist Party, with whom she sides so often.

With a fair measure of justification, too.

Sir, she has attacked us for opposing these proposals, and has indicated in her speech that she believes that we have to purchase land to the maximum of million morgen, simply for the sake of buying it …

Willy-nilly.

… willy-nilly, wherever it might be, as long as it is something like adjacent to existing Bantu land, scheduled area or released area. But she has not even looked at the map to see that half of the land which is now being asked for, is nowhere near adjacent to Bantu land. That is the whole reason for this motion. The whole reason for this motion is to declare that vast area a released area, so that the Government in its wisdom can pick here and there and buy odd bits and pieces all over the place. If this is going to happen, as it is going to happen, we are going to have the further creation of more Black spots. This is not a logical extension. It is merely the Government asking once again for a blank cheque, as far as the Ciskei is concerned, for the right to purchase anywhere within a vast area, and creating in the minds, not only of the Whites, but of the Blacks as well, this tremendous feeling of uncertainty which has been referred to by other speakers on this side of the House. But I want to remind the hon. member for Houghton of what my hon. friend from Transkei said when he introduced the debate on this motion.

She didn’t listen.

Obviously she did not listen, because this is what he said:

Bantu farming units, Sir—

So I ask the hon. member for Houghton: Why can she not support this sort of sentiment? Does she believe it immoral for us to express such sentiments or to stand by such principles? I believe that morality only lies with us in the stand which we have taken. The hon. member for Transkei went further and said:

Once again I ask the hon. member for Houghton: On whose side is morality? He went further and said—

Here I want to break for a moment to say the hon. member for Houghton must not think she is the first one to talk about land ownership for the Bantu people, and not only so far as housing in the urban areas is concerned, but even agricultural land-ownership. When she talked this afternoon about removing the people from the land and concentrating them in towns, she must realize that this has been advocated by this side of the House often before. Here again my friend from Transkei said so. The member for Transkei concluded by saying:

In conclusion, as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, he said—

It is on that which we take our stand here this afternoon. It is on that stand that we oppose the motion moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I say so because we are responsible for those people, because we are prepared to face up to that responsibility.

I must remind hon. members on that side that when they talk of us running away from the promise that was given in the 1936 Act, that the Act lays down that the land which is to be bought shall not exceed 7¼ million morgen in extent. Not that we shall purchase million morgen but that is the maximum which shall be purchased. They must not come with any stories that we are running away from our responsibilities. As has been said by speakers on this side, we do not accept that 7¼ million morgen is the maximum or the limit; we do not believe that in purchasing land for occupation by the Bantu people we should be tied to such land as is adjacent to or adjoins scheduled or released areas.

What is the maximum amount of land which a member of the so-called urban Bantu people may in terms of the policy of the United Party, buy within what we call White areas today?

It is a perfectly reasonable question. I accept it as such coming from a perfectly reasonable member on the other side, something I cannot say of many others. The question is what is the maximum amount of land that we will make available to an individual Bantu to purchase. There is no question of a maximum amount of land that an individual can purchase. We have made it clear that we will make provision in the Bantu townships adjacent to urban areas—land set aside for occupation by the Bantu— for individual Bantu to purchase and own their own homes and to purchase the land on which their homes stand. It is a question of a stand. It is not a question of size or area.

How many stands?

The hon. Minister asks how many stands. It is not a question of how many stands. Once again, this is a question of economics. It is a question of what they can do and what they can afford.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Cradock. The hon. member for Cradock and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad were apologetic in their contributions to this debate. They apologized for what they were being forced to do; in the words of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, it was not an easy or pleasant task. Why are they doing it?

Because we are in honour bound to do it.

They are doing it because the tail is now wagging the dog. They have embarked on a particular course and they do not know how to stop this Juggernaut that has started rolling; they have now ended up in a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. I want to take the hon. member for Cradock to task for his attack on my friend from Kensington. He alleged that the hon. member for Kensington gave a version of what took place at the meeting in King William’s Town without having been present himself. That hon. member understands English. I know he does. Why does he say that this hon. member made statements and gave a version of what took place when he knows full well that all the hon. member for Kensington did was to put a few questions to the hon. member for Langlaagte and to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad?

It was his suggestions that I was referring to.

It was what?

He was just sowing suggestions.

No, it was not a question of that. Was there anything wrong with the questions that were asked?

Of course they were wrong.

Why then did we not get answers to those questions? I was not present at this meeting. I cannot judge. All I can say, having listened to the debate thus far, is that it appears that certain members attended one meeting while certain other members attended another meeting. That is quite clear from what we have heard in this House this afternoon. I do not know who is going to be left to judge, but somebody at some stage is going to judge who attended what meeting.

The hon. member for Cradock further attacked my friend for King William’s Town. Once again I want to stress that I know that that hon. member is fully conversant with the English language. He said that the hon. member for King William’s Town would make more than million morgen of land available to the Bantu in and around Cape Town, Johannesburg and other large urban areas in South Africa. He knows full well that that is not what the hon. member for King William’s Town said. He did not say that at all; he did not say that the full 7¼ million morgen of land must be made available in those areas. Why does this hon. member deliberately mislead this House? Because that is what he has done. He understands the language. He is repeating now that the hon. member for King William’s Town said “even more”, but it was not a question of “even more” in those areas, and that is what the hon. member for Cradock implies, merely so that he can get this untruth on the record.

What are you arguing about?

Sir, I see the hon. member for Cradock is sitting there with the other two hon. gentlemen who were present at the meeting. He seems to have contradicted his two friends with whom he is sitting at the moment because he said that the commission was sent out with the particular “opdrag” to collect evidence and to hear opposition to their plans; it was not sent to buy land or to negotiate with the people, or to consult with them. But, Sir, what did the hon. member for Langlaagte say last night? He said that they were sent to consult and that they did in fact consult, and this is why I say that it appears that two meetings must have been held which were attended at the same time by certain members, because the hon. member for Cradock now corroborates all the evidence that was given by the hon. members for King William’s Town and East London North, who were present at that meeting where, as the hon. member for Cradock now corroborates, consultations did not take place, because they were only sent to collect evidence. So much, Sir, for the promise of the Government that they would consult with the people concerned here.

Now, Sir, let us go back to the hon. member for Langlaagte. While the hon. member for Langlaagte was speaking last night, my hon. friend, the member for Albany, took a point of order and asked whether we were in fact dealing with the same matters as those which came before the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. Sir, that point of order was ignored, and I believe that you were right in ignoring it, but I must say that the hon. member for Langlaagte certainly gave the impression to this House last night that we were not dealing with the same matters as we dealt with in the Select Committee. He gave answers last night to many questions which were asked in the Select Committee where we got no answers at all; we were told that there were no answers to these things. The hon. member for Langlaage told us that this land was required to compensate for black spots which are to be removed and also for the resettlement of the Bantu. We accept that, Sir, This is exactly what we were told in the Select Committee. But during the debate in the Select Committee we asked specifically where the Bantu from the black spots which were going to be removed, were going to be resettled, and we were told that they did not know. But last night the hon. member for Langlaagte gave us a long list of the black spots that are being removed and of the areas to which those Bantu are being taken.

We got information since then.

He now says that they have got information since then. No, Sir, I am sorry, I cannot accept that statement at all.

You are not prepared to accept anything.

What happened at the Select Committee when we asked this? I am sure it has been made clear to this House by now that we have two particular problems. The one is compensatory land for black spots which are being removed; and under reasonable circumstances and under proper control, we have no objection whatsoever to their removal. Another is the purchase of extra land towards the quota and for the resettlement of squatters, as it was put to us. But, Sir, we could get no definition in the Select Committee of what land was intended for which purpose; in other words, we had to oppose the whole resolution. In the Select Committee we were told—and I quote from notes which I made at the time: “Compensatory land has not been earmarked for black spots. After the purchase of the land, ecologists will be called in and they will decide where the Bantu from each black spot should be moved to.” Sir, this has all been done in the space of 10 days, or two weeks, according to the hon. member for Langlaagte; he has now received this information. Within the space of these three weeks he has made an examination of all these black spots; the ecologists have gone in; they have planned everything, and this is what he expects us to believe. Do you wonder, Sir, that my hon. friend, the member for Albany, takes a point of order and wants to know if this is the same matter as that which was discussed by the Select Committee?

But let us go further with the hon. member for Langlaagte. He gave us various figures last night of the balance of the land that is due in terms of the quota allocated to the Cape Province under the 1936 Act. He ended up with 241 000 morgen, which is the balance still to be purchased. The estimates of the area of this land we are discussing seem to vary from 178 000 morgen to 186 000 morgen; but after that, there are 241 000 morgen left. This is what the hon. member for Langlaagte said last night, and I quote from his Hansard—

He was interrupted by the hon. member for Transkei—

The hon. member answered—

Sir, on a point of personal explanation…

Mr Speaker, I concede the point of the hon member for Langlaagte. I discussed this matter with him and put it to him that if this statement was correct, then we had final plans for the Ciskei.

No, the Ciskei was left out here; it is a mistake.

Sir, I want the record put straight here.

He made a small mistake.

You must accept that.

I accept it, but I want the record put straight, that the 241 000 morgen that is left is not only for the Transkei and the Tswana people, but that the Ciskei people can still expect a little bit more. In other words, we now have the situation that a proposal is put to this House, a proposal which has been put to the inhabitants of the Ciskei, Black and White, which is not final, which is merely an interim measure, which is not going to remove any of the uncertainties which have been mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House.

That point has been made already.

You are not the Chairman.

Sir, we are now being asked to consider this matter without any finality whatsoever. How can we be asked to approve, and how can the people concerned be consulted—and asked if they are prepared to accept, plans which are not final? Mr. Chairman, the same thing has happened in Natal, and the hon. member for Langlaagte knows what the answer of the agricultural unions in Natal has been. Their answer has been that they cannot accept plans which are not the final plans. Because how is this going to help anybody? I want to quote from a letter that I received only the other day from a firm of estate agents in Pietermaritzburg in connection with the sale of certain properties totalling 6 165 acres—

[Interjections.] My hon. friend here says that at R55 per acre this was a give-away price. The letter goes on—

Sir, this is what is happening, because of these interim plans which are being suggested by the Government. Not only are the farmers themselves affected but we are going to be faced with a shortage of food in this country because the farmers will not be prepared to continue. Last night the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration interjected when one of our members was speaking, who asked what does a person do sitting there, knowing that it might be 15 years before he is bought out; and the hon. the Minister said he must go ahead with his development. Sir, who wants to develop under those circumstances, when you have the Sword of Damocles hanging over you which can fall at any moment and cut you off? The point was made earlier that these are young people. They are not old people who are on the point of retirement and who want to sell and go and settle down and live quietly for the rest of their lives in town. These are people who want to make a future for themselves. If this Government is going to persist with this plan, which I know it will do, because it is going to steamroller this thing through, then I say they are in honour bound to buy out every one of those properties now, immediately; and then I want to go further and I want to say that having done so the Government must not drag its feet with carrying out its plans as it has done in other areas where it has purchased land. Having purchased this land, it must get on and move the Bantu people and resettle them and use the land they have bought because we have too much land lying idle in this country at the moment. It is all very well to talk about insufficient land for the Bantu people, but let them use the land which this Government has purchased for them and from which this Government is deliberately keeping the Bantu off. Sir, we oppose this motion.

To begin with it seems to me that the hon. member for Houghton is labouring under two misapprehensions. The first is that the 1936 Act was a quid pro quo for the disfranchisement of the Bantu.

It is a historical fact.

It is not a historical fact. If the hon. member would look at the debates of that time she will find that the Minister of Lands at that time, Mr. Grobler, specifically denied it when he was piloting the Bill through the House. The second point is that in reply to the question put to her by the hon. member for Transkei, it seems quite clear that she thought that any land, whether it was productive land or not, should be purchased. I wonder whether it is really fair to the Bantu or to the economy of South Africa to take up an attitude like this. I received figures some years ago. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm them now, because I received them from a gentleman who has passed away, a person who was closely associated with the Department of Bantu Administration for many years. He had worked out that on the average of a productive economically active White farm, approximately 45 morgen per Bantu family was required for them to subsist and to live quite well, but that on the Trust ground 90 morgen per family was required. I think that is a point everybody should note very carefully and bear in mind when they think of this sort of thing.

