Mr. Speaker, I move—

As I am referring to this report, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the whole report appeared in booklet form. I should like to express my appreciation to the staff of this House for the fact that, for the first time, I think, in a report of this nature, maps have been included at the back of the booklet. These maps are very useful, although they are on a small scale. Speaking of maps, if hon. members want to see maps on a bigger scale, I want to say that in the passage just behind us there are two maps. Hon. members can look at them.

Are these copies of them?

The copies are at the back of this booklet.

No, of the big ones.

These are very big maps to make. The hon. member must just go and look how big they are. Then he will realize how difficult it would be to give copies of them to everybody. They are hand-made maps.

In a certain sense, it is an historic day today, since today we have come to the last round of the Parliamentary work in connection with what is called the consolidation of the Bantu areas—a process which had its origin before Union and eventually took shape in the form of the Bantu Land Act of 1913 and the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 with an historic course about which much has been said inside and outside this House.

There are actually four aspects in connection with this work: In the first place, the definition of the areas within which released areas for the Bantu peoples may be declared; in the second place, the clearing up of Bantu freehold land (also called “Black spots”); in the third place, the excision of poorly situated Bantu reserves or parts thereof; and, in the fourth place, the attempt to consolidate the scattered areas of the Bantu homelands, by the aforementioned three actions, into single units.

As hon. members know, it was at the beginning of the seventies in particular that we commenced this work on a large scale, and I should like to express my appreciation here to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for the favourable reaction which there was to the requests and recommendations submitted by me. Here we have the proof of the will of our Government and the National Party to carry out this task of honour actively and to meet the difficult challenge. It is a comprehensive task which is going to impose tremendous demands, but in spite of that, it is one of the most urgent tasks ever to have been attempted in order to ensure the peaceful co-existence of the various peoples within South Africa.

Certainty about areas and borders brings security, stability and firm bases for the whole sub-continent in that the planning of political, economic and social development benefits from such certainty, which cannot be sufficiently emphasized with the present course taken in connection with, the development of the Bantu homelands in the Republic of South Africa.

It is also necessary to emphasize that we are engaged in redeeming the 1936 undertaking of this Parliament to make 7¼ million morgen (6.2 million ha) of land available to the Bantu areas, and that what is at issue is not at all a division of the land between White and Black in South, Africa. The division of land between White and Black in South Africa took place historically a long time ago. Therefore, we are now only dealing with the addition of the aforementioned 6,2 million ha and a better arrangement of the areas. In this context, I call attention once again to our Government’s standpoint that it is not prepared to increase the 1936 quotas in respect of the allocation of more land to the Bantu.

The report and recommendations of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs, which are now before this House, read in conjunction with the reports which were approved in 1972 and 1973, mean that the total number of recognized reserve areas of the Bantu peoples in the Republic, which, consisted of more than 100 areas before the beginning of this “consolidation process” as we call it, will be reduced to 24 areas. Far more than anybody in this House, I should like to create a position in which the areas would be reduced far more—if possible, to one area per homeland.

Of course, it is the ideal to have only one area in respect of each people and each homeland. As a result of financial and many practical considerations, including the desire to limit the numbers of Whites and Bantu who are uprooted, this ideal could not be fully realized. I make bold to say that these proposals before us constitute an enormous improvement as compared to the position which we inherited from the past.

The proposed removal of Bantu from poorly situated Bantu areas and Black spots, will necessarily take preference as far as possible, since people who live on isolated pieces of land become anchored there and develop ways of life which, can hamper orderly resettlement in the future.

In this connection, I want to mention that consultations were held with, all the homeland Governments who are concerned in these consolidation plans and that they were fully informed about all relevant matters, whether by myself, by the hon. Deputy Minister Raubenheimer, or by the Secretary, and other senior officials of my department, while the Commissioner-Generals, too, often lent a hand in this regard.

We realize only too well what the sacrifices are to which the Bantu have to resign themselves as individuals, families and tribes, when they have to move away to new homes, often away from places with which they have historic and religious ties. We shall compensate them properly for property, have their removal take place at our expense and settle them at the new places after all the necessary preparatory work has been done and facilities have been established, facilities such as water, roads, schools, clinics or hospitals, other types of buildings and also houses, if they do not want to build them themselves.

It must be remembered that there are also many Whites who will have to give up well-developed farms, and also properties in towns, and who, in many cases, will have to break strong attachments of tradition and love. All of us, and my department which has been charged with this task, have a great deal of sympathy with such people, Whites as well as Bantu. I would be able to move everybody in this House if I could relate my experiences with some of these people here. In this way, I think, for example, of Mr. Thys Basson of Marico, whose name I want to mention in this House. I say that I would move hon. members if I could relate his experiences here. After I had first made the cup pass him by, in his own imagery, he assented later when I again spoke to him personally about his land, again in his own imagery, to drink the cup. Thys Basson is a great Afrikaner, a man sensitive to the essentials of the matter. There are many other people like him and I praise all of them for their magnanimity.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the report of the Select Committee which we are discussing here now, I should like to say a few words in respect of each of these areas. I start with the Transkei and, in fact, with the much discussed Port St. Johns. I want to anticipate hon. members on the opposite side, especially the hon. member for Griqualand East, by reminding this House that the Government maintained from the ’fifties, when the late Dr. Verwoerd was still Minister of Bantu Affairs, up to last year, that Port St. Johns would not become a Bantu area.

He promised that.

I, too, wrote that and stated that on behalf of the Government. Sir, with the growth of our policy …

Unfolding.

Sir, I do not know why the hon. member is laughing. If he does not know it, I want to tell him that our policy is growing; their policy is dieing but our policy is growing. With the growth of our policy, more specifically in view of the independence of the Transkei, the Government and I realized that we would be irresponsible if we did not take Port St. Johns, an isolated spot of 10 square miles, into reconsideration anew. After thorough consideration, we came to the conclusion that Port St. Johns could not prosper for all times as a White spot in these changed circumstances; it would also be unfair to leave the small isolated community to itself or to the Transkei, and, of course, it would also be undesirable to subsidize or try to carry it artificially from outside. Apart from these considerations Port St. Johns forms a natural unit with the Transkei.

Why not before?

Therefore we went back on our statement of the past and decided that it would be better, in view of the changing circumstances, if Port St. Johns, like the White towns of the Transkei, also were to become part of this Xhosa homeland.

The dead hand of the past.

By reviewing our attitude of the past, we are not failing in respect of credibility … [Interjections.] Sir, I am waiting for the noise over there to subside, then I shall repeat what I said. By reviewing our attitude of the past, we are not failing in respect of credibility, but much rather gaining in responsibility.

Nonsense.

There is ever growing proof that more and more Whites, who have interests in Port St. Johns, are adopting the same standpoint.

You are not keeping your word.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Benoni accuse the Minister of not keeping his word?

Did the hon. member say that?

Yes, Sir, and I withdraw it.

Sir, the Government therefore regards it as being in the best interests of White and Bantu that Port St. Johns become a Bantu area in accordance with a procedure which will cause as little inconvenience as possible to the inhabitants. While State-owned land and farms there can be transferred sooner to the Transkei, we shall arrange matters in such a way that the Whites who have beach houses and similar interests on the coast, will still be able to keep their property for their convenience but that it will gradually be taken over by the South African Bantu Trust, a corporation, or the Transkeian Government. Exactly the same guarantees which the Government gave and is still faithfully observing in respect of the White towns in the Transkei, will also apply to Port St. Johns, and that applies to Whites as well as Coloureds. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Edenvale, who supported the Government’s standpoint concerning Port St. Johns in the Select Committee, and I hope that the hon. member will continue to give us the support he gave us there.

As far as the rest of the Transkei is concerned, it will be noticed that with the exception of the so-called Ongeluksnek area, which is situated to the west of Matatiele, only smaller areas in the district of Maclear, Elliot and Indwe are proposed as homeland area, viz. the Pitsing, Umga and Guba areas, etc. As far as the Ongeluksnek area is concerned, assurances were also given in the past by the Government that, subject to certain conditions, it would not become Bantu area, but the area is completely surrounded by existing Bantu areas and any practical person will realize that because of its situation it will be impossible for this area to stand the test of time as a White area.

The village of Indwe, which was in the news a great deal in the past, remains White, as do Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele, Oederville and Kokstad.

How long will they remain White?

I shall give a proper reply to that question when I reply to this debate. I shall make a note of it. However, the hon. member already knows the answer. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker please, my time is limited.

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

The hon. members know that I have to reply to this debate and that I shall be able to answer such minor questions as that within a moment, if I am given a proper moment to do so, and not by way of interjection while I am making my spech.

In connection with the consolidation of the Ciskei which was partially completed during 1972, it should be mentioned that before consolidation it consisted of 17 areas which will now be reduced to three areas. I should like to remind this House that the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei recently approved the excision of Glen Grey and Herschel from the Ciskei. If the expected happens, i.e. that the two areas are added to the Transkei, the Ciskei will consist of only one contiguous area in the future, and the Transkei of three areas.

White villages which will be added to the Ciskei in accordance with the Select Committee’s report, are Alice and Seymore. The proposed addition of the district of Victoria East and a part of Stockenström, etc., then complete the Ciskei as a contiguous unit. These two towns will be treated just as the White towns of the Transkei.

The recommendations made by the Select Committee in connection with KwaZulu flow mainly from the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs during 1973, viz. that the future of the Drakensberg location, as it is called, be reconsidered. In the past 20 years, much has been said and written about these locations, the so-called mountain locations, and investigations were instituted. And for virtually 15 years of that period, I have been closely connected with this matter in this Ministry. Everyone in Natal wants to have the three reserves moved, but up to now no body, no individual or the Natal Agricultural Union has been able to offer a practical acceptable solution. The only suggestion that was made—yes, even today—was that all three of the locations be moved to the Weenen area or a part of Babanango and that the State-owned land in North Natal be taken as compensatory land. Anyone who says that, ought to know that he is speaking contrary to his own better judgment. After various further local investigations had been conducted by me personally and by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and all the factors and alternatives had been considered and discussed, the Government decided, in close consultation with the Ministers of Agriculture, Water Affairs, Forestry, Planning and the Cabinet as a whole, to recommend that the Upper Tugela location be excised in its entirety and that locations Nos. 1 and 2 be consolidated at Estcourt and supplemented with a piece of land to the north and that the southern mountain parts of the latter two locations, viz. locations Nos. 1 and 2, be excised. All of this is indicated on the map. Feelings were made to run rather high about this, but still without any practical acceptable alternatives being proposed. I know there are certain people, perhaps in this House too—even on my side—who were unhappy and perhaps still are unhappy about this decision, but I am asking them kindly to help us in future.

In pursuance of certain ideas expressed to me by members of the kwaZulu Government during an interview, our Government decided that the Upper Tugela reserve, after it had become a White area, should be administered chiefly as a conservation area and not be developed by White farmers in its entirety. This will undoubtedly be welcomed by everybody, since that area is an important water catchment area.

The proposed addition of the piece of state-owned land in North Natal is bound up with the recommendation in connection with the Drakensberg locations in the sense, inter alia, that it serves partially as compensatory land for the envisaged excisions of the Drakensberg locations. In the vicinity of this State-owned land, we also find the much discussed Pongolapoort Dam and Sordwana Bay, which each justify a short explanation.

The Pongolapoort Dam, or the Josini Dam as it is more commonly known, which is situated in existing Bantu area, remain in the Bantu area and the Department of Water Affairs is proceeding with the construction of the main and other distribution channels below the dam with a view to developing an impressive agricultural project for that Bantu homeland.

Sordwana Bay, which is situated just inside the existing Bantu area and is visited exclusively by Whites in large and increasing numbers, is being excised after proper consideration and after it has been excised this area will be vested in the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The Government has also decided that Sordwana Bay be controlled by the authorities as a unit and not be subdivided so as to be sold to individuals. It has also been decided to develop a beach resort to the north of Sordwana Bay for Bantu, an amenity which has never existed in that vicinity.

The proposed addition of land to the south of Ulundi is bound up with the excision of the existing Bantu area which will be situated to the west of the new road from Richards Bay to the interior, whereby a better rounding off of the area will be achieved.

In passing, I can also mention that KwaMashu at Durban, as well as Imbali and Ashdown, the urban Bantu residential areas at Edendale, will be incorporated with KwaZulu in the course of time, a step which is welcomed from all quarters and propagated by the local authorities concerned.

Once the consolidation plans in respect of KwaZulu have been carried into effect, KwaZulu will eventually consist of 10 areas as against the 48 reserves and dozens of Black spots before consolidation.

The addition adjacent to the Witsieshoek reserve surely requires no further elucidation, as it is obvious and clear.

In respect of the Bantu areas in the province of the Transvaal and in the North-Western Cape, I also want to say a few words. The proposed addition of the Trichardsdal-Ofcolaco area, south-east of Tzaneen, arises from the recommendation of the Select Committee in 1973 that the then proposed addition of the Sabie sand area in i the vicinity of Bosbokrand be further investigated. After the investigation, it was decided to abandon the then proposed addition of the Sabie sand area and to include the Trichardsdal-Ofcolaco area, which offers far better possibilities in respect of utilization and settlement potential. In 1973. Parliament gave its approval, inter alia, in respect of the so-called Immerpan area, south-west of Zebediela, but deserving representations were received afterwards from certain bodies, to the effect that the northern part of the area should be retained as a White area. It was then decided that the requests could be met and an area to the south of the Immerpan area is now proposed for addition, whereby a sensible rounding-off of the area concerned is achieved.

Another case which I should like to mention specifically here, is the southern part of the farm Goedverwagting, also known as Tshakuma, which initially was to be excised from the Bantu area, but will now continue to exist as a Bantu area, after the Venda Cabinet had negotiated with me.

The Bantu homelands which are situated in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal, i.e. the Swazi area, Ndebele area, Lebowa, Gazankulu and Venda, which consist at present, before consolidation, of 13 areas, will be reduced after consolidation to six larger and more acceptable areas.

The only remaining area which is under discussion today is Bophuthatswana, which is situated partly in the Transvaal and partly in the North-Western Cape, an area in respect of which consolidation plans were laid on the Table in 1973 which could not be considered by Parliament as a result of a lack of time and which consequently had to be re-introduced this year. The proposals in respect of Bophuthaswana which are now under consideration, essentially correspond with the proposals submitted to Parliament in 1973, with a few minor adjustments here and there, and in terms of these Bophuthatswana will eventually consist of six areas as against the present nineteen. No existing White towns or cities are included in the consolidation plans in respect of Bophuthatswana. Mafeking, about which there was a great deal of speculation—without any cause—remains a White area. In the same breath, I want to say, to remove any uncertainty or misunderstanding which might exist, that the Bantu town, Thlabane, at Rustenburg, will remain as a Bantu town within Bophuthatswana and that there is no question of changing its status to that of an urban Bantu residential area. Further elucidation in connection with the plans for Bophuthatswana is not necessary now, since they have been under notice since 1973.

I make haste to mention just a few important aspects in connection with the quota position. For the sake of convenience, I shall stick to the figures given in the memorandum of the department which was submitted to Parliament and which reflects the position as it was in July 1974. The fixed quota, as laid down in the 1936 legislation, is 6.3 million ha of which 4,9 million ha had already been obtained at that time, so that 1,2 million ha were still outstanding. The proposed additions of land to the. Bantu homelands make provision for compensatory land for areas which will be excised in the future. This land is calculated on an agricultural or animal husbandry basis, and therefore cannot simply be determined on a hectare-for-hectare basis. The proposed additions also make provision for 159 000 ha of land made up of Black spots which still have to be cleared and, in the last place, they also make provision of course for the balance of the quota which is due. But I am reserving a small surface per province which is to be kept in reserve provisionally for minor adjustments and corrections of boundaries and possible unforeseen eventualities which may crop up in future, as well as for possible recalculations as a result of the fact that the calculated surfaces of the proposed areas were determined with the aid of a planimeter and the surfaces may possibly not be 100% correct.

The surfaces which are to be held in reserve for each province, are as follows—

Many interested parties would like to know how long the Government will take to implement and finalize the consolidation plans which are before this House at the moment, and also those which have already been approved in the past. It will be extremely unwise of me to mention a date or a period here, since the whole process is dependent on various social, economic and financial considerations, but I can mention, nonetheless, that the departmental machinery of my department, as well as that of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which is charged with the valuations of the properties, has already been adjusted in a way to allow of purchases being effected on a far larger scale and far more expeditiously than in the past. As more funds are made available by Parliament for land purchases, so the rate of the purchase of the land can be accelerated. It will interest members to know that the Cabinet decided in principle as far back as August 1973 that a considerably higher amount be appropriated per annum for land purchases. Consequently this was carried into effect when R25 million was voted for this purpose for the first time in the financial year 1974-75. In the present Budget a similar amount was voted. Furthermore the Cabinet also approved at the lime that the Treasury would assist my department with additional funds, as when there would be a stabilization fund, in the event of the appropriated amount being inadequate in any particular financial year. In the past financial year, the appropriated amount of R25 million in fact had to be supplemented by the Treasury in this way, as we purchased considerably more land than the R25 million made provision for.

How much?

The amount has not yet been finally audited, but it is approximately R15 million or R16 million more. In the third place, the Cabinet also approved in principle in 1973 that, if it were to be necessary in future, interest-bearing Government stock could be issued supplementary in respect of land acquired, but on condition that such stock would be negotiable only for approved purposes.

I want to give the assurance to White farmers who have to part with their land in the process of consolidation and for whom, as has already been said, this means tremendous sacrifices and inconvenience, that the Government will expedite the process of the acquisition of land as far as possible within the limits of financial circumstances. In the first place, we shall concentrate on the purchase of compensatory land for those areas which will be excised in order to set in motion and finalize the re-settlement of people, whereupon the homelands can be rounded off further by the addition of the remaining quota due. It has been said in the past, and I consider it necessary to emphasize it here once more, that White farmers whose farms cannot be bought out in the near future, through force of circumstances, should continue normally with their farming activities, development and planning, but without making excessive, uneconomic improvements, which cannot be taken into account in the determination of the market value. I am thinking, for example, of irrigation projects which are developed without sufficient water. I think that I shall be understood correctly when I tell all the Bantu peoples with their Governments and tribes that the Whites of South Africa and this Government do not in any way begrudge them the land which the Bantu peoples will receive, and which they will receive free of charge. We wish them only the very best with it. And since land cannot increase, the serious advice is given to them to use their land sensibly and to conserve it well. From the side of the Republic of South Africa, we shall be only too willing to assist them in this. Also in respect of groups of people who will have to move away, we undertake always to do everything possible to compensate those involved fairly and to be of assistance to them in other ways. For that reason we hope always to get co-operation from the Bantu Governments, chiefs and others involved, and I appeal to them accordingly.

I should like to express a word of thanks to the South African Agricultural Union with all its affiliated bodies, to local managements, development and planning committees, members on both sides of this House and numerous individuals for the co-operation which has been received from them and for all the assistance which they have given us over many years. Last but not least, I take pleasure in thanking also the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission and the Deputy Ministers who were involved, especially Mr. Raubenheimer, who was a tower of strength in this task. In particular I also thank the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and his officials, who were not intimidated by distances, time or volume of work, for the excellent service and support received from them throughout. Here I mention in particular Mr. Louis Pepler who, alas, has already passed away, and Mr. Hennie Pienaar and Mr. Sif van Wyk. Together all these people helped so that my competent Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, and I could manage to give this long desired ideal substance today with the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. It was, and still is a gigantic task of which far too few people realize the true extent and gravity. But it was also a challenging task which I would not have wanted to avoid in any way and which I thoroughly enjoyed throughout.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the exposition which the hon. the Minister has given in moving the adoption of the recommendations of the first report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. The hon. gentleman said that this was, in effect, the implementation of the obligations in the 1936 Act, together with other improvements—or words to that effect. Throughout he used the term “consolidation” in relation to these measures. Before I come to the functions and work of the Select Committee itself, I should like to make it quite clear that we are not dealing here this afternoon with the mere fulfilment of the 1936 Act. That is the first point. The second point is that we are not dealing with the consolidation of the Bantu areas. We are dealing with some partial consolidation of the Bantu areas of South Africa, because with few exceptions, none of them will be consolidated. There is some partial consolidation. We are also not dealing simply with the implementation of the quota provisions of the 1936 Act, but, as I shall show later on, with an attempt to implement, in credible form, the policy of separate development of this Government. That is what we are concerned with, and that alone.

Let me come now to the Select Committee itself. This afternoon I shall deal with this matter in broad terms. Those who follow me in the debate will deal with the particular areas, with greater emphasis on details. First of all, what was the function of the Select Committee? The function of the Select Committee is really to be found in its recommendations on page 4 where paragraph (1) asks this House to approve the description of certain areas—“schedule-A areas” they are called—as areas in which the State President may declare released areas, i.e. areas which the Bantu Trust can buy for Bantu occupation. Secondly, the House is asked to approve, in paragraph (2), the withdrawal of the Bantu tribes residing in the areas set out in schedule B. If one looks at those two paragraphs, which form the substance of the resolution before this House this afternoon, one sees that the key to this situation is the second paragraph, which deals with the withdrawals, the removal of people from where they presently live. It is that key, the withdrawals, which indicates quite clearly that we are not this afternoon dealing merely with the fulfilment of the obligations set out in the 1936 Act. The 1936 Act deals with the purchase of land for Bantu occupation. It does not deal with the removal of Bantu from scheduled Bantu areas. That key phrase in the second paragraphs indicates that we are dealing here with an attempt to fulfil the policy of separate development.

As I have said, we are dealing with what the hon. the Minister calls consolidation. In my view it is not that. We are not here dealing with the question of Black spot removal, which the hon. the Minister dealt with in passing, nor with the question of White spot removal. These Black and White spots are nowhere shown on these maps before us, any more than they were on the maps of 1973. That is an issue which so far as the maps and the departmental planning are concerns, is a matter which is almost complete. It is a matter in the … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must be somewhat more selective with his interjections.

Let us look to the function of the Select Committee itself. The function of the committee was to investigate this very difficult matter and to make recommendations to this House. The powers of the Select Committee, clearly set out in the document which is before us, were to hear evidence and to call for papers. What have other Select Committees done when faced with similar terms of reference as the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs in this instance? There have been many and this year, in fact, there have been the Select Committee into the Liquor Act, the Select Committee into the Water Act and in the past there were Select Committees into expropriation, censorship, marketing and a host of other matters. If you consult all the reports of these Select Committees, which emerge in small blue books, you will find that not only have they received and considered voluminous evidence by way of documents, but they have received and heard viva voce numerous individuals and representatives of interested bodies who have been interested in the subject being investigated by the Select Committee concerned. People have been allowed to express their point of view and documents were received in every case and considered, having been submitted by people with a point of view to state. It is not surprising that that was the case because it is utterly impossible for any Select Committee worthy of the name to consider the task before it and to do its job properly unless it receives and hears evidence. There is no other way in which a conscientious committee can do its work. It is a matter of daily experience in this House that that is so.

The Minister should! encourage it.

What would we normally expect from a Bantu Affairs Select Committee if it were to make a pretence of doing its job properly? We are after all dealing with, in spite of what the hon. the Minister says, a large-scale reallocation of land-ownership. What would one expect it to do? I believe one would expect the proposals placed before it to be motivated by evidence to justify their acceptance or to warrant their rejection. As to the land which has to be purchased— I deal with this in the first instance—I believe there should be evidence of an investigation into the suitability of the land for its intended use, its value pastorally or agriculturally, the supply of water available, if it is in agricultural production how it is intended to continue that production and, if it is not in production, to what use the land is to be put, e.g. Whether it is to be used for tribal farming methods or modern farming methods or for urban or industrial use. Where there is an exchange of land involved, evidence should be heard as to what the relevant values are of the land to be taken and of the land to be offered.

I believe there would be an investigation into and a regard for existing communities in so far as the purchases are concerned. These would naturally be White communities. There should be an investigation into the question whether or not the taking of the land would disrupt the activities of a co-operative institution—(there are many of them—where the supply of agricultural products in a certain volume is essential for its survival. There should also be an investigation into the question of stock saleyards, which, are similarly situated. There is also the question of whether the proposals cut in half a large landed estate consisting of a number of units without which It would cease to be viable and also the supply of raw material to factories situated in the locality—these are the things that one would expect to be investigated and evidence to be led in that regard. The question of communications is vital in this question of so-called consolidation.

Above all, one would expect that if the Select Committee wanted to do its job properly, there would be evidence that the owners were consulted and that there was to a large extent a consent for the proposals that are placed before the Select Committee. There have always been willing sellers amongst the landed communities of South Africa. It is indeed known to many in this House that many farmers’ associations have had to pass resolutions preventing their members selling to the Trust without the consent of the association concerned—so many were there who were prepared to offer land on a voluntary basis for purchase by the Trust. There have always been communities where a portion of a community has been prepared to sell and the other portion not prepared to sell and where by means of proper negotiation an agreed boundary line can be found. These are the matters which I can imagine a Select Committee, doing its job properly, would investigate in so far as the purchases are concerned.

Let us look at the removals. After all, we are here dealing with the resolution in which we are being asked to vote, today, for the removal of hundreds of thousands of Black people from the territories which they at present inhabit.

Where do you get that from?

The evidence before the Select Committee was that the figure in the Transvaal alone was over 100 000. [Interjections.] Let us deal with the proposals.

Is that what the commission said?

That was the evidence that was placed before us.

Produce it.

