Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a great honour for me to be able to present to this House my first Railways and Harbours Budget. I have never had any illusions concerning the extent and importance of the contribution of transport generally, and, in particular, of the South African Railways and its related services to the economic well-being of this country. In recent months I have had the opportunity of acquainting myself with transportation demands and the steps required to meet the situation. I can assure you that I am fully conscious of my own responsibilities in ensuring that these needs are provided in the most efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker, when one takes charge of such a vast undertaking one must necessarily take a critical look at the policies followed and the methods adopted to fulfil the primary function of the national transport organization. One must also pose the question whether it adopts a purely pragmatic attitude of merely adapting to situations that have developed or whether it is sufficiently dynamic in its approach to the challenges emerging in this day and age. These are formidable questions when considered in relation to a vast organization such as the S.A. Railways and Harbours and its related services. During the course of my speech I will attempt to give some honest replies to the questions posed.

In the main I see the task of the Railway Administration as being the provision of an adequate and effective transport infrastructure comprising a co-ordinated system of rail, road, air, pipeline and commercial harbour services, including subsidiary and ancillary services. It was to this task that I pledged myself when I accepted my present portfolio.

The Constitution Act provides that the South African Railways and Harbours shall be run on business principles, with the stipulation that due regard shall be had to the agricultural and industrial development of the country. The Administration functions as a Government department and this fact has certain undeniable advantages.

In the first place, railway users, through their organized representative bodies, can make representations with regard to the nature and type of transport facilities required as well as the charges raised for the services rendered.

Secondly, the operation of the services and their expansion are not governed by motives of profit, but are directed solely at the development of the country and its economy in all its ramifications.

Thirdly, the finances and operations of the Railways are subject to strict Parliamentary control.

It is for these sound reasons, which I fully endorse, that it has up to now been accepted practice that no one other than the Railways should undertake public rail transport.

Viewed against the background of its primary functions, it is clear that the policy approach of the Railways must be dynamic so as to enable it to provide efficient and economic transport services at all times.

The Railways’ contribution towards the economic stability of the country is illustrated by the fact that operating deficits, totalling R89,3 million, were absorbed during the three successive financial years from 1970 with only minor adjustments in tariff charges.

Apart from direct labour costs, the cost of material, equipment and related items supplied to and contract work carried out on behalf of the Administrations represents a major proportion of expenditure. The escalation of costs over a wide spectrum is having a serious effect on Railway finances. Suffice it to mention only two items, namely fuel and steel, which are extensively used, to illustrate the influence of price rises on Railway expenditure. The price of aviation fuel alone has already risen by over 150 per cent during the past eleven months, while steel prices are today 44 per cent higher than they were 18 months ago.

It must be clear that the Administration must look critically at its revenue sources and take every step possible to supplement its earnings in order to be able to meet its commitments.

To reach this goal, it is logical that methods to increase traffic, especially highrated traffic, should be given careful consideration.

One of the more recent concepts in transport, namely containerization, is making an ever-increasing contribution towards this aim. Although initial costs are high, its advantages include faster and safer handling of goods as well as speedier transit. This has led to the solution of many problems in so far as rail transport of certain commodities is concerned. Special container trains convey the 4 000 departmental containers daily between Johannesburg. Durban and Cape Town, and the modem, fully equipped container terminals which are being established, should be in operation early in 1976.

Some remarks on the Department’s rating policy, which primarily governs its revenue, are pertinent at this stage. A great deal has already been said in this House on the subject and we are bound to hear much more. I want to make it clear, first of all, that I am fully aware of the effect of transport costs and changes in the tariff structure on the country’s economy. It has become clear to me, however, that in many respects the principles of railway rating policy are not generally appreciated. Criticisms are often levelled against particular aspects of the rates structure with complete disregard of the general principles involved and their advantages when viewed in the broader national interest.

Hon. members are aware that representations have from time to time been made, and that the Schumann Committee has recommended, that the principle of “cost of conveyance” rather than “what the traffic can bear”, should be the overriding consideration in determining rates. This has been accepted and will be progressively implemented.

Railway tariffs play a significant role in the viability of rail as a transport medium. The negative aspects of the rates on highrated traffic are often accentuated while the national benefits derived from the conveyance by rail of law-rated traffic are ignored.

The Administration is, however, fully conscious of the need to adapt its tariff structure to present-day requirements, and is at all times prepared to take positive action in this direction.

It is essential, and it will in time become more and more apparent, that goods and persons will require to be conveyed by the mode of transport by which the required service can be provided at the lowest overall cost. To establish the lowest cost, cognizance will have to be taken not of the charge for conveyance but of the cost of rendering the service. Such factors as the availability of suitable fuels, pollution and other ecological and sociological factors should also be taken into account. It stands to reason, therefore, that only those modes of transport which can meet these requirements and by which certain goods, or persons, can be conveyed at a lower cost than other modes, will survive and retain a role in the transport structure of the future.

To determine the role of the Railways in the transport market of tomorrow, it is necessary to evaluate the relative overall cost advantage of conveying goods and persons by rail vis-à-vis other modes of transport. Experience in other countries has proved that conveyance by means of a steel wheel on a steel track has certain inherent cost, ecological and energy advantages. On the basis of overall efficiency, the railways should, therefore, for the foreseeable future, retain a sizeable proportion of the total transport market.

Mr. Speaker, my first and pleasant task is to congratulate the hon. Minister on his promotion and appointment to the portfolio of Minister of Transport. I would like to wish him well in the task which he has undertaken. Perhaps the correct phrase would be to wish him luck, and to wish the Railways luck in the task which he has undertaken. He is going to need a lot of luck if this Budget is any indication of the course along which he is going to lead the Railways, Harbours and Airways of South Africa as the new Minister.

When paying tribute to the hon. Minister’s predecessor, I said that I wondered who would be the next Minister. We should, of course, have noticed a pointer, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on being a good MP. A project which I saw started—one of my relatives happened to be working on it—in 1946 has now been put into operation. I am referring to the building of the Hex River tunnel in the hon. the Minister’s constituency. We now hear that work will start in 1975, i.e. after a period of 29 years. When work on that tunnel restarted we should have known that this was to be the hon. Minister designate.

The Railways have an interesting time ahead, Mr. Speaker. I saw the hon. Deputy Minister holding his head during the Budget speech. I do not blame him because it is going to give a headache to more people than him. It is going to give the whole of South Africa a headache. I hear they are organizing for a by-election in Middelburg. What with a new Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister, I think we have an interesting Railway year ahead.

The hon. Minister started hopefully. He spoke of the role of the Railways in the transport situation of South Africa, its role in the economy, and he promised us honest answers. We sat with hope and expectation waiting to see whether with the new Minister we would have a new vision, a vision like the one with which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development lives up in the clouds. However, that at least is some sort of vision. I am afraid that after hearing this budget speech, if I were to seek three words to sum it up, I would have to say: Ben was better.

What do we have here? No answers. The hon. the Minister has read the General Manager’s report and he summarized it very well in his speech. We all knew the outline of what has been done. As long as he follows the General Manager’s advice, the hon. the Minister will be doing well. However, when it came down to his responsibility as Minister and to the responsibility of the Government, we found that whilst we had expected a rate increase, we actually found a total disregard of the welfare of the people of South Africa in the manner in which this increase is being applied. Whilst we had expected increases, we did not expect the shock which this hon. Minister dealt to South Africa this afternoon. Who has been hit hardest?—the family and the housewife of South Africa. Almost every increase is aimed at the heart of the family. For example, the price of meat is hit by livestock tariffs going up by 60%. We find that suburban traffic fares have also gone up and the man who catches a train to work will have to pay it. The thing the Railways should be doing is to encourage people to make use of the trains, but now the fares have gone up 20%. In other words, the fares have jumped by one-fifth in one wallop and this has to come out of the pocket of the working man who does not drive to work in a Cadillac or even in a second-car Mercedes with a chauffeur. The person who does not have a Mercedes, a Cadillac or a Packard, namely the man who has to catch the train, is hit directly with a 20% increase. The family man with children who have to take a train to school will find that the scholars’ concession has been withdrawn. Children from reformatories can get the concession, but the children who go to a normal school can get no concession. Must our children become drop-outs and delinquents in order to qualify for scholar concessions?

We find that harbour dues have increased by between 10% and 40%. However, this is the most profitable arm of the Railways next to Ali Baba and his pipeline. After Ali Baba the harbours are the milk cow of the Railways. Despite the profit, despite the surplus, harbour dues have increased from 10% to 40% and this is something which will hit back on the cost of living of every South African. The harbours are already congested; they are already subject to the shipping line surcharges of between 20% and 30%, because the harbours cannot bring in and off-load the ships. Therefore the shipping lines penalize the people, and on top of that penalty this Minister places his own additional penalty on the harbours. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if this is the way in which he is going to carry on, I hope we can soon bring back Ben.

In order to enable us to study this Budget, the implications thereof and the depth of the shock to South Africa, I wish to move—

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with statements made by the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Edenvale to the effect that the Act of 1936 was not intended to give political content to the Bantu homelands. I should just like to remind hon. members once more of what these two hon. members said. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said the following:

In other words, the hon. member said that it was merely the intention to provide land for farming purposes to the vast majority of Bantu people in South Africa. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Edenvale said the following (Hansard, 1974, column 1321):

He went on to say (column 1322):

He said, furthermore (column 1321):

He also said:

I want to say that these statements made by these hon. members are untrue. It was not written into the Act of 1936 what the object of the Act was. Something of this kind is not written into any Act. I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a lawyer, whether it is written into the Marketing Act that the intention of that Act is to obtain price stability by means of orderly marketing. It is not there; but it was, nevertheless, the object of that Act. Similarly, one will not find in the 1936 Act that the intention of that Act was, inter alia, to create a political home for the Bantu peoples, but one will indeed find it in the context of the history of that time and the preceding times. That is why I do not want to go back to the Act of 1936 first, since it is too recent; I want to go back to the Natives Land Act of 1913. I want to quote to hon. members what was said during those debates about the objectives of that Act of 1913. I want to start with General Botha. He was Prime Minister at that time and he introduced this particular Bill. On that occasion he said (Debates, 1913, column 2518)—

He said further on (column 2518):

This is what General Botha said in 1913. Now the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Edenvale come along and say that it has never been the intention that the Bantu peoples should get political rights in those areas. I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that I know he will rise and tell me that he, i.e. the hon. member, was speaking about separate entities. Do you know what Genl. Botha said? He spoke about this very question and said (column 2516):

He went further and said (column 2517):

He added to that (column 2516):

In other words, Genl. Botha said in 1913 that they should become political homes for these peoples, on a separate, ethnic basis. Genl. Botha was not the only one who said this. But before I come to other pronouncements, I want to say that we know, of course, that the policy of the United Party has changed between then and now. The hon. member for Edenvale is just a small symbol of how the United Party’s policy has changed, just as his policy, too, changes from one policy to the opposite.

You are now where we were in 1913.

The United Party has abandoned that policy. They did no thave the courage to carry that policy through, therefore they abandoned it.

Now I want to come to what Genl. Hertzog said in that same debate. He said (col. 2501)—

But Genl. Hertzog and Genl. Botha were not the only ones who spoke about these things. There was also a Mr. Chaplin in this House and he said the following (col. 2447)—

This was said in a debate which took place in 1913. Finally, I want to quote to hon. members what Col. Creswell said in the same debate (col. 2296)—

Therefore, in the debate of 1913, one speaker after another said that political content should be given to the homelands. They were not people who belonged to one party either. That hon. member for Edenvale was a scientist and an academic. One of the highest premiums every scientist places on himself is his integrity as a scientist, which means being absolutely honest and always making reliable statements. I have already said that the hon. member told us that this was never spoken of before. But I find now that he himself made those same statements in 1957 when he himself said that the Bantu peoples should govern themselves. Now, however, he says that it was never considered and never said prior to 1959. I can understand a man changing his mind, but what I cannot understand is a man denying what he said. That statement he made is a deliberate, blatant untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it. No doubt Parliament will develop the terminology for that type of description in the course of time.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it. That statement which the hon. member and other hon. members made, places them in a position where one can take no notice of what they are saying. This holds good for the hon. member for Edenvale in particular.

I want to go further and point out another statement which the hon. member for Edenvale made over the radio a number of years back when he spoke about the urban Bantu. That talk was recorded in a Sabra magazine, and I want to quote from it as follows (translation)—

The hon. member dealt with two alternative policy directions which may be followed by South Africa in respect of the urban Bantu. At the time he mentioned this, as one of the alternatives, while still supporting the other one at that stage. He then made this essentially important statement and added the condition that if we wanted to follow that road of integration, we should have to concede that the Bantu would ultimately be accepted as an equal fellow citizen. Now I want to tell the hon. member and his party that they have chosen that road, but are not prepared to accept the consequences. Nor, likewise, in the same way, the Progressive Party is not prepared either to accept the consequences of treating them as equal citizens. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the other half hour? In his vehement praise last night for the achievements of the Government in the Bantustans, the hon. the Minister made some remarkable claims. He told us, inter alia, that 11 800 jobs in industry had been created by the two corporations since their inception. I am referring to the two corporations, the BIC and the XDC. He said that they had also created 38 000 jobs in tertiary and other occupations, and then he went on to tell us that it was an old economic rule that for every tertiary worker five or six times that number …

Not tertiary.

Well, for every occupation already created, industrial and tertiary, five or six times more people were looked after, in other words, the dependants of the employee. He then reached the triumphant conclusion that about half a million people had therefore been catered for in this way in the Bantustans by the BIC and the XDC. I want to say right away that the figures are very different from the figures which I have accumulated over the years by way of question and reply in this House. The figures also do not tally with the reports of the BIC and the XDC. The BIC has, as far as I can work out, created 14 000 jobs in all. I might add that that includes the jobs which have been created by way of agencies for White entrepreneurs operating in the Bantustans. The XDC has created about 8 259 jobs in all, according to its own report, the most recent report I have read. It is one which was tabled here. Three thousand eight hundred of these workers are actually in the employ of the XDC and nearly 1 500 are in the employ of White agencies. That adds up to sometning like 33 000 jobs in all, and not the 50 000 jobs the Minister has claimed. Even if we take his own figures as being accurate, which I challenge, I must say that his mathematical gymnastics are much too much for an elderly lady like myself. I find myself unable to keep up with his gymnastics. Let us take the hon. the Minister’s own figures and multiply them by the figure 6, which he mentioned as the number of people accommodated. One does not get a figure of half a million. The figure one gets is something like a quarter of a million people who are looked after.

I want to say at once that I am not trying to denigrate the work of the corporations.

You are not?

No, I am not; I think they have provided a valuable impetus for the development of under-developed areas, and more particularly, I may say, since the Government abandoned the old Verwoerdian policy of not allowing White entrepreneurs to come into the Bantustans and has allowed them there albeit it on an agency basis. That new method has created something like 8 000 jobs in the Bantustans up to last year, according to a reply which the hon. the Minister gave me in the House in May 1973.

There are a few facts to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention which might perhaps spoil the euphoric trance into which he talked himself last night. First of all, even granting him the figures he used last night, even raising the number of jobs created to 50 000, I must point out to the Minister that the minimum target set by the Tomlinson Commission, if the Bantustan plan for separate development was to work, was 50 000 jobs per annum, not 50 000 jobs in toto since the corporations started working, i.e. 20 000 jobs in industry and 30 000 in tertiary occupations was the minimum, per annum. If we proceed from the creation of the BIC, which was in 1959, by now we should have had something like 750 000 jobs provided inside the Bantustans, apart from agriculture. I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the Tomlinson Commission’s estimates have been proved to be way off the mark. They were hopeless under-estimates of the number of people who would be living in the Bantustans, say, by the year 1980. Thirdly, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that whatever good work has been done by those corporations in providing jobs in the Bantustans, is rapidly being undermined by the vast removal schemes which are putting more people back into the Bantustans before those areas are able to cope with their existing populations and the natural increase in those existing populations. Hundreds of thousands of people have been shunted back into the Bantustans. This has taken place via endorsement out of the White areas, via the Black spot removal schemes and via the removal of Black people who are resident on White farms and squatters and labour tenants living on White farms. Estimates of the number of people involved in these removals vary. Some reckon that as many as a million and a half people have already been moved into those areas and that the possibility exists that a further million will have to be moved by the time consolidation plans and all the Black spot removal schemes have been completed. Therefore, as I say, whatever good work is being done by the corporations is rapidly being undermined by shunting people back into the homelands in areas where there are no jobs for them. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Government to halt all these removal schemes and to leave them be pro tem. I do not say that an announcement in respect of a change of policy should be made; that would be going too far.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Oh, very well; but quickly.

I just want to ask the hon. member what she has to say about the thousands of Bantu who are moving into their huts in the homelands themselves at the present moment, at their own risk, and without any facilities being provided for them.

I presume the hon. member is referring to those who go back voluntarily. Frankly, I do not know of any. The only ones that I know who go there are those who are moved out of the towns, who are picked up from the Black spots like Doornkop, which was never a Black spot at all. It was bought by Africans in 1905 and they should never have been moved from it. I reckon that this was a betrayal of a trust. People who have been moved to places like Iimehill and Stink-water certainly have not gone voluntarily. These people are moved because the Government arrives with policemen and police dogs and Saracens and helicopters, so how can they refuse to go? These are the people who are said to go voluntarily.

Now, Sir, we have heard a number of speeches in this House this year about the question of full employment in South Africa. We have heard this from the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs and yesterday again from the hon. member for Stilfontein.

That is right; you can point at me.

He too spoke a lot of nonsense yesterday about the lack of unemployment in South Africa. Anybody who has been to the homelands and has seen the labour bureaux there and the long queues of men waiting to get jobs, will know that it is untrue to say …

Some of them refuse to work.

… that there is no shortage of jobs in South Africa.

I notice that in talking about the corporations the hon. the Minister made no mention of the one-man commission of inquiry which he is appointing—for the wrong reason, I may say, as I shall explain in a moment—to look into the affairs of the BIC. The official reason given was that the Chairman of the BIC, Dr. Du Toit Viljoen had requested the appointment of an impartial person to undertake such an investigation. I quote—

Yes, by you.

What nonsense! That is utter nonsense. Nobody is conducting a vendetta against the BIC and I must say …

You have been doing so.

Well, in that case you should have had a dozen inquiries in the years that I have been in this House. Heaven knows, I have criticized Government institutions year in and year out. I am surprised that there were not more commissions of inquiry appointed directly as a result of my efforts in this regard. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should have been frank enough to admit that the commission ought to be appointed. I hope he will tell us more about it when he replies. I am very interested to know its terms of reference and so forth. He knows perfectly well, or he should have been honest enough to say that he knows, that he is appointing this inquiry because there have been a number of very disquieting transactions carried out by the BIC over the last few years. I have not time to mention them all; I am just going to mention one or two of them. There was the R300 000 of BIC money which was lent to a White property developing company and, Sir, two private agents consequently collected R3 000 and R12 000. An audit was ordered into the investment practices of the BIC as a result of this, and although no decisive evidence of irregularities and practices was found, the matter was nevertheless handed over to the commercial branch of the Police and the agents were prosecuted. Then in 1972 we had the extraordinary case of Mr. Heyns, the gentleman who has been involved in a drug-smuggling racket in the United States. This gentleman apparently had a large loan given to him by the BIC. He was supposed to be promoting the sale of African arts and crafts in the United States. As we know, the man turned out to be a crook. Then, Sir, there were other irregularities which have been mentioned in Parliament, one in the Other Place by hon. Senator Henderson and one by the hon. member for Durban Point, involving in the first instance the purchase of an Indian transport firm by the BIC at a highly inflated price and, in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point, a bus service which was purchased by the BIC. In that case, the Supreme Court found gross negligence and lack of control by the BIC. The hon. the Minister has set nobody’s suspicions at rest, because he refuses to divulge information in this House when hon. members ask for such information. Now, Sir, we have the latest irregularity presently being investigated by the commercial branch of the Police. Is that as a result of questions which I asked in this House, may I ask the hon. the Minister, since he lays everything at my door?

No.

I am glad to hear that, because I should have hoped that the hon. the Minister would look into this himself without any prodding from me. Sir, a certain matter is being investigated presently by the commercial branch of the Police. It involves the handing out of contracts by the BIC at Babalegi, which is the main industrial growth point for the Bophuthatswana tribe some 50 km from Pretoria. The Minister very kindly gave me access to records which he had in his office, and although it is true that some of the reports appear to have been considerably exaggerated, I must also say that I did find that one firm alone had been given more than half the total number of contracts, maybe for good reasons; I do not know. Presumably that is one of the things which the one-man commission of inquiry will probe. Then, Sir, there have been numbers of questions over dismissals and resignations from the BIC over the last four or five years for irregular practices, for “various shady transactions with clients”, to quote from the hon. the Minister’s reply. Another recent reply reveals that 53 employees have been dismissed for malpractices and irregularities over the past five years. Sir, the hon. the Minister must not blame me for the sins of omission and commission of the BIC. As I say, I do not want to denigrate from the good work which it undoubtedly has done, but I think it is terribly important that a corporation as important as this, a corporation which is one of the major instruments for the development of the homelands outside of the Transkei and the Ciskei, should have its name absolutely cleared, and therefore I am delighted that the hon. the Minister has appointed a one-man commission of inquiry, although I should have been happier if it had been broadened into a far wider inquiry headed by a judge perhaps and with various experts on it, such as economists, who could have gone into the whole question of the investment practices and achievements, etc., of the Bantu Investment Corporation. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us the terms of reference and I hope that they are not simply going to be confined to the irregularities which have taken place over the last few years. I think, for instance, that an important aspect which could be investigated are the complaints of the various homeland leaders about the actions of the BIC. For instance, there is Chief Mangope’s complaint that the BIC indulges in monopolistic practices; he said—

He claims, too—

Sir, they have to get a licence from the Bantu Affairs Department before they can start business in the homelands, and the Bantu Affairs Department will only act on the recommendation of the BIC, which he claims is hostile to independent entrepreneurs. He objects to the fact that the homeland leaders and their Governments were not consulted about the starting of the agency scheme. He says that his Government was kept in ignorance about the plans for Babalegi and wants to know why indeed he still knows so little about the subject. Then there is Chief Buthelezi, who says that the Zulu people object to the virtual monopoly that the BIC has on business sites in most of the new homelands townships. One ought to be able to find out whether this allegation is justified. And of course all the homeland leaders object to the fact that there are no Black directors of the Bantu Investment Corporation of the Xhosa Development Corporation. I believe that these complaints are all complaints which should be properly investigated so that the names of these corporations may be cleared and so that confidence can be unreserved in these important public corporations which, as I say, are the main instruments for the development of the Bantu homelands.