*Last night the hon. member for Langlaagte accused the hon. member for Transkei of having his speech written out by the Eastern Agricultural Union. The hon. member for Langlaagte knows that this was a frivolous and untrue remark. [Interjections.] If that were so, what is wrong with the Eastern Agricultural Union then? You may ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. It is one of the best agricultural unions in the whole of South Africa. What difference would it have made if that statement were true? The hon. member says, “Yes, they just want to produce”, but this is not what it is all about.

I did not say that.

You did say so. I wrote it down while you were speaking. That is not what it is all about. It concerns the implementation of the Act of 1936 and consolidation under our policy. We also stand by the Act of 1936.

That is an untrue assertion.

The principle of that Act. when it was introduced in 1936 under a Government which never mentioned sovereign independence, becomes quite a different principle under the same Act when a Government speaks of sovereign independence. So we are pursuing two different policies. Until this Government comes to its senses it will not be easy for us to understand one another.

I want to go further. This hon. member, who is chairman of the commission, submitted the proposals of the Select Committee to this House. When speaking last night—we have the report of the Select Committee in front of us here—he dealt with exchange lands throughout his speech. A considerable portion of his speech dealt with Black spots which are going to be removed and placed elsewhere and about land which is going to be bought in one place and taken away in another. This report does not mention this at all. The report is incomplete and insufficient information has been submitted to this House in regard to the matter we are debating here today.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. He attacked my hon. colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, for mentioning the purchase of land for Bantu occupation in the vicinity of our growth points and around our cities. Today it went even further. But the hon. member for Kensington asked him: “What about Mdantsane?” I want to go a little further: What about Rosslyn? What about Soweto? What about Ga Rankuwa and what about Hammarsdale? In all these places, except Soweto, the Bantu have freehold. These places are situated next to growth points and cities and have been established by this Government. So there is nothing wrong with what the hon. member for King William’s Town said. All he wants to do, is to take that policy further in a better way. I want to ask the hon. member: What is going on in the vicinity of Newcastle?

Bester Homes.

What is going on there? Bantu townships are being established there next to a growth point, and what is wrong with that? Nothing! Then the hon. member comes along and says that when the agriculture leaders spoke at a meeting in King William’s Town they came along with one version and subsequently, when they were having tea, individual farmers came forward and offered their farms for sale.

Does that hon. member not realize how people feel when they see such a prominent statement in the newspaper to the effect that the scheme is proceeded with and that they are only allowed to stay there and to act as policemen for the Government? Does that hon. member know what life is like in the border areas of South Africa? I do not think they appreciate it. It is easy to draw lines on a map and to sit far away in Pretoria or in an urban constituency and to say that the matter has been solved. It is easy to say: “We have drawn up a map; it has been completed now”. But then we forget about the people.

The hon. member for Aliwal came along with all kinds of pious talk. He spoke about the Greek islands! I do not know what the Greek islands have to do with land purchased for Bantu occupation. It is easy for that hon. member to come along with all kinds of soft talk, because according to the map and the proposals I have seen, not one little piece or iota of his constituency is sacrificed in these proposals.

†I want to come back to those matters that pertain particularly to my constituency. In the original proposal a coastal strip was left White. I led a deputation to the hon. the Deputy Minister representing the people of Peddie asking that that strip be purchased either by the Department of Forestry, the Department of Agricultural Land Tenure or the Department of Defence. Subsequently there was another proposal in which the village of Hamburg was included and it was all going to become part of trust land. On behalf of those farmers I may say that they appreciate the fact that they will not have to stay there but I repeat the request that the coastal strip be preserved for some other use than that of Bantu occupation. I would like to support the hon. member for Transkei’s plea. There are holiday resorts being developed in that area, resorts that can mean a great deal, economically, not only to South Africa, but to the embryo Ciskei. I feel that this should be very seriously considered, especially in the light of the fact that Hamburg is now being left in vacuo, a White spot in the middle of the homeland Ciskei.

There is another question I want to raise in connection with Hamburg, namely the lack of liaison between the departments. The hon. the Minister will remember that I asked certain questions, which appeared on the Order Paper for Friday, the 19th May. The one question I asked the Minister of Police and the other I asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. These questions were both very similar. I was grateful to see that a post office is to be established in place of the agency and that it is expected to be in operation by 1973. When you place a town in the position in which Hamburg has been placed, a town that is inhabited permanently by retired people, one expects to have a police station there. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the nearest police station is at Bell which is five miles away, and that that police station will be in the proposed Ciskei. I asked the hon. the Minister of Police whether a police station was to be established in the village of Hamburg in the district of Peddie and if so, when; if not, why not? The answer was as follows—

Surely these matters are gone into before proposals are made; surely these matters should be gone into very carefully before proposals are made.

Then, when v/e come to paragraph 8 of the proposal before the House, you have the exclusions of Hamburg Township and the Commonage and the Peddie Township and Commonage which we asked for. The second leg of this paragraph is really disconcerting. Here the hon. member for Langlaagte requests—

What is the point of exempting those towns if you add a rider like this and ask for legislation to rezone them? Are we going to have “gemengde woonbuurtes” in these places as we have in so many of the towns in the Transkei? This sort of thing must be avoided and planned ahead.

Then I want to come to the Chalumna area in East London. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that I am not satisfied at all with that area. I can see no reason why it should be cut into the north-western area of the East London district. The outlining of that area is far from satisfactory as it is at the moment. What concerns me is that guarantees were given to the farmers’ association of that area, the East London West Farmers’ Association, in 1963 by Mr. J. S. de Wet, then Under-Secretary for Bantu Affairs and again in 1965 by his Hon. the Administrator of the Cape, Mr. A. H. Vosloo, who was then the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. The hon. member for Kensington mentioned these guarantees. The hon. the Minister knows about these guarantees, yet this proposal still comes. I should like to know and have it fully explained what the purpose and the need for that incursion into the East London district is. We are fully aware that there is a plan to build a large township just across, on the King William’s Town side, at Gulu. However, I cannot discuss that matter in this debate. In speaking at the end of a debate of this nature, may I say that the major reasons why we oppose the Select Committee’s report have been adequately dealt with by hon. members on this side of the House. There is, however, one relevant and very important reason that has not been dealt with, viz. the arrogant disregard of the individual, of his rights and of the guarantees given to him by previous Ministers and officials of this Government. It has long been accepted by the local authorities, the farmers’ associations and the Border Agricultural Union that no further land for the Bantu Trust would be acquired in that area without first consulting the agricultural union and other interested parties. This guarantee was first given by Mr. De Wet Nel during the period that he was in office. It was subsequently substantiated by the late Dr. Verwoerd, both during the period that he was in office and when he was Prime Minister. Other guarantees such as those I have just mentioned have been given by senior officials and Deputy Ministers. All these guarantees have gone by the board in these proposals. The Border was notified of the original proposals on the 9 p.m. news by the South African Broadcasting Corporation and by the newspapers towards the end of last year without any consultation with any individual or body in that area. Three meetings subsequently took place. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad protests that all interested parties were notified of the meeting in <u>Kin</u>g William’s Town, then I say to <u>him</u> that he is guilty of a terminological inexactitude of the first degree. As a member of Parliament for the constituency that is probably more seriously affected than any other by the proposals, I received no official notification of the meeting. Therefore, I did not attend that meeting. I hope that that hon. member will not have the effrontery to tell me that simply because I happen to be a member of the Opposition in this hon. House, I cease to be an interested party. All matters concerning my constituency are of very extreme interest to me. Democracy certainly does not work in this arrogant manner. This arrogant and despotic manner of dealing with matters of national importance must, I believe, be laid squarely at the door of the Minister himself who had a good many giggles last night and who is so possessed with his own importance that I feel constrained to quote him on article 1 of the Fundamental Laws of the Tsarist Empire as they were published in 1892—

This self-styled king and champion of the Bantu should take note and read a little Russian history, especially the communal tenure of land. It might sober his arrogance and bring his thoughts to the more important, practical and immediate needs of the peoples and the economy of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a particularly long debate on a very important matter, a matter which affects our country and all its people, in particular the various Bantu peoples and the Whites. I think six different speakers on the Opposition side spoke, and except for those who repeated a little what they or others had said, we heard virtually six different opinions. Of course we also had the special case of the hon. member for Houghton supporting this measure because her party is of the opinion that this land must be purchased! However, it is very clear to me that the Opposition has no clear policy in regard to this matter. Last year the hon. member for Transkei introduced a motion in this House, in which he requested us to determine the boundaries. I do not want to spend much time on this, but I want to remind him on that occasion he said, inter alia, the following—

I still say it.

What is important here is that the hon. member, in a special motion last year, put forward a strong plea here, together with the hon. member for Mooi River who is not here at the moment, and said that we should simply draw lines so that the people could know. In particular they were concerned about the uncertainty, and about the land demands the various Bantu leaders had made. Those were the two points, namely the uncertainty of the farmers and the land demands of the Bantu. Now, however, they say that they cannot agree to this, because it is not consolidation. I now want to ask them: If it is not consolidation what is it then? The hon. member for Transkei spoke of 180 000 ha and said that since 1936 we had never before declared so much land to be released area at one juncture. Last year he advocated that it should be done; but the other hon. members say that it is not consolidation.

We want the boundaries!

I wanted to discuss the contradictions, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. The hon. member for Houghton pointed out to hon. members on the opposite side how the Opposition adopts a different approach every few years. First they say that they do not want to give any more land, for it is going to the Bantustans. Last year, however, they advocated that the land should be purchased. I then gave them the assurance that the policy of the National Party is planning for consolidation and the purchase of land and that we are now going to pursue this policy dynamically. They want the boundaries to be determined, and the land will then be purchased. Here we are consequently coming forward with the first instalment, and I shall elaborate on this in a moment because it is very important. But now that the United Party has had its first taste of the medicine they asked for, they are choking in it.

We do not want a piece, we want the boundaries.

Surely this kind of argument does not hold water. One year these people plead for something and it is then promised that this will be done, but the next year when this is brought forward, they do not want it and are unhappy about it.

Are you determining the boundaries now?

I want to let this suffice. I cannot now deal with all the arguments of the hon. members. There were as many arguments on that side as there were speakers. That is why I say that the United Party must get uniformity in their basic approach and policy as far as this matter is concerned. Then we will know where we stand. But now we have on the one hand the policy of the hon. member for Transkei. He says that their approach is that the South African economy as a whole should now serve as a criterion. Said with all due respect, what that really has to do with this matter as a whole I do not know. In other words, there must be economic grounds before land can be purchased. We have this solemn promise made by a White Government, and as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference whether it was the National Party or the United Party that gave this undertaking. A White Government in this country gave an undertaking to the Black man. and as far as I am concerned, it has to be carried out. That is the first reason why we are going to carry it out.

The second reason is that it is a question of the consolidation of these areas. I shall also elaborate on that in a moment. But what did that hon. member go on to say? First they want to be certain about “the use to which the land is to be put”. First they want to know what we are going to do with that land, and what the Bantu are going to do with it. Must we impose conditions now and water it down? Look, they are entitled to the land according to a law of this country, and according to promises. But now the hon. member wants us to give them the land conditionally. I cannot see how the United Party can make any kind of impression with such a policy and approach, in terms of which they do an about-face every time, and impose all kinds of conditions from year to year.

I want to go further. We have now heard one of the members—I think it was the hon. member for East London North —asking why we do not purchase land in Saldanha. That shows the lack of planning and of a policy of that party. Surely it is very clear; if you are looking for trouble, all you need to do is plan for Bantu areas in the vicinity of Saldanha.

Why do you not buy in the Free State?