Once again, we are at a disadvantage, because, unlike all the other Select Committees, where the evidence is recorded and we can refer to it, not one thing was recorded as far as this Select Committee was concerned. Let us look at the removals. I would expect a Select Committee, doing its job, to investigate, firstly, whether the people were consulted either directly or through their chiefs or headmen and, secondly, that there would be evidence as to the areas to which they were to be moved so that we could judge as to the suitability of that move. I would expect the Select Committee to be told what preparations were being made in the area which was to receive these people, what preparations were made as to their housing, the availability of work, water supplies, fuel supplies and matters of that kind. I would expect evidence as to the suitability of the area to which the people were to be moved. I would expect evidence as to the relative value of the land which they were being told to give up and to which they were being moved. Above all—and I have noticed that the hon. the Minister has here stated a point of view which is contrary to my information—I would believe that it was right that the homeland leaders and Governments concerned should be consulted. This is typical of the difficulty of the Select Committee. The hon. the Minister says that the homeland leaders of the affected communities were consulted. We, too, have consulted the homeland leaders, and my information is to the contrary of what the hon. the Minister has told the House.

Does the hon. member accept or reject my word?

Naturally, I accept the word of the hon. the Minister that his information is that these people were consulted.

I consulted them and the Deputy Minister consulted them. [Interjections.]

I do not dispute that the hon. the Minister genuinely holds the point of view that he has expressed and that he believes that what he says is true. The trouble is, Sir, that the homeland leaders equally believe that what they tell us is true. There is only one way in which problems of this kind can be rectified, and that is for direct evidence to be placed before the Select Committee. If direct evidence, instead of hearsay evidence which we received, in the nature of things, from the department, is placed before the Committee, then the Committee is in a position itself to judge where the truth lies in these matters.

Name the leaders.

Sir, I ask hon. members on that side to accept that the United Party representatives on this Committee have consulted all the homeland leaders concerned directly, face to face, man to man, and that is the information that we have.

Do you accept that?

Do you accept his word?

Order! Hon. members on the hon. speaker’s side must not try to assist him.

Sir, the only point I wish to make is that with the best will in the world it is not possible for departmental officials, who have consulted over the years, very often through intermediaries, to place an up-to-date and accurate picture before a Select Committee. It is utterly impossible and it is unfair to expect them to do so. Let me give you another example, Sir. Evidence was being given as to what took place at a certain meeting. The hon. member for Griqualand East was present at that meeting, and afterwards he said to the official concerned, “Well, you and I must have been at entirely different meetings,” when in fact they were at the same meeting, and it then appeared that the official had consulted with certain of the affected persons at a later stage and that the position had changed, Sir, bearing in mind what I believe is the correct procedure for a Select Committee of this kind, which is to hear evidence so that the members of that Committee can be informed and can properly report to this House what took place, the very first resolution before the Committee—and it is to be found on pages 54 and 55—was a resolution by the Government majority that no evidence should be heard either viva voce or by documents, except the evidence of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Typical.

That is objective!

Order!

The second resolution, which was put in the form of resolution and was debated, although it was not actually put to the vote, the chairman of the Select Committee indicating that he expected people to support that point of view—and that is to be found on page 56 of this report—was to disallow by the Opposition members of the Select Committee all questions which we considered to be relevant in relation to the excision areas under Schedule B. Sir, the effect of those two resolutions, the one dealing with the refusal to hear evidence and the other disallowing questions on all matters except the removal of the people concerned, was to prevent our being seized of some of the most important issues which we had to debate. Sir, there was even resentment amongst certain of the majority of the Select Committee that we should seek a motivation of these proposals at all from the Department. The point of view was expressed that the maps were self-evidence of what was required in this regard, to the extent that after the very first item had been discussed the Government majority moved and carried the closure of debate —the closure of debate, Mr. Speaker, in a Select Committee, mark you, on the very first of dozens of items that we had to consider. I may add to that that not one single member of the Bantu Affairs Commission which had investigated these matters to an extent by travelling round the country in 1971 and 1972, was on this occasion a member of the Select Committee. Even the notes of that commission were not made available to the Select Committee. Now, Sir, what were we faced with? We were faced with evidence which was hearsay, in the nature of things. It was very often out of date and some of it, in the nature of things, had to be a good estimate or guess. There was no need for this hurry, for this rush. The Government has been there with this policy for 26 years and throughout that time there could have been sittings of the commission and of the Select Committee for a proper investigation of this matter. Now, after that summary, I think I can fairly say that I have never seen a more cynical manipulation of a Select Committee dealing with a matter of such intense human concern to so many people, both Black and White, as took place on this occasion. Sir, there was no pretence at a proper presentation of evidence. There was no pretence at a scientific inquiry, and there was no pretence at proper consultation. I can say that deliberately, because the evidence itself in respect of the majority of the removals— and we have a resolution here for the removal of people—undisputed from the department, was that the people had not been consulted. The evidence was that they were to be consulted after we had authorized their removal. [Interjections.] What are reasonable people to do in these circumstances? The Opposition members on the Select Committee tried to do our best with such evidence and other information as was available to us, and within the narrow confines we were allowed by the procedure that was adopted. We tried, as far as we could, to follow two criteria in respect of all race groups. Firstly, was there proper consultation, and secondly, was an attempt made to secure the agreement of the majority of the community concerned? Applying those criteria as best we could, and bearing in mind other information which came to us, we are able to approve of the majority of the land purchases set out in Schedule A of the report of the Select Committee, and on the same criteria we are compelled to reject the majority of the removals set out in Schedule B. All this is reflected in our amendment, which in the nature of things does not indicate a great deal. But the House will see from the amendment that certain items which are set out in paragraph (1), we seek to be referred to the Government for further consideration. Those items are those on which we were not satisfied on the evidence and the information available to us that these criteria had been fulfilled.

I will now deal with the second paragraph of the amendment, and because I may be caught by time before the end I propose to move my amendment at this stage—

1. (1) That the following items be referred to the Government for further consideration:

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, too, must be more selective with his interjections.

Mr. Speaker, the final paragraph of our amendment deals with, in the first place, the necessity to declare the areas released without delay, so that people know where they stand. Secondly, it is aimed at giving people a liquid asset in the form of a negotiable instrument, whereby they can cause themselves to be resettled whilst the necessary delay in the purchasing of their properties is taking place. I was interested to hear the hon. the Minister say a few words in this regard, but I would be very grateful if he would elaborate on this aspect of the matter in his reply to the debate.

Which aspect is that?

The aspect relating to the negotiable document. Is there a rate of interest applicable to it?

I said that.

Will provision be made for an escalation in its value to take account of the depreciation in the value of money during the time that it is current? Let us be clear as to what the position of these people will be. They will be faced with a statement by the Minister that their properties may be purchased in 10 years* time. That time period has been given in the past by the hon. the Deputy Minister. If a man has to wait for 10 years and his value is frozen today, with, inflation running at 10% or 12% per annum, he can suffer a very substantial loss indeed by the end of that 10-year period.

But, Sir, let us look to the future. The hon. the Minister and his Deputy have said that there will be priorities established so far as purchases are concerned. What criteria will be set to establish those priorities? How long will it take? What are the estimates as to the future? When will these priorities be announced? How will the properties be kept in production during that period of time? What is the relation, for example, to the assessment of the value and the time of the ultimate purchase? A great deal has to be thought out and said in this regard before there can be satisfaction as to these matters.

Sir, I have dealt with the purchases briefly, but what about the excisions and the removals? Will there be a list of priorities in that regard? What criteria will apply there when setting those priorities? How will the removals be carried out? Will they take place pari passu with the purchases of compensatory land? What is the planning in this regard? These are matters which should, I believe, have been thrashed out at the stage of the Select Committee. We should not be in the position where we have to inquire about these matters now.

I said earlier that this was purely a political exercise. It is the final stage of the policy of separate development. It is the Government’s final answer so far as a political solution to Black/White relations in South Africa is concerned. The hon. the Minister has referred us to the maps at the back of the report of the Select Committee.

I do not agree with What you have said now. [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, I seem to have made some progress. I take it the hon. gentleman agrees with what I said earlier.

I was not here.

Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the maps. The maps are printed on much too small a scale, but nevertheless an attempt has been made to give us a graphic illustration of what this means. By no stretch of the imagination can this be called consolidation. By no stretch of the imagination can the bulk of these areas be said to be a State, either in embryo or in existence. I should like to say that in my view we shall never solve the question of political rights and obligations of Blacks in South Africa by fiddling about with bits and pieces of land. There is no progress along that road. In my view no amount of land apportionment alone is going to solve the political problems of the present and the future in South Africa. I say that because the economy alone will prevent that from taking place. Fiddling about with bits and pieces of land brings in its train uneasiness, hardship and uncertainty for large areas of South Africa and with few, if any, compensating advantages. The hon. the Minister said one thing with which I agree and that is that finality is required in this game of jig-saw puzzles because finality brings about certainty and at least some sense of peace. I believe what is needed here is not to juggle with, pieces of land, but for the leaders of White opinion to meet now as a first priority with the leaders of Black opinion, not to juggle with pieces of land but to find an acceptable constitutional framework, a framework which is broadly acceptable to all the groups in South Africa and within which political development and evolution can take place.

Mr. Speaker, the whole argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was for the most part concerned with his objection to the Select Committee not having heard any evidence other than that of the Department of Bantu Administration. The Select Committee is deliberating here in Cape Town. The hon. member said that because other Select Committees hear evidence, this committee also should have do so. As I have said, the Select Committee is deliberating in Cape Town and when this legislation was put on the Statute Book in 1936, the legislators realized that this was a matter which affected the landowners intimately. Therefore they created the opportunity that owners and the interested parties need not come to Cape Town to give evidence, but that they are afforded the opportunity of giving evidence throughout the country where they live. For this reason this department is, different from other departments. The other departments do not have an institution such as the Bantu Affairs Commission which travels throughout the country to hear evidence from interested parties. The work the hon. member wanted the Select Committee to have done, i.e. to hear evidence, has already been done by the Bantu Affairs Commission. In fact, it took the Commission five years to do it. I am asking that hon. member now whether he wanted a job which had already been performed, to have been begun all over again, whether precisely the same thing should have been repeated all over again? But there is more to it than this. Every member of the public has had the opportunity of attending the meetings. The meetings were advertised and reports about them were published in the newspapers. The United Party and their representatives sitting in this House, were also present and even gave evidence. Therefore, everybody knew about it, and what is more, they brought their voters along to see the Minister, the Deputy Minister and even the Prime Minister. During that period of five years in which these matters were investigated, the voters of South Africa who are interested in this matter had full access to this Ministry and to make representations to the Cabinet. In fact, interested farmers and other people who made representations, beat a pathway to the department’s door. The department submitted that evidence to the Select Committee. The hon. the Minister told the hon. member that he and the hon. the Deputy Minister had had negoations with the homeland cabinets. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have known that, apart from the other matters which were discussed, also the question of consolidation was discussed last year at the annual discussion between the hon. the Prime Minister and the homeland leaders.

The hon. member also referred to what had happened in the Select Committee when the hon. member for Griqualand East said that he and the official concerned of the department probably did not attend the same meeting. I inquired what the circumstances were. The hon. member for Griqualand East alleged that only two people at the Matatiele meeting were in favour of the Ongeluksnek area being purchased and that the rest of the people were opposed to it. I checked the evidence that had been submitted to the Bantu Affairs Commission, and ascertained that exactly half the meeting, 19 members, declared themselves in favour of it, while the other 19 said they were opposed to it. The official who gave evidence before the Select Committee, also said that about half the members were for it and the other half was against it. I want to go further and tell the hon. members opposite that they also do not know what is going on in South Africa and that they are out of touch with the people. I received a letter today from the Ongeluksnek farmers’ association. They submitted a memorandum to me in which they said (translation)—

There you have it, Sir. But what are hon. members opposite doing? One need only look at the amendment which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has moved. He asks that this area be referred back for further consideration. This is the way those hon. members want to tackle something. The farmers’ association accepts the plan unanimously, but the hon. member wants another investigation.

The hon. member said that what we are doing is to ask Parliament to approve the removal of certain groups of Bantu people living in certain areas, and he objected to the fact that those people had not been consulted yet. He was told that those people would be consulted after this plan had been approved, but the hon. member is still objecting. I want to tell the hon. member that what we are doing here is to follow the procedure prescribed in the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936. They were the people who put that Act on the Statute Book. Therefore, they were the people who prescribed that procedure. In those days they were more clever. They were quite right in prescribing this procedure. They only became stupid afterwards It is a fact that, if one wants to consult the Bantu and tell him that he is going to be moved, one has to be in a position to tell him where he is going to be moved to. Therefore one first has to come to Parliament to obtain approval to have these areas declared released areas so that we can approach these people afterwards and tell them that Parliament has already approved it. Then we will be in a position to tell them where we are going to move them to and to ask them whether they are satisfied and whether they would rather be moved to another area within those released areas. There is no other procedure which can be followed. This is the only logical procedure; this is a procedure which hon. members on the other side laid down themselves, but now they are objecting to it.

The hon. member also said that the people concerned should be bought out immediately, because the value of their land will depreciate. Surely, the value of land is not being pegged. The department determines what the market value of the land is at that specific time and if the land is only bought out after ten years, the appreciation of the land value will be taken into account even though the particular land is situated in an area surrounded by Bantu homelands. The market value will still be determined as though the land is situated in a White area. The objection of the hon. member therefore holds no water.

The hon. member also suggested that this is not consolidation because what we have here is several patches of land. He also said that these areas cannot be administered and are not viable either, and, in addition, raised all kinds of other objections we usually get from them. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not essential for a country to have to exist of only one area to be viable and to be a really happy fatherland for its citizens. I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows of how many parts Denmark consists, and Denmark is a prosperous country.

Are you going to count the islands now?

Yes. I count them. Denmark consists of more than 500 islands, five or six of which are large ones. Those areas are separated from one another.

And who lives in the ocean in between?

The United Party!

Exactly! I want to tell the hon. member that it is far easier to administer areas when there is land between them than when there is sea between them. I also want to mention another example, i.e. the Philippines. The Philippine island area consists of 7 100 islands, only 357 of which are more than one square mile in extent. How does the hon. member think a telephone line is taken across the ocean? Do they have to build a little harbour at each of those little islands? Those islands are spread out over a distance of 1 600 km. The United States of America is not one area either; it consists of three parts and those parts are separated by land and not by the ocean. They are nevertheless being successfully administered. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that the examples he mentioned, are not relevant. It is not impossible to administer a country which consists of various parts.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. Minister said, i.e. that what we are doing here, is the fulfilment of a long cherished ideal. It is a major and far-reaching step which radically influenced and changed the history of South Africa.

That is what I meant when I told the hon. member to keep quiet.

This is the implication of what we are completing here today. The important point is, however, that in order to carry through a radical measure such as this, one needs a government with courage, vision and purposefulness and not a government and a party with the courage of a mouse, like the United Party. As a matter of fact, they initiated this project in 1913. In 1913 Gen. Botha placed the Bantu legislation on the Statue Book. Section 1 provided that the Bantu were allowed to purchase land in certain areas and section 2 that a commission be appointed to determine where additional land had to be purchased. The object was to purchase additional land. History passed judgment on that attempt and I want to quote what this judgment was. I quote what G. D. Scholtz has to say about it (translation)—

That is the judgment of history on the attempt of the United Party. They capitulated. Later Gen. Hertzog also came into the picture. He placed the 1936 Act on the Statute Book. He persuaded the United Party to do so. They said that this land should be purchased. From 1936 to 1959 they performed a complete somersault, because in 1959 they said that no further land should be purchased. They adopted an attitude which was diametrically opposed, so much so that the Progressive Party broke away. However, what are they doing now? Now they come along and say we should purchase all the land again. Now they cannot purchase land fast enough. Now they have changed their minds again. Do hon. members know what they remind me of? They remind me of a merry-go-round. If one wants to be able to see something all one has to do is to stand still long enough. It will pass some time or other. The same applies as far as their policy is concerned. If one wants to see a certain point of view of theirs, all one has to do is wait long enough. At some time or other they will adopt that point of view, because they provide for all standpoints. Their point of view now is, according to a Press conference they had—

Three years ago they adopted a totally different point of view. The hon. member for Griqualand East had the following to say (Hansard, Vol. 39, column 8008)—

He said further (column 8011)—

A smaller area. [Interjections.] Three years ago they said that a smaller area of land should be purchased. The pattern developed in this way: In 1936 they placed the Act on the Statute Book. In 1959 they were opposed to the purchase of land, and in 1973 they said that not everything that was specified by the Act need be purchased. Now they say that the full quantity of land should be purchased and that even more than that should be purchased. Therefore they have adopted every point of view that can be adopted as far as this matter is concerned. They have adopted every point of view.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana moved various amendments here. Do you know why that has been done, Sir? It is a smokescreen to hide the discord within that party. I want to quote a few things to hon. members. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana told us—the hon. member for Griqualand East said the same thing—that they are opposed to these purchases being made for independent homelands. However, this is not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says. In the Sunday Times of 28 May 1972 he had the following to say—

There is a man sitting in that party over there who is in favour of full independence for the homelands. I congratulate him on that, because that is the correct point of view. In that party, however, there was another man, the hon. member for Yeoville, who said exactly the same thing. I quote from the Sunday Times of 20 October 1974. At that time the hon. member for Yeoville was still a member of their party. He said—

The hon. member for Yeoville said another very true thing after that. He said—

What the hon. member said, was very true. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the Transkei should become independent, i.e. the same point of view as that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Yeoville, however, is not a member of the United Party any longer because he had the courage of his conviction. He left a party which was not in favour of that policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is still sitting over there. I should like to hear what his present point of view is with regard to this matter.

I wish to go further and say that the amendments which were moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, were moved to hide the discord in that party. With regard to Port St. Johns—as was said by the hon. the Minister—the hon. member for Eden-vale voted in favour of its being added to the Transkei. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Griqualand East voted against it. If they want to agree on this point, one of them will now have to vote differently here in the House of Assembly from what he had voted there. It seems to me they do not want to disagree, or that they want to hide the fact that there is disagreement. They have to compromise. I also wish to say that on the same occasion when those hon. members disagreed about Port St. Johns, they also disagreed with regard to all the land which has to be added to the Xhosa areas. The hon. member for Edenvale did not agree with his colleagues throughout that day. That night they brought pressure to bear upon him. They asked him: “What did you do?” From the following day onwards the whole lot of them agreed. They never voted differently again. [Interjections.] They had to devise a plan to get out of the disagreement which developed amongst them. They decided: “We should move that these matters be referred back. All of us can then agree that they be referred back.” And that despite the fact, as I told hon. members a moment ago, that the farmers indicated, in respect of some of those areas, that they are unanimously in favour of their being bought out. I am telling you, Sir, that the United Party did not have the courage or the backbone or the vision or the enthusiasm or the drive to carry through those things they had undertaken. This, however, the National Party has. I want to tell hon. members opposite that the idealism which is burning like a fire in the heart of the National Party, will keep on burning in the years that lie ahead. We shall carry out this policy to its logical conclusion and it will still become one of the best things in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with the hon. member who has just sat down. He quoted from a Press statement by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in which the latter he said—

The hon. member then went on to say that we had changed our policy since a statement made by me in this House in 1973. I am not going to read the whole statement, but I said inter alia—

Our policy is that there was a commitment to buy more land in 1936.

Which column is that?

Column 8150.

I want to check him. [Interjections].

What is the hon. member insinuating?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said I wanted to check, Sir.

He did not say that. He said he wanted to check “him”.

I shall ignore the hon. member. I treat it with the contempt he deserves. [Interjections];

I said I wanted to check you. [Interjections].

Order!

I then went on to say—

That is what I said. [Interjections.] When one listens to this hon. member, one wonders why the Government worries to consolidate at all. He has after all, given such a brilliant example of States that are not consolidated but nevertheless fare very well. The hon. member then dealt with the United Party’s attitude towards the purchase of land for the Africans. I would like to remind the hon. member that in 1936, when this Act on which the Nationalist Party now relies in carrying out its policy was passed, they opposed it. Mr. Strydom and Mr. Swart moved that the proposals be referred back to the regional committees as, in Mr. Strydom’s words, too much land was being set aside.

The hon. member said that the reason for not hearing evidence before the Select Committee was that provision was made for the commission to hear evidence elsewhere to save the owners of land the inconvenience of having to come down to Cape Town to give evidence. What utter nonsense. These people offered and asked to come down to Cape Town. It was no inconvenience to them. In fact, had they been allowed to give evidence, we would not have had the contradictions, which the hon. member mentioned, between what I said happened at the meeting and what the officials said had happened. If the representatives from that area bad been allowed to come down to give evidence to the Select Committee they would have told us what happened. What is more, if the Select Committee, which after all had to make the decision, had been able to go around the country instead of the commission, it could have heard the evidence directly itself. After all, we spend money in sending Select Committees overseas to study marketing. Surely a Select Committee could have been sent around this country to hear evidence. [Interjections.]

When the proposals were first advertised by this Government, there was great consternation in the areas concerned. The Bantu Affairs Commission then went around to hear the views of the people concerned. As my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, has said, no motivation was given for the proposals. The commission sat there and said “All we have come to do is to hear your views. We are not here to answer questions or tell you how you are going to be compensated. We are not here to tell you why this is being done. These are not our proposals; these are the proposals of the officials.” It was maintained that it was not the Government’s proposals. No wonder the hon. the Minister thanked Mr. Pepler and Mr. Pienaar for what they had done. They took the blame. Whenever a tricky question was put, Mr. Van Vuuren would say: “Well, I will ask the official.” He would laugh and say: “Dit is nie myne nie; vra vir hom,” and then the poor official had to get up and give the answer.

Sir, I attended the meetings at Port St. Johns, Matatiele, Maclear and Elliot. None of the members of the Select Committee was present at those meetings. Not one of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission who went round and took evidence was a member of the Select Committee, and not one of them is a member of this House. No evidence was produced before the Select Committee. The hon. member says that he went to refer to the notes. Sir, no notes were put before the Select Committee. No memoranda were submitted to the Select Committee. We had nothing before us. No evidence could be submitted, because no evidence was recorded at the hearings of the Bantu Affairs Commission. The Select Committee had to decide the issue with no facts before it. The Select Committee only had before it a man and officials to be questioned, and when we started questioning them too closely, we were stopped.

Sir, what affects these people mostly is the question of compensation. They want to know what compensation they are going to get. No answer has been given to them. None was given by the commission and we have not been told yet. We say that before plans on such a grand scale are presented to us, we should have had a full inquiry and we should have had evidence given not only by the White owners concerned but by the Black people who are to be removed willy-nilly without having been given an opportunity to come to Parliament to object, an opportunity enjoyed by them before the law was changed. Sir, in the past we have opposed moves of this nature and we shall continue to oppose them. We opposed the change in the law empowering the Government to take the steps which it is now taking. Sir, I am not going to deal with that now: I have not got the time. One of my hon. colleagues will deal with it later.

The gravamen of the objection of the owners of the land to the proposed acquisitions in East Griqualand and in Port St. Johns and in the Eastern Cape, the areas which are mostly affected, is firstly that that land is valuable agricultural land which, if past experience is any guide, will be less productive than it is at present if it is handed over to the Bantu Trust, and that in any event no more Blacks will be accommodated on the land than the number being accommodated on that land at present by the farmers. Another objection is that in terms of the procedure adopted by the Government in acquiring the land, in the vast majority of cases which have come to their notice so far, the owners will not know for a long time where their future lies. They strongly object to the priority system mentioned by my hon. friend, the member for Umhlatuzana. The Minister has not told us today how they propose to acquire the farming areas. He has told us what they propose to do in regard to towns like Port St. Johns and Alice and Seymour, but he has not told us what they propose to do with the farming areas. Sir, that is the objection of the farmers. They have to rely on Government officials to decide on the priorities. As far as towns are concerned, the experience that we have had in the Transkei and in the case of traders is that the priorities are determined on an urgency basis, where sick and elderly persons get preference. The younger people do not want preference over the elderly and the sick, but they object to the fact that they have to wait until everybody else has been satisfied before they can be attended to, because they say that they want to move, too. They want to move in time to places where they can establish themselves while they are still young and while they are still able to do so.

Furthermore, Sir, they worry about the method of valuation which will be applied. They point out that with so many farmers leaving the land, as will happen now when these proposals are put into effect, the prices of land elsewhere must escalate because there is going to be a bigger demand for farms. They say that their valuations and their compensation must enable them to acquire the same extent and the same quality of land as they are required to dispose of. Sir, the basis of the valuation by the department is of the utmost importance, because once an area is set aside, as is being done in this case, the value of that land falls to nil because there is only one possible purchaser, and that is the Trust …

You are talking nonsense.

… unless, of course, a speculator comes in and sees a chance to make a bit of money. Sir, if land is set aside under these provisions, it will still mean that the Bantu cannot buy the land, until the State President has declared a portion of it to be a released area. Only then can the Trust and the Bantu come in and buy that land. It is no wonder that the farmers object to this system.

The Select Committee had certain representations made to it by farmers and their associations in the Eastern Cape for permission to appear before it and to give evidence. The associations submitted memoranda. This was refused, and because of the refusal of the Select Committee to hear any evidence or to consider the memoranda submitted to the Committee, which this Committee could then have produced to this House, we are not prepared to approve of the recommendations as they now stand. We say the Government must take them back to the people concerned and discuss with them not only the system of valuation but also the system of compensation which concerns them most, and also the question of priorities, and how they will be arranged. I want to point out again that none of the members of the commission which took the evidence and went round and visited the people is here present today in this House to tell us what his experiences were. I hope the hon. member for Aliwal—whom I do not see here now—will take part in this debate. I see from the Kokstad Advertiser dated 17 April that he met delegates from the East Griqualand Regional Development Association. He met them on the 16th. It says—

Sir, he raised nothing in the Select Committee. We did not hear from him what these minor matters were, and I ask him to tell the House what these minor matters were that he was going to raise with the Select Committee but which were certainly not produced before us. You will have seen from the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that we objected most strenuously to the closure being applied to us.

