Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, I should like to say the following: On Monday we shall deal with the Additional Appropriation Bill of the Central Government and, after that has been disposed of, with the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill. On Tuesday we shall give preference to Orders of the Day Nos. 1 and 10. On Wednesday the Railway Budget will be presented. The hon. the Minister will merely deliver his Budget Speech. Thereafter Order of the Day No. 11 will be given preference. For the rest of the week the Order Paper will be followed.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The tragedy of Whites in Africa as a whole is that they seek to make changes only when it may be too late. The purpose of this motion today and the appeal I should like to make in connection with it is that White South Africa should act before it is too late, secondly that we should make changes while we are strong and able to control the time-table, and thirdly, that we should make changes while we can show that we are doing so because we believe it to be morally right to make these changes and not because of fear. The issue that we have to face is that irrespective of economic or social changes, we must accept that Black, Coloured and Indian people of South Africa will continue to demand political change and will, with increasing pressure, require political rights. White South Africa must accept the reality that unless it comes to an acceptable accommodation with Black South Africa, the pressure will go on and the pace will accelerate. We must also accept that the time for gestures and hollow promises is over and that imposed, unacceptable so-called solutions cannot bring lasting peace to our country. The reality of the need for political rights is accepted by all the political parties, except the HNP. What, however, is not accepted by all the parties is the need to establish the nature of such rights by consensus at least with a majority of the Black people, and, secondly, that there cannot be hidden White veto rights which make a fraud of constitutional proposals.

In addition to the acceptance of the need for political rights it is also accepted by all the political parties, with the one exception, that there has to be a change in the constitutional structure of South Africa. The Nationalist Party has the Bantustan concept, the United Party has the communal or race council, the Democrats have the idea of bringing Coloureds and Indians into the White stream and we in our party, the PRP, have a redrawing of boundaries in mind for the creation of new States or provinces based upon community of interests and in fact this includes ethnic considerations.

Do you now believe what you believed last year?

Yes, I have not changed my mind. [Interjections.] It may be that some of the developments have taken place in a right-wing direction as far as my old colleagues are concerned, while some of the developments as far as we are concerned have been more realistic.

What is the difference between yourself and the official Opposition?

The basic difference is that I believe that the majority of the people sitting in the benches to my right want to maintain a White Parliament which exercises a veto right over the federal assembly they want to create. I have never believed in that and I have made that very clear.

Not even when you were in that party?

Not even when I was there, and I have said that publicly. This should therefore not come as a surprise to the Prime Minister, unless he has never taken notice of what I have said, which is another matter.

Were you the only one who believed that?

Oh no, there are still many there who do believe it.

Name them, Harry.

No, I do not need to name them; they can stand up and speak for themselves. What I think is significant is that all the political parties believe that there should be some association with the constitutional entities that they want to create. The hon. the Prime Minister has himself spoken of what he calls “ ’n magsblok”, a power block. His predecessor in office spoke of a commonwealth that he wanted to create. It is quite clear that some form of association between the entities that are to be created is in the mind of the Government. As far as the United Party is concerned there is also to be an association and that is to be a federal concept, the race federation to which they refer. As far as the Democrats are concerned, they refer to a confederation, a term which certain Nationalists also refer to. As far as we in the PRP are concerned, we refer to a federation. None of these terms used by the political parties necessarily have the actual meaning which international constitutional law concepts attach to them. Each political party has its own refinement of the meaning which it has attached to the particular terms that are used.

Let us look for a moment at the Black political situation. Here we have those who would like to substitute Black power for White power in a unitary system. Then we have those who believe in the separate development of the hon. the Prime Minister. Finally we have many who believe that some form of federation is desirable for South Africa. I believe that it should be said immediately that at least some of the Black leaders who participate in the system of separate development have made it very clear that they do so only because they want to get away from under the umbrella of separate development and apartheid. They find this the only way to remove themselves from that apartheid umbrella. They have said so, and it is no use the hon. gentleman shaking his head. [Interjections.] Even the Chief Minister of the very first of the new emergent States, Chief Minister Matanzima, as recently as 20 December 1975 has gone on record as saying that the future political development in South Africa might include a federation in which, as he has said, Black and White would be equal partners. He too is talking of a federation as a possibility. Let me list others. Black leaders like Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Dr. Phatudi, Prof. Hudson Ntsanwisi and other leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities are all on record as being supporters of the concept of federation. In these circumstances it is not unfair to conclude that a very substantial section of the White, Black, Indian and Coloured communities of South Africa want a form of federation. Let me go further. I believe almost all of them want their constituent elements to have some form of association between the elements that will continue to exist in Southern Africa.

Being a realist, one accepts the fact that we are in opposition, and that in White politics only the Government makes the decisions. We can only seek to influence and we can only seek to present alternatives to be available should Government policies fail. My premise, on the submission that I make here today, is that even under a Nationalist Government some form of federal solution is in fact inevitable. Whatever the spokesmen may say today to the contrary, my appeal to them is to accept this as a reality, that there will inevitably be a federal solution in South Africa, and to plan accordingly. Many Nationalists have touched on the subject. I have referred to what the hon. the Prime Minister calls “’n magsblok”. However, the one thing the hon. the Prime Minister has never done to this day is to tell us what he actually means by that, what it will embrace, what kind of constitutional structure he considers that “magsblok” should be. It is interesting to note that the hon. the Prime Minister has never …

I have told you time and again.

The hon. the Prime Minister has given no details, not one single detail. He has told us nothing.

I have told you they would be politically independent nations working closely together in the economic field.

And what is the “working closely together”? Is it to be a firm constitutional situation? What will be involved in it? [Interjections.] There has been no definition given of it, and the hon. the Prime Minister is excellent at asking other people for details.

You have the LBS agreement at the moment.

If that is all that you have in mind, it is not a “magsblok”. This is not a power block. There is no power block which exists at the present moment in the LBS situation. With great respect, the hon. the Prime Minister knows that. That is not a power block situation. It merely happens to be an agreement which relates to certain economic, and monetary matters, and that is all.

And they work more closely together than the European Common Market.

But it is not a power block. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that it is not a power block. The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor spoke in the same way about a “commonwealth”. Does the hon. the Prime Minister believe in a commonwealth?

I have never spoken about a commonwealth.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor did.

I have never spoken about it at all.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor dealt with it. His predecessor said it was part of policy. [Interjections.]

I want to try to analyse the situation. Let me just read to you a passage. It says—

Then he goes on to talk about the breakthrough that has to be made in respect of the development of the homelands. That is the first point, and the second point is the following—

Who said that?

Who do you think? It is Die Vaderland, one of your newspapers. It seems that I am not the only one who cannot understand it. Your own newspapers cannot understand it and are asking for clarity on the matter.

You must not blame me if you cannot understand it.

But you must blame your own newspapers if those newspapers do not understand you.

I am not responsible for that.

But you are responsible for this newspaper.

†But you see, Sir, it is not only newspapers who deal with this. There are professors too, and we can list them. There is Prof. Sampie Terreblanche.

*Do you have anything against him? He too deals with the matter and says—

No one would doubt this, of course, except the Prime Minister. There is Prof. Ben Vosloo, also from Stellenbosch, who says that he mentioned the possibility of a confederation as an ultimate result of separate development in the youth magazine of the Nationalist Party of the Cape Province as far as back as September 1972.

But that is a confederation. A confederation is quite different from a federation.