Now, Sir, I want to turn from the Bantustans to the urban Africans and their situation, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give me his atteniton. I want to say that the remarks I am going to make stem largely from a series of talks which I have had with ordinary residents in townships such as Soweto, Tembisa, Mamelodi, Atteridgeville and elsewhere on the Reef. I have spoken to literally dozens of the residents of these townships and I have also spoken to members of the Urban Bantu council in Soweto, in an endeavour to find out how life is going on there and what their complaints are and to see what could be done to improve conditions generally. Sir, I have come up with some information which I think is important and on which I would like to talk to the hon. the Deputy Minister. But before I do that I just want to say that one of the positive suggestions which came out of the Pretoria summit meeting which took place in March of this year between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister with the homeland leaders was that special negotiating machinery should be set up consisting of the homeland leaders and the South African Government to try to find a satisfactory solution for the problems of the urban Africans, more particularly in relation to pass laws and the migratory labour situation … Excuse me, I should not have said pass laws, but reference book laws, because we do not have pass laws in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration denied that there were such things as passbooks. Another problem to be looked into is the denial of family life under the migratory labour system. All these problems have obviously created dissatisfaction amongst the Blacks not only in the homelands but also in the cities, and I deny what the hon. the Prime Minister said, i.e. that something like 60% or 70%—I do not know what the exact figure was, but it was high—of the dissatisfaction and the racial friction were caused on the one hand by rudeness, Whites being rude to Blacks, and on the other hand by impudence, Bantu being impudent to Whites. I have no doubt that causes some of the racial friction, but I think we are bluffing ourselves if we ignore the really vital things which are gnawing at the lives of the Black citizens of this country, such as the need for a proper family life. And the hon. the Deputy Minister Jansen is to be congratulated on the, what I call, enlightened speeches, the understanding speeches which he has made on this subject on various occasions quite recently. I will not quote it because he knows these things himself. He talks about a “menswaardige” way of life for the Black people. He is absolutely right, but unfortunately the policies and practices do not lend themselves to the “menswaardige” life the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks all of us should be leading in South Africa.

I understand that nothing has yet been done to set up that negotiating committee. Several months have gone by, and I believe it is a very important matter. The hon. the Minister replied to a question of mine in the House and said that nothing had yet been done. I do know that the hon. the Deputy Minister has called for suggestions to be made on the question of pass laws, or rather the reference book laws, as to how those matters could be alleviated. I am sure he has been bombarded with suggestions and memoranda from all sources.

I am being aided by these suggestions.

Well, I am glad to hear that, because the real trouble is the law itself. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that aid centres do a good job. I was very pleased to see that the number of prosecutions under the reference book laws have diminished.

Do you remember how you opposed them here in 1964?

No, that was on a very different basis. I did not oppose the last Bill; I opposed the first one because the Minister was taking all sorts of powers unto himself for those aid centres.

You opposed this …

I did not. Do you want to take a small bet on that? You will lose your money! [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister, Sir, that I may be getting old, but my memory is still better than his. The point is that I did oppose the first Bill because he was taking too great powers unto himself. The second Aid Centres Bill I supported with reservations, but I supported it in principle. I said I would give it a Chance to work, and the Deputy Minister knows that. His predecessor even thanked me.

As I was saying, Sir, the pass arrests diminished by 100 000 over the period 1971-’72 to 1972-’73. That is something to be grateful for, but we must also remember that the number of people still being prosecuted is monumental. It is 660 000, according to the last Police report. It is monumental, and my head reels when I think of totting up all the people who have been arrested under these laws and who have spent a night in gaol. I suppose three-quarters of the Black population of this country must have seen the inside of a gaol at one stage or another. And, Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that computerizing the laws, streamlining the laws, is not going to help. The only thing he can do is to change the laws. I do not think he can do it overnight; he has got to phase it out. He has got to improve conditions in the rural areas, not only in the homelands but on the White farms as well, so that there is not an urge on the part of the Black farm labourer, because he is paid such a small amount in cash, to seek a better economic life in the cities. Then, Sir, he might have a chance of holding the situation. It is the only way in which he can possibly do it.

One of the things I learnt when talking to the Africans is their desperation over the housing situation. Take Soweto as an example. The hon. the Minister, in reply to a question, told me that the waiting list for Soweto was 5 400 families, but he made no mention of the secondary list, which contains over 8 500 families. These are all people waiting for housing. Those on the first list are the lucky ones, the section 10(1)(a) Africans. They have first pick of the available houses. Then we have the subsidiary list, in which we have the rest of the section 10 Africans, the ones who have been in the area for 15 years continuously or who have worked for one employer for ten years. 8 500 plus 5 400 gives you a total of something like 14 000 families, legitimately in the urban area, who are awaiting houses. Soweto is rapidly becoming a slum because where must these people live who are all working in the urban areas? They live as lodgers all over the area and the houses are all overcrowded. Everybody knows what happens. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is not ownership that turns places into slums as he mistakenly seems to think when he talks of places like Alexandra Township and others being slums. It is not ownership of the property which is causing this, but lack of accommodation.

I am not so sure of that.

Of course it is. It is for that reason that we have to build houses. I am horrified to learn that it is contemplated, and indeed it has already been agreed to in some cases, that there is going to be a rise in the rentals of those houses in Soweto and in all the other houses which fall under the West Rand Board and elsewhere. These rises are contemplated. The hon. the Minister was cross with me, though I do not know why, because of what I said when the Press asked me what I thought of the proposals. I said that I thought that it was a terrible idea and that I was going to raise it in Parliament. Yet he was cross with me and he asked me what I meant by saying that I was going to raise it in Parliament. Is this not the place to raise a thing like that? I am raising it in Parliament and I ask the hon. the Minister to freeze these rentals. I am pleading with him not to put them up. One and a half million people are involved in the West Rand Board area alone and there are other boards, as he told me yesterday, who have also applied for increases. I know that costs have gone up, but there are other ways of meeting costs. Why should the housing of the lowest income group not be subsidized? I have never understood that. Subsidize these schemes and if necessary divert the 80% of the money earned by European liquor in the urban areas which go to build up the homelands. Leave that money in the urban areas and subsidize from that. Subsidize from general revenue. The City Council of Johannesburg used to subsidize rentals to the tune of at least R1 million per year, if not more. To subsidize these schemes is the sensible thing to do because these people are fighting a losing battle against the cost of living. The price of food alone has gone up by 17% during last year. These people cannot cope. Wages have gone up, but we all know that they started at such a low level that even an increase of 50% does not bring the vast majority of those people even to the minimum subsistence level. This is a cause of tremendous dissatisfaction and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to freeze the rentals in the urban areas. I ask him to subsidize the rentals from general revenue. Those people are workers and all of us are benefiting from their work. Let the taxpayers in South Africa subsidize those rentals. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the amount required for the shortfall in rents in Soweto is something like R2 million. According to the estimates of the West Rand Board, there is a shortfall of about R3¼ million but on the rents alone the shortfall is about R2 million. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that that amount equals one day’s expenditure on defence. This will cover the amount of the additional rents proposed in Soweto for one whole year and in doing so you can keep one and a half million people from frustration and rage. That can be done by spending an amount which equals one day’s defence expenditure. I would say that that would be the cost of one jet. Let me tell hon. members that we shall buy more security for South Africa with that R2 million than we shall buy with that one extra jet. I ask the hon. the Minister to give the most serious consideration to the housing shortage and to the freezing of rentals in the urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard the usual and very naïve story from the hon. member for Houghton. It was meant well, but it is very clear that she does not understand the essence of the problem of the Black man. She said we should take a look at the wages being paid on the farms, for they were so low that the Bantu were streaming to the urban areas. I hope she will rise in this House one day and tell us what the people in Houghton, in her constituency, pay their workers. She speaks of everyone but her own people. It is high time she gave us some illustration of what those wonderful voters of hers are doing in this regard. If she were to do this we would at least have an example, and I think that this is a reasonable request. I hope she will give this her attention.

I cannot refer to all the matters she touched on. The hon. the Minister and my hon. colleague will certainly give those matters their attention too. The question of housing, for example, is a real problem about which my colleague can give her more information. The hon. member said here that we were moving people around for ideological reasons. I want to ask her whether she is aware of conditions in areas such as Doornkop, from where the people were moved recently, and whether she has acquainted herself with the conditions in Kromkrans near Carolina, from where the people are going to be moved. I am telling the hon. member that the people living there are going to be moved because the social conditions and health conditions prevailing there are absolutely impossible. That is the principal motive behind this. When these people are moved, they are moved to their own people where they can live under much improvd conditions. With her tirade, her party and the liberal newspapers, the hon. member is trying to denounce us on the Government side as a group of people who are unsympathetic towards the problems of these people, and move people to and fro at will. I think they should get rid of that approach and really acquaint themselves with matters. At one time the hon. member created a major drama out of Dimbaza, the so-called squatters’ camp in which we provided reasonable accommodation for the people who were living all over in hovels and gravel-pits on the roadsides. It was not sophisticated accommodation because the country cannot afford it. She never came back and said what was wrong with Dimbaza, but we have a major drama about Dimbaza each time.

They have no jobs.

Now she says the people have no jobs. We are providing jobs for those people through the agency of the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation about which she delivered another major tirade. I do not want to elaborate any further on what she said.

†I just want to mention the question she raised about the summit meeting we had in Pretoria. No committee to be formed was involved. The decision taken there was that these people could come back and that this matter of the urban Bantu could then be placed on the agenda. That is the position.

*I should like to refer to other previous speakers, and especially to the hon. member I want to call “Mr. Port St. Johns”. Never before has anything happened in the country to make his face beam and his eyes light up to the extent the case of Port St. Johns did, because politically he was so bankrupt. Fortunately he has now found someone to precede him in the debate on Bantu affairs. I want to tell the hon. member at once that where the leader of the Transkei, Chief Matanzima, spoke of “promises”, it was just their manner of putting a case. It is a broad approach, as they saw it, that in terms of the 1936 Act they should get land because it was promised to the Black people, as we have previously stated as well. I want to tell the hon. member that no agreement was entered into with Chief Matanzima or anyone else that they would obtain so much land in exchange for independence. There is positively nothing of this kind and he should put it out of his mind.

Who should put it out of his mind?

You.

But I never said anything of the kind.

The hon. member maintains time after time that behind the scenes we have some agreement in this regard, and I want him to for get all about it. The Transkei will in fact get its share of what is left of the allocation in terms of the 1936 Act, but where that share will be, will be discussed in this Parliament.

When?

Next year. This year we have many other matters we have to deal with, but we shall come to that early next year.

[Inaudible.]

We can tell the hon. member of a whole number of matters we are going to discuss next year, so the hon. member should have a good rest and prepare himself. He should go to Port St. Johns and have a good holiday and, when he returns, we can have many discussions on these matters.

Another small matter I should like to raise—I do not have much time—is something the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to, i.e. that 13% of the land is going to the Black people and 87% to the Whites.

I said it was not a valid argument.

All I want to speak about is the fact that he, as his hon. Leader had done on earlier occasions, asked whether it was fair to have such a division of land. I just want to tell the hon. member that this question of the division of land is a very delicate matter. The division of wealth in general is a delicate matter. One might as well argue about that. We are not the ones who divided the land. I should just like to tell that side of the House this; they have difficulty in getting their policy across to people and they fought an election in which things went badly with them, so they should not try to convince us at this stage to accept their policy when they could not succeed in convincing the electorate to do so. I do not think they should come along now and dump their political fleas onto us. They should keep them, do some thinking, and come along with a better approach. However, I want to state clearly that when we speak of a land allocation of 13%, we should not say that 87% belongs to the Whites, for what about the Coloureds and the Indians? Are they not in South Africa too? After all, they are the people about whom the hon. members on the opposite side raise such a hue and cry and whom they also wanted to bring into the debate yesterday. If 87% of the land remains, that land is for the Indians and the Brown people as well as the Whites. They should not try to send the impression into the world that that land is for the Whites only.

I want to refer hurriedly to this question of the 1936 Act, to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana as well as the hon. member for Edenvale referred. The hon. member for Lichtenburg quoted what was said in 1913, but I do think we should nevertheless put this matter beyond any doubt, particularly in the light of what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, i.e. that the idea with the 1936 Act was that this land was intended for “peasant farmers”. Is that correct?

Yes.

Irrespective of what Gen. Smuts and Gen. Botha said, I now want to read what was said by Gen. Hertzog in Hansard, Vol. 27, col. 4085 of 20 May 1936. He was the then leader of the United Party. In reply to Mr. Gilson he said the following—

That is what Gen. Hertzog said. On the same occasion he went further and said—

Of course the hon. member for Edenvale does not know that such things happened. In col. 4090 Gen. Hertzog said the following in reply to Mr. Marwick—

I do not think we need go back any further in order to obtain more evidence for those people who come along here with naïve pleas and stories and say that is not in the Act. After all, the motivation for an Act is not written into that Act. Consequently we did not expect an argument of this nature from an academic of the calibre of the hon. member.

I want to refer very briefly to the question of consultation with homeland leaders. Through the mouth of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the United Party delivered a fine argument, very interestingly and dramatically presented, as to why separate development had failed. There is one particular aspect, however, to which they give a great deal of attention lately, i.e. that of homelands. They said of them, firstly, that they would not work and, secondly, that the leaders were stooges and worthless. Subsequent to that the Progressive Party, and then the United Party, too, accepted the idea of homelands. This idea is a very important component part of separate development. In their policy they accepted the homelands as political units, and they also accepted that the homelands had political leaders who spoke on behalf of every people. They are over-eager to consult those people, to such an extent that I shall furnish more details on that on another occasion. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is aware of the embarrassment this situation caused him. To be specific, the leader of his party in the Transvaal conducted an indaba at Mahlabatini and made an announcement without his knowledge. It was a meaningless announcement, but those very same people who want to suggest that the policy has failed, are now over-eager. Not only are they over-eager, they are also crying on the shoulders of the Black leaders. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer in passing to the speech the hon. member for Griqualand East made here this afternoon. With that speech he left no doubt that he is still anchored to the days of colonialism, for in these times in which we are living, he is actually still speaking of the Bantu homelands as “reserves”. As far as I know, reserves are large enclosures in which we keep animals and baboons, most definitely not people. I should like to have that hon. member’s attention when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is through talking to him. I am speaking of the reference made by the hon. member for Griqualand East to Bantu homelands as reserves. I feel that the reference to the homelands as “reserves” is most definitely not aimed at creating better human relations between the Bantu and the Whites. I want to appeal to that hon. member …

That was the term which was used in 1936.

That legislation was enacted in 1936. Since then our idiomatic expressions have undergone a complete change. You will recall that there were terms which were in general use in 1936. I do not want to read them out here, but we know them. Today they are no longer in common usage. I think it is time the United Party, too, realized that we speak to these people in a different idiom today than we did in 1936.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke very derogatorily of the attempt being made by the various corporations to uplift the Bantu in the economic sphere. I do not want to reply to everything she said here. We are used to her being so negative towards Government policy that she is unable to see anything we do in an objective light. So I shall leave her at that.

I want to point out, however, that these corporations are doing a very great and important job of work in the Bantu homelands. I want to refer to the Xhora Development Corporation in particular. One of its most important tasks is to make the Black man in the Transkei and the Ciskei knowledgeable in the sphere of economic management and administration. Its function is not only to create a physical infrastructure in the Transkei and the Ciskei, a structure on which businesses may be built; it is also creating a human infrastructure by making people who in fact have an agrarian background knowledgeable in respect of sophisticated business methods and so forth. In due course I shall try to indicate by means of figures what the Xhosa Development Corporation is doing in this regard. Of course, we can theorize till the cows come home about whether enough is being done. The fact remains that this very important aspect of the implementation of our policy is indeed enjoying attention, considering the circumstances under which it has to be implemented. I have already said that we are dealing here with people who were essentially farmers, who have an agrarian background. These are people to whom we have to teach the principle of business administration and management from the very beginning. When we consider the aims of the XDC and what it has already achieved, we have to agree that it is in fact succeeding in attaining this objective.

Firstly, let us consider what the XDC is doing in the Transkei and the Ciskei. It is helping with the establishment of industrial, commercial, financial and other business undertakings. It assists with the planning, the financing, the co-ordination and the advancement of such undertakings. It offers active financial support, assistance, counselling and advice to Bantu businessmen for the establishment of their own undertakings or the extension of existing undertakings. It offers aid to Bantu companies in regard to financing the establishment of companies, and in many other instances it also offers technical and other expert assistance. In the fourth place, the XDC sets up its own projects in the Transkei primarily to stimulate the economy in the Transkei. These business undertakings and these projects also serve as training media for other Bantu. It also helps White entrepreneurs to establish themselves in the Transkei on an agency basis. In many instances the XDC is also expected to create an infrastructure by means of housing, roads, the provision of water, etc., for those industries it creates there, the business undertakings it creates there. Business loans are made available to these Bantu on a sound business footing, and in addition regular visits are paid to such entrepreneurs. That is very important. These people are not merely provided with money to establish a business undertaking. Regular visits are paid to these entrepreneurs by expert officials of the XDC in order to see whether they have learnt the lessons thoroughly which they have been taught at symposiums and other places, and whether they are able to manage the business undertaking according to the requirements of the XDC.

What about the Ciskei?

I therefore say that the XDC is making an attempt, in a very broad spectrum, to serve as an economic stimulus, particularly in respect of these young economies which are getting themselves off the ground.

Let us just have a look at the spectrum in which they are operating. We take, for example, the Black farming projects. They are concerned in the marketing of hides and skins which are obtained from outlying trading stations. There is a ploughing unit which helps the Bantu with their ploughing on a part-time basis. Their business activities include a wholesale concern which had a turnover of more than R6 million last year. At this stage there are already more than 500 retail concerns in the Transkei which are managed and run by Bantu. There are construction units which render assistance in the building of houses, etc. While we are dealing with it, let us look at this point. The hon. member for Houghton called into question the figures which were furnished to her by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member has before her a report that is two or three years old. She cannot base her arguments on that. The last report she has there of the XDC covers the period up to the end of March 1972. The total number of jobs created by the XDC up to the end of March 1974, the direct provision of employment by the XDC, is 13 758 jobs for Bantu. I have to tell the hon. member again that this means that a further 13 758 jobs will be created in tertiary industries. For each person employed in primary industry, another job comes into being elsewhere. That means that at this stage there are already 27 516 jobs of this kind. If we then bear in mind that between five and six people are dependent on the salary paid in one job, we find that there are 165 000 people in the Transkei alone who have a better deal due to the activities of the XDC.

What about the Ciskei?

Sir, if we look at the creation of infrastructures by the XDC, we find that, up to 31 August 1974, it invested over R8 million in the creation of infrastructures in the Transkei and the Ciskei. In respect of assistance to Bantu businessmen, the following loans were approved for businesses and housing: Up to the end of March 1974, R7 806 000 was made available to Bantu businessmen for use in starting businesses. Finally I want to mention that the XDC already has R40 million in capital at its disposal. Sir, this is indeed a fine undertaking which deserves the prase of all of us, if we want to view what is being done in this particular regard objectively.

Sir, the hon. member for Cradock rebuked me for having used the word “reserves” with reference to the homelands. I see nothing wrong with the word “reserves”. After all, it is an historical description of the land because it was set aside or reserved for Bantu occupation. I am glad that the hon. member is so sensitive about change, because I well remember the days when the officials of Minister Maree were not allowed to shake hands with Black officials, but now they all fall over themselves to grab their hands.

Sir, as far as the hon. member for Lichtenburg is concerned, he quoted at length to us from the 1913 debate in an endeavour to prove—I do not know for what purpose —that Gen. Botha and Gen. Hertzog supported separate development in that they envisaged independent states, if I understood the hon. member correctly. Is that right? Other hon. members over there are nodding their heads; the hon. member sits quietly because he sees that I have a Hansard in front of me. Sir, I want to read out what Gen. Botha said in that debate; I had read this before. He said (Hansard, 1913, col. 2518) “he was quite in favour of a policy under which the Natives, when separated from the Whites, should have a measure of self-government under White supervision”. He went on to say—

There was no question of complete independence. Sir, in 1936, when the legislation was discussed, Gen. Hertzog said the same thing. He said that they the Bantu would govern themselves under the umbrella of the Central Government.