I now want to deal particularly with the position of Port St. Johns. Port St. Johns went out of their way to present their case to Parliament. They sent every Member of Parliament a memorandum and they sent memoranda to the commission. They appeared before the commission. They sent a deputation to see the hon. the Prime Minister and presented him with a memorandum. They presented the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Minister with further memoranda. They did everything that was possible for them to do. I am raising the position of the people living in these affected areas because the Select Committee only went into the question of whether the land should be declared released areas and set aside for Black occupation or not. It did not go into the question at all of compensation or of what was to happen to the Whites living in the area. It showed no concern for the welfare of the people living in the area who, in effect, will be the only people directly affected once Parliament approves of these recommendations. It is only the people living there who will be directly affected. None of these members sitting over there will be directly affected. Our concern is about what is going to happen to those people. From experience we know, and I know especially through my experience in the Transkei, that the general complaint of the affected owners is that they are prejudiced over other land owners in the country in that they can only sell and move when an official decides that they get priority or when an official decides that for urgent Government reasons their land should be acquired.

Did not the hon. member for Edenvale know that?

The hon. member for Edenvale moved another motion. I am not going to go into that. He moved a motion about compensation, that the people should be suitably compensated at once. That was his objective. You must read the report. Sir, all the people directly concerned have one feeling in common, and that is that the Government should in duty bound purchase all land as soon as it is released.

There are many reasons why a person may want to move. He may want to improve his position, he may want to get better schooling for his children or it may be that he finds that another position is open to him. But these are matters that he must decide for himself; it is not for an official to decide as to whether that person’s case is urgent or not. I want to quote from representations made to the hon. the Minister and from assurances received by the people of Port St Johns that their land would always remain White. The hon. the Minister has admitted that promises were made in the past. He said that he was doing it to forestall me, but I want it in Hansard so that posterity can see what value can be placed on the word of the Nationalist Party. The first letter I want to deal with was received by the Farmers’ Association of Port St. Johns in 1955. The magistrate wrote that letter on the instructions of the then Minister, as follows—

There was also a letter by the Department of Bantu Administration in 1961, i.e. five years later—

That is Dr. Verwoerd, the then Prime Minister—

Those statements did, in fact, receive Press publicity and they influenced people into coming to Port St. Johns—

In 1962 the then Prime Minister said—

Then again in 1962 the Minister wrote, referring to the previous letters and statements, that he could not understand what all the trouble was about and why the people suspected that the Government would go back on its word. He gave them permission to publicize all the correspondence that there had been in order to influence people abroad. He wrote—

They still were not satisfied and for that reason they wanted legislation ensuring that it would remain a White area. They received a letter from the hon. the Minister saying that legislation was not necessary because in terms of the law Port St. Johns was a White area. In 1970 the hon. the Minister wrote to them again and he said—

He went on to say why this was the case and he told them what the position was. He also referred them to the fact that he had passed an Act a short while before—that was in 1968—in terms of which the inferior court and the high court of the Transkei had no jurisdiction over Port St. Johns. He also said that the Group Areas Act applied to Port St. Johns whilst it did not apply to the Transkei.

In their memorandum the people of Port St. Johns pointed out that the White area of Port St. Johns now fell under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Board in East London and not under the Transportation Board of Umtata controlling the Transkei. They also said that in 1971 the law was altered and the White area of Port St. Johns was excluded from the payment of the Transkeian road tax. In terms of proclamation 454 of 1970, they said, the boundaries of the municipal area of Port St Johns were extended to incorporate the White areas surrounding the town and the name of this area was changed to the district of Cape Hermes and was no longer the district of Port St. Johns. Then they refer to the fact that the high court of the Transkei has no jurisdiction over Port St. Johns. In 1973. i.e. two years ago, the hon. the Minister took a further step when he amended the Transkei liquor proclamation so as to exclude all liquor licences in Port St. Johns, which would henceforth fall under the jurisdiction of the liquor laws of South Africa.

I have quoted from letters to show what the Government’s attitude was towards Port St. Johns and to show how it was regarded as a White area. I want to know what has made the Government change its mind. What circumstances made the Government change its mind? The reason which was always given for keeping Port St. Johns as part of White South Africa was the fact that it was not completely surrounded by Bantu territory and that it had access to the rest of the world by sea. Since that was the reason which was always given, what has changed since then?

The sea has changed!

The people of Port St. Johns, realizing what their position was, came to see the hon. the Prime Minister two months ago. They were courteously received. The hon. the Minister was present. Two months have elapsed and yet they have not had any letter or any indication from the hon. the Prime Minister telling them the result of their representations. After that interview with the hon. the Prime Minister, this hon. Minister made a Press statement in which he announced these plans and indicated what the was going to do about Port St. Johns. He said how he was going to give over the State land at once, that farming land was going to be bought and that the town itself would be treated as a town in the Transkei. Not all the papers published that statement. I did not see it in the local papers, but one of the pressmen told me what the hon. the Minister had said. Why did the hon. the Minister not have the courtesy to send a copy of that statement to the mayor of Port St. Johns? Why did he not write to the mayor of Port St. Johns telling him what they had decided to do with Port St. Johns? After all, these people came down to see him and the hon. the Prime Minister on this issue. Now, in desperation, they have made certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister. The chairman of the Select Committee was given a copy of this memorandum indicating what should happen to them if the area were to go Black and become a released area. They point out that more than 50% of the present population of Port St. Johns are people over the age of 60 and are mostly pensioners who have sunk their life savings into property there. They also point out that the shops and other businesses in Port St. Johns rely extensively on the tourist trade for their existence and that, if Port St. Johns is to go Black, the Government must see to it that the tourist trade is kept going. They point out too, there are between 3 000 and 4 000 Africans employed by Whites in Port St. Johns. Consequently, if the Whites are bought out and leave the area, work will have to be given to these 3 000 or 4 000 Africans because otherwise the Government will be in more trouble. Then they go on to make suggestions as to what the Government should do in order to encourage the tourist trade. Furthermore, they suggest that the municipal area of Port St. Johns should be zoned a White area for a period of ten years. What they fear, is just what the hon. the Minister says he is going to do and also what he is going to do in respect of Alice and Seymore. They fear he is going to do to them what he has done to the towns in the Transkei, and that is that he is going to zone them for Black occupation. That is exactly what they do not want. As an area is zoned, the Africans can buy there and move in. All the Whites are not bought out at once and, although some people can live with other races, some people cannot. Yet in the Transkei they are being forced to live unseparated in a mixed area because, as I say, once an area has been zoned for Black occupation, Blacks buy there but all the Whites are not able to sell. So they have asked that the area be kept White for ten years and they suggest how it can be done. They suggest that the Government can buy land and that the municipality will administer it. They make it quite clear that—

In other words, they say there should be no delay whatsoever in respect of the payment of compensation claims for the Whites of Port St. Johns. Port St. Johns is in a different position from that of any other town in South Africa. It is the only town in South Africa that received assurances from the Government that it would never become a Black area. No other town has received that assurance. Now Port St. Johns, the only town to receive that assurance, is one of the first to go Black. Therefore the Government must treat Port St. Johns on a different basis.

I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that Port St. Johns and the areas alongside the Transkei are different from other areas which are going to be released because in 1976 they will be part of an independent State. It is no good saying to me that the White area of Port St. Johns or the other areas will not fall under the Transkeian Government until the president issues a special proclamation. The fact is that in terms of section 37 of the Transkei Constitution Act, by proclamation certain powers can be given to the Transkeian Government over White areas as was done quite recently in respect of health matters and legal aid, to give just two examples. In 1972 a debate took place in which we stressed the folly of legislation of that nature. The people of Port St. Johns reminded the hon. the Prime Minister, when their deputation met him, of a paragraph he used in his New Year message to the country. The Prime Minister had said—

That is how the people in Port St. Johns feel after all the assurances they received. That is also how the farmers feel who live on the borders of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that those farmers also received assurances from Mr. De Wet Nel and others. I plead with the hon. the Minister to treat these people on a different basis from other areas.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, like the hon. member of the United Party who spoke before he did, once again devoted the greater part of his speech to criticism of the procedure followed by the Select Committee. I found it amazing that a senior hon. member of this House should want the Select Committee to travel around the country like a circus in order to hear evidence. The Bantu Affairs Commission is an instrument of this House. For what reason, then, should another instrument of this House travel around the country in order to hear evidence? The hon. member also objected to the fact that in this report, permission is requested for the resettlement of certain Black people in other areas. However, he knows very well that negotiations with those people do not take place before they can be told where they are being resettled, and they cannot be told where they are being transferred before these proposals are approved by the House. Surely that is logical. However, the hon. member refuses to understand this. This afternoon we had the spectacle here of the two chief spokesmen of the United Party not yet having expressed themselves as to the principle of these consolidation proposals. All we had was a lot of criticism of the procedure followed by the Select Committee. The hon. member for Griqualand East has just levelled criticism in regard to the Port St. Johns issue. I do not want to react to his criticism. I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him conclusively. In his speech the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said—

The hon. member said this as if it were supposedly a tremendous secret he had suddenly discovered. However, we make no secret of the fact that we are using the 1936 Act as an instrument to develop this policy of separate development to its fullest extent. This is nothing strange; nor is it in any way a secret. We are proud that we were able to use that Act to give tangible form to this great policy. The proposals at present before the House put the homelands in a position to develop to their fullest extent in the political, economic and cultural spheres. They are now being placed in a position to develop their own future and their own structures. However, as it became quite evident here this afternoon—the hon. member for Lichtenburg also referred to this—the United Party is entirely lacking in any standpoint based on principle in regard to this highly important matter. This has been revealed in the past. The hon. member referred to this too. Their whole approach to this matter of land purchases is not based on principle. Since this issue of land purchases for South Africa’s Black people was broached, the United Party has been unable to succeed in adopting a standpoint based on principle capable of remaining valid for any length of time. Their standpoints are changed from time to time to suit their own political ends, or to afford them the maximum political benefit. However, there was no question of the interests of the country or the interests of the Black people whom the proposals were intended to serve. We have proof of this, too, in their attitude to this matter we are discussing this afternoon. History proves what I am saying here. The hon. member for Lichtenburg has already referred to the fact that their 1959 Congress decided that they would not recognize the provisions of the 1936 Act. This, too, was done for the sake of political expediency. By doing that they wanted to drive the left wing out of their party, and in that they succeeded brilliantly. In fact, therefore, the 1936 Act was used by the United Party at the time as an instrument to get rid of certain elements in its ranks. Then we came to 1971. The then hon. member for Transkei, the present hon. member for Griqualand East, then came to the House with a motion requesting the Government to determine finally the borders of the various homelands, and he relied on the 1936 Act to prove that borders had not yet been determined and that more land would have to be made available. In 1972, when the Government came up with its proposals for consolidation as a first instalment of a final determination of borders, the United Party opposed it. Through the hon. member for Griqualand East they did so on the grounds of the so-called detrimental effect this would supposedly have on the economy of South Africa, without taking into account in any way the fact that this delimitation of separate homelands and the inclusion of sufficient land for the Black people entailed definite economic benefits. The hon. member’s second objection was that in view of the population explosion, it would be unwise to place land in the hands of people who would farm it unproductively. In the third place, the hon. member said that the future welfare of the Bantu did not lie in pastoral or subsistence farming but in industrial development, associated with effective food production with the aid of enlightened agricultural systems, whatever that may mean. In the fourth place, the hon. member opposed this on the grounds that it did not fit in with their federal policy. This is the double-talk we get in regard to the purchase of land. Later in my speech I shall refer to still further discrepancies in the attitude adopted by the hon. Opposition. In regard to the 1936 legislation, too, we get the same kind of double-talk without standpoint based on principle being adopted. In 1959—as I have already said—they rejected the principles contained in the 1936 legislation. In 1971 the hon. member for Griqualand East advocated the determination of the final borders of the homelands on the basis of the 1936 legislation and in support of his argument he quoted the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in which the hon. the Prime Minister categorically declared himself bound by the 1936 legislation. In 1972, the same hon. member declared that the 1936 legislation could not serve as a norm for the purchase of land and that we could purchase less or even more. During that same debate, the hon. member for King William’s Town stated that the 1936 legislation merely constituted a statement of intention to purchase and that it entailed no real promise to the Black people. The hon. member went even further by saying that that land which has to be purchased should rather be purchased around our cities, our metropolitan areas. This lack of logic on the part of the United Party and their failure to adopt standpoints based on principle in regard to land purchases, reveals itself again very clearly in the latest standpoint adopted by the United Party here this afternoon. In the Select Committee we had the spectacle of members of the United Party divided among themselves in respect of certain proposals. For example, the hon. member for Edenvale was not at all in agreement with his colleagues for Umhlatuzana and Griqualand East in respect of a number of proposals. We now have to rely on a statement to a newspaper to ascertain what the United Party’s standpoint on principle is in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to a press conference held by the hon. members for Umhlatuzana, Von Brandis and others during which it was said that the provisions of the 1936 legislation were, all of a sudden, accepted by the United Party and that the purchases should be carried out with speed and efficiency. In the course of that same interview, the hon. member for Von Brandis, for example, stated that—

This is said in spite of the fact that the objections to some of these proposals are already, according to this same interview, “that the Government’s proposals fall short of effective consolidation,” as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana put it at that same press conference. One simply gets no unanimity among the various members of the United Party in regard to this highly important matter. In that statement the hon. member complains that the consolidation is not being implemented effectively, and asks that a number of proposals be referred back to the Government for reconsideration. In all the years we have been engaged in consolidation, not once has the United Party or its satellites come up with proposals for consideration. The United Party members had ample opportunity to come up with alternative proposals in the Select Committee. What did they choose to do? They chose to move that they be referred back to the Government.

In this interview, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana complains that “the Government’s proposals fall short of effective consolidation”. In the same sentence, however, he objects to “The compulsory removal of large numbers of people for political rather than economic ends”. I should like to ask how one is to consolidate effectively if this does not imply that where people are living in remote Black spots they should be moved to a consolidated area contiguous with an already existing homeland. How is one to consolidate effectively if one cannot do that? There is, inter alia, a proposal before the House today that a section of the district of Stockenström in my constituency also be added to the Ciskei. This will result in the Ciskei becoming a contiguous area. However, we see once again that in spite of its attitude to so-called effective consolidation, the United Party wants to refer this proposal relating to this specific area back to the Government for reconsideration. Where is the logic of those people who maintain that they want to see well rounded-off consolidations, if this is the kind of attitude they adopt in regard to these proposals? While referring to this proposal, I want to pay tribute, this afternoon, to the people of Stockenström who decided very reluctantly, but with great responsibility, that they would accept this proposal because it was in the interests of the country to do so. It is not easy for these people to give up land they have been cultivating for generations and which has been in their families for a hundred years or more. However, these people realized that they were faced with a practical problem and that by making this sacrifice, they could contribute towards the eventual political solution of our problems with the Black people. It was not easy to break the news to them that this area would eventually become Black, and consequently I have great respect for the responsible way in which these people have accepted this.

I have referred to the United Party’s lack of principle in this particular regard, their lack of unanimity and the contradictory standpoints they adopt. I did so in order to stress that we really could not take too much notice of these people’s disputes with us in this particular regard because they do not speak with one voice to the public at large and because they do not uphold any standpoint based on principle in regard to this whole matter. Their whole attitude is clearly determined by the political demands of their party. At the moment they are very apprehensive about the standpoint which the Reformists and the Progressive Party here on their left are going to adopt. They are afraid that these people could gain ground at their expense and consequently they are attempting to get a little closer to the standpoint of the Progressive Party and the Reformists today by means of this attitude. As long as the United Party does not want to realize that there are certain matters in regard to which it must adopt definite standpoints, it will remain sitting in the benches it is occupying at present.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon. This is an historic day, not only in the history of this House of Assembly, but in the history, too, of our people and the Republic of South Africa. Both have looked forward to this. This afternoon I want to discuss at length the history of consolidation. However, on this great occasion I want to congratulate the officials, the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on having achieved more in the past ten years, a very short time, than was achieved during the past 200 years in the history of our people. I want to convey my sincere thanks to them. This consolidation will bring joy to some people, but tears will be shed, too, as a result of this consolidation. Sir, in the debates on this matter which have been conducted through the years, the United Party has always expressed its concern about the Bantu who have been resettled, but they have never yet been concerned about the Whites who are resettled in the course of this process. I want to break a lance here today for the White man who has to make a sacrifice in order to make this consolidation possible. I want to pay tribute to those White farmers who are now giving up farms on which they were born, on which they learnt to walk, and on which many of their family lie buried. But I also want to pay tribute to the Black man who for years has lived in the part where he grew up under his Chief, and who has now to be resettled in different area. Sir, from the earliest years, since 1778, Governor Van Plettenberg realized the necessity of having borders between “vrye coloniste en die ‘Caffers’ ” (“free colonists and the ‘Caffers’ ”). On 17 August 1780, the Politieke Raad (Political Council) decided that the Fish River would be the “limietskeiding” (dividing line) between White and Bantu. In Natal three different commissions recommended demarcated border lines between Bantu and Whites in 1846-’47, 1848 and 1852. In other words, this process began as early as 1778. Even in those years there were major problems. By the end of the 19th century the following principal regions were already occupied by Bantu peoples: The far Northern Transvaal by the Venda; the Letaba area by the Tsonga; the Northern and North-Eastern Transvaal by the North Sotho (Lebowa); Bechuanaland, the North-Western Cape and the Western Transvaal by the Tswana; Northern Transkei by the Basuto; Swaziland and the area around Standerton and Piet Retief by the Swazis; the Transkei and the Ciskei by the Xhosas. As history has proved, even during the Great Trek problems developed which made it essential to determine borderlines. Whites and Bantu repeatedly purchased land from each other and this created major problems for the various governments. As a result the Governments of the time decided that a start should be made on working towards consolidation and that certain territories should be set aside for the Bantu, not only to the benefit of the Whites, but also to the benefit of the Bantu. I am proud to be able to say this afternoon that at the time, President Kruger, that honourable statesman, told Lord Derby in England that he could assure him that not an inch of land was taken from the Black man. Consequently progress was made and various commissions were appointed. In the period from 1903, various commissions were appointed in order that Whites could be protected against the various Bantu tribes as I have already mentioned. In the Native Land and Trust Act of 1913 there was clear delimitation of separate areas. In 1916—and we shall probably hear more about this today—a commission known as the Native Land Commission, viz. the much-discussed Beaumont Commission, was appointed. We are still going to hear more about this. It produced an extremely comprehensive report. I have it before me. It comprises two volumes and I shall take two or three years to go through it. Hundreds of people gave evidence. But I should like to quote an extract from the history I traced. It is a pity that the new Administrator of the Cape is not present this afternoon, because I read here that his grandfather, the then Senator G. G. Munnik, also submitted evidence.

That was his father.

No, it was his grandfather, then the magistrate in Pietersburg. He gave evidence; that is history. In this way we progressed, and then we came to 1936 and the Bantu Trust Act, and we stand by that; we stand by the promise made in that Act. I think the National Party has fulfilled that promise to a large extent. Sir, that is history and we are grateful that we have this privilege today, as the hon. the Minister said in his speech. This is an historic day, and we are grateful for that. According to the provisions of the 1936 Act, the homelands were entitled to a certain quota of land in each province. I do not want to trouble you with figures now. In any event it comprises about 6,5 million ha of land and a large part of those quotas has already been purchased. What, then, is the policy of the National Party in this regard? It is that from 1778 to 1936 we have followed up, step for step, that promise I tried to sketch briefly for you, and then from 1948, again, we continued with it in a purposeful manner. We were unable to deal with it more quickly, because it must be understood that in 1948 we inherited chaos and there were many other things that had to be rectified first. But there is one thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister and his officials today, and that is that in the past two decades more has been done in regard to the establishment of the homelands and the definition of their borders than in the past 200 years, as I have already said. Sir, I say that this process gives rise to sadness, too. One could discuss this matter, viz. whether it should have been done this way or some other way, for hours. I must tell you in all honesty, Sir, I should have liked to see a different state of affairs, for example in Natal, but the members of that commission and the Government who worked with it from day to day, have brought about a major improvement by means of this consolidation. One would have liked to see it as one piece, but evidently that is impossible. The same applies to Bophuthatswana. One should have liked to see it, not as six different areas, but as only one. However, it is evident that this is an impossible task. If I were to say this afternoon that these borders were to remain as they are for all time, I would not see my way clear to doing so. Discussions between State and State will probably take place in the future as well, concerning the borders and the redefining of borders. Up to the present stage, however, everything has rested on the shoulders of the White man and he alone has contributed millions upon million of rand to the development of those areas. I believe that in the future the Bantu homeland Governments will have to play their part, too. The United Party is adopting a policy of sitting on the fence, but I want to give them the assurance that they will make no heading that way. The hon. member for Cradock has already pointed this out, and I hope that the next speaker will say whether they are in favour of these proposals or not. I can give the assurance that the United Party is divided on this subject, and I should therefore like to hear what the standpoint of the Progressive Party is.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Stilfontein will forgive me if I do not follow up his arguments. He gave an interesting historical review of the commission—I think it was the Beaumont Commission—and he discussed the divergencies of opinion within the United Party. I, however, should like to return to the report of the Select Committee. I wish to move an amendment which differs somewhat from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, as follows—

1. (1) That the following items be referred to the Government for further consideration:

What about the other items?

As the hon. member will notice in the course of my speech, we are in favour of the proposed acquisitions of land, with one or two exceptions, and we are against the excisions of land, also with one or two exceptions. The last-mentioned exceptions are those excisions in regard to which the local chief has agreed to the proposals as being in the interests of his people. The hon. member will see that as I develop my argument.

I want to explain the objectives of our amendment. It is the only way in which we on these benches could procedurally support those portions of the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana with which we agree and, indicate those portions with which we do not agree and put forward our own point of view at the same time. In effect, therefore, our amendment does not support the United Party’s attitude on Port St. Johns in the first place. I think that is obvious, because we do not wish to refer that item back to the Government for further consideration.

Hon. members who were on the Select Committee will know that I, together with the hon. member for Edenvale, voted with the Government for the inclusion of Port St. Johns in the Transkei.

For once you were right.

Well, I am often right, but hon. members do not often listen to me. [Interjections.] We see no reason why this should be referred back to the Government. We do not think that there are any facts which are not already known in connection with the position of Port St. Johns. We do sympathize with the several hundred White people who will have to remove themselves from this area, and this of course is the great tragedy. Under the policy of separate development people are not given the option of staying where they are when the Government decides that certain areas of South Africa shall be Black and certain areas shall be White. Under our policy we would have multi-racial States where people would simply remain where they are. They would not be forced by the Government’s obsession for a sort of racial purity, a Black and White chequer-board throughout the country, to remove themselves. Although we sympathize with the people of Port St. Johns who will have to be removed in terms of this resolution, we cannot see any logical argument for excluding Port St. Johns from the Transkei. Indeed, you only have to glance at a map and see that small enclave in that Black territory to know that it is obviously absured to exclude Port St. Johns from the Transkei.

Secondly, our amendment does not support the United Party proposal to refer back the acquisition of quota land as in fact the hon. member’s amendment would imply. A certain area of quota land which has been acquired in the Transvaal and other areas in the Cape Province …

Some of it is exchange land.

Some of it is quota land. Some of the land in the Transvaal is certainly quota land, although it is not the case with all the land. In any case, the rest of the land such as the area around Matatiele, Maclear, Elliot, etc., ought to belong to the Transkei. We can see no logical argument why those areas should not be added to the Transkei, and I believe that the hon. member for Edenvale agreed with me in this regard in the Select Committee as well. He voted with me for the acquisition of those areas in the Transvaal and in the Cape by the homeland Governments. Most of these proposals, as far as we are concerned, fall within the purview of the 1936 Act, although the hon. member is correct in saying that we are not only dealing with the acquisition of the 1936 land which still has to be acquired. We think that the acquisition of that land is long overdue. I think about 1½ million morgen of land still had to be acquired before these final resolutions were put before Parliament. After all, it is now just on 40 years since the 1936 Act was passed. A solemn undertaking was given by this Parliament, and I think that Gen. Hertzog must be turning in his grave to think that Parliament in 1975 is still discussing the acquisition of land under the 1936 Act, which he promised would be acquired within a period of ten years. Admittedly the war intervened and there were difficulties involved, but nevertheless the idea was that that land would all have been acquired within ten years of the passing of the 1936 Act.

It is for that reason that I do not think that the criteria which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned in his speech this afternoon are relevant as far as the acquisition of the remaining land in terms of the 1936 Act is concerned, although his criteria may very well be relevant under other circumstances. I do not think that one should worry about these criteria in relation to the 1936 Act in any case, simply because so much of it has already been acquired. In other words, of the additional 17¼ million morgen that had to be acquired, all but 1½ million had been acquired without worrying about those criteria. Therefore I cannot see the relevancy of making that a major debating point.

Why force them if land is otherwise available?

That may be so, but presumably there are difficulties in acquiring other areas which would apply just as they apply to these areas. I want to point out that, as far as we are concerned, the land provided for in 1936 is the bare minimum; it is by no means the end of the story as far as land acquisition is concerned.

You would give very much more.

