announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Gezina owing to the resignation with effect from 1 May 1975 of Dr. J. C. Otto.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only on a point of personal explanation with reference to the speech which I made yesterday evening during the Committee Stage of this Bill. It would appear from a perusal of my Hansard, as though the following words which I used yesterday evening, could perhaps be regarded as a reflection on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I said (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, as you will remember, this was followed by interjections. I just want to say that I associate myself with your decision by saying that the words which I used were not intended to cast a reflection on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I was only referring to the lies told against South Africa abroad, which the hon. the Minister also mentioned in his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin to dispose of the matters relating to the Public Service Commission which were raised by various members on both sides of the House during the course of this debate.

Before I come to that, I just want to say that it gives me pleasure to express a word of thanks to my retired Deputy Minister, who was with us for a period, and who dealt with the Committee Stage of the Publications Bill so effectively and efficiently last year, and as a result of which was transferred, to my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I want to give him the assurance that I had very great appreciation for his services, his loyalty and his diligence.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome my new Deputy Minister to this department, and to give him the assurance that this department, as has rightly been said in this House, deals with the lives of people from the first day to the last. I also want to tell him that this department, from its nature, deals with people, with living people, with lives, with sentiments and with emotional problems and issues. It is not a department which works with hard iron or steel or cement. As a result of that one expects humane treatment and humane conduct in this department, as we are indeed trying to do throughout. I want to welcome the hon. the Deputy Minister to the department in the knowledge that he, too, will accomplish his task in that spirit, in exactly the same way as the department is doing.

In regard to the Public Service Commission I just want to say that the chairman of the Public Service Commission for quite a number of years, Mr. Johan de Villiers, retired from the service of the Public Service Commission and the State yesterday. On this occasion I want to tell Mr. De Villiers that we are very grateful for the work which he has performed for many years in this department and in the Public Service as such. We leaned heavily on his superior knowledge in regard to this matter. I want to give him the assurance that we appreciate most highly his services to the State, and also wish him and his wife a pleasant retirement. He is succeeded by Mr. Johan van Zyl, who is from today the chairman of the Public Service Commission. I want to welcome Mr. Van Zyl very sincerely in this capacity. He is a person who has been serving on the Public Service Commission for many years—in the department as well, but particularly in the Public Service Commission, of which he has recently been the vice-chairman. I want to give him the assurance that I am looking forward to cordial co-operation with him, and tell him that I am convinced that our co-operation will indeed be cordial.

Then, in the place of Mr. De Villiers who retired, a new member has been added to the commission in the person of Mr. Malherbe. I want to bid him as well a wholehearted welcome for the period for which he has been appointed to act as member of the commission. I know that there is going to be pleasant co-operation between us. I also want to mention that the Secretary for the Public Service Commission, Mr. H. van Zyl, is retiring at the end of June this year. This is therefore the last time he will sit here as Secretary for the Public Service Commission under this Vote. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank Mr. Van Zyl as well very sincerely on behalf of the State and on behalf of the officials of South Africa for the years of good service he has devoted to the State, and in particular to the Public Service Commission. He displayed a lively interest in the work of the commission. At all times he sought only to benefit the commission, and on behalf of South Africa, the Government and the officials, I want to thank him sincerely for the hard and good work which he did. I wish him prosperity for the future. May it go well with him.

The hon. member for Green Point asked me yesterday about the future of the Public Service Commission, and precisely how I saw this. The hon. member himself mentioned that the commission had decided in 1973 to send a delegation overseas to institute an investigation into the circumstances there. A subcommittee under the chairmanship of Mr. De Villiers, the chairman of the commission, Mr. Van Zyl and three senior officials, visited quite a number of overseas countries—Canada, America and quite a number of States in Western Europe—to see how staff institutions over there function, and what systems are applicable there. They publish a very interesting report, which was submitted to me. This was a departmental investigation and consequently I did not release the report, although I took cognizance of its full contents. This report, with the various recommendations it contains, is at present being considered. That is the reason why, in this particular case, I only appointed the officials for one further year. Hon. members will recall that I had the Act amended to this effect. I appointed the officials for a further year to give us a chance to form a completely objective opinion, with the greatest possible circumspection, on the recommendations of the committee, i.e. whether the present system should continue with adjustments, or whether there is a better system somewhere else in the world which we can adapt or fit in in South Africa. The entire matter is at present still under consideration. If legislation is going to result from this, I shall present it next year. At this stage, however, no decision has yet been taken, and therefore I cannot tell the hon. member precisely what we are going to do. All that I can say is that we are at present considering the entire Public Service dispensation in South Africa with full attention, because we believe that we should keep pace with the changing circumstances in the world, and that we should establish the best system for South Africa. They went to see what was being done in other countries of the world, and brought back information, and we shall consider that information in the light of locally prevailing circumstances. From the nature of the case we shall have to come forward with legislation—in whichever direction we happen to go—which we shall then submit to Parliament next year.

The hon. member then referred to the fact that we had recently failed to accept certain recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Sir, the Public Service Commission is of course an advisory body. Admittedly the members of the commission are experts, but they are experts who simply make recommendations, and when these recommendations have been made, it still remains the responsibility of the Cabinet to consider those recommendations and to accept or reject them. The vast majority of the recommendations made over the years by the Public Service Commission have been accepted. I would say that 99% of the recommendations of the commission in respect of posts, the filling of posts, salary structures, etc., have been accepted. There have been a few recommendations which were not accepted over the years, and the hon. member for Green Point asked me yesterday evening why these recommendations had not been accepted. They were not accepted because the Cabinet decided, after careful consultation, that it would not at that stage be in the national interests to accept the recommendations. One of the recommendations was that through a regrouping of departments, one department could fall away, and that it would be possible to economize in this way. That was the opinion of the Public Service Commission. The department which could fall away in the opinion of the commission was the Department of Community Development. Through a re-grouping and re-classification of the functions of Planning and of Public Works and other departments, they thought that the Department of Community Development could be eliminated. The Government was of the opinion—and I am not going to furnish all the reasons—that with the tremendous task which still rests on Community Development, and in view of the structure which has been established, it would not be in the interests of the State to allow Community Development to fall away; that it could give rise to criticism and that it would lead to poorer functioning. The Cabinet differed from the Public Service Commission, and the recommendation of the Commission in this case was not accepted.

The next matter which the hon. member raised was the Cabinet’s refusal of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission in regard to a uniform retiring age. As a result of the good pension scheme which exists at present in the Public Service —I think it is the best pension scheme for public servants for many years, and one of the best in the country—the tendency is for officials to retire earlier in order to enjoy their pensions, which is entirely understandable. But with the tremendous manpower shortage in South Africa, the Government thought that it would be foolish to reduce the retiring age to less than 65 years. Therefore this recommendation was not accepted either, and the Cabinet considered it to be in the interests of the country that the retiring age of 65 years should be retained. Moreover it would not have been possible to introduce a uniform retiring age because people in the Services retire at a completely different age to public servants. We were therefore unable to effect uniformity in this regard in any case. That was why this recommendation was also refused.

The next recommendation which was turned down, was the recommendation that the vacation bonus paid to public servants should be raised. This request was considered by the Cabinet and eventually it was decided that we would prefer to utilize the amount of money, which would have had to be spent on increasing vacation bonuses, to establish an improved housing scheme for officials. We felt that this was a more urgent need among the officials, particularly the younger ones Consequently it was decided to make a larger amount available for housing benefits instead.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but the amount was pegged at a certain figure, and the contributions were pegged. Further concessions were made in that regard after an investigation had been instituted.

The next recommendation that was turned down, was the recommendation in regard to an increased territorial allowance to officials seconded to homeland governments. Our argument was that those officials were receiving that allowance because of the circumstances under which they were working in the homelands. Those circumstances have not deteriorated. Their salaries had been adjusted, together with those of all officials, to compensate them for the rise in the cost of living. But the circumstances under which they were working there and for which the allowance was being paid to them, had not changed or deteriorated. That was the reason for that recommendation not being accepted. Sir, this is the sum total of the recommendations which were not accepted. The Government, in its wisdom, deemed that it was not necessary to accept these recommendations, and therefore they were turned down. The Government reserves the right to differ from the Public Service Commission, just as any person has the right to differ from his adviser on the grounds of other considerations, even if his adviser is also an expert in his field.

Then the hon. member for Green Point, as well as the hon. member for Durban Central, discussed the salary gap. The hon. member referred to the salary gap between the various population groups, and the hon. member for Green Point could not understand why there had been retrogressive movement from the 10:9:8 ratio which had been accepted in 1964. The fact of the matter is that prior to 1964 there was hardly any question of a remuneration pattern for non-Whites. There was no pattern. In that year, this matter was then exhaustively investigated, and the following decision taken: For the professional posts, viz. university lecturers and medical practitioners, the salary ratios, the ideal position were determined at 10: 9: 8. [Interjections.] This was determined as being the ideal position. For the other posts, it was determined at 10:8:6,5 because there had been no salary ratio prior to that time. Somewhere we had to find a starting point. So we began there. The formula was merely used as an instrument to indicate what our goal was.

[Inaudible.]

I shall furnish the statistics within a few moments. In the process of the establishment of a properly ordered salary structure of non-Whites, existing anomalies and the disparities between groups and within each group first had to be eliminated in order to find a meaningful pattern on which it would be possible to build. By virtue of economic and other considerations, it was not of course possible to do everything simultaneously. Each group had to be considered separately on its own merits, taking into consideration all the factors relating to the determination of salaries, of which factors the type of work, the required qualifications and the supply and demand, are the most important. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Innesdal also mentioned a considerable number of other considerations which could be applicable. The point has now been reached where it is in fact possible to speak of an ordered salary structure for the non-Whites in comparison with that of the Whites. Much has already been achieved, and it is now possible to build on this systematically and in stages. For example, prior to 1 April 1974, the key scales in which there was parity between Whites and non-Whites were only from the R6 300 notch. As from 1 April 1974 the scales from the R4 200 notch upwards had already been equalized and consideration is now being given to equalizing the scales from the R2 700 notch as from 1 April 1975 with retrospective effect. In other words, a far greater number of these people will therefore be included now. The adjustments are being made time and again with a favourable real ratio between the population groups. But there is, in the nature of things, so much diversity that it is hardly possible to speak of overall permanent ratios. Calculated as a whole, the ratio has been improved as follows on a notch basis, with the Whites taken as 100. Prior to 1 July 1974, the ratio between the Whites taken as 100 was between 70 and 78 for the Coloureds, and between 50 and 56 for the Bantu. As from 1 July 1974 it was between 74 and 80 for the Coloureds and between 54 and 65 for the Bantu. As from 1 April 1975, if it is accepted, it will be between 81 and 86 for the Coloureds and between 59 and 70 for the Bantu. In other words, there has definitely been progress. For the medical posts, to which the hon. member specifically referred, the position is as follows: If one were to take the ratio on the notch-to-notch basis, it was 74 prior to 1 July 1974; as from 1 July 1974, it was 84; and as from 1 April 1975, it will be 84. On a scale average it was 79 prior to 1 July 1974; 83 as from 1 July 1974; and 86 as from 1 April 1975. As far as scale contents are concerned, it was 75 prior to 1 July 1974; 84 as from 1 July 1974, and 93 as from 1 April 1975. This gives a very clear picture of the entire matter.

The hon. member for Durban Central made special reference to the Bantu teacher. In the first place, I want to point out to him that as far as the determination of salaries is concerned, it is not desirable to single out the salaries of one group and detach them from the over-all salary context. That is impossible. One cannot do this for comparisons must constantly be made. Therefore, the picture presented is really a distorted one if it is said that it would cost only so much or so much to rectify the position of the teachers. His facts are perhaps correct; I did not verify them, but I cannot rectify only the position of the teachers. This immediately causes a tremendous chain reaction, which will have a ripple effect throughout all the other departments, and the total cost, to equalize everything, is at this moment impossible for the Treasury to cope with. We cannot do it; it is impossible. But allow me to proceed at once. Whereas previously there was a difference in the bases of recognition of qualifications for the various groups, at present the same number of notches for a particular qualification are already being granted at present to all population groups. In other words, while the bases of recognition for Whites recently improved by between 26% and 35%, the basis of recognition improved as follows for non-Whites: For Coloureds and Indians between 45% and 128%, and for the Bantu between 50% and 142%. It is not possible either, to compensate officers who do not possess the qualifications to the same extent as qualified officers. That is logical. The salary pattern is in fact designed to encourage officers to improve their qualifications. The salary scale is there for the official when he obtains the necessary qualifications. That salary scale can be earned by him the moment he is encouraged to equip himself by obtaining the necessary qualifications. How essential this encouragement is, appears from the following statistics. I am referring in the first place to Bantu education and the percentage of teachers who do not meet the minimum requirements in accordance with the standards. In the cases of assistant teachers, 90% do not comply with these qualifications. In the case of senior teachers and vice-principals in the primary schools, 86% do not comply with these qualifications. In secondary education 36% do not comply with these qualifications. However the salary structures are there, and the scales are there, and the moment these people obtain their qualifications, they automatically come into consideration for the new salaries. This is therefore an encouragement to these people to qualify. I can continue this argument. As has also been pointed out, it is not practical to adjust the salaries of a specific group in isolation. Comparable groups must always be taken into consideration. In the case of the acceleration which was granted in 1974, the expenditure for non-Whites alone was R52 million. Continued rationalization, which is being envisaged, will swallow up an additional R25 million. There are also limits to the taxpayer’s ability to pay tax, and to the State’s ability to adjust salaries. The policy in general as far as the salary structures of Whites and non-Whites are concerned, is that the Government, wherever and whenever it is practicable, will narrow the salary gap. However, we are not prepared to commit ourselves to a timetable in terms of which it will be possible to say that the matter will be disposed of within so many years. That we cannot do. Nor are we prepared to say when and how and where. But, with a view to what is practical, we are prepared and we intend, every time it is raised, to narrow the salary scale gap to an increasing extent within the limits of the possible.

I now want to express a few thoughts in regard to the remarks which were made on my side of the House about the Public Service Commission. I want to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for his contribution. With a view to the promotion of efficiency in the Public Service he pointed out the interaction between the Government sector and the private sector in the process of keeping pace with modern development. Studies have demonstrated that, compared with the best in the world, we may rightly be proud of our own. I should just like to mention that we are also maintaining contact with the outside world. The International Staff Management Association is an organization which endeavours to develop sound policy and practices in the sphere of staff administration in the public sectors. At the invitation of this association delegates of the office of the Public Service Commission attended the second international symposium on public staff administration held during 1974. We were cordially received there and we participated in the discussions. We were invited once again to attend to congress which will be held later on in the year. I want to tell the hon. member that we are proceeding along these lines.

The hon. member for Wonderboom raised the question of the decentralization of information. From the nature of the case there are various bodies that collect information for specific purposes, as the hon. member also said. Centralization of the information is definitely of value, considering, too, the matter of co-ordination, the utilization of scarce manpower, etc. The commission has already made considerable progress with the establishment of a staff information system with a view to more efficient planning and the better utilization of staff. In general I want to agree with the hon. member, and in this regard I associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Florida, which dealt with internal information. It is also necessary to find a source where we can obtain information on information. As far as the Public Service itself is concerned, it is being envisaged to reduce the number of computers by 50%, by means of the better utilization of the existing ability and capacity. An important aspect of centralization is of course the maintenance of confidentiality, for the protection of the individual and also for certain security reasons. I am grateful to the hon. member for his standpoint. To him and also to the hon. member for Florida I wish to say that we are keeping an eye on the matter. I shall go into the matter fully, and have a study made of it I shall then make an announcement on the entire matter in due course. I am grateful that this matter was brought to our attention.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg discussed the image of the Public Servant. I want to thank him for his contribution and I agree with him; it is true that the official in reality reflects not only the spirit in a specific office, but also the spirit of the Public Service as a whole. The methods which are being applied to ensure the goal of better, better equipped and more efficient officials, are inter alia, as follows. For example we have introductory courses, when new entrants to the Public Service are orientated for a career in the Public Service. Correct behaviour over the telephone and at the counter, correspondence and all other kinds of liaison are for example being dealt with and illustrated by means of films. As the businessman has to believe and lay down as a policy that the client is always right, so it is unfortunately the case in the Public Service as well—the public are always right, in spite of the fact that some of them can be very troublesome. This is the idea I should like to convey, particularly to our officials, viz. that it is a service department, which is there in the first place to render service to the community. For this reason we request the officials from time to time always to be courteous and friendly to the public in their conduct, and also to be helpful as far as is practicable.