What about evolution since then?

I do not know, Sir, whether the Nationalists are not trying to give us the fatherhood of their present policy. Are they trying to say now that Gen. Botha, when he was the leader of the old South African Party, fathered this policy and that we are responsible for the present policy, in the same way as Dr. Verwoerd took over the policy of Dr. Phillips?

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Lichtenburg misunderstood the point that I was making in my questions about the 1936 land. I am not interested, in this discussion, in the use to which that land has to be put. I was discussing the where-abouts of the land. Chief Kaiser Matanzima has asked specifically for the land promised in 1936 and for Elliot. Maclear, Matatiele and Mount Currie. He treats them as separate entities, and that is why I wan to know what the Minister understands by the 1936 land deal. That is what I want the hon. the Minister to tell us.

He told you.

He did not tell us. He said that this Parliament would decide the land issue. Chief Kaiser Matanzima wants to know; he is claiming particular land and we want to know what land it is. Sir, as far as the use of the land is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in answer to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, quoted from Gen. Hertzog’s speech in 1936; but what did Gen. Hertzog say? He said—

He did not say anything else. The intention then was that it was to be peasant land. Then he also said—

What does “govern themselves” mean?

I do not know why the hon. the Deputy Minister grabs at words like these used by Gen. Hertzog to try to prove that the land was meant for some other purpose. Sir, when I addressed the Committee yesterday, I was refreshing the Minister’s memory about the conditions attaching to the Transkei independence agreement. We appreciate that the discussions of the consultative committees cannot be held in public, but I do think it is only right that this House and the public should know what is being envisaged and that we should not be met with an ultimatum or, indeed, with a fait accompli. This Prime Minister is no doubt in a better position than Bishop Muzorewa who negotiated a settlement with Mr. Ian Smith and then when he put it to his people, it was rejected. The Prime Minister has the assurance that he will get the support of his members of Parliament no matter what he does, but I want to warn him that if there is any misunderstanding about the agreement and there should be a variance of the agreement in this House after a settlement is made with Kaiser Matanzima, it would only result in ill-feeling and dispute between the two legislative assemblies and the people themselves. Nevertheless, I say that this Parliament is entitled to know what the hon. the Prime Minister intends. I asked him about this on 10 September. He did not reply directly to my question about the land, but he did say quite clearly that the Government’s responsibility to the Whites in the Transkei would be maintained after the Transkei became independent.

But we want to know what about the Blacks living outside the Transkei and who according to Government legislation are Transkei citizens. What sort of guarantee will they get as to their rights when the Transkei becomes independent?

The bland assurance of looking after the Whites is not good enough. The Government’s procedure for setting aside land for the Transkei is too slow and cumbersome. I know we are going to be told that it is in terms of the law and that we have to proceed in this way through the Select Committee, but of course the Government could take more speedy action. Take the position of Port St. Johns, Elliot, Maclear and Matatiele. These people were told in December that this land might be taken over for Black occupation. For ten months now they have been left in suspense.

How much land is under consideration in all these areas?

It does not matter how much land is in that area. Some of the people in that area have been told that they will lose their land, and promises were made to all of them that the land would not be taken from them. Those promises were made by Ministers. Previously, as I say, those assurances were given that they would not go Black, but now they do not know what their position is. If it is to go Black, it would be a breach of promise on the part of the Government, in regard to Port St. Johns especially, and therefore if the area is zoned for Black occupation, the Government should give an undertaking now that it will buy out immediately any White person who wishes to sell. In the meantime, While the White Government makes up its mind. Port St. Johns waits and it will be over a year before they will know what their position is. To show what is happening in Port St. Johns I just want to quote one paragraph from a thick memorandum submitted by the municipality of Port St. Johns to the Minister. It says this—

That is not good enough, Sir. The Government should tell these people what they intend doing.

Now, the hon. the Prime Minister also reassured the Whites and the Coloureds living in the Transkei that they would not lose their citizenship of the Republic unless they chose to become citizens of the Transkei. But what about the Black Transkeians who enjoy as of right citizenship of the Republic? Are they to be given a choice as to which citizenship they can enjoy? Those who were regarded by this Government as being Transkeians because of birth, domicile, language or membership of an associated linguistic group, will they all be forced to accept Transkeian citizenship?

Those are the people living permanently outside the Transkei. Are they to be given a choice, and are they in fact going to be consulted on what is to happen to them?

Sir, in moving the resolution in the Transkeian Assembly, Chief Kaiser Matanzima mentioned a number of advantages which independence would bring. The hon. the Prime Minister did not read those out to us; he just referred to them, but I want to remind hon. members of what Chief Matanzima said. He said—

Is this true? This is what he said would happen once the Transkei got independence.

Where do you read that?

It was a report of the discussion in the Transkeian Assembly. The Minister cannot deny that. Does he deny it?

No.

Then keep quiet. Sir, is influx control to go by the board now? This question of freedom of movement is a pressing one, because it is amazing how many people in the Transkei think that once they become independent they will be free to move where they like. They expect separate freedom. They understood when Dr. Verwoerd brought in separate freedoms it meant that they would be able to go where they liked. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must forgive me if I do not reply to his argument on Port St. Johns.

He was talking nonsense; don’t reply to him ever.

Yes, one can only reply to nonsense with nonsense, and therefore I may as well leave it at that.

I think it is my duty to make certain announcements to the Committee in reply to what was said by the hon. member for Houghton and also to other things that were said, as well as with reference to last year’s debate, in an attempt to see in this way whether we can find a working method somewhere or whether it will be possible for us, in a difficult situation for South Africa in the world, a situation becoming ever more difficult, to proceed with positive things. Things which will disappear in the totality of recorded history should rather be left aside, even if these include things which can be debated, and in this regard I am referring specially to a question such as Port St. Johns. I think that in the situation in which South Africa together with all its people finds itself at present we should try to avoid a situation where one cannot see the wood for the trees. Perhaps I too, see these minor problems sometimes. In the daily work I have to do it is unfortunately true that the smaller human problems often take up more of one’s attention than do the greater things with which one should be occupying one’s time.

I think there are a few truths which are indisputable and must to my mind be acknowledged while we as South Africans form in this House the Government of the country over all the people of South Africa. The Government controls the destinies of the people of South Africa, and we who are sitting in this House must face certain things amongst ourselves. This afternoon I want to speak frankly about a few of these things.

It is, after all, very easy to demolish an argument by saying that it is only a Nationalist speaking there; that he is advancing an ideological argument and that I repudiate him on that basis. One cannot reason arguments away by merely using words and labelling people with them. The truth remains the truth, irrespective of whether it is expressed by a Christian, by a heathen, by a member of the same party, or by an opponent. There are truths which we shall simply have to face in this country. If we want to see those basic truths clearly, I think we will find the time, even though we may disagree in the meantime, also to find the solutions or to work along lines on which it will be possible to bring about solutions. I say “solutions” and not “a solution”, for in ethnic relationships it is not always possible to get an absolute and complete answer. When borders are discussed here, it astonished me that we who are sitting in the Government and Opposition benches do not want to acknowledge the fact that through the ages there has never been a final solution that has held true for all the peoples of the world. Why were the Second World War and the First World War fought, and why is there a threat of another war? Surely it is a fact that there has always been friction among all peoples and countries. The one who denies that this will also be the case in the future will be denying what history has taught him and what he ought to know. There are problems which one can solve; there are other problems with which can only cope.

I think that in this respect there are a few things on which we can reach consensus, to use the old word again. I know that exception used to be taken to this word, but I use it unashamedly. Today, too, the word “consensus” has proved to be the truth again. We should not reproach one another with who found it out first or who took over the other one’s politics. On one thing we have already reached unanimity, and we may as well start with those simple truths.

As people of South Africa we have decided that it is our joint duty to ensure that the homelands, the fatherland, or whatever we wish to call them, be developed to the maximum of their potential as rapidly as possible. On that we are unanimous. We must find a working method by which we may render this objective possible. Why should we argue about it, why should we quarrel about it and say that this should be a starting-point or that a growth point when the predominating idea should be that those people who had their original homes in that country and whose people are living in that country should be made as happy as possible as soon as possible? On a previous occasion I said in this House, and I want to repeat it today, that the homelands should not be used as a dumping ground.

†I want to repeat that. I was quoted as saying that, but the quotation stopped short. So I want to repeat what I said and what I added to that. On the same occasion I said that the time had come for us to realize that White areas also could not be used as the dumping ground for the Blacks of this country or for any other people.

Those words were not given enough emphasis, and I therefore want to repeat them with reference to what I heard from my colleague from Houghton a moment ago. Doringkop is one example, and there are many others of places in White South Africa which were being used as dumping grounds for the Blacks. People chased them away from their farms and were guilty in doing so, but the Blacks themselves moved in without any authority whatsoever and they too were thus flouting the law.

Why not leave the land-owners and remove the others?

I shall reply to that immediately. What would the hon. member for Houghton have said had we acted in that way when this land at Doringkop was owned y Black people who allowed these people to move in? Would she have approved that I sent in the Police to evict them from the place and to take them away by force? Would she have agreed to that?

The land-owners themselves …

Let me go further. The hon. member knows, or she ought to know, that at present people are moving in illegally into Alexandra. Will she agree if I ask the Police tomorrow to take them away?

I do not like these removals at all. I thought I had made that clear.

Yet in the same breath she said that we should act against those owners. I shall be coming to that. However, I do not want to quarrel with her. I merely want to ask her for her co-operation in reaching some sort of agreement upon which we can act positively and attain something.

*The second phase which we discussed and on which we reached consensus in this House was that as long as this country was what it was, as long as Blacks and Whites were in many respects living together and living in mixed residential areas—I have said this before and I accept the responsibility for it—we had to accept that this would be the case for years, and in those years— whether it is one year, 100 years or 1 000 years—we have to create, maintain and develop the happiest relationships possible. In the first place there is the question of ethnic relationships in respect of which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development have shown us the way. They said we could negotiate with peoples, as we are doing at present.

†In passing I might just mention to the hon. member for Houghton as well that there was never an agreement on the appointment of a committee to discuss the matters of the urban Bantu. The only thing that was agreed upon, and a statement was issued to that effect, was that the hon. the Prime Minister and my hon. Minister agreed to meet the Bantu homeland leaders to discuss with them the whole “vexed question”, as it was called, of the urban Bantu. No decision was taken about a standing committee which was to be formed to discuss these matters at length.

Have they met again?

Apart from ethnic relationships, a point I still want to deal with today, there is a second level on which we must of necessity conduct dialogue. Dialogue has become a fashionable word to us, but it can also become a swearword to us if we merely use it as a political argument and do not accept the full consequences of what we are saying. Dialogue between peoples would mean nothing if dialogue did not take place on the local level between communities as well. By that I mean that the Blacks, too, in their local circumstances, whatever those circumstances may be, i.e. whether they are temporary or permanent—I myself never use those words —should be consulted and should become our fellow-travellers. We are working in that direction. I readily almit that many shortcomings do still exist. We have undertaken various experiments, and now we are trying, again through the Bantu administration boards, to have these liaison committees, especially through the deputies of the homelands.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what dialogue there is between his Government and the urban Bantu?

I can tell the hon. member straight away that on the instructions of the hon. the Minister and with his full knowledge I have been investigating this area over the past year. I have had discussions with Bantu leaders, although perhaps not as many as other members may have had, and those Bantu leaders concerned will tell you about the meetings we have been having.

*I shall give a full account of this matter to any person who wishes to come and consult me on it in my office. My office doors are open to any such person. Let me also tell the hon. member for Houghton that I was not angry with her. I do not get angry. I was only telling her and a newspaper— therefore not only her—that I thought it was unnecessary for our people to run to the newspapers every now and then in order to make dramatic announcements and statements. Do that in Parliament, yes, but do not make such a fuss about it and do not make dramatic announcements. We can fight without saying beforehand that we are going to swing punches.

I think we may assume that liaison with the homelands and related matters are going to be handled in accordance with the policy of the National Party for the next few years. I just want to mention this briefly this afternoon because in my opinion all the various parties in this House must take congnizance of these things. During the past year, since the establishment of the Bantu administration boards, certain serious bottlenecks have become evident among the urban population, and these must be faced and tackled by us now. I am going to mention these bottlenecks very briefly to you.

In the first place, these people in the cities have not been grouped ethnically as I should have liked to see it in order that they may be integrated fully with their respective homelands. We must undertake that process of sorting out for the sake of practical problems such as school attendance, etc. In the years ahead we Shall have to effect ordering in respect of these people, also because racial clashes occur even where they as Black people live in areas shared by various ethnic groups.

I want to mention a second bottleneck. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned this bottleneck, and I said a truth is a truth irrespective of whether it was uttered by a supporter or by an opponent. Any person from this side of the House, or from any side whatever, who denies that there is a serious housing shortage is denying a simple truth. I want to say this to the House and also the country so that we may accept responsibility for it. Serious situations, sociological abuses and other abuses, may arise if these housing shortages are not tackled with all the energy and enterprise at our command. I want to add that I can express thanks to bodies such as Iscor and others which have provided their employees with facilities of this nature. Now I want to put one question to the conscience of the people of South Africa: In past years we made a room, a bathroom and other facilities available in our back-yard for the Bantu servant who worked in our kitchen. Why should we now shift the full responsibility for this housing onto the Government? Let us say to the people of South Africa: Because you did not want to have those people there, we took them out of your back-yards so that they would not be there on Sundays as as well as on other days; now pay at least the increased house-rent of the one or of the six working for you when that rent is increased.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Why do you not apply that same policy to domestic workers because, when householders provide them with accommodation, you try and move them?

We are working in that direction where accommodation need not necessarily be reserved. But this should not be subsidized by the Government. Why must we have a law or a regulation before an employer is willing merely to subsidize his worker, in the light of increased electricity and other tariffs? Why cannot we do it out of the goodness of our own hearts? Why must we always cry to high heaven about what other people should do if we can do these things ourselves?

What do you mean by “we”?

All of us— the Government, you and me.

*I want to go further. People should please be realistic when talking about overcrowding. I want to tell the hon. member that the conditions are even worse than she herself realizes. I want to tell hon. members on this side of the House that outside Pretoria and outside Durban there are thousands upon thousands of people who are living in desperate circumstances. Those people went there not because this Government had moved them there, but because a homeland government allowed them to be there. Does the hon. member suggest that we should prosecute them for allowing these people there as she did previously? Reference was made to family accommodation, but I want to ask them again whether they are prepared to build a city for 750 000 people near Cape Town at this stage, or are they not prepared to do so? This will have to happen if they merely want to bring the family of the contract workers here. Are they prepared to build that city here? The attitude adopted by this side of the House is, firstly, that those who are present lawfully should be accommodated.

My time has almost expired, but I do want to sound one serious warning. Some of our Whites in South Africa are aggravating this situation in a manner which should give them a conscience. Safeguards do exist in terms of section 10, and there are many Bantu who are here lawfully in terms of existing laws and regulations. But we Whites have allowed thousands upon thousands of Black people to pour into the White areas. We have also allowed them to have contempt for the word of the White man who helped them as Black people to break the law. They thought they could trust the White man, whose word they took. However, the Police came and fetched them. They did not come and fetch the White man, but the Black man. What is more, the prisons were full and we could not afford it. The White people were content to sit back and say that the Bantu might as well be put in prison. It is all very well to talk about facilities for the Bantu in urban areas, but is it not possible for us to appeal to the conscience of White South Africa to create anew in the minds of the Black people respect for justice and justness and respect for the word of the White man by setting the example and by not breaking the laws wilfully? I want to admit that there are many things making it difficult for us to understand this at all times. For that reason the position is being investigated fully with a view to simplifying this legislation relating to registration. Last year I made a promise and I hope that I shall be able to fulfil it this year. However, I can say now that difficulties have unfortunately cropped up. We have, however, received suggestions from numerous quarters, from opponents and from supporters, and I hope we shall be able to start early next year with the first phasing-out stage, to which the hon. member for Houghton referred.

†I can make an announcement in this regard and tell this Committee that a decision was recently taken in regard to foreign Bantu. Prior to 1963 a moratorium was granted to these people to stay on. Many of them were prosecuted afterwards because they did not make use of the opportunity. It has now been decided, and I have a copy of the circular here, to instruct all senior officials of the department to deal with these cases individually and as sympathetically as possible, to allow them to stay here without paying the R20 deposit as a repatriation fee and to legalize their position. I want to appeal to all to please assist in legalizing the position of those whom you know are illegally in the employ of yourselves or your neighbours at this moment in White South Africa. We will try to help those people who came here innocently looking for employment. We are not throwing the gates open, but we will try to assist them to get their position legalized. If we do have to send them to the homelands we will, regrettably, have to do so in the interests of the country as a whole. But at least they will be free of the fear of being prosecuted, they will be free of the fear of having to pay the penalty for the luxury of the White man and woman who take advantage of them by employing them and then having them sent to jail.

*I want to conclude with these words: The hon. member for Transkei referred to consultation a moment ago. How have we been consulting with them? I have consulted with them at conferences, on various occasions I have consulted with members on both sides of the House of Assembly, with Mr. Moolman, a former member of this House, and with Opposition parties. We attended a meeting together with the hon. member for Transkei. He is aware of this. I shall go wherever I may be asked to go.

The Sport and Recreation Fund has provided me with one of the finest days I have ever experienced. This happened because I believe that 90% of our Bantu population are still conscientious and law-abiding people. That finest day was Monday last week, when I received a cheque from the East Rand. We received large sums for the Sport and Recreation Fund. However, I also received a cheque from a small Bantu area just outside Germiston. Of their own accord, without any encouragement from Whites, the children of the Black people collected money, which was subsequently sent to us.

†There were no strings attached. The amount was R588,36 and was to be spent by this sports fund. I think that means more than R5 million from a mining company or from the Whites of South Africa.

*And this is the kind of thing we can achieve if the one does not make the other seem suspect, in the eyes of these people. They are people whose confidence we must win and in whom we must inspire confidence. I hope that if specific questions are put to me later on, I shall be able to reply to them. However, this is the picture in so far as we as the National Party see our task.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has pleaded for better relationships amongst people, and we on this side of the House agree with him wholeheartedly. He referred to consensus, to unanimity, as regards homeland development in South Africa. These things exist, for we are just as anxious to develop the homelands as that side of the House is. The hon. the Deputy Minister also said that better human relationships had to be established with the people living in South Africa—I take it he meant White South Africa. I appreciate that statement. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, with all due respect—and I do have great respect for him: If we want to establish better human relationships with these persons, what should be the first requirement that should be set? The first priority is that people should have their families with them. If we want to make use of these peoples’ capacity for work, is it not fair that they should also have their wives and children living with them? Just think of the man who lives in Soweto and wants to work in Johannesburg.

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

Certainly.

I said that there were 88 000 contract labourers in the Cape last year in order to keep the industries going. How does the hon. member think it will be possible to make provision here for 700 000?

Mr. Chairman, once again this is a case of either this or that. The Government does not make any provision for it in any case. Surely it is contrary to their interests that these people should have their families with them.

That is not correct.

In that case, is it their policy that the Black people may have their families with them?

That is the policy.

If that is so, when did your policy change? If that is the new policy, I ask the hon. member for Waterberg whether he agrees. Does the leader in the Transvaal agree with that?

Ask Olivier.

I want to ask the Minister, the Minister himself. Does he agree? May the urban Bantu have their families with them? May they do this or not? What is the second basic thing that one wants? It is to own a piece of property of one’s own. Would it be so wrong if he were able to buy a small house of his own in his parallel native township? If the agitators should want to burn down that place, that man would stand to lose something. Therefore it would also be in his interests to maintain law and order in South Africa.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does the hon. member know that through all these years the Bantu had no rights of ownership in the homelands, not even under their chieftainships? Does he know that the vast majority of them did not have such rights?

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to tell me that two wrongs make one right. No, Sir, we as the leaders must set the example. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to tell me that we should not do this. Surely this is the basic human facility which one claims to oneself.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, hon. members just want to waste my time. I shall allow the hon. the Minister to put questions, but not that hon. member.

Are you prepared to give the Bantu ownership on your own farm?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana told the Government here that its philosophy could not work. That is where the difference between us and that side of the House lies. We are facing the facts of South Africa, and this is what that side of the House do not want to do. These are the facts. There are 22 million people in South Africa. We cannot get away from this fact. Our destinies have been thrown together. Together we shall rise or together we shall be destroyed. The challenge to any person who calls himself a statesman is to work out a system whereby Black, White and Brown will be able to live together happily in the country of their birth. The challenge is that each group retain its own identity.

Hear, hear!

Each group should be able to arrange its own affairs, but in spite of that all those groups should be united in common objectives and show a common loyalty, a common patriotism in respect of one common fatherland, South Africa. That is the challenge. Can the National Party accept that challenge? No, Sir, they have abdicated; they have thrown in the towel long ago. They have admitted that they cannot govern 21 million people. They want to ignore their responsibility. They want to divide and break up South Africa. They want to retreat to a smaller South Africa.

You cannot even govern 41 people.

After they have retreated to a smaller South Africa, what will they actually have solved? This smaller South Africa will certainly not have fewer problems than we have at the moment. What are the facts? There are 8 million Bantu in the so-called White South Africa. There are only 6,9 million Bantu in the homelands. Even if we should give them all the independence they want, we should have done nothing to solve the problem, for there are 8 million Bantu in White South Africa and they will always be here. In fact, as we develop, their numbers will increase. No farmer can farm without Bantu labour; no industrialist can produce without Bantu labour; no mine can produce without Bantu labour.