Yes, we would give more, but under different circumstances and under a completely different federal arrangement which my hon. leader will enlarge upon at a later stage. However, I must say that the arguments that were used this afternoon by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana are a great improvement on the arguments we have been listening to from the United Party in the past as far as the 1936 Act is concerned. It is a great improvement on for instance, the arguments we Progressives had to listen to in 1958. “No more land for the Blacks.” we were told, “because they ruin the land”. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

I am quite sure that that hon. member was one of the Natal United Party members who went campaigning up and down northern Natal with the cry on his lips: “No more land for the Blacks because they ruin the land.”

I say that that is untrue.

I am sure that audience after audience had to listen to him, and to the then member for Drakensberg and to the then member for South Coast who went campaigning up and down northern Natal with that cry on their lips. Heaven knows, we had to listen to it in the caucus of the United Party.

In 1959, when Dr. Verwoerd came out with the idea of independent Bantustans, the then member for South Coast was presented with an argument which he seized upon eagerly, and he used it as only he could use it. He used it in a somewhat confused fashion but, my, he used it to advantage! His argument then was: “No more land for Blacks because it is going to independent Bantustans.” I presume the hon. member will not deny that that was used. He will not deny that that was the congress resolution of 1959 which was used to great effect and which was used tactically in order to get us out of the United Party. I just wonder if every now and then even the hon. member for Durban Point does not wake up screaming in the night when he thinks of what has happened to the poor old United Party since those days; how it has shed members right, left and centre and what it has acquired in the place of the bright members that it shed in 1959.

You want to wait and see what you are going to get shortly.

I think that the argument we listened to this afternoon was also better than the arguments we had to listen to in 1964 when we were discussing the very procedures we are carrying out now in connection with acquiring further land. I refer to the famous “creeping paralysis” argument which the United Party used. Every time more land was acquired adjacent to the Bantustans, this was described by the United Party as the creeping paralysis. From 1972 onwards, I must say, the United Party has tried to follow a more modern line, the sort of line the hon. member for Umhlatuzana followed today. They used arguments which had to do with growth points, the needs of the economy, the building up of our farming production, and soon. Those are much more modern arguments than the terrible “Swart gevaar” argument we used to have to listen to. Nevertheless, I maintain that these arguments are irrelevant as far as the acquisition of the remaining land under the 1936 Act is concerned. It is certainly irrelevant as far as areas such as Port St. Johns and the other areas being acquired under the quota, are concerned.

Our amendments exclude those items and we are at one with the Government in respect of the acquisition of land for the fulfilment of the 1936 Act. However, there are special cases. One of them has been mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I am quite sure that other members will also be dealing with the subject in greater detail and I look forward with great interest, as they do, to hearing what the hon. member for Klip River is going to have to say about this too. That is the special case of the Upper Tugela and Drakensberg locations. Those are special cases.

In the Select Committee I abstained from voting on the substitution of the plan we are considering today by the 1973 plan because I said, quite correctly, that I did not know enough about it. I simply did not know what I would be voting for. Other members have the advantage of me, having been on the Select Committee before. I did, however, vote with the United Party to refer this matter back to the Government for a proper rethink of the whole situation because it seems to me to meet with no-one’s approval. This is not the acquisition of land in terms of the 1936 Act, as I see it. It is a swopping of land. It is a removal of large numbers of Black people—and the figures vary from 35 000 to 60 000 and more—from the upper Tugela reaches and the Drakensberg locations to other areas from which White farmers—I believe the number is something like 87—will have to be removed. Everybody seems to be objecting. Something like 90% of the White farmers, according to a memorandum I have received since the Select Committee closed its proceedings, object strongly to this procedure. A large number of the Black people also object, for a reason I would have thought would strike a chord in the vibrant heart of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. They object on an ethnic basis. They object because they are incompatible with the people amongst whom they are to be settled, so I am told.

I do not know this area and I do not know the people concerned, but the memorandum mentioned that the people who are going to be moved from the upper Tugela are the historical enemies of the people living in the lower areas amongst whom they are to be resettled. If this is the case, I would have thought that the Government would take cognizance of this and do a real rethink about this area. So, as I have said, I voted with the United Party’s amendment to refer this matter back for a rethink but I am unable simply to endorse the 1973 plan, although it appears to me that the White farmers are now bitterly regretting the fact that they did not accept the original plan as it would have meant a far smaller displacement of people had that been done. The hon. the Minister says that the area of the upper Tugela is going to be kept as a conservation area, but it still seems to me that there is no reason why the entire population has got to be removed from this area as the plan at present proposes.

Talking of removals, I want to say quite unequivocally that we are, of course, opposed to removals. We have been against removals from the word go, whether they be Black spot removals or the resettlement of people from the urban areas. We are opposed to removals.

You only object to Black removals, not White.

We are against all removals. We say that people should be allowed to stay where they are. We do not care whether they live in KwaZulu… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a fair chance.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. People should be allowed to stay where they are. If the White farmers are in KwaZulu and they want to remain there, let them by all means. We are not in favour of those forced removals either. We believe that this should be left to individual choice. Because we are opposed to removals, I have voted, with few exceptions, against the proposals in Schedule B right throughout. The few exceptions are in respect of those cases where we were assured by the department that consultations had taken place and that the local people in fact found it to their advantage to move. We have always been against these removals, as I have said, and I believe that the reality of removals is very different from the idyllic picture which was painted for us this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. To me the reality of removal is not, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, a question of compensation having been agreed upon, houses having been provided, alternative facilities always being provided, including clinics, schools, churches, the lot. The reality is very often removal before compensation has been agreed on. At Doornkop compensation was not agreed on before the Doornkop people were removed. The reality is very often the bulldozing of houses, as happened at Mayen. The people went to Kimberley to see what legal redress they had, and when they got back to Mayen, their houses had been bulldozed. What is provided for them in place of that? Corrugated iron structures and tents. That is the reality of removal.

This was the case, too, with the old removals of the Limehills, the Stinkwaters, the Sadas and the Dimbazas, where people are resettled. The reality of the situation is that not everything is provided for the people. It takes years before houses are built, before clinics are provided, before schools are available, before shops are available. And most of all, never available or rarely available are jobs in the vicinity. That is the reality of removal. The reality is often that arable land is taken away from people and they are given land which cannot be cultivated. That is what the Mayen people are complaining about. The reality is that their livestock is taken away from them and that they cannot have livestock in the new area to which they are removed. The reality is misery for hundreds of thousands of people. So, we are against that part of this plan which involves consolidation, Black spot removals and the uprooting of hundreds and thousands of people. We are absolutely at one with what the hon. the member for Umhlatuzana said about prior consultation, and the fourth leg of our amendment specifies that there must be consultation before the land changes and consolidation takes place. It was noticeable to me in the Select Committee that whenever the officials were questioned about what consultation had taken place, almost invariably the answer that we received was that the Agricultural Unions had been consulted, that the local farmers’ unions had been consulted and that the individual White owners had been consulted. I do not say that the information which they obtained was always necessarily acted on or that what their desires were were always carried out. Nevertheless, consultation did appear to have taken place with the White people either through the agricultural unions or with the people themselves. This was not the case when we asked about what consultation had taken place with the local Black people. Very often we were given a blank look and told that no consultation had taken place. In some cases, however, consultation had taken place.

The position regarding the homeland leaders and consultation seems to be very confused indeed. The hon. the Minister said adamantly that he did consult with them. Of course, it may be that what the hon. the Minister thinks is consultation, has a different interpretation from what normal people think of as consultation. The hon. the Minister thinks that if he tells people what he is going to do, that it is consultation.

And sub-normal people.

Sub-normal people? I will take that; sub-normal people as well. The hon. the Minister is so used to teaching—he cannot get over it—he tells people what he is going to do and then he says that he has consulted them. The homeland leaders with whom I have spoken tell me that they were shown maps, but they were not consulted in the ordinary, accepted interpretation of the word “consultation”.

Were you present?

No, but this is what each one has separately told me.

No, that is how the hon. member uses her imagination.

No, it is not my imagination; this is actually the information which I have received from the different people concerned. There is bitterness even about moving people into the areas without consultation. We had this expression of extreme irritation from, for instance, Chief Mangope when people were moved into Bophuthatswana without any prior consultation with him. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has any idea of the degree of bitterness, for instance, in KwaZulu about the whole situation at Richards Bay. What does the hon. the Minister think Buthelezi is going to think about the excision of Sordwana Bay because it is a camping site for White people? I think that that is a mean thing to do as it is one of the few good coastal areas left there for those people. Why take Sordwana Bay away, simply because a few White people find it inconvenient to go camping there if they have to go through a Black area? Let them go and camp there; nobody is stopping them. It does not matter if they have to go through the Black area. Does the hon. the Minister, who undertook so much consultation regarding these areas, know what Chief Buthelezi had to say to his own KwaZulu Assembly earlier this year about this whole business of the land which they are going to get? I am going to read it out. The hon. the Minister may know what the Chief said but other members in this House may not. I want to quote from the policy speech which he delivered earlier this year to his own Assembly.

Who wrote it?

I should think Chief Buthelezi wrote it. He is very capable of writing his own speeches. It is a pity he does not write a few speeches for the hon. the Deputy Minister, because then we might have a bit of sense from him. This is what he had to say—

I am omitting portions, Sir, but he went on to say—

Then, Sir, he goes on to say this about the Makatini Flats—

Now, Sir, I want to say this about consultation. I asked about the Makatini Flats on the Select Committee, and I was told by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I think it was, that although certain areas were indeed “brak”, certain other areas could in fact be turned into quite good farmland, if irrigated. I think that was more or less what he said.

There is no “brak” there at all.

Well, why does somebody not take the trouble to go and tell Chief Buthelezi this fact, for heaven’s sake? After all, you know that the man is most dissatisfied about what he is getting. Would it not be a good idea for somebody to take the trouble to go and reassure him on this score? I cannot understand why people simply do not use a little common sense in dealing with vital issues like this.

I want to say finally that when all the land that is outstanding under the 1936 Act has been acquired—and I think if these resolutions go through, all but a few thousand hectares in some of the provinces will have been acquired—all the high hopes that have been voiced by all those ardent supporters of separate development about the viability of the homelands, will be as unfulfilled as ever, for the simple reason that the 1913 and 1936 Acts were never envisaged as means of providing for independent homelands. Now I should like to give the hon. member for Stilfontein a little history lesson of my own. The 1913 Act set aside land which was rapidly being acquired by White people, as protected areas where Black people were still living. That was the object of the 1913 Land Act. It was passed in order to give them protection, and those areas were known as the Native Reserves. They were called the Native Reserves because that land was reserved for exclusive occupation by and ownership of African people. It was an act, if you like, of humanity and was aimed at reserving those areas where they were occupying land, since Whites were rapidly acquiring the best of the country.

And the 1936 Act?

The 1936 Act was a result of the Beaumont Commission, which sat for years. It was realized that ten million morgen was not enough for the Africans and that more was required, and therefore a further 7 ½ million morgen, or whatever it was, was set aside.

7 ½ million morgen.

All right, I stand corrected for a quarter of a million morgen. This land was set aside, to be added to the scheduled areas, as they were known in 1913. The released areas had to be added to those areas. The idea was not only to provide enough land, but also to provide land—and this is what is so often forgotten in this House—as compensation for the deprivation of the common roll franchise of the Black man in the Cape in 1936. It was clearly stated in this House in debate, and indeed by General Hertzog in a famous speech at Smithfield, that part of the compensation to the Black people for the deprivation of their franchise was the acquisition of more land for them. That was the bargain. Sir, in 1960, when the Black man was deprived of communal franchise in this House, was more land added then as compensation? Alas, no, to the everlasting shame, I believe, of White South Africa. That is why, even with the acquisition of all the land under the 1936 Act, there will be no viability because this land was never intended to accommodate the African population as a whole. It was never intended for that purpose. If hon. members want real partition, they must start redrawing the map of South Africa and give the Africans an equitable share of the land if they believe that people cannot live happily together on a racial basis, a belief of course, which I do not share. I believe that we can live happily together in a multi-racial country under a properly constituted geographic federation. Sir, one final thought for the Minister— one final tiny thought for the Minister’s tiny mind, since he call me “sub-normal”— is this: He mentioned the other day, as if he was producing a great debating point, that there are many States in Black Africa that have a budget which is lower than the Budget of our individual homelands. Does he recollect telling us that? Well, that is because of hand-outs from this Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton referred somewhat derogatively to the small thinking of the hon. the Minister. May I compliment her on displaying slightly larger thinking than that with which she wants to credit the hon. the Minister. I find myself in the position of actually agreeing with her on a few points. Of course, those are the points on which she agrees with the National Party. She began by pointing out that in principle she was in favour of the purchase of land. In that she subscribes to a principle or a decision or an undertaking which was given by this side of the House, and that is to purchase land in accordance with the promise in the Act of 1936, so as to create settlement areas for the Black peoples.

I think the hon. member for Houghton also agrees with us in that she is actually in a hurry to see this matter completed. I think that she will get a great deal of Nationalist support there, if not the support of all Nationalists. In fact, I think that she is supporting us there, because we want to see this matter being completed soon. Sir, this is therefore, a point on which in my opinion the hon. member for Houghton is displaying larger thinking than that with which she wrongly credits or discredits the hon. the Minister. The second is her standpoint in connection with Port St. Johns. Sir, there must be no doubt about this. It is a delicate matter. It is a matter about which there is a great deal of irritation. But I think that we should take off our hats to the Government and to the hon. the Minister for having the courage to take this matter into reconsideration, against the background of definite promises which were made, and to ask themselves what the most sensible thing is which they could do, both in the interests of the people of the Transkei, and in the interests of the people of Port St. Johns themselves.

It is a matter which often cropped up at political meetings during the general election. I had the courage to say there that we should admit that promises had been made, but that we should view the matter in a reasonable way and from a reasonable point of view. I argued the matter with my people, even when people opposed to this were present, and my impression was that people accepted that we should look at what would be most sensible in the light of new circumstances and in the interests of the people of Port St. Johns themselves, and of the Transkei.

But the hon. member for Houghton is, of course, in a very difficult position. I think she is actually sitting on two stools. On the one hand, she hands out blows to the Opposition and tries to create the impression, at the same time, that she agrees with hon. members on this side of the House. But she does not actually agree with us. Actually, she does not. She wants to sit on two stools. The one is that she wants to purchase the land, but the purchase of the land is not to advance integrated occupation; the purchase of the land is for a specific aim, i.e. for the settlement of Black people in their homeland where they can exercise their own authority. The hon. member gives the impression of supporting us there, but the basic policy of her party is integrated settlement, in other words, settlement just where one wants. In that respect, she is actually in conflict with herself. She does not know what she is supporting here. I think, therefore, that she was merely keen to take a swipe at a few of the hon. members on the opposite side of this House. Her standpoint, like the standpoint of the Progressive Party, is individual choice, and therefore, she cannot really support this thing. Individual choice means that the White people should be able to remain in Port St. Johns and that the people of the Transkei should also be able to buy land there. Therefore, she cannot really support the Government in its step of transferring Port St. Johns to the Transkei.

May I also point out that she tried to use the argument, just in passing, about the viability of the Bantu homelands. Sir, I do not even want to debate the matter with her, because I think the hon. the Prime Minister settled this matter with the argument that if viability was an argument, then that argumet or reproach applied equally well to Botswana and Lesotho and Swaziland. Those countries are recognized; they have seats at U.N., and they are recognized, therefore, in the international world community.

There are many White people there.

The White people are not as many as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to pretend. In any case, they are accepted in spite of the fact that they are much smaller than the Transkei or KwaZulu.

The hon. member made great play of the question of consensus. Of course, it would have been the ideal situation if we could have had 100% unanimity about the matter, but I think that we have to accept from the beginning that we cannot expect 100% unanimity in respect of these delicate matters. But I want to add to that that according to my information—and I want to concede that my information might not be 100% complete—there was in fact consultation. But then we must also bear in mind that here we have a Government which is responsible for implementing a particular policy. It is responsible for implementing a particular policy. It is responsible for purchasing a certain amount of land and adding it to existing Black areas. We are responsible for implementing this. We are committed to doing this, and if we have to deal with obstruction on the part of the Opposition, or even on the part of people who are affected thereby, someone, somewhere, must take the decision. There is consultation and anybody is free to go and check whether there was consultation with the Black people who were concerned in the purchase of their land and in the purchase of White land for transfer to the Blacks. It is there, but is it such a strange thing for a Government to take steps which in the end will necessarily clash with the personal choices of people? Surely this does not happen only in respect of the purchases of White land for Black people, or in respect of the resettlement of Black people from areas which have to become White. It happens in our White areas where land is required for expansion, for schools and hospitals, etc., and there is a form of consultation in that connection. But if things come to a stalemate, somebody must take the decision after all, and then it happens that the decision is taken over the heads of our own people and that similar land is expropriated if need be. It is not something strange against which the hon. member is agitating here.

The hon. member for Houghton also made an issue of the demands of Chief Buthelezi, but may I also make a few remarks in this regard? To begin with, if a man demands the whole of Natal, he must surely not expect to receive the whole of Natal. And, in the second place, he does have the opportunity, the opportunity to state his case at the highest level in South Africa; he can state it to the Prime Minister, or he can state it to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Now the hon. member for Houghton must not give us to understand here that Chief Buthelezi has no address to which to direct his objection or his grievances or his demands. Sir, he has the highest address in South Africa, and that is the address of the Prime Minister. Therefore, that argument falls away.

There is not even any need for me to go into all the things which are done for people who are in fact moved. I want to accept in full what the hon. member for Houghton said, viz. that there have been cases, and that there will still be cases, in which one hundred per cent adequate provision may possibly not have been made in all respects for the people involved in a removal, but I do think she should give credit not only for what has already been done—and I do not believe she wants to return to the conditions which prevailed in Sophiatown before—but should also keep an open mind about what is being planned. If we have learnt from criticism which has been made, then we must be given credit for being able to learn.

What has been done? There is planning in residential areas to which people are to be moved. There is planning in the agricultural areas. There is agricultural planning in the sense that farmlands and grazing fields are planned in the areas to which people have to be moved and will be moved. There is planning for an infra-structure. There are prefabricated huts. The hon. the Minister said all these things himself. Where it is necessary, tents are added to the huts. Water is provided and there is sanitation, schools, clinics—the lot. These things should be said as well, and if the hon. member for Houghton cannot say them because they do not suit her arguments, then I certainly may and must say them. If it is true that they get six months free accommodation in prefabricated huts, and that they may subsequently buy those huts for a nominal sum—and I do not want to risk saying how nominal a sum, but it is very small in any case—then these things surely redound to the credit of this Government for the provision it makes.

In the same way, provision was made in connection with the small, human things when people have to be moved. For example, there is provision of food. If there are cases which the hon. member for Houghton can point out of this not having been done, they certainly deserve attention, but then one must not paint such a one-sided picture in this regard.

However, I also want to make a few other remarks. Once we have looked at everything and taken all the criticism into consideration as well as the difference of opinion in respect of the purchase of certain land and even the amount of land, I think it cannot be disputed that we in South Africa are engaged at this juncture in a history-making deed, as far as these consolidation proposals and the creation of homelands for various peoples are concerned. We accepted it as our basic premise, viz. that there are different peoples here, that these peoples are claiming self-determination in terms of generally accepted presuppositions, and that this Government wants to meet the basic requirement by wanting to create room for a people in which it can exercise that right of self-determination. Of course, we did not inherit ideal conditions and I do not need to go through the whole of history to show how difficult it was at times to get things into reverse, as it were, and to act creatively. However, we must appreciate the attempts which are now being made in the face of all these difficulties and help to promote these possibilities. I say that this is a history-making decision and deed with which we are dealing here. It is something which we are doing which actually clashes with the point of view of previous leaders of the Opposition. The hon. members on the opposite side reproach men such as Advocate Strijdom and Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, who had their misgivings. But let us leave it at that. The point is just that we are now accepting responsibility for what that party’s leaders planned in 1936. We accept the responsibility, while they shy away from the noble aim which their own leaders had.

That is Naboomspruit nonsense.

Of course you are shying away. What type of argument have we had here? Let the hon. member for Edenvale look at what he said before, when he actually tried to discourage the purchase of land for the consolidation of homelands What did the leaders of that time say? I want to refer to what the Minister of Native Affairs said at that time, and I hope the hon. member for Edenvale who had misgivings about this earlier, will check this in the light of the standpoint which he adopted, if I remember correctly, about the purchase of the land. The Minister of Native Affairs said on 20 May 1936 that for 20 years it had been the policy of the National Party to separate a certain area for the Natives. This is in reply to the hon. member for Houghton’s argument and at the same time also a reply to the argument of the hon. members of the Opposition. I quote—

In other words, he supported territorial separation. I quote further—

What I have just read out here, is clear and intelligible. On that same day General Herzog said that the basic premise of their legislation was segregation. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House ought to know that word very well, because it was their key word in the thirties and in the early forties. They applied Post Office segregation. I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Is this not true?

No.

Post Office segregation was the official word.

No.

The hon. member should read some history.

Order!

I want to put it to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the party of which he is now a member was the first party to apply Post Office segregation. The first place where it was applied, was at Stellenbosch, where I was a student at that time. I refer further to what General Hertzog said—

This is capable of only one interpretation and that is the idea of territorial separation and political self-determination within that area.

Let me conclude by referring to the action or the attitude of the voters in my constituency, because the constituency of Waterberg is affected by the purchase of land. There were different reactions. Originally there was reluctance on the part of some people, and that is understandable because people become attached to the land on which they live and on which they have made many improvements. [Interjections.] Of course. If the Black man is attached to his land, do the hon. members suppose that the White man is not attached to his land as well? That is love for the soil and dislike of uprooting, and it holds true of all people. There are problems in resettlement and the question of where they will be able to buy land again and what price they will have to pay. Seen against that background, there were misgivings, but at the same time there were also many people who offered their properties and thereby made it much easier for the Government. I must thank those people because they offered their land but I must also tell them that they must have regard to the fact that the Government has to determine whether it needs all the land in terms of its broader planning.

In the third place, there was overwhelming agreement with the principle of consolidation, and two considerations in particular applied here. The first is that in this regard the issue for our White people is self-preservation, it is supremacy and self-determination within the White area. A second consideration is also at issue and that is self-determination for the Black peoples and the necessity of a geographic area where the Black peoples can exercise self-determination.

I might mention something else as well. I want to refer to the reactions of the people, and here I think I can speak on behalf of the people of Waterberg. Some of them will feel heart-sore. I told those of them who suggested that they would give up their farms easily, that they would have barbed wire in their throats on the day they would have to leave their land. It is true and the people realize that, but in the light of the broader plan of our country in which the White retains his self-determination and is planning for countries in which the Black population will be able to exercise self-determination as peoples in the future, they were prepared to make the sacrifice, they were prepared to offer what White South Africa asks of them, They ask one thing though, and perhaps two. In the first place, they ask for fair compensation so that they can settle somewhere else again, if possible. There are some who, accepted the offers immediately; others were less happy about the offers which they received. I want to say to the credit of the hon. the Minister that he adopts a sympathetic attitude in this regard, and that he is prepared to reconsider these matters. I can give him the assurance that there is sincere appreciation for the consideration of the feelings of our people about their land and the compensation which they are to receive for it. In the second place, there is a request from my constituency that we should plan in such à way that the lines of communication, the roads and so on, will run through White area as far as is possible. I think it is obvious: People want a feeling of security and feel that when they are on the road, they will not run into trouble somewhere. They feel that they are safer if their lines of communication run through the White area.

I want to conclude with that. I should like to give this House the assurance that in general, in spite of requests which are made by voters here and there who feel that there could be an improvement, there is consent. The desire is that the Government finalize this matter as soon as possible for the good of all parties concerned in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to understand the Progressive Party standpoint as interpreted by the hon. member for Houghton. They simply approve of all proposals to add land to the Bantu homelands and disapprove of all excisions from the Bantu homelands. With the United Party it is a little more difficult. Their standpoint is far more complicated. It is vague, unintelligible and inconsistent, it varies from one constituency to the next and it differs from day to day and from speaker to speaker. I thought …

What with?

… that the United Party would seize the opportunity to do something big for once, that just once they would rise above themselves, that just once they would have the vision …

He wants us to see the same visions.

… the vision they lack, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development complained in a debate last year. What happens? Once again we get old, stale clichés from the United Party. Once again the United Party is trapped in that old rut; and we should bear in mind that the difference between a rut and the grave is merely one of depth. As we have just said, the United Party—up to now only two of their speakers have participated in the debate—has delivered itself of a whole series of contradictions. On the one hand the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, with great gusto, made fun of our so-called “effort” to bring about consolidation. “It is not consolidation,” he said, “but fragmentation.” Then, when the Government comes up with proposals to excise these fragments, these poorly situated Bantu areas, and replace them with compensatory land, this report of the Select Committee tells us that the United Party voted against it. At the same time, when the Government comes up with proposals adding certain White areas to those homelands—and if hon. members look at the map at the back of the report, they will see that there is not a single proposal to add an area that does not border on a homeland; no new areas have been created—then the United Party opposes those proposals. An example is the one mentioned by the hon. member for Cradock. When the Government joined the two main Ciskeian areas by means of the Stockenström area, the United Party voted against it, as is stated in the report of the Select Committee.

Have you ever been there?