Now he is asking why we do not buy in the Free State! You know, Sir, that the Free State quota has been bought up; they are the only people who can say with pride today that they have met their obligations under this Act.

I come now to the Cape Province, to the Eastern Agricultural Union. I shall return again to the five points he mentioned. They discussed this with me, but he should really take another look at it and tell me how many of them are practicable. We shall come to that again. Let us continue. I want to tell hon. members briefly and to the point: The National Party is in power. The National Party is governing in terms of a fixed policy. It is the policy of the National Party that the eight Bantu peoples within the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa will each receive their share of the land specified in terms of the 1936 Act. In the implementation of that policy we are now entering, as the hon. the Minister said last year, a dynamic third decade. The department and I are doing everything possible to finalize the planning for that. This is only the first instalment. The people may say now that they want the final boundaries. As the hon. member for Langlaagte indicated yesterday evening, 241 000 ha of the Cape Province quota still remains to be purchased and has still to be indicated by us. I can inform the hon. members here that I will do everything in my power, in conjunction with the department and in collaboration with the Bantu Affairs Commission, which has tremendous tasks, to come to this House next year and submit that final planning, in so far as we are able to declare it finally. I say “in so far as we are able to declare it finally”, because there may perhaps be minor problems in regard to the finishing touches and excisions which will require a little more time. But we want to lay the overall planning, as we see it, upon the Table of this House. I tell you it is a tremendous task; it is not merely a question of drawing a few lines. Last year these people said we must get a move on. Now they are complaining that they have not had sufficient time to consider this matter; we allegedly did not give these people sufficient notice. I admit that it may perhaps have happened a little hastily, but I can tell you, Sir, that provisionally the Natal Agricultural Union has already been informed. The Transvaal Agricultural Union will be furnished with certain particulars. I, too, have already had talks with them. We shall as soon as possible furnish the North-Western Cape Agricultural Union and the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union with further information. But surely they know this by now. The Eastern Cape Agricultural Union now states that they do not want to surrender any land. They tell me: “Rather give them the money or give them the interest on the money.” Surely we cannot work in that way. I want to make an appeal to the members of Parliament of that area to bring it home to them that that is an irresponsible approach, and to get them to approach these matters on a constructive basis. These are, as far as I am concerned, solemn promises which have been made. It is an undertaking which was given by the Whites, and we should not deal with these matters in that way.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Will he, when he consults with these agricultural unions, present a final plan to them?

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that we cannot submit a final plan. I have asked the Natal Agricultural Union, for instance, last year, to come forward with suggestions. We have had one. Now the only thing we can do is to wait for suggestions. We told them what our aims were, and now we are waiting. I told the department to go to them and make certain suggestions to them. In the meantime we have drawn up our plan. I hope in a fortnight’s time we will be able to submit our plans to these people, but it cannot be final plans.

*This planning of ours is submitted to them. Perhaps there are people who have better ideas in regard to this matter. We are not going to try to be clever and say that we can sit in an office here and solve everything. Each of those farmers’ associations may come forward and tell us that they think it should be done in such and such a way. They may come forward with constructive ideas and proposals. Surely it is senseless to lay something in their midst and pretend that it is final while we are considering their suggestions. Surely we need not even give it to them. What would they do with it? If it is final, it comes directly to Parliament. So do you want to discuss something with people if they cannot change it by making suggestions? A charge concerning democracy was made by the hon. member for Albany. That is why we are submitting these things to the people. It is on that score that I have a complaint to make in regard to the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union. They did not come forward with anything constructive; they said that hey did not want to surrender the land. If they do not want to do it, who must?

How can these people decide if it is not final?

They must make suggestions which we can consider; only then can the final plans be submitted. The plans for the Ciskei are to a large extent final, except that we are still considering minor amendments. It is not possible, even by next year, to have considered this matter quite finally, because minor amendments may still be necessary.

I also want to say that after 1936 a start was made with the application of this Act. Land has been purchased and also excised. We and the department must look up the records in all the deeds registries throughout the country. If we say here that it is final, we want to know precisely what happened along the way, whether mistakes were not perhaps made in the calculations. We are now checking up in the deeds registry of each province to see what the precise figure is. That is why I said in reply to questions earlier this year that we are making inquiries and that we could not furnish precise figures at the moment, but that all these matters must be taken into consideration. I can give hon. members the assurance that we shall try to submit it next year, as close to finality as we are practically able to come. [Interjections.] This is the purchase of quota land which I mentioned, which was promised in terms of the 1936 Act. For the Cape Province it is, as the hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned yesterday evening, 241 000 ha according to the present figures at our disposal.

But the Ciskei must still receive some of that quota.

The Ciskei must still receive some of it. I can tell the hon. member that I do not foresee their getting very much of it. Suggestions have been made. The hon. member for Albany has been to see me, and there are a few of his voters who feel that we may as well purchase their farms as well, for they are not satisfied with the boundaries. We are taking the complaints of the farmers into account. We are trying to find practical boundaries. If he can suggest a better boundary to us, we could consider it. The hon. member for King William’s Town has certain persons who have problems at Braunschwieg and Frankfort. We are looking into that, and we may differ a little. We are not going to say that we have now submitted a plan, that it is a 100 per cent plan, and that further to that we are not listening to anyone. In other words, as far as the White farmers are concerned, there is a measure of elasticity in the implementation of this planning in order to find final boundaries. Our approach is that we want to accommodate these people and be as practical as possible. I want to repeat that this is implementation of National Party policy. This is the first instalment. I want to request the co-operation of hon. members, if the Opposition is in earnest about this. In Natal and many parts of the Transvaal we find this negative attitude, simply because it is the National Party Government. That is the Opposition’s problem; they are not fighting for South Africa; they are fighting against the Nats. “The Nats must be thrown out!” That is their story. The reason why they are sitting on the opposite side is because they do not come forward with anything constructive or positive in regard to national policy; they are simply fighting the National Party as such. “We are fighting the Nats”; they are fighting themselves to a standstill, and are not getting anywhere. They are not making any Contribution to this important matter either. I concede that we did perhaps give the people in the Eastern Cape insufficient time, and that we did perhaps spring this on them a little suddenly. But they had every opportunity. Almost every one of those M.P.s came along with representations. The hon. member for East London North merely wrote a short letter. That is all I received from him. He said yesterday evening that something should have been attached to the reply which was not attached to it. It is available, however, and the young woman or clerk who should have attached it, did not do so. Although we said that we would forward the particulars, the hon. member now complains here in the House. [Interjection.] I just want to inform that hon. member that even he is welcome. All of them have already been to see me. But if the hon. member has a little problem now, he must not come along and kick up a row here in a debate. The hon. member ought not to try to aggravate important matters by saying: Look, this is the type of service we are getting and that is why we do not agree. I take it amiss of the hon. member for wasting the time of the House with trifles. The chairman of the Eastern Agricultural Union has been to see me at least three or four times, so have other deputations, and persons who have problems. We shall discuss those farmers’ problems with them and see what we can do in regard to purchases, and in what way we can accommodate them.

I must say to all the hon. members that this is a comprehensive task. I want to express my appreciation to the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission. I know that a difficult year lies ahead for them. I also want to express my appreciation to all hon. members of this side of the House who are involved in these matters. It is a comprehensive task. Firstly there is the question of planning. In the second place hon. members say that we must simply go ahead and buy. They ask: “Why don’t you buy in two years’ time?” The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked again: “Why do you not buy it all immediately?” Surely that is an impossible task. I think. I should really explain to the hon. members the procedure which is followed. We declare released areas and, as in the case of the Ciskei, the first priority is the shifting of poorly situated areas and Black spots. But every area purchased has to be planned. One cannot simply say that the Bantu should move in. We will definitely have to lay out towns. It is not possible to allow everyone to live on pieces of land which have agricultural value in the Bantu areas. We must plan towns in which they can go and stay. Those who will be active in agriculture will receive properly planned farming units, which will vary in size from place to place. To give every Bantu a piece of agricultural land which he can simply use to live on, is not economic and cannot lead to the success of Bantu agriculture. That hon. member complained about Bantu agriculture. It is a complicated problem and one cannot solve it overnight. We cannot tell the farmers that their land has been declared released area and that all of it will be purchased overnight. When it is decided that a specific section is to be purchased, negotiations are held with individual farmers. We cannot simply draw up an overall plan and then say that all land in that area is being evaluated at a specific price. Each farmer’s improvements are assessed. This is not done by my department, but by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. There is approval for adding a percentage to the valuation. That is why we cannot give farmers land elsewhere, as the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union wants.

Could the hon. the Deputy Minister please tell me why Whittlesea is going to remain a Black spot?

Perhaps it was wrong to have bought land in Whittlesea in the first place, but the Bantu have been staying there for many years already. It is not a large Bantu area, but it is definitely not a Black spot. I do not have the extent of the Whittlesea area, available here, but it is a relatively large area. The hon. member asks me why it should remain a Black spot. Why does he not tell me: “We regard it as a Black spot?” I do not regard it to be a Black spot. We are increasing the size of the area; we are adding to it the separate smaller Bantu areas so that it can become a large Bantu area. But if the hon. member regards it as a Black spot, why does he not come forward with a suggestion; why does he not say: “We regard it as a Black spot which should be cleared and we think that compensatory land should be acquired in such and such a place?” That would then be a constructive proposal.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister realize that the Eastern Agricultural Union considers it to be a Black spot? They say so in their memorandum which they submitted to the Select Committee.

I read the memorandum, but I cannot recall seeing that they regard it as a Black spot. There are quite a number of other areas which they regard as Black spots. That is the attitude of the Eastern Agricultural Union; they only say what they do not like, but do not come forward with suggestions which will help us to solve our problem. They simply say that we may not purchase land in their area. The other Whites should surrender land, but they do not want to surrender any land. Sir, I accept that people will not be very keen to surrender their land, but every area throughout the country will have to contribute its share.

They recommended Peddie.

Sir, as far as this planning is concerned, it is important to note that we purchase land for two purposes; firstly, there is the quota land, of which just over 1,1 million ha still has to be purchased throughout the country and, secondly, there is the question of badly situated Bantu areas and Black spots which have to be better situated. In this regard I just want to say the following: As Government we receive many complaints from people who say: “You are cramming the Bantu into these Bantu areas”; the hon. member for Houghton referred to this again today. The general argument from that side of the House was that industrial development is the basis and that they will purchase land and will make land available for that purpose, but this land has to be made available apart from the provisions of the 1936 Act; it has to be made available in any case. We also hear the argument that the Government is in fact the restrictive factor in this connection, and that the industrialists have to struggle along with migrant labour. But I want to inform the hon. members that with this planning in the Eastern Cape, and now in the Ciskei, and with the planning we are going to have throughout the country, ideal conditions are being created for the decentralization of industries. These industrialists and hon. members on that side of the House who say that they want labour in the large urban areas and that the Government must take the blame for their having to make use of migrant labour, should pay a visit to the border areas and see what is happening there, for the opportunities are being created for them there. The Government is not to blame if they have to make use of migrant labour. Why should we still have to bring their labour to them if the water, power and transportation have all been brought to them already?

I think that hon. members of the Opposition must agree here that it is in the interests of the country to decentralize industries. This planning of the Bantu areas fits in ideally here. But because this side of the House wants to encourage the establishment of border industries, they are opposed to it because they must always be opposed to the Government, and in this process they are doing the country a tremendous amount of harm. They ought to encourage the industrialists. They always level the accusation that the National Party and the Government is creating Bantu areas, and that we are making the industrialists dependent on migrant labour. My reply to that is very definitely that the industrialist who has the opportunity of establishing industries in border areas, near to the Bantu where they are able to get their labour on a family basis, have no moral right, just as that side of the House has no moral right, to level the accusation at the Government that they are being forced to make use of migrant labour. If they want to make use of those Bantu on a family basis, then they have every opportunity to do so near the homelands and if they do not they are to blame and not the Government.