A second method which we are offering is a supervisor’s course which emphasizes the handling, training and utilization of staff, good organization and prevention of delays. Thirdly there are managerial courses in which the responsibility for the development of a sound image of the Public Service is dealt with as a topic of discussion. In every department we have created a post for a training officer. This person must from time to time provide in-service training for people who have to supervise other people. There is also an entire series of films on the Public Service which were made in order to promote this matter. I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution and assure him that we appreciate it. Since he as an ex-Public Servant is now sitting in this House, we appreciate his knowledge which he is able to offer us here.

I think it is also necessary to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein East for his contribution in regard to the Public Service and for having drawn attention to the fact that there are so few real problems in the Public Service that the percentage of persons who are dismissed owing to misconduct, or any other reason, is minimal. The hon. member also discussed the high standard of the Public Service in general. I wish to endorse this standpoint and promise with great gratitude.

Finally, I wish to summarize a few thoughts on the Public Service Commission. I think it is necessary for us to consider the position of this body. The staff position in the Public Service, when calculated over the past three years, shows an increase in the number of vacancies. In December 1971 there were 9,1% vacancies in the professional division; 8,4% vacancies in the technical division; and 6,1% vacancies in the clerical division. In July 1973 there were 8,1 % vacancies in the professional division, which was a decrease; 8,9% vacancies in the technical division; and 9,7% vacancies in the clerical division. In June 1974, however, there were 13,8% vacancies in the professional division; 14,4% vacancies in the technical division; and in the clerical division, 14% vacancies. These are not reassuring figures. However, there is one comfort, viz. that the effect of the salary increases which came into operation with effect from 1 July 1974, are not yet reflected in these figures. They are in fact reflected in the position for the second half of 1974 when the number of appointments rose to 1 781 for the year 1974, while the losses were 2 168. In other words, the loss on the total was only 387 as against 1 147 for the full term. I could continue in this vein, but I just want to put it to the hon. members that I wish to pay tribute to the Public Service as a whole, to the officials as a whole. In spite of the large number of vacancies in the various departments and the resultant necessity to work with a small staff, the Public Service as such is still an efficient machine which is performing its work with great thoroughness. I want to say thank you, and pay tribute to the officials as a whole.

I am now proceeding to deal with the Department of the Interior and the matters raised under this head. I can divide almost all the matters into three categories, viz. the question of the Publications Act; passports and visas; and race classification. I shall deal with them in that sequence.

The hon. member for Sandton congratulated and thanked me for having appointed a judge as chairman of the appeal board after I had said that we would appoint a man of standing to that office. Last year, during the debate, they did not believe us. They wanted us to determine in terms of law that the person should be a judge. I did not then wanted to commit myself to doing that, and I still do not want to do so. The hon. member said that he hoped this created a precedent for the future. I maintain that it has created no precedent. This judge has been appointed for five years, and when his period of office has expired, the Minister of the Interior, whoever he may be at that stage, will have the right in accordance with the provisions of the Act to appoint a person who has had 10 or more years of experience of the legal profession, as the Act consequently provides. There is no question of any precedent having been established here. However, I think it is a good thing that we have a judge as chairman. I hope that this will provide the necessary confidence in the appeal board as such.

There is also the question of the Coloureds and Indians, which the hon. member for Sandton raised. He wishes to have these people represented on the board on a larger scale. I deemed it necessary, as the hon. member ought to know if he knows the Act as he ought to know it, to constitute separate advisory boards from the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Indian Representative Council, that furnish us with advice in regard to films. Over and above those two advisory boards, we also deemed it necessary to nominate an additional five Coloureds and five Indians to the general committees, so that they could be used there as well. I want to tell this hon. House what the object of this move is, so that there may be no misunderstanding or criticism. When these specific population groups are very intimately affected by a publication, or when any other performance or work of art deals with the way of life, customs or traditions of these people, they may be appointed to a committee to help judge the desirability or otherwise of that performance, work of art or publication. I am thinking for example of a performance or film which might perhaps present the Mohammedan faith in a bad light. We as Whites, who do not know the details, cannot form an opinion in this regard. However, if we then have Indians with a specific feeling for this matter on that committee, they can say at once whether this or that feature could hurt their people, or whether there are certain things their people would not like. The idea behind this measure is to have these people with expert knowledge there, five of each.

Now I should like to come to the argument raised here by the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to the effect that there are insufficient English-language representatives on the panels. I think it is necessary to consider first how this matter has evolved up to now. In this House we said that we intended to and that we hoped, if it were practicable, to appoint panel members who would in reality represent a cross-section of the population as a whole. The point of departure of this Act is that the people themselves should decide on what they wish to see, within the framework of the principles laid down in the Act. This was the point of departure of the Act which was passed by this Parliament. In this House, during the Third Reading debate, I invited all members on both sides to submit to us the names of people whom they regarded as being competent to act as members of these panels and committees. From the ranks of the entire United Party I initially received recommendations from two M.P.s. Eventually I received a third. I am not going to mention any names. I deliberately appointed all the people who had been recommended by the two members.

They did not do this on behalf of the United Party.

They signed their letters “M.P.”. Does that hon. member have the right to decide in what capacity they did it? Does the hon. member have the right to decide that? Can the hon. member tell the hon. member for Durban Central in what capacity he recommended people? What does he know about that?

Not on behalf of the United Party, but as an M.P.

No, I am not saying that; I said that I made an appeal to members here to submit recommendations to me. The two hon. members signed their recommendations with an “M.P.” after their name. I therefore accept that they did so in their capacity as M.P.s. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not have the right to state here that they did not do so in that capacity.

He does not know what he is talking about.

I am not saying the United Party recommended these people; I am saying that individual members recommended them. I respected these recommendations, and appointed the people concerned. If the other members of the United Party, for example the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, had also recommended persons in their personal capacity, I would have appointed them, too, and then he would today have had less reason to complain. [Interjections.] Now, what are the facts in this regard? In general the United Party and the Progressive Party cast suspicion on this Act from the very outset. They said from the very outset that it was a hopeless Act; they said they differed with the provisions of the Act, and wanted to have nothing to do wtih it. They were aided in this pre-eminently by the English-language Press, that told the world, that told everyone, how hopeless it was and that it ought not to be placed on the Statute Book, that we were a civilized community and that we required no control of any nature whatsoever, and that we should be free to read what we pleased.

No, they did not say that. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that suspicion was cast on the Act, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout still maintains even now that it is a rotten Act.

Yes, and we said so here too.

There you have it, the hon. member is saying it. The fact remains that the United Party disparaged the Act, opposed it, and wish to make people suspicious of it. The result was that the English community, spurred on by the English-language Press, was simply not interested in the constitution of these panels, that the English community withdrew itself from the matter, for out of the total number of submissions I received from boards and individuals themselves, only 25% of the applications and recommendations were from or in favour of English-speaking persons. From them I had to make a choice. Let us now consider few of the regions. Let us consider how the choice was made. I have set out all the particulars in detail here. Take the Port Elizabeth area as an example. In Port Elizabeth we received a total of ten Afrikaans-speaking candidates, of whom five were appointed. From the English-speaking sector we received four recommendations, of whom I appointed three. In other words, we learnt over backwards and omitted Afrikaans-speaking persons in order to appoint English-speaking persons, precisely in order to try to maintain an equilibrium. Therefore out of a total of eight members, five were Afrikaans-speaking and three English-speaking. Let us consider the Pretoria area. There the names of 79 Afrikaans-speaking persons were received, of whom I appointed thirty. From the entire Pretoria I received eight applications from English-speaking persons, of whom six were appointed. I did this in order to try to have the English-speaking element fully represented. Let us consider the position in the Durban area. The names of nine Afrikaans-speaking persons who made themselves available were received, of whom I appointed five, three as members and two as chairmen, a ratio therefore of five out of the nine. From the English-speaking persons in Durban I received six applications and I appointed all six. That is the extent to which we learnt over backwards. Let us consider Pietermaritzburg. In Pietermaritzburg six Afrikaans-speaking persons made themselves available, of whom I appointed five. Not a single English-speaking person made himself or herself available. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he ever intimated at any stage that only the people who applied would be appointed?

I never intimated in a single word that only the people who applied were going to be used. Nor are these people the only people who applied.

And prior to that?

Wait a minute. Apart from those who applied, there are also the names of persons who were recommended to me by recognized bodies or persons. Now I want to refer at once to the question to which the hon. member referred yesterday evening. He pointed a finger at me and said that it was the responsibility of the Minister to achieve parity, for he should have approached people.

It is stated in the Act.

The hon. member says that it is stated in the Act. If I as Minister were now to begin to approach people to fill the vacancies which exist, I would expose myself as the greatest possible target there could ever be on earth, and that hon. member could come to this House and ask me why I approached Mr. A and Mr. B, and not Messrs. C, D, E and F.

Why does this Act make that provision?

But of course the reproach can then be levelled—and I know that it will be levelled—that I approached only a group of verkramptes and not a few liberalists as well. After all, I know the story; I know the hon. member’s tactics. For that reason I adopted the premise which I still adhere to. I am now telling the hon. member that as long as I am Minister, I have no intention of approaching people, for if I were to do that, I would be exposing myself to tremendous criticism. In respect of every person who was not appointed, the hon. member could then level reproaches at me and ask why I had not approached him.

You are evading your duty.

I am not evading my duty; I am simply acting in a responsible manner. There is also a responsibility which rests on the public of South Africa in regard to this matter. In this way there is also a responsibility resting on the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I deliberately appointed the persons recommended by the opposite side of the House, because I foresaw at that stage the position as it is today. I am not prepared to approach people of my own accord, for I would then be exposing myself to tremendous criticism. Then I could be criticized for having approached certain people and not others. Then it means that I would, through the people whom I approached, be determining who would get on to the panels and who not. I refuse to do that.

How would you have implemented this Act if you had not received any recommendations?

The hon. member was not correct in his prediction, and therefore his question is entirely hypothetical. There are in fact people who are interested, and there are in fact people who believe that it is necessary that there should in fact be control, even if the hon. member does not believe it. There are always people who are prepared to do this. For that reason I adopt the standpoint …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his admission now that he does not nave the support of the majority of the public?

No, I am not that stupid. The hon. member must not expect me to be that stupid. I said that at the moment I have, in the persons who have been appointed, a cross-section of the population of South Africa.

No thanks to you.

Yes, but I also appointed the persons who were recommended by your colleague.

After he had selected them.

Yes, he selected them. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was too lax to select them.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he did not appoint all the English-speaking people whose names I submitted to him?

Of course not. In his case I did not appoint all four. In the first place his was a late entry. If I had had to start from the beginning, I would have had to throw open the entire matter once again, and I refused to do that. Vacancies occurred in Pietermaritzburg because members resigned, and I appointed some of his people to fill those vacancies. That is the reason. [Interjections.] It is a hollow laugh which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is uttering there. I am satisfied that we have in these panels people who have the necessary standing, knowledge and qualifications to do this work. I just want to repeat that these committee members will serve on the panel for a period of one year. The members have been appointed to the panels for one years. After that they may be re-appointed, and the panels may then be expanded or reduced in size. Now that the Act has been passed, and the appeal board and the directorate appointed, and everyone can see how it functions, I want to repeat the appeal I made last year, viz. an appeal to our people, to members of this House, to bodies such as the cultural organizations of Afrikaans-speaking and of English-speaking persons, to church groups, etc., to submit the necessary names to us at the end of this year, when we will again ask for people to come forward with names, from which we will constitute the panels for the ensuing year. For this year the die has been cast. The persons have already been appointed and they will remain there until December. I should have liked to have had a larger percentage of English-speaking persons, but I was unfortunately unable to appoint a larger percentage of them as a result of the circumstances I have explained.

You did not want to.

I did! The hon. member is being more than wilful now, and he knows it. I was unable to do so owing to circumstances, but I want to make an appeal once again, if it is necessary I shall make it to the English-speaking persons outside this House, please to make themselves available or to ensure through their churches or cultural organizations of whatever nature, that the names of English-speaking persons who are prepared to serve on these panels reach me. There are numerous English-speaking persons who write letters to me supporting me in this legislation. Last year I read out many of these letters here.

This brings me immediately to the following argument which was raised here. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout requested me not only to mention the names of these people, but also to disclose their qualifications. I accept that he is with that also requesting that we disclose every time the names of the members who serve on every committee, or is that not what he is requesting?

No, I requested that in order to enable us to judge whether the correct appointments had been made, only the qualifications of the members be disclosed. [Interjections.] I am referring to this Parliament. That is why we are here.

I just want the hon. member to clear up this matter. The hon. member is therefore not requesting that the names of the members of the committee who are considering a specific matter should be made public?

Is it correct that …

No, I am asking a question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it not correct that, when there is an appeal in regard to a matter, the names are disclosed in terms of the Act in any case?

Not necessarily.

That is how I read the Act.

The hon. member is therefore requesting that if there is an appeal in a matter, the names of all the committee members should be disclosed? Hon. members must remember that the committee members do not enjoy the protection which the appeal board enjoys in terms of the Act. In other words, even the committee members who cast the minority of votes, and also those members who cast the majority of votes, may then become the targets of all and sundry, of all who are liberal and who wish to be disparaging. The members of the committee should then be made the targets because they took a specific decision.

May I ask a further question? Suppose a specific committee were to lose an appeal five or six times, would you consider re-appointing the members? For that reason you must have the names.

The hon. member did not read the legislation. The committees are appointed by the directorate, and the directorate does not appoint a committee in the same way every time. A committee of three is not constituted in order to remain together permanently. Out of the panel of 40 persons for Cape Town, any three are chosen for a special matter, and for another matter one of those three and two others are chosen, etc. The hon. member’s question is entirely hypothetical. [Interjections.] This does not work in practice, and the hon. member ought to know it.

My second premise is that I believe that the committee members who have served on a committee for a specific case should be protected, and that their names should not be made public. The hon. member for Vereeniging also adopted this standpoint and I want to concede at once that he is correct, for the sole reason that this would lead to committee members, who are people of integrity in our society, subsequently refusing to make themselves available because they would then immediately become the victims of a campaign against them, of whatever nature, by people who do not want this. The moment it can be said that they are too verlig or too verkramp, or too anything else for that matter, those people will not make themselves available in future, and therefore I believe that the committee members ought to be protected against their names being disclosed. They have a task to perform, they have to furnish their reasons in writing, and these reasons are then sent to the appeal board, and the appeal board need not know who the members are who served on the committee. There is nothing which requires the appeal board to know this; the appeal board has their recommendations before it, the reasons for their refusal, and it need not know who they are. This is my conviction, and I believe that this should be the case, for this is the only way it can work in practice.

I have no objection to that.

Very well, then I take the other argument of the hon. member, viz. that he wants to know what the qualifications of all these people are. Now I want to tell the hon. member that I am not prepared to give these to him. I gave him the names …

Then we have no confidence in the appointments.

I have no objection to that. [Interjections.] The names of all the committee members are published and are therefore available. However, I am not prepared to disclose their qualifications, for then it means once again that each one of them could be involved in a witch-hunt, and the Press and everyone can let fly again and scrutinize each of them in detail.

May I ask the hon. the Minister how Parliament is to judge whether its statutory provision that these should be knowledgeable people is being complied with if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to disclose their qualifications? [Interjections.]

There is no problem on that score. The fact remains that the Minister is the responsible Minister, and these persons have to be appointed by the Minister of the Interior. From the nature of the case the Minister, in the practical implementation of his policy, has to ensure that these are knowledgeable people, otherwise the task cannot be performed. I am not prepared to expose these people to a witch-hunt which I know will immediately be started over their qualifications or non-qualifications.

What are you hiding?

I am not hiding anything at all. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Vereeniging mentioned one example of the qualifications of the kind of persons we have there. I have scores of them, and I am taking the responsibility for not making that information available because I have to protect those people against any witch-hunts which may arise. This is the entire legislation as it stands there.