Sir, we desperately need Bantu labour. Does the hon. the Minister think that he is going to solve any problems by granting independence to them in their homelands? Does he think that they are going to make fewer demands? Does he think that the Bantu will be satisfied if one tells them that they can lead their family life in a foreign country, or that they will be satisfied if one tells them that they may own homes of their own in a foreign country? Does he think that the Bantu will be less insistent in demanding the franchise if one grants them the franchise in a foreign country? If that is the case, surely we may as well tell the English-speaking people that they can go and vote in England. Would they be satisfied with that? Would people of German descent living in South Africa be satisfied if we were to tell them that they could go and vote in Germany?

You can go and vote in Holland.

Sir, we would be saddled with the same demands if we granted them independence and we would not solve one single problem by doing so. But what we are in fact doing is to create tremendous problems, because the Government has instilled the idea into the Bantu peoples that White, Brown and Black cannot live together in one country; that the Bantu must be thrown out of South Africa and that they must become independent. But, Sir, what about these people’s land demands? For we must remember that not one of the Bantu leaders accepts the Government’s land deal, not a single one of them. Not one of them accepts the 1936 arrangement, not a single one of them. Kaiser Matanzima, as the hon. member for Griqualand East said here the other day, said that within five years he wanted the land granted under the 1936 legislation, and he added this—

He demands more and more land every time. Sir, what does a front-bencher in the Transkeian Legislative Council, Mr. Tshunungwa, have to say? He said—

Sir, can the Government appreciate What seeds they are sowing?

What would happen under your federation?

Sir, I want to read out to you what their land demands are—

This report goes on to say—

Are your farms included?

Sir, then we come to the Ciskei—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this Committee is accustomed to the emotional deliveries of the hon. member for King William’s Town. All the questions he put here have already been answered time and again. In a very emotional manner he has stated here that the White man, the Brown man and the Black man must live together. Sir, that is the ideal which the world likes to pursue, but this has never worked out in practice. After all, we have had the object-lesson in Africa, where even federations were put to the test and failed. Sir, I think that I have now replied adequately to the hon. member.

Sir, I would like to confine myself more specifically to the corporations. Yesterday the hon. the Minister furnished certain facts here in regard to the various corporations, the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation as well as the Bantu Mining Corporation, and he praised them for the work being done in the homelands and for their contribution to the economic development of the homelands. In the same way the hon. member for Cradock spoke here specifically about the Xhosa Development Corporation.

Sir, these corporations deserve the tribute paid to them for the splendid development work being done by them in the homelands. Recently the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation also entered the agricultural industry, which is very commendable, because the agricultural industry plays a very important role in the Bantu homelands. It makes the biggest single contribution to taxes and the provision of employment in the economy of the homelands. The efforts of the agriculture division of the Department of Bantu Administration have proved that a slight increase in farming production provides a major stimulus for the economy as a whole. In the past large investments were also made by the Department of Bantu Administration, and this was done throughout all the homelands in the Republic and South-West Africa. With the implementation of the homeland autonomy the department partly decentralized its administrative and planning function in the departments of agriculture of the homelands in question.

The agriculture divisions of the corporations, of the Bantu Investment Corporation and of the Xhosa Development Corporation, were established in 1973 to bring about the necessary change-over from, essentially, a subsistence economy to a commercial and agricultural economy. The management services will be provided for the existing projects and for the maintenance of the continued productivity of new pieces of land that are required, and also for the development of future large-scale commercial projects.

Before furnishing particulars of the projects offered in the homelands, I just want to pause briefly at the rainfall of the homelands in question. In looking at an analysis of the rainfall chart of the Republic of South Africa, we see that 76% of the total surface area of the homelands is situated in parts with an annual rainfall of 500 mm and more per year, and a rainfall of 500 mm is necessary for effective dry-land farming. Only 35% of South Africa as a whole has an average annual rainfall of 500 mm and more. Of the 27% of South Africa that has a desert climate, only ½% is situated in the homelands. In general the eastern homeland areas have a higher farming potential than the western areas, but then again the latter have far more minerals.

In looking at the livestock industry in the homelands and the role played by the corporations in that regard, we find that there are certain problems which we immediately experience. Let me say at once that the livestock industry in the homelands has a very high potential indeed for future development. Certain problems are being experienced here and have the effect that the turnover of stock in the homelands is less than 7%. In KwaZulu, for instance, it was as low as 1,3% in 1972. This low turnover can be attributed to, inter alia, the following, which I just want to touch on briefly: reluctance on the part of the Bantu to sell stock; the traditional breeding methods, which are outdated as well; inefficient management; the fact that livestock are old when marketed; the low percentage of inorease; and the very high death-rate.

The agriculture divisions of the corporations are going to try to raise stock production by arranging permanent channels of marketing, by selection and breeding programmes, by applying artificial insemination, by castrating and dehorning cattle, by keeping records of the fanning interprise, by controlling disease and by training. To give an example, the agriculture division of the Bantu Investment Corporation has started an extensive unit for largestock farming in Kavango. Provision is being made for water, camps, etc., in order that a herd of breeding cattle consisting of 15 000 cows and 600 bulls may eventually be built up there. Tollies, excess cattle, etc., will be sent to an abattoir at Otavi. This unit will provide approximately 300 Kavango citizens with employment, and training facilities for future stock farmers have been provided. A similar scheme is also being contemplated for the Owambos, and an abattoir will eventually be built in Oshakati at a cost of R800 000.

Intensive production methods will also be shown to the Bantu by providing feed yards for cattle, by providing milk production units, and by establishing a rabbit farm. Secondary industries such as abattoirs, meat and canning factories, etc., can develop here. It is unnecessary for me to emphasize the need for red meat in South Africa with a view to the future. This planning for the future by the various Bantu Investment Corporations is being appreciated very highly, and we hope that it will in due course be instrumental in counteracting the beef shortage in South Africa.

In the second place I come to crop farming. Crop farming has a very great potential in these areas. In 1972 a tea cultivation farm was established in Vendaland by the Bantu Investment Corporation with the aid of White know-how. The estimated development costs amount to R2,75 million, and this sum will be applied oyer a period of eight years. Employment will be provided to approximately 1000 Vendas. As from the twenty-first year the Venda or their organizations will be able to buy 10% of the shares. In this way this cultivation plantation could be controlled by the Venda within 25 years. Such undertakings can also be developed on suitable lands in Gazankulu, Lebowa and KwaZulu. Recently the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu made 620 morgen of irrigation land available to the Bantu Investment Corporation for the development of an extensive irrigation project. Cotton, ground nuts, soya beans, lucerne and winter vegetables can be cultivated there. Initially the project will be controlled as a unit while potential settler-farmers are being trained. Stable cultivation and marketing systems will be developed there. After five years the undertaking will be subdivided into small units, which will be granted to individuals. Thorough control will also be exercised over them. Similar projects are being planned for Bophuthatswana, Gazankulu, the Transkei and the Ciskei. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for King William’s Town. It is true that his speech was one long string of clichés, but he conveyed it to us in a very striking, lively and emotional manner. The hon. member pleaded in his dramatic way that the Bantu should be granted ownership in White areas. I should like to ask the hon. member what the size of the plot should be that the Bantu will be able to obtain here. Would it only be a plot in the Bantu township or would he be a little more accommodating and allow him to have a smallholding, or would he be quite generous and allow him to have a wine farm in the Boland or a sheep farm near Colesberg? Would there be any limit or would all the Bantu, husband, woman and child, have the privilege of obtaining a piece of land— all eight million of them—or would he have any limit restriction so that only the head of the family is allowed to obtain it so that Bantu would not be able to buy land like the Whites? In the case of the Whites it is a fact that a husband, woman and child are able to buy land. Would all the Bantu have the privilege of obtaining some property?

†I listened with very keen interest to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said yesterday. While the hon. member was speaking, the thought went through my mind that the time was long overdue that the hon. member now stopped sniping at us from the sidelines and that a man of his talents, his undoubted talents, should roll up his sleeves and assist us in the tremendous task we have in this country to make the Bantu homelands viable.

What is the pay like?

It is necessary, because if we fail in this task and if we do not succeed in making the Bantu homelands viable and true homelands which will be the spiritual home and the national pride of the Bantu people, I believe there is no future for all of us. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana started his speech by quoting what certain Bantu leaders had said, namely that the policy of the National Party is a discriminatory exercise doomed to failure. The hon. member repeated this with great relish and I gained the impression that he found the words of these Bantu leaders very comforting because this is the second successive speech in which he quoted these words. The hon. member then outlined our policy and pointed out that it was doomed to failure in the economic field and in the political field. In a most effective way the hon. the Minister pointed out the phenomenal progress that has been made in the economic sphere and my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Vryburg, did the same.

I want to refer briefly to the political sphere to analyse policy of the hon. gentleman who finds discrimination so absolutely abhorrent and who points an accusing finger at us and says that our policy is a discriminatory exercise. We do not resent the fact that the hon. member points an accusing finger at us; in fact, we are not blameless paragons of heavenly virtue …

Hear, hear!

… but I believe that it ill behoves the hon. gentleman to accuse us of what he is guilty of. The hon. gentleman should allow us to look at his own policy and the misdeeds of his party and then I believe he will say with Shakespeare: “Oh, my offence is rank, it smells to Heaven!” If there are inherent dangers in our policy—we have never hidden the fact that there are inherent dangers and we have never promised people a Utopia and peace without end—the alternative is not only dangerous, is not only doomed to failure, but is disastrous and suicidal. Hon. members on the other side of the House speak of sharing of power. When will people learn the lesson of Africa that people of various races do not share power; they seize power from one another; they seize power by violent means. How does the United Party want to share power? The United Party says it will have 120 elected members in their federal council, but up to now the hon. members of that party have been rather reluctant to tell us how many of these 120 elected members will be Black. However, in an unguarded moment the hon. member for Durban North, the architect of this policy, in reply to a question, said that he believed that initially no more than five of the 120 elected members would be Black.

He never said any such thing.

The hon. member for Durban North said so. It was reported in the Press. Five members out of 120 means that only 4% of these representatives would be Black. The United Party is now saying to the Blacks that they of the United Party have assessed their worth, that they have placed a value on them and that they are of the opinion that they, the Blacks, who form 80% of the population, are entitled to a 4% representation.

All your figures are wrong.

In that case we would find it most enlightening if the hon. member would kindly provide the correct figures over the floor of the House. This policy is unadulterated, brutal “baasskap”; this is the greatest insult to the dignity of the Black man; this is a discriminatory exercise, in the words of the hon. member, in its most unrefined form. This lunacy is a blueprint for chaos and the road to revolution. The hon. member speaks of a discriminatory exercise and yet he is saying very bluntly to the Bantu: “You cannot be entrusted with your own future; political self-determination is out for you; sovereign independence is not for you.” This morning we heard over the radio that some of the smallest nations in the world, nations like Granada and Guineau Bissau, are getting their independence and a seat in the U.N., but the South African Bantu must settle for less. The hon. member speaks of discrimination and he is prepared to relegate the South African Bantu to an inferior position of minority representation.

*The hon. member must do some soul-searching.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to speak about the urban Bantu. I want to refer in particular to the myth of the detribalized urban Bantu. There are very few Bantu who are not able to say who or what they are and to which people they belong. Only last week I had a look at the census figures for 1970 and more specifically at the figures for the Bantu in the White areas. There I saw a long table: So many indicated that they were Xhosas, so many Zulus, so many Tswanas, and so forth. Only 5%, an insignificant number, were unspecified. I think that if we were to analyse that 5% we would find that many of them would still have some tribalties. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal has accused us on this side of the House of having a policy of unadulterated baasskap which is a blueprint for chaos on the road to revolution. I want to say to the hon. member that he must not regard what he read out here as an actual speech, because what he had to say was unadulterated balderdash devoid of all recognized references and of all factual foundation. He never gave us a single reference in connection with a single thing that he accused members on this side of the House of saying. That hon. member knows that at this time we are sitting in the United Nations with a difficult task. Yet he says that the politics of Africa is the politics of seizing power and holding it. How is the hon. Mr. Pik Botha going to explain that away in the United Nations, seeing that what is said in this House goes all over the world? I think the hon. member should stand aside from himself, look at himself carefully and accuse himself of being a traitor to South Africa for saying so. That hon. member sits on the Bantu Affairs Commission and he talks about us working together, but what is he doing on the Bantu Affairs Commission? What are his qualifications for that position? Does he try to get any member on this side of the House to assist on the Bantu Affairs Commission? No, one must agree with the Government and not put one’s policies. That hon. member should get some factual evidence and look at what the policy of this side of the House really is. If he did that, he would know where he was going but instead he is walking around like … someone who is very lost at the moment.

I want to speak about those things which the hon. the Minister spoke about yesterday. I want to say that I have no quarrel with anything this Government does that is positive.

*We do not quarrel about aid centres, technical training, the opening of doors in the sphere of labour, education, health, including the facilities for abafazi in the centre of Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister referred last night to the fictions in our policy and then proceeded to state his policy. I was both surprised and shocked to hear it in this House again. To make my point, I would like to quote a few extracts from the speech of the hon. the Minister. He said, inter alia:

This is fine and with this Mr. Botha, our representative at the U.N., might be able to achieve something. Elsewhere in his speech the hon. the Minister attacked the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on what he had to say in connection with meetings in Bantu residential areas in the White area. He said the following:

This is all very well and I have no quarrel with this. However, when thinking of the U.N., I think of a bottleneck. The Minister also referred to labour matters concerning the Bantu and said, inter alia the following:

In the same speech he went further and said:

The hon. the Minister was a teacher and he is likely to have read the tragic history of the Anglo-Boer War. In reading that history, he might also have noticed that although pressure was brought to bear by Cecil Rhodes and others, a thorny problem existed in the Transvaal in connection with the “uitlanders”.

It is by no means the same situation.

It is exactly the same situation. This Government is creating precisely the same situation today. The legislation on the Statute Book to exercise control, as the hon. the Minister calls it, in connection with the urban and the non-homeland Bantu, is very much the same as the legislation the Transvaal Republic had in connection with the White “uitlanders”. The hon. the Minister should read his history again, and I can quote it for him, if he wants me to. The “uitlanders” had to vote in his own country if he wanted to cast his vote. He was not allowed to vote in the Transvaal at all and his vote was taken away from him. There was a thorny problem and now we have precisely the same problem here in South Africa. I wonder how this “secondary” capacity is going to be explained at the very important meeting of the U.N. by the representatives of this Government. I think these are words that should never pass the lips of a Minister. Now and again we hear some positive things from his two Deputies, and this we appreciate, but when speaking of building nations, one does not speak of a primary and secondary basis. Does the hon. the Prime Minister now want to tell me that if the hon. member for Griqualand East were to live in the Transkei after independence he would be secondary there and would only be primary in the White area?

Yes.

I would like that hon. member to make a speech and say so quite clearly, because there is legislation that has to come before this House to protect people in those areas. People in those areas want to know, and the people in Port St. Johns want to know whether they are secondary or primary. There are many people in Natal, especially in the constituency of that hon. member, who want to know whether they are going to be primary or secondary. I say again with emphasis that I think it is a disgrace that such words are used. The hon. member for Vryburg mentioned many positive things the corporations are undertaking, and we shall co-operate with these things which are positive and good. However, do not let us make such ignorant, absurd and un-South African remarks. We are living in a difficult world today. We cannot afford to make remarks such as these. South Africa today is the bastion of the Western world in Africa.

You do not have the franchise in England; you have it here.

That hon. member can make his speech later. We have a responsibility here in Southern Africa that does not permit remarks such as these.

Have some water.

If I had more time I would have had some water and would have said a great deal more in this connection … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany began to speak very vociferously. It seemed as though he would give us an elucidation of his party’s policy. He then referred to Cecil Rhodes, and this put me in mind of a dream Cecil Rhodes once had. His dream was to painit the map of Greater Africa red—“red, red, British red, from Cape to Cairo, red, British red”. But that dream was never realized, quite simply because it was impossible. The implementation of such a policy or such an idea had already, from the earliest days, come up against the reality, against the facts of the ethnic structure of Africa, with its embryos and nuclei of peoples in the making, and particularly in these past decades of the constitutional development of Africa. It is this truth which makes the United Party’s policy of a unitary state basically unenforceable. Different ethnic groups which differ widely from one another in the sphere of language, culture etc., cannot possibly be grouped under one roof politically and otherwise. These people are aware of the policy of the National Party, but they do not want to understand and accept the realism and reality of that policy. Within the structure of National Party policy there is a series of key points which run like the links in a strong chain from the draught-pole to the front yoke. The founders of the National Party, those people who formulated its policy, took the map of Africa and South Africa into consideration. They made an earnest and a thorough study of it. They considered its ethnic structure. They considered the historic living areas of each of those ethnic groups, and it was clear to them that there were a considerable number of places to which different peoples were linked, and where each possessed the potential of developing into a distinctive nation. After all the peoples had been identified and grouped, this foundation, this great truth, became in fact the basis for the development and the expansion of the ethnic policy of the National Party, also known as its policy of separate development. Not only did the founders of the National Party consider the Black peoples, each of whom had to be given a niche within the boundaries of South Africa, a geographic niche, a place where they could develop pedagogically and economically to the utmost of their own abilities. They also saw that there was a locality-bound White population which would also have to have a niche, and which would have the right to safeguard that niche as their homeland for the future. When those leaders considered Africa, just as Cecil Rhodes had done, it became clear to them, too, that the same scene would re-enact itself within South Africa if a policy based on eternal domination of one by another were followed. The successful implementation of the plan of the National Party was accompanied by great sacrifices. Up till today, however, it has been carried through successfully. It has progressed to such an extent that the Transkei is already on the verge of attaining its own full-fledged independent status, to be followed shortly by other homelands which will attain the same status. This successful implementation of the programme of emancipation has in fact been one of the most phenomenal achievements of the National Party during its period of office. This will, however, not be the end of the story! Even if the National Party were to succeed in this emancipation attempt and establishes the different Bantu peoples within their different ethnic groups, as it is engaged in doing, there still remains a very thorny part of the implementation of its programme. This is a very real matter about which a great deal is being written and said. I am referring here to the problem of the urban Bantu, to whom many references have already been made in this House. We know what the policy of the United Party in respect of these Bantu is. We also know what the policy of the Progressive Party in this regard is. The United Party wants to give them permanence on a geographic basis. The United Party also want to form a middle class which may exercise land-ownership rights and may be given economic and political rights. The Progressive Party simply wants to give them equality and absorb them in our political economy. As I have already said, the National Party regards them as being people who are only here on a temporary basis; that they are citizens of other developing States who come here to sell their labour to us. However, the National Party also realizes that these people will to an increasing extent, through their natural growth in numbers, through the increasing demand for labour and other factors, become a problem to which constant attention will have to be given. If these people really had to remain here permanently and the means which are already being applied by the National Party to reduce the influx and place a damper on it were to fail, they will become a fundamental problem and eventually perhaps become uncontrollable. Is it not perhaps possible that this could become the nail in the coffin of the Whites in South Africa? But fortunately it is the case that the National Party Government recognizes this problem and is already counteracting the influx by means of the development and the establishment of border industries and by the attention which it is devoting to transportation projects from the industrial areas to the homelands and back to afford the Bantu an opportunity of being conveyed from their places of employment to their homes on a weekly or monthly basis. I want to make a plea to the Minister today, for a more realistic approach to these means. The Opposition parties could also devote attention to this matter because millions could be conveyed by means of such a transportation system. I think that if we were to zone the industrial areas together with areas where labour has to be recruited, there would never be too great a pressure on the transportation system. A Bantu will, for example, to catch his train or bus on a Friday afternoon and alight on a Saturday morning, 60, 70 to 200 miles away in his homeland. On Sunday evening he can board the train or bus again so as to be back at his place of employment on Monday morning. By accommodating him here in the White homeland in a flat in restricted premises, we would then be bringing him regularly to his home, in his family-context where he belongs, and where he would prefer to be. [Time expired.]

