Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening, I was arguing the case for the Government to adopt a more flexible attitude in regard to its future policy in respect of land and boundaries, and especially in its negotiations with homeland leaders. I think it is important for the Government to get its priorities right in this respect. It must do some of its own working out in its own mind. For instance, is it a priority of the Government to create self-governing States that can determine their own destiny or is it a priority of the Government to ensure that no more land than that allocated in terms of the plans here, is allocated to these homelands in future? The impression that I have gained—I am sure most hon. members in this House have gained the same impression—is that it is the intention of the Government to try to have its cake and eat it. It wants the Black leaders to forfeit their claims to a share in South Africa’s wealth; it wants the Black leaders to agree to forfeit their political claims, their civic claims and their economic rights in South Africa and it also wants to make sure that none of these States receives any more land than has been allocated in these proposals that we have before us. I do not believe the Government can have it both ways. I think that the Government must decide what is most important and then, having decided its priorities, it must accept those priorities state them and be prepared to negotiate.

I asked yesterday that the hon. the Minister should explain why he thinks it is in the interests of homeland leaders to work for independence and to look forward to independence. I asked him what he thought was in it for them. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us in this House that he believes it to be historically inevitable that the homeland leaders will take their independence, but he has never explained why. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take advantage of this opportunity during this debate to explain to us why. If we look objectively at the options open to the homeland leaders there does not seem to be tremendous incentive to them to take their independence. If a homeland leader remains within the Republic, he will retain his land. I do not think that the hon. the Minister intends taking away his land. He retains his right to self-government and he can take it as far as it goes. There is always the possibility that future events and pressures, internal and external, will improve his position vis-à-vis the Government in respect of the concessions that he wants; in other words, time is on his side and not on that of the Government. Whilst he is in the Republic he can bring pressure to bear upon the Government for more land and a larger share in the Budget. He can press the claims of his people for more political, economic and social rights. He has not opted out of the Republic, therefore he has not forfeited his rights in this respect. In fact, all his options are open. His position can only improve and there is in fact nothing that anybody can take away from him.

If he takes independence, what happens? He obtains a Pyrrhic independence because 50% and in some cases far more of his people, their children and generations to come will always be subject to the laws of a foreign Parliament because they will be domiciled permanently outside the State. Secondly, he will have sold the birthright of his people and of generations to come and he will have received absolutely nothing in return. He will have forfeited all claim to a share in the wealth and opportunity in South Africa and will have received nothing in return. He will have received absolutely nothing that he did not have before. He will also have taken considerable risks. Through political changes in South Africa the Black man might come into his own in the Republic, so by opting out of the Republic he will have endangered his position of being able to share in that new dispensation should it come about. What will happen if political pressures from South Africa in respect of those who have not opted out of the Republic lead to a policy whereby foreign labour is discriminated against in favour of South African labour? It could even happen to the extent where hundreds of thousands of people are endorsed out of South Africa back to their homeland, jobless, which would aggravate the social, economic and political stability of that country. All the advantages seem to be on the side of staying in the Republic. The only advantage of taking independence, viz. the possibility of creating a viable geographic and economic State for one’s people, is nullified by the Government’s refusal to negotiate on the issue of land. Even if the government managed to get Black leaders to accept their independence, what would we as Whites gain by it? As I said yesterday, we would become a country inhabited in the main by foreigners and stateless people. According to projections, at the turn of the century all the ground allocated in terms of these provisions will only be able to maintain ten million people at the very outside. There will then be 40 million Black people in South Africa of whom 30 million will be here in the Republic. Those 30 million people together with the seven million Coloured and Indian people who, as I said, will be stateless because they have no homeland and they have no rights in this House, will be here together with seven million Whites. This will mean that over 80% of the population of South Africa will consist of either foreigners or stateless people and we, the Whites, 16% of the population, will have full control over them. Our position will therefore not have bettered in any way whatsoever. All we will have done will be to have gone through a tremendous exercise for nothing.

I know that hon. members opposite do not like my referring to the question of the 13%. However, one can see it here. What we will find is a situation at the turn of the century where ten million people will have 13% of the country and 44 million people will live on the remaining 87% of the country. Those 44 million people who live here will still be governed by seven million Whites. In other words, we will still not have solved our race problems. We will still find ourselves faced with tremendous problems. The time to tackle this problem is not over the next 25 years. The time to tackle it is now because we can see it happening. I want to ask hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. the Minister when he replies, to realize that lots of people who are intimately involved in these matters and who are pondering these problems are going to read his reply to this debate with great interest. I hope that he will be able to clear up some of the uncertainty which exists in this respect.

Sir, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Randburg. I want to assure him that it is an effort to listen to him attentively. He made a few points to which I shall reply later, but by way of introduction I just want to say this to him about his reference to the rights and civil rights of the Black people in this country. Black people have never had the same political rights as Whites. Under this Government, they have obtained more rights than they have ever had before, and every day they are obtaining more rights to decide and reflect on the destinies of their own people, their own future and their own area. It is very clear that this party has a policy which contains a future for the Black people, and that hon. member, together with his fellow party members, is doing his best to make these people fear their own future. Sir, this is a matter about which there must be complete clarity. I shall return to it later. This question of “sharing in the wealth of the country” is another matter. I shall indicate presently what the potential of those areas is and how one is actually bringing about prosperity and wealth. These people should use and develop the potential which they have. They must accept the responsibility; we shall help them without making them appendages, politically or economically, of the Republic. While we are helping them, they will still have the opportunity of coming to work in the Republic. We shall be of assistance to them, without giving them political rights or land ownership rights here. In other words, the removal of wealth is, therefore, only an illusion.

Sir, let us come back to the broader approach of what we are engaged in here. We are dealing with an extremely important matter, a very delicate matter, viz. the question of the division of land between White and Black in this country. It is not a re-division of land; it is an allocation of land on the basis of the 1936 Act, as was indicated by the hon. the Minister. Sir, it was my particular privilege to be closely involved in this matter for almost four years. In this process, I have spoken to literally thousands of people about these proposals. I want to express my appreciation, in the first place, to the Minister for the opportunity he afforded me in this regard, but I also want to express my appreciation to the officials of the Department, in particular, who had to suffer knocks and blows in this process. It is a very difficult and delicate matter which they have successfully brought to this stage of finality. I also want to express my appreciation to M.P.S, Senators and public bodies for their co-operation and constructive ideas as far as this matter is concerned. While we recognize that we have not attained the ideal with these proposals, I want to say that we have nonetheless achieved a great deal indeed. In these proposals which are before this House, the length of the borders of the homelands, for example, are reduced by over 2 000 km.

Sir, we have also had particularly good contributions from hon. member on this side of the House, for which I also want to express my appreciation. I think that we have had good contributions from this side of the House in particular, but we have also had good contributions from that side. I want to react immediately to a few speeches made by hon. members on that side. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana stated a bad case with elegance and conviction yesterday. That just shows his ability. I want to congratulate him on being able to state such a bad case here with so much enthusiasm. But what did he actually do here? He evaded the responsibility of the 1936 Act completely. Hon. members on that side advocated earlier in this House that the borders of the homelands be drawn. The hon. member for Griqualand East introduced a motion here in 1971, in which he advocated that. They all agreed that the borders of the homelands should be drawn. The hon. member also asked in a debate here in 1972 that we should draw the borders. Now that we have drawn the borders that party asks that these proposals be referred back to the Government. Sir, I say that that is an evasion of their responsibility. The hon. member said we wanted to make political capital from this matter, but I would say that the action taken on their side is the best political manoeuvre we have seen here this year—a manoeuvre to maintain unity within their own ranks. That was their only objective with the amendment which they moved here. We are not afraid to say that this matter is an out and out political matter. Governing a country is a political matter; it is nothing else, and seen from our point of view, as we see the solution of the political problem in this country, these proposals are a very important part, and we shall continue with them in spite of the fact that we face many problems in this process. We are not afraid; it is those hon. members who shy away and say, “Refer back”. I think this is a very poor state of affairs. The hon. member spoke here yesterday of “hundreds of thousands” and said the officials had said so. Later he spoke of “over 100 000” in the Transvaal.

I said 130 000 in Transvaal alone.

Sir, I have his unrevised Hansard here and I can read it to him. I do not know whether he is going to change it, but it is clearly recorded there, and it is also in this morning’s Cape Times. [Interjections.] But I am not going to waste my time by looking for it in his Hansard. He can read it himself. I have read it and he spoke of “hundreds of thousands” and then said that there were over 100 000 in the Transvaal. I asked the officials which figures they had made available. They say they gave the following figures: In Natal 40 000, in the Transvaal 50 000 and in the Cape Province 40 000—a total, therefore, of 130 000. Now this hon. member exaggerates very dramatically here and he speaks of “hundreds of thousands”. I say it is a reflection on the officials who gave him certain information in all honesty.

Now I come to the hon. member for Griqualand East. I shall return later to the other matters which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana touched upon. The hon. member for Griqualand East concentrated especially on the promises in connection with Port St. Johns. The hon. the Minister explained that matter in his introductory speech. My opinion is that I think this is a realistic and acceptable approach. We do not deny that promises were in fact made. The hon. member read them out yesterday. We do not deny it. But a promise is an undertaking, a contract between two parties, and any one of those parties can come back, as Ongeluksnek’s farmers came back and said, “Please, our situation is difficult; do not hold us to the promise or agreement any longer”. This Government said to the people last year we had to keep Port St. Johns going artificially, in the present circumstances. Why were all those promises made? Because people have no confidence in Port St. Johns. The whole place is wrongly situated; it is within a Bantu area and now they come to us every time and we must give an assurance every time. Now the Government, as one party to the agreement, says it wants to revise this agreement. What is the reaction? I have here a petition with 96 signatures of people who say I should please not listen to what the hon. member for Griqualand East has to say about the matter, because he does not represent them; he only represents the United Party. [Interjections.] That is very important. We went to the people and now we have the reaction of those people to this proposal. When they saw the hon. the Prime Minister, what did they ask? They asked that they should please remain White, the small group who was there, but that the Government should establish Defence Force quarters there and should assist them with an airfield and should subsidize them with regard to certain works. In other words, they want a guarantee and then they also want financial assistance over and above that given to other areas. Surely one cannot keep an area going in as artificial a way as this. On those conditions, they asked that they remain White. But now this group of people is very realistic and tells us they accept that they cannot remain White in these circumstances. In this connection, I want to know something from the hon. member. He says the recommendation concerning Port St. Johns should be referred back. Did they ask Chief Minister Matanzima about this? After all, they say they consult these people. Did they consult him in connection with this matter? They say they have heard what the other homeland leaders have to say.

He wants the place. He said so.

But you say that he cannot have it. The hon. member does not know what he wants. He says we must consult, that they have consulted, but now that I ask him whether he has consulted, he takes offence.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. She referred here to the so-called brackish nature of the Makatini Flats. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that Chief Buthelezi has experts at his disposal. We cannot run to him every time and give him particulars. He has experts at his disposal in that homeland and he can ask them what the position is in the Makatini area. The position is that there is the possibility that if there is injudicious irrigation, certain land below the Josini Dam may become brackish. That is the position. There are 35 000 ha of good, high-potential land, which can be irrigated and which will now be developed. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi asked for that land. Originally the idea was that that land would be divided between White and Black. He discussed this first with the Department and then with me, and said that they wanted all that land. Now they are getting it, and now the hon. member says that the quality of the land is suspect. I think that is an extremely poor state of affairs.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked in respect of the homelands, “Can they meet the socio-economic needs of the Blacks?“ I tell him “yes”. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Bloemfontein West quoted certain figures in this connection. My department is engaged in determining the potential of the homelands. I just want to quote a few facts in this connection. There is tremendous potential in those homelands. The only aspect thereof which is low, is the human potential. Is it the fault of the Whites if the areas of these people are not developed? I said at the beginning that we are engaged in developing these areas along with them and are assisting them, but the potential for development in all the areas is there. I just want to point out that approximately 12% of all the fresh water in this country flows through the Transkei. Let us begin there. As we know, water is the limiting factor in the development of this country. In other words, 1 / 8th of the future potential of this country will be in the Transkei, and is in the Transkei,

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

To elaborate further in this connection, I should like to refer to the rainfall position. If we study the isohyets, we see that we can draw one more or less from Mafeking to a point immediately to the east of Port Elizabeth. That is the 300 mm isohyets. The Bantu areas, these homelands, all lie to the east of that isohyet where the rainfall is higher, with the exception of a part of Bophuthatswana. In other words, these are high-potential areas. The White areas lie largely to the west of that isohyet, where the rainfall is lower and there is lower potential. The mining potential is also there. We shall provide particulars about that later. I just want to tell hon. members that the problem is not that there is no potential and that there are no possibilities. I notice that the hon. member for Sea Point is sitting there paging through the Tomlinson Report. I just want to tell him that I know Prof. Tomlinson well. That report is superficial as far as the potential is concerned. It refers chiefly to agriculture. I say that with great respect for Prof. Tomlinson, under whom I studied, and the members of that commission. I am telling you now that there is tremendous potential. KwaZulu can feed 20 million people if the land of KwaZulu is used properly. I think that this story about the potential must now be dealt a death blow once and for all. It is a negative story used by people who do not know what they are talking about. The important fact is that the Black areas are producing about 1/7th of what they ought to produce, in comparison with the Whites, on that land at the moment. Now, if it is said that more land must be allocated to these people to make those areas viable, then we must give them seven times as much land. An hon. member on the opposite side said they were getting 13% of the land. That means that we should give them 91 % of the land, so that they can produce as much as they ought to produce on the land which they have at the moment. Surely it is no solution to give more land to a man if he cannot use that which he has. Surely that is an illogical, silly approach. I do not think we can continue in that way.

I have referred to the so-called approach of “sharing in wealth”. The point is that work and the ability to work and to plan generates wealth. We are teaching the people that planned productivity to acquire wealth. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Deputy Minister a fair chance now.

Sir, therefore I say emphatically that those areas have great potential. In years to come, we shall make scientific results known, and I hope we shall be able to convince them on the basis of these results. I hope that the hon. member for Houghton will not only look for pieces of brackish land, and that she will act more positively in connection with these matters.