The hon. member also asked a question about the Black people, whether I want to nominate Black people as members too. I just want to remind the hon. member of what I said last year in the Second Reading debate on this matter. I am quoting from Hansard, col. 472, Monday 12 August 1974.

What did Cruywagen say?

What I said in the Second Reading debate. Cruywagen said that it would be considered. Here is the speech which I made—

I then went on to say—

That was my point of departure in the debate last year. I therefore do not know how the hon. member could have expected me to have specifically nominated Black people. Besides, one is saddled with the problem of eight different ethnic groups which one has to consider. There is nothing in this Act which prohibits the Committee which is dealing with this matter—I know that this will in fact happen—from calling in Black experts as witnesses to advise them when some work of art or other deals with specific matters affecting the Black peoples. In such cases the Committee will of course call in the advice of Black experts. This will be applied in practice when, as I have said, works of art deal with matters affecting the Black peoples. Black experts will therefore be fully consulted.

The hon. member referred to the Publications Act and asked what the staff position was. Only two additional officials have been appointed, viz. a personal clerk for the chairman of the appeal board, and a clerk to do the administrative work of the appeal board. Four offices have been provided for the appeal board staff in Pretoria. That is the total expenditure in that regard.

Sir, with this I leave the Publications Act and I come to the question of passports and visas, a matter raised in particular by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Umlazi. I want to repeat the question which I have already asked here on a previous occasion: Why do countries have visa systems? It would save the Government, my department and I a great deal of work and trouble and criticism if we had no visa system and if everyone could enter or leave the country at will, without any control. Why is there a passport system in other civilized countries? Because countries deem it to be in their interest to be able to issue or refuse passports. I have pointed out on a previous occasion that a very developed Western country refuses ten times more applications for passports, calculated as a percentage, than South Africa. The mere fact that there is a system of passport and visa control, presupposes that there will be refusals; surely that is logical. How many refusals are there in South Africa? The hon. member for Bloemfontein East, as well as the hon. member for Parktown, themselves mentioned the figures here. In the previous year we refused 0,08% of the applications for passports, and we refused 0,36% of the applications for visas, in both cases less than ½%, but such a fuss was kicked up about these few refusals that one would swear we had brought the entire world to a standstill. Should we refuse even less than ½%? Should we abandon the entire control system and simply allow everyone to enter and leave the country freely? Sir, there are very good reasons why these applications are refused. II am not going to deal with each individual case here today; we can do that in private. For the sake of the people involved, I do not want to give undue publicity to these cases. I just want to say that the fact that we refuse such a low percentage indicates that we are leaning over backwards to deal with these cases as humanely as possible. There are good reasons why certain applications are refused.

Sir, the hon. member made the insinuation here that we deliberately delay the issue of non-White passports. I think that is the insinuation he made.

He is shaking his head.

Sir, there is a method for doing these things. In the case of Whites there is a certain pattern and in the case of Black people there is another pattern, and the reason for that is very clear. In 99,5% of the cases of Black people leaving the country, they are going to one of our neighbouring states—to Swaziland, Lesotho or Botswana. The Bantu Affairs Department has the particulars for Black people at its disposal, not the Department of the Interior. Therefore, when Black people wish to cross the country’s borders, they go to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, who then deals with their applications in the first place. He disposes of 99,5% of the applications, because 99,5% of the people simply want to go to the neighbouring States. Their applications can therefore be disposed of very expeditiously by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. I am saying that 0,5% of the applications are not applications for adjoining countries, but for overseas visits, to America, England or Europe, or wherever the case may be. This is 0,5%, and that 0,5% must, for the sake of the administrative advantage that applications may be disposed of expeditiously for 99,5% of the people, also go to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner first, who first clears up the matter there, obtains the particulars for us, and then sends these on to us. Then we dispose of this matter in the normal way. But this, too, does not necessarily entail any particular delay. [Interjection.] They do not screen it; they simply process it and then send it on to us. The hon. member mentioned one specific case which I do not want to deal with now, but I do nevertheless want to suggest what probably happened in this case. The hon. member said that after I do not know how many months we asked for the date of birth and residential address of that person. What does that mean? That means, in the first place, that that person did not fill in these particulars on his form. These are basic particulars which have to be filled in on the form, but this was not done. In that case these particulars are requested. As the Department of the Interior, in the second place, we do not keep the population register for Black people. Our officials are unable to say that this is a Bantu teacher. We do not keep the particulars of Bantu teachers in the Department of the Interior. In other words, we had to find the information somewhere, and the onus is on the applicant to furnish the information on his form, and he did not do so.

Now, after the matter had been dealt with by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and came through to us, we realized that the information was not there and that we had to have it in order to check on precisely who he was. We had to identify him, and for that reason we had to ask him for the information. But now the hon. member is presenting it here as if we deliberately attempted, with such insignificant and meaningless questions, to delay the application. [Interjections.] This brings me to a very interesting point. Before he came here the hon. member was a newspaper editor. Did he then believe everything he was told, as he does now? Is that his nature?

Can you refute it?

What?

That story. You cannot refute it.

I am asking whether the hon. member believed every story told to him. It seems to me he did. He makes allegations and then says they are facts. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question? Is the Minister, under the circumstances, perhaps prepared to say something about Mr. Leon’s passport?

Sir, the case of Mr. Leon was raised here. I can only recount the history of Mr. Leon. I am not prepared to say at this stage what our attitude in regard to him is. That will have to be considered. Circumstances have changed since his last application. But the facts in regard to Mr. Leon’s position are that he originally obtained a passport. He went overseas, and from reports and accounts which we subsequently received, we observed his extremely negative conduct towards South Africa, for example from what he said to people and what he said about South Africa —not about the National Party Government —that investors should not invest their money in South Africa, etc. When he subsequently applied again for a passport we considered, in view of the manner in which he had abused his passport on the previous occasion, that it was not in the interests of South Africa that such a person should enjoy the privilege of a passport. I had an interview with the leaders of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, who came to see me about the refusal of Mr. Leon’s passport. I told them that if Mr. Leon gave me the undertaking that he would not abuse the passport to besmirch South Africa’s name overseas and to prejudice South Africa economically, I would be prepared to issue him with a passport the very next day. I received no reply. I received nothing from Mr. Leon, except that I read in a newspaper that he had allegedly said: “The Minister is trying blackmail, but I am not prepared to be blackmailed on this.” Consequently the passport was refused. In the meantime Mr. Leon has now become the leader of the Coloured community; he won the election. As yet I have no application for a passport from Mr. Leon before me, and I am not prepared to express an opinion on this matter in advance. That is the history of this matter.

Is that not an impossible position for the leader of the Coloured community to be in?

I want to tell the hon. member that we will have to consider the position in the light of the facts. I think the hon. member will agree with me that there is, after all, a responsibility attached to a passport which is issued to a person, for a passport is a privilege and not a right for citizens of any State. If it were a right, a person would have received it with his baptismal certificate.

[Inaudible.]

We are liaising with them. I do not know what the hon. member is arguing about. I am saying that I am not prepared at this stage to express an opinion on what Mr. Leon’s position is at the moment. However, I had to give this House the background to the reason for its having been refused to date.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the question of race classification, which was also discussed yesterday evening with much gesticulation. The Race Classification Act places the right to classify in the hands of the Secretary for the Department of the Interior. This is the statutory provision. The ministerial powers in this regard, which I have the right to delegate, I have delegated to the Deputy Minister. In terms of this delegation the hon. the Deputy Minister has the plenary power to act as if he were acting in my name. I give him full responsibility, and the onus is on him to consult me whenever it is necessary. I may say that he is doing this with great success, as the previous Deputy Minister also did.

The hon. member for Parktown made a number of attacks yesterday evening, in regard to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied. What he mentioned were heartbreak cases. The hon. member must understand that we are humane. We consider these cases under all circumstances. Allow me to mention just one figure to the hon. member. During the past year there were 120 cases in which race classifications were changed. From January to December 1974 the classification was changed in 120 cases.

Which way?

I shall now tell the hon. member “which way”. In the previous year 73 were changed, as against the 120 in 1974. In other words the necessary sympathetic consideration is there. I shall now give the hon. member the “which way”. From Coloured to White there were 33 changes. From White to Coloured, at their own request, there were 10 cases. From Indian to Malay there were three cases; from Malay to Indian 13; from Cape Coloured to Indian 24; from Indian to Cape Coloured 26; from Chinese to Cape Coloured two; from Chinese to White two; from Bantu to Asiatic one; and from Bantu to Cape Coloured one. That is the position. A total of 120 classifications were amended during the past year. I accept that the party of the hon. member for Parktown stands for no classification whatsoever. There should be nothing of this nature, just merit and merit only.

Yes, we are all human.

We, too are all human, but we believe that people have mutual differences, and that they were created separately different by the Creator. This does not make the one superior and the other inferior, but it makes them different from one another, and those differences have to be respected, otherwise they lead to conflict and bloodshed. We believe it is necessary.

I come now to the hon. member for Walmer who I think kicked up the loudest din on the opposite side in regard to this matter. He literally sang a solo. He had a chorus of “hear, hears” behind him. Now, at the outset, I want to say this to the hon. junior back-bencher …

Does it make a difference?

Yes, it makes a difference. It does not make any difference to the hon. member’s status in the House, but it does make a difference in the way in which the hon. member ought to behave. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s behaviour, yesterday evening, was in my opinion irresponsible. It was challenging. Let me put it to the hon. member in this way: It is not laid down in the rules of this House that a back-bencher such as he should demonstrate his ill-manneredness and his conceitedness in such a manner as he did yesterday evening. [Interjections.] What are the facts now? I think it is now time the hon. member listened. What are the facts of the case which he brought to our attention yesterday evening? The hon. the Deputy Minister has already reacted to his. Here we now have the facts before us. For the sake of the people involved in this, I am not going to mention any names. The hon. member knows precisely who we are talking about. This is the case of a Chinese girl born out of a Chinese marriage between a Chinese father and a Chinese mother. Both the father and the mother were classified as Chinese without any objections of any nature. Out of this marriage four children were born, who were all classified as Chinese. Under the old dispensation the father’s brother agitated for years for the amendment of his classification from Chinese to White. He even went as far as the appeal court, but lost the appeal. The appeal court did not find in his favour since he was and would remain a Chinese. He retained his classification and died as a Chinese, in spite of everything. The story of the Chinese girl is a human story which I comprehend and understand as such. This Chinese girl fell in love with a White person. They lived at the same address—I do not know whether they lived together, but they both gave the same address. After a while, knowing full well what the law in this country is, they left for Rhodesia, where they were married. Within two weeks they had returned to South Africa. They did this because they were unable to get married in South Africa as a result of the specific laws of South Africa. In other words, two South African citizens went abroad in this case to contravene the Mixed Marriages Act there. Subsequently they returned as husband and wife. They then tried a new form of arm twisting and said: “Now we are married to one another, and you have to declare me White so that the marriage can be legalized.” An attempt was made to violate a law of South Africa by contravening it abroad and then returning to South Africa. I have a great deal of sympathy for this case—let me say this.

You should scrap the Mixed Marriages Act. That is the answer.

Yes, of course, but the hon. member will first have to come into power before she will be able to do that. The National Party is committed to a policy which guarantees the identity of the various national groups, and laws which are necessary to make that possible, will remain. That is the mandate we have from the voters, the mandate we have to carry out. As soon as one receives a mandate, one has to carry it out. I want to repeat that we find ourselves in the position that this is the case. I have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for these people, but when a person deliberately goes abroad to circumvent our laws and returns to twist our arm with this deed to be able to achieve what could not be achieved previously, it is going too far. As I said briefly yesterday evening, origin and not appearance or acceptance is the policy at the moment. This is what the law provides. After all, the children of a Chinese mother and Chinese father can be nothing but Chinese. If I had reconsidered the case of this daughter, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, and were to have changed the classification, what moral reason would I have had to refuse the two remaining brothers and sister, who are perhaps not as acceptable in appearance as she is? The Act states that origin and not appearance should be accepted.

Does the same still apply if the persons have already been married for four years?

I am confronted by the accomplished facts, which I have here before me. In response to his representations, which I have here before me, the Secretary considered and investigated the matter once again. He looked into and considered it fully, and wrote a full report on it. He then approached the hon. the Deputy Minister and asked him to consider the matter. At the request of the hon. member I was also drawn into it, and I was asked to consider the matter. I studied the case thoroughly, and scrutinized it from beginning to end, and took into consideration all the reports, responsibilities and consequences. After having done all these things, I decided that this could not be done. For this reason I agree with the Deputy Minister and wholeheartedly endorse his actions and his decisions. I stand by him 100%.

Hon. members on the opposite side are now asking me: “What now?” On my part, I ask: Should we approve of every case in which a person applies for reclassification? Can hon. members give me an answer?

Why not?

The hon. member for Randburg asks: “Why not?” I want it on record as having asked this question. In other words, if a Bantu, who is in all respects a Bantu, comes along tomorrow and asks to be classified as a White, should we then declare him to be White? I am asking the hon. members of the United Party: What should I do?

Abolish the Act.

“Abolish the Act”, says the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What do the other members say? What does the hon. member for Durban Point say?

We have our own policy.

“We have our own policy”, yes, but what is that policy? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says we should abolish the Act. The United Party’s point of departure is race federation. Am I correct? How does one define the various races which are to constitute that race federation if there is no form of classification?

On the old common voter’s roll, how was a distinction drawn between White and Coloured on the roll before race classification was introduced?

Then the matter was not considered as is now being done. Then we did not have the present provisions. Then a person was accepted as he was. [Interjections.] That is, then, the problem. Some members opposite accept race federation, and some do not. Some say it is only going to be a registration pattern—as was said last year, if I remember correctly. The moment people are either registered or classified, one is going to have these borderline cases about which we heard all these stories yesterday evening. It does not matter what method is applied, the moment people are classified in order to separate them and to deal with them as separate races, there have to be borderline cases.

Mr. Chairman, it is a fundamental part of the National Party’s policy that the identity of various groups …

Ask your question!

If people want to be in groups, why are laws necessary to keep them in groups?

Where do you want to be?

Mr. Chairman, in all communities we have a factor, such as the hon. member who has just asked a question now, that does not want to be in its specific group, but wishes to mix with all groups. [Interjections.]

We now have a new group here.

Yes, and as soon as a political party marriage takes place, we shall also have a third group. The fact remains that our policy is geared to the establishment of a multi-national community in which ethnic groups will be distinguished from one another. This is the policy which is accepted by the voters, and in regard to the implementation of which we have received a mandate. We shall place on the Statute Book and administer the laws which are necessary to implement this. Until those parties, separately or jointly, come into power, this policy will be implemented because this is the mandate we received from our voters.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us how he administers these laws in South West Africa without the necessity for race classification?

I expected this question on South West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not ask it himself, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did. In South West Africa this has been done for years according to a method which is acceptable to South West Africa. I can add that in South West Africa there are also cases which have to be considered —the hon. member ought to know that as well as I do.

Why is that system being applied there, and a different system here?

Because there is a small group of people in South West Africa, while here there are millions. [Interjections.] The fact remains that there are various races and groups, and to analyse them separately, one has to bring about a separation, one has to classify them in some way or another, whether it is by way of registration, identification, acceptance or concept, makes no difference. In the handling of the problem there are going to be borderline cases which are going to lead to heartbreak stories such as the case of the Chinese girl. Unless one is prepared to classify each individual as he requests, at will, one shall have to say “no” in respect of certain cases, and then it will be possible for stories of this kind to arise. I think I have now dealt with the matter of race classification.

Yes, but badly.

Yes, perhaps in the opinion of the hon. member. I do not know whether he is the best judge. Of course he is very pleased with himself after his municipal victory in Springs.

I am also a backbencher.

Yes, the hon. member is behaving like one. I just want to say thank you for the contributions and constructive criticism which was in fact levelled. I almost forgot the hon. member for Umlazi. I beg your pardon. Here we were dealing with a practical problem.