Sir, I should like to dwell for a few minutes this afternoon on a few thoughts expressed by several hon. members opposite, and by three members in particular—the hon. members for Griqualand East, Umhlatuzana and King William’s Town. A great deal has been said here today about the entire question of land purchases and what rights are being established in the process. The hon. gentlemen said, inter alia, that land purchases and the consolidation of homelands did not really have anything to do with the standpoint of the National Party, that it went hand in hand with eventual self-government of those homeland areas in its totality. The hon. member for Edenvale has said this before during this session, and if I were to give the hon. member for Edenvale a piece of advice. I would tell him that he could look it up, and he would see that Dr. Verwoerd spelt out those matters as long ago as May 1956. I could give the hon. member the references later, if he does not have them. In any case, he could also find this in the little volume of Dr. Verwoerd’s speeches compiled by Prof. A. N. Pelser. There it had already been linked up very clearly. But what upsets me, and I am being very serious when I say this, is that these hon. members pay no heed whatsoever to our history in South Africa if they proceed on such an assumption. I do not want to dwell for long on our history today, but hon. members will know that from about 1820 commissions were appointed in various parts of South Africa, for example, the Cape Colony and Natal. Some people called them locations commissions and others gave them other names, but these were commissions which were working with this entire matter, not only to accomplish a demarcation of territory where people could live and farm, as hon. members are now in point of fact alleging Gen. Hertzog’s actual standpoint was, but there were definite demarcations. In Natal, for example, we had the situation that the land which had been allocated to the Bantu was held in trust. All those commissions which instituted investigations at various places, dealt with only one matter and that was to achieve the political separation of the Bantu peoples of South Africa. This culminated in what we had in 1903 and 1904—the earnest gathering of all Whites in South Africa who asked, in the language of that time, that the Native question be solved. The urgency, i.e. that the Native question be solved, was already there at that stage. The one step which subsequently followed was the Bantu Land Act of 1913, and everything attendant upon that. I am not trying to read all knids of strange things into that Act of 1913. but in the discussion of the 1913 Act we had the precursor of the Beaumont Commission. We know what this implies. We know of the struggle of 1913, which continued throughout the twenties, to have the Beaumont Commission Report accepted. This urgency in regard to a solution to the Native problem was one of the factors which led to a coalition government in this country to find a consensus in order to solve these problems. And in this process we eventually came to the year 1936, which, fundamentally, was a very important year, for the issue in 1936 was legislation which also related to the franchise of the Black people. Where Black people had the franchise, that entire question of franchise for Black people was mooted and dealt with by way of legislation, and we had the 1936 Bantu Land and Trust Act. But there was another important Act under discussion at that stage which was in any case implicit in the recommendations of the Beaumont Commission and this we finally received in 1945, and not under National Party rule, viz. the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. If we consider all these things now, then they deal with only one aspect, which is, in the first place, the urgency of a solution to the Native question, and in this process of the urgency of solving the Native question, the Black people were deprived of the franchise, wherever they had had the franchise, and they were placed on a separate voters’ roll. The question of the Coloureds was also subsequently raised. But we also had this 1936 Act, and let us not bluff one another in the process. The fact of the matter is, and it is stated in black on white here, that these three projects which I have mentioned to you, the last of which was the 1936 Act, resulted in land being granted on the one hand and the franchise removed on the other, and in arrangements being made for the Bantu in the urban areas. These things are all interrelated, and everything is related to the political future of the Black people. On the one hand the franchise was removed and on the other land was granted, and a permanent arrangement was reached in regard to the Black people in our White urban areas. We cannot deny this. If hon. members want to take the trouble of reading the debates on the 1936 Act, they will see what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, or the Minister of Native Affairs as he was called at that time, said. I shall quote a passage from this to you. They were, in the debate, dealing with the entire question of land for the Bantu Trust, and the accusation had been levelled at the Minister of Native affairs of the time that land was being given, the 7¼ million morgen, in exchange for the franchise of the Black people which had been dealt with in legislation piloted through earlier that year. Some of the speakers denied it. The late adv. Strydom said (translation)—

At the time Mr. Nicholls—

The Minister of Native Affairs then said (translation)—

What is at issue here is the franchise and land in the urban areas—

Hon. members opposite must listen carefully to this—

That is what the Minister of Native Affairs said in 1936. Sir, it is of no avail our thinking of the future of South Africa without admitting, as we have been admitting from 1903, that it is important for the Whites in South Africa that the Native problem should be solved, and that we have adopted a course of segregation. Sir, basically this is true. Hon. members on that side tell us that they want to co-operate with us for the development of the Bantu homelands, but, Sir, we do not receive that co-operation. Why should we today still, in the year 1974, still be arguing about the question of whether the idea of segregation has a political content or not? Surely we know that is has a political content. We also know that is has a political content on a segregationary basis, not on a federal basis. Sir, I see that the hon. member for King William’s Town has returned to the Debating Chamber. I just want to say this to him: If one speaks of giving land within the White area to these people, then one must immediately, if one wants to be honest, look at world history, and for that reason I do not agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It was not a scientifically well-considered argument which he presented here yesterday evening, viz. that the people could simply hang in the air here. Sir, sooner or later land ownership goes together with the franchise. The hon. member reproached the Transvaal Republic in regard to the situation with the Uitlanders, but that was precisely he argument of the Uitlanders. They had land ownership and then they wanted the franchise.

What about your homeland towns?

These people have land tenure in the homelands. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just spoken, had no sooner reached his point than he had to resume his seat. I feel extremely sorry for him.

Sir, I want to say this in connection with the point the hon. member tried to make about the question of landownership. The National Party has said over the years that we must find a home for the Bantu population in the homelands; that they should be able to realize themselves to the full there; that they should exercise their political rights there and that they should develop their economy there and that everything they want to do they should do there; that their aspirations concerning political representation should be fulfilled there and that they are not going to receive any political rights here. Sir, look how many years it took us on this side of the House to convince the Nationalist Party of the necessity of allowing Whites to go into the Bantu areas and with their know-how and money develop those areas; it took us years.

†Sir, when the idea was first propagated that there should be Bantu homelands, this party said at the time that White capital and White skills should be allowed to go into those areas to develop them, and we were told at that time that that was economic colonialism and that the policy of that side of the House was that the Bantu must generate his own capital; that he must build up his own capital; that he must be able to fulfil his own functions and invest his money in his own economic enterprises. Sir, how many years has it taken us to get them even to come to the agency basis? What have they achieved on the agency basis? Sir, you have heard the figures given here by the hon. the Minister. He told us that something like 50 000 people had been given employment opportunities in the homelands over this whole period of years. I want to know how long it is going to take them on that basis to catch up with the demand every single year for more and more jobs. Until the Nationalist Party can tell us that there is a positive programme under which it will be possible to provide employment in the Bantu areas just for those who come on to the job market every year, what possible hope is there that the policy which they espouse is going to be successful? Sir, I ask the next speaker on that side to tell us what programme the Nationalist Party has to allow investment in the Bantu areas to enable them to maintain and to retain in their areas the Bantu …

You did not listen to the Minister.

I listened to every single word the hon. the Minister said and I did not hear a single word from him as to what he is going to do to catch up with the backlog in the creation of employment opportunities for the Bantu who are presently there and for those who will be coming on to the labour market every year. Sir, the question is where the money is going to come from. Is White South Africa going to supply all that money? Is the Minister of Finance going to put his hand in his pocket and dish out money for investment in those areas, or is the hon. the Minister going to allow money from overseas to come in under control? There are leaders of the Black people who have been overseas and who have been promised loans for development. Is the hon. the Minister going to allow that money to come in? Under what control, under what circumstances, would he allow it to come in? Sir, I believe that this is a very, very important point indeed. How are they going to develop the Bantu homelands to the point where they can maintain and sustain the population that is there already, let alone the chimera of 1978, the dream which the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee had of turning back the tide by 1978? Sir, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: What has happened now to 1978?

We are not there yet.

Sir, we will reach 1998 and we will still not have turned back the tide. This dream of 1978 has evaporated like a pricked bubble; the whole thing has gone overboard. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in my view the most serious thing about this whole programme of consolidation, about the policy of the Nationalist Party, is the fact that they are in serious danger of making the land issue a point of confrontation between the White man and the Black man in South Africa, because, Sir, they have offered the Black man land in return for political rights. That is what the offer amounts to. But in the White areas, where the Black people live in their millions, they will be denied any kind of right whatsoever, including the right to home ownership, the right to permanence and the right to security. For what reason? Because the Government is going to give them a homeland of their own; they are going to give them enough land to satisfy them.

It was you who did it.

Sir, that is the policy of the Nationalist Party.

You want to give them ground in the White areas.

I say to the hon. member over there who shouts such a lot: If you are going to make land a confrontation issue between White and Black, you will not win. Sir, I would far rather give ground in the White urban areas for permanently settled Black people who are part of the system of South Africa than throw them all back into their own areas where the land is insufficient and where they will simply look over their fences at the green fields of the White farmers …

How much ground?

In their own areas they will sit and look at their own eroded, over-stocked, over-grazed, over-populated ground, and then they will look at the White man’s ground which is being made an issue of contention between the White man and the Black man by this Government. Sir, you can talk as much as you like about political rights and human rights and that kind of thing; to the Black man it is a vague concept; he has an authoritarian system; but every single Black man knows what land ownership means. I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is dealing with the question of consolidation that today in my constituency there are White farmers who are having difficult problems presented by the fact that their farms have been demarcated for Black occupation. The Deputy Minister knows it. He knows that in every single place where a farm has been designated for Black occupation, the security of the White farmer on his farm is seriously affected. At this present moment in my constituency there are Black people who come along and say to the farmers: “Well, this is going to be our area: I am the local headman; I will allocate this and I will allocate that.” This is the position that obtains now. I believe this is something of the utmost seriousness, the fact that the Nationalist Party has not been able to provide the Black people of South Africa with any kind of security during the very rule of the Government. During the 26 years they have been in power, the whole problem has escalated beyond any kind of conception the people had in 1936 of what the Black/White problem was going to look like. It has completely changed. Today we have 8 million Black people living in the so-called White areas. We find absolutely no attempt by this Government to recognize their permanence, to recognize their reality. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, whose sincerity I shall credit—I give him full credit for his sincerity—and who is attempting to alleviate the lot of the Black people in those areas, whether he remembers that we in this House were told that we must not make the lot of the Black man too comfortable in the urban areas because he would then want to stay. We were asked that by Ministers of the Nationalist Party. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister admit, as I admit—and I give him credit for this—that he has changed that thinking in the Nationalist Party? We have got to recognize that those people are there now and that they will be there, as the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has said, for a very, very long time to come. Does the Nationalist Party believe that this will have no effect on the policy which they have been expounding? Surely to goodness, we must recognize that where you have a permanent Black population permanently engaged in industry and upon whose shoulders every single thing that happens in White South Africa depends …

what do you intend doing about it?

The hon. member asks what do we intend doing about it. We have a whole programme which is designed to cope with specific needs. [Interjections.] The hon. members have heard it how many times. How many times have we not through the mouths of speakers on this side set out the policy? What has that Nationalist Party ever told us about what they are going to do? What is their programme for repatriating those people and when is it going to happen? When is there going to be a reversal of the flow of Black people, the people who vote with their feet, the people who move out of the rural areas, the Black areas, into the towns? When is that reversal going to happen? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, slowly but surely we are, as far as the United Party is concerned, coming to a few fundamental realities. These people are the people who keep on telling the Blacks that they do not have enough land.

Who are “the people“?

The hon. members on that side of the House. If one begins to comer them a little on where they want to give the Bantu this land, they are immediately embarrassed, for in that very fundamental respect, the question of land for the Black people they catch themselves out on a point of dishonesty. They tell the Black people that they will give those Black people proprietary rights in the urban areas as well, lust on that point I want to tell the United Party that in the years which lie ahead they will have to display far greater responsibility, for they are inciting and stirring up the Black people. If the hon. members of the United Party want to deny that they are inciting the Blacks, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bryanston said in this Parliament this year.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; is the hon. member entitled to say that we are inciting the Black man?

I accept that the hon. member was referring to the United Party in general outside this House.

The hon. member for Bryanston stated on 23 August that the National Party had thrpugh its persistent, purposeful, relentless application of a policy of discrimination and White baasskap, endangered the security and future of the Whites as never before. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here today, said outside the House on 9 May 1972, in respect of the urban Bantu—

Those people are playing with fire when they make such reckless, irresponsible statements about the urban Bantu.

You cannot escape from the truth.

The hon. member for Mooi River had hold of a fundamental truth of the South African situation himself when he said that we were dealing with so many people that we were scarcely able to cope with them in the homelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out to us that in the urban areas as well we were dealing with a population explosion among the Black people, which was making the situation almost unmanageable. If, in the light of these realities, one still finds such irresponsible statements being made, I can readily understand that the one Bantu leader after the other will echo the English-language Press and the hon. members of the Opposition in the arousal of feelings between people in this country. It is time we came to our senses, because we, the younger generation which have to handle these problems in practice, do not feel like going into the future with such irresponsible inciters. They refer here to migrant labour. Not only does one find migrant labour in Europe, but in Africa as well it is such a reality that it surprises me that hon. members raise the matter. I have before me a report of the International Labour Review, in which it is stated that there are 652 000 migrant labourers in Ghana. I quote—

Thus we find that this is the position throughout Africa.

Let us come now to the reality of where we are going to accommodate those people and of how we are going to accommodate them. At the moment there are 648 000 migrant, labourers here from the homelands in South Africa. Now I ask the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. members of the Opposition whether they have worked out for themselves what it would cost if they are going to provide these people with housing at a cost of R2 000 per house—which is only a modest little house. It would cost R1 296 million! One should not adopt such absurd standpoints when one is discussing the housing of these people, for these are the realities with which the National Party is struggling. The hon. member for Houghton tried to make us believe how badly off the Black people in the cities are. She made a fiery plea to the effect that there should be no further increase in rentals in Johannesburg. She will remember clearly that an international advertising company, Quadrant, made a survey under the name “Quotso”, in which they found that the income of the average family in Soweto was R112 per month. She would also take a look at what the Bureau for Market Research of the University of South Africa established in respect of the so-called poverty datum line. They found that the poverty datum line for a family of five in Johannesburg was R77-37 per month. The point I want to make, is that I have spoken to businessmen in Johannesburg. The basic fact is that thousands of Black people in Johannesburg are receiving very high wages, which ensures that their standards of living are far above the picture which the hon. member for Houghton tried to paint for us. I spoke to a businessman who told me that they were selling shoes in Johannesburg for between R50 and R120 a pair, and that not a single pair was being purchased by White people. I do not want to try to sketch a onesided picture, but I do nevertheless want to say that it would have been reckless and irresponsible of this Government if it had wanted to establish an unbalanced development in respect of the Black people and had wanted to allow a small group of privileged Black people—privileged in respect of salaries and other things, in other words, a socalled middle-class—to make progress, only to have the other thousands, I could almost say millions, suffer the consequences. We must strike a balance in the process of dealing with the Black people in the cities, but not only must we strike a balance in the urban areas and make the Blacks in the citites who are becoming more affluent share the cost of the amenities for the less well-to-do Black people, we must also strike a balance between what is happening in the urban areas and what has to be done in the homelands. If one looks at the realities, at the 60 000 Blacks who are entering the labour force annually in the homelands, one must say that the fundamental truth confronting us is that we should not besmirch one another left right and centre over discrimination, but we should all of us do together what has to be done, which is to promote in the homelands the fundamental and most essential aspect, i.e. the establishment of work opportunities. Recently, in June of this year, a meeting of the National Development and Management Foundation of South Africa was held, at which the needs of the Bantu as people were discussed, and on that occasion four Bantu leaders rose to their feet and, regardless of what they say about our policy, all four of them said that the greatest need at the moment was the need for the creation of work opportunities in the homelands. Inter alia, Mr. Mphephu and Dr. Phatudi, said this. If the Black people begin to say this, I want to ask the Opposition whether it still serves any purpose, under these circumstances, to continue to accuse us of measures in which they themselves are instrumental. They come here and tell us that we are applying suppressive and oppressive measures in the cities. After that, they supposedly, under the guidance of the hon. member for Yeoville, made certain amenities in Johannesburg accessible to the Black people. Do they think that they will deceive the Black people with actions of that kind? In the English-language newspapers the headlines read: “Bang goes Petty Apartheid”. To the Afrikaans-language newspapers the chairman of the management committee of the Johannesburg City Council, which is a United Party controlled city council, said (translation)—

Subsequently he referred to libraries and said that he did not, however, expect that the Black people whould make more use of the libraries. I want to tell the hon. members of the Opposition that they must realize that the time is past when the Black man will allow himself to be deceived in South Africa. They will not deceive him. If we do not want to deceive him, we must honestly do what we know must be done and this, in the words of the homelands leaders, that the NDMF conference is that we must create employment opportunities for their people in the homelands.

Hon. members come here and talk about the “sharing of power”. The hon. member for Port Natal referred effectively to that. I want to tell them that the Black peoples in South Africa form part of a Continent where the concept “democracy” in the sense in which we know it and in the sense in which they apply it in their federal policy is simply untenable. There are 43 independent states in Africa. 19 of these have military dictatorships, 16 are one-party governments, and there have been 30 government take-overs during the past ten years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we listened here yesterday to the unsuccessful candidate for Eshowe, who subsequently, with a majority of less than 31, became the candidate for Umhlatuzana. I want to congratulate him on now having become the chief spokesman on Bantu affairs on that side of the House. One must say that he is really a considerable improvement on the hon. member for Griqualand East, not that it is any real achievement now to be an improvement on the hon. member for Griqualand East. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said here—

This is harsh language, and the impression which the hon. member creates here, is that the policy of separate development has no chance of succeeding, and also that no homeland leader supports the policy of the Government. I took the trouble of obtaining the policy speech made by Mr. Kaiser Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, the speech which he made this year in the Legislative Assembly in Umtata. This was not at a Press conference, and therefore not words uttered in an irresponsible way. This speech is a spelling out of the policy and of the attitude of a responsible Black leader in South Africa. I should like to quote passages from it, and it is perhaps necessary for the hon. Opposition to listen very earnestly to what this Black leader has to say about the policy of separate development in his policy speech in the Legislative Assembly in Umtata.

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I was dealing with the allegation made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He had referred to the policy of separate development and had said—

That is true.

Our hon. friend there says it is true. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana thought he was speaking the truth when he made this statement. I had mentioned to the House that I had obtained the policy speech of Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima, the speech which he made in March this year in the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. With full responsibility he set out in his speech his policy, his attitude and his standpoint in regard to separate development, as well as his attitude towards the Government of the Republic. I should like to quote him here, and I would like my friends opposite to listen carefully to these words of Chief Minister Matanzima in this verbatim report—

He then went to ask—

As the hon. members opposite are so fond of doing. He went on—

He went further. I know this does not suit the book of the …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

But certainly, ask away.

Will the hon. member state categorically that the Government will answer the call of Chief Matanzima and will give them total freedom?

Of course. Did he not hear what the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said? I shall allow Chief Minister Matanzima to answer him. I have always thought there was something wrong with the hon. member’s ability to understand. Tonight he has confirmed it here. With these words Chief Minister Matanzima replies to the question of that Botterbul, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—

He went on to say—

This had been established by the National Party Government. He continued—

I know what a bitter taste this medicine must have for hon. members on the opposite side, for they are not prepared in their policy to accommodate the striving for self-realization and self-determination of the Black peoples of South Africa. There is only one party which has the honesty and the daring to give content and form to these political aspirations of the Black peoples of South Africa.

To the Coloureds and the Indians as well?

Seen in the light of the fact that this is after supper, I excuse that remark made by the hon. member for Durban Point. Chief Minister Matanzima went further and stated in the Legislative Assembly—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lydenburg spent 10 minutes quoting Chief Kaiser Matanzima’s speech to us this evening. We on this side of the House have had dialogue with the same Chief Kaiser Matanzima and I can quote him here for half an hour where he has opposed the Government from time to time. I remember quite clearly the last time we had dialogue with Chief Kaiser Matanzima in his office at Umtata. We asked him what he thought of the camps, the transit camps, or call them what you like, the concentration camps, of Sada and Dimbaza and he condemned them. He condemned those camps and said that he would never associate himself with camps of the like in his homeland. There are hon. members here who were with me when he made that statement.

The hon. member for Innesdal—and I am pleased that he is in his seat—accused the United Party by saying; “die Verenigde Party sweep die Swartes op”.

*It is not the United Party which incites the Blacks, but it is the National Party which incites the Whites. Election after election we find candidates on that side of the House inciting the White electorate against the Blacks. How many times have we not heard candidates referring to Black peril and saying, “Vote for the United Party and this, that or the other will happen”. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members on both sides to refrain from making so many interjections and to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

It is small wonder that when Black South Africans hear what takes place at political meetings between White and White they feel antagonized towards all of us. This is irresponsible talk. This is inciting White people against our Black people.

In the short time at my disposal I want to talk about the resettlement of our Black people not in their homelands or the reserves, but on the borders of the reserves. We all remember so clearly the words of the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee who was prepared to stake his political career on the year 1978. We also heard the late Dr. Verwoerd say that by the year 1978, if we were patient, we would see that all the Black people would start moving back to their homelands.

Streaming back.