I accept that. The only difference between a federation and a confederation is that if there is a confederation one can leave it. That is the only difference, is it not? I can quote other people on the same point, and I can quote other newspapers, Nationalist Party newspapers, which may not deal with federation, but which definitely do deal with confederation.

Would you not rather tell us what your federation looks like?

Yes, but then you must have a little patience. You must have patience to wait for these people for a few days. Now have patience with me as well.

†I think if we look at the situation the possibility of a federal situation developing in South Africa, both in the relationship of what will eventually remain of the Republic of South Africa and the emergent independent homelands, and inside South Africa itself, is something which needs to be looked at carefully. Sir, I want to sketch here a scenario for a constitutional development under the Nationalist Party, on the assumption that there would be no change by election and making three other assumptions which I hope will be a reality; firstly, that South Africa is able to resist external pressure; secondly, that the South African economy is strong enough in order to enable the separate development policy to be carried out from an economic point of view and, thirdly, that changes internally will not come about by violent means. These are the three assumptions I must make and obviously I want those three assumptions to become a reality. But then we must look at a South Africa which looks something like this. Firstly, some of the Bantustans will by then have become independent. Secondly, some of them will refuse to become independent for some or other reason.

How do you know?

Thirdly, some of them may be unable to become independent for economic and for other reasons; and, fourthly, there may be some homelands which might seek to join with other neighbouring States, such as for example Qua-Qua which might join with Lesotho and Bophuthatswana might join with Botswana and the Swazi homeland might join with Swaziland. And then we might also have the situation that Black independent homelands might themselves join with other homelands or might federate with them, as for example the Transkei and the Ciskei. But as the result of all this, you will still have in South Africa Black people in the remainder of South Africa, who in some cases will be citizens of their independent homelands and in other cases will not be citizens of the homelands but will be what I think Prof. Rhoodie has called the “denationalized” Black people in the remainder of South Africa. And, Sir, you will also then have homelands which form part of South Africa, and on top of that you will have the Coloured people and you will have the Indian people and you will have continued pressure and demands for political rights. The choices which are open to a Nationalist Government in those circumstances are threefold. Firstly, they can say that they will give no rights but continue to dominate and as a result be faced with increasing pressure. The second choice is that they can admit them into the constitutional and political structure with equal rights and the third a federal solution for the remainder of South Africa. It seems to me that whatever the hon. the Prime Minister may say today, in years to come the Nationalist Party will accept that solution.

Which federal solution?

A federal solution. I am using the word “federal”. I am not contending that it can only be a solution as we have evolved it—in no way. I am talking about federalism in the broad sense and I, Sir, am not so arrogant as to believe that only the ideas that come from these benches might be the eventual ideas for South Africa. But I believe in a federal solution …

What are the ideas of the people on those benches? I am not trying to be facetious now.

If you see this debate out, Sir, you will hear what the ideas of these benches are. Make no mistake about that. I want to go further, if the hon. the Prime Minister will permit me to deal with his policies for a moment. In these circumstances, even looking at the Coloured and the Indian peoples, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, even his own Cabinet council idea is the germ of the federal principle, and he knows it.

Not at all.

He knows it, and that is the only way in which it can develop. If he does not allow it to develop that way, he can never allow the Coloured people in South Africa to share in its sovereignty, because that is the only way he can do it. The Coloured people of South Africa, the same as all the other people, will not accept a situation where they have no say in regard to the sovereignty of the State. With respect, Sir, he knows it and he knows that this is how eventually it will have to develop. I believe that the scenario that eventually will be there under Nationalist Party rule will be a form of federation inside what will be the Republic and an association with the adjacent independent homelands. Whether initially it is a commonwealth, a “magsblok” or a confederation, the obvious thing is a form of association of that nature. While this is not our idea of the constitutional future of South Africa, if the Nationalist Party accepted the consequences of these policies in terms of what I have said and combined it with a real removal of discrimination and the creation of opportunity one could approach the policies of the Nationalist Party with a far greater degree of hope than one can do at the present moment. I believe therefore that the need is for the Nationalist Party, for the fulfilment of its own ideas, to look at federation as a possible solution for South Africa.

May I now turn to the next aspect, and that is whether a federation can work and whether or not there are alternatives. As I have indicated here, in a unitary system with a franchise system under which the winner takes all, there can be only domination and a minority, or a majority for that matter, which is deprived of political power, can only hope for safeguards in terms of a constitution which ensures that its civil rights are respected.

Let me go to the second alternative, which is partition. I believe that is impractical as the policy of Bantustans will in fact still leave, as I have indicated, the majority of Blacks in the rest of the Republic and also offers no solution for the Coloureds and the Indians. The only other answer then, I believe, is federalism. Federalism is a constitutional structure in which the power to make laws and to exercise administrative functions are divided between a central Government structure and the authorities or units comprising that federation. There is territorial self-government, to the extent which is practical and desired, and central authority, to the extent that it is necessary and agreed to by the individual States. This is a system of government which, in the words of Dicey, is a system “where union is desired but not unity”, and where geographic, historical, cultural and ethnic or other reasons cause a desire for maximum self rule, while other considerations such as economics, defence, etc., may make an association with others either desirable or necessary. There have been many federations in the world, and I concede immediately that there have been some that have not succeeded. Except for partition, however, there is no real alternative to a polyethnic situation if domination by a majority is rejected as unacceptable. South Africa is always held up as being unique, particularly in regard to its racial composition. Although it is perhaps unique in many ways, other countries and other communities, both in past eras and in the present, have in fact had divisions based on race, nationality or religion, which have created dangerous diversity of interest. However, of all the countries that live in peace, and which have been referred to before, perhaps Switzerland is the best example of a federation.

No, it is not.

It is the best example in the world, except of course for the hon. member for Pretoria Central, because three-quarters of its population is, in fact, German, and many of its cantons are biethnic and at least one of them is triethnic. This is perhaps an example of peace and co-operation we could well emulate. From this certain premises emerge, and I should like to list some of them.

Firstly I believe that federation in the true sense can only function if democracy is practised, and this makes constitutional safeguards for groups and individuals essential. Hence a separation and balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary is necessary. Secondly, if issues exist which cut across ethnic loyalties, particularly if the groups are biethnic or polyethnic, this is a stabilizing factor. In other words, if there are political philosophies which are common, irrespective of the ethnic considerations or if there are religious or other factors, this assists in making the system word. Thirdly, decision-making need not be on a winner-take-all basis, being achieved by consensus or amicable agreement. The concept that everything has to be done by a majority vote is something that we have inherited from the Westminster system. I think we have to look at what is called the “Konkordanz demokrazie”. This shows that one can come to an agreement and rule much more easily by consensus in many cases, in a polyethnic situation, than one could if one had to rely on a majority vote. Interestingly enough, this is what the hon. the Prime Minister also has in mind with his Cabinet council idea. In these terms one does not always have to base decisions on the fact that one section has more votes than another. One can, in fact, make the majority of the decisions in relation to the running of a country by consensus.

You can only do it in a system where no vote is ever taken.

No.

That is the Cabinet principle.

Yes, it is the Cabinet system that one does not necessarily take a vote. However, one can apply that same system even in a situation where one will have to vote.

But the moment one takes a vote it violates the concept.

Yes, it violates the concept. I have no quarrel with that.