Now I come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I see that he is not here. He advanced an argument which he wrested completely from its context. He said that the approach to the 1936 Act could not be divided into two. The one approach, at that time, was that of land ownership, while the other, the political approach, was not linked to that. I want to tell the hon. member—it is a pity that he is not here today—and other hon. members on the opposite side, that he should tell me why he agrees with the proposal made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Basically he cannot agree with it, after all. They are advocating the 1936 Act. On what grounds should this then be referred back to the Government? On the grounds of some stories that a proper investigation had supposedly not been instituted. I shall come back to this point. The question of investigation into land and commissions in connection with land and the division of land and relations between Black and White in this country did not only come to the fore in 1936. Underlying the 1936 Act, were the relations between White and Black in this country since their first meeting roundabout 1752. The first commission was appointed as far back as that. A person called Beutler was appointed by Governor Ryk Tulbagh. In 1778, a second inquiry, made by a colonel called Gordon, was conducted into the question of land between Black and White. In 1780, the first decision was taken in this connection. In 1903 for the first time a South African commission was appointed for all the provinces, as this question of political rights and the attendant division of land was a recurring one. One can ask oneself what has been recurrent in history. It is the struggle between the liberalists saying that there should be integration and the other group saying that there should not be integration. It is the same struggle which we have today still, the same struggle which the liberalists who came to this country from overseas, are still waging. Things developed further and in 1913 there was the Native Land Act which was aimed at settling somewhere the large numbers of Black people pouring into the Republic from outside, those Black people v/ho created Black spots and who squatted on White farms and to whom, in some cases, farms were leased. That is why the 1913 Act was passed, and it was said that there should be separation and that a further inquiry should be made. The result was that the Beaumont Commission was appointed. After that, there were numbers of inquiries. I do not think there is any issue in respect of which more commissions have been appointed and which has been more thoroughly investigated than the question of land tenure as between White and Black and the attendant political rights. After that, the 1936 Act made its appearance. After the report of the Beaumont Commission, various committees were appointed. I should like to read out something from the report of one of these committees to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. There were different provincial committees after the Beaumont Commission and one of them, the Cape committee, said the following, inter alia—

Here one of the committees professed specifically that the question of segregation and the protection of the Black man was important because they realized that if they were not afforded protection and did not get their own areas, the White man would dominate them completely, economically and otherwise. That is still our approach today. This policy has been here from the beginning and arose spontaneously in this country. In 1948, it gained mastery for the first time. Since then it has always had mastery, and is gaining mastery to a greater extent, and it will exist until we have implemented it effectively as a whole. There is still much work ahead and I shall return to that later.

There is also the question of consultation. Hon. members referred to the question of consultation with the Black people. Before we negotiated with the agricultural unions, the department opened negotiations with the homelands in 1971 and 1972. The negotiations were continued in 1973 and maps were drawn up. Particulars were given and the homelands were told that they could react to these and make proposals. I went there and met many of them, while the hon. the Minister met even more of them. Some of them even saw the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. During the present year the hon. the Minister and I also met more of them. There are many of them who are satisfied. They told us they were happy and made proposals. I want to refer to what the hon. the Minister mentioned in this speech. There is the question of the Vendas who can have Tshakuma back after it had been decided earlier that it should be excised. These things take place after negotiations with these people. I want to go further and mention the case of the Shangaans, who say that they are not happy and ask for more land. There are also the Swazis who demanded large parts of the Eastern Transvaal, areas which simply cannot be allocated to them. The Ndebeles demanded a large part of Southern and South-Eastern Transvaal in their proposals. The Lebowa demanded the area from the Lebombo Mountains at Komatipoort along the Crocodile River to near Pretoria and then through to the Limpopo River. They demanded virtually the whole of central Transvaal. They held a meeting three or four weeks ago and now they allege that they have another Cabinet and that their view is different. That is the type of demand we had. The Tswana demanded land from Warm Baths down to the other side of Kuruman and Sishen, including Rustenburg, Lichtenburg and all those places. These are the considerations we found among these people. The South Sothos said they would like to have more land and that we should look to see where we could find it for them.

Now I want to come to KwaZulu. Chief Buthelezi was here. I said that I would go to Nongoma and have talks with him. His reply was, “You need not come, because we are not interested; we are not going to move our people.” That was all. I told him, “I think I should come in any case”, and I did go. He was chairman of a meeting there, and I spoke to them. I told them that if they did not want to listen, they need not, but that it nevertheless remained my duty to explain. A number of the headmen and chiefs put questions to me and I explained the matter. What did Chief Buthelezi do eventually? One of the councillors also said the same thing previously to one of my officials. He said, “If you cut Natal in half, I would like the half with Durban.” Then he was no longer concerned about the moving of his people. Then that no longer mattered. I have never used this statement against him. However, I want to tell hon. members now that this is the real position. That is really what happened. I do not want to belittle these people; they have the right to state their demands.

Now I want to come to the Transkei. The Transkei made many public demands. There were many discussions with the Transkeian Government. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister, in particular, were involved in those. I visited the Ciskei this year. There were cases where Mr. Cebe came to Pretoria and asked whether he could see me while he was there on other business. I was always available. I spoke to him and listened to his problems. When we were finished, I went back to him again. I want to repeat that we spoke over and over again, ad nauseam, with these people. However, we have to reach finality somewhere. We must decide about these matters after we have heard the different problems of these people.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No, sit down.

I do not have the time now to reply to questions. In any case, the questions which the hon. member asks are usually foolish. It has been asked: Why do these people want more land than has been allocated by the 1936 Act? A few years ago the same question was put to me in America. I said that it was obvious, because we were the only Government in the world sharing out land, and where one was sharing out something as valuable as land, people would obviously always ask for more.

Are you Father Christmas?

That is right, yes. As far as I am concerned this is the greatest act of altruism in the history of the world. This land does not belong to the Black people; history did not give it to them. Then there is the plea made by the hon. member for Sea Point. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein West indicated, he does not plead only for a division of land; he pleads for a division of wealth, as does the hon. member for Randburg. Then they should come forward with a whole new approach and say they are pleading for a re-division of wealth.

I want to pause very briefly at the official Opposition. In 1959 they had problems. In 1971, the hon. member for Griqualand East moved his motion here in connection with the boundaries which should be drawn. In 1972, we proposed the first boundaries. I made a proposal here in connection with the boundaries of the Ciskei. At the time there were six hon. members who spoke and each of them had a different story to tell. In 1973 that hon. member stated their policy here. I think it is necessary that I refer to it very briefly. First I must quote what the hon. member said in 1972 (Hansard, Volume 39, col. 8011)—

That was their approach at the time. In other words, they can jump to either side. They have no responsibility towards the voters outside. The one part they can use in the rural areas when it suits them and the other part among the public in the cities. That is the approach. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana put that policy, which was explained by the hon. member for Griqualand East for the first time, into writing. In the written statement they say:

However, they went further and said:

If something is desirable and in the interests of a country, why do the hon. members not say that it should be done? Now they say that it is desirable, but not essential. What does that mean? This is indicative of the ambivalence of the policy of that side of the House. They went further and said:

I quoted these points previously, and asked the hon. member where these parts were. His reply was, “The whole Northern Natal is full of them”, but then he cannot tell us where they are. Now we have proposals before this House which say which Black spots and poorly situated Black areas should be cleared, but the hon. member wants all the proposals, with the exception of the few which they supported, to be referred back to the department. I want to expose the ambivalence on that side of the House and the evasion of their obligations towards the voters of this country even further. After that, their next point was:

What on earth does that mean? They say that they can have more land, but, as it stands here, if they use land more beneficially, they can have less land. The hon. member for Albany says that we should do our best—which we are doing—to increase productivity, but these people say that if they use their land more beneficially, they will get less land.

That is untrue.

It is true. That is what is written here; if not, the hon. member must state his case more clearly. I quote that part again:

Tribal land!

… if other land made available is more beneficially used.

Perhaps the hon. members should go and explain this to the Black people. I do not understand it very well myself.

But I must make haste. I just want to point out this task which is now in its final stage, this task of determining the boundaries of the homelands, of the moving of Black spots and poorly situated Bantu areas so as to consolidate the number of units of the Bantu areas to a minimum, is a large task, and a task which has aroused great emotion. The task which remains, is to implement this policy further and to move these large numbers of people —both Black and White. I ask not only that the Black people obtain land and be settled properly; but also that the Whites be looked after, as they will in fact be looked after, and as far as that is concerned, the procedure will be that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure will evaluate the people’s farms after we have drawn up a priority list. Therefore, we shall give people indications of when it will be possible to purchase their land. We shall not always be able to give an exact date, but I may add that we have to buy quota land first. In the middle of last year, 1 240 000 ha of quota land had to be purchased, one million ha of compensatory land and 195 000 ha of land in subsitutiton of Black spots. That gives us a total of 2½ million ha of land which has to be purchased. A large number of White farmers and their families are involved in this, and I repeat that we shall let them know in good time, as early as possible. We shall handle their assets as carefully as possible. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, will do that, but my department and I and, where necessary, the hon. the Minister as well, will also see to this. The Black people are not simply being chased away and where they have to be moved, basic services are properly planned and prepared for them. Let us look at some of these areas. The hon. member for Houghton always refers to Doornkop. Has she ever been to Doornkop? Has she seen the filthy and critical conditions in which those people live? Is she opposed to these people being moved to places where better housing is provided and to areas which are better planned?

It is untrue.

In many of these areas it is in the interests of the Black people that they be moved and that they be settled on a planned basis. They are compensated properly and if they want to take some of the improvements which they had in their buildings with them, they can do that as well. Therefore, I want to tell hon. members that a major task is awaiting us. The department is going about this task with utmost circumspection and we are going to finalize this matter in the future purposefully and more rapidly because it is in the interests of Black and White people in this country to do so. We look after everybody’s rights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I expected better from this hon. Deputy Minister. There was a time when we played cricket together and on occasions it was suspected that his arm was bent when he bowled. This afternoon it was not a question of suspecting it; his arm was definitely bent when he bowled, and particularly when he bowled a ball at my friend, the hon. member for Griqualand East.

He threw it.

My friend here is quite correct: The hon. the Deputy Minister in fact threw it. He should actually have been no-balled because he knows that the way in which he construed that statement is totally incorrect. He knows what that statement says and he knows that the attitude of this side of the House is that we do not believe that we should be limited to the amount of land laid down under the 1936 Act. Furthermore, we do not believe that we should be limited to the conditions which are laid down in that Act. In other words, we do not believe that the only land which should be given to the Black people of South Africa should be tribal land in rural areas. That is the meaning of the phrase which the hon. the Deputy Minister twisted here this afternoon.

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir; let me say, the phrase he misconstrued.

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

I withdraw it, Sir. He misconstrued that phrase this afternoon, because what is meant there is that it would be to the advantage of the Black people that they should be given land adjacent to White urban areas where they could develop as entrepreneurs, businessmen and industrialists and where there are work opportunities and all the other advantages which go along with Western civilization. That is what is meant, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it.

I also want to challenge him on what he said when he took the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to task for saying that hundreds of thousands of people are affected. Does he deny that hundreds of thousands of people are affected?

He was duscussing these proposals.

Of course, hundreds of thousands of people are affected. In actual fact, the total is more than that. Many hundreds of thousands of people are involved. In addition, does the hon. the Deputy Minister know how many Whites, Indians and Coloureds are affected? I do not believe that he does know.

Does he care?

I do not think he cares either.

Here is the handout.

In one valley in the Ndwedwe district alone there are 4 500 Indians who are affected, but the hon. the Deputy Minister chooses to ignore those. He does not take any notice of them. The same applies in the case of my friends, the Progressives, and the Reformists.

Friends?

They also choose to ignore the Coloureds and Indians who are affected.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister talks of the huge potential of the Bantu areas, I can agree with him entirely. [Interjections.]

Order!

Honestly, Sir, I think the hon. the Minister should contain himself. I want to say that I believe that the Government would be well-advised to concern themselves more with assisting the Black man to achieve the potential which is inherent in the land he has, rather than with Nationalist ideology, which is what we are concerned with here this afternoon. There is one last point I want to raise in connection with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. In this case, too, he is going to be no-balled. He simply repeated what had been said before. Hon. members opposite read the old reports and old speeches where “segregation” is referred to and then they equate “segregation” with “independence”. That is the fault which the hon. the Deputy Minister makes, and on that point again he is going to be no-balled. Again his arm was crooked.

I want to come back to a few things that were said yesterday afternoon. It is my intention this afternoon to speak particuarly about the people who are going to be removed—not only the Blacks, but also the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In this respect I must take my Progressive friends to task. The amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Houghton takes no notice whatsoever of the Coloured people, of the Indian people and of the White people who are going to be moved in terms of these proposals. Both she and the hon. member for Sea Point spoke yesterday in highly moral tones of the fact that they are entirely opposed to all removals. She said that they were against all removals, that removals were, in fact, unnecessary. But when we look at the amendment which the hon. member for Houghton has moved, against which removals has she objected? The hon. member objected to the removal of Black people only. Only in two instances, in the case of those people in the region of Estcourt in Natal …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member agrees with it.

I do not agree with a word.

She has only objected to the removal of the Black people and I want to ask about the principles to which they referred yesterday. Do those principles apply only to Black people? They have no principles when it comes to Indians, Coloureds and White people, because in not one instance have they objected in this regard. The whole gravamen of the amendment which was moved by my hon. friend for Umhlatuzana is that whatever community is involved, whether they are Black, Coloured, Indian or White, where there has not been consultation and consent, these are the matters which should be referred back in order to obtain the consent of the community concerned. The hon. member says they are opposed to all removals, and then she moves an amendment to forcibly eject the people of Port St. Johns. The hon. member for Houghton says that she will support that resolution which allows the people of Port St. Johns to be forcibly ejected and she will support all the sections of the report which allow the Indian and Coloured people of Natal, the Cape and the Transvaal to be forced … [Interjections.] It is not rubbish at all. That is the effect of the amendment which the hon. member has moved. She is going to support the Government in respect of those proposals. The hon. member for Sea Point says that purchases must be supported, because they are the fulfilment of a pledge. I want to ask you, what about the pledge to the people of Port St. Johns?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I want to ask you then, Sir, … [Interjections.] Do you believe, Sir, that the hon. member for Sea Point should support the pledge which that hon. Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister and their predecessors gave to the people of Port St. Johns? It is no good asking the hon. member for Sea Point, because he is not prepared to honour that pledge. We on this side of the House are used to the attitude of those members, particularly the members for Houghton and Sea Point. We know that they have certain reservations about honouring pledges because we have had experience of that in the past. I believe that that is why the four members of the Reformist group are today so welcome in their arms because they have also shown that they were not prepared to honour certain pledges. [Interjections.]

As I have said, I want to talk about the removal of people. The hon. the Minister is smiling and I think it is his turn now. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said there were four aspects involved in this matter and he quoted them. The first was the description of land to be acquired. The second was the eradication of Black spots. The third was the eradication of what he called badly situated Bantu areas. The fourth was an attempt—and I am glad that he conceded that—at the consolidation of the Bantu areas. The hon. Minister left out the most important thing, the removal of people; or does he not consider that important?

But it is included in the others.

Where are they included? The hon. the Minister conveniently forgot all about it. That shows the attitude and the arrogance of this Government. They are not interested in people. If it does not fit in with their ideological ideas …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. the Minister’s time is unlimited and mine is limited.

It is included in Nos. 2 and 3. [Interjections).

It is not included at all. The hon. the Minister left them out, because he is not interested in those thousands of people. Of course, the hon. the Minister told us of his friend, Thys Basson,

You are too stupid to understand.

Order!

At least he has got some manners.