Now, it is perhaps necessary for me to refer very briefly to Certain problems which hon. members on the opposite side had. Just before I come to that, I want to say that I am very grateful for the support of this side of the House, and for their interest in this matter, and in particular that of the Bantu Affairs Commission and its chairman. Mention was made of the meeting at King William’s Town. I have myself held meetings of this type, where the Opposition obviously stirred up political feelings behind the scenes, for this was the Government’s commission which was coming now, and a great fuss had to be kicked up, so much so that you could cut the atmosphere with a knife. Those were the circumstances under which the problem had to be discussed.

I regard it as being absolutely unpatriotic of these people to carry on in this way. Perhaps I should spend a few moments discussing the hon. member for King William’s Town, who also complained. He said yesterday evening that he had “got on to” the telephone. I hope that he has today “got off” the telephone. He said that he had complained per telephone after he had read about these plans in the newspaper. I just want to mention to him that he indicated to us in writing on 29th November 1971 that he wanted to discuss this matter; he wanted to give evidence. We informed him that a meeting was to be held in King William’s Town on 8th December, 1971, and that he could give his evidence there. But he did not reply. I just feel that it is not fair of the hon. members to object in this way if there were opportunities for them. If they do not want to discuss this matter in public, because it will not be in line with their party’s policy, or because it will embarrass them, then surely they can make representations to the chairman of the Commission, but they must not complain here and say that we steamrollered this matter through without their having been afforded any opportunity of making suggestions.

I just want to refer to the hon. member for Transkei again. He discussed the compensation which is being paid, and he said the people wanted to know what they are going to receive. I have explained what the procedure is. We cannot tell people in advance what they are going to receive. It has been my experience, throughout the country, with few exceptions, that people come along and offer their land with great confidence. The position in the Ciskei today is such that so many offers have been made that we simply cannot accommodate them all. We have to tell people we are very sorry. People have asked why we are not purchasing their land, in spite of the attitude of the Eastern Agricultural Union, because they know that they are afforded very good treatment. The valuations are made by their own people, appointed by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, plus a percentage of that valuation which they receive in addition, and they cannot find better buyers anywhere than the State.

In fact, I am convinced that there is a measure of abuse, but I do not think we must argue about this. We do not want these people to feel that their land is simply being taken from them. I even find this attitude in Natal that they feel: “We are not going to give our land to the Kaffirs.” That kind of attitude, I would like to ask the hon. members, we must please get out of these people, because I do not think it is the right attitude. But what happens in practice proves that those people are willing to sell, but for us to value an entire area now, I cannot see how that will be practicable. Firstly the land of every farmer has to be valued, and once the land has been valued, it must be planned, and we must have planned occupation. We cannot simply set about doing this in an impulsive way.

May I ask a question? In regard to what the Deputy Minister said, that the farmers will receive the price determined by Agricultural Credit plus 20 per cent, is he prepared to sell his farm for that?

I know what these valuations are.

Answer.

I say “yes”, and I shall tell you why, because in some cases it is more than twice the market value. After all, I see those valuations constantly, and there is no doubt whatsoever about this. Reproaches in this regard are constantly being levelled at me. The other day I was in Lydenburg in the Eastern Transvaal, when a doctor said to me: “But how can you pay these high prices?” I said we did not value the land; that was done by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure; what we did do, was to add a percentage. But I can tell you that on the basis of that valuation my land is worth a great deal of money, and I shall sell for that price any time, apart from the fact that I would have to set an example if my land should be involved. I had no doubts whatsoever as far as these matters are concerned.

What are your plans for the development of that coastal region, the town which has now been established there?

We have not yet completed the planning. One must first be certain what land one has to acquire. We have only just finished planning what land we are going to purchase. Once we have finished and this House has given its approval, we will be able to proceed. After all, I cannot do any planning before this House has given its approval. We are now planning which areas have to be shifted, and to where. As the hon. member for Langlaagte indicated yesterday evening, we have a general approach, but it has not been planned in detail. One cannot plan before one has the land! It will then be planned and it will then be occupied gradually according to our practical plans.

Must the development there proceed?

As I also told the hon. member for East London North, I have written to people and told them they must carry on as usual.

But it Is a town which is being established.

They will never lose out.

The people will not lose out. They must simply carry on. After all, it is a long process, this change-over. I mentioned a period of 10 or 15 years, and this is being used against me. It might even take longer. We must do this in an orderly way, and we cannot expect people to sit waiting for 10 or 15 years, doing nothing.

Have you an interest in this matter?

No.

The hon. member mentioned Hamburg. The town committee of Hamburg have been to see me and requested that they be dealt with in this way. They begged for this, and that is why we made provision for it. In this way we are accommodating these people. They said that they do not want to be declared to be a released area now.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Whip entitled to imply that my friend, the hon. member for Transkei, has an interest in that land?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have in this process dealt with most of the questions. I just want to furnish the hon. member for East London North with a reply since he now wants a guarantee that the Bantu will occupy this land usefully. He expressed criticism of the Minister’s earlier reply in another debate, where it was said that the Bantu are not being trained rapidly enough. It is a slow process. We can only go as fast as the ability of these people to absorb it allows. We are training them throughout the country. It is an important problem, which I have already mentioned, that we will have to select these people. Not all of them will be able to farm. In other words, with the land which I foresee we are now going to purchase we can, together with their own people, select the farmers and establish them on proper units. But there will have to be a division among them. Not everyone will be able to live on agricultural land and work for the Whites. The man who wants to farm will have to be established on a farming unit, and then we will be able to achieve an orientation of Bantu agriculture on a sound basis. But to wait until one has trained enough Bantu and then to give them the land—when will that happen? And then one would have an occupation of that land in a way which, even if such a man has been trained, would entail that he cannot utilize it to good effect. These two things must go hand-in-hand. I want to emphasize that we have various plans in regard to agricultural development in operation. As the lands become available and we plan them, we will cause them to be occupied in an orderly way, and we hope and trust that the Bantu will be able to utilize in their own interest on these lands the information we are offering them, and the assistance we are giving them.

As far as the hon. member for Kensington is concerned, he did not really say anything. All he did was quarrel here about a meeting he heard of somewhere, and then he mentioned promises which had been made in regard to the road from East London to King William’s Town. He said that the promise had been given that in the vicinity of and adjoining that road no more land would be purchased. I do not know whether be ever scrutinized these proposals, for no land is being purchased in the vicinity of that road. In fact, land is being excised there.

I said adjoining the border.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked how the land was going to be utilized. I think I have in the course of my speech given an indication of how we intend to utilize the land. I have indicated that we want properly planned occupation of the land, and that this will require considerable money and practical planning on the part of agriculture as well. It is not possible for me to elaborate on this now, but I just want to mention that there is in the department at present a division which will deal specifically with this type of planning —regional and town planning—so that we, before we effect occupation of the land by Bantu, first plan properly in order to avoid any unnecessary moving about at a subsequent stage.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that we are creating more black spots. I really cannot see how a member who has looked at these proposals can make such a nonsensical statement. Then the hon. member spoke of a maximum of 7,5 million morgen—he means 7,25 million morgen. Now, I do not know what the insinuation is. The one says we must not buy now because it is not economically justified; another, the hon. member for King William’s Town for example, says we must buy around the urban areas and that we must buy not only the 7,25 million morgen, but that we must in addition buy a great deal more. Now we find these insinuations being levelled at us from that side of the House. The hon. memder is not the only one— and that is why I am paying heed to them —on that side of the House who stated here that this Act did not specify that we should purchase 7,5 million. They say that that is a maximum, but that we may purchase less. I feel that the hon. members on that side, the Opposition owe us a very straightforward answer. What is their approach in respect of this matter? When they speak to the farmers, they tell them that is is not necessary that the land be purchased for this 1936 Act only mentions a maximum.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany also discussed the Chalumna area. These people have certain problems in this connection, and has been to see me with some of them. I am still receiving suggestions from people; for example, one of them came to me and requested that we purchase his land because it will effect a better rounding-off. Then one still finds people, who of course come from the same side—it is their duty to bring these people—who say that they do not want to sell. Next year we will, as far as we are able to do this finally, give attention to this matter. I want to emphasize once again that the department and I, we who are involved in these matters, will give all possible attention to people’s personal problems. Once again I want to make an appeal to the effect that we should refrain from making use of this matter for whatever petty political gain which we might be able to get from it. I know the United Party is bankrupt. They are looking frantically for votes. They would very dearly like to come into power. They have held out the prospect that this may perhaps happen in 1975. I do want to ask them, in the interests of their own areas, and in the interests of the country, to please refrain from trying to win a few votes on this land issue. In any case, if they speak as haphazardly as they did yesterday evening, they can only lose votes. They cannot win votes in that way. I think that I have now dealt with all the matters, and I shall let this suffice.

Tellers: W A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and G. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, it will be impossible to reply to all the attacks, even some personal attacks made on me by the Minister. In respect of the whole question of indoctrination we discussed last time I just want to say that under a United Party Government it will not be tolerated, be it by an Afrikaans organization, be it by an English-orientated organization, be it by a pro-Government or by an anti-Government organization. I now leave that matter.

†Mr. Chairman, it is most regrettable that we have to enter into this debate without having had the opportunity to study the annual report of the department. With this in mind I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the following conclusion of the National Education Council:

In this respect I should like to repeat a request I made last year. I believe that the time has come that we must work towards publishing annually or at least biennially a yearbook on education covering the whole field of education. I fully agree that without an authoritative source of comparative statistics or data it is exceedingly difficult to give advice. As long as South Africa lacks such a source, I will remain of the opinion that at times the hon. the Minister and his advisers are perhaps groping in the dark.

The hon. the Minister inferred the other day that we are speaking in out-dated terms. He said, in particular, that we seem to be unaware of the transfer of technical schools to the provinces. This, of course, is something essential if you want to put differentiation into practice. I want to say, and we have said it before, that it is something which we on this side of the House welcome.

I now wish to say a few words about the whole matter of differentiated education. I want to say that whether the pupils will derive the full benefits offered by differentiation, will depend on the practical implementation of the system. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the three years of junior secondary education is perhaps the most crucial period of the whole system, because this forms a period of orientation. The pupil’s whole future will depend on how well he adapts and adjusts himself to secondary education at that stage. I want to make it quite clear that if we want to make a success of differentiation we must wake up and see to it that we have adequately and sufficiently trained people to act as guidance officers and as psychologists. I believe that this is something which is virtually non-existent in some of our schools. We must also pay more attention to the updating of standardized tests. With the whole system of differentiation the validity and reliability of these tests are of vital importance to the effective implementation of differentiation. I am concerned about this and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what has recently been done in this field. In this day and age we find it is so easy for norms to become outdated, because we live in a completely different environment. A third problem is the matter of continuity. I think it is absolutely essential to have continuity during the three-year period of orientation. This is where I think the hon. the Minister must agree with me that it is educationally unsound to have this split between the junior secondary and the senior primary school at this stage. It is wrong to expose the pupil at this stage to a new environment with additional adjustment problems. I am quite aware of the fact that there are certain practical difficulties and that we cannot achieve this overnight, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister’s department and other educational departments are applying their minds to the reorganization of existing facilities in order to give effect to continuity during this period. I feel that this should be absolutely essential in planning new schools. Lastly, as far as differentiation is concerned, I must say that I am very sorry that the Minister neglected to consult the teachers’ societies in this respect. I know that he has received complaints about this. I think this was an insult- to them and that should never be repeated. At the same time I want to congratulate the Minister on this matter on consulting with teachers. This is contained in the annual report of the Committee of Educational Heads, which was only tabled the day after we actually started this debate. In this report we find, regarding the various inter-departmental advisory committees, that now at least there is representation—I will not use the word “adequate” because as an ex-teacher I will always feel that they should be entitled to more—from the federal councils on these advisory committees.

The next aspect I want to turn to is the matter of the training of the mentally handicapped but trainable children. This is something which was transferred to the hon. the Minister’s department last year from the Department of Health. There are several private organizations in South Africa with schools catering for pupils under the age of 18 years, falling into this category. They also have institutions for people over the age of 18 years. They experience no difficulties with the over 18 age group, because with them they are being assisted by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. But the hon. the Minister will know that the Van Wyk Report, which was brought out under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, made certain recommendations about education, in regard to children under 18 years of age. These organizations are very keen to know whether the hon. the Minister intends introducing legislation, because they would like to put their houses in order.