The fourth point I want to make is that federation, like any other form of government, should not be imposed upon people. It should be negotiated and implemented by consent. The fifth point is that no government structure can succeed if the changes to the economic and social structure which bring about a just society are not dealt with at the same time. Bearing in mind these and other premises, we evolved our own federal policy. We accepted that for a federation to succeed the individual states need to have a proper geographic content. That is why our federation is based on geographic content. Governments rule territory in which there are people. It is not practical to have different governments ruling people living in the same territorial entity. A race federation is a federation in the air, and is not practical. It needs geographic content.

When did you discover that?

I discovered that when I was in the UP. I did, in fact, advocate that and hon. members are aware of the fact.

Oh, in your caucus possibly. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, we do not ignore the need to take into account community of interest and the desire of people to maintain their identity. This is why we believe that at present the provincial boundaries are academic and that the boundaries of States need to be drawn afresh, taking into account these interests and desires. We also bear in mind the fact that Whites cannot impose constitutions, and so realize the need to negotiate at a national convention at which we would present our plans as a basis for discussion. The basic essential of any federation policy is a willingness to share on the part of those who at present exercise political power. A refusal to share until it is too late may result in there being nothing for us to share at all.

In the few minutes available to me I wish to turn to the other matter, and that this is the question of the voting system in this country, again a legacy from the Westminster system. In a constituency system the winner takes all, and a simple majority decides who governs on an exclusive basis. The plural system is not the only voting system in use in democratic systems, and it has major disadvantages. A candidate can win and a Government can be in power without majority electoral support. On major issues minorities have no say in determining their own destiny. We sit here as the minority and have no say in determining our own destiny because decisions are made on the other side of the House. Minorities, unless geographically concentrated, are generally underrepresented. There are other systems that can be used. One of these involves a preferential vote, either in the form of an alternative vote system as in Australia, or in terms of a second ballot as in France. In this the voter has a chance of expressing a second choice if no candidate has an overall majority. We have evolved a system which is again similar to that in many of the EEC countries. In this system the voter has two votes, one on a constituency basis and one on a list. That system is one which does allow democracy to be practised in a much more reasonable manner. We have inherited these things from Westminster. These are historical aspects that bind us. In the complex situation ahead of us I believe that a Government would be failing in its duty if it did not at least investigate the alternative aspects which should be investigated. We cannot be hide-bound in our thinking because of historical patterns. We would be failing in our duty to the future if we were to be so hidebound. For those reasons I believe that both federation and the voting system in South Africa need to be examined, irrespective of what the views of the particular parties may be. I say this because federation is as inevitable in South Africa as history itself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville really gave very few details of the federal system. He spoke about a federal system, “a community of interests”, ‘‘taking ethnic aspects into consideration”, but he said extremely little in connection with the real content of the system. I can only express the hope that the other members of the Progressive Party will say more about it. I should like to move as an amendment—

The really essential aspect of the matter now being debated, is the seat of political power, i.e. who controls political power over whom? This is the essential question. The intention with the idea of a federal system is actually to make it acceptable by roundabout means and pretence, in the sense that if we are prepared to share power, we shall still retain a certain power over our own future. However, it is nothing but pretence to think that political federation is a solution to the problems in the Southern African situation.

Before elaborating on federation as such, I should like to talk about the idea expressed by the mover of this motion at the end of his motion, and that is proportional representation.

†Under the present system we are elected by the voters of a constituency not necessarily on the basis of our party affiliation. Nowhere on the ballot paper is there an indication that I, for instance, am a candidate of the National Party. Similarly, the hon. member for Yeoville was not elected as member of the United Party by the voters. They voted for a Mr. H. Schwarz. Otherwise there would have been no morality whatsoever in his crossing the floor after he was elected. When he was elected he was the chairman of the United Party in the Transvaal, and after he had crossed the floor he became national chairman of the PRP. There would not have been any moral right for him to do that. Therefore, basically we are elected as representatives of voters in a constituency. There is no solution in saying that we must have proportional representation on a constituency basis. The proposed system of voting on a list basis contains an inherent weakness. There is such a system in force in Germany and various other countries in Europe and we know that the system of proportional representation brings with it an inherent instability in the political system. This is so because we find that the minority party, the party with the smallest support in Germany, has the actual seat of power. It wields the balance of power and because it wields the balance of power, it wields the real power. The party which wields the real power as a result of the proportional representation system in Germany received only 5,5% of the total votes cast.

But then Harry is not so stupid.

The same applies in other countries. There too, minority parties control the real power.

Could it not happen in this Parliament?

It could not happen in this Parliament under the present system.

Why not?

If they had proportional representation on a party system and on a list system in Great Britain at present, the balance of power and the real power would have been wielded by the Liberal Party. However, as there is a constituency basis, the Liberal Party, even though it commands something like 15% of the total votes, has less than 15 seats in a house of more than 600 members. The constituency basis is the guarantee that voters’ interests shall be represented in a proper localized way, Proportional representation is certainly no guarantee of the real representation of voters’ interests.

*If the issue is the real exercise of power, there is no solution in a federal system. The only system offering a real solution, is the system which is maintained in South Africa and in terms of which provision is made for all peoples to have power over their own future and destiny. I do not want to suggest that there will never be closer co-operation among the peoples of South Africa at a political level. However, before any negotiations whatsoever can take place with regard to closer liaison in connection with the exercise of political power, there is one absolute prerequisite, and that is that those who negotiate, do so as international political equals. Thirty years ago there was a bloody war in Europe and bitter enmity between Germany on the one hand, and France, Holland and the other countries on the other hand. Subsequent to that, they formed an economic unit, the European Economic Community, and at the moment there is an endeavour in Europe to develop in the direction of a political system in which the various countries will move closer together. However, negotiations can be conducted fruitfully only if there is political equality among the participating negotiators. Here in South Africa it is an absolute prerequisite that no one negotiates, will participate in the negotiations in a status of dependence. We dare not negotiate as the hon. member who introduced the motion and the United Party expect us to do, viz. on the basis that we as Whites are expected only to give without our retaining the right to entrench and to safeguard our own political future. What is absolutely essential in my opinion, is the policy of separate development, the policy that the various homelands are able to gain absolute independence and sovereignty, that there will be the closest co-operation at economic level, that there will be political liaison through negotiation, but that each Government will have the right to decide according to its own interests, of its own free will and on its own initiative, to what extent they are prepared to accept such negotiations and the agreements resulting from such negotiations. If this takes place at a stage of dependence, no real value can be attached to it.

I am of the opinion that there obviously should be closer economic and political co-operation in Southern Africa in the future. There should be co-operation on aspects of mutual interest. In any system concerned with majorities and minorities—whether in a federal system, or in any other system—there is danger if the real power is seated in a system of government in which representation is given to fundamental minorities and fundamental majorities. We have seen this in other countries in Africa as well as in countries such as Cyprus and Ireland. Where minorities and majorities are concerned, one cannot tie them to a single power structure on a permanent basis. This can only be done after each group has sovereignty over the determination of its own future and if every group decides in absolute sovereignty and of its own free will to what extent negotiations and agreements will take place. That is why we are of the opinion that a federal system, however loose, is not the solution. The solution is to be found in negotiation among sovereign independent nations, as this is taking place in Europe at the moment.