Thys Basson was consulted and eventually persuaded to agree. I want to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, how many of the Bantu tribes concerned were consulted and eventually persuaded to agree? How many? Not a word. “Tjoepstil”. I believe that not one of these tribes was consulted. In fact, I have the word of the Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, that they have not yet been consulted. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said yesterday that they cannot consult with these people until after these proposals have been approved by Parliament. The reason that the hon. member gave was that they could not consult with these people and discuss with them whether they should be removed until they knew there they were going. That is a confession that they have come here today with a halfbaked measure; they do not know what they are going to do with this land they are asking for. They do not know what they are going to do with the tribes whose removal is now being requested from this House. What is the historical background? Prior to the amendment to the 1927 Act in 1973, any Bantu tribe who did not wish to be moved, after an order had been served on them, had the right to appeal to this House, and only on a resolution of both this House and the Other Place could they be moved. In 1973 the law was changed, with the United Party voting against it, to the situation that we have today where we are going through this exercise, which is to ask this Parliament to pass a resolution in advance that certain tribes shall be moved. The effect of this is that if the tribes should object, they will merely be told that Parliament has decided. They will not be given an opportunity at all to say anything further. Sir, we have a very, very weighty task on our shoulders today. We are being asked to approve of the removal of innumerable tribes, who are not detailed in the report of the Select Committee but who are resident on the land which appears in Schedule B of this report. Sir, I believe that Parliament has got to apply its collective mind to that question here today. I believe it is a most important facet of what is happening. But, Sir, what evidence have we got on which to base our decision today? In the first place we have the evidence of the Bantu Affairs Commission, who claim that they have investigated. As a result of their investigations, they have submitted certain reports and made certain recommendations. Sir, we have it from the hon. member for Lichtenburg, the chairman of that commission, that they have not consulted one single tribe. Not one of those tribes was consulted by this commission, so from the commission we have no evidence whatsoever on which to base our decision as to whether or not these people should be moved. Sir, what happened on the Select Committee? That Select Committee is the arm of this Parliament. It is an arm which is designed to hear evidence, to consider the question and to report to Parliament in order to enable us to make a decision. What happened there? The first thing that the majority on the Select Committee decided was that no evidence should be heard except from the department. Sir, not for one moment do I want to denigrate the officials concerned, but I want to say that in any democracy third-hand evidence is not acceptable, especially when first-hand evidence is available.

How many requests were there?

Sir, this is the situation in which we find ourselves here this afternoon. We are being asked to move people, but we have no evidence whatsoever on which to base our decision. We know which tribes are going to be moved, but we do not know to what areas they are going to be moved. We know that certain tribes are going to be moved to areas far removed from the areas where they are living at present. We know that certain tribes, who are in areas today where they have work opportunities, are going to be moved to areas where there appear to be no work opportunities. We know that certain tribes are going to be moved from areas with a reasonably high rainfall and a high production potential. The areas to which, they may possibly be moved are low rainfall and low production areas.

Give an example.

Sir, the hon. member for Kuruman last night challenged my hon. friend, the member for Durban Central, about the recommendations and the suggestions for the Kuruman area. He wanted to know why the hon. member had not made certain investigations. I want to say to the hon. member for Kuruman that he has been a resident of that area for only a short while and that perhaps he should have looked at the history of what has happened in Kuruman. The history is this, Sir. About 20 years ago …

How do you know that?

I have taken the trouble to find out. [Interjections.] I was not given the opportunity to go there to find out because the arm of this Parliament—and I consider myself part of this Parliament— was not given that opportunity, and so we had to find out for ourselves. But I want to ask the hon. member for Vryheid whether he knows anything about Kuruman.

No.

I do not claim to know much about Kuruman either, but I have found out certain facts, and I want to put it this way to the hon. the Minister. If my facts are incorrect and he can prove it to me, I will accept what he says, but the facts as I understand them are as follows. About 20 years ago it was decided that the Black area in that region should be increased, and it just so happened that the then sitting member of Parliament and member of the Provincial Council happened to have farms in the area which were then purchased by the Trust, and which were subsequently settled by Blacks. [Interjections.] The recommendations which are before the House today are to excise those areas, including the farms which were previously owned by that member of Parliament and member of the Provincial Council, and those people are now to be removed to another area which, is situated about 160 km away. [Interjections.] Now, the question is asked who has farms in that area to which they are going to be moved. I do not know. But the area where these Bantu are today settled is an area with a very high water-table, with a reasonably high rainfall; it is in close proximity to Sishen and to other places like Hotazel and various other places in that region where there are alrealy employment opportunities and where these people are employed. The original proposals of the Bantu Affairs Commission were that an area connecting the Kuruman area through Reivilo to the area around Andalusia should have been taken for the Blacks in order to consolidate two large Black areas. Sir, there were objections from the White farmers in the area, and because of those objections the Government decided to change their plan, and that is why we have the proposals today to move these people 160 km away.

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

My time is limited, Sir. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister allowed to refer to an hon. member as a “bangbroek”?

I withdraw it.

That is the sort of thing we expect from the Minister.

On a point of order, Sir, did the Minister withdraw that remark? We did not see him rise from his seat to do so.

The hon. the Minister did withdraw.

He has no respect for the Chair or for anybody else. We know that and we expect it of him. Now, as I have said, in this case where there was consultation with the White community which objected, the plans were changed and I want to ask the Minister, when he gets around to consulting with the Bantu tribe concerned and if they object to moving, is he going to change his plans? Will he leave them there?

I will reply when I get up. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the whole object of the exercise today is that when that hon. Minister gets around to consulting with the tribe concerned, and when they do object, he is going to say: “I am sorry, you have no right to object because Parliament has decided that you must go.” That is why I say to all my colleagues in the House this afternoon that we have a weighty decision to make. We have to decide whether over 100 000 Black people, plus uncounted tens of thousands of other people, are going to have to be moved at the behest of this Parliament because of a decision which we will take here this afternoon, when we have had no evidence whatsoever as to the circumstances under which they are going to be moved, where they will be moved to, the employment potential of the new area, what compensation is going to be paid to them, whether there will be housing provided—the hon. the Minister has given an assurance, we know, but we also know what has happened before with his assurances—whether their crops will be the same, whether there are communications, whether there are facilities for education, or whether they will be able to keep their stock.

My final point relates to the Coloured and Indian people, for whom the Progressive Party and my friends, the Reformists, have no feeling at all. Those Coloureds and Indians who are going to be removed are all agriculturalists and they will not be offered suitable alternative agricultural land. There is no alternative agricultural land available for them. I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, that these cases where there have been objections or where there has not been consent from the communities concerned, should be referred back, deserves the support of all members of this House when we vote on this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, once again today we had a tirade from the eloquent member for Pietermaritzburg South. He was as noisy and emotional as we expected him to be, When someone launches as emotional an attack as he did, one at least expects the person concerned to tell the whole truth. I want to refer to one example only, namely the case of Reivilo. The plan in regard to this piece of land did not originate from the Bantu Affairs Commission; it was the Department’s plan. I could refer to a number of other discrepancies and untruths. The hon. member also said that the Bantu were being moved to less favourable areas in Kuruman, and that they were being moved 160 km. Sir, that is an untruth. That is not so. The land south of the Kuruman/Vryburg road which belongs to those Bantu who are being evacuated, has been purchased over a number of years. There is land there which is still to be utilized, and to which those Bantu will be moved. The area in the region of Lykso and the area to the east of that same part are the two areas being given to them and the furthest those Bantu will be moved is less than 40 km. I want to add that they are going to land far better than that which they have at present.

Sir, a great fuss has been made today about the resettlement of Bantu. Those hon. members must show me one case in South Africa of Bantu who have been moved and resettled, being worse off than they had been previously. They cannot do that. They have only to show me a single case of this occurring. They need only mention the name. Sir, that hon. member cannot do it. In what respect then, are the Bantu so much worse off than before, as the hon. member wanted to intimate?

I now come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Just to confirm what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, I want to refer him to what he said. I quote from the hon. member’s Hansard—

That is what the hon. member said. Sir, it occurs to one that hon. members opposite are putting up a smokescreen, perhaps in order to protect one of their colleagues. The hon. member made a big fuss about certain removals and said that the Government did not even know why it had purchased that land. But, Sir, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana there is a proposal that certain large pieces of land should be purchased. In the Select Committee those hon. members also recommended the purchasing of certain land. However, they are not in favour of the excisions. If they are not in favour of the excisions, surely that means that that land was purchased in vain. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that this department and its people know what will be done in respect of every morgen that is purchased.

The United Party has always adopted a very dismal attitude towards this whole issue of land purchases. This has already been pointed out by the hon. the Deputy Minister and by various members on this side, inter alia, the hon. member for Cradock. I want to refer to another point, viz. their behaviour in the Select Committee. In 1973 we had the strange phenomenon of the United Party members walking out of the Committee. Why did they walk out? According to them they did so because evidence could not be submitted to the Committee by the public. The same reason applied this year, but this year they remained. Now one asks oneself: What, then has happened in these two years? This year the Progressive Party had a member on the Select Committee and it was for that reason and that reason only that the United Party remained there. Then too, there is the strange line of conduct adopted by the hon. member for Edenvale. In two instances he joined the hon. member for Houghton in voting for the National Party, viz. in the case of the inclusion of Port St. Johns and areas in Schedule 8 of the Transkei and Ciskei. I wonder what the hon. member is going to do about the amendment, since the United Party proposed that six of the White areas be referred back for further investigation.

From the earliest history of this country the Whites have set a high standard in their relations with the Black man. A proud record has been established. From the time of Union that record has been maintained, so much so that attention was given to the matter as early as 1913. When Minister J. W. Sauer introduced the Bantu Land Bill in 1913, he moved, inter alia—

In the main that Bill provided, firstly, for the separation of races and, secondly, for the demarcation of the territories of the Black mart and, thirdly—a very important principle—for the protection of the Black man on his own land. Can you imagine what would have happened if those protective measures for the Black man had not been maintained? Would they still have been in their reserves today? Would we have met today furthher to extend those reserves? That is doubtful. Today we had the proposals which, finally, give effect to the 1936 legislation. Surely, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said, this is an-historic event. It emphasizes anew the proud record of the Whites with regard to race relations, although over the past 27 years the National Party has taken the lead in this regard. It is a proud record because there has never been any question of our not keeping our word and not purchasing all the land promised in the 1936 legislation. It is a proud record because we afforded protection to these people, we gave them larger territories, and did so at the expense of the Whites. Nevertheless the Opposition continues to maintain that this is a dividing up of land between the Whites and the Bantu. That is not so. Historically, these Black people have been established in certain areas. These proposals merely comprise additions and excisions, as the Minister has already said, and further additions to the quota land. Nevertheless this consolidation is still a major achievement for us because we have consolidated far more than 100 areas into 24. The ideal is, of course, that each homeland should only have one territory. We accept that entirely, and the hon. the Minister said so too. However, this was simply not possible. Plans were submitted in accordance with which this could in fact have been done, but they would have caused major disruption. Such a tremendous fuss is already being made in the ranks of the Opposition about the removal of people that it was entirely unthinkable to move so many more people. Having regard to the places where the Black man has traditionaally lived, his ethnic differences and the cost and number of people involved, it was simply impossible. When the Interior Vote was under discussion, Dr. Mulder referred to a certain state which had become independent and had decided that only the headmen would have the franchise. That suited them. They considered that that would be in their best interests. In spite of the fact that the territories of the various peoples consists of more than one part, the Government is convinced that these areas can in fact be administered. Where there is a will, Sir, there is a way. On more than one occasion this hon. Minister has told us that the future pattern of co-operation between the Black states and us will be one of interdependence. The Black states can be happy, to have a, neighbour like South Africa that has been a guardian to them, that has always assisted them and that will continue to assist them in the future, too.

The Opposition also made a big fuss about the whole issue of viability. Where in the world has Viability ever been a prerequistie for independence? But no, in South Africa, it must be a prerequisite for independence There is not a single state in the rest of Africa where this has ever been a prerequisite. It seems to me that the Opposition intentionally wishes to interpret viability incorrectly as economic independence. I may just remind them that in 1961, when the Republic became independent, there was also talk that the Republic would not be viable. No, we must go back to the concept as expounded the other day by the hon. member for Vereeniging, when he said: “Viability” means that it does not have life yet, but that it is capable of life. In other words, the potential determines the viability of the homelands. The potential of those homelands was expressly stated here. But there is another cardinal factor, and that is the human potential. That is the cardinal factor in the viability of a country. In this regard, too, we know that there will be development. We need only consider everything the Government has done in regard to the establishment of instruments such as the corporations, the establishment of growth points and infrastructures to know that this potential will in fact be developed and that this Government will have those people economically sound before independence. As regards the human viability. I just want to quote what the hon. Minister M. C. Botha said recently when he opened Lebowa’s Legislative Assembly. After sketching the outline of Lebowa’s development, he said the following (translation)—

That, too, is the finding of Prof. J. A. Davis, professor at the University College of Sierra Leone, with regard to the states of West Africa. There is definitely progress. Those who knew the Transkei ten years ago and have seen it again recently, as I have done, can see that there has definitely been progress everywhere. The huts, which had previously been scattered across the entire country are now grouped together where the people are living. The people have their separate areas and fences have been erected to divide up the areas into camps for pasturization. They apply contour farming, and we are already seeing signs of erosion being replaced by grass. Development is, in fact, taking place. These people will make progress because this is what is happening to the country. We could also call to mind the luxury hotel in Umtata, where Mr. A. S. Nkonyeni is in charge. This is a luxury hotel with a turnover of more than R1 million. It makes one realize that these people are making progress. We see a great future for these people and we are convinced that those areas and their people are viable.

Mr. Speaker, as did various other hon. members on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Vryburg used General Hertzog’s promise to make Dr. Verwoerd’s dream come true. I think the point has been put repeatedly that the 1936 legislation cannot be explained on the basis of decisions taken later. The hon. member also stated that they are using that legislation to give a geographic basis to the policy of separate development, as the hon. member for Kliprivier put it yesterday. However, we cannot simply link the two and leave it at that. Where our standpoint differs in regard to these proposals is that we say that the promises of the 1936 legislation must be honoured, but those promises have nothing to do with the policy of separate development as interpreted by the Government side.

I just want to refer in passing to the standpoint of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who is not present at the moment. The United Party introduced the 1936 legislation, and now I want to know whether they did not know at the time that resettlement would take place. Were they not aware that there would be established areas in which people would be living? What did they have in mind? Whence, then, this sudden piety? Could we just have a clear statement from them as to whether they still support the 1936 legislation or not? That is all we want to know. We do not want to know about procedural measures adopted to evade this matter.

Thus far, the debate has centred, for the most part, on three levels. The one was the objection to the procedure adopted by the Select Committee. The other complaint related to the resettlement of Whites, the farmers who were affected, people who had remained on their family farms for a long time and who now have to be resettled, and then too, the resettlement of so-called Black spots and the misery and the problems associated with that. I find it remarkable that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development should have said that this was an historic day, because what is this Select Committee’s report really about? It is about the co-existence of various peoples in South Africa. On the part of the Government, in particular, it is an attempt to ensure that the Whites will always have a secure existence in South Africa. This claim made on behalf of the Whites by the Government is a tremendous claim, because, as we all know, it does not occur anywhere in Africa that the Whites can negotiate such a position for themselves. The promise held out by the Government, is that it is making this possible for the Whites of South Africa through this geographic consolidation. Viewed superficially or objectively, there is …

Where in Africa is a comparable situation to be found?