Before Swaziland became an independent State there were no problems when a person wanted to move back and forth across the border. In this case a Coloured from South Africa married a Coloured from Swaziland, a Swazi citizen. Under the old dispensation, when control was not very strict, they were able to move back and forth freely. The one moment they were in Swaziland and the next they were back in South Africa. In this way they were able to move back and forth. Then Swaziland became a sovereign independent State. At that moment the married couple were in Swaziland. The result was that the husband, a South African citizen, was able to enter South Africa. The wife, however, was a citizen of Swaziland. That is what the international legal position is. She was unable to enter South Africa without travel documents. We then made it as easy as possible for her—because it was a marriage which had existed for years—by issuing her with temporary travel documents when she travelled back and forth. If I were to say tomorrow that she required no travel documents and that she could do whatever she pleased, on what grounds do I control any movement between South Africa and Swaziland?

Surely not everyone is in that category.

How is the border guard to know in what category a person has been placed? Must he believe all those stories? Surely he must have documents, on the basis of which he can decide. This is not administered in a haphazard way.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister not able to persuade them to accept South African citizenship?

Must I give this specific person South African citizenship? Then my first question is whether she wants South African citizenship.

Will she receive it if she applies for it?

If she applies for it, we shall consider it. The fact remains that normally we do not accept any non-Whites from other countries as immigrants to South Africa. That is the policy of the Department of Immigration. Non-White immigrants are not accepted in South Africa. The immigrants who come here must, under the Aliens Act, Act No. 1 of 1937, be able to associate with and be integrated in the White community in South Africa. That is the law.

That is a United Party law dating from the year 1937.

Yes, it is law which they made. In this case we went as far as we could. We told the person that normally she could not enter South Africa because she was not a South African citizen and that our law did not allow it, and that we would consequently have to issue her with a temporary residence permit on each occasion, as we do with all foreigners who wish to enter the country. In this case we had, however, already accommodated her by furnishing her with temporary travel permits with which she could travel back and forth. The only trouble she had to take was to fetch a travel permit on every occasion she wished to travel. We must have some or other form of control, for if we do not, we will have no control over our borders, and those borders in turn give access to other countries from which people can then enter our country if the necessary control does not exist. The hon. member will understand that this is a responsibility which has been placed on the Government.

I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side and on this side of the House for the debate. I want to give them the assurance that this department, which is a difficult department because it has to deal with people, is handling matters with the greatest humanity. Borderline cases such as these are regarded with the greatest measure of obligingness. However, we cannot make concessions in all cases, for then we would not be fulfilling our duty in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal briefly with one or two matters which the hon. the Minister has mentioned and with some remarks which were made by the junior hon. the Deputy Minister on the other side of the House. The hon. the Minister has seen fit to make remarks about the case to which the hon. member for Walmer referred. He indicated that because these cases were put forward by a junior backbencher they should not have been put as forcibly as the hon. member put them.

How small can you be!

I am not being small. I want to remind the House of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said last night according to the unrevised copy of his Hansard on the question of borderline cases in classification. I quote—

He went on further—

The hon. the Minister boasted this afternoon about how wonderful it was that there were 120 reclassifications. Why did he not also say that there were 1 018 refusals, as mentioned, by the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday? On behalf of this side of the House, on behalf of every member of this party, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the cases that are being refused are cases of human tragedy and personal suffering unnecessarily imposed upon citizens in this country because of implication of the Population Registration Act which was introduced by this Government. The hon. the Minister said it was being done in terms of the Aliens Act which was an Act that was originally introduced by the then United Party. Let me tell him that the Population Registration Act is not an Act which we supported or in any way countenanced. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the responsibility rests with him to introduce amendments when he thinks amendments are necessary because of the way in which this Act is affecting people. I want to say straightaway that none of our comments are directed at the Secretary of the department because, as far as members on this side of the House are concerned, the Secretary of the department has acted in a very proper manner. However, the Secretary’s discretion is circumcised … circumscribed by this particular Act. [Interjections.] Yes, the Act should have the first done to it. If the hon. the Minister would perform this operation on the Act, perhaps there would be less suffering for the people concerned.

Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we shall continue to bring to his attention and the attention of the Deputy Minister every one of these cases of hardship caused by this particular Act, cases of hardship because of situations which have arisen in human relations which nobody can anticipate and for which nobody can legislate. If the hon. the Minister and his hon. Deputy cannot be moved to amend this Act, we will make the cases public so that public opinion and the public conscience will force them to do it.

Mr. Chairman, this threat which the hon. member for Green Point has just made, is nothing new to this side of the House. Since this Act was placed on the Statute Book, hon. members on the opposite side of the House have specifically used it to arouse feelings and to play politics with the distress of others. [Interjections.] On the opposite side of the House there are members who have plunged more people into misery than anybody else in this country, and that because of their lack of judgment. The hon. members are chasing up a hare here and tomorrow or the day after it appears in the Press, and who are really the people who suffer eventually? Is it those hon. members? No, they derive political gain from it. Those people whose names appear in the newspapers, and their families, are the people who suffer. The hon. member for Green Point does not care two hoots about that and the hon. member for Walmer, who is sitting in the back-benches over there, cares even less.

You are talking nonsense; no names were mentioned by us.

What they are doing —and this is typical of them—is to start a political propaganda campaign every time we deal with matters such as these.

Who mentioned names?

These are delicate matters and hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Walmer, should not interfere with it because they know nothing about it.

You are showing complete ignorance.

We on this side of the House have dealt with hundreds of these cases and did so with the greatest circumspection. We have assisted many people but we never broadcast it. The hon. member for Green Point refers to a “borderline case”, but the case he has referred to in that regard is a matter of parentage.

It is a borderline case.

The case which the hon. member for Walmer has raised, has already been turned down by the Appeal Court.

That is not correct.

Surely, it is clear to all of us that practically not one of these cases which had reached the Appeal Court were decided against the applicant. Only those without any merit …

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

Let me first finish what I want to say; then you can put your question. We know very well that some of the cases which were referred to the Appeal Court, only those cases in which the applicants had no leg to stand on were turned down by the court. These were cases in which there was no doubt at all as far as the correct classification of these people was concerned. Now the hon. member for Green Point comes along and says it is a “borderline case”, and that they will make cases such as these public by means of the Press to embarrass this Government. This is nothing else but making political propaganda out of the distress of other people. Those hon. members, like the hon. member for Green Point, derive pleasure from doing so. The hon. member for Green Point is a front-bencher, and I therefore take it amiss of him for peddling with something of this nature. I think he ought to behave, in a more responsible manner and not to set an example to the hon. member for Walmer. Hon. members know exactly what is contained in the Act. The hon. member for Green Point ought to know that it is not the duty of the Minister to consider people’s classification. We have felt for a long time that these matters should not be dragged into the political arena. [Interjections.] The hon. member must just listen to me for a moment. Perhaps I can teach him something.

If you have a bad law, change it.

We have discussed these cases through the years and bitter words were spoken as a result of the behaviour of those hon. members who appointed peddlers to recruit people whom they could then drag into the political arena. [Interjections.] After all these things had taken place across the floor of this House, it was felt that this matter should be removed from the political arena. We did not want to drag people’s names here across the floor of the House. These are delicate matters and we have to be discreet and considerate about them. Therefore it was decided not to make the Minister the arbiter, but to leave it to the Secretary of the department, who hon. members on the other side will admit acts in very considerate and very sympathetic manner in every case. If the hon. member for Green Point is satisfied that the Secretary of the department deals with these cases in a proper manner, that he treats these cases in a sympathetic manner and beyond suspicion and on merit, why does he still find it necessary to run to the Minister after the Secretary has given a balanced decision?

To change the provisions of the Act.

The Act makes no provision for him to run to the Minister. The hon. member only has one thing in mind as any other hon. member on the other side of the House has and that is to make political capital out of it. The hon. member can do as he likes. He can carry out the threat he made here and run to the Press. We shall show the hon. member that this Government has a policy. This Government is not playing politics with other people’s lives. We shall implement the Act. Last year 120 cases were approved, while many hundreds of cases were probably dealt with by the Secretary. In connection with how many cases do hon. members on the other side complain here? They complain about three cases! Is that not a disgrace? Is that not a political meddling? [Interjections.] I think hon. members on the opposite side ought to act with greater responsibility than that.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there is just one matter I wish to raise in this regard, and inform this House and the country properly concerning this matter. The hon. member said that these are all heartbreak cases and emotional cases. This is not so. The cases that were raised here were in fact cases of that nature; this I concede readily. I have already said that we have much sympathy with such cases. What are the other cases? What is an example of it? It is of Bantu who want to become Coloureds and the entire Coloured community objects to this. They say they do not want it. The other consideration which counts is whether the community is prepared to accept these people. Applications which are refused are practically always received from people who are not accepted by the community concerned.

That is not so.

The hon. member should not tell me that it is not so. The refusals take place in those cases where the community informs us on inquiry that they object; where they refuse to accept the applicant. These are not all heartbreak cases. Sir, I want to mention another example. In terms of the Group Areas Act only Coloureds may establish business concerns in a Coloured area. Now we have the case that Indians, who see trading possibilities there, apply for re-classification as Coloures, to enable them to enter the Coloured area with their capital, to open shops and obtain a monopoly among the Coloureds. Many of the applications are refused, because they are submitted for commercial purposes and not for reasons of humanity. The hon. member should not try to mislead the country by creating the impression that these are all heartbreak and tear cases. There are quite often commercial motives.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to correct the wrong impression that the Chief Whip gave that this girl’s application came before the Appeal Court?

Both the father and the mother of this girl are Chinese. The brother of the father even took his application to the Appeal Court and his application was refused. But the case of this Chinese lady was not submitted to the Appeal Court at all. The hon. member said it was a case where the family as such had lodged an appeal with the Appeal Court. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I only wanted to remove the impression that the applications were only submitted for emotional reasons; there are often commercial reasons for these applications as well.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 7, Loan Vote N and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I have not risen to make a long speech at this stage, but to make a statement on certain matters of general importance. But before I do that, I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming the new Deputy Minister, Mr. Cruywagen, to the Ministries for which I am responsible.

How many are there now?

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point will just have to suppress his jealousy [Interjections.] Sir, if I could have some quiet I should be able to continue.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has been known to hon. members of this Committee for a very long time as someone who takes all his activities very seriously, and I am convinced that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have many opportunities every day to perform the tasks of our departments in a serious manner. I can assure you that there is work and plenty of work for all of us there. We all—the other two Deputy Ministers and I—take great pleasure in welcoming him to the department. We shall see in this House his development in a department in which he has always taken an interest since his first day in this House of Assembly.

What are you doing with all these Deputy Ministers these days?

Sir, I have said that I should like to avail myself of this opportunity, which I consider to be a suitable one, to announce certain decisions in regard to Bantu persons in the White area, more particularly in the urban areas in White South Africa. Sir, I must remind you and hon. members of the fact that on 22 January this year, the hon. the Prime Minister, together with myself and the Deputy Ministers and the departmental heads concerned, consulted here in Cape Town with the eight chief ministers of the Bantu homelands in the four provinces. The talks on that occasion were mainly concerned with certain matters affecting the Bantu in the urban Bantu areas. I say “mainly”, because there was some discussion of other matters as well. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated during those discussions that a proper reply would be given later in the year to the representations which had been heard. Consequently I should like to avail myself of this opportunity, at the very beginning of the discussions on this Vote, to furnish the replies of the Government regarding the matters concerned. But before doing so, Sir, I hope you will allow me to point out that these announcements which I want to make here today are striking manifestations of the positive course taken by the dialogue between homeland governments and the Government of the Republic. I said “the positive course taken” by the dialogue. The positive results produced by this constructive dialogue which has been conducted also testify to the Government’s intention to keep introducing further developments, in accordance with the principles of our policy, of course—and this is accepted by the Bantu leaders. There will always be progress initiated by the Government if the Government’s principles are adhered to, the more so if we are assisted by dialogue which is conducted on a friendly basis, as did in fact happen in this case. I should now like to give the House further particulars of those decisions which relate to these matters, arising, as I have said, from the Prime Minister’s leaders’ conference with the chief ministers of Bantu homelands which took place on 22 January this year.

The first matter I want to refer to is the ownership of houses in the urban Bantu residential areas in White towns. The practice which was followed up to the end of 1967 and which was then discontinued, in terms of which qualifying Bantu persons were able to enjoy house ownership in Bantu urban residential areas—i.e. to purchase the right of occupation of houses situated on the land of the authorities— that practice, I say, will be reintroduced on certain conditions, with effect from a date in the fairly near future, which will be announced in due course.

For what period?

It will be opened up indefinitely. I shall reply to that question in my subsequent remarks, and if I do not come to it, the hon. member must just remind me. It will be realized that certain administrative preparations have to be made first, and for that reason I said that it would take effect on a date to be announced in due course. Those who have such houses will be able to sell them to other qualifying Bantu persons, as used to be the case before, and will also be able to leave them to qualifying heirs. Under this scheme, employers will certainly be able to do a great deal to help qualifying Bantu persons in acquiring such houses.

It is important, and very interesting too, to know that at the moment approximately 120 000 houses, or approximately 30% of the 444 000 houses in the Bantu residential areas in White South Africa are already the property of Bantu persons, all acquired under the system which was discontinued at the end of 1967. But those houses are situated on the land of the local authorities, and this will remain the case. I repeat that we shall reintroduce the state of affairs which existed up to 1967 and which was then discontinued administratively. In practice this will mean that qualifying Bantu persons will be able to acquire a vacant plot in an urban Bantu residential area and will then be able to build a house on it themselves, or that such persons will be able to purchase a house which has already been built by the local authority and which may be allocated to the persons concerned. In such cases the Bantu persons concerned will be able to pay the required amount in a lump sum or over a period. They will be able to discharge the obligations by means of instalments over a long period, and the period is usually 30 years. This answers the question which the hon. member put to me a short while ago. Furthermore, it will also be permissible for houses already occupied to be added on to or of course to be altered. All legal tenants of dwellings in urban Bantu residential areas will be allowed to change over to this system if they wish to. In addition to this scheme, of course, it will still be possible for Bantu persons simply to lease houses in the future if they wish to do so.

Is the law now being amended to enable a Bantu to mortgage his house?

In respect of everything I have announced up to now, it will not be necessary to amend any law, because this was all done in terms of the powers of regulation conferred by the Urban Areas Act. To the best of my knowledge, too, very few changes will have to be made to regulations to give effect to this scheme. As far as the mortgaging of houses is concerned, some amendments may be necessary. We shall have to look at this more closely. Of course, it will have to be mortgaging by means of notarial bonds.

Do you intend to try to rectify this?

Yes, we shall look at it.

†The next point I should like to deal with relates to trading rights in Bantu urban residential areas. The procedure regarding the annual renewal of trading licences or permits will also be changed. In this connection it is the intention to bring the position of Bantu traders in urban Bantu residential areas as closely as possible in line with the procedure followed in the case of White traders, in order that a licence may be renewed annually without the existing uncertainty attached thereto. Having due regard to the local circumstances appertaining to their business sites, etc., traders will also be permitted to trade in a larger range of commodities than at present, and also to establish more than one type of business on the same premises. Partnerships will also be allowed and where Bantu traders have already established businesses in a homeland, they will be permitted to retain their existing business in the urban residential area indefinitely. Building ownership, as mentioned in the case of houses, will again become possible for Bantu traders in the urban Bantu residential areas in the White areas in the same manner as in the case of houses.

In connection with influx control, the point was also discussed at the meeting with the homeland leaders. It is already known —and I am merely reminding hon. members of this—that the homeland leaders, with the exception only of Chief Gatsha Buthulezi of KwaZulu, came to an agreement with the Prime Minister that three nominees from amongst them would deliberate with my Department of Bantu Administration and Development on influx control with the object of revising this system where necessary, but—and they conceded the point—without in any way jeopardizing its effectiveness. Steps have already been taken towards the commencement of these consultations.

We also discussed at that meeting the position of professional Bantu persons within the urban residential areas. The position of such persons will also be raised during these discussions to which I referred just now on influx control. In the meantime, it may be mentioned once more that in terms of existing arrangements, medical practitioners for instance, and other professional Bantu persons who qualify to be in a specified White area, are being permitted to follow their professions there even though they might have studied elsewhere. They will also forthwith again be allowed to possess houses and other business buildings.

In White areas?

In the Bantu residential areas. That is what I am talking about.