In South Africa the present system has been tested in 15 elections since 1910 and there is no necessity to abandon it. We accept that changes have taken place in human relations, but wherever there is a common power structure, it has led to confrontation and tension. There is no solution in a common power structure. There must obviously be liaison. We as Whites in South Africa who are a numerical minority are, in fact, Africans and as such have a permanent right here in Africa. To share political power with numerical majorities or with other population groups, will not be a solution. I do not intend exercising authority over the political future of the Zulu, the Tswana or the Sotho, but at the same time I am also not prepared to share political authority, real political power, so that the Zulu will have authority over my political future, or that the Cubans, the Russians, the Americans or the British will have authority over my political future. We as White Africans have the right to have political authority over our future in our hands, and then to co-operate voluntarily with the other peoples with whom our destiny is closely bound up, on a basis of understanding and consensus, but not in a system which makes this obligatory for all the participating parties. There must be a free choice of participation or rejection. Therefore, we find a federal system as well as a system of proportional representation completely unacceptable, because they simply bring about a weakening of governmental systems, while the system of majority representation on a constituency basis, a system as we have had it throughout the years, has been tested and has proved itself to be a system which lends itself to stability and security for all—White as well as non-White.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that one has to listen to a fellow South African who has totally abandoned any hope of coexistence on a close basis between the different colours and races in South Africa. He says that what we have had since 1910 is good enough, we do not have to change anything. He closes his mind to and blindly disregards three-quarters of a century of change, development and growth. He closes his mind to the Coloured people of South Africa, to the Indian people of South Africa and to the Black urban people of South Africa. He sees the happy continuation into tomorrow of a system designed to give representation to one section of the people, a system which in 65 years has proved itself unable to keep up with the modern needs of this country.

On the other hand we have the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. We have waited since 1974, when for the first time the Progressives were represented here as a party, and not by an independent, to have a debate on their policy. One really thought that today the time for that had come. There was a proposer who believed in straight talk—no double talk, but talk straight from the shoulder, laid on the line. However, what did we find? The nearest they got to talking about their policy was to say that they would draw up new boundaries for the provinces of South Africa. Where are those boundaries? The hon. member based his total concept on new boundaries, but that party has not produced the boundaries and, when one asks them for the boundaries, they say: “Oh, we shall consult about that when we get into power and then we shall draw them up.” In other words, they have a policy without a foundation.

What about the cloak of double talk which is involved in this? They base their complete philosophy on new boundaries in an attempt to give the public the idea that they will be able to carve some White States out of it where the Whites will not be dominated.

That is not true.

Of course it is. Why else would they talk of redesigning the boundaries? When, in fact, they know that of every magisterial district in South Africa, there is not one where the Whites are in the majority? There may be one exception. Consequently, throughout South Africa there will be a Black majority, but in order to hide that from the people, they do not talk about their franchise policy or draw their lines on the map, but simply talk in vague generalities and platitudes. I say that this is worse than double talk. It is an attempt to bluff the people of South Africa.

The hon. member spoke of the homeland leaders wanting a federation. Of course, he sat in on summit conferences which the United Party had with homeland leaders. He sat there as a member of the United Party when we discussed federation and they agreed that federation was the direction in which they saw South Africa developing.

But not your sort of federation.

He sat there when we discussed the United Party’s concept of federation. We have listened to the hon. member for Yeoville for half an hour and the nearest he got to discussing his party’s policy was to say that they had a two-vote system. What he did not tell us was that the two-vote system means that half the members of Parliament will be elected by those who are barely literate, who are barely able to write their names and addresses and who have, in short, a minimal education—which means Black majority rule. The other 50% of the members will be elected by those who have passed a compulsory standard of education. This, again, means universal franchise. Therefore, there will be Black majority rule. The hon. member has told us nothing of this.

We are still waiting for the Slabbert Commission.

Yes, they have an additional problem. They appointed a commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Rondebosch and then the hon. member for Yeoville joined them. Naturally, once he joins the party, he has to determine everything. So then we had a new policy. We are still waiting to hear what the Prog policy is. We have only heard the Reformist policy today.

Let us get to the nub of the issue that is before us in the form of this motion. Both the Government and the Progressive Reform Party, or the Reformist Party, which has put this idea forward, are wedded to European concepts of government. The Nationalist Party, strangely enough, is wedded to the Westminster principle, the Westminster concept of government.

We have nothing against the English.

The Progressive Party, equally is wedded to European concepts. Every example the hon. member for Yeoville gave was from countries in Europe. He kept on coming back to Europe: Their two-vote system, the Swiss system, and so on. The Nationalist Party: Westminster; decolonization; the breaking up, fragmentation, partition or balkanization; the policy of fear and despair, e.g. “you cannot live together, therefore have partitions.” The Progs: “You are all same, follow the European pattern.” We have tried to bring an entirely new concept into constitutional thinking: an African concept, based on the lessons of Africa and designed for the circumstances of Africa—in other words, a federation of communities. To set out our objectives I want to move as an amendment—

1. (a) peaceful co-existence of all our population groups in a common loyalty and responsibility towards South Africa;
2. (b) the right of each community to preserve its own identity and cultural heritage;
3. (c) the right of each community to control all matters which are the exclusive concern of that community;
4. (d) effective participation by all communities in decision-making in matters of common interest; and
5. (e) freedom from domination of any community by any other community.”.

The essence of it is in the one fundamental difference in thinking between the geographic concept, the European concept, and our idea of an African concept of a federation of communities.

Now, is that an “African concept”?

Yes. The essence of Africa is that one has separate communities, separate identities, not only of race—ethnic and tribal—but also, within those identities, a rural identity. One can have a Zulu with rural interests and a Zulu with urban interests, each forming a community. We accept the reality of different communities. The Progressive Party wants one mixed-up conglomeration, but we accept the reality of different communities. We base our political thinking, our concept of federation, on the right of communities to maintain their identities, the right of communities to retain their cultural and ethnic identities, as well as the right to run their own affairs to the maximum extent possible, the affairs covering that specific community as a community. We do not stand for domination by a majority, but for a community governing its own affairs.

The crux comes when one seeks the way of linking such communities together in a common patriotism and common responsibility within a common State. This is where the difference comes in. This is where the Government turns to partition and the Progressive Party turns to majority rule. We believe in a sharing of power. A sharing of power means that every community must have a share. Under majority rule there is no sharing of power, because all the power goes to the majority whilst the minorities have no share in it. This is what the Progs stand for; majority rule. We stand for a sharing or power. That sharing of power is based upon the devolution of power to each community and to legislative assemblies running the things concerning the communities, and it is based upon transferring power to a new body, a federal assembly, in which each community will be represented. The difference is that both the Nationalist Party and the Progressive Party visualize an instant solution: Once you partition, it is final and absolute, and once you have majority rule, once you have voted once, it is final and absolute. Ours is an evolutionary transfer of authority, using the existing machinery of the sovereign State, using this Parliament as the transferer of power, the setter-up of a federal assembly and the regulator of pace. In this way one has ordered change to a federation, and not instant change to chaos or frustration and confrontation.

This is the basis of the difference. This is the basis our policy envisages, namely an evolutionary sharing of power through a mechanism in which all will have a share and in which the domination of one community over another will be eliminated. All one does with the geographic federation we have heard about today is that one multiplies the dilemma of South Africa in macrocosm into each of the microcosms. The problem of South Africa as a whole, i.e. Black majority in numbers, is simply multiplied by the number of States which one has. In every State there will be a Black or non-White majority of one kind or another. Thereby one multiplies South Africa’s major problem into 10 or 11 smaller problems of exactly the same nature, and you solve nothing.