The hon. member may as well calm down or, preferably, go to sleep, if he is not interested. I, too, have a speech to make. The real point is that if we consider the Whites in the other countries in Africa, we see that there are certain objective criteria which indicate that the chances of the Whites in South Africa being able to succeed in working out a place for themselves here legally are far greater. The numerical relationship between Black and White is a great deal more favourable in our case, and the level of industrialization in South Africa is a great deal higher than in the rest of Africa. We have also had a longer period of exposure between White and non-White, or black and White, here. Most important of all is that the Whites in South Africa have nowhere else to go. There is no alternative; they simply have to find a place for themselves in Africa. The Government’s answer is the policy of separate development, which is being given concrete form by the report of this Select Committee. When the hon. the Minister states that this is an historic day, one has to take this seriously, against the background of what is occurring in Africa. It is said that détente is necessary because we must allow separate development to succeed. For that reason all the different Votes of our Budget reflect our attempt to win time in order to allow this policy of separate development to succeed. It must succeed because, as the hon. the Minister said, we want to establish these territories—the hon. member for Waterberg also said this—in order to enable various peoples to uplift themselves. The hon. the Minister also added that this would have to take place so that there could be social, economic, and political development there. If this does not occur, if those possibilities are not converted into reality, then it is too late for us, in terms of the Government’s logic in regard to the Whites’ position in Southern Africa.

Let us consider these levels. The first is the economic level. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a big fuss here about the potential of the homelands. No one is going to quarrel about their potential. What is important is not “if”, so much as the economic forces at work in South Africa at the moment. Let us consider what Professor Lombard has said. No one can accuse him of being a Progressive; he is regarded as an expert in the sphere of rural development. He is an economist of note. He says that the basic dilemma which we in South Africa face, is the fact that we have a Government policy that demands a very high degree of State interference if it is to be realized, but at the same time, we have an economic structure based on the private profit motive. This is the dilemma faced by the hon. the Minister. He cannot succeed in getting industrialists and other people to invest there merely by asking. He cannot achieve this by telling them how fantastic the potential is there. The point is that there are economic forces at work in South Africa which ignore that potential.

Why?

Owing to the economic structure which you want to perpetuate by means of your Budget. As the saying goes, “You cannot have your cake and eat it.” That is the problem we are saddled with. I am not going to give long statistical analyses. An important figure is the one mentioned inter alia by Prof. Sadie’s Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch. In 1970 they published a report containing the finding that the per capita income of the people in the homelands—taking into account the migratory labourers—was R72 per annum. The per capita income of the Bantu staying in the White urban areas on a permanent basis was then R144 per annum. What does this tell us? It tells us one thing only, namely that there is an economic force attracting these people to our industrial urban growth points. We get them in the squatter camps; we get them everywhere. They seek employment in the cities because they believe, willy-nilly, that they will find work here. This is a force of which we must take cognizance. It is pointless to appeal to spirit of national unity or identity or to the desire to be separate of those people. If they want to be separate, they will be so. But they do not keep themselves separate; they come to the cities and become part of the process of industrial growth. This is a problem we must deal with on a political basis. There is no alternative in this regard. As long as we do not tackle that problem in the cities, the potential of the homelands will remain an “if”. It is by no means my intention to say that we have no appreciation for rural modernization, for the Government’s efforts or for the expert advice the Government gives those farmers —whether in regard to communal land ownership or private land ownership—to increase the maize yield from three sacks to six sacks per morgen, for example. We are not arguing about that. This would have had to be done in normal circumstances in any event, but to see it as a counter to the economic force of attraction drawing people to the cities and as something attracting the people back to the homelands, simply does not make sense in terms of all the available information.

However, this does not apply to the economic level only, but to the social level as well, another level mentioned by the hon. the Minister. What is happening at the level of demographic development? I need not go into the whole issue of the population explosion. The increase in population, is particularly high in the rural areas, although it is virtually just as high among Black people in the urban areas. However, the population increase is only one of the demographic factors. Resettlements of population comprise another factor, of course. We know that in spite of all the Government’s efforts the numbers in the cities are still increasing. To a certain degree, the success of this policy depends on there being a drop in numbers. There must be a force attracting people back to the homelands, but up to now this has not occurred. In fact, looking at the available statistics in this regard, one sees that in the case of some of the homelands, more than half of the population are absent from the homeland.

But the tempo has dropped.

What is important is not the tempo that has dropped but the employment opportunities. Between 150 000 and 200 000 labourers enter the labour market annually. Those labourers seek work and they seek work where the work is to be found and that work is to be found where the greatest degree of industrial development is taking place, viz. at our industrial growth points. It does not take place over there. They can create more employment opportunities there, and the more employment opportunities that are created there, the better. However, the employment opportunities that are going to be created in the homelands, are not going to be sufficient.

Another social factor to which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister referred and which is taking place inexorably, is the process of detribalization in the urban areas. [Interjections.] I know that it is a favourite argument to say that a Zulu remains a Zulu, no matter where he is. I know that the hon. member for Rissik has tremendous problems as far as I am concerned. He feels that I am detribalized, that I should really be somewhere else. What is important is the factual situation. The people in the cities have historic links with the Zulus in the home land, but they, too, are becoming part of a metropolitan way of life. That man will understand that he must go back to his homeland when he sees that there are viable possibilities for him there. The hon. the Minister’s dilemma is, in fact, that he wants that man to go back and create viable possibilities there. Now the man will ask, “Why should I go? My opportunities are here. Why should I take my, wife and children to go and seek or create work if the work is here and if they pay me better here?” That is simply a human reaction.

Now, at last, we reach the political level, the level of politics. This is the third aspect which the hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday. He referred to the economic, the social and the political development. As far as political development is concerned, we have an interesting phenomenon. The Government’s policy of separate development based on geographic, consolidated areas, is also based on the premise that we must establish separate political institutions for the people there, to enable them to use those institutions to run their affairs there. However, it remains a fact that the more institutions are established, the greater the demands for a central institution, the more people look to this Parliament. It is said that such and such must be rectified. This means only one thing and that is that political power as an instrument to change those people’s lives, must be effective. They must be able to take decisions in terms of a Budget capable of establishing conditions there in which that potential can be developed. The political institutions that exist at the moment are orientated towards this central Parliament. Quite apart from this, there is also the question whether those political institutions are adequate to deal with the problems of the Black man in the city as well— also in terms of the Government’s policy of separate development. To me there seems to be a political vacuum here. At the moment there is no such thing. I now that the Government is trying. They operate through the homeland authorities, they have representatives, etc., but for the vast majority of the inhabitants of the cities this is inadequate. They do not feel that they are making an effective contribution to the existing communities. I am therefore grateful for the changes announced the other day by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to the urban Black man, because this is fundamental to the development of an infrastructure for the Black man in the urban areas. The best illustration of political power and its use in South Africa for the upliftment of a group is that of the Afrikaner himself. If the Afrikaner had been denied access to the Parliament of South Africa, I shudder to think what would have happened to him. What would have happened to him if he had had to remain under the yoke of British, imperialism? [Interjections.] He used those same institutions, and not merely the institutions of political power, but on all the other levels, too. [Interjections.] This is just what I am trying to explain, viz. that they are rationalizing that these consolidation proposals before us must assure our future by removing these peoples from us, so that they can, for themselves … [Interjections.] Whether or not one argues about how much land there will be, in terms of the philosophy of which the hon. the Minister is a great champion, it is crystal clear to me that however one approaches the matter, looking at this geographic basis one can see, given the present economic, political and social realities in South Africa, that it is not going to work. The hon. the Minister must give us indications. It is pointless for us to fall back on potential. The potential is not the issue, nor is it merely one of lack of faith; it is one of common sense with which one looks at the problems which we, as a White group in South. Africa, have to contend with. However we try to explain it and however the Government puts it, what this is going to amount to in the final analysis is that if we persist in this, then in effect, the Whites will monopolize economic and political power in South Africa. That is what is going to happen, because the growth points themselves are in the so-called White areas, and we shall never free ourselves of the political pressure and the political demands that will be made in the future. Sir, I do not say this because I want it to be so; I say this because it is the pattern throughout the under-developed world that people stream to the urban centres and make demands of the central political institutions. This is the problem we have to contend with, and that is why we in these benches are convinced that one will only be able to contend with this problem if people who are subject to political, economic and social institutions, are able to play a full and equal part in those institutions. I do not say that that is the solution, Mr. Speaker, but I say that is a direction with a greater chance of success than this direction in which we are headed at the moment.

Sir, I want to come back to a few hon. members opposite who attacked us here, and who said: “I now want an honest answer from the hon. member so that we may know for all time what the party’s standpoint is.” The hon. member for Lydenburg asked us, “Do you say that a Blackman should be able to purchase land at any place in South Africa?” Sir, I want to put it very clearly here, that if we in South Africa do not bring a situation into being in which every Black man can purchase land where he wants to, we shall always have problems in South Africa. I have just as much right as the Government to say that this is the goal, and if we strive to achieve that goal, then this would seem more reasonable to me and there would seem to be more chance of our reducing these bottlenecks. It is going to be difficult. This is not a question of conflict or no conflict. It is a question of what kind of conflict and how that conflict is going to be handled. May I ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein West whether he can tell me that the Nationalist Party is never going to allow merit teams to be selected to play football for South Africa? [Interjection.] The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”. Are merit teams never going to be selected?

Order! The hon. member is really covering a very wide field now.

Sir, he put a number of questions to us, too. We have been asked here to reply to questions that have nothing to do with consolidation and so I took it that we, too, could do so.

Are you in favour of integration?

Sir, to come back to the Select Committee, I shall just ask this question: If yesterday was an historic day, if it was a day on which we had a very real and concrete manifestation of a solution to the problem of the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa, then I am amazed that we should spend the whole time discussing such petty matters here. In fact, I should have expected congratulatory telegrams from all over the world, because this is a problem that has never yet been solved in this way anywhere in the world. Consequently I should have expected us to receive thousands of congratulatory telegrams. I should have expected us to have had thousands of Black and White people outside this Parliament telling us with jubilation, “Now we can go forward”. Is it the heart-felt conviction of all of us sitting here that these proposals represent a tremendous breakthrough for the future of South Africa, that we have now really come to grips with the problem of the urban Bantu and that at the same time even the Coloured problem has been remedied to some small extent? Sir, if that is not the case, what, then have we achieved? But it does seem to me that there is a possibility that we could make a little progress, because the hon. the Minister himself said yesterday, with reference to the fact that they have now reduced these 100 areas to 24 areas and that this is a great step forward …

It is.

Yes, it is a major step, because it is a tremendous process to persuade people to get rid of their land against their will. The Minister said yesterday—

Have we now given up this ideal?

No.

But the reason advanced by the Minister was that it would be very difficult. But in any event, it has been very difficult for 27 years now. Surely, therefore, we cannot give up the ideal because of the difficulty involved. Surely there is nothing wrong with stating an ideal. After all, the Minister said it was the ideal that there should be one area per homeland. Are we therefore going to have even more consolidated homelands, say, for example, one KwaZulu? These are fundamental questions. [Interjections.] Then we shall know whether to go further than the recommendations of the Select Committee, because you see, Mr. Speaker, our policy is that we say we must draw the borders far wider and that—It does not matter how we draw the borders —we shall have Black and White within those borders in any event. That is the problem we must tackle. But to argue, as the hon. member did here when he asked me whether we would give them Durban, or East London, is ridiculous. It is not our policy to give them a city. Nor is there any point in giving them 80% of the agricultural land of South Africa if we do not develop the potential of all the inhabitants to exploit the possibilities there. As far as we are concerned, the issue is not whether to give anyone a city or anything else; it is the development potential in that area. It seems to me that this is a fundamental point which the hon. the Minister is making here, that the possibility exists that this will go further, because surely it will remain the ideal that we should eventually have one large homeland for each group. Will the hon. the Minister therefore tell me, if not now, then in his reply to the debate later, whether this ideal is still cherished and whether they are going to endeavour to attain that ideal, even if there are tremendous difficulties, or is that ideal to be abandoned because the difficulties are too great? To me this is the cardinal point for the future of the Whites in South Africa, if we want to get anywhere in this regard.

The hon. member for Rondebosch, who has just resumed his seat, among other things referred disparagingly to the historic event to which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development referred. If I heard the hon. member correctly, he said that if the consolidation scheme with which we are now engaged was the solution, and if this was an historic occasion, we should have received congratulations from across the world and there would be thousands of people crowding in front of Parliament to congratulate us. Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch knows what South Africa’s position in the world is, and he knows, too, in what light South Africa is viewed. If we had been wrong today, thousands of telegrams would have streamed to this Parliament and there would have been thousands of people crowding before Parliament to protest against what we are doing today. Sir, in my opinion, what we have perhaps seen this afternoon is the prelude to a totally new approach that could result from the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission, a prelude to a situation in which the federal concept will give way to a central Parliament This was spelt out in a speech by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

Reference was made by various hon. members on that side of the House to the problem which this side of the House supposedly fails to perceive. Reference was made to the problems which the various peoples will have to face, but in my opinion there is one important facet which the various Opposition parties on that side are failing to perceive in this debate, and that is that these Bantu peoples with whom we are concerned there also possess qualities and that a potential is inherent in the spiritual strength of those people, too, a potential that could determine whether this homeland development, this autonomous national development, is going to be a success. Let us say this afternoon that this side of the House has faith in the qualities of the non-White peoples of Southern Africa. We are confident that those people are able to solve their problems in their own time and in their own way.

In my opinion, a characteristic of the debate of the past two days has been that we have been unable to escape the impression that there is a lack of understanding and realism on the other side. The parties opposite declare themselves to be in favour of land purchases, but they are opposed to the resettlement of people. There is a good description in English of the spirit they are displaying—“the line of least resistance”. It would perhaps have been easiest not to resettle the people, but I do not believe it would be a solution to the problem of Southern Africa or that of the world if we did not accept the responsibility for the resettlement and if the various Bantu peoples did not accept co-responsibility. Southern Africa, and not just White South Africa, is conveying a message to the world, viz. that a high premium is placed on a people’s own distinct identity, on a people’s own pride and on a people’s own institutions. That message would have been an empty one if we had been unable or unwilling to show the world that this was a solution to the problem of the peaceful co-existence of various peoples, each in its own territory. The various Bantu peoples have the right to a territory which they can care for, be loyal to, love and develop. No people may withhold from another people a territory of its own. If we deny the potential and the qualities of a people on its own territory, then we have a selfish attitude towards other peoples. There will be problems, but we can take it that this Government together with the non-White peoples will attempt to solve these problems in the fashion acceptable to the various peoples in South Africa. However, this side of the House wants to emphasize that the qualities of the various Black peoples will have to be developed if every people is to develop within its own territory. It can be disastrous to underestimate the potential, the spiritual strength and the qualities of one’s people, and if one underestimates the potential, spiritual strength and quality of another people, then one is also begrudging that people what one claims for one’s own people.

A homeland may be small, but I do not think it is necessary to speak disparagingly about a people or its territory merely because it is small. Last night the hon. member for Sea Point referred to Basotho Qua-Qua as two farms in the Witsieshoek Valley. If I were to refer to the Netherlands today as a piece of reclaimed ocean, then I should be insulting those people. If I were to refer disparagingly to the few little constituencies represented by the Progressive Party …

But the question is whether the homelands are viable.

… then those people would have reason to take it amiss of me for not wanting to recognize them. Qua-Qua is small, but Qua-Qua is not the smallest country in the world that has accepted independence. After consolidation, Qua-Qua will comprise 590 square kilometres with a total of about 91,4 million inhabitants. Singapore has an area of only 580 square kilometres—less than that of Qua-Qua—and the population of Singapore is more than 2 million. Malta comprises 315 square kilometres, Liechtenstein 158 square kilometres and Monaco 392 hectares. All these States are full-fledged, independent States recognized in the comity of nations. All four are independent, and Malta and Singapore are members of U.N. Monaco and Liechtenstein contribute towards U.N. funds.