Yes, I have been there. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever been there. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana convened a Press conference just after the conclusion of the Select Committee meetings. With a great flourish of trumpets it was announced at this Press conference that “U.P. wants more land for Blacks”. The United Party tells the people that they are going to give the Blacks more than is required by the 1936 Act. That must have gladdened the heart, of the hon. member for Randburg, the hon. member who is having such a nice yawn over there. I do not know whether the hon. member is still going to take part in this debate, but I am prepared to bet my bottom dollar that if he takes part in this debate he is going to remind us at some point that we are only giving the Blacks 13% of the country. His needle has stuck at 13%. just as the needle of the hon. member for Griqualand East has stuck at Port St. Johns. Now, if the United Party had only to satisfy the Enthovens and the Suzmans, they would have had a much easier task. However, they also have to take into account Jaap Marais and company, and for those people, too, they have a word of comfort. Reading the minutes of the Select Committee, we can see that whenever the Government comes forward with proposals for additions from White areas—and these are highly emotional issues—they oppose them. They make a great show of stating that they will give more than is provided in the 1936 Act; but we must just keep our hands off Port St. Johns. Stockenström must remain White and Ongeluksnek may not become Black.

What about the promises that have been made?

That is what the hon. member says in his statement. I shall now quote from the Daily News of 24 April, from the Press conference convened by the hon. member. He convened it on his own initiative. He made his announcement with a great flourish of trumpets, and stated—

Hear, hear! Thank you.

Perhaps the hon. member who is shouting “hear, hear” now can furnish us with the answers to two tricky questions when he enters the debate presently. How much more? And where is that “more” going to be? It is important for this House and the general public to know that, and according to the admission by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, too, it is important for us to know because he said: “Finality brings certainty.” We must know how much. He talks about the prevailing uncertainty that must be eliminated. There must be finality. No doubt they will be able to give us finality in regard to their standpoint, too. Then, too, there is the issue of where this quota is going to be and where the quota-plus is going to be. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, too, emphasizes the necessity for this. In the same statement he says—

I think we have the right to know what the shape of the homelands is going to be according to the plan of the United Party.

Could the 1936 quota for Natal not have been obtained exclusively from State land, viz. without buying up a single farm?

This was entirely practical and possible. The quota for Natal was 450 000 ha. There was an additional 55 000 ha, but that is not quite the point. This could have been purchased out of State land, yes, or, at any rate, according to the quota, but not according to the quota-plus which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana wants to donate. I think it would be fair to deduce the standpoint of the United Party thus far. I am now referring to the shape of the homelands. As they see these areas, they will not be contiguous areas because every time we have come up with proposals for the excision of poorly situated areas, they have consistently opposed them. I think it would be fair to deduce that the plan they would compile would be a map peppered with spots that would look something like a leopard skin, a plan à la Theophilus Shepstone with his grid-iron policy.

The other day I read the 1936 debate and in it I found this gem. One of the United Party members of those days told the House that two-thirds of his constituency consisted of Native reserves. He said that he did not think that was fair. He said that there were 150 constituencies in the country and he thought that those reserves should be more evenly distributed among those 150 constituencies. I think the United Party has become a little more sophisticated than it was 40 years ago, but I think their point of view remains precisely the same.

There is another conclusion one could arrive at in regard to the form, the “shape”, of the homelands, according to the United Party plan. To do so one need only consider their standpoint in regard to the Cape. As we know, in the Cape there are two large Bantu areas. On the east coast we have the Transkei and the Ciskei, a fertile part with a rainfall of more than 500 millimetres per annum. In the North-Western Cape we have the Bophuthatswana homeland, where the rainfall is substantially less than 500 millimetres per annum. As far as the Transkei and the Ciskei are concerned, this Government’s proposals were that 15 areas be added totalling about ¼ million ha. As far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, the proposals were that about nine areas, also totalling about million ha be added to it. With the exception of the hon. member for Edenvale, the United Party opposed each of those inclusions in the Eastern Cape and approved each of the proposals in regard to Bophuthatswana. One gains the impression that … [Interjections.] That is quite correct. The hon. member must read the minutes of the Select Committee. Perhaps his amendment differs from the minutes. Perhaps he has rectified it. He must go and read the minutes. That is what the United Party decided. Is it fair, now, if I deduce that the United Party wants to seek that quota according to 1936, and the quota-plus, in the arid parts of our country? That is the party that is always telling us about the “compassionate society”.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana ended his Press conference as follows—

Today, too, the hon. member had a great deal to say about consultation. In fact, these words uttered by the hon. member were tautological. We did consult. [Interjections.] We consulted fully. When he has finished laughing, may I ask the hon. member a question: Did you consult? When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana decided to oppose the addition of Port St. Johns and those other 14 areas to the Transkei and the Ciskei, was that the result of his consultation with those homeland leaders? Did he receive a mandate from-them to adopt that standpoint? [Interjections.] The hon. member is maintaining a deafening silence. The United Party stands discredited as a party of double talkers, as a party that comes up with grandiose schemes, but when they are asked to back their words with deeds, their contributions are pathetically small. Neither among the Whites nor among the Blacks has the United Party any credibility. It is a party that is getting smaller and smaller because it is getting more and more petty.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Port Natal will forgive me if I do not interfere in his private fight with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and leave that to be dealt with by the colleagues of the hon. member concerned.

The hon. the Minister started his address today by saying that this was an historic occasion and he said specifically that today was the last round of the parliamentary work in regard to what he referred to as the consolidation of the Bantu territories. If I may at the beginning say so to the hon. the Minister and if I may make a forecast here today, I would like to say that I do not believe that this is the last time that this Parliament will have to deal with this issue in South Africa. I do not believe that this is the last time that we are going to have to deal with the issue of land in respect of occupation of Black people or in respect of the Bantu homelands. If I may make a forecast, I would like to say that, even at the moment of independence when it comes for the Transkei, I would not be surprised if more land would be given to the Transkei on that particular occasion. I want to make a further forecast. Even if there are independent States, thus even after independence, I believe the last word will not have been said in respect of the land issue in South Africa.

The major issue which arises here today is the fact that we are specifically asked to vote land in terms of the 1936 Act. We can vote this without any difficulty and, contrary to what the hon. member for Waterberg said, without accepting the Government’s concept of developing independent States. We can vote for it because it means the mere giving of land to the Black people of South Africa. In fact, the decision as to whether there are going to be independent States in South Africa where the homelands presently are, is not even the Government’s decision alone, because no independent homeland can come into existence in South Africa unless the Black people themselves want it. It is not, therefore, really the decision of this Government that will create it; it is whether the Black people themselves will want to have independence in their homelands. I venture to say that the Black people would prefer to remain part of South Africa rather than become independent States in the areas allocated to them if they had their true choice to decide by themselves. Even those who will accept independence will do so to obtain independence as a means of getting away from the control of apartheid over them and look forward to a day when, even after independence, they may come back to a federal South Africa.

We speak about the division of land in South Africa. This is no partition which is being agreed to here; this is not a true partition of South Africa. If a partition were practical in South Africa and if it could be achieved on an agreed basis and could be done equitably and could result in a true sharing, this might well be the answer for South Africa’s problem and it might well receive support. This is, however, not a partition, but a fragmentation. The hon. member for Lichtenburg came here with the fatuous argument that we must look at Denmark and at the Philippines. How can you possibly compare a State which is surrounded by the territory of another State and which consists of little bits and pieces, with an island which exists in the sea where you can communicate without going across the territory of any other country? I think it is idiotic to suggest that.

What about Alaska?

The country to which the hon. member referred happens to be a large piece of ground which can readily be communicated with by sea, as the hon. member will realize if he looks at an atlas. Sir, to suggest that this is a form of partition, or that this is comparable with, an island in a sea, is quite a fatuous argument. This is not a true sharing in South Africa; it is not an equitable division of land in South Africa, and it is not being done on an agreed basis. Sir, let us analyse that. When we talk about sharing, the 1936 Act was never intended to share out the land of South Africa for the purpose of creating independent States. It was intended specifically to deal with agricultural and pastoral land. It was never intended to be used as a basis for creating viable independent States in South, Africa. There is no suggestion that the wealth of South Africa as a whole is being equitably shared when we give the homelands away to Black people in South Africa.

Is that what you want?

If you want to share in South Africa and if you want to accept that all those in South Africa who are willing and able to contribute to the wealth of South Africa should have the right to share in the wealth of South Africa as a whole, then this is certainly not an equitable sharing by any conceivable standard. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that the division of land in South Africa has already been done historically. May I say to him that in fact today will be history tomorrow. You cannot say that what happened in 1936 was to decide what should historically be the division of land, between Black and White in South Africa. That is utter nonsense. The hon. member for Waterberg, with his debating ability, argued that this concept of independence was born when it was decided that certain people should occupy certain territory and that others should occupy other territory. Sir, that is utter nonsense, because in 1936 nobody said that these territories were going to be independent. Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal spoke about the question of 13% that was going to be raised by the hon. member for Bryanston. I will raise it for him now. You cannot argue that you are making an equitable division of South Africa if you give 13% of the surface area of South Africa to the Black people, even if some of it is the most fertile land in South Africa. It is quite irrelevant to use the 1936 quota for this particular purpose.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If he is not satisfied with 13%, what percentage would he regard as equitable?

Sir, we believe that the whole of South Africa is for all the people of South Africa. We do not believe that you must cut off 13% and make that independent. We believe that South Africa should be one country in which all the citizens who have a loyalty to the country can participate. Sir, let me go on to the third point, and that is the question of agreement. The hon. the Minister was involved in a dialogue with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on the question as to whether there was or was not consultation. Sir, whether there was or was not consultation, one thing is perfectly clear and that is that there was no agreement. No one can come forward and say that all the proposals contained in this document which is before us today are agreed proposals. They are not agreed proposals, and I think there are many people in this House who can testify to the fact that these are not agreed proposals. The hon. the Minister, I think very correctly, referred to the importance which boundaries played. Let me quote what he said. He said—

I agree with the Minister. The necessity to have determined and fixed boundaries, if in fact you are going to have independent States, cannot be overstressed. But you cannot have determined boundaries by unilateral decision alone. If you want to determine the boundaries for the purpose of independence, then you must do it by agreement, or otherwise you will have a running sore for decades and decades in respect of boundary disputes, because history shows that that is exactly what happens when you do not have boundaries settled by agreement. The hon. member for Waterberg says somebody has to decide in the end. If you have a situation where this land is to remain part of South Africa, then Parliament can decide. But you cannot create boundaries and you cannot create independent States by unilateral action and just deciding that this should be done. I regret to say that I believe that if you are going to determine international boundaries, unless you are prepared to have joint commissions and you are prepared to hear the evidence of all interested parties, you will not have finality in respect of the boundaries of new-created States in South Africa. Sir, the Select Committee cannot do a job when it comes to the question of creating international States. The Select Committee can do a job under the 1936 Act, as it was intended to do, but the Select Committee is not multi-racial. The Select Committee did not hear the evidence of all the interested parties, and you cannot expect a Select Committee of this nature in the short period of time which it had to deal with the matter to make final decisions in this regard. I you want to have international boundaries settled and if you want to have independence for the homelands, then you cannot do it in a unilateral fashion as you are doing at present.

I want to come back again, if I may, to the question of consultation and take it out of the realm of the independence concept for the moment. I think the hon. the Minister owes this House something more than the generality of the statement he made concerning consultation. I think he needs to tell us firstly whether in fact he consulted not broadly but on the individual proposals, secondly whether he consulted with each one of the homeland leaders concerned in respect of those proposals, and thirdly—and this is the more important question—to what extent there was agreement between himself and the homeland leaders on any particular issue which is contained in the recommendations before us now. On my information—and that information is also based on consultation—I venture to say that there is now on these proposals more disagreement than there is agreement. I also want to deal, if I may, with the question of consultation in respect of removals. We have been told that the statement was made in the Select Committee that in respect of the removals, the policy is not to consult before the removals, but to consult after the removals. This to my mind is something which I find unbelievable. Surely consultation takes place in order that you may be influenced by what people tell you in regard to your decision. Consultation is not going to people and saying that you have made up your mind about what you are going to do; and then asking them to tell you something about it. That is nonsense, and if it is correct that the policy of this Government is that you only in fact consult in respect of removals after the event, then there is something drastically wrong with that approach to the matter.

Sir, let me now say specifically what we believe should happen. Firstly we believe that the 1936 Act must be honoured. We believe that that has nothing in itself to do with the concept of independence for Bantustans. Secondly, we believe that if there is to be independence and if there is to be consolidation, there should be, as I have indicated, a multi-racial commission so that the boundaries of the territories can be arrived at as a matter of consensus, and not remain, for the sake of history, as boundaries imposed by Whites upon Black people in South Africa. Thirdly, if the Black people want independence in their homelands, we certainly will not oppose it, but those issues must be determined by consent. Fourthly, we believe that when you fix the boundaries you need not in fact, when you consolidate on a proper and meaningful basis, buy all the land included in that consolidation; you can draw boundaries without moving people around. Fifthly, there must be a right to those Who are Black and who remain in the rest of South Africa also to own land. You cannot now create a set of foreigners against their will, make them citizens of another State and then say to them that in the place where they work and have spent most of their lives they may not own land. Let us compare one foreigner with another. Some foreigners may buy and own land in South Africa, but depending on the colour of a foreigner’s skin he may now not be able to buy land. Do hon. members think for one moment that the international community is going to put up with that kind of discrimination? Do they think that their efforts at détente are going to be meaningful when they distinguish between foreigners of one kind or another in regard to the treatment that they are going to extend to them in South Africa? Sixthly, we want to say quite categorically that we oppose the removal of population groups in South Africa. In terms of the policy that we have it is unnecessary to remove people, but when you do remove people, you should only remove them if there is not just consultation, but when there is consent that there should be a removal in the circumstances. The people who are to be removed are the ones who should consent; it should not be that they are merely told that someone else has in fact made that decision. Seventhly, we want to say that in respect of independence there must be consolidated entities, not a so-called collection of non-contiguous pieces of land. There must be a more realistic attitude to the size of the homelands which are to become independent and to their boundaries. We must look at a potential State from the point of view of creating a viable entity and take into account the planning that is required in order to make such a country a viable economic entity.

We believe also that the homelands as such, whether they become independent or not, offer no solution for the eight million Blacks who are living outside their homeland areas at the present moment. We also believe that you cannot, in fact, force people to accept the citizenship of another State against their will; that they surely are at least entitled to a choice. Furthermore, as I have indicated, we believe that they must be allowed to own land outside the homelands. We believe that, if in fact a federal concept were accepted for South Africa and the boundaries were drawn on a realistic basis taking into account community of interest and group interests, we could solve these problems without the difficulties that the Government is going to encounter. Let me put a further point. We do not believe that you can meet the needs of the Black people of South Africa by settling them on land for agricultural purposes, or that you can settle the problems of the South African Black by merely making him a labourer in the so-called White areas. You must allow him to become an individual, a corporate and a co-operative owner of the means of production in South Africa in the same way that any other individual is allowed to do so.

Let me just touch on a couple of the proposals in their individual form. In so far as Natal is concerned we believe that the problems of the upper Tugela should, in fact, be renegotiated and a solution found by common consent. We also believe in regard to the Cape that if the Transkei is to become independent, it is quite wrong to suggest that this White spot —if we can use that term of Port St. Johns should not be given to the Transkei. I also find great difficulty in the proposals which have been put forward that certain other parts of the Transkei which are suggested to be included, should be referred back. We cannot say on the one hand that we must give land to Black people, and yet on the other hand, when it comes to giving specific land, try to find an excuse why that particular piece of land should not go to the Black people on that occasion. I cannot support the concept of referring these matters back and I certainly cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in this regard. I have no objection to any political party changing its policy if it sees the light. [Interjections.] I should like to see the United Party change even more. I have no objection, but what I should like to know is what the policy of that party is. [Interjections.] Having heard the hon. member for Griqualand East and having heard the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I do not know what the policy is on Port St. Johns and nor does anybody in this House know. What we do know is that the hon. member for Edenvale took one view and that the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Griqualand East took another view. We would like to know what the view of their party is in respect of these two views. It is no good …

What is your federal policy?

And when did you stop beating your wife? [Interjections.] I would like to know what the policy of the United Party is. I should like to know which one of the two …

Tell us about your qualified …

What about the hon. members’ qualified franchise policy? What about the reports that the hon. member keeps losing all over the place? The hon. member for Durban North is a master at this.

No, tell us about your qualified …

I think the hon. member for Durban North has a difficulty about qualifications in many other ways about which he may tell us one day. [Interjections.]

What about your qualified federation?

I think the hon. member is an unqualified M.P. [Interjections.] Let us know what his policy is, which he changes from day to day as it suits him.

Look who is talking.

I should like to know what the policy is on the Ciskei situation. Are they with the hon. member for Edenvale or are they with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, or do we have a compromise in terms of which we refer it back so that we do not have to say where we stand at all? [Interjections.] Are they going to have a compromise so that they will be able to solve all their problems and satisfy the honour of the hon. member for Edenvale, the honour of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and even the honour of some other hon. members who are perhaps more easily satisfied? That is very easy, but let us make one thing very clear. We can state unequivocally that we have no difficulties about giving land to Black people. We do not have to find a mechanism as an excuse in order to refer a thing back because we are disunited and unable to agree. That is the unfortunate role of the official Opposition in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to see how the hon. member for Yeoville progressed since 1966, from the position of leader in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to the backbenches of the House of Assembly. The hon. member for Yeoville made a very important statement this evening, and I take it that this is a policy statement of his embryo party or a policy statement of the party that is now going to result from the marriage between his party and that of the hon. member for Sea Point.

I think they already have offspring. [Interjections.]

The hon. member charged us with the fact that foreigners in South Africa do have the right to purchase and own land here. The hon. member for Yeoville said that because Black people may not own land in the White area of the Republic of South Africa, this constitutes discrimination against the Black people.

It does, yes.

He also said that this discrimination will cause the whole détente effort to miscarry and will harm the image of South Africa.

That is true.

The hon. member states that that is true. I know the hon. member for Yeoville to be an honest man and I now want to ask the hon. member to give me an honest answer. Is it the hon. member’s standpoint that the Black man may purchase land at any place in South Africa like any other immigrant? [Interjections.] Just reply to the question by saying “yes” or “no”.

If the Speaker will allow me to do so, I shall reply to that.

No, the hon. member must say “yes” or “no” now. It seems to me that the hon. member for Yeoville lacks the necessary courage to give a direct reply to that question. If the hon. member does not want to answer me, I am surely entitled to deduce that the hon. member for Yeoville adopts the standpoint that the Black man can purchase land at any place in South Africa just as any other foreigner can. I presume the hon. member for Yeoville wants to discuss this matter with his betrothed before providing me with an answer.

Helen says “yes”.

The hon. member for Houghton says “yes”. I take it that there will be a little consultation in that regard this evening.

A further question arising from the statement made here today by the hon. member for Yeoville, is the following: If he regards it as discrimination against the Black man that the Black man may not buy land in White South Africa, does he also regard it as discrimination against the White man that he may not buy land in the reserved Bantu areas? The hon. member must state his standpoint in that regard. Is he prepared to throw open the homelands in this country for Whites to buy land there?

Give me a chance; we shall reply.

If a standpoint applies to the White area, the same standpoint must apply to the non-White areas as well.

This brings me to the next point. Basically, the members of that party are not concerned about the progress and prosperity of the Bantu in this country. They are not prepared to afford the Bantu in the homeland the same protection and assurance as does the National Party Government because the homelands are still weak economically. The National Party Government protects the Bantu in the homelands against exploitation by wealthy groups in this country. In the past our people, too, has been exploited by wealthy groups in this country. This party is a party with high moral principles. We shall protect the Black man in spite of the pious standpoints adopted here by people like the hon. member for Yeoville, because all they want to do is play to the gallery. The hon. member further cut away his own morality from under his own feet when he said that these decisions relating to the borders would have to be taken by way of consensus to be obtained between Black and White, and by way of consultation when it affected the borders of independent countries. The hon. member went on to say—I have it noted down here—that if South Africa remains a single state, Parliament may decide on those borders. He said that it would be morally correct if Parliament could decide about them. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville: What will your Parliament, which is going to decide on this, going to be like? Are you going to have “one man, one vote” in that Parliament?

Come on, Harry!

The hon. member said that it was morally wrong that the Minister should take the decision. I want to say that the Minister did not decide, but consulted. The hon. member said that if we remained a single state, Parliament could decide. Since they are talking about morality, the hon. member who aborted first, the hon. member for Bryanston, must tell me what the Parliament that will have to decide on that, will look like. Will members be elected on a “one man, one vote” basis?

I have an interesting reply, but you will have to wait a little for it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that when one does not wish to be basically honest in politics, one does not want to answer questions. The hon. member talks about an interesting reply. I do not want an interesting reply; I want an honest and frank reply. I know, what those hon. members are doing. They are running away from their own handiwork, just as certain hon. members on that side will still have to stomach the whole issue of the qualified franchise and its moral aspect. It is going to be very difficult for them to do so because there are serious differences in that party concerning this issue of qualified franchise, and those differences are still going to come to the surface, to the great sorrow of the hon. member for Houghton and Rondebosch. I could just as well ask the hon. member for Sea Point: Does he support the qualified franchise unconditionally or not?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton need not protect her chickens so diligently. That is the task of the Chair. Let us have another look at the basis of the 1936 Act. What did the Act of 1933 do? That Act described a fact. Areas inhabited by the Bantu at that period were demarcated by that Act as Bantu areas. Surely that is an historical fact that we cannot overlook. They were areas the vast majority of whose population was Bantu. The Act of 1913 defined those Bantu areas and those areas were embodied in the Act as scheduled areas. In other words, the principle applied here in regard to land for Bantu was to reserve for him by way of legislation the land which belonged to him historically and to keep other people out. Subsequently interesting developments took place, after the acceptance of the 1913 Act. There are hon. members here who have maintained that the legislators or leaders of those times never had independence and self-government in mind when the 1936 Act was passed. It has been said that it was never the intention that these people should be self-governing. The hon. member for Griqualand East and others on that side spoke about that, but I want to say now what went on in the minds of the leaders of that time, viz. before the 1936 Act was passed and after the Act of 1913. The Act of 1936 contains a promise of more land to be given, not as an obligation, but as a donation, because in fact, those areas were not Bantu areas in 1936. Here I should like to quote what Gen. Smuts said on 22 May 1917 in the speech he made in the Savoy Hotel in London. He said—

That was in 1917. There is still time now until 2017 to work out this policy. I say this merely because there are hon. members who are so hasty. He goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

Now we go a little further …

Read the next page.

I shall read the next page for the hon. member for Durban Point after dinner. I should like to quote what Gen. Smuts said in the course of his “Rhodes Memorial Lectures” at Oxford University in 1929. What did the General say then? He said the following—

Here he refers to the new plan. This was in 1929. [Interjections.] He states—

The hon. member for Houghton must please try to be quiet. There is nothing so irritating as a cackling old woman [Interjections.] Gen. Smuts stages—

[Interjections.] Oh, shut up Helen!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Lydenburg tell the hon. member for Houghton to “shut up”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Gen. Smuts goes on to say—

Looking at these principles expounded by Gen. Smuts—I simply do not have the time to quote Gen. Botha as well—it is very clear that the legislators of those times had in mind the establishment of areas for the Black man in which he could live and have his own traditions, his ways, his customs and his own institutions and govern himself. That is what the legislators had in mind before 1936.

Mr. Speaker, I shall react to the quotations of the hon. member for Lydenburg after dinner this evening, after having checked up on them. I may say that I know both of those speeches very well …

Well, I will lend the book to you.

I have the book myself. That will not be necessary. If I remember correctly, however, Gen. Smuts always felt that there should be the overall hand of the White man in regard to the separation which he proposed in those speeches. I remember that very clearly. [Interjections.]

Order!

It was not in relation to independent countries but independent institutions at local level. That was the theme of both of those speeches. However. I shall reply to them in more detail a little later.

I was most happy to hear from the hon. member for Yeoville that he still espouses the idea of federalism. However, I should like to know whether he supports the type of federalism which, he left when he left this party or whether he is espousing the type of federalism which he is about to marry. Perhaps it is a cross between the two which may prove interesting. Perhaps somebody could explain this to us later on. I just do not know how we are going to work a qualified franchise into that federal concept.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the speeches I have heard today from the Government benches on the report of the Select Committee before us, we have heard it stated repeatedly that this was the culmination of a “lank vertroetelde ideaal”. [Interjections.] Fine, a “lank gekoesterde ideaal.” Someone also used the word “vertroetelde”. After 27 years in Government, we come with massive proclamations like this. One cannot look at them in vacuo. It is all very well to look at a nice map and to say that the map has been tidied up. One has got to look through that map to the people involved and at the production of the land involved in that map. One has also got to look into the future and listen to what our qualified statisticians tell us about the future. One of these facts is that agricultural land, in any case, is a diminishing asset. It is a diminishing asset because of urban growth which is taking up a large amount of that land. Secondly, we are told that the population of this country will double by the year 2000 which is 25 years away. We now come with proposals which are further diminishing the asset of agricultural land. We have nothing whatsoever against the provisions of the 1936 Act and providing land, but in the light of these facts and of the requirement of feeding the country, surely the amount of money that is to be spent could be better spent in assisting the Bantu homelands in improving their own agriculture in the homelands.

Is that a new policy?