The last point I want to raise here is the question of railway transport between Johannesburg and Soweto which was also discussed at that meeting. The South African Railways Administration has been contacted by me and my department in connection with complaints about unsatisfactory services which were mentioned to us during that interview. The General Manager of the South African Railways recently informed my department in detail about the continued attention given to this question of transport. He also furnished details of important changes which have already been brought about by the South African Railways, such as technical adjustments and changes that they have made on trains and also changes that they have made to the railway services as such, which have resulted, according to his report, in a marked improvement recently in regard to the train service from Johannesburg to Soweto. He also stated that investigations are being continued in an attempt to bring about further improvements. As a matter of fact, they have a standing inter-departmental committee which is dealing with these matters.

A matter relating to education was also mentioned, but that falls under the other Vote and will be raised there.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? make no apology in advance for the fact that I shall not in the course of my remarks make any reference to the most recent report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. That report was given to members of Parliament about an hour ago this afternoon. This is a report covering the period ended 31 March 1974. It is a period that is more than a year behind at the present time. The contents of this report ought to be the principal subject of this debate which began an hour ago. It is a report of a department which deals with some 16 million people and which is one of the most important departments of State that the House has to deal with. I wish to say emphatically that it is absolutely unforgivable that we should be given a major report of this kind, almost whilst the hon. the Minister stands on his feet to commence this debate. Either we deal with a report that was given to us half an hour ago or we deal with a report which is over two years old. Either situation is quite absurd.

It is contempt of Parliament.

It is very close to that. Last year, when I spoke during this debate, I attempted to analyse the effectiveness in the social, economic and political spheres of the policy of separate development up to the present time. I tended to look at it as it had grown from the past and I used—if I may say so—as my text a statement by one of the prominent homeland leaders to the effect that separate development was an exercise in discrimination doomed to failure. This year I would like to look at the policy of separate development from the vantage point of 1975, looking forward to the 25 years that lie ahead of us, to the turn of the century from—as I have said—the present year of 1975. I do that because there are many in this House, those, I suppose, who are in their early fifties and younger, who during the period I am about to look at will be the leaders of this nation in this House. There are many of the younger men sitting here who will have the responsibility of administering our affairs during that period of time. Many of them will inherit the policy of separate development as the tool with which to govern our affairs. In doing this I make two assumptions, which I believe are valid and fair assumptions to make. The first is that the policy of détente of the hon. the Prime Minister in the outside world and in Southern Africa in particular, has succeeded. The second assumption I make is that the quotas of the 1936 Act have been fulfilled and implemented and that the partial consolidation, the acquisition and excision of land, has been completed. The partial consolidation is well known. It has been the subject of discussion before a Select Committee and is about to come before this House. The details of that were made available to the Press shortly before the Easter recess. It is on those two assumptions that I approach the next 25 years that lie ahead of us.

The success of détente will mean that the Government can devote most of its time, money and energy to South African affairs, indeed to domestic affairs. It will mean that there will be few external pressures on, or threats to, South Africa from abroad. It will mean that there will be friendly intercourse between South Africa and foreign States, both in Southern Africa and abroad. It will mean that there will be an enormous upsurge in the economic development in this country and it will mean that there will be vast industrial and agricultural development in South Africa. I believe that that is a fair description of what lies ahead of this country, and I believe it is the desire of everybody that that future should be realized. In addition to that, within this period of 25 years—and I emphasize that we are now on the threshhold of that period and in the not too distant future many younger men in this House will be dealing with that situation as leaders—there will be a total population verging on 50 million people. There will be some 20 new cities with populations of between ½ million and one million people. There will be cities similar in size to cities like Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. These figures I am mentioning, I believe to be generally acceptable. They are those of Prof. Sadie, and I believe they are accepted by our own Department of Planning. We therefore have a picture of some 50 million people busily engaged in the immense activity and development which will be taking place in South Africa. What does that mean in reality? It means that there will be great prosperity spread over all the peoples who inhabit Southern Africa at the present time. It means that there will be tremendous increases in the standard of living of all the people who inhabit this area. It means, too, that there will be a great increase in the general level of education of all those 50 million people. In saying that, what we must realize, I believe, is that the overwhelming majority of those 50 million people, some 35 million to 40 million, will be Black. Secondly, I believe that we must realize that the great mass of people living and working in these 20 new cities, larger perhaps than Cape Town with populations of between ½ million and one million, will be Black. The third point I believe which we should realize is that the majority of people in skilled and professional jobs in South Africa will be Black at that time. Furthermore, I believe we should realize that the bulk of the Civil Service, the bulk of the Police Force, most of those who work on the Railways, the majority of those working in the Post Office and in other communication services will be Black at that stage. The Army will have numerous Black units in it and we have already made a start in that regard. To summarize the situation which I believe we are to face if we are realistic, if we look ahead from today, 1975, to a period which is still within our lifetime, we look ahead to a period when there will be 50 million people, largely Black, well-educated and with a high standard of living, inhabiting some 20 new cities. They will be deeply involved in the economic, administrative and professional life of the country. That is the picture which I foresee. I have used the words “in the life of the country” and now a certain question immediately arises. The question is: What country? What country have I described? What country am I speaking of in the survey which I have given and which I believe is acceptable to everybody so far as facts are concerned? To which country does that survey relate? It relates to that country which the policy of separate development describes as White South Africa. That is the country to which it relates, that is the country that is applicable. One asks oneself: In which country will this vast Black mass of educated people who maintain a good standard of living, be operating? The answer is again that they will be operating in what separate development describes as White South Africa, which is the area outside the homelands as they exist at the moment. I do not believe that there can be any doubt that the bulk of the development which will take place in the next 25 years will not be in the homelands. With all the assistance that they are receiving from this Government, the development will not be in the homelands. Every indication and every trend is that it will take place outside those homelands because it is taking place …

Why?

Look at your record.

My friend asks “Why?” The reason is that with all the Government money which is being pumped into the homelands, the rate of development is infinitesimal when compared with the pace of development in the White areas which gets no financial support from the Government at all. It is done entirely by its own momentum and by private enterprise. If we look at the last report of the hon. the Minister’s department we shall find that apart from factory development—which I concede can take place to a limited extent —and agricultural development where there is considerable scope for development, natural resources of the kind which produce wealth have so far not been discovered to any great extent in those areas. I believe it can be said with reason and on a basis of fact that the vast mass of development will take place in what is now called White South Africa.

As I have said, this, as I see it, will be at the time when the policy of détente has succeeded. South Africa in that period is very likely to be the powerhouse in Southern Africa where we will have free intercourse with neighbouring States. There will be Black tourists and immigrants coming to South Africa in ever-increasing numbers. What does an awareness of these factors and pressures drive one to accept if one is prepared to face the facts of South Africa fairly and squarely? I believe it drives one to accept firstly, that there must be a dismantling of racial discrimination in South Africa. The Government accepts this although the progress in that direction seems to be somewhat slow. Secondly, I believe it demands that we look at the question of civic rights in South Africa. I ask those who will be responsible in this era whether it is conceivable that—taking the view of South Africa which I have just sketched—one can say to some 20 million Black people who will still be permanently working and living in the White areas of South Africa: “You are only temporary sojourners here. I know you have been here for three generations or more”, which it will be by that time, “I know you form the backbone of our economy and of our administrative life in the government of this country, but nevertheless you are not permanent in the 20 new cities,” which will by then have been developed. I say to the hon. the Minister by way of an interpolation at this stage that I listened with great interest to what he had to say in his initial announcement. Does it mean that the hon. the Minister now accepts the urban Bantu as permanent in the townships of this country or are they still temporary?

Yes or no?

I shall give you a long and clear reply.

I will come back to this point later on. It means saying to these people in terms of Government policy: “You are not permanent in our 20 new cities; you may not own property in our 20 new cities; you may not bring your wives and children as of right to live in these houses,” which the hon. the Minister was talking about. “You may not travel freely in this country; you are subject to job reservation in this country; you must send your children back to the homelands for higher education; you must go elsewhere to get advantages of that kind”. I ask again, is it conceivable that over the next 25 years one can continue to deny to people all the civic rights that matter in the areas where they live and work when those people who are the mainstay of the economy and governmental services, will—and I want to emphasize this—have a substantially higher standard of living than they now have and will be substantially better educated than they are now? At this stage that is what separate development envisages. What I have described will have been done by a legal fiction which says to them: “You have your rights elsewhere.” That will be no more than a legal fiction. As I have indicated, that is what separate development means at the present time.

I was interested to hear what the hon. the Minister said in regard to the meeting with the Black leaders and the Prime Minister earlier this year. I have the relevant document here and I must say it is a very interesting document indeed. I should like for a moment to deal with the question of tenure and ownership. The requests that were made did not come only from those Black leaders who do not accept the policy of separate development. Requests were also put forward by both Chief Prof. Ntsanwisi and Chief Kaiser Matanzima. They asked that those who were no longer associated with the homelands, should have permanency in the White areas. It was very interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister that he has resuscitated a policy which was considered outmoded in 1967. I presume the policy “advanced” from 1967 to 1974 when the rights of ownership, which as the hon. the Minister has indicated are now to be accepted in respect of houses, were done away with. I take it that that was “progress”!

It was development.

However, we are now apparently to revert to that position. So far so good. Any progress is worthwhile; it is at least some progress. However, the question is not whether one is going to give leasehold or freehold ownership of land—it is land that is important— but whether one accepts the permanency of these people. All the other disabilities flow not from the question of whether one can own or lease land, but from a policy which refuses to recognize the permanency of roughly half the Black people in South Africa today in the areas where they live and work. Until that nettle is grasped by the Government, these trimmings which we are getting and which are acceptable for what they are worth, do not alter the basic question. I refer to the question that was put by the homeland leaders in the very minutes which were issued by the Department of Information. Their keyword is “permanancy”. I should like the hon. the Minister in his reply to indicate whether the permanency of these people is accepted.

The second point in the minutes concerns the trading rights of Black people in the urban areas. What was the demand in this respect? The demand was that the one-man-one-business rule be relaxed and—

The hon. the Minister has gone some way to meet this request and I commend him for what he has done. However, what astonished me was the reply that was given on that occasion. The hon. the Prime Minister said—and I quote from the official minutes—

However, the reason why these privileges were withheld in the past was because the persons concerned, the businessmen concerned were not considered permanent residents in the places in which they carried on their businesses. That was the basis for it. If these business rights are now to be granted and extended then I ask again: Does it mean that there is now an acceptance of the permanence of these people? I say again that upon the question of permanence turns the question of whether these problems can be rectified or not. As far as the rest of the points made by the hon. the Minister are concerned, I welcome what he said but as will be shown later on, it by no means covers the whole situation.

I have looked at the question of civic rights and the question of racial discrimination. Let me say that had this interview with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister taken place with a United Party Government, I can say without any doubt at all that in terms of our existing policy we would have been able to meet many of the requests that were made because they are covered by our existing policy. The problem that faces the hon. the Minister—and I want to say that I have sympathy with him in this regard—is that in order to meet perfectly ordinary day-to-day requests such as whether a person can operate two businesses on one site instead of one or whether a person can be a wholesale merchant as well as a retail merchant in Soweto, whether a person can open consulting rooms in Soweto if that person is a doctor so as to serve his own people, the hon. the Minister has to twist and turn within the confines of his own policy and very often has to knock edges off it in order to make the thing work. The drawback is not the situation. The drawback is the policy within which the hon. the Minister has to operate in order to meet perfectly ordinary situations.

Let us now look at the question of political rights. What has separate development achieved at the present time? It has achieved something. It has brought into being a satisfactory system of local and regional government in those parts of the rural areas which we call homelands. That is what it has done and that is all. There is a satisfactory set of regional and local government in certain rural areas of South Africa.

The rest is pie in the sky.

The rest is pie in the sky. At the present time, the effect of what I have said is that reasonable local and regional government has been given to roughly half the Black population of South Africa, that is, those who are living in the homelands. That is the total achievement of separate development in the political field. What about its future? Its future is precisely what it has done up to the present. Save for the Transkei which if it takes its independence will have given rights at the national level to about one-tenth of our Black population—and as far as I can see, the Transkei is probably the only homeland area that is likely to ask for independence within the foreseeable future —what is the future of separate development? Apart from that instance, which is an exception, the future of separate development is that it will have offered no more than it has up to the present moment to the Black people of South Africa. Sir, is there anyone in this House who can suggest that there is the remotest chance of such a system dealing successfully over the next 25 years with the problems that I have outlined? Does anyone here, who is honest with himself, believe that we should have a system that denies to the great majority of the Black people any hope of fulfilment of their political aspirations at a national level?

Sir, is there anybody who believes that such a system will work over the next 25 years? I repeat—and I believe it is necessary to repeat—that you will be dealing with educated people with a fairly good standard of living, permanently settled, to the tune of about 20 million, in White South Africa, forming the backbone of our economy and our administration. Sir these people are simply not going to accept the present dispensation of separate development, which is the exercise at the national, level of political rights by remote control in some distant homeland. Sir, that is utterly unacceptable, and one has only to state the proposition to realize that fact. I believe that what is needed to deal with the next 25 years, beginning today, is firstly an acceptance of the permanence of the urban Black man. Whether he sets freehold or leasehold of the home in which he is living in the urban area, is not the important issue. The important issue is the recognition of his permanence and not the type of right to occupation which he gets.

I want to say in passing, Sir, that leasehold can be perfectly good. In Great Britain they have operated for centuries on the leasehold system. There they do not go for freehold, they go for leasehold. But, Sir, it is accepted as a permanent right of occupation and that is why it works, and until the hon. the Minister does that with the urban Blacks, the leasehold system is not going to work and no other system is going to work. The first point then is the acceptance of permanence. The second is an acceptance of the civic rights that go with that permanence and that I tried to outline a little earlier. The third is an acceptance of a political framework within which the immediate future can evolve, and it must be a framework that is designed for change. Government policy after this year, Sir, will have gone full cycle. It cannot evolve; it can only be rejected or changed, and in the eyes of the Nationalists that is regarded as weakness. Sir, I believe that nothing is better suited to an evolving situation than the federal system of the United Party, and the Federal Assembly in particular, because that is a body where representation is based upon economic contribution. It is a body whose powers can be progressively increased, and it is a body which will carry the confidence of the electorate because initially it shares power with this Parliament.

Sir, my time has almost run to an end, but there is one thing I wish to say. I wish we had some certainty as to what Government policy was. I had been led to believe that there was certainty at least on the question of land. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister have said over and over again that when the current quotas have been purchased and the consolidation proposals have been put through, that will be the end of the matter so far as land is concerned; there was at least certainty in that regard. The hon. the Minister seems to suggest that he agrees with that point of view. But what did we get from the hon. the Minister of Information yesterday? We heard from him that consolidation must not be regarded as final at this stage; that there could be exchanges of land between the Governments at a later stage, so the whole uncertainty starts all over again.

You are mixing up consolidation and quotas.

I am not mixing them up at all; I am talking about consolidation and that is what the hon. gentleman spoke about yesterday. This system, Sir, creating the uncertainty that it does, creates uncertainty in those areas where there is the greatest potential for development in White South Africa.

Now, to meet the Black leaders, as the hon. gentleman has indicated, I have found is not an exercise in frustration; it is a most refreshing and constructive experience, provided one meets them on a basis of the acceptance of principles which have some chance of success in the future. The very basis on which the hon. the Minister had dealt with the matter here this afternoon is an illustration of the point I have tried to make. There is, however, one more important principle which I believe grows out of this. I have indicated that for the foreseeable future, until the end of this century, this Parliament will be responsible for the destiny of at least half of the Black people of South Africa, and that will be some 20 million people. Under the policy of this Government, this Parliament will be responsible for those people, and as long as the responsibility for the mass of the Black people remains here, the leadership of those people ought to remain here as well, because it is a very unwise thing indeed to have responsibility for 20 million people but not to have one’s leadership of those people accepted. To retain that leadership, one has to comply with the reasonable wants and wishes of the mass of those people, and one’s policy must be adapted to that end. I believe that in the future Government policy, separate development, is in grave danger of bringing about the situation that, whilst this Parliament has responsibility for this mass of people living permanently in the White areas of South Africa, those persons will not see, in terms of separate development, a policy which they can follow. They will consequently not see those persons who guide that policy as people in whom they repose any confidence. If that situation arises, I believe there is trouble indeed ahead for South Africa. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister—and I say this in conclusion—will have achieved great honour in this country if he succeeds in his policy of détente abroad, and I sincerely hope he does succeed in that respect. That honour which will be accorded to the hon. the Prime Minister, however, will be as nothing compared with the honour that awaits the man in South Africa who is big enough to achieve détente not abroad, but here at home in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s flights of fancy. He covered a wide field. He also very clearly tried to make the whole world pessimistic and the United Party, in all their misery, optimistic. There are a few basic things with which the hon. member dealt and to which I should like to refer in brief.