The only solution will be when one comes to the concept of communities working together as communities. The end of the road remains in the hands of the responsible people who set up the machinery of federation.

For all time …

Not for all time. The movement is in the hands of the sovereign power of South Africa. If it goes too slowly, there will be frustration and confrontation which will result in chaos. If it moves too fast, as the Progs want it to, there will be instant chaos. I believe and have sufficient confidence in …

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

No, I have no time. My time has almost expired. I have sufficient confidence in the responsibility of the leadership of South Africa, White and Black, to ensure that the speed will be properly regulated and that, in fact, a federation of communities will bring about the sharing of power without domination of one community over another, without confrontation and without a surrender of either the standards or the Western way of life which we have brought to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, if the policy of the United Party as set out by the hon. member for Durban Point is so good and constitutes the answer to South Africa’s problems, why have the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks almost unanimously, and practically all the Whites in South Africa, summarily rejected this policy. [Interjections.]

It is unfortunate that this sort of debate should take place in an exclusively White political forum in which only the representatives of the Whites are debating the destiny of a multi-racial country and the rights and opportunities of a multi-racial society. It is unfortunate that only the White representatives of only the Whites should be trying to evolve a blueprint for South Africa when, in fact, we should be drawing up a constitutional brief for the delegates of White South Africa to go to an imminent multi-racial national convention to draft a new constitution for our country.

I want to base my contribution on two assumptions. The first is that, we accept the stark reality of our situation. I find the words of Dr. André du Toit very interesting. He said—

The second assumption I would like to make is that we are prepared to bring about far-reaching changes in South Africa in order to effect rapid and radical change towards a new South Africa free of discrimination, in which socio-economic opportunities and basic human rights are the inalienable property of all South Africans. Those are the two assumptions I should like to make. If all three parties in the House are prepared to accept these requirements, then I should like to make a few appeals. The first is to the Government. I want to ask the Government: Please do not summarily reject, as the hon. member over there did, federalism as a possible mechanism to solve South Africa’s complex problems. I say this particularly because the so-called White South Africa that will remain after all the homelands have received independence, will still have a majority of Blacks. In this regard Professor Rhoodie said—

*Prof. Rhoodie also said that there were approximately 4½ million permanent Blacks, “not temporary labourers with a consuming yearning for their homelands”, in so-called White South Africa at the moment. He said that we should add to that number approximately 2 million Coloureds and ¾ million Asians, and that that totals 7½ million non-Whites. “In other words, the Republic of South Africa will still have a plural national society, even if all the homelands were to become independent and were to be consolidated to the maximum.” Prof. Rhoodie also said—

He went on to say—

I think this professor has a realistic point of view. I think the Nationalist Party should heed the representations of this person to the Government of South Africa, i.e. in the first place, to come forward with an answer to the policies which we on this side of the House expound and, in the second place, not to reject federalism summarily and out of hand.

†It is true that at the summit conference of all homeland leaders which was held towards the end of 1973, they accepted that federalism would be the basis of the future constitutional position of South Africa. At the Buluga conference, which was held in November 1973, for the first time representatives of the vast majority of South Africa’s population—Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—got together with the representatives of a section of Whites and agreed on the following—

And now members of the United Party should listen to what the representatives of the majority of South Africa’s population decided there—

In other words, not your sort of policy—

Recently, at the Jan Smuts conference where, once again the leaders of the Black, Coloured and Indian people met with our party, they endorsed and emphasized this concept in the following words—

A clearer more concise and more devastating rejection of the United Party’s policy, would be hard to find. I think it is important that they bear this in mind.

My second appeal is therefore directed at the protagonists of a race federation. I think the United Party should re-examine and reconsider their policy in respect of …

There will be Black rule in five years.

That is a lie. [Interjections.]

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

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want the United Party to reconsider and re-examine their policy in the light of these realities. First of all, the Black, Coloured, Indian and White people of South Africa are obviously not prepared to accept their policy. Is there any constitutional lawyer or political scientist of note in South Africa or abroad who has suggested that the United Party’s policy in any way offers South Africa a solution?

A reality which makes this policy impracticable, is the fact that it is based exclusively on race. It proposes a three-tier constitutional structure based exclusively on race, on the compartmentalizing …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, this hon. sergeant in front of me is making things very difficult for me.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must refer to another hon. member as “hon. member’’.

The hon. member in front of me. It requires that at the base of this system, which the United Party proposes, White, Black, Coloured and Indian must vote separately on separate voters’ rolls. To bring that about, one has to perpetuate racial separation and classification. The hon. member for Carletonville will agree with me that if the Nationalist Government had not separated the races in South Africa by way of the Group Areas Act, the United Party’s first act in terms of their policy would have been the introduction of a measure to separate the races, because it would be impossible to start carrying out their policy unless the races are residentially separate. [Interjections.] On this base, in a multi-racial society where people work next to one another in a multi-racial integrated economy, the United Party proposes in a single geographic area the creation of different uni-racial legislative assemblies to exercise authority over that area. A more effective means of perpetuating race prejudice, race discrimination, friction and conflict, could not be designed. Quite clearly, no system designed along these lines, can in any way lead to the lessening of racial tensions. [Interjections.] The United Party, instead of solving the position of race conflict, has designed a new arena for intensified, exacerbated race conflict. I believe that the United Party’s policy where single racial units elect single uni-racial legislative assemblies which send uni-racial delegations to the federal assembly, will inevitably result in the purest form of race domination. I again want to refer to the hon. member for Carletonville. He said that the United Party’s policy was more dangerous than that of the Progressive Reform Party. The position is that since the United Party has a policy where Whites vote for Whites and Blacks vote for Blacks, i.e. uni-racial electorates elect uni-racial legislative assemblies which send uni-racial delegations to the federal assembly, one will find a situation where the delegation of any one race is accountable electorally only to its own race and has communication with its own race only. Whatever race has a majority in the federal assembly, will in fact constitute the uni-racial Government of the day and will in this way constitute the purest form of race domination that any constitutional system could devise.

What about yours?

Ours? Not at all, because it is a multi-racial elected Government … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

If the people on this side of the House, and the Government, are not prepared to accept that South Africa must develop towards a truly multi-racial society with a truly multi-racial economy, free of all forms of discrimination and with a truly multi-racial Government, then they are saying that there is no solution for this country and that we cannot possibly have peace, prosperity and security for everybody.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have no time to answer that hon. member’s questions. I have only two or three minutes left. To me, a very interesting thinker in the United Party’s ranks is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I would like to quote what he said in The Star in November last year. He spoke of “multinational federations”. He uses the word “multi-national”, not “multi-racial”. That makes a very big difference. Has the United Party now changed from “multi-racial” to “multi-national”. The hon. member who has just spoken, spoke of “multi-racial” and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout speaks of a “division” of power.