No, it is a policy that has been stated many times. In 1972 the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, speaking about the proposals that were then made, said that they would cost R500 million. It is quite a lot of money and I should imagine it would amount to a lot more now with inflation. Proposals of this massive sort are made at a stage when there is a critical world inflation, when our own country is suffering from inflation and are dumped before the House without allowing the Select Committee to hear evidence of any kind, I have served on Select Committees on other matters which have really worked excellently. We have always called for papers and we have sometimes called for evidence. When you have a Select Committee dealing with a major issue like this and then say that it may only consult the department, that it is not allowed to call on anyone, or to inspect any site in loco, then I think that this is not something that can be accepted by this House and that can be decided on with ease by hon. members in this House. We amended the Act a few years ago. You could release areas by a resolution of the House, but now we are actually declaring areas in which the areas may be released. This creates a further problem, because it creates even worse uncertainty than the fact of releasing the area. At least, in an area that is released, you are certain that your land will be purchased, but in an area which is declared and area in which you may release an area …

How can you be certain?

Of course you can. One certainly cannot be certain under the present Act, because an area is simply declared in which areas can be released.

Are you not going to buy all the released areas?

Well, the hon. the Minister has said that he is keeping a little to play around with.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked what our policy was about Port St. Johns. Surely he listened to the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand East? Surely the hon. member has read the amendment which we have put on the Order Paper? The amendment says that this matter should be referred back to the Government for further consideration, because there have been objections from people in Port St. Johns. The Government has made Promises to the people of Port St. Johns. There has not been sufficient consultation with the people of Port St. Johns to bring this proposal to this House at the moment. I see no reason why it should not be referred back to the Government for further consideration and to a Select Committee which can go and talk to the people there. The hon. member for Cradock made the absolutely strange statement that the Government is using the 1936 Act in order to implement their policy. That makes it even more difficult for us to accept this, because we are, as the Government knows, opposed to the policy of separate development and sovereign independence. We are committed to a federal concept. The hon. member for Cradock, however, says that the 1936 Act is being used to implement the policy of the Government. It cannot be expected that we give unqualified support, because we have to consider this. We have to consider the fact that the 1936 Act is no longer being used just to purchase land for Black people to occupy within the territory of the Republic of South Africa; in fact, it is now being purchased to implement a policy for the Black people to occupy land outside South African territory.

I wish specifically to deal with the districts of Victoria East, Stockenström, Queenstown and Cathcart. The hon. member for Cradock mentioned that he is most grateful to the people in these areas for accepting the decisions of the Government in this matter in spite of the fact that it is hard for them. According to my information the people of these areas are most dissatisfied. There may be some people who have offered their land, but there is a R4¼ million dam recently completed in the Stockenström district, a dam which was opened a few years ago by the Department of Water Affairs to irrigate 3 000 ha.

Do you not think the Blacks should have a dam as well?

They have a wonderful dam at Lubisi, and can you tell me how well the scheme at Qamata is doing? You had better do something about that before you get them another dam. The hon. the Deputy Minister should get his house in order before he says things like that. I do not resent the Black people having a dam at all, but what consultation was there beforehand? Is there any interdepartmental consultation? A survey of the Stockenström district was done by the Department of Agriculture and the final report was produced in 1974, in which the tobacco potential, the dairy potential and the growth potential of this farming area was given. And then all of a sudden it is proclaimed as a Dart of the Ciskei because it fits in beautifully on the map. One has to go further into these things than on the surface and these people should be consulted. I know it from my own case, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, that nobody had been consulted until they heard it over the radio. One evening in December on the 9 o’clock news we heard that this area, the Peddie district, was being released. We are still sorting this out. Not a soul, however, had been consulted until the broadcast of the news and the appearance of the newspaper the next morning. I was ’phoned at 11 o’clock at night by someone who asked me what was going on. It had always been understood in that area that the agricultural unions would be consulted. The agricultural union was prepared to fly down and give evidence to the Select Committee.

They had the map by the middle of December.

The maps are not always right.

The Eastern agricultural union was prepared to fly down here at a moment’s notice to give evidence to the Select Committee, but what did the Select Committee do? At the very first meeting they decided by a majority vote to refuse to take evidence from anybody. You cannot function like that. That is not democracy, it is bureaucracy. This is what makes these things so hurtful. This also applies to the Black people in these areas. They could also have been called on to give evidence to the Select Committee. We would not have had this debate if the Select Committee had been allowed to function properly. It is far easier to function in a democratic way and to allow people to call evidence. It may take a week or two, a fortnight or even a few months longer, but at least you can then find your consensus far better than by trying to push through something in this dictatorial way. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me who is going to be in charge of the Kat dam, because it will be serving Bantu people on the one side of the Kat River and White people on the other side. Will the Department of Water Affairs have sole control over it, or will there be a joint control between the Departments of Bantu Administration and Water Affairs, or is the Department of Bantu Administration going to take it over entirely? What is going to happen to the citrus farms? Is there going to be a remuneration to keep the citrus co-op going? I believe that 80% of the shares and revolving levy of that citrus co-op come from the area that is to be taken up by the Ciskei.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I undertook to reply to the hon. member for Lydenberg, who quoted from the Rhodes Memorial lecture given by General Smuts in 1929 at Oxford. Sir, I wish to make two quotations. During the course of this speech General Smuts said—

Then he goes into the details and goes on to say this—

He went on in the same speech to say, at page 52—

Those quotations come from the same speech. The hon. member can quote this speech as much as he likes. Sir, we have had a lot of historical lessons here today from various hon. members. I want to give a further historical lesson in this connection. The policy of the party on that side is now called separatism, but what do we find in this very important document which I have here before me?

*This document is the National Party (Cape Province) Constitution, 1960. It was published by the National Party, 18 Keerom Street, Cape Town. On page 14, chapter 7, clause 16, under the heading “Relationship with the non-White races” I read the following—

What is left of the policy of separation and separate development now? Sir, the Nationalist Party is an interesting party; they castigate others for changing their policy, but they change their policy from day to day and from year to year. In 1948 it was apartheid; then they had an ad hoc policy in regard to the matters we are discussing here this evening; then it became parallelism and now it is separate development. I want to tell that party that it is high time they decided what their policy is and began to implement it. Sir, if this Government had done its duty under the 1936 Act from the day they came into power, then all this land would have been bought up. This Government has already been in power for 27 years. According to the Minister himself, they only made a positive start with the purchase of this land in the seventies. They only began to tackle this task on a large scale in the early seventies. If they had purchased this land gradually over the years, we would not have been saddled with this problem today; then we would not have been saddled with a problem such as Port St. Johns today. The Minister himself admits that guarantees were given to Port St. Johns by the late Dr. Verwoerd, by himself and many others.

The White man’s word.

Precisely, Sir. There has always been a saying in the civilized world, and particularly in this country, that the White man’s word must always be kept in respect of the Black people. I agree with this entirely. But I believe also that the White man’s word does play a small role in relation to the White man himself, despite all the arguments that are produced by certain gentlemen on that side about “daadwerklike heroorweging”.

But I wish to return to the inflationary aspects of these proposals. It is absolutely essential that these areas which are to be purchased by the Bantu Trust be kept viable and in production. Now, the only way to keep them viable and in production is not to hand them over to communal ownership, because immediately you have communal ownership the land deteriorates because there are too many people living on it. This is where the XDC and the BIC have to step in and take over, like they have taken over Zebediela and have kept that going, like they have taken over the farm “Woburn” of Mr. Ballantyne in the Alice district and have kept that going, like they will have to take over the properties of Messrs. Clive and Donald White in the areas to be purchased, like they will have to take over the citrus farms in the valleys of the Stockenström and Victoria East districts, and like they will have to over the pineapple farms in my own constituency. The inflationary aspect of this is the fact that one spends a great deal of money, but one does not create one extra job for the Bantu in that homeland. [Interjections.] If this money were spent on creating infrastructures, creating employment, improving hospitalization and education, one would be doing these people a far greater favour than merely by spending our money at this stage to keep exactly the same number of people employed. This is what I cannot understand. Particularly in the Stockenström and Victoria East districts those farms are highly developed and they cannot be run at this stage alone under communal ownership. They will have to be taken over in this way, at a high purchase price, and then they will have to be managed by the department on behalf of the Bantu Government in order to keep exactly the same number of people employed as were employed before. It seems to me quite ridiculous. Then the other aspect is this, too, that as soon as you have an area proclaimed you find that properties in all (he adjoining districts, those that are on the market, rocket completely out of proportion to the true value of the land. This creates further inflation, and there is no method of controlling it. I have seen it happen already in the district where I live and in the adjoining districts. Farms which are worth R150 to R250 a morgen are now on the market hoping to catch somebody who has been bought out by the department, and they are on the market at R500 to R600 per morgen. Sir, this is something we cannot cope with and I believe that these matters which we suggest should be referred back to the Government for reconsideration should be reconsidered by the Government. I believe also that the proposals in regard to the upper Tugela must be looked at again, and I believe that when proposals like this are made there must be a time limit set as to when they are purchased, and that they should be purchased as soon as is humanly possible to save those people problems.

The hon. member for Albany who has just resumed his seat certainly proved nothing with the quotation he made, and he certainly did not tell us why his party has its eleventh non-White policy at the moment. But I want to take a closer look at what he said at the start of his speech just before we adjourned, viz. when the hon. member for Lydenburg quoted from the speech by the late Gen. Smuts, he said he believed that the late Gen. Smuts intended that there would always be a White hand in control of the situation. This is still further proof of how that party has deviated from the principles of the late Gen. Smuts. Was it not only the other day that the Leader of the Opposition replied in the last election that it was in fact possible that a Black could become the Prime Minister of South Africa under their policy? What hand will have control—a White hand or a Black hand? That is what I ask the hon. member for Albany.

Unfortunately I must use some of my valuable time to react to what the hon. member for Griqualand East said earlier in his speech referring to certain events in my constituency. He quoted from a newspaper report and I want to say at once that I think he should have come and discussed the matter with me instead of attacking me in this regard across the floor of the House. The point is that I did attend that particular meeting of the East Griqualand Development Association, but it is absolutely untrue that I said I would refer certain matters to the Select Committee. What I did say was that I would refer some of the points raised there to the Department of Bantu Affairs. That is why the representations were never made to the Select Committee and I am in no way to blame for the fact that they were never made. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this matter any further; I can give the hon. member the assurance that I did refer the matters in question to the Department of Bantu Affairs. Actually they were minor points concerning matters mentioned this afternoon by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, viz. that land is being held back in order to effect lesser adjustments and rectification of borders and to provide for unforeseeable contingencies that might conceivably crop up in the future. To be specific, they concern the farm of a certain Mr. Rawlins, the farm of a certain Mr. Stanford and the road to Natal. They would have liked the road to pass through White areas only and not through two farms that had already been assigned to the Transkei. I attended to this request when I came to the Cape and I believe that the hon. member will agree with me that they on that side of the House are not in favour of withdrawing land already assigned to the Transkei, either. I therefore regard this minor matter as closed.

Is the Press report untrue, then?

As has already been stated, 14 May 1975 will be an important date in the history of South Africa, particularly as regards our discussions today and tomorrow here in the House with regard to our homeland policy. Not only will the discussions which are to take place in the House today and tomorrow bring an end to the uncertainty in the minds of many people as to whether or not their farms will be involved in consolidation, but they will also give geographic content to the National Party’s policy of multi-national development. This concludes the planning of consolidation. Now we are on the threshold of its implementation and in my opinion—and I should like to emphasize this—this will have to be expedited as much as possible in order to cause satisfaction and better relations, too. I believe that we on this side of the House will in fact be able to draft plans to carry out those consolidation plans as soon as possible and cause the persons concerned as little inconvenience as possible.

The National Party has committed itself to the principle of implementation of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936, an Act placed on the Statute Book by the United Party, of which the late Gen. Smuts was then deputy leader. That Act guaranteed the Bantu the areas they were inhabiting then, but it also provided that an additional 7,25 million morgen, or 6,2 million ha, of land be added as Bantu areas. Purchases took place from time to time and these proposals today mark the stage where the end is in sight. However, it is not simply a matter of land that is going to be purchased in the course of time. The aim in purchasing land is of the greatest importance, viz. the consolidation of the homelands. To give each of the various peoples its own political home, its own homeland or heart-land, where they can live out their lives in accordance with their own nature and desire, is what is important here, not merely the land as such. We on this side of the House believe that South Africa as a White State has a right to exist in Africa, but we do not begrudge people of other nationalities and other colours a right of existence and therefore we are not ashamed to show the world that we are honest and sincere in the implementation of our policy and that we are establishing homelands for those peoples. That is why the one chief aim is the acquisition of White land for addition to each homeland. The other chief aim is the addition of land through the transfer of isolated Bantu areas to the larger units of each such area. This will result in the following: Firstly there will be shorter and better borders between Black homelands and White areas; secondly, by combining various areas we shall have more manageable units; thirdly, we shall have improved planned settlement in the Black homelands, both in regard to ethnic relationship and the utilization of land; and fourthly,—and this is important—areas of friction may be eliminated. The will, the dedication and the perseverance of our people is necessary for this, and we on this side of the House have committed ourselves to this and we are going to carry it out notwithstanding any opposition we may encounter or any difficulties that may be put in our way. The National Party has been given a mandate to do this by the voters of South Africa in a number of consecutive elections. At the same time the policy of the Opposition in this regard has been consistently rejected. I therefore say that if the United Party and the other opposition parties want to do South Africa, White and non-White, a great service, then they must put an end to all their reservations, their ambiguity and the floundering in regard to homelands and accept them unconditionally. Even the Sunday Times realizes this and in two editorials, the latter of which appeared just after the election of 1974, they pleaded that the idea of homelands be accepted for good by the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout accepted them, and I respect him for that. It is just that one would like to know why he is still sitting in that party. This is essential today, it is one of the pre-conditions necessary for taking the issue of the development of the Bantu out of White politics. One is forced to ask the question why the purchase of land in terms of the legislation in question is opposed whereas, when the granting of land to the Bantu in the urban areas is discussed, then everyone is in favour of it. This is a question I should like to have answered by the hon. members of the Opposition who will speak after me. Surely it it was only yesterday that the United Party reproached us for the policy we were following and tried to make political capital out of it. They said that we were not going to implement it, but now that we are reaching the point of actual implementation of this policy, they reproach us for actually implementing it and say that we should not do so. After all, it is this very development of the homeland policy we are discussing here today that is the cause of the United Party already having their tenth or eleventh non-White policy.

The policy of this side of the House is the only policy that can ensure peaceful co-existence in this country. In his discussions with the leaders of other States, our hon. Prime Minister expounds the policy of multi-national development very clearly and it is becoming quite clear that a greater understanding of this policy is dawning among people with a different approach. Let the United Party plead for federation and let their brothers, the fraternizing Prog-Reformists, plead for total integration; we on this side of the House will continue, by way of consolidation, to make provision for a homeland for every nation. The creation of homelands by consolidation not only results in the development of a country and its resources; it also results in the development of human relations. After all, people are the most important factor in any homeland, White or Black.

I want to come back to the matter that is nearest to my heart, and that is the consolidation of the Transkei. It is clear from the areas being given to the Xhosas that some of the most fertile land in my constituency is being ceded to them. The first part, namely Ongeluksnek, speaks for itself. I think many members of the Opposition have been in those parts and must admit that they share my opinion that it has undoubtedly the most fertile land in the whole Matatjele district. Those farmers are prepared to make their sacrifices, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg testified here this afternoon. I, too, received that letter from the Ongeluksnek Farmers’ Association, The chairman of that association is a Mr. Kirk, and the secretary is a Mr. Pedlar. I should like to bring their stand-point to the attention of the House, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg has already done. The memorandum was sent to us in both officials languages. Their standpoint is stated very clearly in the English text. The following is stated—

A few weeks ago I addressed this farmers’ association, and on that occasion they were unanimous in their preparedness to accept it. I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who submitted an amendment here, who it was who instructed him to do so on behalf of the farmers of Ongeluksnek. If he was not instructed to do so, I want to ask: What is he looking for in my constituency? And I tell him: Keep out of my constituency!

I have said that the people of my constituency, too, are prepared to make their sacrifices and this is also going to take place, inter alia, in the beautiful Umga area with its wonderful fertile soil and in other parts of my constituency as well. Not a single town in my constituency has been taken for consolidation purposes, as was the cry of the United Party. It was said that Maclear would be taken. This was the cry in the by-election in 1973 and in the election last year, too, because they had no principles and no policy to expound. It was also said that Ugie, Elliot and Indwe would be taken. But not one of these White towns is being absorbed into the homelands. Therefore I should like to say here today that the uncertainty that we are eliminating in this way, in that we are now giving effect to the consolidation of the homelands in their final form, is something for which we are all grateful. It will allow my voters in general to know where they stand, and then, too, I want to give this House the assurance that even though it should take some time before the farmers are paid out—I have already mentioned this in the course of my discussions with them—they are prepared to accept that and to continue farming in the meantime as they are doing now. In the meantime we shall do our best to expedite this because we know what psychological effect it has on a person when he knows that his farm is going to be taken, but that he will have to wait to be paid out finally. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, all that I should like to say about what the hon. member for Aliwal has said, is to point out the futility of attacking this side of the House because policy changes have taken place over a period of years. In this House this afternoon we had the hon. the Minister rising here to say that he was obliged to change his policy because of changed circumstances. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall now have to forbid individual members to make interjections.

In the face of the most solemn promises made in the past he announced here this afternoon that the Government had changed its standpoint, and I want to tell him that I have respect for a man who can say candidly what he said here today.

It concerned neither promises nor policy.

Let us not argue about this now. The hon. the Minister stated unequivocally here that he had changed his standpoint in spite of certain undertakings which had been given to people. I have respect for such an admission, but in view of it, I do not believe that it is appropriate that the United Party should be attacked for having changed its policy as well. I think that is futile. If we were to go into the history of the National Party over the years, we shall see that there have been continual policy changes. In fact, the Government is at this moment changing its policy in many spheres. We do not keep on attacking the Government on this point, although we could if we wanted to. Then he produced another stupid old story. It is really a stupid piece of propaganda to say that if we were to come into office a Black man could become Prime Minister. It is already possible for a Black man to become Prime Minister today.

Yes, in the Transkei.

No, this Parliament has the power to appoint a Black man as Prime Minister. It could happen—I emphasize the word “could”. [Interjections.] I am not saying that Parliament will do that. But when the question is put whether this Parliament can, at any given juncture, appoint a Black man as Prime Minister, the answer is “yes”. Parliament can do so today, it can do so tomorrow or it can do so at any time in the future. However, it is a ridiculous question for the question should be whether Parliament will do it, and that is, of course, a different matter altogether.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration must be seen against the background of two things. One is the 1936 Act, which was an Act of the United Party, an Act of the old United Party Government. It must also be seen against the background of the Government’s partition policy or, to put it in a more popular way, against the background of its Bantustan policy, or rather, its policy of separate States. I should like to consider the proposals before us in the light of what Parliament undertook to do in 1936, and in the light of the direction in which the Government is moving at the moment. There is no doubt that the question of land is one of the most painful issues for the White man in his relationship with the Black man. We dare not underestimate the explosive potential of this issue. To my mind, what we ought to realize is that the primary issue for the Black man is not more land for farming purposes. If any form of political separation or decentralization of power is to take place in South Africa, the issue for the Black man will be political land, political lebensraum, and not land for farming purposes. This Government is undoubtedly confusing 1936 with 1975. There it is making a very big mistake. The 1936 legislation—hon. members on that side always neglect to mention this—consisted of two important parts and the one was not independent of the other. The one concerned the rural Bantu and the extent of the tribal land which was to be reserved for the Bantu. We all know that that measure became necessary because the approach of the rural Bantu, in contrast to the White farmer’s tradition of individual farm ownership, was a co-operative one, viz. that of communal ownership. In the face of the White man’s capitalistic approach to land, his far stronger capital position, and the threat which this constituted to the rural community of the Bantu, steps had to be taken to protect the rural Bantu. That is what the 1936 Act envisaged, and that is what this Act did in fact do. At that time these protective measures in respect of the tribal land of the rural Bantu had nothing to do with the political position or the future of the non-rural Bantu or the Bantu community as a whole. It did not affect his residential rights or proprietary rights elsewhere, where those existed. In other words, it did not affect the broader citizenship of the Bantu, as much or as little there was of it then. In 1936, there was no comprehensive political division or partition of the country. For that very reason, there was a second aspect to the 1936 Act. It was a very important aspect, because it determined the political position of the Bantu, especially that of the more skilled Bantu who had already achieved certain qualifications. They were to be represented in central Parliament in a total of seven seats —three in the House of Assembly and four in the Senate. These two sections were not independent of each other, and that is the answer to those who say that at that time already, in 1936, this was meant as a political division of South Africa. Until after the 1958 election, the National Party adhered rigidly to the full recognition of the principle of the political arrangement of the 1936 Act. From 1948 to 1958, it kept to the political dispensation of 1936. In its apartheid manifesto of 1948, the National Party still stood by the principle that the qualified Bantu should be represented in Parliament by seven representatives, although it proposed that those seven representatives should all sit in the Senate. That was the policy it applied until the Native representation was done away with in 1961 in terms of legislation which was passed in 1959. The National Party’s new policy of political partition was only given its actual form and actually began after that. It is true that in the years before and after 1936, individual voices were heard to be in favour of the political division of South Africa as far as White and Black were concerned. The leading proponent of this view was Adv. Oswald Pirow, who was Minister of Defence in the United Party Cabinet until 1939. It was only after he had retired as a Cabinet Minister that he adopted this standpoint and became an open proponent of political partition and the division of South Africa between White and Black. I want to go further and say that Sabra—I am talking of the old Sabra now —subsequently thought along the same lines. The leaders of the Tomlinson Commission also believed in a form of political division, although most of the Sabra and Tomlinson people saw a confederation of White and Black States at the end of the road. When that happened, when Sabra and Tomlinson adopted those standpoints, Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom, and initially Dr. Verwoerd—this is all on record—did not want to accept it in their time. They said—and this is also on record—that it could not be regarded as practical politics. The point is just this, that in 1936 there was no bilateral settlement between Whites and Blacks concerning a division of political land in South Africa. There was no plan for political partition. There was no division of States or creation of States. The rural arrangement was never seen as a deed of separate and final State formation for the Black man in South Africa. The separate States idea only became recognized policy slightly more than a decade ago. I am saying this simply to correct the facts, because that was the position.

I want to say at once that in principle—I emphasize the word “principle”—there can be no objection to the concept of decentralization, to the concept of the partition of political authority with or without a federal or confederal umbrella. I say there can be no objection in principle, but then it cannot be a one-sided or unilateral action on which the Whites alone are to decide. In any case, we know that for a policy to succeed, any policy of any party in South Africa, the co-operation of the Black nations and their leaders will be necessary, and if one does not obtain the co-operation of these people, then no policy can be successful. In fact, let me say that no policy on human relations will succeed in the long run in South Africa if it does not obtain the co-operation and the support of a reasonable majority of the Black people concerned.

That is merely a general statement.

The policy of the Government—and we must realize this very well—requires great sacrifices of the Black man. We speak easily about White sacrifices, but what does the Government require of the Black man? In fact, it requires the Black man—this is how the Black man sees it in any case—that he should forfeit his existing South African citizenship in favour of a new citizenship in a portion of South Africa, a portion which is usually inadequate for him, which is underdeveloped and which consists of separate patches of land. It is true that South African citizenship does not constitute the same political advantage for the Black man as it does for the White man at the moment, but in his eyes, it definitely gives him a joint claim to the wealth, the work opportunities and the future possibilities of South Africa as a whole. The Black man is openly optimistic about his future position in the South African whole. He knows that the world is on his side, he believes that time is on his side, and in his own mind, he is convinced that eventually he will acquire a share in the political control of South Africa, on whatever basis this might take place. Therefore we should be realistic and realize that the Black man will simply not make this great sacrifice of exchanging his South African citizenship as a whole for a lesser citizenship in an underdeveloped part without a corresponding sacrifice on the part of the White man. The corresponding sacrifice which the Black man requires of the White man, has to do with political land, with the surface area over which he will have control in comparison with the surface area over which the White man will have political control if there is to be any talk of division of political power in South Africa. Anyone who desires to make a success of a policy of devolution, of territorial separation, with or without an eventual federal or confederal umbrella, will consequently have to get away from the idea that any Black leader in South Africa is going to accept the land provisions of 1936 as a final political or constitutional land division, or that any Black leader will regard the tatters of land which are described to him as a “homeland” as a new State or fatherland which they will accept in exchange for their existing broader South African citizenship. All of the most eminent Black leaders have already stated that they will not be prepared to do this. We on this side of the House, as we have said more than once inside and outside this House, have no doubt that the federal or confederal idea has the best chance of succeeding in the South Africa of the future, because it makes provision as far as is possible for maximum division of political power on a geographical basis, while all population groups retain their co-participation in the wealth and economic opportunities of South Africa. What we would like to emphasize in this debate is that we propose that the land provisions of the 1936 Act be carried out. It is obvious that the situation of the land can be debated and that people can have doubts about the where and the how, but no doubt can exist about the principle of the implementation of the 1936 Act, nor about the fact that we are in favour of it. I am sorry to say that the Government deserves no particular praise for only now, after it has been in office for 27 years, having come so far as to fulfil its meagre obligations in this regard. In so far as the proposals of the hon. the Minister implement the provisions of the 1936 Act, for what it was intended to mean, it is therefore consistent with our own policy, and therefore we obviously have no objection to it. In the second place, it must be repeated that we do not regard the 1936 legislation as being anything more than it was. The 1936 legislation was not a division of States, as I have already indicated. It was not a final political or constitutional partition. But I must add that there can be no objection in principle to a political division, provided it takes place on the basis of co-operation and agreement between the White and Black peoples concerned, and therefore, it is included in our policy, and this has been emphasized repeatedly in this House, that if an administrative unit, such as the Transkei, wants to venture outside the constitutional framework of the Republic, and that is the declared and unambiguous wish of the Xhosas or whatever Black people might be involved, we on this side of the House will not stand in the way of such development. We are clear about that. But, Sir, the emphasis of our approach falls on co-operation and on agreement. What people decide in peace, in goodwill and in agreement with one another, ought not to be unacceptable to anybody.