Then I would also like to say a few words about examinations. Firstly I would like to raise the amazing departure from normal procedure which the department adopted in marking down the English A marks during the 1971 matriculation examination. It was decided to reduce the marks by 5 per cent, but instead of adopting the normal procedure of reducing it proportionately, in other words so that a person who got 50 per cent would then get 47½ per cent, in this case I believe a straight deduction of 5 per cent throughout was made.

Which department was that?

The Department of National Education. A person such as I have mentioned would then get only 45 per cent instead of 47½ per cent. I believe this was very unfair, especially to the borderline cases and it made a tremendous difference to them. Those with 44 per cent then got only 39 per cent and failed to get university exemption. The point I want to make is that this is contrary to normal procedure. The hon. the Minister and his party believe in uniformity. Let us therefore have uniformity in education. Let us at least have uniformity as far as the marking of examination papers is concerned.

Secondly, I am to a certain extent disappointed at the apparent inability of the department to take quick and decisive action in the event of examination irregularities. I have no desire to name individual schools, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will also refrain from doing so. I know that he is aware of the case I am referring to. I think that to have kept the obviously innocent and the alleged guilty pupils in suspense for 11 months from April, 1970, to roughly March, 1971, about the outcome of the examination results as a result of an alleged irregularity, was something that was irresponsible and unwarranted. As an ex-teacher I know that one cannot prevent these things and that they do occur, but it is the lack of alternative plans that worries me. It is not enough to just hand it over to the Police. After a while you have to make up your mind. Either the Police are going to find sufficient evidence to prosecute, or otherwise you must make up your mind yourself. In this particular case I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it was most regrettable. I hope I am wrong because of course I am not in a position to judge in all these cases because I am unaware of all the examination irregularities, but if this case can be used as a criterion, it shows a tremendous lack of action on behalf of the department and a complete absence of alternative plans. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening when the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, was speaking, like all the other members he expressed his concern, as far as the question of education is concerned, about so-called indoctrination allegedly taking place from the National Party’s side, or rather as a result of the Government’s central education plans, as they are now revealing themselves, particularly with respect to certain of their aspects, and about small children being indoctrinated if a youth preparedness programme is included in their syllabus. That was actually why several speakers opposite created a big fuss, and I want to say at the outset that I am surprised that people from Natal can make such an accusation. In addition the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, stated that they would not have tolerated such a thing under United Party rule. However, let us analyse the facts. In Natal 86 of the 248 schools … Now the hon. member is not listening.

Listen now, you blockhead.

I actually do not want to repeat this, because I do not like talking into a void. Only 86 of the 248 state schools are parallel-medium schools. The point I want to make is that Natal, which makes such a big fuss about not allowing influencing to take place there, is not prepared for the two language groups to allow their children to attend school under the same roof. In these 248 schools the percentage distribution is as follow: 34 per cent of the pupils in Natal schools are in parallel medium schools. This is in comparison with 84 per cent in the Orange Free State, 46,9 per cent in the Cape and 30 per cent in the Transvaal. The point is that Natal’s education—and they are actually the people who want to prescribe to us—has thus far been so good that the provincial council, which is the highest authority in that province, has had to have a translator up to last year. They had a translation system that almost looked like that of the U.N., to give translators to the monoglots in the council, in spite of the fact that most of them were born in South Africa and grew up here. They are not all unilingual; almost all of them are bilingual; they speak English and Zulu. I can say the same of their leader. They are the ones who are now implementing and educational system in Natal for good citizens who must live in a country like South Africa, where there are two language groups.

You seem to be a good old horse.

If you were a horse, you would have been a mare. The result is that there in Natal they endeavour to leave education not so much in the hands of experts, but under the control of political amateurs. They are political amateurs, because the person entrusted with education there, in the United Party controlled provincial council, is a person who knows very little about education. If one knows nothing about the matter, and one depends on experts, one understands the matter. Then one can offer an excuse for such a person. But the hon. gentleman who was appointed there, a certain Mr. H. Rall—I understand he is called “Horace”; if one translates that it becomes “Gerhardus”—is not such a person, and he is in control of education. Sir, I just want to show you how education in Natal is abused. This gentleman is in control of education, and he has a panel of experts who are trained in education. But in the event of any reaction to the advice of this panel of experts he chooses to take his instructions politically from the people who sit here in Parliament. They then try to incite racial unrest and language unrest amongst our groups in Natal, amongst Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, and the German- and Afrikaansspeaking people, because it does not suit them to have the German-speaking people side politically with the Afrikaans-speaking people. I shall give you examples. For instance, we find that when a principal must be appointed the normal procedure is simply thrown overboard holus-bolus and he is appointed without any reasons being furnished, in spite of another recommendation by the experts involved. I am referring, for example, to an incident that took place at Paulpietersburg, where a Germanspeaking person was recommended through the normal channels, whereby promotions take place on merit; in the end he was simply forced out politically, causing the German-speaking people to be offended by the incident. I can give you numerous examples of how this matter is now having political repercussions there. Because it is a ticklish question, involving racial relations and relations concerning people who are living together. I do not want to elaborate too much on it, but the point I want to make is that in Natal the school-going child is specifically being used to eventually become the citizen that will drive them apart. For example, in Natal we find the major percentage of English-speaking children in private schools. But they have a minutely worked out political plan to keep their children away from the Afrikaans children in Natal. Where they do not have a private school nearby they do not establish a nursery school, allowing those children to go to the Roman Catholic school, because the Roman Catholic school gives them an English education in protestant towns. I do not want to fight about the religion; that is not what it is all about—it is a matter of the medium of education. From there, in the majority of cases, they are sent away to these English medium private schools, and that is where their children go to school. There are very few hon. members from Natal whose children are in parallel-medium state schools, because they are not good enough for them. They are not “elite” enough for them. They consequently also use education to stir up a feeling of class differences in the children they have to prepare, since education and learning are the two primary factors, so that they can eventually obtain the type of hand-fed calf we find here in Parliament.

I now come to the question of indoctrination, to which they refer all day long and which they are afraid of. I have noticed each of them mentioning, in season and out of season, certain organizations, such as the Rapportryers, Sabra, the Broederbond and others, in this connection. Do you know, Sir, that they do so so that these children, who are at school, may gain the impression that there are forces and organizations that want to indoctrinate them from without so that they will eventually think like the National Party or like the Afrikaners in our country.

The National Party.

Sir, let them think, then, that these children are being influenced to belong to the National Party. But I want to tell you that if I, like that hon. member, were born of one race, spoke the language of another and belonged to a third one’s party, I would at the very least refrain from saying a word about it; then at least, when I am in the service, I would not profess to be what I am not. But, Sir, I am not going to dwell on this point because we shall possibly have an opportunity, at a later stage, to discuss the question of this organization, which is tagged as an organization allegedly introducing indoctrination into our schools, allegedly promoting “separation”, as hon. members opposite call it, and detrimentally influencing our children in respect of their culture and their future and in respect of their patriotism as far as the country is concerned. Because I accept the fact that hon. members on that side will also furnish me with the names of those people who are involved in the other side of that organization, which does this influencing from the other side, so that we can also try to commit character assassination, as far as they are concerned, as the United Party is committing every day as far as we are concerned. [Interjection.]

Oh, Pilate!

Yes, he looks just like Pilate. [Time expired.]

Sir, I wish to deal with a topic in which the hon. the Minister has certainly not distinguished himself during the past year. It is the subject of television and the delays in the introduction of television over the past 12 months. I go so far as to accuse this Government of obstructing and delaying the introduction of television in South Africa. This happening as a result of incompetence, as a result of reluctance, as a result of verkrampte pressure and the Government’s fears for its own newspaper and film interests and monopolies. I have before me the Laon and the Revenue Estimates for the following year, and I ask the hon. the Minister to show me one single cent that is being provided on his Vote for television. Let him tell me where any amount for television is to be found amongst all these items. There is something in the Loan Vote for the S.A.B.C. in regard to FM services, but the word “Television” appears nowhere, apart from audiovisual work which we know has been going on all along. I am talking about the television service which was promised to this country last year. Sir, we have been having all sorts of propaganda about television and all sorts of reasons for the delay. We have heard fanciful statements about television costing the country R100 million a year. The country is entitled to demand, “Stop these excuses and tell us on what date television is going to be introduced”. We had the strangest statement in this House the other day when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said this—

He indicates that 1974 is the target date, not the final date. Is that still the case today? Let us hear from the hon. the Minister. Was the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs speaking the truth when he said this? Because, Sir, once that date is announced, it will take another 3½ years before television can be introduced in this country. I want to know what his target is. Let him give us not only the year but the month, too, if that is at all possible. He has not yet told the S.A.B.C., even at this late stage, to go ahead with the introduction of television; at least that was the last reply that I had from him across the floor of the House in reply to a question of mine.

Sir, it is no use hiding behind the economy. The hon. the Minister does not know at this stage what the state of the economy is going to be in 2½ or three or four years’ time when television does come, and he cannot wait until that stage arrives and then suddenly turn off the tap, put television on the shelf or in cold storage and then say that we cannot have it. That is the type of talk, incidentally, that we have been having too, from the hon. the Minister of Finance. Sir, why is this target date so important? The hon. the Minister himself gave the reply. Some time ago he warned local manufacturers of television sets: “Don’t start the production of television sets before the Cabinet announces the date of the introduction of television; it will depend on the state of the economy at the time.” Sir, I say that the time has arrived now to announce the date of the introduction of television, because the whole country is waiting; the S.A.B.C. is waiting, the Post Office is waiting, commerce is waiting, industry is waiting …

The sportsmen are waiting.

Everyone is waiting.

And the pensioners are waiting.

This Television Commission took evidence from all the bodies concerned; it took evidence from commerce and industry, the Press, the Performing Arts Council, the film industry, the S.A.B.C., the electronics industry and the Government departments themselves. All these people gave full evidence, and their evidence was published more than a year ago, but then the hon. the Minister decided that there had to be some further delay and that he needed some further information, and now this whole question of television is bogged down in this technical advisory committee that we have at the moment. What is happening with regard to that committee? They have given very little information to the country. They have announced the PAL system; they have announced that five companies will be manufacturing television sets, and we have been told a few other things, but only last month in the Government Gazette those people who want to manufacture components of television sets and antennae were at last asked to hand in their names to the Department of Commerce and Industry before, I think, the 31st March—that shows how long they have been waiting to get down to the whole question of television in South Africa. After all, Sir, only the cost of the first service need concern us here. The capital costs for a bilingual service, as pointed out by the commission, will not be more than R34 million, and that would include the cost of the satellite ground station. Yet here we have a mystery. The Television Commission says that the satellite ground station will cost R1½ million. But the Postmaster-General came along the other day and said that the satellite ground station would not cost R1½ million; it will now suddenly cost R4 million. Is the Post Office trying to put a spoke in the wheel of television? Why have these costs escalated so suddenly? The hon. the Minister should know the answer in that regard. After all, the capital outlay will be small. As the commission is at pains to point out, it will be less than one per cent of the country’s annual gross domestic investment. Here I take off my hat to Mr. J. M. Swanepoel, Director-in-Chief of the S.A.B.C., who said that the capital needed for television would be peanuts in our economy. The Government must not come along with the argument, therefore, that the costs will be too great.

Why are you so concerned?

I want television as soon as possible and even sooner than that. It could have been here already.

What do you want to do with it?