He also said that he or the Government would see to it that there was an incentive for them to move back to their homelands. This Government cannot have their cake and eat it. We have heard so much about influx control. Coming from the East London area which is on the borders of the Bantu reserves, we know that no Black man can move away, even from East London or Mdantsane or Duncan Village or any of the other Ciskeian areas without a work permit for any of the metropolitan areas in South Africa or the rural areas. Fair enough. I have no objection to that, except that I should like to see him move with his family if he so wishes. Coming back to the point, we have the position which we heard from the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee and the late Dr. Verwoerd that these people would be repatriated not only to the reserves or the homelands but to the borders of the reserves such as the East London area. However, Mr. Chairman, those people are being sent back to those areas without a work permit. They are being removed from employment, to unemployment in those areas, and this is what we object to. I can quote many instances where people have been removed from places of employment and put in places such as Sada, Dimbaza and Mdantsane without any employment whatsoever. We have held many meetings with our Black people in that area. We have had many discussions with them. Whatever they say, it all boils down to one problem and that is unemployment for their people. Late last year there were no less— these are the official figures I am quoting— than 40 000 unemployed Black men in Mdantsane and Duncan Village alone in the East London complex. This is what we hear at every meeting with our Black people. We hear them complaining about illegal squatters and about crime which is unprecedented in that area—I repeat, crime unprecedented; so much so that my ex-colleague, Dr. Moolman, and myself had meetings with the hon. the Minister of Police and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Even they will tell you that every complaint that was lodged was about the unemployment in those areas. I do not want to mention what the solutions were that were advanced, such as getting dogs to chase these people out of the bushes or clearing the bush and so forth. I want to mention the problem which comes from the Black people there in that area. Their complaint is—and I see their point of view—that everything today is mechanized. I want to mention one implement. There is the mechanical horse which operates in that area and in many other areas. As far as this machine is concerned, one Black man does the work previously done by 200 Black men. This is labour-saving and time-saving, but it does not solve our problem in that area. In addition, Sir, we have that terrible section, section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, in terms of which we have job reservation. [Interjections.] Sir, we can argue as much as we like, we always come back to this question of job reservation. I believe that this Government must now be bold and face the realities and allow employers, with the consent of workers’ unions—and they will get that consent—to engage Black men, if they are qualified, to do jobs which cannot be filled by White people. We have many vacancies all along the borders of the homelands, where we have this problem of unemployment. I might mention that the question of unemployment was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Police when he visited us in East London. We took him round in a helicopter to see what was happening, and he mentioned that the same problem existed in Pretoria as well, so I am speaking not only on behalf of the areas adjoining the borders of the Bantu homelands, but on behalf of employers as far afield as Pretoria as well. Surely it is time this Government faced the realities and created job opportunities for all our people, regardless of their colour. Sir, it is no secret that we on this side stand for equal opportunities for employment and equal pay for equal work. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if there are Black people in South Africa who have been repatriated from the metropolitan areas, without having made provision for employment for them in the Bantu areas, then we have done a disservice not only to those people but also to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, I shall come back to the hon. member for East London North at a later stage. It has become evident from this debate—in fact, it is as plain as a pikestaff—that the homelands have become a reality, and because they have become a reality, we shall probably learn before long that the Transkei has become an independent State. Sir, we are grateful for that step which we shall soon be able to take after many years of hard work by the Ministers concerned and their officials. We are pleased to have reached the stage when it will soon be known, not only in South Africa, but all over the world, that the Transkei has gained independence. It is a step forward. The homelands are a reality today, whether the Opposition wants to accept it or not. I believe that they, too, accept it. Those of them who do not accept it, should really join the Progressive Party. I do not know whether they accept the homeland policy. [Interjections.] Apparently they accept it too. Sir, what is expected of the White man in respect of the development of the homelands? In my opinion the White man is expected to provide the primary facilities to the Bantu, so that the Bantu may be enabled to start developing his homeland, but in this regard one fact in particular must be brought home to the Bantu, and because of that the National Government has since the earliest time of its coming into power, been stressing the idea that a Bantu who is a Zulu has his traditions in Zululand and that he must give his love to his fatherland, in the same way as I give my love to my fatherland. This applies to the various other ethnic groups as well. But in the turn I have to speak, which is a very short one, I should like to deal with another aspect of this matter. It happened again this afternoon, as it usually does, that the hon, member for Houghton and I crossed swords. There she is shaking her head again. Everything the National Party does, is poison to this hon. member. Everything we try, is poison and evil in her eyes.

That is untrue.

Towards the end of the brief argument she delivered here this afternoon, she referred to the danger which was imminent because of the fact that the rentals which the non-Whites were being charged for houses in the various Bantu townships were to be increased. The hon. member sounded a warning and said that we should do everything for those people, that we should subsidise them in order that that burden would not be placed on their shoulders since their wages were too low for them to bear those additional costs as well. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Sir, I should like to put it to this Committee tonight that in my opinion there is no place in the whole wide world where accommodation is provided at a more reasonable rental than here in South Africa. But everything is becoming more expensive today, and there is an enormous increase in the cost of the new projects which must be undertaken. This afternoon we learnt from our Deputy Minister that there was a shortage of 8 500 houses for Bantu. I just want to tell the hon. member in brief to what extent costs have increased. But the non-White is not the only one who has to bear that burden. Surely the White man does so too, and as things become more expensive, the White man has to make adjustments. Now I should like to make the polite request that we should not cause any agitation to arise from this matter. I appeal to hon. members opposite not to cause any agitation to arise from this matter. In the year 1960 the cost of accommodating single Bantu in hostels amounted to R120 per bed. The accommodation we have to provide in hostels at the present time amounts to between R150 and R160 per bed. So for one person alone the increase in the cost of accommodation amounts to between R30 and R40. From whom is the costs to be recovered? Sir, the White man has to stand in for everything in this country, and that is unfair. I believe that in the light of the reasonable tariffs made available to the Bantu, the Bantu will be content to pay these few extra cents per month. What did it cost to build a three-roomed house for the Bantu in the sixties? It cost something in the region of R500. [Interjections.] I built many. You built none, my friend. You did not even build a—I almost said the word. If we were to build those very same houses today it would cost something in the region of R750.

It is because you are building so slowly.

Sir, that hon. member should move slowly, for if he were to move fast, he would definitely develop a “speed wobble”. If we were to build that same three-roomed house today, it would come to something in the region of R750 or R1 000. I do not know what the amount would be if tenders had to be invited. It might be much more. So is it a great deal if a Bantu who used to pay R1,50 or R2 per bed in a hostel is now asked to pay R3? We should remember that the salaries of many of them have increased three of fourfold in the meantime. [Interjections.] I may point out to the hon. member that the Bantu in the building construction trade is receiving 100 per cent more in salary than he did five years ago.

And what is the average increase in the salaries of Whites?

I say the hon. member and his bunch of United Party men should pay their Bantu more. The hon. members should pay their Bantu more. However, all eyes are always turned to the National Party. I know what has happened in Houghton and similar places. I am able to say that my Bantu servant eats the same food which I have on my table, but none of those hon. members can say the same. The Black man must go and buy his food and the people of Houghton would rather dispose of their left-overs by throwing them in the dust-bin before giving that food to the Bantu servant. What is the rental which those people pay today? I am not saying that the accommodation cannot be improved, for there is always room for improvement. If a Bantu has to pay R4,20 or R5 or R6 or R7 per month for his house, depending on the type of house he occupies, and a far better type of house is provided for him, I believe he will be satisfied to pay the higher rental in view of his increased salary and other income. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an occasion for an hon. member to be ashamed of himself for what he said here, tonight was such an occasion for the hon. member for East London North.

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

No. The hon. member does not even know what I am going to say and he already wants to ask a question. He referred to Dimbaza and Sada as concentration camps.

Has the hon. member ever seen those places?

The hon. member for Houghton went to visit those places and she expressed her satisfaction with them.

Have you been there yet?

That is not the point. The hon. member for Houghton said these were not concentration camps at all. It is a re-settlement scheme which was initially planned for 30 000 people. Bantu are streaming to these places, but the hon. member for East London North refers to them as “concentration camps”. I think it is a disgrace for an hon. member to refer to those schemes as “concentration camps”. I want to know from the hon. member whether that is the kind of rubbish they churn up when they have discussions with the homeland leaders.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “rubbish”.

I withdraw it. Is that the kind of nonsense they talk to the homeland leaders when they have discussions with them? Is that the kind of favour they do South Africa when they have discussions with them? The word “concentration camp” has a most unpleasant connotation in South Africa. I think it was most unfortunate for the hon. member to have referred to them in these terms.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday took it amiss because I asked him to tell us what solution they have to offer for our problems with the Bantu. He said a federal policy would be the solution for our Bantu problems. The hon. member for Port Natal this afternoon referred to their federal policy and said that the hon. member for Durban North had said on occasion that there would be five members in the central federal body to represent the Bantu.

He has never said so.

He ranted and raved, denying that he had ever said so, but we are still waiting, in fact, we have been waiting two years …

We said so time and again. Both our Leader and the hon. member for Durban North said so.

As far as I can recall, the hon. member for Durban North said there would be 37 or 38 Bantu members in the central federal parliament. Is that correct? I accept that this is correct. In other words, of the 120 members 38 will be Bantu. That is what they want to start off with. Now I would like to know according to which formula, which method, this 38 will be calculated. Of the total number of 165, 38 plus another 24 will be Bantu; in fact, that will be the case right from the outset. Where is it going to lead to?

Another question they have not yet replied to, is what they mean by the contribution towards the welfare of the State …

Are you trying to find a solution?

No, I am referring to the solution of the hon. members. It is those hon. members who have to tell us what they mean by the contribution of a group towards the welfare of the State. Up to this day, after two years, we still do not know what that means.

In addition, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to territory, to the jurisdiction exercised over the property of people and he went further and said that ownership is not relevant under those circumstances. In terms of their federal policy there will be a legislative body for the urban Bantu. There will also be two legislative bodies for the Coloureds and one for the Indians. Those legislative bodies will not be exercising any jurisdiction over any territory. Now I am asking where the jurisdiction of one legislative body ends and where the jurisdiction of another legislative body begins. The answer will probably be that the central co-ordinating body, the federal parliament, will have authority over these matters. Then we come back to the question as to who will rule in the federal parliament. Who will eventually rule in the federal parliament?

Then we find the Young Turks making the following statement:

Let the hon. members of the United Party tell us what these words mean. One of the speakers who are going to speak next, can tell us what these words mean. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members in the crossbenches not to converse so loudly.

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

No. I do not answer questions in a short speech of ten minutes.

Who said so?

This was repeated from time to time by the Young Turks in setting out the federal policy of the United Party. We have the hon. member for Bryanston sitting there. He also said so and this statement of his was borne out by Hennie Serfontein and his fellow-supporters.

It is time the United Party should listen a little and take some note of what is said by responsible Bantu homeland leaders. I was present on occasions where some of these leaders said, inter alia the following—

This is what was said by responsible leaders.

Who said so? Which leaders?

I was present personally when this was said by responsible Bantu homelands leaders. They went further and said—

These are fine, positive sentiments which the party on the opposite side must take to heart and accept.

I should like to deal briefly with a statement made by the hon. the Minister in the censure debate and also last night when speaking in glowing terms about the decentralization of industries. I had the privilege of paying a visit to Lebowa in August 1973. I went to have a look at a vocational training school at Seshego. I also saw where the new town of Lebowa Kgomo was being built. It is something worth seeing. It reminds one of what it must have looked like when Pretoria was established in the previous century. It was something splendid to watch.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation, the hon. member for Brakpan who has just resumed his seat, accused me of having said that Dimbaza and Sada are concentration camps.

You did say so.

I have said that Dimbaza and Sada are transit camps, camps or concentration camps— call them what you will. I want to explain to the hon. House, Mr. Chairman, that it was Chief Kaiser Matanzima who told me in the presence of others that this was so. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am very pleased to be able this evening to agree with the hon. member for Stilfontein on a number of points that he made, especially when he said that, as far as the development of the Bantustans was concerned, time was not on our side. He also said that we must teach the Black man to develop their homelands and that we must not agitate about this subject. I think I can say to the hon. member that I agree with him in this respect.

He started off by praising the hon. the Minister for having brought things so far. After reading the official reports of the department which are under discussion this evening, I must say that I admit that this department has a tremendous responsibility, especially when one realizes that the future of all the peoples of South Africa is going to depend on whether this department is successful or not. It is for this reason that I listened very closely to what the hon. the Minister had to say yesterday. I would say judging from his speech, that the department has made certain progress so far. However, I want to ask whether this progress is sufficient, whether it is good enough. I would like to know exactly how the progress in this department compares with the progress we have made in other areas in South Africa, such as with the White community or the Indian community. How does it compare with, let us say, the development in the rest of the Western world? I would like to ask whether the progress made by the department matches the task that is facing South Africa today, the important task of lifting the Black man from the subsistence economy in which he at present finds himself, into a prosperous and viable Western-orientated industrial society. That task must be undertaken if this country of ours is to maintain peace amongst the various races.

The hon. member for Brakpan spent a lot of time questioning the policy of the United Party. I should like to point out to him that this is a debate on the Government’s policy and I should like to get back to that, because I believe that time is running out on us. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the hon. the Minister and this Government are involved in what I would like to call the numbers game, i.e. does the rate of economic development in the homelands in this country of ours exceed either the population growth or the rate of rising aspirations of our Black friends and citizens in this country? I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister has fed into his computer, or drawn graphs of his department’s statistics in such a way as to be able to inform this House of the exact date on which each of the Bantu homelands will have reached a viable enough position to allow their citizens to enjoy an acceptable standard of living, at least one which will keep them contented?

I say this because the food and agricultural organizations of the United Nations have for many years carried out such exercises with countries such as India. They started doing so way back in the 1950s. At that time the projected figures showed a deteriorating position as far as India was concerned. According to those figures, more Indians were being underfed as each year passed because the population growth was outstripping the country’s capacity to produce food and other industrial products. Recently, in fact last year, some 21 years later, I was shown more figures from the United Nations which indicated that the original projections were right on target. I am asking these questions because I believe we are fighting a battle against time in this country. This Government has been in power for 26 years. The country is therefore entitled to know just how things are going. How are this Government’s ideology and policies matching up to the realities of today and the realities of the year 2000? If this Government is losing out in this race against time, I believe we are entitled to know. I believe that the only honest thing to do is for them to admit these mistakes. If they are unable to do this, I believe that they should make way for others who may be in their party and who may have the right approach to South Africa’s problems. I believe I am entitled to ask these questions because way back in the ’fifties Dr. Verwoerd said that by the year 1978 the Blacks would be leaving the White areas of South Africa. I want to ask: Are we on schedule in this regard? After all. Dr. Verwoerd’s belief is the cornerstone of the apartheid philosophy, and the country is entitled to know exactly how things are shaping up.

It is in the light of these questions that I view with concern the lack of development of the agricultural areas of the homelands. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana clearly indicated yesterday that we cannot trade civic rights for land in respect of our Bantu population. There is simply not enough land available for this, especially in densely populated areas such as Natal. It follows, therefore, that the productive use of available land is of the utmost importance to the future survival of this country.

I am concerned about the fact that for ideological and tribal reasons the South African authorities, both White and Black, are failing to grasp the nettle in this regard. In so doing they are endangering the future prosperity and stability of South Africa. For example, how well is the agricultural development of the homelands progressing? And please, let us not only talk about the Transkei; let us talk about all the homelands in South Africa.

Being a farmer in Natal and having travelled Natal quite extensively, especially the coastal strips, I am aware of the tremendous potential of the land in KwaZulu for the production of sugar cane. Properly developed and managed this could bring in tens of millions of rand of revenue each year to KwaZulu. But what is actually happening? I know that the sugar industry has set up a special fund to assist Zulu cane growers in this regard and I know that they are financing training schools which the Department of Bantu Education will take over in due course. I am also aware that the department has many trained Zulu extension officers to assist their people in this regard. I have met, and have been involved with, Government officials in this regard and I must say that I am very aware of their enthusiasm and devotion to the task of uplifting our fellow South Africans. But I question the basic logic of the concept upon which this whole development is being built.

I am led to believe that the new Zulu cane farmers are endeavouring to make an economic proposition out of ten ha of cane land, while I believe that the average farmer cultivates only about two ha. It must be accepted that on such a small-holding the farmer cannot afford his own equipment and that he has to hire equipment. This in turn means that the chap who does this work has to make a profit out of it and this will therefore be at the expense of the farmer. At best the farmer on his smallholding can barely make as much money as he would if he worked as a tractor or lorry driver on an adjacent White farmer’s farm. In fact, this is exactly what is happening at the present time. When one considers the responsibility of managing even ten ha of cane, any African with any initiative, for the low return he will get back for it, will go and work for a White farmer or in the bright lights of the urban areas. This is a fact of life we have to face. Because of this many schemes which in the past have been financed both by this Government, and I know because I have been involved with it, and by private enterprise, and I have been involved in that as well, have failed because there is just not enough economics in it for the average African farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti started off in a positive way by acknowledging that a lot of progress had been made by this department. Then he asked the question, quite rightly so, “has enough progress been made”? That is a question anyone is entitled to ask and obviously one can say that not enough progress has been made in terms of the ideal. But if we consider the ability of the population of South Africa within its present set-up to make greater progress I am prepared to state categorically that South Africa has made more progress than any other group of people or nations anywhere else in the world have made or would have made in similar circumstances. I think it was the United Nations which set a target for developed nations to contribute 2% of their budget towards assisting underdeveloped nations. There are very few countries that have contributed in excess of 3%. If, however, we consider the amount of money spent by the taxpayer in South Africa to aid the under-developed peoples of Southern Africa …

It is one country.

It is one country, that is true. I shall deal with this point just now. However, in terms of this year’s Budget, 13% of the Budget is being spent on direct development aid to the three non-White groups in Southern Africa. That is over and above all the other indirect assistance through the medium of all the other departments of which they also receive the benefit. What South Africa has done under the present circumstances cannot be bettered anywhere else in the world. On that basis I say that the progress that has been made is greater than could have been expected.

May I ask a question?

Yes, certainly.

Will the hon. member tell me whether he considers the contribution of Black and Brown South Africans to the economy of this country to be greater than 13% or not?

The contribution is obviously there and it is part of the total economy. However, I am referring to what the taxpayer himself pays. I could just as well say that the contributions of those people who come here from other independent States outside South Africa such as Malawi, Lesotho, Zambia, Rhodesia and other countries …

And Scotland!

… and Scotland, for that matter, also aid the development of this country. Nevertheless, this is a development contribution which primarily the White taxpayer makes towards the upliftment of the Black, Brown and Indian peoples of Southern Africa.

The question was also asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti whether a calculation has been made as to the exact date when the upliftment of the Black people will be such that they will have a viable economy and an acceptable standard of living. Let me deal with this question of a viable economy for the Black homelands. Let us take the situation of Zambia. Zambia has a very viable economy. However, the Zambian economy in co-operation with Rhodesia and South Africa would be far more viable. Without that co-operation, Zambia’s economy makes it dependent upon foreign aid. At the same time, the economy of Lesotho or Swaziland is in itself not viable, while in co-operation with South Africa it becomes viable. In the same way therefore the economy of the Transkei and of the other Black homelands in South Africa would obviously only become viable in co-operation with the economy of the whole of Southern Africa. We have reached the stage where the economy of the various peoples of Southern Africa, be they currently independent nations or nations awaiting independence, will be viable only in co-operation with one another. In the same way, therefore, the economy of any single country in Europe is only viable in its fullest sense, in co-operation with the other countries of Europe. Even the economy of the economically strong West Germany would probably collapse if it were not for the co-operation of its economic partners in the European Economic Community. The important thing is, however, that in the European Common Market there is an interaction, an interdependence of economies. We also have this in Southern Africa. However, besides this, there is political sovereignty and political autonomy. That is the direction in which we are moving irrevocably. I think that the United Party will agree that this road on which the peoples of Southern Africa have been placed, the road to separate sovereignties, is irrevocable. No one can turn the clock back on these matters. Even the United Party must realize that the Black people of Southern Africca will demand that they be allowed to move forward on this road, and all their objections to the National Party’s policy in that regard are absolutely futile.

*Sir, under the national relations policy which we have in Southern Africa, good relations must obviously be fostered, and therefore it is important that we shall not talk here of the Whites and the Browns and the Indians in order to play them off against the Blacks. There must obviously be economic co-operation because of our economic interdependence, but in the field of politics, too, more and more consultations will obviously have to take place in future and more and more agreements will obviously have to be entered into in future, but in the end the final decision will rest with each independent State or State in embryo. What is important as regards the economic development of the Bantu homelands, is the attitude of the Bantu himself. I think it would be wrong to expect the Whites alone to show initiative with the Bantu always being on the receiving end. I want to appeal to the Black leaders to be more moderate in their attitude, for if they are not moderate, they will intimidate potential industrialists, ones who would have been prepared to invest in the Bantu areas, and in this way seriously hamper the development of their own areas.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke of the necessity of expanding the agricultural development of the Bantu homelands, but in the present context I foresee that it is unlikely that tremendous progress will be made in that field, because of the traditional attitude and belief of many Bantu. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was the questionable privilege of some of us on this side of the House to have had representation, together with the so-called Young Turks of the United Party, on the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. We found it striking that they had quite a lot to say, particularly about the ethnic policy of the National Party, when they were provincial councillors. I find it interesting to note that up to now not one of the socalled Young Turks of the United Party has let his voice be heard in this debate.

They are now Young Streakers.

Mr. Chairman, there must be a reason for this. What have we found up to now on the part of the United Party in this debate? We have had negative criticism in respect of the policy of the National Party, but one would have expected a party, which pretends to have an alternative policy, to have juxtaposed it to the policy of the Government party, that it would have had the courage to state its policy as well in this House. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said in his speech that he would deal with the policy of the United Party, and that is as far as he came. Subsequently we expected his lieutenants behind him to spell out to us what the policy of the United Party in this regard is, but we are waiting in vain. Mr. Chairman, during a debate in the Transvaal Provincial Council, we asked the Young Turks of the United Party whether, in terms of the United Party’s policy, in terms of their so-called federal policy, it would be possible for a Black man to become Prime Minister of that federal council of theirs. Strangely enough, Sir, not one of them had the courage to say “yes” or “no”.

Our leader said this long ago.

Sir, in all fairness to that hon. member who has just made that interjection, I want to concede that the Leader of the United Party, Sir De Villiers Graaff, conceded at a meeting, a few days before the election, after a specific question in this regard had been put to him, that such a possibility did exist. But now I should like to put further questions to the United Party on their policy. We want to accept that it is the intention of the United Party that that federal council of theirs will function on a democratic basis. I think we want to accept this, and that we will also accept that it will be the object of the United Party that it would also like to be the majority party in that federal council of theirs. We would like to accept that, and therefore we want to ask: Is the United Party, with a view to obtaining the majority vote in that federal council, also going to ask for the support of the Black man and the Brown man? Would the United Party make it possible for the Black man and the Brown man to become members of the United Party? [Interjections.]