Will Qua-Qua be allowed to have a casino?

The South Sotho peoples who will be my neighbours are also people with qualities, values and ideals. It is, rather, necessary that we should make an appeal this afternoon from this House to the entrepreneurs who have thus far overlooked Qua-Qua because it is smaller than the other homelands, to look at the Qua-Qua homeland as well. These people have the qualities sought by an entrepreneur. I think it would be as well, too, for me to refer to the fact that the consolidation of Qua-Qua is the smallest, and at the same time probably one of the most difficult consolidations, difficult in that 13 000 hectares had to be consolidated on to the existing Witsieshoek and that leaves little room for manoeuvre. When an attempt is made—and this being done—not to cut up farms unnecessarily, then one is grateful that in spite of the difficult situation faced by the department, the South African Agricultural Union and the local farmers, it can be said today that these people acted honestly. That is why I must convey a word of appreciation in this House to the farmers of Harrismith. Over the past few years the people of that district have been asked to make their sacrifices, too, on a number of occasions. We call to mind the Sterkfontein Dam, for which some of the most fertile parts of Harrismith were taken for the development of Sterkfontein. Now, again, there is consolidation of the Qua-Qua homeland. I want to give hon. members the assurance that where there is a possibility that certain people will have to leave the area, this will not be without grief. The responsible way in which organized agriculture consulted the department definitely does these farmers credit. I want to pay tribute, too, to the officials of the South African Agricultural Union who have been prepared at all times to devote their time, labour and minds to finding a solution to this problem. We in the Eastern Free State should like to convey our appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who on a number of occasions has been prepared to meet the farmers concerned in the area and has always afforded them a sympathetic hearing and, together with the officials, has taken high-level action. Let us make an appeal from this House to the authorities and the inhabitants of Qua-Qua that they too should respect their own border with pride in the future, that they too should strive towards a sound relationship with their neighbours and that the property of others, the property of another people, will be respected. This is an appeal we want to make to them from White South Africa and we want to give them the same undertaking. Whereas Qua-Qua is to have its legislative assembly opened next week by the hon. the Prime Minister, let me, too, say from this House to the people of Qua-Qua that this side of the House wishes them success and everything of the best in their progress towards becoming a nation upon their own soil.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister that I am unable to be here tomorrow, but I shall read his Hansard carefully. I also want to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that there is no one on this side of the House who does not wish the Bantu in those areas well. In the same way as they have ideals for the Bantu population, so we have equally great ideals for the Bantu population. We on this side of the House have the ideal of seeing to it that the Bantu population in the country will become an urban population, people who are connected with the industries and who will take part in our Western civilization and will derive great benefit from it. This is our ideal. The 1936 Act is our Act and we support the purchase of land, but when we say that we should perhaps have bought more land, we are specifically referring to the urban areas where the Bantu are settled today and where they will be settling to an increasing extent in future. That is where we shall have to buy more land than what is recommended in the 1936 Act.

That is not fragmentation, is it?

That is what you want.

Ah, don’t talk drivel! If the hon. member thinks that is a new one, what does he think we have been talking about? Where does the hon. member propose to put the increase in the numbers of Black people in Soweto, for example? Where are they going to go? [Interjection.] Are they going to live up in the sky, as the hon. member says? There is going to have to be ground bought for Black people in South Africa. What is important about this consolidation as we see it here, is that today we have the proposals which mean the end of the transfer of agricultural ground from White to Black. That hon. member spoke about the line of least resistance. I shall come back to that very shortly. I think we have an important milestone here. As far as the 1936 Act is concerned, what these resolutions mean is that the quotas in respect of agricultural ground are being met today by these resolutions. The importance of agricultural ground in this country, in the hands of White people, is something which I have stressed before and which I stress again now. It is important not only to the White population but also to the Black population, to all the people of South Africa, a population which will double in the next 25 years. The capacity for improvement of the agricultural production of the Bantu areas has been freely spoken of in this House. Our ideal is to see, in those Bantu areas, the countryside swept clean of people who do not farm, to see urbanization taking place in the homelands as well and to see the ground there parcelled out among people who will farm it efficiently and be able to produce the levels of food necessary for the future. One could imagine, for instance, what would happen if one took the Transkei and populated it with Chinese peasants. What would the production of food in the Transkei not be then! It would then be a heavy net exporter of food. Our whole attitude towards ground, towards the 1936 Act and the handing over of ground to Black people has quite clearly been set out by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I am unable to understand the difficulties of hon. members on the other side and Progressive Party members on this side who ask us what we envisage and why we contradict ourselves. We are quite clearly committed to the acquisition of ground in terms of the 1936 Act. What is happening, however, is that the Nationalist Party has crucified itself on the policy of the Nationalist Party giving independence as their political ideal. They are trying to tie this up with a practical solution expressed in terms of the 1936 Act to give increased living room—what was regarded in 1936 as adequate living room—to the Black population. The Progressive Party has been speaking about further consolidation. It would appear that the Slabbert Commission report is going to come out for Black and White provinces intermixed with common rights or with qualified rights or something of that nature. I do not know. We shall hear about that later on. We have included with them the hon. members of the Reform Party, the sort of neo-proto-Prog. Party or the “party-in-wording what vasgeheg is aan die Progressiewe Party in ’n los hoedanigheid” if I may so describe it. [Interjections.] That is so. I want to talk …

Political “by-woners”.

Yes, political “by-woners”.

I wish to speak to the hon. member of the Select Committee. It has been asked here why we have asked for these matters to be referred back for further consideration. In regard to the area with which I am concerned, the area of Estcourt, it has asked quite specifically that the matter be referred back for further consideration because an alternative plan has been put forward, the plan which was proposed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in the Select Committee. The chairman of the Select Committee said that they had considered evidence which had been put forward by the department and that all the evidence was before them. He could get the evidence. In fact he read up the evidence of the old Bantu Affairs Commission of which no members are present here today.

I want to deal with the facts. The hon. member for Klip River can correct me if I am wrong because he and I have been engaged step by step and side by side in these negotiations. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the people in that area relied completely on the hon. member for Klip River. They relied upon his assurances and upon the assurances of the hon. the Deputy Minister that locations Nos. 1, 2 and the Upper Tugela Location would be cleared and that the Bantu population would be moved to Babanango.

I never gave that assurance.

It was clearly understood that they would be moved and that there was no problem of consolidation which was going to affect the people of the lowlands area at all. What was before the Select Committee in 1973 was a plan to join up the three locations and to buy up the White corridors in between. That was rejected as was quite rightly stated by the hon. member. It was rejected by the Natal Agricultural Union, by 11 farmers’ associations in that area and by everybody concerned. They rejected it because they understood that there would be a move to take all those people to Babanango. The hon. member spoke about the line of least resistance. The NAU and representatives of those farmers’ associations came to meet the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister and I had a meeting with the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first thing we did was to agree that it would be ideal if all those people could be moved. From a soil conservation point of view, from a consolidation point of view, from a democratic point of view and from all different points of view it would have been the ideal thing to move all those people out and to put them into an area such as Babanango. This would create a far greater Zulu entity.

I thought you were against the moving of people?

Stick around, lad, strick around. The hon. the Minister told me that the people there would not move and that that was the reason why they were not being moved. They just did not want to move. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is not perhaps a lesson to him. Is there not some lesson to be learnt from this? We have heard hon. members on the other side talking about this wonderful future, about this ideal and about this new Eden which is going to be created there. The hon. the Minister spoke about the housing that was going to be provided there; he talked about the work opportunities that would be created there. Everything was going to be rosy in the garden in these new homelands. Here we have an entire group of people who refuse point-blank to move from the place where they are living now to another area. This is what consolidation is. They say openly: “Siya-saba yama Zulu”, which means “We are scared of those people down there in Zululand”.

How did they get there?

Yes, the hon. member is quite right. How did they get there? They got there by running away from the people in Zululand. It is the hon. the Minister’s proposal, it is his policy to create one Zulu State. Where they have the opportunity of consolidating and making a real entity of these people, the people concerned refuse point-blank to have anything to do with the other Zulus in Zululand. Surely there is a lesson to be learnt from this. In other words, they are absolutely not prepared to accept the policy which this hon. Minister espouses. The hon. the Minister has given in and he said he will not move them because they are not prepared to be moved to Zululand. That is the simple truth of the matter. I want to ask the members of the Select Committee what they did to establish the facts in relation to this matter. There is an alternative proposal before the House in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It is an established agricultural fact—the member for Klip River will agree with me—that the soil in the Estcourt area, in the lowlands, is the most erodible and fragile soil in South Africa. Of all the soils in South Africa, it will give way most readily. It will be washed out and ruined if it is not farmed properly. Did the Select Committee hear evidence to that effect? Did they ask for such evidence? Did they go and look for it? That ground will repay investment in capital, expertise and technical know-how on the part of farmers as much as any soil anywhere in South Africa. It is a very productive soil which returns good yields if it is correctly handled. However, it is now the department’s proposal to put Bantu peasant farmers on this soil.

No, that is not correct.

Don’t talk tripe. Of course it is correct. What is the hon. member talking about? He was a member of the Select Committee, but what did he do to find out whom it was proposed to settle there? What are they going to do with that ground?

Go on, tell us.

The hon. member for Port Natal, a member representing Natal on the Select Committee and now on the commission, must have sat with his eyes shut tighter than anybody else there because he did not want to look at the facts and at the truth of what was going on. He should have taken the responsibility to see that the province which he represents at least got reasonably fair consideration from the members on the Select Committee as far as the facts of the case were concerned.

It is proposed to move certain people now. The hon. the Minister has refused to move them all because he says they will not move. The alternative proposal is easier and far more in the interests of all the people there in that fewer people need then be moved. It seeks to consolidate by buying out two small White corridors between the lower portion of the upper Tugela and the higher portion of the upper Tugela. That plan was put forward by this very department. It is not something we sucked out of our thumbs. We did not make it up. This plan comes from the Department itself and was seriously considered by them to be good enough to present to the people for consideration. Why did the Select Committee not consider that plan seriously? Why does this House not consider that plan seriously? Why does the House not agree with this amendment in which we ask that we should go back and have another look at the whole situation? The Bantu people in the valleys of the Lambonjoe are there already, they are perfectly happy there and they can stay there. The people who would have to be moved are those who stay in the upper reaches. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana a far smaller number of people, Black and White, would have to be moved than in terms of any other plan. What is more, the ground there is already occupied by Bantu people and the soil stands up to that sort of occupation far better than the soil in the lowlands area of Estcourt.

More in the catchment area.

If the hon. member had studied the proposal he would have seen that it was that the higher catchment area should be cleared. However, it is no good talking to that hon. member because he does not know what he is talking about.

They are not interested. They are simply rubber stamps.

That is right. If one thinks about it, they look like a lot of rubber stamps with spring heels jumping up and down on bits of paper shoved at them by the Minister and the department. That is what the members of the Select Committee look like to me. One wonders if it is not possible to go for a real consolidation. If the Minister is not prepared to insist that they go to Babanango, then he is taking a political risk. I am quite prepared to accept that the Minister is perfectly within his rights to refuse to do so, but it could cause difficulty and strife and clashes with the people there. Why was the other plan not considered by the Select Committee? Why was there this indecent rush? It is like the by-blow of some highborn lady being smuggled out of the bedchamber the way these people are carrying on.

[Inaudible.]

It is what?

What did he say?

When one talks of soil conservation and water conservation, the entire Tuva scheme is affected by this present proposal. When one talks of production in agriculture and of the movement of people, both White and Black, there is the alternative proposed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana which is infinitely preferable to the hon. the Minister’s proposal which is presently before the House. What do you say of people who refuse to open their minds and open their eyes and look at the facts? These are members of Parliament.

They have abdicated their responsibility.

They are the people who have got the job. They have been appointed to do this work and they are the eyes and ears of this House. As an hon. member here has said, they are an arm of this House. It is their job to go in and to investigate alternatives. We did not raise this alternative simply in order to give trouble to the department. We wanted to serve the national interests of South Africa. The Natal Agricultural Union has throughout adopted the responsible attitude of saying that they want the least number of people to be moved and they want the least possible damage to be caused as far as soil erosion is concerned. I am unable to understand how that hon. member there, the chairman of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs, simply refused to accept every proposal that came from this side of the House. They were voted down time and time again. Every proposal for a reinvestigation was simply turned down flat. [Interjections.] It was not. Have you read your own report?

And even Val Volker sits there dumb.

The hon. member for Klip River had people who relied upon him to get this thing off their necks.

They were clutching at straws.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Lichtenburg why it was that the hon. member for Lichtenburg went to look at some of the farms there between locations 1 and 2? I want to know who in that area is so powerful politically that the hon. the Minister has had to come forward now with a totally different proposal to include these people in the lowlands area who have never before been mentioned in terms of any consolidation proposals? They were suddenly swept up into this thing willy-nilly. Who is it? What political pressure is being applied which now means that there is to be no consolidation in the constituency of the hon. member for Klip River but is all to take place in the constituency which I inherited from him? [Interjections.] Somewhere along the line I should like to have an answer to that question. I want to say that until about the 4th or 5th December last year the people of that area had no inkling at all that this was going to happen to them. They were relying upon the hon. member for Klip River who, if he says he has never made any statements, at least made encouraging noises that these people were all going to be moved and taken away. All of a sudden now something has been dropped in their laps. Not only that. The hon. member first of all received a phone-call and then he had a map posted to him which took I do not know how long to reach him before the people there knew what was going to happen. I think that is a fair reflection of what happened.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is more to this than meets the eye. Any fair-minded person who wanted to consider the alternative proposal would have said that it was at least a reasonable proposal. There was nothing wrong with it because it moved the least number of people whom this hon. Minister will refuse to move to the other place that was proposed, viz. Babanango.

Who said that they were not prepared to be moved? We all saw in the Press that a person who was then a member of the KwaZulu executive—he is no longer a member—said: They will move us only at the point of a gun. Was it on his advice that the hon. the Minister decided that they would not move? On whose advice was it? Why did the Select Committee not go there and find out on whose advice it was that the hon. the Minister said they would not move? They knew perfectly well from the hon. member for Klip River that there was a proposal to move all these people. He made it clear many times that it was the ideal to move them, and it was his own personal inclination and his own personal plan that they should be moved. Why did the Chairman of the Select Committee not go there and hold a hearing and find out? On whose advice did the Minister say that they would not be moved? Sir, if they were scared to go down to Babanango, on what evidence does the Chairman of the Select Committee say that the Amazizi and Amangwana people now say, “We are the best of pals and bosom friends”? Who says that there will not be strife in the area to which they are going to move them? Has he taken the trouble to assure himself that that is not in fact the case?

What is the answer?

Sir, we will get no answer. What is going to happen is that this consolidation will be voted through in this House in the same way as it was in the Select Committee, without consideration of the positive alternative which was put before the House. Sir, I want to register my protest at the way in which this thing is being done.

Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister will be able to give a decisive reply to the attacks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in respect of the consolidation proposals regarding the Upper Tugela areas, etc. I just want to put one question to him to which the next speaker on Opposition side may reply, and the question relates to the new policy statement which he made here on the creation of new Bantustans around our industrial complexes and major cities. I wonder whether he contemplates the creation of a small Zulustan or a small Xhosastan somewhere here at Cape Town and other Bamtustans at Pretoria, which then have to be declared parts of the existing homelands in due course. Is that the intention? Should Nyanga and Langa close to Cape Town become a Xhosastan, or should only a single large area, in which a mixture of ethnic groups may live, be created near the Witwatersrand complex, an area which is to develop independently or become part of some homeland or other? Because the principle of homelands is, after all, being recognized by the Opposition as well. Sir, we should like to have a clear reply concerning this new approach from the hon. member.

I should like to express a few thoughts on the consolidation proposals we have in front of us and on what they mean. Sir, the submission of the consolidation proposals to this House is the logical consequence of the National Government’s policy of separate development. It is the umpteenth bit of evidence of the success which the National Party is achieving in the implementation of its policy. With the submission of these proposals a final and decisive phase has been reached; to my mind this constitutes the completion of the final page of what has been said and written about the execution and the application of Act No. 18 of 1936. Any subsequent negotiations which will be conducted in connection with the exchange or relocation or enlargement of Bantu land between the White Government and the homeland governments will in my opinion have to be conducted outside the provisions of this Act. As far as I am concerned, I trust that there will be no further tampering with these borders in future, especially not after they have attained international status. We heard here from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and from the hon. member for Rondebosch that the land to be purchased in terms of these proposals, would be far too little; that much more land would have to be added. I hope we are taking the final step under the 1936 Act by means of these proposals and that we shall not tamper with these borders again. Sir, to effect the consolidation of the large number of scattered pieces of land which constituted the residential areas of these Black peoples, was a difficult and an enormous task. We think of KwaZulu in Natal, for example, which consisted of more than 100 pieces of land and has been consolidated into ten. We think of Bophuthatswana, which consisted of 19 separate pieces of land which has now been reduced to five. This matter has been tackled and carried into effect in a very efficient manner, and in this regard we want to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Bantu Affairs Commission, and to the officials of the department, who had a share in this. History was made in the past and yesterday and is being made today by the proposals now before this House. The task embraced much more than simply the drawing of boundaries or the removal of people and the purchasing of properties. What had to be done was in fact creative work, the creation not only of new residential areas for Bantu, but in fact of separate fatherlands in embryo, of nations in embryo, new fatherlands in which young nations can live and develop, fatherlands to which young Black nations can anchor and devote themselves, father-lands in which all their national pride can have its roots and for which they can fight should they be threatened. I say that with the completion of these consolidation proposals, history has indeed been made in South Africa at political level. The map of the present Republic of South Africa will never again look the same and have the same character. The foundations have been laid for a separate White state and for various Black states, each with its own territory, status and identity. At times there were serious differences of opinion between individual property owners and interested bodies, such as agricultural unions and municipalities and the Minister and his officials, and this is understandable. In any event, it was appreciated that the Minister and his officials were always available for negotiations with the individuals and bodies concerned, and also with the members of Parliament of the areas concerned in particular. There were also those idealists who wanted to consolidate homelands such as KwaZulu and especially Bophuthatswana into single geographic units. Those were splendid ideals, and had it been possible to realize them, these could have been more viable geographic units. But one need only look at the maps of the areas to see how incapable of realization those ideals are. It is also known that I personally strongly opposed the complete consolidation of the Transvaal areas of Bophuthatswana. My opinion was that it would bring about the penetration of the borders of Black Africa virtually to the doorstep of the heartland areas of the Transvaal, with possibly very dangerous implications in the future. For national security considerations I put forward the view, and it was my opinion and my conviction, that the boundary line from the southern border of Rhodesia, back along the Limpopo to the north-west of the Transvaal, should remain linked to a White strip via Dwaalboom and Derdepoort as far as Zeerust and up to the Northern Cape border. That happened and I am deeply grateful. There were also serious differences of opinion between me and the hon. the Minister and the Bantu Affairs Commission on other releases, especially the widening of the strip from Zeerust up to Derdepoort. I advocated that the eastern boundary of the strip concerned should be on the Great Marico River; it was not accepted and I had to resign myself to that. Basically the proposed consolidation plan of this area corresponds to what I recommended and it has my full support as well as that of my people in Marico. Sir, an enormous and an unparallelled gesture of goodwill and benevolence has been made to the Bantu of South Africa in the implementation of this Act of 1936, by the fewer than four million Whites towards the Blacks of South Africa. It obliged hundreds of land owners to leave properties to which they have been attached for generations—good soil, beautiful farms, highly productive earth, land which is not alienated for commercial purposes but to other nations for once and for all. I can only trust that the Bantu of South Africa will appreciate and use this offer and that the Government will be able to complete the buying of the properties concerned as soon as possible. I express the hope that the Black nations who will occupy and govern in the enlarged areas, will live in harmony and peace with one another and also with White South Africa in the future, and that the hatchet will be buried and that a period of resignation and acceptance will dawn. This is the only way in which peaceful co-existence can be effected. Dr. Verwoerd created a beautiful metaphor in a speech at the Loskop Dam when he dealt with the relations between South Africa and the Black states. That metaphor is also applicable today. I wonder whether I shall have the time to quote from that speech. He said (translation)—

After finality has been reached about the geographic territory of the various Black states and homelands which have been created and they, after they have been led to maturity, are prepared to accept political sovereignty and it has been granted to them, sound relations can exist along the lines indicated by Dr. Verwoerd. I put it that now the Black Governments and leaders will stop making demands continuously as regards further extensions to their territory, because this can only sour sound relations and create ideals in the hearts of their own people which cannot be realized. If they continue making such demands it may give rise to a struggle which will not be beneficial to peaceful and sound co-existence.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Marico made a statement which speakers of the Nationalist Party have made from time to time and which is one of the more remarkable delusions on which they base their philosophy and policy. The hon. member for Marico referred to the so-called White fatherland of South Africa. The only reason I mention this and why I am going to say something about it, is that as long as members of the Nationalist Party talk about a White fatherland, they are not only deluding themselves, but they are setting themselves on a dangerous road, because they are developing policies which are totally unrealistic.

What would you like us to call it then?

Such policies are totally inappropriate in terms of the facts of the time.

Do you not have a fatherland?

It is a fact that the so-called White South Africa of the Nationalist Party is a country which today has between 3,5 million and four million White citizens, 1.75 million Coloured citizens, between eight and nine million Black citizens and something like 750 000 Indian citizens. All these non-White people are citizens of South Africa and they are entitled to equal citizenship rights with, the Whites in South Africa. They are entitled to be considered and treated as human beings. They are people entitled to citizenship rights and they are entitled to socio-economic and political rights in White South Africa. Until the Nationalist Party accept that fact and until they base their planning on that fact, they will never contribute to a solution of the problems of South Africa. One of the things that was said very often during the course of this debate was that this is an “historic” occasion for South Africa. The hon. the Minister as well as many of the hon. members on the other side mentioned it. The Nationalist Party sees it as an historic occasion because they believe that they have, with the proposals before the House, finally solved and settled the land issue between Black and White in South Africa. That is another delusion, an unhappy and unfortunate delusion, because it is totally divorced from the truth, of the situation. It is an historic occasion, but it is an historic occasion because history records successes and failures of countries and of peoples; it records the successes of those people who take opportunities as well as the failures of peoples and countries who do not take opportunities when they come along. In the debate which has taken place in this House today, we have seen the tragedy of the Nationalist Party having failed dismally to take an opportunity to present to South Africa a really meaningful policy of partition and separate development. We would have listened with interest to a Nationalist Party presenting to this House a policy of partition based on realism and moral grounds, a workable policy which we could have debated in an objective and proper way. A lesser tragedy, but one I think must be dealt with, has been the spectacle of the official Opposition losing an opportunity to present to this House and to South. Africa a realistic, meaningful and honest policy with regard to the consolidation of the homelands.

What is your policy?

I will deal with my policy. You just keep quiet and wipe that smile off your face. I was a member of the United Party and I can talk with a certain amount of authority about the vacillation and the dishonesty of the United Party with regard to the consolidation of the homelands.

The only reason why you are in this House is because you were a member of the United Party.

I thank God that I am no longer a member of the United Party. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon. members about the deplorable and ignominious history of the United Party with regard to the consolidation of the homelands. In the United. Party it was always a bone of contention between those people who wished to be realistic and honest in regard to the consolidation of the homelands and those who wished to exploit it for petty political reasons. When the Nationalist Party introduced their policy of separate development the United Party failed dismally to take an objective view of that policy, to study it and to give an objective opinion … [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Umhlanga would keep quiet. He knows nothing about politics. He is an insignificant nincompoop from Natal and I do not want to deal with him. [Interjections.] When that policy was introduced the United Party failed to take an objective view of it. I would like to tell you the truth about what they did, Sir, They saw the policy of the Nationalist Party as an opportunity to exploit the White man’s fear of the Black man in South Africa. The United Party saw the policy of the Nationalist Party not as a policy to study, to judge and to assess, but as a policy through which they could exploit the White man’s fear of the Black man.

When did you see the light?

They did this in the futile hope that they would be able to gain sufficient votes to come to power. The history of the United Party in this respect is a deplorable one. Not only did they exploit existing fears; the United Party created fears where fears did not exist. That is one of the most deplorable aspects of it.

When did you see the light?

In this House—I am not going to waste time to quote from the numbers of Hansards in which it can be read by anybody who would like to read it—the hon. Leader of the United Party as well as its front benchers on innumerable occasions created a fear of the Bantu homelands by saying that they would be jumping-off points for Communism, that they would be a danger to South Africa, that the people were not capable of governing themselves and that they were incapable of looking after their own industries, agriculture and education.

And you echoed it.

I never echoed that. I never said it. That is a lie. The United Party leadership in South Africa should be ashamed of what it did. The United Party should have taken this opportunity to apologize to South Africa for the way in which they exploited the “Swart gevaar”. I am not going to praise the Nationalist Party, because I hold no brief for them either. The United Party, however, should have apologized to South Arica for what they did. It should have apologized to the Black people of South Africa for the way in which they humiliated and insulted them by describing them as people incapable of assuming leadership and responsibility, as people who would allow their countries to be used as communist bases against the Whites in South Africa.

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

I have no time now to answer questions. If the hon. member would just sit down and listen, he might learn something.

You accepted R12 000 a year from us. …

How much have you ever contributed to the United Party?

I am not speaking now simply of minor members of the United Party. They were not the people who used these “Swart gevaar” tactics for exploitation. The lead came from within this House, from the leader of the United Party and the front benches. They went all over South Africa preaching this policy of “Swart gevaar”.

So did you.

I never did, not once. They preached this policy of hatred and fear of the Black man. In the 1966 election—the hon. member for Rissik will remember this, because they changed the wording of the posters in Rissik—the United Party published thousands of posters which had as their theme: “Pas op die Bantoestans/Beware of the Bantustans” and candidates were instructed to use the posters throughout South Africa. The United Party candidates were forced to use these posters which exploited “Swart gevaar”. In the same election the United Party issued hundreds of thousands of pamphlets specifically to exploit “Swart gevaar” and to put the White man’s back up against the Black man in South Africa. I think it is deplorable and disgraceful that that should have been so. And this has never stopped. In the 1974 election, the United Party once again brought out a “Swart gevaar” poster and that poster was used throughout the country, except that then there were some people in the United Party who had the courage to say that they would not be associated with such despicable “Swart gevaar” tactics. Hence we did not make use of that poster.

Hit them!

The United Party today has missed an opportunity of putting a positive and realistic policy to this House and to South Africa. The reactionaries in the United Party caucus have obviously won an outright victory.

Why did you not attend more meetings of the Select Committee?

I want to tell the House why all this happened. Let us get this clear once and for all. The United Party is adrift from any sound philosophy as far as South Africa is concerned. It does not have a sound philosophy.

What is yours?

It is a party which constantly, on an ad hoc basis, adjusts its policies to what is expedient to get electoral support. They do not care where they go for it either. In one election they will go for the right wingers of the Herstigtes and in the next election … I have already heard that they have decided that they cannot win the next election and now they are going to change all their policies quickly to try to go for the left in South Africa. If that does not work, they will try to go for the right again in the next election. I think it is deplorable that at a time of South Africa’s history when we need responsible and enlightened leadership, also from the official Opposition, that they cannot assess the philosophies and the attitudes of the Government correctly and cannot provide South Africa with proper leadership. I think it is a most unfortunate situation.

I agree with you.

Let us hear your policy.

Give me the opportunity and I shall come to the policy. If the hon. members have read the newspapers, they would have seen it.

In South Africa we face a very difficult situation in trying to find a solution for the racial problems of this country. The fact of the matter is that we have come to a turning point in our history. Up to now the White man has been in total control of the destiny of this country and all the other race groups have had to accept the decisions of the White man. Their future, their rights and their privileges depended on the White man and on the goodwill of the White man. Those days are over and gone. From now on, the future of the White man, our security, our safety and our position are going to depend to an increasing extent on the goodwill of the Black man, the Coloured man and the Indian man of South Africa. We can only obtain and maintain that goodwill if we are prepared to take the steps which are necessary for it. These steps are a few straight forward ones. We have to create a new South Africa with a new constitution and a new society. That society has to be a society which is free of discrimination based on colour. There must be no discrimination between people of colour who are citizens of one and the same country. We have to create a society with a constitutional setup which does not allow domination and where there will be equality of opportunity for all South Africans, irrespective of their colour and irrespective of their race. We have to create a constitutional set-up where there is decentralization of power. The most important thing we have to do and the most important test to which I believe we must put the plans and the policy of the Nationalist Party and, for that matter, of every other party, is that we have a position in South Africa today which is discriminatory and we want to move to a position, to a society and a constitution which is non-discriminatory and allows equality of opportunity between all South Africans. It is important that when one moves from the first position to the second position in South Africa, one achieves certain objectives. It must, firstly, be done in a peaceful and controlled way. This is the period of transitional politics in South Africa’s history. The most important test is that when the point of maturity is reached in the constitutional and political evolution, there must be a society in which the tensions and the frustrations which exist now have been wiped out so that there is no reason or motivation for revolution. The test is a simple one. How can one arrive at that position? A policy for a new South Africa with a new constitution and a new non-discriminatory free society, will have to meet this objective.

There are many aspects to such a policy, but the most important one, the one with which I am dealing now, is our attitude towards the consolidation of the homelands. We simply say that whatever has happened to date is all very well, but it does not meet the requirements; it is totally inadequate in terms of the realities of the situation. What we require is to appoint a multi-racial commission on which all the homelands will be represented, and which can study on a scientific basis the entire problem of the consolidation of the homelands. Let us give them a mandate that they must produce States which are economically, geographically and politically viable. When they recommend boundaries, let us draw those boundaries and let us forget about the system of purchasing ground and handing it to those States. It will take 100 or more years to achieve properly viable States on this basis. What is more, it will mean that thousands of millions of rands will go into the purchase of ground while that money should be applied at this stage to building up the economic and industrial infrastructure of those States. That money should go into the building of schools, colleges and universities, and to the provision of industries, communications and management systems and techniques. The way in which that can be achieved rapidly and easily is to draw these boundaries, to create these States, and everybody so included within those boundaries will have the opportunity of deciding of which part of South Africa they want to be citizess. Let me tell you, Sir, that all the homeland leaders, without exception, want multiracial States. Without exception, they want the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in their homelands because they see the advantage of having people who will contribute to the building up of their economies. The petty squabbling that has been going on here between the Government and the official Opposition with regard to Port St. Johns was quite unnecessary if you just accept that Port St. Johns must be part of the homeland. It is obvious and realistic that it should be so. But there is no reason why those people should move. The homelands concerned would welcome Port St. Johns with all its people as citizens of that homeland and they would be able to contribute in a realistic and valuable way to the future of that particular homeland. Let me say this; if the Government would accept this recommendation of a new commission with a new mandate, they would convince all of us, the Black, the Brown and the Indian people and also the world at large, that at last they wish to make a real, meaningful and honest contribution to the solution of South Africa’s problem via their philosophy of separation and the partitioning of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the little private quarrel between the hon. member for Bryanston and the United Party over there. The only thing that strikes me is, of course, the fact that it took the hon. member for Bryanston quite a long time to discover all those mistakes on the part of the United Party. I must also say that I agree with some of the things he said, but if he is such an expert on politics are concerned, he should really have discovered his mistakes earlier. Everything else the hon. member for Bryanston said in connection with this matter merely consisted of flights of the imagination.