But from this a third standpoint arises and this is that we are opposed—and this affects our attitude to this particular proposal—to the forced uprooting, the shifting of people against their will, in the implementation of a one-sided political plan. This side of the House has always been opposed—this is not a new attitude— to the forced removal of people against their will under the Group Areas Act. We are just as opposed in principle to the removal of masses of Black people, where ever and whenever that might take place, without their co-operation and to serve a unilateral White scheme. Forced removal is a form of political violence and we are opposed to the application of any form …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Unfortunately my time has almost expired and I want to make another point. We are opposed to the application of any form of violence in solving human issues, be it physical violence or political violence. These proposals are generally known as consolidation proposals, but that is not really correct. These proposals are, in fact, of a consolidatory nature, but they have nothing to do with real consolidation. Is it not correct that when these proposals are implemented—and we do not know how long that is still going to take—KwaZulu will still be a patchwork of ten scattered pieces, Bophuthatswana of six scattered pieces, Lebowa of six, Gazankulu of four, Ciskei of three, and Venda and the Transkei of two each—a leopard skin, as the hon. member for Port Natal called it. I just want to come back to the argument of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, viz. that Denmark consists of a group of islands and that KwaZulu can also, therefore, become an independent state. Sir, the hon. member is a doctor and I think that in his own interests he had better leave that argument alone. There is no comparison. There is no foreign state which is sandwiched in between the different islands of Denmark. Even the ocean between the islands is not an international zone. How one can use such a comparison, absolutely amazes me. The hon. member also referred to America. Sir, America is a powerful unified state, an economic giant with a population of 200 million people. That central part is a unitary state. The hon. member makes the ridiculous statement that since two areas such as Alaska and Hawaii want to join the might heartland of America, this is comparable to such a patchwork quilt as KwaZulu. I do not think that there is any chance that the fragments of KwaZulu as it exists at the moment, will be accepted by either the Zulus or anybody who has a grounding in politics, as an internationally recognized state. If the Government wants us to attach any credibility to its policy of separate States, then it will have to produce plans which will overcome these problems. The hon. member speaks of an historic day. Sir, it could have been an historic day …

It is one.

No, it is not one, because we are not anywhere near that day; it could have been an historic day if the hon. the Minister had told us of the formation of States this evening and told us that he is taking steps to form States. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that KwaZulu will be a State after these proposals? No, it could have been an historic day, but the hon. the Minister and the Government have failed to make this a really historic day.

I just want to mention the principal approach of this side of the House in respect of these measures. I repeat: We are in favour of the implementation of the 1936 Act, because it is a United Party Act, after all. We regard the 1936 Act, however, not as an Act of State-forming. That is yet to come, and if the Government is serious about the policy, then it must still bring practical proposals of State formation to this House. In the third place, I say again that our fundamental standpoint is that we are opposed to the forced removal of people. Our standpoint is that all steps in the implementation of White/ Black policy, in the implementation of White/Black relations, should take place on the basis of negotiation and agreement between the various population groups.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began his speech with an astonishing statement, a statement which one did not expect from a person who professes to be an intelligent politician.

He does not have a drop of philosophy in him.

The idea that a Black man could one day become the Prime Minister of this entire country because it is within the power of this Government, is really absolute nonsense. One does not expect this from an intelligent politician. Sir, that statement is in no way comparable with the admission of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, under their present policy, it would be possible for a Black man to become Prime Minister. Surely to say that it is within our power to take such a decision, when this is not our policy at all, is utter nonsense.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has once again presented his idea of a federation or a confederation. This is a new term which he is suddenly using now. Since he has changed parties so many times, and since the word “confederal” is being used so frequently by Mr. Gerdener, the leader of the Democratic Party, I wonder whether there might not be a new kind of “talk-in” in progress between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the leader of the Democratic Party.

The hon. member said that it had not been foreseen in 1936 that a political partition would take place in this country. It may be true that this was not directly foreseen in the 1936 legislation, but with that legislation the foundations for separate political development were laid. If that had not been the case, why is it then that the Bantu were removed from the common voters’ roll in 1936, almost simultaneously to the determination of the quota of land which was to have been purchased for the Bantu? It is true that provisional provision was made at that stage for representation for the Bantu in this Parliament by three White representatives, but only for the Cape Bantu, not for the Bantu of the other provinces. It was done on such a basis that there would at least be a measure of political representation in this House for the Bantu, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will surely admit that it was an unacceptable political dispensation, for if one gives a permanent minority representation in this House to a numerical majority, one is creating a status for those representatives without any attendant responsibility, and if one creates a status without responsibility, one is laying the foundation for agitation. Is it any wonder that Mr. Sam Kahn was elected as one of those three representatives, and that it was in fact those three representatives, who had the status but no responsibility, who excelled as people who did not have a sense of responsibility in respect of the voters as a whole? They could ask for anything, knowing that they would not be called to account. That system is quite unacceptable. But I have other matters which I want to deal with. [Interjections.]

In the first place I want to make one thing very clear, and that is that the policy of the National Party does not envisage isolation into separate, watertight compartments, with no liaison whatsoever between Whites and Bantu in South Africa. We are laying the foundation for the separate national existence on political, social and economic levels of the various national groups. The communities which will be established on these foundations will inevitably, for the sake of their own common welfare and progress on all three levels, i.e. the political, economic and social levels, have to liaise and co-operate and be interdependent. Just as there is close economic co-operation, regular political liaison and voluntary liaison on numerous other levels in Europe, which consists of independent sovereign states, so there will similarly have to be economic co-operation and political liaison between these various national groups in Southern Africa.

We must also expect a difficult interim phase in the transitional period, an interim phase in which an adjustment of relationships will have to be made; and just as individuals pass through a difficult adolescent phase, so there will also, in most cases, be an interim phase for the various nations when they pass through that adolescent phase.

Tell us about the Drakensberg.

But having passed through this interim phase, a greater measure of maturity, responsibility and probably moderation will subsequently be developed. What is important is that there is a fundamental goodwill towards all national groups in Southern Africa among us. We accept that after this phase we shall have to co-operate as free equals, and we also accept that we as Whites are Afrikaners in the widest sense of the word, that we are Africa-bound and rooted in Africa, a nation whose destinies are irrevocably and inextricably bound up with the weal and woe of Africa.

Come to the point.

I am coming now to the question of KwaZulu as such. Both the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Houghton said that they should like to know what my standpoint in this regard is. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi is making too many interjections.

Sir, it is generally known that I devoted myself with full dedication to the complete resettlement of the Bantu of the so-called mountain locations. In this endeavour I had the wholehearted support not only of my constituency, but also of the Natal Agricultural Union, buttressed by two unanimous decisions taken by congresses in successive years, and also of the National Party congresses and even of the two biggest daily newspapers in Natal, the Daily News and the Natal Mercury. I do not want to speak on behalf of the United Party, but the United Party members who were directly interested in these matters also supported the idea of a complete resettlement of the Bantu from the mountain locations. But what is of importance is that there was unanimity, such as was probably not to be found in any other province in regard to any consolidation matter, on one aspect, namely the desirability of re-settlement, the desirability of the removal of those locations. There was unanimity concerning that aspect. However, there was no unanimity concerning the area to which they should be moved. Nor was there any unanimity on what should in fact happen to the Bantu in those areas who had to be resettled. It is easy to be unanimous on the desirability of resettlement. Now the United Party has moved an amendment requesting that the 1973 proposals be accepted. This does not have the support of the Natal Agricultural Union. The standpoint of the Natal Agricultural Union was that for the sake of the conservation of the water resources in that entire area there should be complete resettlement. The standpoint of the farmers’ associations of that area was that they were asking for total re-settlement, not because of local interests, but in the national interests. If the United Party is now requesting that we return to the 1973 plan, then they are no longer acting in accordance with the request of the agricultural union, nor in accordance with the request of the farmers’ association of that region, nor in accordance with the request of all the parties concerned which have requested complete resettlement. They are acting in the interests of certain individual farmers who are affected by this. It was never the idea with this legislation to act in the interests of individual farmers and individual owners. If action has to be taken, action is taken in the national interest, and in view of what is essential for the common welfare of all the parties concerned.

One thing should be very dear. When I worked to achieve complete resettlement, it was for the sake of the better consolidation of the Whites as well as the Bantu areas. In this area approximately 100 000 Bantu are living in impoverished circumstances, for 90% of them are the dependants of migrant labourers working on the Witwatersrand, in Durban and elsewhere. The subsistence farming which is practised in the area is not conducive to water and soil conservation. There are no natural work opportunities for the people. During the past month 1 400 Bantu were laid off from those industries which do exist in Estcourt as a result of the economic recession in different sectors, and particularly in the export sector. There are no natural work opportunities for them but these can be created artifically. However, if they have to be created artificially, they must just as well be created artificially elsewhere, in an area in which they can be resettled and can form part of their community as a whole. Therefore my standpoint, based on the national advantage for the Whites as well as the Bantu, was that complete resettlement should take place. This would never have been supported by the hon. member for Houghton, nor by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but what is in fact of importance, is that these proposals which I put forward, could be discussed on all levels and in all spheres by everyone involved.

All practical considerations were taken into account, and the Cabinet decided, on the basis of information which was available to it, that at this stage it was not practical to embody the proposals which I had put forward in the final consolidation proposals. I accept that the Cabinet is in a more favourable position to see the over-all picture, and is therefore better able to take a responsible decision in the light of the present circumstances. [Interjections.] I accept this because I know that the Cabinet has more information about this matter and because, as the hon. the Minister said today, one of the important considerations was that there should not at this stage be an unnecessary resettlement of too many people. There are 100 000 Bantu living in this area. Three principal tribes are settled there, and there are such conflicts among these tribes that it is not easy to resettle them in any area. They cannot be resettled in any area because there is, in addition, a historic conflict between the tribes of this area and those of the heartland area in KwaZulu. There are practical considerations involved and I accept that the Cabinet, after having taken all the circumstances into account, is in a better position to take this responsible decision.

We should also accept that in the course of history there are circumstances which change from time to time. A few weeks ago the hon. the Minister of Information said that there was nothing to prevent more negotiations taking place at a later stage between the KwaZulu Government and the White Government on the possible exchange of territory, if the circumstances for such exchanges were opportune. Personally I am of the opinion that unless work is artificially provided in this area, the desirability of there being a further exchange of land will in due course present itself. I am of the opinion that the possibility does exist that a subsequent exchange may take place, but it is important that the 1936 legislation be implemented in terms of these proposals. In this way the quota of land which has to be given to the Bantu is being met.

The 48 Bantu areas in Natal are now being reduced to ten areas. Obviously this is not an ideal situation, and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said today that this was not the ideal. He said the ideal would be to have one area. There are people in Natal who still say that the ideal situation would be to take the Buffalo River and the Tugela River as a boundary and to give everything situated to the north of that line to KwaZulu. These people are perhaps being idealistic, but they are not practical realists. Probably too, they are not living in that area. That would be entirely impossible, and that is why we have to take into consideration that although there are ideals and although I have endeavoured to achieve certain ideals, there are practical circumstances as well which have to be taken into consideration. I trust therefore that the Opposition will under no circumstances find any comfort in the honest statement of my standpoint, a stand-point which I have also stated this evening in this debate. If it differs in certain respects from the proposed report, it may be that I differ with the details, but I never, never differ from the policy of the National Party which wishes to effect an ideal consolidation.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party has been conspicuous by its absence at all the great milestones which have been achieved in South African history, and they have opposed all the great ideals along South Africa’s road of development. When South Africa had to decide whether it should become a Republic, the United Party opposed this tooth and nail. Today that party accepts this Republic of South Africa. They have discovered that the National Party, at that stage, did right by South Africa. While we are this evening on the verge of achieving another great milestone in the development of South Africa, the United Party is also opposing the plans which have now been submitted to this hon. House. I am convinced that in future the United Party will have no other choice but to accept these proposals which will lead to the creation of residential areas for the Black people as realities. In future they will also decide that the National Party did the right thing, and acted in the interests of South Africa.

We have proposals before us which tell the Black peoples of South Africa where their fatherlands are in which they may go and live, and in which they may go and live as they wish. The proposals tell them that they may govern themselves in those areas and that they may become autonomous, independent states. The hon. member for Albany said this evening that it is impossible to have more than one sovereign authority in one State structure, and he quoted the words of Gen. Smuts in that regard. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also had a great deal to say about these matters here this evening, and said that it was impossible. However, I should like to quote here this evening from a speech made by the late Gen. Hertzog, when he was Prime Minister of South Africa and the leader of that party in this House. When the Bantu Trust and Land Act was before this House in 1936, he said (Hansard, 20 May 1936 column 4085)—

That is what the leader of the United Party said in 1936 when this legislation was introduced.

I should like to refer to the amendment moved here by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. In it he requests that specific items of the report be referred to the Government for reconsideration. In other words, the United Party rejects these specific items in the report. I should like to refer to certain items in the report, which are rejected by the amendment moved by the hon. member, viz. items (iv), (v) and (vi) in Schedule B, I. Cape Province. I should like to quote the definitions of the areas concerned, as they appear in the reports. Item (iv) deals with the following portion of the district of Kuruman—

Item (v) relates to the following area—

The area defined in item (vi) is also situated in the district of Kuruman, viz.—

The areas defined in this way are very well known to me.

To me as well.

The hon. member for Durban Central says that that area is very well known to him as well and I am glad that this is the case. I hope the hon. member for Benoni, who has fought a considerable number of unsuccessful elections in Kuruman, is also aware of the situation there. In this House today the Opposition has kicked up a great fuss about the matter of consultation. They want to know whether the Government consulted the Black and White people concerned in respect of certain areas which have been declared to be released areas, and also in respect of areas from which the Bantu have to be moved. I should like to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana what individuals and what bodies had been consulted by the United Party before they voted against these specific items in the Select Committee and resolved to adopt the attitude in their amendment that the said items be referred back to the Government for reconsideration. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is sitting motionless now. He does not want to react to this. I also want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whether he and the United Party caucus have perhaps consulted the Agricultural Union of Kuruman, or any other body, or even the United Party in Kuruman, before they rejected these items. Did he consult the few remaining United Party supporters who are still to be found in Kuruman?

Why did you not allow evidence to be heard by the Select Committee?

We are talking about consultation now. I asked the hon. member whether he had consulted these people. Since the hon. member might not have had the opportunity of liaising with local bodies in Kuruman, I want to ask the hon. member whether he consulted Senator Swanepoel, his colleague in the Senate, before he brought his proposals to this House. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Central, who was born in Kuruman and grew up there and who is consequently familiar with the circumstances there, was consulted before he moved as an amendment that the matter be referred back to the Government? If that hon. member had consulted Senator Swanepoel, or perhaps the hon. member for Durban Central or someone who knows something about this matter and who is familiar with these areas, he would not have come to this House with such absurd proposals. These proposals are ill-conceived, because they are adopting an attitude here with regard to an area which they know nothing about.

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

No, I do not have time now. [Interjections.]

Order!

If that hon. member, who is a detribalized person from the Kuruman area …

Answer my question then.

If that hon. member would only listen, I shall reply to his question. After all, I know what he wants to ask. I want to illustrate that these proposals made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana are ill-conceived, and that he knows absolutely nothing about these areas. Nor was there any consultation whatsoever on their part in respect of these areas. These proposals of theirs are a smokescreen to try to camouflage the division in their own ranks. These proposals are an attempt to outbid the Progressive Party. This amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana proposes that items (v) and (vi) of Schedule B be referred back to the Government for reconsideration. The hon. member for Durban Central must listen now, for this evening his party objected, and asked that these areas be reconsidered because this involved a removal of large numbers of Black people. Therefore they are requesting further consultation. These two portions of the Kuruman Crown Reserve and the Lower Kuruman Reserve, both portions situate to the south of the Kuruman-Hotazel Road, are those portions referred to in these two items. No Bantu are living on either of these two small portions.

And now?

The absurdity of this proposal lies therein that the United Party is objecting to those two small areas being made White areas in order to make the Kuruman-Hotazel tarred road the boundary between White and Tswana area, but they have no objection to area No. 74 on Map B, that portion of the farm Gamohaan, situate to the north of the Kuruman-Hotazel Road. They have no objection to this area being declared a released area. I want to invite those hon. members, and any of their colleagues as well—yes, the hon. member for Durban Central as well —to come and explain this proposal in Kuruman. I want to give them the assurance that their people are going to laugh at them. I think his own father will laugh at him if he arrives there with such a ridiculous proposal. All the proposals contained in this report are the unaimous wish and request of all the bodies in and around Kuruman. If the Opposition had only consulted its own people, who know something about this area, they would not have come to this hon. House with such absurd proposals. I also want to refer to the area to the south of the Vryburg-Kuruman tarred road, but unfortunately the time at my disposal has elapsed.

I should like to conclude by thanking our hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh if they like. The office of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister was open at all times to the inhabitants of this area of the Northern Cape, so that they could submit reports and bring their requests, and these were always listened to with a sympathetic ear. We say thank you very much for that. We in the Northern Cape, both the National Party and the United Party, support the proposals contained in this report unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, what is particularly striking about the contributions by hon. members on the other side, are the excessive claims they make to the efficiency and also to the practicability of the homeland policy of the Government. We have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down, that today is a special day. We have also heard from the hon. member for Aliwal that today is an historical day. I think history will decide whether those hon. members are correct or not. As I see it, the historical day of this session and perhaps of this decade, is not the declaration which the hon. the Minister made today, but the declaration which he made two weeks ago when he said that the Government accepts the permanency of the Blacks in the cities of South Africa.

Are you quoting my words now?

He said that this was in a casual capacity. However, he accepts the permanency of those people.

Those are not my words.

As a result of this the Government is prepared to grant them certain freehold rights. That is the historical day in this House. [Interjections.] That declaration reflected a shift of the emphasis in Government policy. [Interjections.] That is an historical day and that day had nothing to do with the implementation of the old Hertzog policy of 1936 in regard to which a new approach was forced upon the Government by the facts of South Africa. Another hon. member said that these recommendations proved that we could give geographical substance to the policy of multi-nationalism. Have a look at the map. Hon. members need only look at the map of the consolidated Bantu areas. There they will find proof that one cannot give geographical substance to the policy of the Government. This is the truth—that one cannot give geographical substance to that policy. It goes without saying that because this debate is concerned with the purchase of land in terms of the 1936 dispensation, an historical background may be attached to it.

†The Progressive Party naturally have an historical view on this matter because it was a resolution on land passed at a United Party congress in 1959 that triggered off the split in the United Party and led to the formation of the Progressive Party.

You mean that was your camouflage.

What was the occasion which the Leader of the United Party indicated in a statement was the one which triggered off that split? What I find surprising about the hon. member for Durban Point was his extreme sensitivity this afternoon when the hon. member for Houghton pointed out the crude “Swart gevaar” propaganda that was used by the United Party in Natal in particular in regard to the purchase of land round about the 1959 period. That was the stock-in-trade of senior United Party politicians.

Produce some evidence.

It was their stock-in-trade to run up and down Northern Natal and to say: “To purchase land now that the Government has declared it for Bantustans is an act of treachery against South Africa.” That was the burden of the propaganda. The United Party has changed its policy just as the Nationalist Party has changed its policy in relation to Port St. Johns. I do not know why the hon. member for Durban Point is so sensitive when one points out that he has changed his policy radically.

I am not sensitive; I don’t like lies.

You have a short memory.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a change in United Party policy.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Durban Point permitted to suggest that the hon. member for Sea Point is speaking untruths?

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban Point suggest that the hon. member for Sea Point was telling a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I said: “I am not sensitive; I don’t like lies.”

“Liars.”

I said “lies”.

Order! Was the hon. member referring to any hon. member in this House?

No. The hon. member said I was sensitive and I said: “I am not sensitive; I don’t like lies.”

You said “liars”.

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a change and I do not know why the United Party is so sensitive about the change. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana issued a statement in which he said that the land under the 1936 settlement should be purchased without delay. However, until that statement was made, the policy of the United Party was just the opposite. While the United Party paid lip service to the pledge, in fact. …

That is quite untrue.

I will read the resolution, and I will read Sir De Villiers Graaff’s explanation—

That was the one part of the double talk. The other part of the double talk was—

Read the introduction.

I have said the introduction concedes that you must buy the land, but the second leg of the resolution says in effect that having declared our intention, we will now say that we will not purchase that land. The voting pattern of that party over the years has been to oppose the purchase of land in this House. [Interjections.] Sir De Villiers Graaff, explaining his party’s attitude, said—

This is still the policy of the National Party, but now the United Party says, “It does not matter whether it is the policy of the Nationalists; we are now going to purchase the land”. I am delighted that the United Party has changed its policy, but why the sensitivity when this is referred to and when they are congratulated? They have changed their policy, but I think the hon. members on that side still owe it to this House to explain why they are not prepared to endorse the purchase of land at Port St. Johns and why they want to refer this back. They can talk about the question of compensation, but that is covered by leg No. 3 of their amendment. Why refer the issue of whether the land at Port St. Johns should be purchased back to the Government?

To settle conditions and compensation.

I am speaking of Port St. Johns.

So am I.

Yes, but you will not endorse the purchase of land at Port St. Johns.

We have given you the reasons why.

Now the hon. member says he will not purchase the land. Before it was just a question of referring it back to the Government. Referring it back for what purpose?

Have you not heard the debate?

We have heard the debate. [Interjections.] Perhaps it should be left to the hon. member for Edenvale to explain in concise terms why he in fact does support, personally, the purchase of that land. But, perhaps, under the strain of the Whip he is going to have to say that he does not support the purchase of the land. [Interjections.] There has been a shift, but under the pressure of facing the White electorate the United Party once again uses double talk and it compromises on the important issue of the purchase of land.

I would like to make the attitude of this party clear once more. We have all along, since we were formed in 1959, been in favour of the purchase of land under the 1936 Act. We have made this quite clear. We believe that this land should be purchased because it was a pledge made by a White Parliament to the Black people of South Africa that it would be purchased.

Even under compulsion?

That was the pledge that was given by the White Parliament. It was not asked for by the Black electorate. We believe that, whatever the circumstances, that pledge has to be made good. I see that the hon. the Minister is looking very pleased with himself. May I say that we are pleased that the Government are, at long last, purchasing this land, but the hon. the Minister still has to explain why they waited 27 years before purchasing the land. I think it is a great pity that the hon. the Minister did not take this action much earlier.

Secondly, we have, all along, been totally opposed to the forced removal of people without their consent.

As long as they are Black.

I was waiting for the right wing to emerge once again. I have noticed how they have taken a delight in the embarrassment of certain hon. members of the National Party who represent constituencies where some Whites are to give up certain of their land. [Interjections.] I know it is despicable. I know they will be running around Natal once again. In Ladysmith and in other parts they will say: “Just look what the Government is doing.” I do not have much sympathy with the Government in general, but I think the attitude of individual members of the Government in this debate who said that they were prepared to face their constituents whose land is to be purchased because it is in the interest of South Africa is a commendable one. I think it is a commendable one and I am not ashamed to say it. Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in the forced removal of people without their consent. When it comes to the White community, their consent is given through this Parliament. In 1936 it was the White community, through the United Party—and this was proudly acclaimed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—who decided that people should be moved. It was the decision of the White Parliament and the White United Party that this should happen. I certainly feel very sorry for the individuals, but this is the case where the White Parliament and the United Party decided that this must be done in the interests of South Africa. I believe that where there is consent through the representatives of the community, this has to be acknowledged. Thirdly, Sir, I think there is a case for saying that there should be adequate compensation and that once it has been decided to purchase the land, it should be acquired quickly. On that ground we support the third leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Sir, we believe that there should be proper consultation and we are not impressed by the explanation which the hon. the Minister has given us up to this stage. We would like to put specific questions to him about this consultation, because consultation cannot simply mean telling the Black people what you are going to do. It must involve discussion between people. It must involve a consideration of alternatives and it must end up with an agreement, otherwise consultation is of very little value. Because the Black people are vitally affected, not only because many thousands of them are going to have to move, but because in terms of Government policy the land going to form the basis of their future constitutional independence, these proposals should not be forced through without the agreement of the Black community. What kind of Government is it that says, “We are going to force independence on you”, on the basis of a land consolidation which may not have your support? Sir, the hon. the Minister must tell us what form of consultation there was. Who undertook this consultation in respect of each of the homelands; when was it undertaken, and where was it undertaken? Were the proposals first put in draft form for consideration by the Black people, or were they put to them in such a way that they had to accept them whether they liked them or not? What was the attitude of the individual Black homeland Governments? Did they express views in opposition to the plans? What is the view of the Governments of the eight homelands in relation to the purchase of this land? Finally, what about alternatives? If there was a discussion with the homeland leaders and if objections were raised, were any alternatives put, and what was the attitude of the homeland leaders to these alternatives? Finally, Sir—and this is the crux of the matter—was there any agreement? Was the agreement of the homeland leaders found in relation to these consolidation proposals? This is an absolutely crucial matter. It is for this reason that the hon. member for Houghton has added the fourth leg to the amendment standing in her name.

Sir, we believe that this land should be purchased. We are opposed to the wholesale removal of people. We believe that there should be adequate compensation, but we also believe that these proposals should not be forced through without receiving the prior approval of the homeland Governments, who in the long run, in terms of Government policy, are going to have to be responsible for these territories.