Why should we be the 119th country in the world to get television, when the smallest countries in Africa already have it? Sir, it is a sign of the lack of ability of the Government. If it were not for the United Party, this country would never get television. Sir, we hear a lot about the labour shortage in this country. We are told that that is also going to create difficulties for the introduction of television. That may be one of the reasons for the present delay and for the fact that they are dragging their feet, but even this problem is not as serious as it is some times made out to be. The S.A.B.C. itself told the Television Commission that it would require only 1 000 persons to operate the service, while the manufacturers and distributors in allied industries would also demand a comparable number of additional workers. This commission pointed out that only 10 engineers assisted by about 140 other workers, could produce 300 black and white sets every day. But what is this Government at present doing in regard to the training of technicians and repairmen for television? I am not talking about the universities where courses have been started, or about the training school at Doornfontein. I want to know what the Government, and its Technical Advisory Committee have done to get this training programme going, because we will need these trained men and every minute’s delay is delaying television longer than it should. Of course he has his problems with the Government policy. He is afraid to train too many non-Whites. He has probably read of the case in Jeffreys Bay where a city councillor actually resigned because a Coloured person was appointed as a meter reader. Sir, can you imagine the problems facing that party when a Coloured person goes to repair a TV set in a home? We need this television industry. We need it as a stimulus to our economy, to stimulate activity and growth in South Africa, to stimulate the manufacture of section components, cabinet making, the electronics industry, the chemical industry and the manufacture of precision instruments. In a few short years, and unless some of the stupid things envisaged today are going to be introduced, South Africa can become an exporter of sets to other countries.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on laws which have been passed.

No; I referred to one that is coming—the Designation of Broadcasting Stations Bill. [Time expired.]

It is a long time since we have heard so presumptuous a speech in this House. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just resumed his seat, stressed here with great emphasis that the one thing he expects is the immediate introduction of television, that it should be introduced more quickly than it can be introduced. I am now just wondering why he is so concerned about the advent of television. If he would just look at the latest annual report of the S.A.B.C., he would see very clearly what has been done in the past year to make the introduction of television possible in a way that would be best suited to us in South Africa. At the moment I do not have the time to deal with everything, but I think I should read a few extracts from this report, for example—

In contrast with the United Party the National Party has always set itself to carrying out properly whatever it has undertaken to do, and what is contained in this report underlines the standpoint of the National Party, i.e. that the National Party does not over-hastily plunge into everything like the United Party. Here is the first step that has been taken, and it has been done properly. People with this knowledge, skill and learning surely do not fall like manna from heaven. They must first be trained, after all, and here this is being done, and being done properly.

Why did it take you so long to start?

I think that hon. member should rather go and play with his toys.

I play with Nats.

If one takes a further look at other matters that received the committee’s attention, one finds that they include the economic implications of our television service, the training of staff, cable systems, the financing of close circuit systems, control of the programmes to be presented over such systems and the protection of the public against exploitation by the import or production of obsolete receiving sets. With these few words, I think, a case has been made out to prove that in accordance with the proclaimed policy of the Government, work is being done along specific lines to make television available to us as quickly and rapidly as possible. But I am now wondering why the hon. member is so keen to have television here so quickly. What is the reason? What is his motive?

Because we are the last in the world.

I think that a great deal more is at stake, as far as that hon. member is concerned, than the reason he has just given, i.e. that we are the last in the world. What does it matter? If the world jumps into the fire tomorrow, we are surely not going to follow suit. But the fact of the matter is that that hon. member, as the United Party side’s main speaker on television, has always hoped that when a television service is introduced in South Africa it will be a service that will be useful to the objects of the United Party; and those objects do not include obtaining a service that will be useful to whatever is peculiar to the Whites of South Africa in the first place—I do not want to speak about the other races. They want a commercialized service that will consequently drive in a wedge as far as our culture and religion are concerned; in other words, the obliteration of cultural and religious boundaries, because they hope thereby to condition the people in such a way that they will be able to derive political gain from it. That is the only reason, and I do not think the White population in South Africa will tolerate such a standpoint. It is therefore with the utmost confidence that South Africa places this matter, and the handling of this matter, i.e. the introduction of television, in the hands of this Minister and the Government.

I should very much like to bring a few matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention on this occasion. In the first place I want to refer to an allegation that was made very recently to the effect that only 50 per cent of the 1966 Std. VI pupils completed the matriculation examination in the Transvaal in 1970. The figures for the Witwatersrand were only 33 per cent. If the Witwatersrand is not taken into account, 60 per cent of the Transvaal pupils, who were in Std. VI in 1966, completed the matriculation examination in 1970. It worries me that our children on the Rand are falling behind, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible to go into the causes that are driving our children out of school between Std. VI and matric. I do not think it can be ascribed, in every instance, to a lack of intellectual ability.

A second matter I specifically want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention is the question of the language medium in the education of immigrant children. According to calculations between 10 000 and 11 000 children under the age of 15 years enter the country every year, and about 65 per cent of these pupils are from non-English language countries. I now want to ask why a child who comes from the Netherlands, or a child who is of German decent and who has picked up a few words of English on board ship, should be sent to an English medium school. Why is it necessary to decide that if he knows one or two words of English he will consequently be competent in English and therefore have to go to an English medium school? I think the time has now come, and this is not only in the interests of immigration, but also in the interests of good relations in South Africa, for prospective immigrants, who want to immigrate to South Africa, to be informed in advance about the fact that two languages are spoken in South Africa and that Afrikaans is used by about 60 per cent of the population. It must also be pointed out to them that for the sake of their children’s future it would be in their interests to send their children to Afrikaans medium schools. I can give hon. members the assurance that I have discussed this matter on various occasions with school principals. They all agree with me that immigrant children, and I am now speaking of the immigrants from non-English language countries, would be very welcome in the Afrikaans schools. I honestly believe that if this is implemented it would not only promote immigration to South Africa, but that there would also be much better relations between the indigenous population and the immigrants. I also want to tell hon. members that it has been my experience that even English language immigrants tell me they would prefer to send their children to Afrikaans medium schools if it were possible. In this connection I should also like to ask whether the hon. the Minister would not consider the further extension of facilities at technical colleges and other institutions that supply language instruction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue on the subject of television, briefly. I believe it is time that the Government should take the following steps, and that this should be done immediately, when it comes to the subject of television. First of all, the target date and the target month must be set. I know there is division in Government ranks and in the Cabinet about television, but let the hon. Minister at least try to put his foot down in regard to this matter. I know that some of his young members, the hon. member for Moorreesburg, the hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member for False Bay, are already taking lessons in television presentation, having their noses powdered and all that. [Interjections.] They have their faces made up and they buy powder-blue shirts, but at the same time there are still quite senior officials in certain Government departments, Whom I shall not name, who are spreading the story that television will never be introduced. The second thing the hon. Minister should do is to urge the Technical Advisory Committee to get on with its job. Any member on that committee who has any doubt as to whether television should be introduced should immediately resign from that committee. I was horrified when I heard the hon. the Minister say some time ago that there is no time limit for the work of the Television Advisory Committee to be completed. Surely it is time that he set such a time limit?

Thirdly, I say that the plans for the manufacturing of sets should be speeded up. Here again the Government is the brake on this advance. I admit that the Department of Commerce and Industries has taken some initiative in this matter, but the Minister is the person who is responsible for the work of the Technical Advisory Committee and for the introduction of television. He can do more in that regard. Why did the Department of Industries ask only in March this year for firms to tell which components and which they were able to produce for television?

Fourthly—and this is something commerce and industry are waiting for—he should announce the percentage local content of sets and the target number of sets for the first year. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told me that these things would be announced in the near future. He told me that in February. Since the “near future” has passed, if I may use an expression which is not quite logical, it is time that these things should be done. It is time that the S.A.B.C. should lay down all the necessary standards for the manufacture of such sets.

Fifthly, the building of that satellite station, which is essential for getting good overseas programmes, should be started immediately. Two should be built: one by the Post Office and one by the S.A.B.C. Something should be done immediately. More than one African country will already have such ground stations before 1974.

Sixthly, universities and technical colleges should institute training and study courses in television for certificates as well as for degrees as a matter of urgency. Do not let him tell me that some have already done so. It should be done on a much larger scale.

Seventhly, the S.A.B.C. should officially be given the green light to introduce television. They have not been given permission as they should be given under the Broadcast Act, by the law of this country. I know there is rumour of a secret little statement having been made to them: “Now, look, this is your secret target date.” I have also heard the target date. The S.A.B.C. was told: “See that you are ready by then, but we cannot publicise it.” I think that is not honest towards industry and commerce in this country. This target date should be announced openly.

Eighthly, I believe that all effort should at this stage be concentrated on the first nation-wide service. All the prophets of economic doom can be pacified by delaying the introduction of separate language services as distinct from the single service. Do not come to us with this old story of priorities again, I beg of you, Mr. Minister. We all know that the Government prefers prisons to hospitals, but I am quite sure that the Government would not stop building hospitals on the grounds of preferring prisons. At the same time South Africa needs telephones more than television, but why should it stop television just on account of the fact that we do not have sufficient telephones in this country?

In the few minutes left to me I want to deal with another topic, namely, as the hon. the Minister might have guessed, the South African Broadcasting Corporation of which he is the new unofficial chairman.

That is a new one for you.

If the hon. the Minister’s remarks were only as intelligent as Mrs. Warning’s interesting although hostile articles, I would have listened to him on the subject of television. Once again we have had a year in which the S.A.B.C. has been entertaining and upsetting, annoying, pleasing and boring its listeners. We have no opportunity as parliamentarians of discussing its activities except for these very few short minutes which are allowed us every year. The hon. the Minister himself, when questions are put to him, is as reticent as ever in the past. I asked him whether the S.A.B.C. consulted him in regard to the buying of the Lourenco Marques station. He said: “Yes.” Then I asked him: What did they pay, “wat is die finansiële implikasies”, what other arrangements were made? I received the old standard stock reply: “Dit is nie aan my bekend nie aangesien dit huishoudelike aangeleenthede is.” There is the old rhyme about Boston I would have liked to parody. How shall I start? The …

You have it wrong.

If you know the reply, why do you ask the question?

The reply in respect to the questions about L.M. Radio? I do not know the reply. Anyhow, I will think of that jingle later. I am serious about this question of Lourenco Marques Radio and its taking over. There have been unsatisfactory developments since then. A radio missionary station broadcasting Christian sermons has been asked to close down its broadcasts on the 60 and 90 metre band since this Government has taken over L.M. Radio. The latter received an income of close to R40 000 per year from that. But now these destroyers of Christianity, one can almost call them, have done that to L.M. Radio and those particular broadcasts are no longer allowed, while there are similar mission stations and mission broadcasts in 55 countries of the world, all the countries of the world, except, naturally as hon. members will know, in the communist countries, Russia, China and their like. We want to know more about what has been happening in regard to L.M. Radio after it has been taken over, and about this religious censorship that has now been imposed by the hon. the Minister.

One cannot expect a great advance in the S.A.B.C., not after Dr. Piet Meyer was reappointed as chairman at the end of last year. He will be 65 years old when television is probably introduced. One can also not expect a great advance when one finds that another Broederbonder, who might be one of the big 12, a Mr. J. H. Stander, has now been appointed vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. He is probably the chairman designate for the future. That is ominous for the future. As far as I can see, there are only two English-speaking members on the nine-man Board of Governors. If one ever has the right to speak of English-haters, listen to this, Frankie; and talk to your Minister about it.

The S.A.B.C. has a big task in regard to television, one of the biggest tasks of all. The Director-in-Chief is chairman of the Television Advisory Committee. They are going to erect huge buildings. They are demanding hundreds of millions from Parliament. They are asking for permits to raise loans of millions of rands abroad. However, we cannot get the information from the hon. the Minister as to what is happening. Two television transmitters have been bought recently. If I were to ask him something about that, the hon. the Minister would not tell us anything.

The next point about the S.A.B.C. is the slanting which is continuing in the programme “Current Affairs” and here I am fortunate that I can now quote the newspapers which support the Government. I can show the hon. the Minister the headlines of Rapport of 2nd April this year—

Rapport continues further in another article—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have again heard old Jeremiah here this afternoon with all his complaints and nothing positive from his side. Sometimes he makes me think that he is an immature child who has been promised a present and who cannot wait to get it. I do want to say to that hon. member that the National Party Government is not going to allow itself to be dictated to in regard to when television will be introduced here. The hon. the Minister postulated to us a date on which he should like television to be introduced in South Africa, and if it can be done I think that he will do it. If, owing to circumstances, it cannot be done, we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to by the United Party, and even less by the industrialists who have no other object in mind but to make money out of it.