What we are dealing with today, is the implementation of the legislation of 1936 and consolidation. As the hon. the Minister said quite clearly yesterday, we are not dealing here with the division of land between Whites and Blacks. It is in this respect that the Progressive Party and the Reform Party are completely wrong. I do not believe we shall be able to find one another on this basis at all. With one stroke of the pen they want to obliterate history. The division of land between Blacks and Whites is history; it has already taken place. However, they want to obliterate it with one stroke of the pen, and they want to ignore everything that took place centuries or decades ago. They want the treaties that were concluded, the agreements that were entered into, the wars that were fought, the defeats that were suffered and the victories that were achieved, to be ignored completely. At this stage, during which the Reformists have seen the light in 1975, they profess that they are going to solve the entire problem about which there has been confusion for centuries. What they and also the Progressive Party want to suggest, is that we should ignore history and that we should meet at the conference table. We should ignore all the constitutional and other developments which have taken place before now and we should meet at the conference table and try to find a new constitutional dispensation there. This we should then do on a basis of the sharing of power and sharing of wealth as was said by the hon. member for Sea Point last night. We, the National Party Government, will not do this under any circumstances. This is why there is such a radical difference of approach. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River, who unfortunately is not here at the moment. The hon. member was very emotional this afternoon. He was vicious. I can understand his being emotional about the question as it affects his area. However, I want to point out to him that consolidation, this arrangement in connection with land which is taking place now, is not only limited to his constituency. He mentioned a possible alternative, i.e. that his people want the Zulus to be removed from those Drakensberg locations to Babanango. I just want to mention that this would also cause a major reaction as well as problems among his own people in my area. This would mean the closing of the Babanango-Melmoth area. Much opposition would be experienced on the part of the Melmoth farmers’ association, the Eshowe farmers’ association, the Nkwaleni farmers’ association, the Ntumeni farmers’ association and the Ntbana farmers’ association. People of his own party would have attacked him viciously about this. This is merely an example to prove that it is not so easy to accept the alternative proposals.

I also want to refer to the attitude of the United Party in respect of the implementation of the 1936 legislation. I want to refer hon. members to the Natal Stand in particular, the famous Natal Stand which is manifesting itself again at present. Just as it manifested itself in 1973 and also during the election, it manifested itself again last week in the Natal Provincial Council. In Tempo of Friday of last week the following was said [translation]—

He even differs from the hon. members of the United Party in this House. I think the hon. member for Durban Point ought to exercise better control there. [Interjections.] This motion was supported by Mr. Derring Stainbank, the M.E.C. He seconded the motion and expressed doubt in the same terms about the future of Richards Bay, Port Shepstone and Margate. [Interjections.] This is a typical example of playing politics. When the United Party members are saying all these things, they lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a factual position— it is a factual position that the Zulu area is situated there. Neither is anything being said about what the results would be if the federal policy of the United Party were to be carried to its logical conclusion. They maintain a deathly silence on that score.

To come back to my own area, I notice that as far as an area known as Sordwana Bay is concerned, the United Party members in the Select Committee voted against the excision of that area south of location No. 14 on the north coast of Natal. This was also opposed by the Progressive Party. I can understand that the hon. member for Houghton does not know the area and is probably not well informed about it. However, I cannot understand that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who knows that area quite well, is not better informed about the matter. This area has been used exclusively by Whites for many decades; there is no Bantu settlement in that area and it has been administered by the National Parks Board for more than ten years. This comprises the most southern point of the reserve concerned and does not represent a major excision. There is no excision of forest plantations situated immediately to the north, of it.

May I put a question?

I have no time at the moment, because I have only ten minutes to make my speech. I shall be glad if some of the United Party members will say something about this later on. Immediately to the north of it there are situated places which are equally attractive, such as Kose Bay, Black Rock and others, places which are really far more suitable for recreation and other purposes than Sordwana Bay.

In conclusion I just want to refer to the irrigation land on the Makatini Flats, which is going to be irrigated from the Josini Dam. This will be a particularly valuable asset to Kwa-Zulu. Dr. McCrystal, the well-known economist, was reported to have said the following about this matter—

There is great potential, and I believe that these plans which now involve the final round, ought to be a challenge to the leaders of the homelands, and that they will also activate and motivate their followers to undertake development there.

Sir, I do not suppose I shall be blamed for not reacting to the hon. member for Bryanston. I do not think it can be expected of me to have anything to do with the kind of unpleasantness that has been displayed here.

As far as the hon. member for Eshowe is concerned, I just want to say that all the considerations he mentioned here in respect of Sordwana Bay are even more applicable to Port St. Johns. In other words, these are not arguments which can really be used here.

Sir, as possibly the last speaker on this side, I should like, in the limited time available to me, to give a brief summary of the discussion we have had here over the past two days. I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said about the unsatisactory way in which the Select Committee performed its work. We requested that evidence should be given; we asked to inspect the documents concerned; we wanted the homeland leaders to appear before us and we requested permission to inspect some of the areas ourselves. All those requests were turned down, and on top of that an order motion was introduced and agreed to in terms of which our time for discussion on Port St. Johns was limited. I remarked at that stage that it seemed to me that I was being expected to act merely as a rubber stamp. Sir, I have never had an experience of that kind in all my life, and I want to say quite frankly that I do not think that is the way in which adult people and members of this House should be treated. It is not at all clear to me what, under those circumstances, membership of a Select Committee means to this House, apart from the person himself. I want to add that this is no reflection on the officials or on the department. I think that all those present were impressed by the knowledge of the officials and their willingness to be of assistance and to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the proposals of the Government, contained in this proposed resolution, in which it is recommended, in the first place, that certain areas be described as areas in which released areas may be declared, and, in the second place, that authorization be granted for the removal of certain communities. I want to make it quite clear that in spite of what has been said here we are not dealing with the finalizing of the provisions of the 1936 Act. All that is being recommended here is that these areas be described as areas in which the State President may by proclamation declare released areas. Sir, before the quota requirements of the 1936 Act can be complied with, two things have to happen: (a) The State President must first declare the areas from these areas to be released areas, and (b) the Trust must then purchase those areas. Hon. members may tell me that it is the intention of the Government to give effect to these things, but it is incorrect to say that we are giving effect today to the quota provisions of the 1936 legislation. This is merely technical. Sir, anything may happen; a situation may arise tomorrow in which pressure is brought to bear on this Government by White farmers or by other persons or bodies not to declare a particular area to be a released area, or there may be a recession in this country tomorrow or the day after as a result of which the money for the acquisition of this land will just not be available. In other words, this is nothing but an exercise expressing the intention of the Government, and that is how it should be seen. That is what it is, and nothing more. Sir, the motivation for these proposals from the Government side has three legs. One is that they give effect to the 1936 legislation. Unfortunately, because of the limited time available to me, I cannot go into the details here, but I just want to say that I consider it to be a disgrace that it has taken us 40 years to reach the present stage and that more than one million ha land still has to be purchased for the quota purposes at this stage. As I said, Sir, I should have liked to furnish details, but unfortunately I do not have enough time. The second motivation for these proposals is that the acquisitions should serve to give final shape to the ideological policy of creating so-called independent Bantu homelands. The third motivation is the removal of people, Black and White, but especially Black, to prevent as far as possible, it is said, a kind of mixed pattern in the rest of the Republic.

As far as the 1936 legislation is concerned, I have listened once again with close attention to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I just want to say that even if the members of this House were to attempt time and time again to relate the 1936 legislation to the political philosophy of creating separate independent Bantu states, the argument simply does not hold water. It is not historically correct, and hon. members on that side may produce one ex post facto interpretation after another, it makes no difference to the facts. Let us realize that there may be other reasons why we want to create Bantu states, but we cannot motivate it on the grounds of what was done in 1936.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the final proposals of the Government. What has struck me here is that we have had a clear admission from the hon. the Minister, from the hon. the Deputy Minister and from every speaker on the other side of the fact that these proposals have rendered the creation of full-fledged Bantu independent states basically impossible. We have been told that no matter how much we should like to do so, it is impossible to bring about consolidation into single units. In that sense I now want to say that the term “consolidation” is a complete misnomer. This is no consolidation; it is the acquisition of some land here and some land there, but these proposals certainly do not bring about consolidation in terms of the creation of sovereign independent states. Sir, I am just trying to pick up the threads of this discussion in the short time available to me. We have had the rationalization here which began with the statement made by the Minister of the Interior last week when he said that if we were unable to create single areas we had only to consider America’s situation with Alaska and Hawaii. Then we had the dream fantasy of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who spoke of Denmark and of the Phillipines with their islands. Sir, it passes my understanding that intelligent people should use examples of that kind in this House, knowing perfectly well that it is quite unthinkable in South Africa to speak of a sovereign independent Bophuthatswana or KwaZulu on the basis of this consolidation. It is quite beyond my comprehension.

We shall bring it about.

In that sense I want to say that today is a memorable day for us, for what we are witnessing today is the funeral of an illusion; it is the death of an illusion. Sir, it grieves me to say this, for there are many of our people who really hoped and believed that by creating separate sovereign Bantu states, we would find a solution to the political problem and to the problem of relations between Black and White in South Africa. Now the Government itself has said that it is impossible to consolidate, and in that sense we are witnessing the funeral of an illusion today. I say this to the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Waterberg, the hon. member for Lichtenburg and all the other people who keep telling us, when we ask for a new dispensation, “But our answer lies in the creation of sovereign independent states.” In that sense today is a memorable day. But I want to add, and it grieves me to say this, that it creates two other alternatives for us: Either we must say that this is not consolidation and we must bring about alternative consolidation if we want to create sovereign states, or we must say that we cannot create them and we are not going to create them, and then we shall have to reconsider the situation in South Africa, political relationships and the need for different political structures. I am not even referring to economic and demographic considerations in this connection. But seen from the viewpoint of our Black people, these proposals are completely unacceptable as a political arrangement.

I want to say that in so far as consultation took place … The hon. the Deputy Minister told us about this here and mentioned one homeland after another and said that these people had made demands which we could not meet. He said this and I accept it. The fact is—let us be honest—that as a political arrangement, these proposals are not acceptable to the homelands. I want to emphasize this. If all the homelands say, “We are grateful for the fact that the provisions of the 1936 Act are being complied with”, then it is correct; in that sense they probably did concur in the main. But my information is that in respect of these proposals, as political proposals, not a single one—I am not speaking now of the Transkei or the Ciskei, but of the other homelands leaders—expressed his agreement or co-operation.

What about the Venda?

Sorry, and exclude the Venda as well. Sir, we have often discussed in this House the mistake made by the colonial powers in history by not taking account of the realities and by drawing boundaries without taking account of the realities. If we consider these boundaries to be final boundaries, how can we expect the Black people, since their wishes were not taken into consideration in drawing those boundaries, to accept them as they are, even if they do become independent? I want to ask again: What are we solving in terms of relations? Do we think that we shall force those people into a position of independence? Some of the homeland leaders have told me that if their areas should be consolidated, they would like to take independence in order to escape from White domination and discrimination. Sir, if this is the spirit in which they are going to get their independence, can you imagine what kind of relationship will subsequently exist between those areas and the Republic?

Let me come back to the amendment moved here by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. A question has been asked in connection with my own position, and I want to reply to that, as well as to the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sea Point. I have made it quite clear throughout the years that I believe that this House, and that includes every political party, is committed to the implementation of the 1936 legislation. That is my standpoint. Furthermore I want to say that the party to which I belong has made it quite clear that it too is committed, and feels itself to be committed, to the implementation of the 1936 legislation. I adhere to that. [Interjections.] I am not interested in a vendetta which the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. member for Sea Point conducted with the United Party 15 years ago. I want to go further. In connection with Port St. Johns, I want to say that I have adopted the attitude that in principle, Port St. Johns should be part of the Transkei, since the Transkei is very soon to become independent; that is my standpoint in principle. My colleagues on the Select Committee did not object to this in principle; they merely asked how we could agree to this, since these assurances had been given to the people of Port St. Johns, without having received the assurance that proper attention will be given to the needs of those people under these circumstances. [Interjections.] Sir, this is the honest truth, and now you are free to say that it is right or wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, when hon. members were speaking over the past two days, I allowed them to express their opinions without making any interjections. Would it be asking too much for me to request hon. members to show me the same courtesy? I just want to say that this amendment interprets the attitude of the United Party. In this amendment we are only asking for matters to be referred back on two particular counts, and these are those cases where we are satisfied, according to the information available to us, that the people who were consulted offered strong opposition, and, in the second place, that the Bantu were not consulted at all. In those particular two cases, and on the grounds of the information available to us, we ask that the proposals be referred back to the Government for reconsideration. This applies to Port St. Johns and to this limited number of cases, 13 out of the 74. Unfortunately I do not have time to give you the details, but we want only 13 out of the 74 proposals of the Select Committee to be referred back and re-investigated by the department. I should be neglecting my responsibility to those people if I were not to support that amendment.

Sir, I do want to try, in the few minutes left to me, to answer the hon. members for Sea Point and Houghton. The essence of their charge seems to be that the fact that we have proposed here that this number of recommendations be referred back is nothing but a veiled attempt on the part of the United Party to escape the obligations imposed by the 1936 legislation. That is the way I understood it. But, as I have said, I am not interested in the vendettas of the past. I support this amendment and I regard that kind of statement as a reflection on my integrity. As I have said, I give my unqualified support to the implementation of the 1936 legislation, and if one looks at the details of the proposals, that accusation cannot be made. Furthermore there is the question of Port St. Johns, of Alice, of Kwa Mashu and of Edendale, but they have nothing to do with the implementation of the quotas imposed by the 1936 legislation, and the Government has admitted that. To relate those cases to our attitude on the quotas imposed by the 1936 legislation is just not correct, and I want to say that I think the hon. members knew this. In addition I want to say that the hon. member for Houghton approved many of the acquisitions which were before the Select Committee and which amounted to compensatory land for these Bantu who were to be removed. In conclusion I want to say that point 4(b) of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton recommends that all the proposals be referred back. You might have another look at it. I do not think the hon. member for Houghton realized what she was asking here. She was in fact asking that all the proposals, the acquisitions as well as the excisions, be reconsidered and submitted to the homelands. There is only one body which can do this, and that is this Government. In other words, what the hon. member for Houghton is asking is that all those proposals be referred back to the Government for submission to the homelands, and on this basis I really cannot understand where the hon. member for Houghton’s problem comes in where we say that a limited number of cases should be referred back to the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this debate is drawing to a close and it is also true that the hon. member for Edenvale has, up to this stage, been kept out of the debate for specific reasons. I should very much like to address the hon. member for Edenvale this afternoon. I must say that the hon. member has kept me waiting for a very long time, and that I am therefore quite worked up now.