In the first place, there is the question of the permanency of the Blacks in White South Africa. I think it is very clear— this party and the Government’s policy is this: These people are here, as far as we are concerned, for all time, but on a casual basis; they are here because they come here to work, but without land ownership rights and without political rights, because if one interferes with those two basic corner stones, we say, one may write Ichabod as far as the Whites in this country are concerned. Now he speaks of “civic rights”. Well, these people can get certain rights, but not those two rights. The hon. the Minister has spelt out very emphatically where we can make conditions more acceptable to these people. But these people are here on a casual basis, it does not matter for how long, and as sooons as one starts changing those basic corner-stones, one is looking for trouble. Now the hon. member says “within this political framework”. That so-called framework is the federal system of the United Party. Now I want to tell the hon. member this: He has had his flight of fancy; according to him 20 million Black people will be in the White area. I shall return to that later in another sense. How are they going to deal with the situation if they say the authority must be here? The authority will be here, but it will not be White authority. It will be out and out the Black man’s authority. In other words, he is expounding a policy here which draws a line through the future of the Whites in this country. That is what it amounts to in the first place. Furthermore, if one is going to give all these rights to the Black people in White South Africa, we can also draw a line through the development of the homelands. Why should a Black man stay there if he has all the rights here? Surely he will not do so. In other words, those hon. members are announcing here that they offer the Black man everything, that the Blacks may leave their own areas, and that they may come here, wield the sceptre and take over control. There is no alternative. But, Sir, fortunately there are people who have more realism as regards this situation than that hon. member. He refers to 20 cities which will arise, and goes on to say that they will all be in the White area.

I did not say that at all; I just said that these cities would be there.

The hon. member said that there would be 20 cities in the White area. But, in any case, it does not matter now. I want to tell him that future developments will also take place largely in the Black homelands. I am not so presumptuous as to mention figures and to say precisely what is going to happen in 25 years’ time. The only thing in respect of which I agree with him is his assumption that the National Party will remain in office. There he has learnt a good lesson. Apart from that, I cannot agree with anything he said, because he was very clearly on a flight of fancy here.

Sir, I should like to say something in respect of the aspect of figures. Today, in this country, we accept that we should plan for growth, that we should plan for certain population increase, for a certain number of Black and White people who will come on to the labour market. Within a decade, as far as I am concerned, we shall not have to plan for the population increase in respect of economic growth; the population increase will have to be adjusted to the economic growth potential. There is simply no other way to deal with this matter. This does not only apply to this country; it applies to the whole world. It is a basic fact which must be brought home to the Black people and under-developed people and, as far as I am concerned, all people in the world. We shall not be able to carry on making provision for this increase in numbers for 25 years. The hon. member’s approach is that the whole onus should be placed on the Whites. That is the approach of that side. The onus is placed on the Whites. The Whites, according to them, are responsible for the relatively backward position of the Black population in this country. It is their fault; it is their problem. Our approach is that each of these areas will obtain obtain full authority. The homelands must accept their responsibility and face these problems of the future which I have mentioned, the problem of numbers especially. The hon. member speaks of highly educated people; professional people. That is fine, but look at the medical profession in this country today. There are 72 Black medical practitioners in the Bantu areas. Sir, where are we going to get adequate numbers of trained people? Let us be realistic. According to figures at my disposal, more than 200 Black students applied at the University of Natal this year to study in a medical direction, and only 13 could be accepted. Can we allow that this mass of people continues to increase without restraint, without our having the people to provide professional services? It is very easy to say that we shall have to deal with a mass of people, who are highly educated, but it is very clear that we shall have to take a basic look at this problem. We shall have to look at it much less superficially than that hon. member looked at it today. That applies not only to doctors. I can give the figures in respect of agriculture, etc. Fortunately there are more than 15 000 nurses in the homelands. The para-medical staff is available for the most part. In respect of all these highly skilled professions, which demand a particular training, for which we have created institutions, and in respect of which we have opened doors for these people so that they can compete with each other and so that there will not be friction, I want to say however, that demands will be made, just as demands are made today which these people are not yet able to meet. In this connection, we need a scientific, sober approach. We cannot come here with wild flights of fancy and make all sorts of assumptions, as that hon. member did. I want to leave him at that and just ask that we should view this matter in a sober and balanced way, and not say every time “The White man and the Government” have to offer solutions. In this regard Black people are getting an opportunity to come to the fore but if the increases in population does not abate, we shall not be able to train enough people to meet those needs, unless we are going to lower our standards and we may not lower our standards. We cannot discriminate against Blacks by setting lower standards for them than those applying for the Whites. Therefore, we shall have to deal with this matter with utmost discretion.

Colour plays a very great role in our debates and in the politics of this country. As far as I am concerned, I want to exchange a few thoughts about the development—political and specially economic— of the Black people. Reference has been made to the large numbers there may be. In the development for the Black man, we have to make provision for his not having to sit here in a Parliament in the process of development, where he is subordinate to the White man or where the White man is subordinate to him, but rather for him to accept his responsibility in all spheres. The Transkei has been referred to with contempt. We shall see. A number of years ago, members of the Opposition referred to those leaders who came to the fore as “stooges”, and tried to indicate that the whole set-up was worthless and that the homelands policy was a failure. But both of the Opposition parties on that side have accepted homelands. Do those hon. members not make separate provision in their policy for the urban Blacks and for the different homelands?

Yes.

So you have in fact accepted them. Why do you say that you do not accept them?

He spoke of the “stooges”.

The people who were with you at that time, spoke of the “stooges”. Now those people have been shifted to one side, but when they were still with you, they spoke of “stooges”. That is the position. In any case, I want to put on record here that, according to information at my disposal, there are a thousand million people in the world who are worse off than the Blacks in this country. [Time expired.]

I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to continue his speech and would like to ask him, when he does so to deal with the problem of the increase in; the Bantu population and what he proposes to do about it.

I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to continue. In future, all of us will have to give serious attention to the matter of the increase in population—as far as it concerns other population groups. We shall have to bring it home to them that eventually we shall be able to accommodate only a certain growth in population. At the moment, the White population’s growth is about half that of the Coloured and of the Black people. They will all have to maintain a lower population growth. We shall be able to achieve these things only through negotiation. It is a basic fact that, if we cannot achieve this, we are going to experience major problems. I am not going to elaborate on that. I have referred to it only in passing. However, it is a matter to which we shall have to give a great deal of attention in the future, viz. demographic planning. That holds true not only of this country, but of the whole world.

That confirms the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

I just want to refer to the development which we have in the homelands, and to what this Government has created for the Black people in the course of their development. The food supplies of the world, the amount of grain per head of the world population, dwindle every year. This has been happening for the past 30 years. We are going to have crises in the future, as far as food is concerned. For that reason we have been paying special attention particularly to the agricultural development of the homelands, so that justice may be done to the people in this regard. In the past it has been said on occasion, that agriculture is not important, and that the Black man is not an agriculturalist. My department and I made a diagnosis of the bottle-necks in agriculture in the homelands. It is important that agriculture develops. I just want to list briefly a few of the things which we found. There is for example, wrong and over-occupation of land, obsolete practices in connection with land and stock, the basic approach of a subsistence economy and a lack of managerial acumen, knowledge and capital. We have given these attention. It is very clear that, if we want to overcome these problems, these people will have to have a share in the development, the agricultural development as well, of their own areas. Because these areas have such tremendous potential, this is vitally important, also from the point of view of food supply. I just want to put on record that in the past few years we have taken a thorough and close look at the policy and approach in the department and in the homelands. In the first place, we have decided that we should work in the direction of larger units, also in the direction of the selection of farmers, that we should have a rearrangement of communities and that we should prevail upon those people who are not involved in agriculture on a full-time basis to remain in the urban areas, because they cannot occupy valuable agricultural land and then make a living at another place. In other words, we are bringing about a reorientation and reorganization of agriculture in these areas. To stimulate these people, we are choosing target areas, we are stimulating training in the agricultural colleges, and we are engaged in projects so that we may set an example in these areas of what can be done. One hon. member mentioned in his speech the potential and the development of this potential. The Sugar Association of Natal, for example, came to me and said there were 50 000 ha of very good land situated near existing sugar-mills, which could be developed. These people have set a fine example, not a negative example!

They put up the money!

Yes, they set an example, presented the planning and they are spending about R5 million on developing 8 000 ha. There is another 40 000 ha, however, and that does not include the land which will be added by consolidation. It is going to cost millions of rand to develop those areas. We are engaged in doing this. I want to say here today in public that we welcome the contribution made by the Sugar Association of Natal in this regard.

Is it not true that the hon. the Minister’s department is having difficulty in getting land in KwaZulu taken up for the growing of sugar?

It is true that in certain cases there are problems. There are tribes who own land and do not want to part with it. I think that is what the hon. member means. We are negotiating with them. We have also approached the relevant leader of KwaZulu for his assistance. I express my appreciation to the Sugar Association and other people who have been impressed by the potential of the homelands and who are now coming to the fore and want to make a contribution. We also have the Department of Agriculture in the homelands. Here, in particular, I want to express my appreciation to the agricultural officials there. They are faced by obsolete practices of people and these they have to break down to some extent so as to have new approaches take root. This task cannot be performed by Whites alone. The whole community must be involved in it. The departments of agriculture of the homelands are performing a special task. We also have the agricultural advisory services branch in Pretoria. It is their task to advise and to activate. The homelands’ departments have to deal more with the practical development aspects. In recent years, we have also involved the corporations. I think members have already received the annual reports of the corporations. Both annual reports have been available to hon. members for quite some time. From these one can see how justice is being done to the agricultural sector. I can refer to many other examples, over and above sugar. The role which is played by these three bodies, in bringing about development there from the side of the authorities, constitutes a particularly big challenge. We look forward to its unfolding. It is important that we do not hold out only the idea that there are White cities where everything is offered to the Blacks. We must not draw the cream of the Blacks to the White cities and in that way undermine the development of their own economy. I can say with pride that we are making good progress, as far as agricultural development is concerned, and that the corporations are playing a special role in that, especially in respect of what we call “industrial crops” in the homelands.

I want to dwell for a moment on the cultivation of sisal. It is developing very well. We do have problems in the Transkei and in KwaZulu where Phormium tenax fibre is grown for the factory at Butter-worth. This is making a tremendous contribution to the economy of the country in that approximately four million bags per year are being produced already. We hope that there will be further development. I want to mention further that corporations are being involved in stock fattening schemes. Major development is planned for the cattle farming of the Mangeti, the Ovambo and the Kavango-Mangeti. Hon. members know that there were approximately 360 000 ha of land, as I said some years ago, which had to be developed by our White agents. Eventually it appeared to be better for us to involve the Bantu Investment Corporation so that farming units could be developed and training could take place at the same time. After those peoples have been trained, the areas have become economically viable and businesses have been established there, that large area of 360 000 ha can be made available to them. To my mind it is very urgent that we tackle development in these underdeveloped areas, and that we take the people with us in this development. I want to refer again to the problem which we have in this regard, and in respect of which we need the help of the hon. members. We want them to look at this soberly. My experience is that people discuss these matters so readily and that generalizations are made so readily. To few of the hon. members on the side of the Opposition, and even of the hon. members on this side, have made an objective study of the real problems of the Black people, their needs and their aspirations. It is said that if we were to do this or that and everyone had a share, all the problems would be solved. But surely that is when our problems would start, because one cannot allow a mixture of this nature to go its merry way. As far as agricultural development is concerned, there has been an increase in numbers at our colleges. New colleges are opened every now and then and there has also been an increase in the numbers of students. However, what worries me is that we only had 48 students at Fort Hare in 1972; 40 in 1973; and this year, 43—students studying agriculture. That is not nearly enough. Therefore, I say to the hon. member that he should not think that one can establish a highly sophisticated economy if there are not sufficient people with specialized training in the different directions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the other half-hour?

I hope that the hon. the Minister and his trio of Deputy Ministers, are feeling very hale and hearty this afternoon because I am about to administer a shock to them. I am going to do something that is very unusual for me. I am actually going to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the statement which he made this afternoon. The other unusual thing which I am going to do is that I am going to make a couple of constructive suggestions within the framework of separate development.

That is unusual.

The unusual part of it is that I am going to make these suggestions within the framework of separate development for the simple reason that I am anxious to get something done. Before I comment in detail on the hon. the Minister’s statement, I want to say at once that I think he made the statement not a moment too soon because we are reaching the dead-line of the six months of the hon. the Prime Minister’s famous statement when he said: “Give us six months and you will see a different South Africa.” That dead-line is upon us. The hon. the Minister has made, what I believe, to be a couple of significant statements.

Why misrepresent the Prime Minister’s words?

No, I did not misrepresent them.

Oh yes.

I merely repeated them. The interpretation of the hon. the Minister may differ from mine, but I merely repeated the hon. the Prime Minister’s exact words. Anyway, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I really do not care whether or not the changes which he has announced this afternoon fall within the philosophy of the policy of the Nationalist Party. I am not interested in taking that up with him as the leading speaker on the Opposition side did. I am just so grateful that these changes are now going to be introduced and I know that they are going to be welcomed by urban Africans throughout the country. It is interesting, Sir, because had I written out a number of what I call constructive suggestions within the framework of separate development and the question of returning to the 30 year lease was my first suggestion. I wanted to suggest that it could be done. It does not mean ownership of land in the White areas which we know is outside Government policy, but it means at least a return to the 30 year lease system which was abolished in the late ’sixties. That was one of the constructive suggestions I was going to make, and I am delighted that the hon. the Minister has anticipated me this afternoon.

Anticipated what?

That was one of the suggestions I was going to make. I think it very important because it means that at least a generation of Africans will be able to enjoy some security in their houses in the urban area. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us whether the regulations are going to allow for the bequeathing of those leases, for instance.

I said so this afternoon. I read it out to you.

I am sorry, I must have missed that. I am very glad that that right is also going to be restored. The most stable urban communities throughout Africa are comprised of those people who presently have those 30-year leases, the ones who obtained them before the system was abolished. This is in direct contradiction to the statement made some time ago by the hon. the Deputy Minister who said that home ownership leads to slums. He made that absurd statement in this House. He used the peculiar syllogism that the Alexandra township, for instance, has home ownership and Alexandra township is a slum, therefore home ownership leads to slums.

That is not correct and you know it. I never said that.

I do know it, but the hon. the Minister does not know it. I shall have to produce Hansard, or the statement he made to the newspapers, to show that he did say it.

Please do that.

Anyway, the point is that stability and security are certainly given to people by the granting of the 30-year leasehold system. Nevertheless, although it is not as good as freehold by any means nor is it as good as the 99-year lease system which used to obtain some years ago, it is still better than the terrible monthly leases with the resulting insecurity which hangs over the heads of the urban Bantu, I am therefore very glad about that change.

I want also to say that I am glad about the change in the trading regulations because that was a source of considerable friction. While we are talking about détente and all that, we must realize that the meaning of that word embraces the removal of the causes of strained relations. Therefore, if we are to seek détente within South Africa, we must remove the causes of strained relations. The manifest unfairness of the trading regulations was a cause of strained relations. Therefore I am glad the hon. the Minister is making that change as well.

The hon. the Minister mentioned, but did not detail, what changes were going to come about as far as the pass laws and influx control are concerned. He did say, of course, that the framework of the system is not going to be changed. I want to make some constructive suggestions, within the framework of separate development, whereby tension can be lessened. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is laughing in that foolish fashion. Is it because he does not like the idea of separate development, or is it because he does not think one can make any constructive suggestions within that framework? He may well be right in that respect.