And if the homelands reject it?

Sir, we believe in essence that these purchases should be supported, because they are being made in fulfilment of a pledge. That is the key to our reason for supporting these proposals. The Government says that this is the end of the purchase of land and that this is the end of consolidation. I think it is appropriate to look at one or two of the other claims which Government members have made in relation to the purchase of land. The first question to be answered is this: Is the land which is now being purchased and in which is the final land to be purchased for Black occupation, adequate to meet the socio-economic needs of the Black communities of South Africa? Quite clearly, in this regard these proposals fail hopelessly. These territories already cannot carry the Black populations living there. They are starved of capital …

Where do you get that from?

Sir, you only have to look at the income earned within these areas to realize that they cannot support their populations. You only have to take note of the fact that millions of Black people are leaving those territories to go and work in so-called White South Africa.

But not because of the ground.

Sir, I am talking of the total situation. These areas cannot support the populations there. There is a lack of capital; there is a lack of infrastructure for development, and there is a lack at the moment of trained personnel. Sir, hon. members on the other side will say that these things can be remedied, but in fact they cannot be remedied. They cannot be remedied to any extent because the homelands, whatever else they may be, cannot be developed as socio-economic units in competition with the already established industrial areas of South Africa. This is the problem. You cannot develop these areas satisfactorily in competition with the established industrial areas of South Africa. The rate of growth and development of the homelands will depend on the rate of development of the existing industrial areas in South Africa. It will depend on the growth in the cities of South Africa. So we are going to see an increasing disparity between the wealth in the homelands on the one hand and the wealth of the cities on the other. We are going to see an increasing over-population of the homelands and an increasing adverse disparity in the capital invested in the two areas of South Africa, and we will see an increasing disparity in the infrastructure and the number of trained personnel. One only has to refer back to the report of the Tomlinson Commission to see how little can really be done within the homelands, even if one had accepted all the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission way back in 1954. That commission made certain specific recommendations which it said were crucial. It said that in the first 10 years millions and millions of rands would have to be invested there in order to provide the infrastructure. It said in addition that White capital and know-how under certain conditions had to be given access to the homelands. It said that 50% of the people ordinarily resident there had to be taken off the land and resettled in towns and villages, and it said that the Government had to start phasing out the tribal system of land tenure. It also said that this had to be tackled in the spirit in which the reconstruction of Europe was tackled after the world war. What I want to say is this. Even if the Government had done all the things which Tomlinson suggested—and it has done virtually none of these things he suggested after 20 years—Tomlinson then said that the homelands would only have a carrying capacity 25 years later, i.e. in 1990, of something like 10 million people and that one would always have more Black people effectively living and working outside of the homeland areas. This was the finding of the Tomlinson Commission which put a most sympathetic gloss on what could be done in these areas. The fact is that the Government has not implemented the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, and I do not believe it was because of a lack of enthusiasm. I do not want to suggest that it was because the Government did not want to do it. The bald fact is that it has not been able to do so because this is in conflict with the harsh economic realities of South Africa. It cannot do it and it has not done it. So, after 20 years, the disparity in wealth and progress between the homeland areas and the non-homeland areas in South Africa has increased. The hon. the Minister will know that in real terms the income per capita earned within the homelands has dropped over the past 20 years. What the Blacks have had to do is to move outside the homelands in order to acquire money and in order to sustain living in the homelands. The Government is aware that the rate of investment of capital is growing faster in the non-homeland areas than in the homeland areas. When we look at the last Budget we see that there was a considerable sum for capital development made available in the homelands, R385 million out of a Loan Account of R5 000 million. In the private sector the imbalance is getting worse and worse. If one looks at the gross domestic product, the relationship between the gross domestic product in the rest of South Africa and in the homelands, the gap is widening all the time. So these are not the answers to the socio-economic problems of the Black communities of South Africa. That is why we believe that while we should purchase this land because of the commitment under the 1936 Act, other land in the rest of South Africa, in the urban areas and in the rural areas, will have to be made available for occupation in the ordinary way of the word to the Black people of South Africa. They will have to share the rest of South Africa with us and they will have to share the economic opportunity which goes with it. There can be no solution by pegging ownership to the homelands only, and the Government will have to accept that the whole of South Africa will in due course have to be made available to all the peoples of South Africa.

Secondly, one asks whether the consolidation and the additional purchases as we have before us today form a territorial basis for viable constitutional entities in terms of the Government’s homeland policy. Do these areas, in terms of the map which we have before us, really form viable territorial entities for future independent homelands? Quite clearly one only has to glance at the map to realize that this can never happen. This cannot happen because, first of all, the many administrative units of the independent territories—the degree of fragmentation—will make independence for administrative purposes quite impossible. It is all very well to talk about islands in the sea, but in this situation one will have to pass over the sovereign territory of other countries to get to various parts of one’s own country. This is an untenable position. One has to look at the map to realize that this is not the last word and that there are going to be further changes. If Port St. Johns falls naturally into the Transkei then I maintain that Richards Bay one day is going to fall equally naturally into the State of KwaZulu. It is quite impossible to contemplate keeping that little White “kolletjie” over there in a future White South Africa.

What about Durban? [Interjections.]

I would also include the corridor from East London to Queenstown. In historical terms that is not going to survive. One can take the corridor through Pietersburg and Potgietersrus. That is also not going to survive indefinitely.

And Durban? What about Durban?

Why will they not survive?

History will show that you cannot separate people in this manner. If you are going to create a constitutional entity of these homelands, the urge to consolidate is going to be far greater than the legal restrictions which are being placed upon by such consolidation by the House at this time. The hon. the Minister as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have to negotiate because if you are going to create viable territorial entities then this degree of consolidation is hopelessly inadequate.

And you will support the hon. the Minister, won’t you?

These proposed areas do not provide a permanent home for the majority of the citizens of the homelands. I want to move from the general in that statement to the particular.

But tell us if you will support the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should really like to ask the hon. member to let me make my speech.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

I want to raise the issue of just one of the homelands of which the hon. the Minister is so proud, the homeland of Basotho QwaQwa. There are 1,5 million people who are credited to that homeland and yet in that homeland live only about 25 000 to 30 000 people on two farms in a valley near Witzieshoek. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes that these final consolidation plans create a viable homeland which can become an independent State for the 1,5 million people of the South Sotho community. [Interjections.] Do they? The hon. the Minister says that these plans are final. Does he really believe that? Does he say perhaps that because there are only 1,5 million of them they do not need a homeland and that we can still keep them under control since we shall have the numerical majority in the rest of White South Africa? I put it to the hon. the Minister: Does he really believe that these consolidation plans for Basotho QwaQwa provide the basis for independence for the South Sotho people?

If one wants to pursue a policy such as the hon. the Minister and the Government are pursuing, then one must contemplate a radical partition of South Africa sharing not only the land but the natural resources and the wealth of South Africa. Nothing can be more dangerous to South Africa—this goes for Blacks. Browns and Whites—than to have a series of impoverished, land-hungry, aggrieved Bantustans dependent upon their wealthy and powerful neighbour for their economic existence. This is the very ingredient of international tension and yet this is what the Government will cause if it pursues its policy with this limited degree of consolidation. [Interjections.]

Order!

These territories could form the nucleus of constitutional entities but not of viable independent homelands. These territories could form the nucleus of self-governing provinces or states within a geographic federation of South Africa. One could redraw the boundaries taking these areas into account. One could redraw the boundaries in such a way as to reflect a community or diversity of interests but within each of these states all of the people, whether they be Black or Brown, should be citizens of those states, citizens of those provinces and should share equally in the opportunities which those states or provinces provide. We believe that you can use these areas as the nucleus of the new political dispensation of a geographic federation in South Africa.

I want to refer to the irony of the situation as far as the Government is concerned. I believe, whatever the Government does, that these areas are going to end up being multi-racial just as the rest of South Africa is going to end up being multi-racial. Already the so-called White South Africa has Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and two weeks ago the hon. the Minister admitted the permanent presence of Black people as well. So in that part of South Africa he concedes the multi-nationalism of the total community. Already the homeland Governments are saying that as far as they are concerned they will permit their territories upon becoming independent to become multi-racial as well.

That will be their decision.

The irony is that all this moving of people and all this tremendous waste of money to pursue a constitutional goal can be done to fulfil a pledge but it does not satisfy the constitutional goal because in the end many of these territories are going to become multiracial. Some of them have indicated that they are going to have a Bill of Rights which will protect all people against discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. The hon. the Minister knows that in the plans for the greater Umtata there is already the concept of some 50 000 White people being part of a new city. This is already being acknowledged. So, when the Government has completed all its plans for ethnic tidiness in South Africa at a cost of millions of rands and the moving of tens of thousands of people, the natural forces of the South African society are going to undo the things which the legislation of the Nationalist Party has done. We say that the land can be purchased as part of a pledge, as a quid pro quo for political rights which were taken away, but do not let us and particularly hon. members opposite be deluded into believing that this really provides the basis for a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa. It does not meet the socio-economic needs of the Black people. It does not provide an effective geographic basis for viable independent homelands. In any case, it can never be a substitute for the equitable sharing of wealth, opportunity and responsibility, in government as well, by all those people. Whether they are Blacks, Browns or Whites and whether they have different ethnic, racial, religious or cultural backgrounds, all of them are in due course going to have to share equal citizens in whatever South Africa has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, we shall believe the hon. member for Sea Point if he and his party members sell all the assets they control, all the assets in respect of which they can exercise an influence, and distribute the proceeds among the citizens of that homeland, about whom the hon. member is concerned, for he has just, in his concluding sentence, been talking about an “equitable sharing of wealth”. That is radical language, and we know that the hon. member is on his way to a concept which is known among radical thinkers as a “radical redistribution of power, wealth and land”. During the remainder of this session of Parliament we shall see those hon. members speaking this language even more clearly.

Let us test the credibility of the hon. member for Sea Point further, and I want to concede to him that he has this. The hon. member says that they are honour bound to implement the 1936 Act. In fact, they walked out when, in 1959, the former hon. member for South Coast did not want to implement the 1936 Act any further. Now I want to put a question to him this evening. He advocated here that there ought to be discussion concerning what land should be involved here and what boundary lines should be drawn—at least I take it that that is what he was advocating. If those people with, whom he wants to hold consultations do not want to accept what is offered to them, and he still wants to keep his promise, what is he going to do?

He must ask Harry.

Is he going to ask the hon. member for Yeoville?

Are you saying that you do not agree that there should be consultation?

The hon. member spoke here of the socio-economic needs of the homelands. He did not advance a plea in this regard for the sake of the homelands as such, but because he wanted to arrive at the argument that space would have to be provided in the rural areas of the White area which would afford them greater viability. In other words, although we know that more than half of all the Bantu in South Africa are already living in the homelands, this hon. gentleman does not concern himself about that, but about what he is envisaging, namely to achieve his political objectives. He is concerned about nothing more, and nothing less. The hon. member did not take cognisance of questions which were asked here by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is interested in mining—I do not know why —put a question in regard to mining in the homelands, and the reply given to him by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was that there were a certain number of mines in the various homelands. In Lebowa, he said, there were 19 mines, and Bophuthatswana 25. When the hon. the Prime Minister opened the legislative assemblies of the latter, specific reference was made to this exceptionally strong source of revenue which exists in the homelands. This is not a myth, for over and above the mines in Vendaland, Gazankulu and KwaZulu, 61 000 Bantu are already working on mines in Bophuthatswana. I see the hon. member is now asking the hon. member for Houghton for advice.

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

I shall give the hon. member time to ask his question at the end of my speech, if there is any time left. We can continue to refer in this way to speeches made on various occasions by inter alia the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development in which he pointed out the viability and the socio-economic possibilities of the various homelands. In a speech at East London on 30 November 1974 he made the simple statement—the hon. member can test the truth of this statement, by way of consultation with homeland leaders —that the present grain yeild in the Transvaal and the Ciskei is 223 bags per hectare. He also said that if they were merely to double this, there could be a surplus. The potential in the Eastern Province is as much as anything between 30 to 60 bags per hectare under dry-land conditions. If the yield in the Ciskei and the Transkei could be increased to 20 bags per morgen, these two homelands would be able to compete with the Republic, something we should like to have happen. In a speech made on 7 November 1973 in Durban, when he was addressing a conference, he made the following point in regard to KwaZulu, namely that their production at the moment in respect of stock breeding, sugar cultivation, the cultivation of cash crops, fruit-growing, forestry and animal husbandry, earned this homeland R17,1 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister established scientifically that the potential was R 100,7 million. And yet the hon. member tells us here that these homelands are not socio-economically viable.

The hon. member also had a lot to say here about how the homelands cannot be regarded as territorial units. He does not know his history. He spoke about the size and shape of the areas, of territorial expansion, etc., but does he know that the 22 countries of Western Europe and the Near East underwent no territorial expansion up to and including 1814, and that only Italy and Yugoslavia changed their boundaries after that? So I can mention one example after another of countries in those areas of which the territorial boundaries had to remain unchanged because there was simply no more land left. That was the situation before the industrial upsurge in Europe took place. In other words, there was no prospect whatsoever of territorial expansion after 1814. For that reason those countries had to start consolidating after the 1814 war. That was followed by the industrial revolution in England, which later expanded to Europe. Those countries then began to undergo industrial development, and we know where they stand today. Nevertheless they did not gain a centimetre of land. Then the hon. member asks for evidence that these areas could be territorial units!

The hon. member for Yeoville is not here this evening. I take it he is getting his beauty sleep in preparation for the marriage. I therefore want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he supports everything the hon. member for Yeoville said in regard to the consolidation of the homelands, and the matters we are dealing with. [Interjections.]

Order!

Does he support the hon. member for Yeoville? I want to refer him to what happened three weeks ago.

[Inaudible.]

Let me help the hon. member. The hon. member for Yeoville was in a great hurry to give birth to a statement. You know, Sir, it had been a long time since he had last made a statement, all of two days. The hon. member then made a statement which was of a far-reaching nature. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he took cognizance of it?

What statement?

Those two parties want to contract a marriage, but it seems as if the two leaders have not discussed the cardinal matter of the day. Surely this cannot be permitted in South African politics. Surely the voters will not be satisfied with that.

Order! The hon. member must return to the subject under discussion now.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this relates to what was before the Select Committee.

The marriage?

The hon. member for Yeoville stated a policy standpoint in regard to the proceedings of the Select Committee. He said that he advocated a commission to deal with the homeland boundaries. In fact, he advocated a mixed commission. As we know the hon. member he states what the commission’s findings are going to be and how it is going to deal with the matter even before the commission has been appointed or its findings published. I am quoting from the Rand Daily Mail of 17 April 1975, in which the hon. member stated inter alia—

They are utterly opposed to it, but only tonight the hon. member said that they were in favour of removal. [Interjections.] Of course the hon. member said that, and added “provided there is consultation and consent”. Is the hon. member utterly opposed to removal? The hon. member definitely said that he was in favour of removal provided there was consultation and consent. I think the hon. member should read his speech in Hansard. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the hon. member for Yeoville said that these consolidation proposals should have been handled differently. He said that the boundaries should have followed the people. In other words, the people should not have been moved. I have studied the map for Natal, and I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of this solution, namely that the people should not be moved, and that the boundaries should follow the people. If one looks at the excisions in terms of the documents which have been tabled here, one will find that if the boundaries had to follow those people, less than a twentieth part of Natal would remain for the Whites. However, that is the solution of that hon. member of the Reform Party. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that he must realize that when the hon. member for Yeoville has finished with the Progressive Party, a new name will have in fact have arisen, namely the “Deformed Progressive Party”. I have asked the hon. member whether he agreed, but he has given us no reply. There is no meaningful debate, for we cannot elicit an answer from him on his attitude towards the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to recommend that they thrash the matter out to its logical conclusion, and consequently I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

We know the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to be an intelligent, thorough member, but we felt sorry for him today, because the hon. member had a hard time swallowing his own arguments here. The hon. member tried to make this House believe that although there had been no evidence before the Committee which he had found acceptable, they had nevertheless made the best of it. In fact, he said they simply had to rely on hearsay evidence. What I find so striking then is that the majority resolutions which were adopted, in regard to which they agreed with us, were in fact based on hearsay evidence as well. I find it completely incomprehensible that the hon. member has expressed himself strongly in favour of certain categories of these released areas, while he has not done so in respect of other categories. We find that those hon. members voted in particular against those areas in the Eastern Cape and Natal. In respect of released areas in the constituencies of hon. colleagues in the Transvaal and the North Eastern Cape, however, they allowed themselves to be influenced by hearsay evidence, and simply agreed to it.

No moral standpoint.

I now want to conclude by saying that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has cast a very serious slur on the officials. He implied that their evidence was sometimes acceptable to him and sometimes not. That is my conclusion from what the hon. member did, and I think he therefore owes the officials an apology.

Order! Does the hon. member want to reply to a question?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member, in reference to what he said about the mines in the homelands, whether he considers the total value of their production which was given by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question—R16,2 million in 1973—to be consistent with the policy of separate development?

It is not consistent with the potential but it is consistent with our idea of getting on with the job. [Interjections.]

*In respect of the Free State areas I want to state specifically here that I believe that in the interests of the Bantu in those homelands and the Bantu in the rest of the Free State, serious and urgent attention should at this stage be given to the Bantu areas in the Free State. We do not need the hon. member for Sea Point to encourage us to do this. In reply to the last point which he made in respect of Qua-Qua, I want to say that a committee consisting of scientifically grounded members has already been appointed and is investigating the socio-economic potential and making efforts to promote what the hon. member spoke about to best effect. In conclusion I also want to say that there is no question of starvation in Qua-Qua.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West must forgive me if I do not follow him. My only advice to him is not to look for a communist behind every bush because otherwise, when one eventually does come along and threatens him, he won’t be able to recognize him.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that these proposals before us are proposals for final consolidation. We also have four very nice looking plans. However, the question is what in fact is going to happen in the future. What are we going to do with these 24 pieces of land that we have? According to the hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Party we are going to create independent states. However, what interests me is, in fact, how we are going to go about it. You will probably recall, Sir, that there was a summit meeting last year of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister himself and the hon. Deputy Ministers, officials of the department and the homeland leaders, which summit meeting became absolutely deadlocked on the question of land. There was complete deadlock in this regard. As far as I can recall—and the hon. the Minister repeated it again here this evening—the Government has no intention of going beyond the 1936 legislation in regard to land allocation. The hon. the Minister has said that in this matter of land consolidation the Blacks must realize that the Whites are the givers and the Blacks are the receivers and that this is the relationship which exists in this regard. The hon. the Minister has repeated both those statements often and it was in this atmosphere and in this spirit that that summit meeting came to a halt. One must look into the future and see how in fact the Government is going to get the discussions going in order to bring about their stated objectives in regard to these independent states. There are two aspects that have to be considered. The one aspect is the attitude of the Black leaders themselves and how they feel towards this whole matter, and the other aspect is how we as Whites are to react to this matter if it should come about.

Let us in the first instance take the position of the Black leaders. They have this plan because they have been told: “This is your homeland; this is what it is going to be like.” They have had no choice at all in its composition—because they have not been consulted in this whole matter. It is Hobson’s choice for them; it has been presented to them and that’s that.

That is not the truth.

It is an absolute Hobson’s choice. To date the Minister has never found it necessary to create machinery in order to have proper consultation with these people. We have seen the confusion in this House, and I do not want to go over the debate that we have had again. Quite clearly, however, whatever consultation there has been, has been totally unsatisfactory, so let us accept that the Black leader is faced with a Hobson’s choice. He has been given this land as the result of promises made in 1936 in return for the arbitrary taking away of rights which he then had. Now the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister are going to go along to the Black leader and say to him: “What we want you to do is to forfeit your South African citizenship for citizenship of this piece of ground which we have got together for you.” Now, my first question to the hon. the Minister is this: Why should that man forfeit his South African citizenship? What benefit is there in it for him? Secondly, the Black leader is being told: “We want you to forfeit any claim you might have to sharing the economic wealth of South Africa for an exclusive claim on the economic wealth of this piece of ground which we have put together for you.” Again, why should he do it? What motivation is there for him to do it? Let us take a third aspect. He can see what he has got and he can see the land which has been put together for him. He knows that probably 50% or more of the job-seekers, of his people, are going to have to be domiciled outside the piece of ground which has been preserved for him. He knows that the children of those people, and their children’s children, are going to live in the Republic. The moment he takes independence, he is going to be in the position where he will have lost any right or any ability to promote and fight for the interests of those people. Those people then become foreigners in South Africa, and if it does not suit the South African Government, they can be sent back to the land which was set aside for them. Why should such a homeland leader, who has the interests of his own people and their children and their children’s children at heart, accept this deal? What is there in it for him? I think the Minister must answer this and must give us his thoughts on how this is going to work. He must tell us what motivation he can see for the Black leaders to accept the kind of deal which he is putting forward. He must remember two things. The first is that the land which he has been given, that Hobson’s choice, is his. Nobody is going to take that from him now. He has got self-government and he can take it as far as he wants to go. But why should he take independence? What advantage is there in it for him to take independence? This, I think, is very important, because unless the Government is going to be prepared to negotiate on the issue of ground, there is absolutely no possibility of this working at all. If the Government were prepared to drop the restriction that they are not prepared to look further than the 1936 Act and were to say to the Black homeland leaders: “Look, we are interested in the creation of these States; our minds are open; we are prepared to consider anything which is reasonable and rational; consolidation and economic viability and all these things can be considered and discussed”, at least there would be some possibility of success. If, however, you say: “Under no circumstances are we going to give you a morgan more than was provided for in 1936, and apart from minor adjustments, this is the plan”, I can see no possible incentive for any of the homeland leaders to accept independence.

Let us turn the picture around and have a look at it from our position as Whites. Let us accept now that the Government has been successful, by getting certain individuals into leadership positions in certain homelands, who would then agree to accept this independence. Let us look at what would happen in South Africa. We would have a situation at the turn of the century where the vast majority of people domiciled in South Africa would be foreigners. We have the unresolved situation of the Coloured and the Indian populations, who would be stateless people, without any homeland and without any rights in the sovereign body. The actual citizens of this country would be a small proportion, a great minority of the country. Not more than 20% of the people who are actually domiciled in South Africa, will be citizens of South Africa. This is a totally unrealistic concept to work towards and this is what the Government is in fact working for. Would it not be more sensible and practical for us to accept that it is in our interest as Whites to make sure that the self-governing States which the Government is keen to create—and I think they are absolutely right in wanting to create them—become viable States and that they are States which are able to contain their own people? The relationship between those States and ourselves is something on which, we can decide once they are self-governing. We can then decide the constitutional link between us. The problem which we would have to solve and the issue to be decided in this House, would be what is to happen within the balance of the Republic. This is something on which we could have a very fruitful discussion, but we will not do it now. My feeling is that as long as the Government persists in the attitude that they are not prepared to look further than 1936, as long as they persist in the attitude that what is happening here is that the White man is in fact giving land to the Black man, I can see no possible future for the kind of constitutional development which the Government is looking for. The result of this is going to be that we will have tremendous problems to deal with in the next decade, because this will be a deadlock; there will be no progress. People will get frustrated and when people become frustrated they look for other alternatives. Let me deal with one other aspect. I think that the way in which the hon. the Minister is dealing with the Black leaders is absolutely wrong. He loses a lot of goodwill which he need not necessarily lose. Let us look at the way in which this whole recent consolidation took place. The hon. the Minister had the summit meeting with the homeland leaders last year. He knows their tremendous concern over property and land, but he makes this point to them, he says: “You chaps must realize that we are the givers and you are the takers.” He has made that abundantly clear in his attitude, in the whole way in which he has gone about this thing. These people have not been properly consulted. What has been more important in deciding what farms and areas should be consolidated is the position of tarred roads and the position of railways. These are the things which the hon. the Minister has looked at in deciding these things. The considerations and feelings of the Black leaders concerned have not been taken into account at all. They have not even been considered. If they had been considered, how easy it would have been to create machinery. The hon. the Minister had the opportunity at the meeting to create machinery and to say: “Let us get together; let us organize some kind of consultative committee to which the proposals will go first before they come to this Parliament. There we can hear your comments and ideas. It does not mean necessarily that we will go along with them,” but at least he would then have been a step nearer to creating some goodwill between this Government and the Black homeland leaders. I am not saying that there is no goodwill; of course there is. But the point is that they believe, quite rightly, because of the way they are handled, that the Government is not really very sympathetic towards their aspirations and their feelings. I would like to implore the hon. the Minister to realize that if there is to be any future for all of us—because the Government is in power now and is going to be in power for at least another two or three years—then in his dealings with the homeland leaders, if he is at all serious about his policy—and I believe that he is serious—he must not give them the impression that there is no possibility of negotiation at all. He cannot expect people to sit down with him and come to any kind of arrangement with him when he says, “There is no give at all, we are not going to give you a morgan of land more. We regard what we have given you as a gift anyway. What other country would give its land away?” This whole approach is wrong. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said this would have been an exciting debate today if the hon. the Minister had said: “The one part of our history is over. What we promised in 1936 is now being given; we are going into a new era which is going to be very exciting and which is going to bring a completely new constitutional dimension in South Africa. We are going to start creating these new states. We are going to sit down and have discussions with the homeland leaders concerned. Our options are open and we are in a position to negotiate. We do realize the necessity of geographical viability; we recognize that these areas have to be economically meaningful. We accept all these aspects and aspirations and we are prepared to negotiate on these terms.”