I believe in all sincerity that the House will allow me to say that I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development this afternoon probably made one of the most significant speeches on consolidation and the task of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and his department. I cannot but avail myself of this opportunity of telling the hon. the Deputy Minister that what he said this afternoon, is probably the standpoint of 90% of the population of the country and that it will meet with the approval of the country.

Before I come to the hon. member for Edenvale—I shall give him time to return to the Chamber—I should like to point out one aspect which ran throughout the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House like a refrain. It was repeatedly pointed out that not one of the three parties on the opposite side was in favour of excision, or the removal of Bantu or Whites in the process of consolidation. The hon. members are therefore not in favour of the implementation of the provisions of the 1936 Act, for it is very interesting to take cognizance of the fact that the 1936 Act does in fact provide that excisions and removals have to take place. Those parties are not prepared to give effect to those provisions of the 1936 Act. They are only prepared to concede to the orovisions of the 1936 Act when the Whites have to make sacrifices. When the Bantu are affected, however, either by removal or excision, the hon. members of those three parties are not prepared to give effect to the provisions of the 1936 Act. That is the position, in spite of the sanctimoniousness with which they adopt a standpoint in regard to the provisions of the 1936 Act.

The hon. member for Edenvale referred disparagingly to the work of the Select Committee. I think that the procedure which was adopted by the Select Committee has already been dealt with effectively in this House. I personally think that the arguments which were advanced to detract from the work of the Select Committee, were ridiculous. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana who was the first to advance those arguments, only proved how completely empty the standpoint of the official Opposition is with regard to consolidation. After all, it was this same Opposition who placed the 1936 Act on the Statute Book and it was the same Opposition who determined the procedure in accordance with which action had to be taken. It was also the same Opposition who made certain arrangements on the analogy of a commission which existed a very long time prior to the Beaumont Commission, namely the so-called Great Britain Royal Commission on South African Native Affairs. The Great Britain Royal Commission on South African Native Affairs originated in 1903, and as a result of its report the procedure was determined which eventually crystallized into the 1936 Act. If we take a look at the report of the 1903 commission it is very interesting to note that in spite of the arguments which the hon. members advanced—the hon. member for Bryanston and other hon. members referred to a “multi-racial commission” to investigate these matters—this commission also consisted of Whites only. In fact, there has never yet been a “multi-racial commission” to investigate matters of this nature. What is more, representatives of Rhodesia. Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland also served on the 1903 commission. I do not have time to deal with this in detail, but the terms of reference of even this commission were, inter alia. to determine where Whites. Blacks and Coloureds would live in South Africa and all the areas I have just mentioned, were included in the terms of reference of the commission. This commission brought out its report and from that the 1913 legislation resulted. From the 1913 legislation, in turn, the reports of the Beaumont Commission resulted, and from the reports of the Beaumont Commission we already had draft legislation in 1927 and again in 1932.

I want to come to the point which was over-emphasized to such an extent here that one became quite sick of it, namely that the consolidation proposals of the National Party are based on the fact that they will give political independence to Bantu states. The hon. members on that side of the House say that that was never the intention. I merely want to say in passing, and if I have the time, I will come back to this, that I advise the hon. member for Edenvale to go and read again what he said on this subject in 1958 and 1959 in radio talks for the SABC. I hope I shall have the opportunity to come back to this.

I should like to discuss the 1936 debate, when the 1936 Act was at issue. Hon. members say that there was never any question of any political connotation or political independence with regard to the entire question of consolidation. In the first place I want to say that General Kemp introduced the legislation on behalf of the then Minister of Bantu Administration. Even during the First Reading, the member for Griqualand, a certain L. D. Gilson, had this to say—

I can give the hon. members many quotations, but I think the most interesting would be to tell you what Mr. M. Alexander (Cape Town Castle) had to say about this at the time. He pointed out, and we cannot emphasize it enough, because the then Minister of Bantu Affairs said in his reply to the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Bill did not stand alone, but that it was one of three legs. The first leg was Act No. 12 of 1936, which dealt with the removal of the Bantu franchise in the Cape Province. The second leg was the Bill in which territorial separation was determined in terms of the policy of segregation. The third leg was the legislation which would be introduced to deal with the Bantu in urban areas. That was the legislation we received in 1945, namely the Urban Areas Act of 1945. The hon. the Minister’s words at that stage were—

Mr. Alexander made an interesting statement; he said—

So we could continue and could quote Mr. Alexander again, who also said this—

That is Act No. 12 of 1936, depriving the Bantu of their franchise in the Cape Province. He went on to say—

If words mean anything we could consider what the hon. Prime Minister of that time said with regard to this same aspect. The Prime Minister was replying to a standpoint which Adv. Strijdom had stated during the Committee Stage. He said—

He continued in that vein. The Prime Minister of that time told the Bantu of that time—

To cut a long story short, we also have the reply of the then Minister in his reply to the Third Reading debate. The Minister said the following in reply to an interjection of Adv. Strijdom: “It was, in any case, always one scheme.” That one scheme gave us Act No. 12 of 1936, which deprived the Bantu in the Cape Province of their franchise and which put the position with regard to the franchise in South Africa on an equal footing throughout. Opposed to that there was this legislation to comply with the report of the Beaumont Commission, to comply not only with the requests which had been made since 1913, but also to the requests deriving from the British Royal Commission. There was also the prospect that the Urban Areas Legislation would be introduced to establish the third leg of the segregation policy.

I have only three minutes left. I wish to ask the hon. member for Edenvale now, since he is criticizing this entire situation of homeland consolidation today, whether he did not say in 1958 and in 1959 that we could not consider consolidation in South Africa without also considering the High Commission territories — Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. The hon. member said at that stage that the total surface area was 766 000 square miles, of which approximately 348 000 square miles would belong to the Bantu, that is to say if the land areas of that time and the British High Commissioner in terms of the 1936 Act, were added to the territory which they possessed in 1936. Do hon. members know that it would have meant 45% of the surface area? That hon. member, however, comes here today and says we should refer these proposals back. He supports the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. After 40 years, he says, we have not yet achieved anything. I want to ask that hon. member whether anything was achieved after 1903, in the time of the United Party. If he is so keen that this work of 1936 should be disposed of, why does he vote in favour of an amendment to have the matter referred back for further investigation? I can but recall a good old Nationalist in my constituency during the 1915 Rebellion. A prayer-meeting was being held for the reunification of our little nation. I did not attend the prayer meeting, of course, but I heard about it. It is important for us as people who are sitting here to fulfil the 1936 pledge of the Whites to the Black people of this country. Let us then, like that old gentleman, when they prayed for the reunification of the little nation, tell the United Party today that we are Nationalists and that we say, as the old gentleman did when he prayed:

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of a two-day debate on the consolidation proposals of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. I think that we have witnessed a spectacle during the past two days which we have not witnessed in this House for a very long time. At times I wondered whether we were dealing with consolidation proposals or whether we were dealing with separation proposals in the ranks of the Opposition. Hon. members of the three opposition parties went for each other with such a vengeance at times that we on this side of the House listened attentively. Naturally it caused such confusion on the side of the three Opposition parties, such vagueness and double-talk, that one just could not believe it. They each tried to brew their own creation. It reminded me of the three witches in Macbeth who said at the end—

Sooner or later they will have to settle these things among themselves and I believe that sparks will fly. I think that we have also witnessed a degree of inconsistency in their ranks which we have not witnessed in this House for a very long time. Hon. members will remember that the United Party used to be fanatic in its opposition to the proposals of the 1936 Act. It astonishes me that the hon. member for Edenvale says that he has nothing to do with the vendetta of 1959. He dissociates himself from it and he now supports proposals of 1936, while not all members on his side of the House are doing that. In other words, there is a difference of policy in that party, and one just cannot understand how they still manage to stay together. The hon. member for Houghton also pointed out that they had this tremendous dispute amongst themselves in 1959 and she pointed out the tremendous difference there was. The hon. member for East Griqualand came to this House in 1971 with a proposal in which he asked that the Government should give real attention to the consolidation of the homelands and that the proposals of the 1936 Act should be implemented. He put it very seriously and he practically begged the Government to implement those proposals. At the end of his plea he said—

It was not necessary for the hon. member to tell us that we should take strong action. We have proved that we have obtained what we wanted to obtain by means of consultation and negotiation. Yesterday the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the Government was not so much concerned with the implementation of the 1936 Act or with the consolidation of the homelands, but that it wanted to carry out its own policy. What the hon. member may have meant by that is that the Government wants to give effect to its policy of full independence for the homelands, but then the hon. member should have said whether or not he supported the 1936 Act. He kept quiet about that, however, in contrast with what the hon. member for East Griqualand said in 1971. There they have been totally inconsistent.

Even the Progressive Party has been inconsistent in its own ranks, and now I refer to the hon. member for Houghton. I find it so tragic and even ironic that when we come to a place like Port St. Johns, which is a White spot in a Black area, she does not mind the disruption suffered by those people, because of the fact that the area is to pass into Black possession.

No, I said …

She did say that she pitied them, but that we should go ahead with it. When it comes to Black spots which have to be cleared up, however, the fat is in the fire when the people have to be removed. Then she is not worried about disruption or anything else, she just is dead against it. When it comes to clearing up White areas, she does not mind, but when it comes to clearing up Black spots, she is against it. What the hon. member said about Doornkop and the areas which had to be cleared up is just not true. I visited those places personally. In my own constituency there is a place called Brakfontein—I do not know whether the hon. member knows about Brakfontein—which was cleared up about a year ago. I was present the morning when the Police started clearing up. I travelled by helicopter to Blyde River where the people are now settled. I went to take a look at what was going on there. I can almost say that those people moved from hell to paradise …

Oh, come on!

… but that is what those people are against.

That is why you needed the Police.

I have been to Doornkop, too, and I know Doornkop. It was a worse squatters’ camp than the squatters’ camps we had on the Rand before 1948. It consisted of corrugated iron houses and shanties, it is beyond me that some epidemic or other did not break out. I have also been to Bothashoek, where those people were removed. They have the most excellent land there one can imagine. At that stage nothing had been laid on yet, but the terrain had already been cleared. I think that if one should ask those people today, they would never want to go back to Doornkop, Brakfontein, Limehill or Morsgat or one of the other places. I think that the Progressive Party has been very inconsistent as far as that is concerned.

Just like the Progressive Party, the Reform Party, too, has been inconsistent. The hon. member for Yeoville took no account of the set-up in respect of the various peoples in the arguments he advanced here. Consolidation of the homelands is just as important to me as the consolidation of the peoples of South Africa. We have to bring those peoples together, for they belong together. The hon. member for Yeoville said that that Bantu now say they are in favour of the homeland idea because they want to get away from the evils of apartheid. He said that was why he was against homelands and why the whole South Africa, according to him, should look like a leopard skin. The hon. member should call to mind the history of his own people, a people which was scattered over the earth and which has now established its own state, namely the state of Israel. They are proud of it and we are glad for their sakes, for it is right and proper that it should be so. Likewise the hon. member should think of the peoples of South Africa as well. They, too, want their own states where they can develop and lead their own life. I think that the hon. member was very inconsistent in his arguments.

I also want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Edenvale. This hon. member has so often been referred to as far as the whole consolidation set-up and the 1936 Act are concerned that one does not want to hurt him any more. I think that it will probably take a very long time for the poor man’s wounds to heal. We know him to be an inconsistent man, not only because he held one view in the past and now holds a different view with regard to the 1936 Act and the consolidation of the homelands, but also as far as his political feelings are concerned. He now belongs to the United Party, previously he belonged to another party and he has also been associated with a fourth party in this House. It is just a question of time before he goes over to them.

All things considered, one can only come to the conclusion that the Opposition used these consolidation proposals for only one purpose, namely to gain political advantage from them. I think, however, that they have lost more during the past two days than they have gained by it. In his introductory speech yesterday, the hon. the Minister referred to the good work done by the officials, the Deputy Minister, the Bantu Affairs Commissions and all the other people involved. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to add the name of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said with regard to the question of whether people were consulted or not and whether these matters were discussed or not, but I can tell you that I discussed this with the hon. the Minister, the hon. Deputy Minister and the officials, not on one occasion, but on dozens of occasions, and I am only one of a few hundred. Now the question arises: How many times must they have had discussions with these people? How many times must they have considered these matters? One can only think of the patience these people must have had throughout.

I think the whole consolidation was concerned with the interests of South Africa and the future of the peoples here in South Africa. It is the end of a tremendous task which has been performed in South Africa. I want to say that the consolidation of the homelands is one of the greatest tasks which has ever been performed in South Africa. It is greater by far than the part South Africa played in the war effort. It outshines all the tasks which have ever been undertaken by any Government here in South Africa.

As far as my own constituency is concerned, I wish to say that there has not been 100% concensus at all times. We had consultations with the Minister in this regard. The hon. Minister spoke yesterday of one area where he did yield and where he made a change, namely the Immerpan area, but in the same way there are quite a few other parts with regard to which he listened to representations and brought about changes after the people had consulted him. We want to thank the hon. the Minister for that. In the case of the few areas where our representations did not succeed, we said in the end that there were other factors which had to be taken into account as well as merely personal factors which counted for the farmer or the area or the vicinity. In that regard we readily admit that the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the department may have had far more information than we had. We can give them the assurance that as far as principle of consolidation is concerned, the constituency supports them wholeheartedly. As regards the areas in the constituency, too, we support him wholeheartedly.

It is understandable that there are certain questions which will keep cropping up. One of the first questions is whether there are further territories which will be claimed by the Bantu. I do not want to go into this question again. It has been replied to repeatedly. I just want to repeat, however, what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1965, namely that we have not even complied with the 1936 Act. How can people start making demands already? Surely it is presumptuous to come along with further demands even at this stage. Numerous questions are being asked too, with regard to Whites who are going to remain in the homelands after they have received independence. Surely it is quite clear; they will be in the same position as any person who goes to stay in another independent state. If a citizen of the Republic were to move to some independent state, he would be in exactly the same position. Such persons will have to realize that they will lose their citizenship of the Republic, that they will have to pay rates and taxes in the other country and that they will not receive their pensions in the Republic, but in the other country. They will have to accept all that goes with it. There are also questions with regard to further assistance which will be given to the homelands after they have received their independence. There I can only repeat again that this Government, this Republic of ours, will render these independent homelands all the further assistance they need after they have achieved independence, until they are able to stand on their own feet.

Much has been said about the viability of the homelands. Unfortunately time does not allow me to read out to you what has been said. I may just refer to what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1965—

I also wish to refer to a very good study in connection with Lebowa by one Prof. Louw. He points out that Lebowa is five times more viable than a country like India or a country like Egypt. It is work the trouble to examine these studies more closely.

I have already mentioned that these removals will cause disruption, but the main thing we should all bear in mind is the political future of the southern tip of Africa, the various peoples there and their survival.