I know you too well.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are certain aspects of the pass laws that are a major cause of racial friction in this country. The first is the continual arrest of people for not producing their documents. For the last 20 years Police instructions have been issued asking the Police to give Africans the opportunity to produce their passes. I want to tell the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Ministers that these instructions are not being carried out. The Aid Centres are dealing with thousands of cases of non-production of documents. They could be saved hours of unnecessary work, and people could be saved all the friction caused by unnecessary arrests, if they would liaise with the Minister of Police and see to it that these instructions are, in fact, carried out. That is one suggestion I wish to make. The other is that the hon. the Minister should take a look at section 10(1) of the Urban Areas Act which, as everybody knows, is a sort of charter of the urban African. It is his only security. If he is a section 10(1)(a)-man, born in the urban areas, he has certain privileges—I would not call them rights. He has certain legal privileges over and above other Africans. He can stay with his family in the urban area if there is accommodation—I might add that there very often is no accommodation. If his wife is ordinarily living with him—how that is to happen before he gets married, I would not know—he may have his wife come and join him in the urban areas. Most important, if he loses his job in the urban areas, he may stay there and seek another job without going through the whole rigmarole of getting permission to be in the urban area to seek work. I think section 10 needs revision in that it allows Africans who fall outside of the provisions of 10(1 )(a), (b) or (c) to be in an urban area for only 72 hours without permission. This is an absurd provision. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to say that people can stay indefinitely who do not qualify. However, he knows that a vast number of Africans are in the urban areas as migrant workers for the whole of their working lives. They may go home for a month each year if they are on contract and that is it. That is all they are allowed. Why will he not extend that period of 72 hours to a much longer period, let us say, one month, and allow traffic the other way from the homelands into the urban areas? I think that the proviso in section 10(1)(b) should also be amended. In terms of this proviso people have to have been working for one employer for ten continuous years or to have been in the urban area for 15 continuous years, and I think this bears very hard, first of all, on children who get sent out of the urban areas for their schooling—many of them have to go out of the urban areas for their high school education—as they have the greatest difficulty in re-entering the urban areas unless they can produce a dozen pieces of paper showing that they were on a housing permit or were coming home for a holiday and that their parents were paying for their schooling and so forth. This needs to be closely studied in order to ensure that children who are born in the area do not experience these difficulties when they are sent away to school. In the same way employees who are transferred from one area to another—even with the extended areas that now exist, for instance, in terms of the West Rand Board in Johannesburg and the East Rand Board on the East Rand—experience difficulties on re-entering because they have broken their continuous period of residence. I think that if the hon. the Minister would look at those aspects of section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act, he will be able to do something anyway to reduce the racial friction presently engendered by pass laws which still result in a quarter of a million people being sent to gaol, last year anyway. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that that was a reduced figure. According to a reply given to me by the hon. the Minister of Police only the other day, a quarter of a million people were sent to gaol under the influx and pass laws last year. This was for the crime of looking for work. Of course, I have said over and over again that I think the pass laws should be abolished. However, while they are still operative let us do something to reduce the friction, to bring about a cessation of strained relations, to improve détente while those regulations are still in existence.

I want to turn now to the question of removals. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to call a halt to removals. I am referring to Black spot removals from the rural areas on the one hand, the Doringkop and Mayen removals which caused such misery and grief, and the projected removal of the Fingo village at Grahamstown to Committee’s Drift. These things should be put into cold storage and with a bit of luck they might be forgotten altogether. They are not vital to the carrying out of the policy; there are plenty of other positive things the Government can continue with. These removals do us no good. They do the people no good; they should be put into cold storage.

Have you been there?

I ask the hon. the Minister as far as the urban removals are concerned, to stop the removal of people in Alexandra Township. I believe that there are about 800 families still there. The whole way in which the expropriation of one of the last freehold areas for urban Africans in the whole of the country is being carried out, is questionable. These are people who are unaware of what their rights are and they are being served with notices which are in fact options to purchase. These people are then supposed to suggest an amount at which the Resettlement Board can purchase their property. The Resettlement Board makes another offer and if the deal is not clinched then the land is expropriated. The whole thing is questionable. First of all, it is not a question of striking a bargain between a willing buyer and a willing seller as is usually done. The sellers are not willing and there is only one buyer, It is a monopsony because there is only one buyer. These people have to sell to the Board. Even the method by means of which the valuations are carried out is not always in terms of the Resettlement Act.

Did the hon. member not listen to what the hon. the Minister said about the selling of property?

I do not know on what occasion he said it. I only know what is happening in Alexandra Township. I have had deputations from owners in Alexandra who are most distressed at what is happening. They have improved their properties and they have been offered amounts which are well below the amount at which the independent assessors whom they have called in have valued their properties. I think this whole thing ought to be shelved; I think the whole question of Alexandra’s future ought to be re-thought out. Instead of becoming that grim, single-sex hostel area that it is destined to become, it should become …

Do you really want to retain it as it is today?

No, not as it is now. I want urban renewal at Alexandra itself.

At whose cost?

At the cost of the Government. Who else does urban renewal? [Interjections.] The Government has already acquired a great deal of ground. It can put up cluster housing, high density housing with all the usual precautions that have to be taken where high density is concerned. However, it must stop cramming everybody back into Soweto which is already grossly overcrowded and where there are 17 000 families on the total housing list. It is absurd to want to crowd people back into an area where a quarter of a million people have to be removed every morning from point A to point B, to their work, and back again in the afternoon. The people who work in Sandton, Randburg and North Johannesburg should be allowed to remain in Alexandra Township. The whole thing ought to be re-thought out, re-schemed, so that we do not have the expropriations that are causing such losses and the break-up of families. Many of the tenant families who have been there for decades are unable to produce all the necessary pieces of paper to prove that they have been there that long. These families are now being broken up. The men are being sent to the men’s hostels and the women are being sent to the women’s hostels, and the children are to be sent back to the homelands. Can you imagine that! These are urban children and yet they have to be sent back to the homelands.

What utter nonsense!

It is not utter nonsense. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not know what is going on in his own department. I can bring him case after case of families that have been split up. The hon. the Deputy Minister has one method of dealing with people whom he says are illegal. He demolishes their houses, he serves summonses on them and they have to clear out. That is his way of dealing with the shortage of houses.

I say again that is not true.

It is true; it is going on right this moment at Crossroads. My colleague, the hon. member for Rondebosch, will deal with this question in greater detail later. That is not the way to deal with these people. They are employed in the urban areas.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member be prepared to allow somebody to build a house on the front of her lawn and to leave that house there, because that is what they have been doing just outside of Crossroads? Does she expect me to demolish that house?

It is not a question of having slums or nothing.

So it is all right if they build on my farm but not on yours?

No, it is not all right. What is all right is for the urban areas to provide enough land so that the employed population can be properly housed. These people are working here. The people of Alexandra Township are working in Johannesburg; they are not just lying around on these lawns. In fact. I have yet to see the lawns!

They have been there for 30 years.

It is nonsense. On the one hand they are required by the employers and on the other hand they desperately need the work. The solution to the problem is not to bulldoze the houses and chuck the families out just because the Minister says: “I say you are illegal; my sacrosanct law says you are illegal and you have to go.” They are still people; they still have to be dealt with. Sending them to starve out of sight is not a solution to this problem.

What should be done with the people who organize the squatters to go in there?

I do not know who organizes the squatters. The hon. the Minister can deal with that.

Sir, I want to say finally that I raised an issue with another Minister which I think is also of great importance and which I am afraid he refused to do anything about, putting it back on to the African people themselves, but I am hoping that the hon. the Minister, or one of his trio, one of his little triplets, will do something about this, and that is the question of African women.

“Little triplets?”

Perhaps not so little, but I think of them as cygnets in “Swan Lake”.

That is another cause of great friction in this country. Sir, I know this from talks that I have had with many women in the urban areas and elsewhere. Their status in law has got to be looked into. It can be done within the framework of separate development. I am not asking for anything that is impossible, but something must be done to improve the status of African women who under the Natal Code, for instance, are minors in perpetuity, although many thousands of those women are the sole breadwinners of their families. Secondly, steps should be taken to see that women may inherit even though their husbands die intestate, in the same way as women of other races in South African can inherit in those circumstances.

I have approved of many cases like that.

I do not want the Minister to approve or disapprove; I want him to make it a legal right. I want him to undertake to investigate the legal position of these women, because, believe me, Sir, this is causing considerable friction among the families in the urban areas and a considerable amount of distress among the African women.

Sir, I want to wind up by giving one little compliment to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is looking at me now with such sad eyes. The hon. the Deputy Minister has a habit of making very verligte statements for which he is praised by the English-language Press. I think he has the singular distinction of having been picked out by the English-language Press as one of the better men to back in the last election.

Do you agree with that?

Well, I used to. I am not so sure any more, and I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why. I often like very much what he says …

Thank you very much. I feel much better now.

… but unfortunately he does not always follow through, and it is very important to follow through in all spheres. The hon. the Deputy Minister makes big statements about big changes, and then he does not keep a sufficiently keen eye on his departments to see that his instructions are carried out. I like very much, for instance, his instruction that widows, and divorcees who have been given custody of children, must not be slung out of their houses, as has been the case in the past. I know that he has given that instruction, but I want him to know that it is not always being carried out, and I hope very much that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see that these verligte ideas of his are in fact implemented.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton once again took out of context the hon. the Prime Minister’s reference to détente and the period of six months of which he spoke. I find it strange that a highly intelligent member who was sitting in this House when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in the Other Place should not know what he meant when he spoke about a period of six months. I want to tell her that Chief Buthelezi, who does not sit in this House, knows exactly what the Prime Minister meant by that. I want to quote to her from “a reportback to the Reef Africans on the conference of Black leaders with the Hon. B. J. Vorster, Prime Minister of South Africa, on 22 January 1975, by the Hon. M. G. Buthelezi on 9 February 1975”. On that occasion he addressed the Black people on the Rand as follows—

Sir, he understands exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister meant, but the hon. member for Houghton does not understand it, and from that I infer two things. The first is that she is definitely not a statesman, in spite of the fact that I have always thought that she was the only man in the Progressive Party.

I do not think that is funny.

Sir, I believe that she understands this very well, but that she is being perverse because she has a number of other aims. We know very well what those aims are, and that is why she adopted the standpoint she did. The hon. member made another statement; she said that she wanted to make certain recommendations within the framework of separate development. I do not know whether we should regard that as a small ray of light. I do not know whether we should deduce from that that the hon. member is gradually coming right and that she is beginning to accept separate development. [Interjection.] No, the hon. member must not become angry.

I am not angry.

We take cognizance of this and it is appreciated. Sir, I should like to mention a few facts to her concerning a few other matters which she spoke about. The two matters to which I should like to refer are, firstly, the issue of families which, according to her, are being broken up by this Government, and secondly, the position of “African women”. The hon. member is taking this matter entirely out of context. In South Africa as a whole, the ratio of Black men to Black women is 91 men for every 100 women. In other words, there are more women than men. But what is important is that in the urban areas of the homelands, there are no limitations whatsoever. These people can take their families and their wives there and establish them there; there are no limits. In the towns and cities within the homelands we find that the proportion of men to women is not the same as the average for South Africa as a whole. There the proportion is 101 men for every 100 women. In other words, there are more men than women, while the average position in South Africa as a whole is different.

Sir, I ask the hon. member what she ascribes this to. These people are free to move where they like. This is the position in the homelands owing to a natural phenomenon to be found among the peoples of Africa. They journey from their own country and seek work in another country. This is a phenomenon peculiar to all the African countries. Why does the hon. member for Houghton, who wants to intercede for the Black people, begrudge our own Black people in South Africa that right which is enjoyed by the Black people in all the African countries? Why does she begrudge the Black people in the homelands in South Africa the right to come and work in White South Africa without bringing their families here? The Black people in other African countries go and work in other countries without taking their wives along. They leave their families at home.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton does not understand the structure of the Bantu; she does not understand that they do not have individual families; that there is an entirely different family relationship among them. Sir, on the White farms of South Africa one finds exactly the same position. The Bantu are not restricted; they can bring their families along. There, too, one finds more men than women—103 as against 100. But what is the position in the White cities? It is not so bad as the hon. member suggests. In the White urban areas of South Africa there are 117 men for every 100 women. That hon. member is exaggerating this whole matter. What is more, this situation has changed entirely under National Party rule, because in 1936 the ratio was 220 men to every 100 women. In 1951 there were 161 men for every 100 women. In 1960 the relationship was 140 to 100 and at the moment it is 117 to 100.

Sir, the hon. member said that she wanted to make positive recommendations within the framework of the National Party’s policy. I want to give her a hint. If she wants to do that, then she must not do what she did last year when she came and sowed suspicion against the BIC here, a body that is achieving phenomenal results in the homelands, which is engaged in the development of the homelands which throws in its full weight to develop the homelands into true fatherlands for these people. But, Sir, the hon. member does not want to perceive that scccess because she knows that it is a cornerstone of National Party policy. That is why she comes and sows suspicion here. She discourages industrialists and investors from investing there. That is the only result of her behaviour. She sows suspicion here whereas the report has revealed that the BIC’s hands are clean. Sir, if one really has the interests of the Black people in South Africa at heart, then one should first ascertain whether the statements one makes will not have an adverse effect on the Black peoples.

Sir, I now come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I want to agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister: the most fantastic aspect of the hon. member’s entire speech is that he embarked on a flight of the imagination, and in the course of it he saw South Africa being under National Party rule from now until the year 2000. He talks about the leaders of the future, and then he refers to this side of the House. He refers to the leaders of the future and he refers to his own people behind him, and he realizes that they will never be able to lead South Africa before the end of this century. We are in full accord with him on that score.

The hon. member over there also made certain statements. He said that 20 new cities would arise, all of which would be in White South Africa, and that there would be 20 million Black people living in them. Sir, the foundation which was laid by the National Party and on which phenomenal results are being achieved at this stage, indicates something entirely different. Between 1960 and 1970, 90% of the total increase in the urban Bantu population in the whole of South Africa was accommodated in the homelands, and only 10% in the White area. Surely this makes a radical difference to the picture presented by the hon. member. I therefore believe that up to this stage, the National Party, in carrying out their policy of separate development, have achieved a result that makes it impossible for any party to change it. The implementation of the policy of separate development has already progressed so far that we are irrevocably committed to a specific path leading towards a specific destination, In the 1948 manifesto of the National Party the following was stated (translation)—

Sir, these were prophetic words. At this stage those Bantu homelands are already becoming the fatherlands of the Bantu peoples.

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations described the form which the development of an under-developed country should take. It is the gradual acceleration of the rate at which literacy increases, the gradual rise in standards of living, the slow growth of political and sociological institutions, the accumulation of technical skills and the gradual acquisition of self-confidence and stability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who has just resumed his seat, had to say, I want to ask that we dwell for a moment on the Bantu who is described by hon. members opposite as the so-called “urban Bantu”. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made a great fuss about the 20 million which he said would be here in what is now known as the White area, and he conjured up spectres about how we would handle these 20 million people within the framework of National Party policy. I hasten to say that this problem is undoubtedly one of the most complicated issues relating to our policy of separate development. It is an issue to which we are devoting our urgent attention and to which we shall have to continue to devote our urgent attention to an increasing extent. However, it is also an issue that is enjoying the attention, not only of this Government, but also, as I hope to indicate later, of the homeland Governments, of the people whose countrymen are living here in the White area. Their countrymen are important to those people, too, and that is why they are showing an interest in this issue.

However, the fact remains that this is an involved aspect of our relations pattern in South Africa. However, the Opposition Parties should not derive such pleasure from the fact that it is such an involved aspect, because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, it would also be an involved aspect for the United Party, for they, too, have to implement their federation policy. After all, they, too, would then have millions of Black people living outside the territory of their own community state and exercising their political rights while in the territory of a White community state. In other words, where are the Black people living at Standerton, Bethal, Vereeniging or Middelburg going to exercise their political rights? At Middelburg, or in their community state, which does not include Middelburg? According to the hon. member’s policy, the community states will surely also be linked to territory. Do they deny it? Will there be no link?

To a certain extent, yes.

Yes, to a certain extent. There will also he some of these Black people voting for a community state even though they do not live in that territory linked to that community state.

We accept them as permanent in these areas. Do you?