South Africa—we know our South Africans—knows that the National Party Government has kept every promise it has made. Iscor was promised to the South Africans; Iscor was established. Sasol was promised to them; Sasol was established, despite all the derogatory and destructive criticism we heard from that side.

We also promised you that you would have the right to vote again, and you have it.

If they had to introduce television, it would for them simply have been a question of telling the people that they should buy television sets and that they, as the United Party, would import the programmes from England or America. That is what they would have wanted to dish up to our people.

I should like to confine myself to another subject which deals with the Rand Afrikaans University. The latest census analysis is not yet available but according to estimates there are at present approximately 450 000 Afrikaans-speaking persons living on the entire Witwatersrand. It is also calculated that for every one Afrikaans-speaking engineer, there are seven English-speaking engineers. This finding is confirmed by the finding of the Straszacker Commission that the greatest unutilized potential for engineering training is in fact to be found among the Afrikaans-speaking sector of our population. Apart from the fact that we have that unutilized potential there, I think that the shortage of engineers is also having a tremendously restrictive effect on the economic development of our country. The Human Sciences Research Council calculated last year that by the year 1980 South Africa would need approximately 17 800 engineers. In order to eliminate that shortage approximately 540 engineers would have to be produced annually between now and 1980. At present approximately 420 are being produced annually. In order to maintain this average of 540 it will be necessary during the first few years to train approximately 640 per annum. I think, and this also appears to be true, that our existing faculties cannot produce the envisaged number of engineers, even if the necessary expansions were provided. I know that there are other universities which have applied for an engineering faculty, but I nevertheless want to advocate very seriously to the Minister today that this should be granted to the Rand Afrikaans University, because it is in fact on the Witwatersrand where one finds the greatest student potential. What is more, the Witwatersrand is also the heartland of our industries. There are many of our parents who would like to send their children to a university but who unfortunately do not have the economic means of making it possible for those children to study further. However, I believe that if these children can stay at their homes on the Witwatersrand while studying, this training can in fact be given to those students with far less expense. The position is that we on the Witwatersrand are saddled with the University of the Witwatersrand, and no parent who can help it will send a child to that university.

But you are talking nonsense now.

Recently we saw the type of thing that is going on there. When a motion was introduced in this House on that filthy publication issued at that university the hon. Opposition expressed their disapproval of it, but they added that it was merely undergraduate humour. I should just like to quote a short report which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 12th May, in which the following was stated—

I am simply putting it to hon. members on the opposite side that it was not such innocent undergraduate humour after all. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that we should not have to allow our children who come from homes where they have had an upbringing to be thrown to the wolves of the University of the Witwatersrand.

Now I know the hon. the Minister announced last year that a two year course would be introduced at the R.A.U. and at Potchefstroom University and that it would be possible to establish liaison with the other universities so that they could go on to complete their courses there. I made inquiries, and the guarantee could not be given to me that all the subjects taught at those universities at which the two year course is being offered will be recognized by those universities with the full-fledged faculties. Therefore I do nevertheless want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking parents of the Witwatersrand, to give those children of ours that faculty so that they can receive training there.

What about Potchefstroom?

Sir, I hear someone saying “Potchefstroom” here, but the hon. member for Potchefstroom will have to make that plea. I am making mine for the Witwatersrand, so that we will have the facilities there for our children on the Witwatersrand.

Then there is another subject I should like to touch upon; it concerns the training of teachers. We have the position at the moment that our secondary school teachers are being trained at universities. Primary school teachers may be trained at colleges, and at universities. Now, I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider the institute idea. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I cannot but deplore in the strongest possible terms the lot of rubbish the hon. member for Boksburg unburdened himself of in regard to the University of the Witwatersrand. Sir, he knows nothing about the University of the Witwatersrand, apart from what he reads in his own newspapers. That is his difficulty. I am certain there are other hon. members, including the Minister of Health, who will agree with me in this respect in deploring those remarks for at Wits valuable work and research is being done. I was at Wits myself.

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw the word “rubbish” (snert); then he may proceed.

Rubbish?

Yes.

I withdraw the word “rubbish”.

Now the hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, I went to that university myself and … [Interjections.] There are many other Afrikaners who also studied at that university, some of whom are Nationalists. There are a tremendous number of Afrikaners who are receiving good training there. If you speak to anyone of them, they will tell you that they received the best training in the country, in the particular direction in which they studied. [Interjections.] If that hon. member wants to allege that I am a typical product of the University of the Witwatersrand, I wish them everything of the best.

There is something else the hon. member for Boksburg failed to do, he did not listen to the hon. member for Orange Grove when he spoke. He said that he made no suggestions and did nothing positive. But of course he did! I have here a whole long list of suggestions he made to the hon. the Minister, but the hon. member did not even hear these.

The hon. member for Springs made precisely the same mistake He said that there was far more at stake for the hon member for Orange Grove because the United Party supposedly wants to indoctrinate the people by means of television. Sir, that is nonsensical, for the hon. member for Orange Grove not only said that the United Party would introduce television when it comes into power, but he also made strong representations to the effect that the Government should introduce television. If he is agitating for the Government to introduce television, surely he is not doing so because he has the idea at the back of his mind that the United Party wants to indoctrinate people. But that hon. member obviously adopts the attitude that attack is the best form of defence. He feels guilty himself, because he is himself implicated in this matter, and that is why he is trying to foist his sins and the sins of that side on us, which is of course the lowest possible form of politicking.

Sir, there is another problem in regard to television, and here I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Orange Grove has already said. He referred to this delay in the introduction of television, and the ignorance in which this entire question is at present shrouded. We realize that there are various problems in regard to the establishment of a television service in South Africa, but we deplore the fact that the Government is keeping the entire matter in the dark. The entire country is at the moment still uncertain about the details of the system. The country wants to know how these problems which are going to crop up are going to be dealt with by the hon. the Minister, for we want television to become a reality, we want to make certain that we are going to have a good service, and that we are going to get it as quickly as possible. That is why I want to know, and I believe that we are entitled to know, how the Minister is going to deal with these problems. I want to mention a few ideas to the hon. the Minister and inquire along what lines he 1s thinking in this respect. The Minister stated in the past that we are going to have black and white television. He also said that we are going to have four screen sizes. As we know, a screen is the most important component in coloured television. It is also the most complicated and consequently the most expensive component.

A screen? Do you mean a tube?

Yes, that is actually what I am referring to. The tube, as I said is also the most expensive component in coloured television, and the question is whether the tube itself is going to be manufactured locally. Sir, I do not think we can afford the loss in foreign exchange which will accompany the importing of tubes. My information is that even in the first year the loss in foreign exchange could amount to as much as R22¾ million if we had to import all the tubes. If we manufacture them here we will have to have four different manufacturing plants, one for each size of tube, because one plant cannot manufacture more than one size of tube. This is in itself a tremendous task, particularly if one takes into account that there are five major world wide companies that will want to distribute their products here. If we allow all of them to manufacture tubes here, then there will be 20 manufacturing plants, and we should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude in this regard is.

The next aspect I should like to deal with is the question of service, for in television after-sales and maintenance service is one of the most important matters. I think that we can learn a tremendous amount here from the experience gained by the major international telecommunications companies in other countries in the past. My information is that one receives an average of five calls per set per annum for service, in the case of colour television, and three calls per annum for service for a black and white set. Sir, I am only counting emergency calls now; in other words, when there is really something wrong. One also receives many nuisance value calls which of course require a great deal of time as well. But there the fault is usually that the set has not been switched on, or that the aerial has not been connected. I am talking now about emergency calls. The average is five for colour sets and three for black and white sets. If we are able to sell 50 000 colour sets in the first year—and I do not think that this is impossible—and 200 000 black and white sets, there will during that year be 1 350 000 calls which will require technical skill. Every call takes an average of one hour; in other words, in the first year we will have to spend 1 350 000 technical man hours on service. In addition it will mean that in the first year we will require 680 trained television technicians. Calculated on the same basis we will after five years require 3 500 trained technicians, working full time on television. We must take into account that at the moment there are no trained technicians in South Africa. The quickest and easiest solution will be to train existing telecommunications technicians because they already have most of the basic knowledge, but there are no large-scale facilities for training these people, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has already pointed out. Thirdly, today we only have two-thirds of the telecommunications technicians we require to maintain our present telecommunications services, and our telephone service is in fact deplorable. We cannot therefore take any of those technicians and use them in regard to television since, in the first place, the telecommunications services will then be even poorer than they are at the moment and, secondly, since the service for television is also going to be hopeless as a result of the shortage of technicians there.

Must we, for that reason, postpone television?

No, these problems can be overcome, but I want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to do so. After all, there must be planning at this stage; at this stage there must be all the necessary information, and there must be the necessary facilities. These are things we do not know; these are things which cause one concern, and that is why I am stating these points to the hon. the Minister so that I can hear what his solution in this regard is.

They have not yet given any thought to this.

I should like to know how the Minister is approaching these problems. Sir, the second problem I can foresee will be caused specifically by the use of four tube sizes, for as I have already said, there are five major manufacturers, and each one of them makes tubes of four different sizes. There are therefore 20 different sets on the market, each with its own chassis and each with its own wiring diagram. [Time expired.]

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): All I can say of the hon. member for Florida is that he is a loyal person. He is very loyal to the University of the Witwatersrand, where student fun is cultivated, as in Wits Student, inter alia. He tried to display his wisdom here to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. He spoke about things he actually knows nothing about, and I believe the hon. the Minister will accordingly give him the necessary information.

I want to come back to another matter, and that is the question of indoctrination, which was condemned by the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Durban North and several hon. members on that side. Sir, I want to tell the Opposition that if youth preparedness is indoctrination, then I am a supporter of indoctrination.

But you have always been.

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): I want to emphasize that we should then indoctrinate as energetically and quickly as we possibly can. Sir, the fact remains that a tremendous onslaught is being made on the human spirit; a war is being waged for the soul of man. That onslaught is mercilessly being launched on a world-wide scale. The onslaught on South Africa is that much fiercer and more specifically directed at our youth. We shall have to aim at being more intensely interested in this programme of youth preparedness in our schools. We shall have to plan and organize, because who but the Communists are planning and organizing these onslaughts in South Africa? I shall quote to you what Lawrenti Berk said, and I would appreciate it very much if hon. members opposite would listen very carefully. He was the former head of Russia’s secret police, and he himself became the victim of Kruschev and his comrades. He was shot dead by them. He said this (translation)—

I want to emphasize “idleness”—

Mr. Chairman, the United Party men object to youth preparedness in our school programme.

Why teach the girls to shoot?

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): I shall ask only this one question. What are their norms? What are their standards? What else would they like to have? Or do they not believe these things that Beria prescribed to let Communism take root? If one has lost one’s principles one has lost everything, because then one is no longer fighting. Then one has nothing more to fight for. The human heart is the centre of the whole personality. The centre point and origin of human thought is will and feeling. This is the source of every expression of life, and if we do not watch over the heart of man, if we do not guard our own hearts, we shall decline and pay dearly for it. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to give a great deal of attention to this matter—there has already been a plea in that connection.

Well, last year I spoke of Nusas, which wanted no part in the Republic Festival. I have said that the devil finds work for idle hands. I afterwards received a letter from Nusas in which the chairman informed me that they have a great deal of work to do, that they are even making funds available in the homelands for hospitals and schools. I made inquiries at the Department of Bantu Education. They told me they had absolutely no knowledge of that. I am just mentioning this for your general information. Since people are speaking about idleness, and since these Communist influences want people to be idle, they surely know they will achieve their object.