The United Party’s policy is, however, a sharing of power and the hon. member for Durban Point used those words. The interesting concept of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he believes in a division of power, is of course in line with the policy of the Nationalist Government. I am not criticizing him because I think his ideas are light years ahead of the ideas of his party. I think that he should enumerate and clarify his idea for our benefit and for the purpose of debate. He speaks about “national White” and “national Black” Parliaments. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, once again very interestingly, believes that the White Parliament should continue, but the United Party after tremendous confusion, believes that the White Parliament should disappear. That is important. The United Party believes in legislative assemblies for the other race groups. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout speaks about “Black national Parliaments” and “White national Parliaments”. I think this is very important and very interesting. The hon. member for Bezuidehout obviously believes that the federation should be based on territory and not on dispersed races as the hon. member for Durban Point suggests. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has advanced interesting ideas and thinking in respect of the constitutional future of this country. His ideas are diametrically opposed to those of the United Party and in some respects constitute a total rejection of those ideas, but I think it is incumbent on him to clarify and to articulate his ideas, because it will be a valuable contribution to the overall constitutional debate and that is the appeal I would like to make to him.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the Progressive Party has no serious intention whatsoever of discussing this deadly serious subject. They sought a political platform from which to pick a quarrel with the people next to them. Why do they involve the Government in a debate like this if they want to quarrel with the United Party? Let us look at the motion. Quite clearly, it stands on two legs. The one concerns the amendment of the constitution, which they request, and the other concerns the amendment of the voting system; in other words, it interferes with our franchise. I should have been pleased if by this time we could have known exactly what the Progressive Party wanted with regard to the second leg, because they have not told us.

I have it here.

No, I do not want to read your books now; I have it here too. What we should have liked was a debate across the floor of this House on that subject. You cannot have a federation without first changing the franchise in such a way that the electoral system allows you to have a House here which will eventually give you the federation. The hon. member says nothing about that; but I want to remind hon. members that last year the hon. member for Yeoville, who raised the matter here, said certain things in the House. He said—

Then he spoke about the Prime Minister’s détente effort, and addressed the following words to the United Party—

I now want to ask the hon. member why he came and stood in the hon. Prime Minister’s way this morning with a motion of this nature, because it is nothing but petty politics, as he called it in that speech of his. The hon. member holds an important record in this House. The hon. member has succeeded in shaking one party to its foundations within a short time. He established a second party, but then he discovered that that party was a child born out of wedlock because no one wanted to stand in as its father. He then got himself a step-parent and he forced that step-parent to change its name. We cannot leave a motion concerning such serious matters as the franchise and constitutional amendments in the hands of a man who acts so recklessly with regard to political parties, nor can we leave it in the hands of his party.

Let us examine our history. I shall begin a long way back. Do you know that there was a war in this country about franchise and that England forced our republics into a war about the so-called franchise? Do you know that the franchise was such an important matter that certain things were entrenched in the constitution of 1910? After all, you know the history of the Coloureds, the heart-sore and the misery and the hard words spoken in this House about the Coloureds. I now ask him in what way it helped the Coloureds when for all those years he was accorded so-called recognition in that he was given the franchise until 1968. It did not help him in the least, and as a result, when in subsequent years we were faced with the problem of setting them on a new course, those members continued to stand in our way. Let us look at the Bantu. What did those thinkers, those philosophers, give the Bantu? Virtually nothing until 1936. Then something did in fact happen. However, this was not granted without hard words either, and how acrimonious were the debates in the ‘fifties when we wanted to set the Bantu on their own course? Did the P.R.P., in their recent interviews with Matanzima and Buthelezi and others, tell them what they really had in mind for them? Are they still prepared to tell the Xhosas that they should not accept independence in October 1976, and the Tswanas they should not accept independence next year? Is the hon. member prepared to tell them that they should rather come and share in this sharing of power, or sharing of votes? Is he prepared to do it in that way?

[Inaudible.]

No, you could have spoken about the franchise just now and you did not. You intentionally said nothing about it because you did not want to discuss it. I am coming to that now. Do you know that since 1948 the National Party has done various things, and that the most important support it has received has come from eight elections? Eight elections have told the National Party to continue with separate development, and when we allow the emphasis to fall on development, then those philosophers want to emphasize separation. It is true that separation forms part of the process which arises from this, but our point of departure has been development. That they did not want to accept. Possibly the referendum was the very best answer we had, because in the referendum every man had his own vote. We do not vote in constituencies or candidates. Every one could vote and surely the people knew then that the Republic that would come would be established on the basis of separate development. Surely the public knew that, because we did not tell them anything different. The people in that party told them something different. Even at that stage they asked for a federation and the voters did not accept it. [Interjections.] Be quiet now and I shall tell you what you offered the people. Do you know, Sir, what the philosophy of those people is? The best enunciation by far came from Prof. Hancock who wanted to write a biography of Gen. Smuts and became engaged in conversation with certain people. He said that it had struck him that Gen. Smuts had never really taken race relations in South Africa very seriously. At that point a certain Amery, a good friend of Gen. Smuts, who was in the audience, rose to say that that was true. He had confronted him with the same statement and Gen. Smuts had answered—

A laissez-faire policy; that is what we inherited in 1948, and that was the political fraud on which political parties operated in the past. When that party came into being, the issue was specifically that of the franchise, or have they forgotten that? They all left here in haste to go to a congress in East London and they were all going to plead there for 20 Bantu representatives in this House, but their leader stated that only eight would be allowed. They then split on the land issue. Surely it is true that they themselves split on the franchise issue. Do you know what was the main cause of the downfall of the UP in 1948? Do you know what was the most important nail in their coffin? It was the Indian franchise. The Whites said: “No.” Now you will perhaps ask me whether the non-Whites were consulted in the process. However we are dealing with the Whites here, but we are honest towards the non-Whites. However, what do those people do with their qualified franchise about which they are silent here. The hon. member for Rondebosch is the chairman of their commission which is to propagate the new idea. He is conspicuous by his absence. At the moment he is not even in the House.

When, in 1964, Dr. Steytler was asked what the qualified franchise aimed at and whether it could eventually result in total Black domination he said that if the non-Whites were to obtain a majority in the Progressive Party, the non-Whites would be able to amend the constitution in order to replace the qualified franchise with a system of “one man, one vote”. Listen to what the founder of that party has to say about the path on which he placed those people. When that day comes, he says, he no longer wants to be a member of the Progressive Party.

Good gracious! They place the people on a path, they admit that things are moving in a certain direction, but as soon as they achieved their aim, they run away. What we have here, therefore, is an escapist policy.

Where do you get that from?

Let us talk about the hon. member for Rondebosch. What was the reply given by the hon. member for Rondebosch to a question put to him by The Cape Times in 1972? Let me quote it—

That is the whole policy. Then they accuse us of not consulting the Black people. They apply discrimination by applying two principles as regards those people … I see that the hon. member for Rondebosch is now present.

Their policy excludes illiterate and poor people.

That is not true!

Tell that …

Where is that stated?

It is stated in your party’s documents and it has been debated here.

That is not so!

It is stated in your party’s qualified franchise.

It has nothing to do with poorness or income! [Interjections.]

Very well then, if poorness does not apply in their case, then poorness …

[Inaudible.]

Poorness and education and training go hand in hand. They must not think that they will get away with income alone.

According to Nationalist Party policy, yes, but not according to our policy. [Interjections.]

If the policy is different now, then let the hon. member for Rondebosch rise and tell the House what their new report is going to contain, what the new voting system will be like.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Progressive Party’s biggest problem is in respect of …

[Inaudible.]