Are you afraid of the Black man?

I am not afraid of the Black man. AU I am doing is to ask a simple question. Perhaps the hon. member for Mooi River could simply say “yes” or “no”, for when we listen to a Young Turk from the United Party, such as the hon. member for Bryanston, we find that he told us here in the Foreign Affairs debate that this National Party Government should reject every aspect of discrimination in order to satisfy the outside world. From that we can make only one deduction, which is that the United Party is prepared to do so. Therefore we ask the United Party: In their federal concept, where they tell us that they want to do away with all forms of discrimination, are they going to make it possible for a Black man or a Brown man to become a member of their party? We know the Progressive Party has the honesty towards the voters of South Africa to say that in terms of their standpoint this could be possible.

Yes.

But the United Party does not have the honesty to give the voters of South Africa a reply.

Do you not understand the policy? You know nothing about the policy.

We have just had an election at which the United Party was rejected by the White voters of South Africa, and what happened after that? The United Party held talks with the Bantu leaders, and they have every right to hold those talks. The hon. member for Uhmlatuzana told us that after a day of talks they had reached an agreement with the Bantu leaders. [Interjections.] Did you not reach a consensus with the Bantu leaders? Those were the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He said, “separate development must be demolished”. We then asked the United Party: What did you say to the Black leaders of South Africa you were going to do with South Africa if you were to assume the reins of government. Sir, if we put these questions to these people in all sincerity—and the voters are asking these questions—we receive no reply. No wonder the voters of South Africa rejected them at the polls! As far as this side of the House and the National Party are concerned, there is no doubt among the voters of South Africa about the course which the National Party will adopt with the White voters and with the Bantu in South Africa. We say, quite unambiguously, that we will remain the masters in White South Africa. [Interjections.] We are not ashamed to stand for baasskap in White South Africa. We say, however, that in Black South Africa the Black man will be master. This is the standpoint of the National Party, and we make no apology for this.

Where is White South Africa?

We are prepared to help the Black man on the road to his own sovereignty and baasskap in his part of the country as well, and to play our part in doing so. We are not, however, suffering from any guilt complex. Since we are prepared to help the Black man, we also expect the Black man to help himself. Since that side of the House is hurling reproaches at us for not having done this, that or the other—I just want to point out that there is still a vast amount which has still to be done—we ask in all fairness that the Black man should play his part as well in the betterment of his people. No people can develop unless they, too, make their own contribution. We are not suffering from any guilt complex. Our feeling of realism in regard to the realities of our country forces us to do so, and to help the Black man to reach the top on the road of development. This we want to make possible for them too. To that we adhere inexorably.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton simply because it is very difficult for me to calculate the significance of his contribution to the whole problem of Bantu administration and development. What I should like to do is to link up with the point mentioned by the hon. member for Stilfontein when he said that we would have to accept the fact that within a few years’ time one of the homelands will become independent.

A few days ago the hon. the Prime Minister made an important statement concerning the independence of the Transkei. Whatever one’s views are on this problem of independence, it remains a fact that when independence becomes a reality within the next few years, a new political phase will begin for the whole of South Africa. For a number of reasons into which I cannot go now, because of the limited time, I believe that nothing will underline and focus the position of the urban Black man more than the independence of the first homeland in South Africa. Technically the urban Xhosa becomes a foreigner, an immigrant. This event alone whereby a permanent section of an urban population become technically foreigners or immigrants in the place of their birth is an act of political administration which stands without precedent in the modern world. Although a great deal has been said by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development about homeland development, very little has been said about the practical position of the urban Black man. Constitutionally they may be regarded as not being there at all, but it is a simple matter of fact that they are there and will be there forever.

I want to raise a simple issue about the continued presence of the urban Blacks in the urban areas. The question I want to pose to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether the Government envisages treating those people who are technically immigrants or foreigners, in the same way as other foreigners. When I talk about foreigners I talk about Western foreigners or immigrants, about Black foreigners or immigrants and about Japanese or Eastern foreigners and immigrants. In short, the question that I want to pose is whether it is the official intention to move away from pure racial discrimination or not. This is a simple question. I am not trying to trick the hon. the Minister. He can simply say “yes” or “no” or that he does not know. This is a question that has to be answered simply because at the present moment I can identify a great deal of doubt amongst the members of the Government party themselves. I refer, for example, to the hon. member for Innesdal whom I regard, quite frankly, as a valuable asset to the Nationalist Party. He, more than any other hon. member in this whole debate, has not blustered, has not over-performed but in cool, rational terms has tried to present the facts. He referred to the wage gap problem yesterday and said that we simply could not change the wage gap overnight. However, he said that it was the intention of the Government to move towards a closing of the wage gap, in other words, to move towards getting away from discrimination as far as wages are concerned. He then went on to say that the Opposition should not really exploit discrimination because we find ourselves in very difficult historical circumstances. That is where I lose the argument. When a man comes to you and talks to you about his frustrations and problems, he is in no frame of mind to listen to a history lesson. We have heard many history lessons from the Government benches in the whole debate, but there is no point in explaining to the Black man all the complicated elements of history which gave rise to the present situation. What he wants to know is what we are going to do for him and his children in this situation. This particularly applies to the urban Black man. I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education himself has this afternoon and on previous occasions indicated that he wanted to move away from discrimination. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the unfortunate incident of the child of the Malawian diplomat, the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was unfortunate that it happened and that they wanted to move away from this kind of situation. Is it the intention of the Government to move away from exactly this kind of discrimination as far as the technically defined foreigners and immigrants from the Transkei are concerned? Will they also kick up a fuss if their children are kicked off the buses? This is a simple question I am asking the hon. the Minister. The same aplies as far as facilities are concerned; the same applies to the right to buy property, the right to apply for jobs in any industry and even to set up business. I am just mentioning certain examples. There are Government members who argue differently.

May I ask the hon. member a question? While talking about discrimination, can the hon. member please tell me whether he is prepared to accept that a Black man can sleep in the same room as his child as a boarder? In other words, will he allow him in his own home just as he will allow a White child to stay with his child?

I can quite frankly answer the question for the hon. the Deputy Minister. In fact, I have Black friends and their children have slept with my children in the same bedroom. However, I am not talking about boarders or hostels and so on. But it has in fact happened. I must say that my children seem remarkably healthy despite that fact.

I just want to carry on and say that there is confusion amongst the ranks of the Government members. To show that I want to refer to an article from Die Afrikaner of 21 June 1974. In that article the hon. member for Waterberg was quoted as having said the following—

The same point was made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and by the hon. member for Barberton. On the one side we have people in the Government benches saying that they will go on discriminating in the future. Some talk about “geregverdigde diskriminasie”, others, like the hon. the Minister himself, say they do not know and yet others say “no, we will move away from it”. I think it is of vital significance that on this very small issue the Government indicates quite clearly what their intention is. We are not demanding of them to eradicate inequality overnight. Obviously, we know what the difficulties are.

The hon. member for Innesdal for instance, referred to the problem of housing. He said that there were over 648 000 migrant labourers and asked what it would cost if we were to build a house for each one of them at R2 000 per house. We have worked that out. It would cost R1 300 million, i.e. about 40% of the total budget allocated to Iscor up to this year. But it is a question of priorities. I am not saying that such a large amount should not be allocated to Iscor. I am simply saying that housing can be provided if the pressure is great enough and we can settle what our priorities are to be. I know that it cannot be done overnight. However, a declaration of intent on the part of this Government, stating unambiguously whether they are going to move away from discrimination as far as the urban Black man is concerned, will do more towards defusing the conflicting and very tense situation in our urban areas then anything else. In this House we focus all our political attention on the rural areas, and we are doing a lot of good there. I have no argument on that score at all. The problems attendant upon agrarian development are problems that are being experienced all over Africa. However, it is also a fact that the flash points of conflict in every country in Africa have never been in the rural areas but always in the urban areas. This is one part of the Government’s policy that has been grossly neglected and that it has paid very little attention to. They have neglected this for obvious reasons. I can understand their difficulties, but we have reached the stage in the political history of South Africa with the changes facing us in the future where we can no longer delay stating quite clearly what our intentions are with regard to the permanent Black population in our urban areas. We have to say, even if only on a low key, what our intentions are as far as treating them as human beings is concerned. I can assure you of one thing, Mr. Chairman, namely that a Black Xhosa person who grew up in Johannesburg is not going to take it lightly when a vigorous defence is put up by the hon. the Prime Minister because the son of a Malawian diplomat has been abused in public while he has lived his whole life in the urban areas without having any rights that he can claim as his own.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the way in which the hon. member for Rondebosch stated the standpoint of the Progressive Party. It was with much sympathy, too, that I listened to the hon. member. He becomes very upset if too many members on this side of the House refer to the historical problem situation which arose in South Africa through the meeting of various culture and race groups. I want to tell the hon. member that it sometimes amazes me that it is in fact among the so-called academics and the so-called intellectuals that reference is made so lightly and superficially, and yet with such a high degree of wisdom and pseudo-understanding, to population and race problems. I said that it was with a certain amount of sympathy that I listened to him because when I listen to him and to people such as the hon. member for Edenvale, I am reminded of my old professor in the classical languages, Prof. Flippie Pistorius, who was one of the first Afrikaans-speaking members of the chief executive of the Progressive Party. I often had discussions with him and argued with him and the question often occurred to me how it was possible for a man of his intellect to be so utterly blind to other facets of the problem. In passing, I must concede to the hon. member for Rondebosch that his intellect, although perhaps not comparable with that of Prof. Pistorius, probably places him above the average. I also want to say that it is very interesting to follow the history of Prof. Pistorius. That is where my sympathy originates. He died, and I wonder how many wreaths were sent by the Progressive Party, because that hon. member will not be the first Afrikaner in the history of Afrikanerdom in South Africa to be used by the liberals to destroy his own people and to bring about a state of affairs in South Africa which will cause dissatisfaction not only among his own people, but among all the people in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that I came across Prof. Pistorius a few months before his death. He told me then: “Daan, there is no solution to this problem in any of the parties. There are too many academies and so-called scientists in South Africa who are offering oversimplified solutions for the problems of South Africa.” It is not difficult to raise points of criticism against the National Party and its policy. I can also do that; we can all do that. There are things we struggle with, too. However, there is one thing in respect of which no one should point a finger at us, and that is the fact that the National Party, through its policy of separate development, is making an honest effort to create a future in this country of ours not only for the Black man, but for the White man too. I have in front of me a small publication issued by the Progressive Party, called Deurbraak. I am aware of the fact that the Progressive Party addresses itself to the Afrikaner, and the Afrikaner youth in particular, because it thinks that the English-speaking youth has already been entirely won over. There, I think, they are making a very big mistake. Over the past few years they have been doing an enormous amount of intensive planning to reach the young studying Afrikaner, to call into question his entire history and his entire existence and to awaken in him certain emotions or psychological reactions, so much so that they see a question mark hanging over their entire existence. The Progressive Party came along with this publication of theirs, Deurbraak. Hon. members can go and ask Mr. Van Eck. He will tell you that I am a very faithful reader. If I have not subscribed to the publication, I go and buy it. The Progressive Party goes to the young up-and-coming generations. To the non-White youth they say: We shall give you a Utopia on earth. The hon. member for Rcndebosch can shake his head if he likes. They go to the up-and-coming generations of South Africa and tell them: We in the Progressive Party offer you a complete solution. I want to refer the hon. member to Deurbraak. It is really a break-in (inbraak), a breaking into the cultural possessions of a certain section of the population of South Africa. There are certain things which they promise the people in this periodical. Let us state it clearly this evening: Where has there ever been a policy in the history of man, apart from the policy of the National Party, which for 27 years has been in the spotlight and has been looked at with the most critical eyes. One can go and look in any place in the world where various peoples and races have come together, and see what has resulted from that contact situation. Then these hon. members come along, the representatives of the rich and the so-called learned people, and within a few moments they want to tell us they have the solution to all the problems of South Africa. The hon. members’ time is still to come in the five years they will be sitting here. To the official Opposition I want to say that I hope that we work them out of here.

This publication, Deurbraak, is the prestige publication of this little intellectual rich man’s group in South Africa. We have been testing it for 27 years, not only under the difficult world conditions we are living in, not only with the entire liberal Press against us, but only in a closed circle of clear-thinking people, and I can say that hon. members are unable to fulfil one of these promises made to the young people of South Africa. In Deurbraak of March 1974 they say: “The Progressive Party and the franchise, language, education, ownership, employment, Bantustans, security and the future.” That is what these so-called learned gentlemen say about the Progressive Party and the franchise in the course of their elevated moral criticism of the National Party and its policy (translation)—

In this single short paragraph this political rich man’s group in South Africa betrays the fact that they are inherently the biggest discriminators of all, not only against the Whites but against the Brown man and the Black man as well. With this kind of thing they will go to the English-speaking people in English, to the Xhosa-speaking people in Xhosa and to the Zulu-speaking people in Zulu. I now want to ask them, on the basis of what moral justification can they tell a man that because he earns one cent less than another, he may not vote? The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party wants to laugh off everything, but one cannot laugh off the realities of the problems of South Africa. Hon. members of the Progressive Party must convince us that what I have said, is not true. In that one short sentence they are engaging in the most extreme discrimination that one can practise in South Africa. Those hon. members want to give the rich people and the learned people the franchise and form a power bloc in South Africa with the small group at the top holding the reins of government and with the poor ordinary man remaining at the bottom dancing to their tune. I want to ask the learned gentlemen opposite to show me where, in the history of Africa, since the White man set foot in Africa … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rondebosch made the statement that we gave too much attention to the Bantu in the homelands and in the rural areas and too little to the Black man in the urban areas. I think that the hon. member has been guilty of a major error of reasoning this evening, or let me say rather, that he did not think the matter out in full. Perhaps he will see the light later. We give so much attention to the Black man in his own areas, because by doing so we are giving attention to the Black man in the White areas as well. The development of the Bantu in his own areas is of primary importance, because this, already, is going to solve for us a number of the problems the hon. member is creating for himself.

I should like to deal with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member spoke for a long time yesterday, defending his allegation that the Government’s policy of separate development had failed. He also made the statement that the Black man’s areas were not or could not be viable. I should just like to dwell for a moment on that point. When we speak about the development of the Black man in his own areas, we should really have in mind three categories of development, namely political development, social development and economic development. These three forms of development are very closely related. I do not want to dwell on political development and social development for very long. However, if we look at political development, we should immediately call to mind the eight homelands which exist already and the progress they have already made on the road to self-government. Let us take the Transkei as an example, which has progressed furthest. We have the statement made last week by the hon. the Prime Minister. This shows us that a great deal of progress has already been made along that path of development. Over the past few years we have concentrated on the consolidation of the homelands. This also shows us that this step is one of primary importance and that we should give it the necessary attention. As far as social development is concerned, in 1960 there were only three towns in these homelands. In 1972 there were already 79 towns in the homelands with 677 000 inhabitants. This is phenomenal expansion and development. As far as housing is concerned, in 1960 there were only 2 091 houses and in 1972 there were already 104 178. Only a few thousand rand were spent on housing in the homelands in 1960. In 1972 this amount had risen to R32 million. If the hon. member wants to check these figures, he would do well to take the trouble to inquire from Benbo in connection with certain figures and information. They would be able to furnish him with a great many figures and much information there. That in itself is a wonderful achievement. I do not even want to mention the issue of education. The achievements of the Nationalist Government as regards education for the Bantu in their own areas has been divulged repeatedly at question time. The same goes for transport. 300 000 Bantu are transported daily from the homelands to the White areas. However, the greatest achievement is to be found in the economic sphere. We know that in the early years, subsistence production was the major contributing factor to the gross domestic product in the homelands. By subsistence production I mean that the family cultivates a piece of ground for its own benefit, but this picture too has changed drastically. In 1960, subsistence production constituted about 55% and in 1970, only 38%. It has begun to drop rapidly. The contribution of the public sector to the gross domestic product was 19% in 1960, but in 1970 it had already risen to 31%. We ask ourselves: What is the aim behind economic development for the Bantu? The primary aim, as the first priority, is to allow the Bantu to work and live in his own homelands. Secondly, to allow the Black man to live in his own homeland and work in the White areas. Let us go a little further and analyse the agricultural position. Let us consider what the economic development has been in the sphere of agriculture. We find that 76% of the homelands are suitable for dry-land farming as against 35% of the Republic as a whole. In other words, the homelands have an outstanding agricultural potential. Just to show you how viable the homelands are, I just want to mention that the existing arable land in the homelands is not even near to being fully utilized. Still more arable land will presently become available as the homelands are consolidated. This too can be cultivated in the years ahead. At the moment they are not cultivating all of it. In the third place, farming methods in the homelands leave much to be desired. Production per morgen could possibly be quadrupled. This also shows that as far as agriculture is concerned, that viability is there. Increased production can also be effected by means of extension. In addition it can be effected through the training and proper organization of the people.

Let us now come to the question of mining. I do not know whether hon. members realize that in 1972 there were already about 57 mines in the homelands which could also provide those people with employment. Most of these mines are situated in Bophuthatswana and Lebowa. Here too the viability of the Black man in his own area can be substantially improved. The workers at those mines in the homelands are, for the most part, imported from beyond our borders. When the local population of the homelands has been properly trained for the mining industry, then they can allow their own people to work in that mining industry. What is more, there are enormous reserves of unexploited minerals in the homelands which may be exploited in future years and can create the necessary employment opportunities for the people of the homelands. The Bantu Mining Corporation, of course, plays a tremendous role in the development of mining in the homelands. But, Sir, I also want to deal with industries. The industrial decentralization programme began in 1960, as hon. members perhaps know. Two places, namely Hammarsdale and Rosslyn, were concentrated on. These two growth points have increased to 11 major growth points today which create a substantial number of employment opportunities for the people of the homelands. This, too, is proof of the viability of the homelands. To date R637 million has been invested in border industries and this is going to increase daily. Sir, in 1969 a start was made with the agency system, and by the end of March 1974, 11 700 non-Whites were already employed in the agency industries. Sir, this is only in the opening stages. As you know, capital expenditure always precedes employment. In other words, we are in the opening stages of that industrial development on an agency basis. As far as trade and services are concerned, the trade and service figures of course lean heavily on agriculture and mining and industries. We have already indicated that this is making the homelands viable and will in the future make them even more economically strong. The income in the trade and service sectors from the commuters (pendelaars), the new word brought into circulation yesterday by the hon. the Minister, is causing still further expansion. Hon. members should realize the strength of the purchasing power of the Bantu. We should like the income which the Bantu earns in the White areas, to be spent in his homelands. Sir, all these factors show us that we should effect the primary development of the homelands; that we should give attention to their economic, social and political development. This will have the effect that the problem of the Black man in the White areas will be eased to an ever-increasing extent in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to congratulate the Natalian members over there on their bilingualism. It is pleasant to hear a little English from the back-benches on that side. Sir, it is a pleasure for me to be in the House, because the hon. member for Uitenhage helped me a great deal and gave me good advice, but I want to suggest that he reads the Saturday Argus, and then he will perhaps be able to furnish a new young member with better advice than he gave me then.

Sir, earlier in this session I asked the hon. the Minister whose Vote is under consideration at present, how many people were living in the Cleremont residential area outside Pinetown. His reply was: About 24 000. I take it that that figure was for the year 1970. But if one were to go to Cleremont one would very soon see that the number of people living there is closer to 60 000. The greater majority of these people have come to live there over the past six years. [Interjections.] Sir, I should just quote to hon. members an excerpt from a Government publication to describe what Cleremont looks like now (translation)—

Then it goes on (translation)—

I am quoting here from the report of the inter-departmental committee which undertook an investigation after the riots and disturbances at Cato Manor in Durban 14 years ago. The hon. member for Maitland has said that this is a crisis Government; it only acts when there is a crisis, and I want to warn the Government that there is danger that a crisis could arise in this residential area of Cleremont. But if one goes nosing around Cleremont a little, one finds many interesting things. I myself strolled among those shanties and even slipped in the excrement which those people had to leave in the streets, and nearly landed on my backside as a result. The reference books of most of the people living in those shanties indicated that they were in the Pinetown area legitimately.

I did some investigation, because after all, it is against the law that workers should be in an area without housing. Hon. members opposite know that very well. Then I drove to the Transkei and here I have an example of a contract which is being signed. This one comes from the labour bureau at Harding and is for the Consolidated Frame Cotton Corporation, Natal Knitting Mills Ltd., Consolidated Wool Washing, Pinetown Wool Washery—“Contract of employment as approved by the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner”. But nothing is said here about accommodation, nothing. And yet these people come to the Pinetown area, and how do they get there legitimately? I then drove to the Transkei, to Cofimvaba, to Qumbu, to Tabankulu and other towns and had a look around all the labour offices there, and what did I find? Contracts, signed by the same group of people—the Phillip Frame group—in which the “Accommodation” column had either been crossed out or else the words “Yes, there is”, or “Will be found in Cleremont” had been inserted. I also found “call-in cards”.