I want to come to the question of rands and cents as our monetary units and to the metric system which our Government introduced, aspects that make the process of calculation much easier for our schools, etc. I just want to say in passing that in my humble opinion there is no such thing as a “rênd”. There is definitely no such thing. When the monetary system was introduced, it was found that the name would be “rand”, which is derived from “Witwatersrarid”. After all, we do not speak of “White Watersrand”. Neither do we speak; of “Koekemoer” as “Koukemouer”: Neither do we speak of “Koekemoer” as “Kouêkemdor”. I now want to express my appreciation for the fact that there are English-speaking people in our country who pronounce the word as “rand”. Since we have done these fine things, I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not come for us to look at our method of counting. Our method of counting actually creates problems at our primary schools. If I may mention the figure “27” as an example, it is found that the “7” is actually emphasized and that we are, in actual fact, counting from back to front, instead of from front to back or from left to right, the way we do when we write. If I may take the figure “345”—we pronounce it as follows. We start on the left and then jump right across to the right-hand side, and then we come back to the middle. We would not be the only people or the only country that could do it in an easier and more acceptable way, i.e. if we were to speak of “twintig sewe” instead of “sewe-en-twintig”. Then we would, in any case, be linking up with the English usage of “twenty-seven”. South Africa is a bilingual country. The Greeks, Italians and other people do it in this way, without having any problems with fractions or whatever the case may be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member will pardon me if I do not react to the argument he has made. This evening I welcome the opportunity to deal with a particular matter.

That is the report of the committee of inquiry into the treatment, education and care of autistic children. This report has just been issued by the Department of National Education with the report No.

R.P.26/72. I want to commend the Minister and his department for their sympathetic consideration which they have shown to the plight of this little-known group of children, whose distress has only become more pertinently known in recent years. It is because only too few members in this House have any knowledge whatsoever of the incidence of what is known as early childhood autism and of the children who suffer from such defects, that I want to deal briefly with some of the recommendations of this report. I also want to deal with their decision as to how the young children can best be handled. It is only recently that autism amongst children has been recognized as a specific ailment. Members who have not either studied this report or who are unaware of it, may well ask what autism is. It is important that they should have an answer. Autistic children are those who from the beginning of their lives are unable to react to people. Whenever possible, they disregard and shut out everything that comes to them from the outside world. They show a severe self-centred aloneness, are almost unable to speak as they grow older, and they seem to do everything within their power in order to maintain the sameness of their environment. These children do not react socially, they avoid eye-to-eye gaze, and they fail to develop any normal relationships with people. For example, and herein lies their special tragedy, they do not seem to form any bonds with their parents, nor with their brothers or sisters. It is only recently that it has been recognized that early childhood autism constitutes a clinically recognized syndrome starting before the age of three years and characterized by self-absorbed and detached behaviour, language disturbances and ritual compulsive phenomena. Autistic children are found in every group of our population, their parents are amongst the wealthy, the intelligent, the poor and the not so intelligent. Amongst the White population group in South Africa the probable number of children who are suffering from this ailment lies between the figures of 300 and 600. These children are suffering from one of the most frustrating handicaps imaginable. They live in a baffling state in which the symptoms are non-communication, lack of responce and an apparent inability to use a locked-away intelligence. But in all other respects they may be perfectly normal physically. If these children are to be restored to normal functioning and behaviour, it is important that highly individualized treatment and very special methods of education should be made available to them from pre-school years. Should this help not be given at this critical time, the child will almost certainly become increasingly withdrawn and emotionally abnormal and unstable and his intellectual potential will be lost to our country forever. I was first brought into contact with autistic children when I was asked to assist in the raising of funds to finance a shool in Claremont, Cape Town, which offers a haven for these little children and which is under the care of a specially qualified teacher who has had long experience with autistic disturbances. This school is the School for Autistic Children in Claremont, Cape Town. It was an act of faith made imperative by the knowledge that with each month of delay in providing for special intensive care, these little children could well be denied the hope of living a full and normal life. If there are hon. members in this House who are parents of an autistic child, they will know the agony of despair which is shared by families into which an autistic child is born. Clearly autism is now coming to the notice of educational authorities, so much so that the hon. the Minister of Education, through the Department of National Education, has given deep thought to how autism amongst our South African children can best be dealt with. In the report itself, the committee has recommended that children suffering from early childhood autism should be considered as handicapped children who should have the opportunity of receiving special education in a special school and that early childhood autism should be added to Schedule I of the Educational Services Act, No. 41 of 1967. The committee has gone even further and recommended that children with early childhood autism should be given sympathetic consideration and that subsidies should be granted on the same basis as is the case in other specialized subsidized schools. The committee has also recognized that the treatment of these children is specialized, and that the maximum number of children in such a school should be 30. Where there is a boarding establishment, the maximum number of boarders is only 12. This highlights the fact that the handling of these children is inordinately expensive. In fact, it has been established that in a school of this nature the cost per child is in excess of R1 600 per annum. It has also been found that parents can often not afford to pay more than R100 annually. Experience has also shown that the ratio of teachers to children is one to three and that in addition a principal and a viceprincipal are necessary. There must also be psychological assistance. I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister today to investigate the possibility of the State playing a greater part in bringing about the existence of these schools, not only in the Cape, where there is one already, and the Transvaal, but in every major centre where autistic children are requiring assistance. I feel that if this can be done, we in South Africa shall have recognized this ailment for what it is and we shall have realized that we, who are privileged to have families who do not suffer because of the existence amongst all ranks of one of these children, and the State, can well afford to bear that additional expenditure which is necessary. Possibly the State itself can create these institutions, but if not, I ask whether the hon. the Minister and his department will give sympathetic consideration towards far more liberal allowances and subsidies being made available to those persons and those institutions who are prepared to sacrifice themselves and their lives and to dedicate themselves to the handling of these children between the ages of one and three and thereafter in the slightly older stages where they may be able to be given education, between the ages of four and twelve. If we can achieve this in this department which has such a responsibility for our young people, then we shall have achieved something more than merely discussing doctrination and indoctrination at various levels.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised an important matter. These are children who, of course, cannot gain anything from ordinary education and they are actually known as uneducable children, or “onopvoedbare kinders” in Afrikaans. The hon. member advocated that greater allowances be allocated. These are children we all sympathize with, and I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to him about that in due course.

The other day, and again this afternoon, the hon. member for Wynberg made this remark, by way of an interjection, about the subject youth preparedness: Why teach the girls to shoot? One of the biggest complaints she has against youth preparedness is that girls are being taught to shoot —as if a great war is on the way. I found it interesting a few days ago to come across a leading article in one of the English-language newspapers. I should like to quote the article. It appeared in the Pretoria News of 15th May of this year and reads as follows—

If this well-known organization thinks it important that even women should know how to handle a weapon, why does she make such a fuss because young girls in matric, or whatever the case may be, are also being taught to handle weapons under expert tuition? I hope the hon. member will now stop asking each time why girls must be taught to shoot.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, and also another hon. member, spoke about television again. I find it interesting that the hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove, are demanding here quite theatrically that the hon. the Minister must mention the date— he must state “what is the date and what is the target”—for its introduction. The hon. member therefore wants television to be introduced at a certain time, regardless of the cost and regardless of the country’s economic position. The Government has said in the post that we do not want to introduce television here solely with a view to its being a status symbol or with the idea of its being a prestige project. This is what many countries of Africa, who could not afford it, did in fact do. When the hon. member for Springs spoke and asked why hon. members are in such a hurry, one of them replied: “Because we are the last country that does not have television yet.” Just imagine, that is now the reason why the United Party wants to hurry so with the introduction of television.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to the old matter that he always deals with, i.e. radio and the bias of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. He also referred to the programme “Current Affairs”. All of us know that the S.A.B.C. is a widely branching communications medium which regards the supplying of information as an extremely important function. They also fulfil that function. The S.A.B.C.’s news staff makes a masterful success, in my opinion, creating a news image, from that great diversity of news reports every day, which presents listeners with a factual report of events. This report is kept separate from the analysis and interpretation of that report. This purely objective mentioning of hard and concrete news facts is no longer adequate to furnish comprehensive information. That is why this 1971 annual report of the South African Broadcasting Corporation states the matter so convincingly on page 8, as follows:

This is exactly what the S.A.B.C. does in a particularly competent and successful manner. By means of the informative analysis and interpretation of the flood of occurrences, the in-depth image is projected and focused on South Africa. I am thinking, in particular, of the short though forceful daily news commentary of only two minutes that is supplied after the news broadcast at 7 o’clock in the evening on the Afrikaans and English services. One just thinks, for example, of the brief report yesterday evening in connection with the hijacking of the aircraft, which was a correct and neatly summarized report.

Except for the meaningful analysis and interpretation, the microphone is brought to the news scene or the newsmakers come to the microphone. With these news broadcasts the S.A.B.C. has, in my opinion, gained a unique achievement. According to the report to which I have referred, 239 news bulletins are broadcast in 18 services on a week day. This is done in 19 languages in the internal and external services and Radio Bantu. In addition there is still the great variety of background commentary. There are the variety of opinion programmes, and one of these daily news programmes is, inter alia, the well-known “News at 9” and “Nuus om 9”. Then there is also “Week-end Newsroom” on the English service. Here there is chiefly a sketching and interpretation of the background to events and trends.

Now we come to the much criticized “Current Affairs”. Just these few thoughts about that, Sir, I should like to refer with appreciation to this report, which is actually regarded as the leading article of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I now just want to tell hon. members that they should take a quick look at this report. The number of listeners to this report, both Afrikaans and English, has increased further during the past year. If the people do not like this broadcast, why is the listenership increasing? Some listeners label this valuable and highly necessary concentrate mere propaganda, and thus do a disservice to this excellent, informative report which, as I should like to put it, reacts barometrically local and world events. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes available before the adjournment, I do not intend to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort as I wish to raise another matter concerning the hon. the Minister’s position in regard to the training facilities of medical students at medical schools in the Republic of South Africa.

On a number of occasions this matter has been raised with this hon. Minister during the discussion of his Vote as well as with his predecessors. From time to time we have had reports that steps are to be taken so as to improve the position as far as the number of students that are able to be trained in medical faculties at our various universities is concerned. During the course of 1971, following the appointment and then the report of the Monnig committee of enquiry into the availability of training facilities for medical students, the hon. the Minister of National Education replied that a greater intake of medical students would be provided for at the existing universities. The intake of medical students could be doubled as a result of extensions to the Universities of Pretoria, Stellenbosch, the Witwatersrand, Cape Town and Natal, and would be achieved in the course of the next five years. That was last year but in the meantime one can see from other figures that have been provided by the hon. the Minister in reply to another question this session, that the number of successful applicants, instead of increasing at the various universities, have decreased. The hon. the Minister, in quoting these figures, showed that at the beginning of this year, out of 3 196 applicants, only 830 were accepted and commenced their studies. Then the hon. the Minister said that, as far as extending the existing facilities were concerned, it would not be proceeded with owing to the financial situation and that no steps would be taken for the time being in this regard. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement to the Committee setting out the position as far as the future of the medical schools at the various universities in the Republic at the present time is concerned. It would appear from a reply that the Minister of Indian Affairs gave in this House, that the Chancellor of the University of Durban Westville announced that the next phase of the development of that university would be a medical school for 600 students. It would therefore appear that the policy of the Government is now to establish these medical schools at the universities on a racial basis. If this is to be the case there will be considerable costs involved. It will also involve a shortage of training lecturers and of clinical hospitals. Here I make a special plea for the University of Natal in that this is the only province in South Africa where there are no training facilities whatsoever for White medical students. The medical school that exists in Durban, is restricted to non-White students. Bantu, Indian and Coloured students, and of course, the training hospital where the clinical work is done, is the King Edward VIII hospital. But as far as White students are concerned, the English-speaking student has to seek admission at Cape Town University or at the Witwatersrand University. It has become a great tragedy that many of these prospective doctors are unable to gain admission to these universities. A loss is being suffered by South Africa, since there is a shortage of doctors. These young people are unable to achieve their potential and play their part as doctors in the future of South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.