That is precisely the same problem as is faced by the National Party in the implementation of its policy. If you differ in that regard, you must kindly expound your policy to us in more detail. You shrink from discussion of this point and this aspect of your policy, but we should like to hear from subsequent speakers in great detail what the position is going to be and how you are going to deal with the Black people living and working outside the territory of their community states.

Even the Progressive Party will have difficulties as regards the presence of 20 million Black people, if we accept that figure, because according to the Progressive Party’s federal plan, it is important for them to maintain parity between Black voters and White voters, and consequently they have always had a policy of qualified franchise. However, they are now doing away with it, and when they have done away with it and if there is no link with homeland areas, then, when there is an equal distribution of Black people throughout the country and the situation is one of one man, one vote, they will have the situation that the Black vote will be the decisive vote. That will then mean that the White person would no longer have any political say in his own country. Therefore they should not rejoice about the problems relating to the Bantu in the White areas, but should be as concerned as we are and should join us in the positive search for a solution.

Sir, I believe that we shall find a solution to these problems and I want to mention certain factors in the National Party’s favour. The first major factor is the fact that we are engaged in forging an ever-stronger link, a link between the Black man in the city and his homeland. I shall tell you which factors assist us in forging this link. In the first instance, there is the factor that the homeland governments themselves are extending a hand to their citizens and countrymen in the White area. The homeland leaders would like to speak on behalf of their people, whether living in Soweto or in their own country.

Yes, but what do those people themselves say?

That is precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister stated in January. They extend a hand and they seek and find ties with the Black people in the White urban areas. The Xhosa living in Soweto must find his political home in the Transkei, and Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima, too, wants this to be so, and his will is an important factor in this regard. [Interjections.] In the second instance we have the factor of ethnic ties. There are ethnic ties between the Black man in the White area and his people and his homeland. These ethnic ties are growing stronger owing to the inter-action that exists between the homeland and the Black people in the urban areas. There is inter-action. There are cultural links, language links and family links. You heard in a previous speech by the hon. member for Lichtenburg that candidates in the White area stand for the Legislative Assemblies of those countries. There is interest. This brings me to the third factor in our favour, and that is that the dynamic development of the homelands is already attracting the interest of the urban Bantu, that the Black man in the White area is starting to see the homelands in a new light. It is understandable that they were not interested in a homeland where nothing was going on, but suddenly they see a homeland in which things are happening, in which opportunities are being created, in which there will be no ceiling over their heads; a homeland in which the Bantu can realize himself in full. He is starting to look at this homeland in a new light, and this is going to result in a bond being formed.

in the fourth instance, there is the issue of the many Black people who are able to work a relatively short distance away from their homeland. There are a great many of these people. This pattern, in which the Xhosa, for example, lives and works within striking distance of the Transkei, is becoming more and more established. I want to call it a pattern of physical proximity to the homelands. I also want to advocate that this pattern of physical proximity to the homelands be actively promoted, that we find ways and means to attract or draw the Zulu in the Western Transvaal, if not to KwaZulu itself, then to a part of the White area close to KwaZulu, and that on the other hand we should find ways and means of attracting and drawing the Tswana in Natal to Bophuthatswana or to White areas situated close to Bophuthatswana.

And the Afrikaners in Natal?

If this pattern of physical proximity to the homeland can be further established, as we are doing, then new perspectives will open up before us.

All fairy stories!

Then the concept of high-speed transport becomes less of a dream and more of a practical reality.

The last factor I want to mention in order to indicate why I have every confidence that we shall solve this problem, is the most important factor. It is the factor which hon. members opposite do not take sufficiently into account. It is the determination on the part of the White man, the determination on the part of the National Party and the majority of the voters of South Africa to make separate development work, to develop the homeland concept and to forge meaningful links between the Bantu in the White urban areas and his fatherland and his people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. member who has just sat down really lives, as has been suggested, in Cuckoo Land. His own Deputy Minister, who spoke a short while ago, did not pose those interesting suggestions which the hon. member has now posed in his attempt at an exposition of what he calls the Nationalist Party’s policy. Instead of that, the hon. the Deputy Minister said: “What are we to do with all the millions of people here? What do you expect us to do with them?” All of us, he said, would have to give considerable attention to the solution of this problem. He did not offer the fanciful solutions of the hon. member for Vereeniging, because when the issues are placed before one as clearly as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has placed them before us today, and when the facts are put, there is no answer on the strength of the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to come back to the dramatic opening statement of the hon. the Minister himself who felt that he was really doing something important— and we agree he is. I would be the last man to say “We told you so”. I would be the last man to say: “You have taken us for 27 years on a road right down the hill; now you are slowly climbing back up.” I shall not say that. Let me rather say that I am grateful for the results of the discussions between the homeland leaders and the hon. the Prime Minister, as seen in the statement the hon. the Minister made today. I want to say that there is always a place for the repentant sinner in this world. But let me put this question to the hon. the Minister. In the course of his thinking in this direction, will he not also consider something which the hon. the Prime Minister said, according to the minutes of that particular discussion? I quote—

What I want to suggest is that if we go back to 1967, even under the late Dr. Verwoerd, a 30-year leasehold period was permitted in order to give continuity of security in order to give continuity of ownership and in order to enable property to be inherited from one generation to the next. Inheritance still depends solely on the whim of the local authority, because a monthly tenancy is one that can be terminated on a month’s notice. There are no rent laws as we have amongst the White community of this country. There are no rent laws that govern the townships, there are no rent laws that govern the prescribed areas, and therefore there should be a much more secure period of tenure. I think that it would be more in keeping with the suggestion of the hon. the Prime Minister who said he would give sympathetic consideration to this matter. I want to take another statement from the minutes of the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to another question that was raised, namely that of some rights. I am reading from page five of these minutes. I think it is the hon. the Minister who made the statement—

The time has arrived for more powers for the inhabitants themselves in these urban areas, to be given. I want to say that a day in the life of a Black person is a very important and vital aspect of his existence. It has to be meaningful. If it is not meaningful, he lives in a twilight. He is a temporary sojourner and a temporary permanent worker. If he has all these peculiar appellations, he is living in a twilight. There must be some form of permanence with regard to his daily life. That can be interpreted as an opportunity for him to work together with the authorities, and for him not to be a person for whom the authorities are doing everything and making every decision. He is a man who, in his daily life, is concerned with his home—in respect of which we have had some answer—his education, his transport, his employment, his recreation, his religious existence, his social problems, health matters, cultural problems, and community life. He is concerned with the details of the intimate matters of birth and death and celebrations of his personal happenings. All these things he must be entitled to enjoy. He can only be entitled to enjoy them, if there is some sense of permanence in his existence in the prescribed areas where he lives. I think this is the matter to which attention should be given. In addition to these other changes there must be more opportunities for trading and the right to be able to trade in the township while he also carries on a business in the homelands. This is something which appeared in the Press the other day which the Chambers of Commerce of the African people brought to the attention of the public. Those are very important factors, but in addition to that there must be something more meaningful in the daily existence of the Black man in these various areas. I see that the Director-in-Chief of the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board has now suggested that they are busy considering putting some teeth into the urban Bantu Council in the sense of giving them some of the powers which are provided for in law. Those powers should be given in order to enable the African in his township, the Bantu in his urban Bantu councils, to deal with all these factors which I have mentioned as constituting a day in the life of a Black person. I think that it is a very vital and important aspect of his affairs. I want to go further by saying that we have a rather extraordinary situation in the country today. The whole of the Black population outside the homelands, comprising approximately 8 million persons, is today being administered by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. They have been established—I think 25 in number—throughout the entire country to administer their affairs. We find in the report that was referred to and which we received some time ago, the report for the year ending 31 March 1973, a short reference to what they are doing. In the latest report, tabled just a short while ago, the report for the last two years, nothing is said about what they are doing. I was trying to get some information on whether these reports would ever appear before Parliament and whether they could not appear annually for Parliament to be able to consider what is taking place in the daily life and affairs of eight million Bantu for whom we are legislating, whose affairs we are looking after, and whose affairs and very movements and actions we are controlling. I learnt, to my astonishment, that as the Act makes no provision for that, such reports will not be tabled in the House. When I looked at this report, I was more than surprised to find that that viewpoint, which I thought was perhaps an opinion, was actually confirmed. There is not one word here about the eight million people who are being administered by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. The report deals mainly with the homelands. Is that not an important issue which must be placed before us? We are not aware of the question of income, the sources from which their finance comes, the fact that sufficient houses are not being built, whether they have sufficient money available to them or whether they are not perhaps spending more than they should. We have information, for instance, that a number of their officials have very much better conditions today than existed when the local authorities, i.e. the municipalities, regulated the affairs of these townships. We have heard that there is a shortage of money there and that they have appealed to local authorities to assist. This is information that comes to us from fairly reliable sources. We are aware that they are responsible for generating their own finance, but we in Parliament are not aware of how this is done, what their shortages are or what problems they are subjected to. These are matters which are our concern. They are the concern of Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should really have liked to do the hon. member for Jeppe the courtesy of reacting to his speech, but he makes it difficult for me to do so. In the first part of his speech, he was in fact agreeing with what the hon. Minister said and expressing his appreciation of it. Surely I cannot quarrel with him about that. The second part of his speech concerned matters that do not appear in the report. I myself have not yet seen that report and I cannot react to it.

Sir, the policy of separate development is succeeding. Miracles have taken place before our eyes here in the past few years. Within a period of three years, no fewer than six of our homelands have become self-governing. Together with the Transkei, therefore, there are seven self-governing homelands today. All but one are already self-governing. There are more than 700 representatives for these homelands. There are almost 60 Ministers. I also base this claim of mine on the change that is taking place in regard to the number of Bantu living in the White areas vis-à-vis the Bantu in the homelands. The 1960 census statistics indicate that there were 6 819 million Bantu in the White areas and 4 107 million in the homelands. In 1970, ten years later, there were just over 8 million Bantu in the White areas, an increase of 1,2 million, and almost 7 million Bantu in the homelands, an increase of 2,9 million. The increase in the White area was 1,2 million and the increase in the homelands was 2,0 million. Expressed as a percentage, we find that in 1960, 62% of the Bantu lived in the White area, and 37% in the homelands. In 1970 there were only 53% in the White area and there was a percentage increase in the homelands from 37% to 46%. It is only during the past few years, in this decade, that the establishment of industries in the homelands has really developed momentum. I believe that this figure is substantially more favourable at present and that it will be even more favourable in the future. One could express this percentage in another way, too, by saying that between 1960 and 1970, the number of Bantu in the White areas increased by 15%.

How much?

In the urban areas they increased by 15%.

What is the figure?

I have just said that they increased by 1,2 million. In the homelands the increase was 40%. Briefly, stated the increase in the number of Bantu in the urban areas was substantially less than the natural increase for the whole country. The natural increase for the whole country was 27,4%, but in the White areas the increase was 15%. In the homelands there was a substantially higher increase than the natural increase throughout the whole country. I know that we cannot explain this statistical change solely by ascribing it to natural increase, and to migration from the White areas to the homelands and vice-versa, but there are other factors, too. For example there is the addition of areas that were formerly White to the homelands, in terms of the 1936 Act. After everything has been taken into account, I think that there is an increase in the homelands that cannot be explained by the natural increase of the population alone. I think it would be fair to conclude that in this decade there has been a movement from the White area to the homelands. It is indisputable that there are Bantu who were still living in the White area in 1960 and who were living in the homelands again in 1970. I want to refer to the 8 million Bantu living in the White area. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that at the end of the century there would be 20 million of them. The Opposition says of these people that they are people who have a separate identity and who have few or no links with the homelands. They are the detribalized ones, the acculturalized ones, the people who do not know who they are or where they come from.

Who said so?

I want to maintain that these stories about detribalized Bantu are an absolute myth. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about those people who were losing their ties, who no longer had representation in the homeland and who did not fall under a homeland government at all. He said that by the end of the period he mentioned, there would be 20 million of them, and he went on—

The hon. member for Vereeniging, in his outstanding speech just now … [Interjections.] … mentioned reasons to indicate why this was a myth, why there were links with the homelands and why there were very close links. I just want to mention this one additional point. Three years ago, a general election was held in the Ciskeian homeland. Here at Langa and Guguletu there were thousands of Xhosas who exercised their civil right to vote on that occasion.

There were thousands who did not do so.

I shall tell the hon. member in a moment about the thousands, as he says who did not do so. The hon. member will recall that the following morning there was a photo in the Cape Times showing 400 of these people queueing up to vote and in that way displaying an enthusiasm to vote for a representative hundreds of kilometres away. There was a spirit of enthusiasm that put our White voters to shame. Here was a Xhosa from the homeland who lived in Langa, but whose homeland was in the green hills of the Ciskei; that was where his heart, his love and his interests were. I think that he was filled with emotion as he stood in that queue; there was a pride in him that the hon. member lacks when, for the first time, he could do what the White man does, viz. exercise his civil right here. Headman Mangope said: “There is no such thing as two Tswana peoples, one in Bophuthatswana and one in Soweto.” Similarly, there is a unity between the Xhosa here in Langa and the Xhosa in the Ciskei. It is to the credit of the Bantu that in the most cosmopolitan heterogeneous circumstances possible in many of these Bantu residential areas, he has not become so entangled and involved as to lose his identity. I have before me the statistics relating to the composition of the Bantu peoples in Soweto. There are 82 000 Xhosas, 246 000 Zulus and 30 000 Swazis; then there is a whole series of nine population groups, and an additional 12 000 who are unspecified. If the Opposition want to say that those 12 000 are the detribalized persons, then I just want to say that that group comprises only 11% of the total. It is not true that they are the detribalized ones. Nevertheless, I think that this heterogeneous make-up of the population of a place like Soweto is disturbing. I think we are making too drastic a demand on the ability of the Bantu to maintain his identity in such unfavourable circumstances. We are grateful that this pattern does not occur on the same scale in our other cities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the subject of the urban Bantu has been discussed from all angles in this House. I should like to look at the urban Bantu from a different point of view with reference to a very illuminating and penetrating report published in 1970 by the Bureau for Market Research of the University of South Africa. In this report they made a study of the actual expenditure of each population group—the Black people, the Brown people and the Asiatics—in each of the five great urban complexes, viz. Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, the Durban/Pinetown complex and the Pretoria/ Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex. They ascertained the actual expenditure by each of these mentioned groups on 550 specific goods and services. They also ascertained the total expenditure by each of the mentioned groups in each of the mentioned areas. In the nature of the matter, I shall confine myself in this debate to the total expenditure by the Black people in all these five areas. When we compare the spending patterns of the Black people in regard to the various subdivisions, there are a number of extremely interesting aspects.

In the first place, there is the fact that the expenditure by the urban Bantu on housing is comparatively low, viz. only 5,6%. I am of the opinion that the urban Bantu is an exceptionally fortunate population group because they spend so little on housing. I maintain that this favourable position as regards the urban Bantu is the result of the provision made by the National Party Government in the form of sound and cheap housing schemes.

A second interesting phenomenon that we find when we compare the spending patterns is that 6,6% of the urban Bantu’s total expenditure goes on luxuries, e.g. liquor. 3,3% of his total expenditure goes on cosmetics and patent medicines, and 2,4% on cigarettes and tobacco. Adding up these luxury items, we get a total of 12,3%. Thus, the expenditure by this population group on luxuries, on non-essential items, is double its expenditure on housing. It is also true that this population group’s expenditure on luxuries is greater than its expenditure on clothing, which comprises 11,6% of its total expenditure.

I maintain that when a population group spends more on non-essential items than on clothing and on housing, then surely that population group is faring well. Is there any other conclusion to which one can come in the circumstances? Those people are faring well under the National Party Government in spite of what is said by hon. members of the Opposition. [Interjections.] In view of these statistics it is not strange, either, that there is such an enormous influx of Bantu to the urban areas, which causes us such vast problems.

This investigation did not only ascertain what the urban Bantu spend their money on, but also where they spend their money. I am now referring only to spending at White and Bantu shops, in regard to which we find the interesting phenomenon that 77 % of the urban Bantu’s clothing is bought from White traders, as against only 7% from Bantu traders. The urban Bantu purchased 38% of their food from White traders, as against 55% from Bantu traders.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.