The Minister told me, in reply to a question this month, that by law every contract worker must be sent back to his place of recruitment afer he conclusion of his contract. But here are “call-in cards” by the same group, the Phillip Frame group, and they are stamped by the “Bantu Affairs Commissioner” of Pinetown, and what does it say? “Suitable and approved accommodation available.” Now, Sir, these people are there legitimately, but at the same time the Act has been circumvented. I asked the people of Cleremont:“How do you get here? How do they stamp your books?” And the people of Cleremont laugh at me as if I am silly and do not know. I ask them why and they tell me. “But we are working for Phillip Frame”. I ask them how that helps them and they say that it is because everyone knows that they contribute thousands of rand to the coffers of the Nationalist Party.

Sir, a formidable crisis situation is developing in Cleremont. What is more, the Deputy Minister says that he was in Cleremont in the Pinetown area in November 1968; he consulted authorities and spoke to all kinds of associations, and he said that he was extremely concerned about the situation. But things only got worse; the situation was only aggravated and has now become shockingly bad in that area. I want to tell the Minister that I have already been told by Nationalists and officials of his department that everyone who has anything to do with Cleremont, is intensely concerned about the situation there because the Act is being circumvented openly and it is the responsibility of this Minister to explain to us in this House how that Act is being circumvented.

There is another point. I asked the hon. the Minister what was being done about accommodation in the area around Pinetown. He mentioned the following places, among others. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that they lived in the Klaarwater urban Bantu residential area. There are about 200 little houses there. He also said that they live in Cleremont township. I have already described the situation there. He also said that they live in the Mpumalanga Bantu township. That is in Hammarsdale, about 15 to 20 miles away from there. He also said that they live in Inanda reserve. That is a hilly place which is only suitable for shanties. He said too that they live in Marian Hill. This area has been declared a Coloured area. In addition the hon. the Deputy Minister said that they also live in St. Wendoleness mission reserve. A worse example of a slum I am unable to imagine. What is more, this part has been declared an Indian group area. In the Pinetown area we can see an example of the misapplication of Acts virtually unequalled elsewhere in the country.

I have taken a great deal of trouble to investigate this whole matter and I should like to speak to the hon. the Minister about it, because I think that this is an extremely bad situation. Many of the strikes we have had in the Pinetown/New Germany area, have been due to the situation prevailing in Cleremont. Apparently this Phillip Frame group is able to recruit people from the entire Transkei for Natal. Surely this is wholly contrary to the policy of the Government. Why do these people come to Pinetown from the Transkei while there are thousands of Zulus and KwaZulu seeking employment? The hon. the Minister must give us an explanation, but not only that; he must act fast, before a more serious situation develops there. I want to inform this House that I do not hold myself responsible for what could happen in Cleremont and those areas. That responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. Although he has known what has been happening there over the past six years, he has done nothing about it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown will probably pardon me if I do not accompany him on his stroll through Cleremont. [Interjections.]

In the debate up to now one thing has emerged very clearly, i.e. that this Government is engaged in great tasks, great tasks which, apparently, the Opposition do not always understand and with which they are not always able to keep up. While the Government is treating the major problems seriously and is making a probing study of them, the Opposition is plodding around on the surface looking for political gain. It is therefore no wonder that they are still pleading for something which this Government has been doing for years now, viz. change. Nowhere in the world before has such a major and difficult task been tackled as the one this Government has in fact been tackling for the sake of change, specifically to unravel the historically mixed development of people, inherent in which is the germ of potential friction, and to lead people to an orderly and peaceful coexistence.

What makes this problem so difficult and unique, is the fact that it not only demands sacrifices, but also that we are dealing primarily with people, with the individual and his desires, his preferences and his selfishness, the individual with his prejudices and his feuds, with his virtues and his weaknesses. Consequently it is not an art to hamper such an effort, and try to defeat it. It is not an art to discredit a policy which demands sacrifices and to condition people into believing that it is immoral, inhumane and unenforceable. Nor is it difficult to exploit the human craving for comfort and indolence by making them believe that the Bantu in South Africa consist of two groups, namely homelanders and the so-called urban Bantu, and that the economy will be ruined unless the presence of Bantu in the White area is accepted as a permanent arrangement.

It is not an art to subject one’s policy to circumstances. It is an art to look ahead and to decide, when this is necessary, to subject the circumstances to one’s policy in the interests of the survival of a people. This is precisely what this Government is doing, and it shall continue to do so to the end. The chances that it will succeed are excellent, for it is complying with those inexorable prerequisites viz. to take basic principles into account, to take into account the natural and inborn characteristics of nations and people, and to take cognizance of the mistakes which are being made elsewhere, in order to try to avoid them.

The division of Bantu into homelanders and urban Bantu is an error, but what is even more of an error, is to keep these two groups permanently separate. It is an artificial division which is based on the false premise that multi-national development has to do only with the development of the relevant territory. Surely that is not true. Multi-national development is primarily concerned with the development of people. South Africa is building on the only and fairest basis, i.e. nationality—one of the deepest human sentiments which does not allow itself to be confined by any boundaries and which cannot and may not be disregarded. If one is looking for trouble, all one has to do is keep people separate. History teems with examples. Consider Africa, which the colonial powers fell upon and created territorial administrative units by drawing boundaries which cut through ethnic groups so that there are numerous states which enclose populations consisting of different components which have neither one language, nor one religion, nor one culture, nor one history. What happened then? Unrest and bloodshed followed, and where this is not prevailing, an artificial peace is prevailing. Think of the numerous coup d’états, the hardships and sufferings of millions of people for the sake of joining their own people. The problems of Africa are unmistakable and the lessons to be learned from them are clear, viz. to determine meaningful boundaries between peoples and to give content to the existence of peoples.

The argument which we hear so frequently that the Bantu in White areas have no desire to return to their homeland, is nonsense. Let us accept for the moment that this is true. Then one is still saddled with the situation that in the White area there is a Bantu population consisting of various components, with deep-rooted language and cultural differences. Surely it is incredibly naïve to believe that one can forge one people from all these various nationalities, and that one can manage and deal with them as a unit. By doing so one is surely looking for trouble and making precisely the same mistake which was made in Africa, and the same mistake which was made in Cyprus and other places. Whether a Bantu was born here or whether he came here yesterday or the day before, the fact remains that is linked by blood to his ethnic group in the homelands. What grounds are there for accepting that he will not, sooner or later, seek to join his own people? What happened at the gold mines in Welkom for example? There could have been many causes, but there is no doubt about the fundamental cause. It was the Basuto and the Xhosa who came to blows. One wonders sometimes what would have happened if those Basuto did not have a country of their own to which they could retire. What is meaningful, is that the Basuto themselves seek the solution in separation. They asked to be allowed to work and live separately. There are deeprooted and latent tensions between the Bantu peoples of this country, and any policy has to take this into account. But the Opposition is still trying to cover them under one blanket, and they are toying with the idea that Black workers should be united in trade unions. This is an artificial division which is dangerous because it creates a potential source of permanent friction between Bantu and Bantu, between Bantu and Whites, between governments and between nations.

It is clear that the Opposition wants to keep the Bantu here in White South Africa for the sake of short-term economic gain. They are professors of belief in an affluent life. The economy is held up as being supreme, politics and social endeavours must be adapted to it, instead of other way round, viz. instead of devising the economy to serve to best effect the culture and major national assets. With such a policy one may win over the entire world, but one is harming one’s soul. Surely one cannot maintain and develop a specific view of life with an economic system which is designed for the very purpose of serving a conflicting view of life.

We go further. What an anomaly it is, to say nothing of moral justification, to do what the Opposition wants to do, to help to develop the homelands with the one hand and with the other seize their vital manpower. Surely we know that the permanent incorporation of foreign labour is never without any problems. Have we forgotten our history? Just think what problems the introduction of Indian and Chinese labour in this country resulted in. There are enough examples of what the consequences are of an economic system which is built on the basis of economic Liberalism by entrepreneurs who have a different policy and view of life in regard to foreign labour. I conclude by saying that there can be no reconciliation whatsoever between the policy of multi-national development and the existence of a separate permanent Bantu population within the White area of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in past years bitter criticism was levelled at the homeland policy of the Government. With a virulence unequalled in our political history, the Opposition and the Opposition Press attacked this great plan of placing our complicated ethnic problem on the road to a solution. In spite of that, men on this side, men with foresight and perseverance, continued. What is the result of that today? Homelands are today the most important reality in the political situation of our country. Homeland development in South Africa has become the greatest political event of the century. Homelands have become the key to the solution of the Bantu question and to the realization of the Bantu’s ideal of self-determination. The result is that we had a breakthrough to a new era in South Africa last week when the hon. the Prime Minister made an historic statement here that the Government had formally granted the Transkei leave to become independent. Fifteen years ago, when the late Dr. Verwoerd envisaged independent homelands, there were many sceptics. There were people who thought that this could not happen within a half-century. There were even people who thought that it could never happen, and now it is becoming a reality. Now there is no chance of turning back, and in any case there is no one who wants to turn back. We have been placed irrevocably on the path to multi-national development. Six of the homelands already have local self-governments. In the past 15 years, the critics have had to eat a great deal of their words of criticism. In South Africa today there is great consensus on the question of homelands, as we heard here today. We now have a situation that all three political parties, as they are sitting here, are agreed on the maximal development of the homelands, even though we do not advocate this for the same political reasons. We are receiving more and more evidence that this policy of multi-nationalism of ours is the only policy which is making any real impression on thinking people abroad, people who are prepared to debate our policy. What is important, however, is that the Bantu themselves are in favour of it and are participating enthusiastically in its implementation. Hence the stream of applications on the part of the Bantu to move to the homelands, to such an extent that it is no longer possible to keep abreast of the demand for housing. The homeland development which has already taken place and the orderly way in which this has happened, is more than a triumph for this Government and its purposefulness. It is a triumph for the National Party Government. The foundations have now been laid and a very good basis has been achieved for spectacular acts in future. This progress of our homeland policy in comparison with the lamentable failure of the alternative in countries to the north of us, ought to be a very great inducement now for South Africans to lend their support to this policy. It is contrary to all logic that some people still persist in advocating systems for South Africa which have led to chaos in the Portuguese territories. The United Party and the Progressive Party are toying with ideas which are going to founder on the same rocks as those on which multi-racialism foundered in the Portuguese territories.

That is nonsense. [Interjections.]

It is said that homelands development is still too slow, that it must proceed more rapidly. Our Government is carrying out a gargantuan task in the homelands. Figures have already been quoted here, astronomical figures. I do not want to bore this House with figures, but I find the following striking. Almost 100 towns have already been developed in the homelands, and as many are being planned. More than 4 500 business enterprises have been established and more than 700 business premises have been erected. More than 100 000 new houses have been built, most of them during the past five years. Schools are being built at a rate of 300 per annum. This has led to the number of Bantu schools in the White area decreasing in one year by almost 1 300. KwaZulu and the Transkei both have more children at school than 19 of the independent African states have at school. In the fertile valleys and on the hilltops of the homelands one finds today a new and exciting pattern of living. Where the warrior of bygone days kept guard with his assegai over his small fields and flocks, one now finds dams and irrigation canals, agricultural projects and schools, training colleges, universities, hospitals and brand new towns. What a wonderful achievement that is!

When were you there?

I have probably paid more visits to those areas than the hon. member. [Interjections.] My hon. friends opposite will not distract me. All they must do is listen, and they will be given a great deal more information than they already have. The contention which we frequently hear that our Bantu are being isolated in the most unfertile parts of our country, is just not true. There is no reason why the homelands should be less viable than most of the other states in Africa. Even now 56% of the other African states fall into a per capita income group which is lower than that of the nine homelands of South Africa. The per capita income of KwaZulu and the Transkei is already considerably in excess of that of 20 other independent African states. I do not have the opportunity now to enumerate them all, but I have it here, and hon. members can get it from me. Our homelands are all still in their infancy, and have not really begun to develop yet. Our homelands have some of the best agricultural land in the Republic. Chief Owen Sithole, a member of the KwaZulu Government in charge of agriculture, pointed out himself that 86 ha in the homelands have the same average agricultural potential as 126 ha in the White area. The homelands fall, in addition, within the rich mineral belt of the Republic of South Africa. Dr. Hanekom, chairman of the Bantu Mining Corporation, believes that the homelands have a greater potential than the rest of South Africa as far as future mining and development of minerals is concerned. Prospecting work has already revealed a considerable potential. If hon. members opposite want more particulars, I shall be able to furnish them with the figures at a later stage. If I had had more time, I would have been able to quote these to the hon. members. Southern Africa has the infrastructure for more rapid growth than other parts of Africa, for the homelands have an advantage over most African states because they are isolated, while our homelands are situated in the midst of this great and strong infrastructure. Industrialists and entrepreneurs can make a tremendous contribution to increasing the viability of the homelands by establishing industries there. It is an almost undeveloped territory with vast possibilities. However, the homelands need White assistance very urgently. An investment in the homelands will not only produce material profits, but is also an investment for a peaceful and safe South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I followed the visions of the hon. member for Bloemfontein-North with a great deal of interest. The hon. the Minister also referred to visions earlier on and in the course of my speech I shall probably react to that indirectly because, owing to a lack of time I am unable to do so directly at this stage.

I listened to the hon. the Minister with a great deal of interest when he told us about the developments in the Bantu homelands. I just want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Albany concerning the importance of the work of the department and concerning our wholehearted co-operation in respect of the positive aspects of this policy. Of course I also took note of the remarks of the hon. member for Lichtenburg with a great deal of interest. I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his appointment as chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission. This Commission has an important task to perform and I want to convey my best wishes to the hon. member in the performance of the important task he has in this regard. I regret that he should have thought fit to launch a personal attack on me and call my integrity into question, but I just want to say that I do not deem it necessary to defend my integrity against that hon. member. There are two cardinal principles which one learns early in academic life. The one is that one has the right to question any statement which may be made, but that one should never question the integrity of another person. In the second instance one is guided, in academic life, by rational considerations, in other words, by the full use of the intellect. If rational considerations force one to take up a different standpoint, that change of standpoint is not only justified, but is essential. [Interjections.]

Order!

In this regard I should also just like to express my appreciation to the Chair for the degree of protection it has given me on this particular occasion. The basic statement I made, was that the policy in regard to the allocation of land in 1936 was not based on the premise that these areas would develop into separate, detached political entities, in other words, into politically independent units and that the construction placed on this in the White Paper of 1959 was a blunder.

Where did you read that?

The hon. member for Griqualand East indicated in 1913 and in 1936 what was meant by the concept “self-government”. In other words, in accordance with the practice in the whole of Africa, they were nothing but forms of local self-government. That, and nothing else, is what they were. Let us take another look at the facts.

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

I should like to have replied to the question, but it would only take up more of my time.

Let us now take a look at the facts. Up to and including the legislation of 1913, only 1 159 000 morgen of land was set aside for Bantu occupation in the Transvaal. That was only 3,5% of the total area of the Transvaal. Surely it is unthinkable to say that that 3,5% of the land of the Transvaal was intended to serve as a political home for the Bantu population of the Transvaal. In the Free State, up to and including the legislation of 1913, only 74 000 morgen was set aside, representing a bare 0,5% of the area of the Free State.

Typical Free State.

Surely it is unthinkable to argue that up to and including 1936 the object in setting aside these areas was the creation of separate political homes for the Bantu peoples of the Transvaal and the Free State or of the Union of South Africa. Let me go further. I indicated earlier on that the 1936 settlement was coupled with the removal of the Bantu voters from the ordinary voters’ roll and their placement on a separate voters’ roll, by means of which they could elect three White representatives in this Parliament and two in the provincial council. At the same time the Bantu of the Union were granted representation in the Senate and in addition the Native Representative Council was established. I want to point out that the three White representatives in the House of Assembly were entrenched in the 1936 Act. How can I possibly be told that the 1936 measure was aimed at removing the Bantu from the political scene? That is simply not historically correct. That is my point. As far as the official Government policy before 1959 is concerned, it is surely clear that there was no question of the Bantu homelands filling this role. I have already referred, in my earlier speech, to the statements made by the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration at the Volkskongres in Bloemfontein. The hon. member for Lichtenburg is a young man, a little younger than I am, and consequently he does not know about these things. He should make a few inquiries, and if he is unable to acquire the necessary information, he cam come back to me. He should come and ask me what happened in connection with the journey of the Rev. Land-man and the reaction to it on the part of the authority. He should also come and ask me about the refusal of the Government to carry out the basic recommendations of the Tomlinson Report. He should come and ask me how it is that that minority report of the Tomlinson Commission in regard to the development of the border areas appears in that Tomlinson Report. He should come and ask me about the last map in the atlas of the Tomlinson Report. He should come and ask me about the attitude of the Government in regard to the utilization of White capital in the development of the Bantu homelands. If he is unaware of it, he should also come and ask me about Dr. Tomlinson’s journey abroad at that time. I can understand and forgive the hon. member for Licthenburg and consequently I do not hold anything against him. I just want to tell him that one should be just a little more careful about being so quick to accuse others of a lack of integrity. I am in no doubt about the correctness of my statements. That correctness amounts to two things. All I am saying is that the setting aside of this land was not done with the intention of these areas having to serve as separate political homes for the Bantu, developing into independent units. That was not the intention. In that case we could say: “Very well, this is not what the position was but we are making that the position.” That is something totally different. Then we are not invoking history. However, this carries an inevitable implication and that is that we shall have to have a totally different settlement. We cannot say that we see those Bantu areas as forming the total homeland area of the entire Bantu population and then expect them to be satisfied with 13% of the surface area of the country. We cannot then say: We still stand by the 1936 Act.

That is a hackneyed argument.

It may be hackneyed, but as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, a fact is a fact. I want to go a little further. If we were able to freeze the number of Bantu outside the Bantu areas, about 8 million at this stage, then it would mean that in 26 years’ time the Bantu areas would have to support between 42 million and 45 million people. Do hon. members opposite want to tell me that we can sell this kind of argument to the Bantu? Can we sell it to them on the basis of a 13% division? Surely that is totally unthinkable. If we do not accept that, then it simply means that the whole concept of those Bantu areas serving as political homes for the entire Bantu population is entirely absurd.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all listened to the hon. member for Edenvale. Being aware of the fact that in his previous career the hon. member for Edenvale occupied a very important and responsible post at one of our universities and that he can therefore speak on this subject with authority, or is supposed to be able to, I think that we all listened to him with a great deal of attention. I think that the hon. member for Edenvale possibly has more than one difficulty. I think that one of the problems with which the hon. member for Edenvale has been struggling is his political about-face; the fact that until fairly recently— perhaps not so very recently—he subscribed to a certain political policy, that he subscribed to it in principle, and I think that he had faith that that policy could be converted into a practical policy and that it could succeed. He has lost that faith, however. I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that he lost that faith. Perhaps it is typical of the Opposition that they are unable to see beyond the problems and that they have lost faith. They remind me a great deal of the young clergyman who made a dash for the microphone at a session of the synod. He was very nervous when he got there and said: “Right Reverend Sirs, to me this is a hysterical occasion”. When he was cured of his hysteria he said that he had picked up a Bible text in passing and the Bible text had read: “Do not believe; only fear”. Looking at the Opposition, it seems to me, with reference to the hon. member for Edenvale, as if he has inverted that text to say: “Do not believe, only fear.” I think that the second difficulty of the hon: member for Edenvale is that the ghost of Dr. Verwoerd is always with him. Dr. Verwoerd has been haunting him all this time. He spoke about certain interviews and discussions. He mentioned the names of certain people and he spoke about maps, too. I think that the hon. member could perhaps give a very interesting account of a discussion he had with Dr. Verwoerd at his office and which caused him to sing in a rather minor key all the way back to Stellenbosch.

How do you know about it? Were you there?

I think the hon. member for Edenvale tried to re-write history for us here. We can all agree that we were not speaking in terms of political sovereignty in the times referred to here. No reference was made to political sovereignty for the various non-White peoples in 1912, 1913 and 1936. However, I think we will all agree that very meaningful expressions were used in connection with the development of the non-White peoples, the Black peoples in contrast to the White people, and that at that stage foundations had already been laid on which only one building could be constructed, namely a building which would be in the direction of political independence for those peoples, when one had sorted out the options. I repeat that this was not an utterance which indicated political sovereignty. Take, for example, an utterance such as that of W. H. Sampson in 1913, who said—

So even at that time there was talk of them making laws for themselves. Hon. members can say, if they like, that this is a limited form of self-government, but the foundation of self-determination for the Black peoples was laid there. I concede 100% that there is no question of sovereignty here, but the basis of political self-determination was laid down here, namely the making of their own laws, and that as early as 1913.

I refer to the statement by Mr. J. W. Sauer in respect of Act No. 27 of 1913. He proposed-—

[Interjections.] Quite correct. There is no question of sovereign government, but the basis is laid, down, namely that they should live in separate areas.

That is what Dr. Philip said.

I did not want to refer again to what Gen. Smuts said. I think that the hon. member for Pinetown has already sung a paean of praise of him, but I do not think he knows what Gen. Smuts really said. In 1917 Gen. Smuts said—

What did he say in 1946?

I think that the hon. member would be well advised to go and read what Gen. Smuts said. He referred to the uselessness of government in the same system, not even in a federal system. The hon. member for Edenvale had a great deal to say about the 1936 legislation. I again concede 100% that Gen. Hertzog also spoke about self-government here. He added—

That is a point I am giving the hon. member as a gift. However, what was said in addition to all this? Here I want to refer to what was said by the Minister of Native Affairs who submitted the Bill. (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 2747)—

The foundation is there; there the people should be able to live, maintain their standard of living and govern themselves. In other words, even at that stage it was thought that they could make a decent living there and that that could be sufficient for them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.