I do not know why the hon. member keeps interrupting. I cannot hear him while I am talking. Mr. Speaker, the major problem is in respect of the hon. member’s leader. In 1960 the hon. member’s leader said here in a debate that in any multiracial country like South Africa, there is “group loyalty”, “group feeling” and “group prejudices”, and that the Progressive Party believed that everything possible should be done to reduce that “group loyalty”, “group feeling” and “group prejudice”. Later in the same debate he said that he believed that separate voters’ rolls would inevitably give rise to a strengthening and accentuation of “group loyalty”, “group suspicion” and “group activity”. He went on to say that because they believed they had to try to combine the populations of South Africa into one social political union, they therefore also believed that representation on a common voters’ roll would be an improvement. They say this against the background of a negation of identity. The hon. member said this. He did not use the word “identity” but he will have to explain to us what “groups” mean. He did not refer here to groups as Nationalists and United Party supporters, but to groups in the sense of colour groups. That is very clear. Now he states that this is the aim of his policy. He must not read to me from that blue book now; I am now quoting from Hansard what he said. If his policy has changed once again, the hon. member for Rondebosch must rise and tell us about the other policy. He states that the PRP will strive to destroy the things which we interpret as identity. Now he also believes in separate states and things of that kind, but your policy contains the principle that the Progressive Party will strive to destroy those things which strengthen identity.

When did he say that?

In 1960.

Every time the National Party talks about identity here, then that party becomes terribly obstreperous.

Sir, I want to conclude because my time has expired. I should still just like to say this to the Progressive Party. Whereas history has showed us very clearly over the past 28 years that to the extent that the Whites have been consulted, they do not want this thing, and whereas we are taking part in a debate here today as Whites, why do you stand in the way of our Prime Minister and why do you say things here which must create a different image in the eyes of Africa to that which the Prime Minister sees in the policy of the National Party?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree on all points with the hon. member for Westdene, but I do want to associate myself with his remark that we expected to be able to conduct a debate on a high level about the merits of alternative political systems in South Africa and that all we have had thus far from the hon. members for Yeoville and Bryanston has been a petty party political attack on the United Party.

I want to deal with the basic problem and want to say at once that I do of course fully endorse the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point. It is very clear that the present political set-up in South Africa, based as it is on the Westminster pattern, does not have the necessary adaptability to accommodate fully the challenges of the times we are living in. What those challenges consist of, is that irrespective of what may occur in the homelands, we shall somehow have to find a political form in which the Coloureds, the Asiatics and those Bantu who are permanently resident outside the homelands can be taken up into our political set-up. This is the challenge we are faced with. Surely, Sir, it is clear that in terms of the sovereign legislative authority, in terms of the exercise of the executive authority and everything that goes with it, such as the determining of policy, our present political set-up is based on this Parliament, and that those population groups are not represented in this Parliament. We should be making no mistake if we were to describe this system as one of White domination of the political scene, with the exclusion of any participation by the non-Whites and other groups to which I have referred. Just as I reject this system because I believe that it does not have the potential to bring about peace and reconciliation in South Africa, I also reject the PRP proposals, because in my honest opinion, what they amount to is simply replacement of White domination by Black domination. The one is just as unacceptable to me as the other. If I had the time, I should have liked to go into this in more detail. Our present system based on the Westminster pattern is not amenable to development of that kind because it is based on the concept of majority rule, as is that of the PRP. According to this pattern, the party which is fortunate enough to win the majority of seats in an election has the sole right to form the Government. It also prescribes the legislative process, and the executive authority is in its hands. It determines domestic and foreign policy and appoints the judges to our bench. Those are the implications of majority rule in our system. In other words, the winner takes all. It is as simple as that.

It is democratic.

The hon. member should not use the word “democratic” because by doing so he is binding himself to something which could have serious repercussions for him and for me in our political arrangements for the future. I shall come back to that later. On the basis of the principle in the Westminster pattern that the winner takes all, the system is not capable of meeting our needs. In a reasonably homogeneous community this does not matter. Where the values are by and large the same—there can be party political differences as in America and the United Kingdom—it does not matter there if one party is the winner and takes all. However, where there is a heterogeneous society … I am very sorry, the hon. member for Carletonville realizes that I do not have much time.

But I did not want to ask a question.

Where there is a heterogeneous community, where there is a possibility of conflicting values, expectations and demands, then it is an entirely different matter. When this is the case, we cannot maintain a system in which one group takes everything there is to be taken in the government of a country. Consequently, in the light of the heterogeneous nature of our society, the Westminster pattern cannot be applied here. This pattern, within the unitary context in which we find ourselves today, was accepted in 1908-’09, in spite of the fact that even at that stage there were people who advocated a federal set-up for South Africa.

Particularly Natal.

Yes. It was accepted at a time when the world was entirely different to what it is today. No one who took part in that National Convention of 1908-’09 could have foreseen how the world would change in the subsequent 60 to 70 years. At that stage the interests of the non-White and his possible participation in a political structure were not considered at all because it was unnecessary to do so. The whole relationship between White authority and the political rights of non-Whites was simply not considered for the purpose of a political system in those days.

No, really.

It is quite simple. That was definitely the case. We still fail to recognize that our society is a plural society; and that plurality will have to be reflected at every level of government, in our Parliament, in our executive authority and on every other possible level. If that plurality is not so reflected, we shall continue to live in an air-tight world bearing no relation to reality.

It seems to me that the only alternative is a federal policy. Merely tinkering with the existing set-up, tinkering with the idea of establishing a joint Cabinet council, for example, or tinkering with the question whether we should have an executive system as we knew it in the Free State, or like America’s, where the State President or the Prime Minister will have executive authority—the latter in a different sense to that of today—will definitely not do. What we do need is a total rethink of the basis of our political structure. If we can do nothing to our system, and continue to maintain a system which denies the other groups effective participation in our government, our legislation and our executive authority, then we cannot hope for peace and co-operation in this country. We accept that for a country like South West, some form of federal government is the only possibility. Sometimes I get the impression—particularly, too, with regard to what the hon. member for Klip River said this morning—that our colleagues on the other side of the House see this Parliament as an exclusive mouthpiece of the White population, as a body representing the will of the White people. I have no objection to that. But then this Parliament must concern itself with matters which only affect the specific interests of the Whites. It is then the duty of this Parliament to establish a body in which the other population groups will be duly represented. However, I want to leave it at that, because in the very short time I still have at my disposal I want to confine myself to the PRP policy.

We have asked the P.R.P. on a number of occasions to provide a precise explanation of their constitutional policy, which was over-hastily accepted at the shotgun marriage which occurred in Johannesburg. They were asked to indicate clearly the implications of that policy. On various occasions we have spelt out our interpretation of those implications, but our interpretation has never been refuted and at the moment we are still waiting for a thorough elucidation of that policy and its implications. I had expected that we would be given those details this morning. I want to refer to a few examples. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the “redrawing of boundaries”. Let us hear, then, where those boundaries are.

And where are they according to UP policy?

What states will be created in terms of their dispensation? It certainly looks as if neither the Bantu homelands nor our existing provinces in their existing form will be recognized as political units in a new political dispensation. I am asking for information.

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

I regret that I am unable to reply to questions at present. We asked them time and again to draw the boundaries and tell us how many states there are going to be.

Where are the boundaries of your representative councils?

My question is not an academic one, because the size of the federal House of Assembly will be determined by the number of states according to their constitutional proposals. It will also determine the size of the federal Senate. It will also determine how the members of the federal House of Assembly and the federal Senate will be elected. Furthermore, it will determine the composition of each of the federal states’ legislative assemblies. As long as we are not clear on that score, we must stick to what is very clear, viz. that there will probably be a majority of non-Whites in the legislative assembly of each state within the federation. On the basis of the information at our disposal at this stage, it is very clear that in the Federal House of Assembly the Whites as a single group will be the biggest group whereas the non-Whites in this Federal House of Assembly will together probably form the majority. Nor is there any doubt that according to their proposals, the non-Whites will be in the majority in a federal Senate. That is a logical interpretation and if I had more time at my disposal, I should have liked to say why I come to these conclusions on the basis of their proposals. Unfortunately time does not permit.

†It is obvious that the P.R.P. proposals were ill-conceived and are totally incapable of providing adequate answers to the admittedly difficult problem of reconciling the often conflicting political hopes and expectations of the various groups in our population structure. In certain respects those proposals even aggravate the political conflicts and must, to my mind, lead to even greater polarization between the various population groups. Their proposals refuse to recognize and protect these groups and their identity. Their proposals do not sufficiently protect the interests of minority groups. Their proposals replace White domination with Black domination and they do not provide for the adequate representation of all our groups in all levels of government, because they also believe in the majority concept where the winner takes all. In this respect their proposals fail to reflect the plurality of our society. Their so-called safeguards are in the main worthless and valueless. The distinction drawn between the methods employed to determine the number of members—i.e. the size of the federal House of Assembly and the federal Senate—and the method of electing those members is confusing and hardly likely to inspire confidence. Their fundamental acceptance of the principle of majority rule and the Westminster type of constitutional government simply transposes all the problems existing in our present unitary setup to the proposed federation and particularly in so far as the state legislatures are concerned. I am sorry that I do not have time to deal adequately and fully with all the proposals of the P.R.P. in this connection, but I want to say that I am convinced they do not have the answer to the very, very difficult problem in South Africa of finding political accommodation for all the various groups.

Mr. Speaker, when we have to work out a constitutional framework for South Africa, we must first consider the people for whom we have to work out that constitutional framework. When one looks at the population of South Africa, a few things strike one immediately. In the first place, the people living in South Africa do not only belong to different races, but differ from each other in other ways as well. We have the White South Africans, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people of South Africa. It is of essential, and, in my opinion, of decisive importance that when we look at the Black people of South Africa, we must know, realize, and accept that the Black people are not merely Black people, but consist of groups of people belonging to different nations. We have Zulus, Sothos, Xhosas and so on. These people differ from each other in regard to language, culture, traditions, and history, and even their heroes are not the same. When we seek to solve the constitutional problems of South Africa, we must accept that we must do so against this background. We in South Africa have a population which is comprised of poor people and rich people, of educated people and uneducated people. We have a 100% heterogeneous community in South Africa.

When the hon. member for Yeoville discusses a federation for South Africa and states that Switzerland is a good example, I reject that out of hand. When he refers us to the USA as a good example, we reject that entirely, because whereas it is true that the federation they have there is successful, it is there to meet the needs of the population, which is to a large extent a homogeneous one. He cannot transplant a solution for a homogeneous community onto a heterogeneous community and think that he has thereby solved the problems of South Africa. While I am dealing with the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to point out that when he refers to Bantustans, I know that he does so with the aim of being insulting, not only towards the Government’s policy, but also towards the Black people of South Africa, who seek their own development within the framework of that policy. [Interjections.] On behalf of the Black people, I want to reject the insult to the Black people implied in the hon. member’s words as being despicable, as it indeed is.

That is really outrageous.

The central problem of politics in South Africa, and everywhere else in the world, is that it concerns power. The power struggle is the central problem and the central situation as regards the politics of South Africa, as is the case in politics anywhere. The name of the game is power. When we do not bear that in mind, then we negate the most important element, in my humble opinion, of the possibility of a successful solution to the problems of South Africa. Now it is true that in the light of the above we must also bear in mind that as the social level, the economic level and the level of education of the Black people of South Africa rise—they have risen under this Government—these people become more aware of their own identity in the first place, and the need for political power that goes with it.

It is most important that a process is under way in South Africa in which the Black peoples of South Africa are becoming aware of their own identity—not qua Black person, but qua member of a specific people. This is a world phenomenon. Throughout the world people are becoming more aware of their specific identity.

We in South Africa must adopt a policy the logical consequences of which do not frighten us. This Government is working day and night to bring to fruition the logical consequences of its policy. We are not afraid of telling the world what the logical consequence of our policy is; it is that the Black people of South Africa will become independent, that every Black state will become fully independent. That is the logical consequence of our policy. But the hon. members on that side of the House do not have the courage to rise and tell the people of South Africa: “The logical consequence of my policy is this, and that is what I am working towards.” If the logical consequence of your policy is the sharing of power, then the logical result of the implementation thereof is that the majority of the people must rule.

Of course.

All this leads to a specific dilemma, a dilemma which, as can clearly be seen, is taking shape in Rhodesia. It is the dilemma that if people want to act in a morally correct way they must be prepared and able to accept the logical consequences of their policy.

The Government’s policy is based on two premises. The first premise is that everyone in South Africa is fully entitled to his own self-determination, and the second is that the various justified aspirations for power of all the people must be reconciled with each other in a way which will not give rise to conflict and bloodshed. This reconciliation of power for which we must fight, can be effected in one of two ways. The first is that we should have a sharing of power, and the second is that we should have a division of powers. That is the real constitutional problem of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very wide gap between the Opposition and ourselves, but there is no real difference in principle between the two opposition parties present in the House. Both want to share power. The dogfight we have seen here today only concerned the details of that principle. It did not concern the principle of the sharing of power itself, but the detail involved. The details of the policy were discussed. We on this side of the House say that there is an unbridgeable gap between the Government and that side of the House with regard to this vital matter. That is why we say that we can never find each other in regard to this matter. However, the Progressive Party and the United Party, on the other hand, can find each other in this regard, because they are both in favour of the same thing. In the final analysis the saying—“the proof of the pudding is in the eating’’—is true. If we want to know what is going to work with regard to the reconciliation of aspirations for power, we must consider what works in Africa. Does the United Party’s and the Progressive Party’s policy of the sharing of power work in Africa, or does the Government’s policy of the separation of powers work? I want to point to a number of examples to show that separation of powers works in Africa and that sharing of powers, as is proposed by the Opposition parties, does not work in Africa at all, and is doomed to utter failure.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was saying that when we consider a constitutional system for a country, the question must be asked: Is it going to work or is it not going to work? My standpoint is that the plan of members on the other side of the House, the federation plan, whether it is of the United Party’s or the Progressive Reform Party’s, is not going to work. The most conclusive evidence I have for this, is the fact that in Africa the federation system does not work at all. I want to mention to you a few examples of failures of federation in Africa. Until 1972 the Cameroons was a federation. It is no longer one today. In 1962 there were efforts to convert Zaire, the then Congo-Kinshasa, into a federation, but that failed. Then, too, there were the French colonies in French West Africa, which were in the form of a federation—that failed. There were also the three British colonies of Central Africa. They formed a federation and this, too failed. Then there was the federation of the French Sudan, now Mali and Senegal, the so-called Mali federation. This federation, too, went the way of all flesh. Then we had the efforts to combine Senegal and Gambia into a federation in 1962. This, too, failed. We had the well-known federation of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. This failed in 1963. Then, too, we had the federation of Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. What happened here? We need no longer guess; it failed.

Today we have only three federations in Africa. Firstly, there is the federation of Tanzania, and there democracy has been abolished. Secondly, there is the federation in Nigeria. There democracy has been abolished and a military government is in power. Thirdly, we have the federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea, established in 1952. What is happening there today? The Eritreans have to shed blood in order to acquire their freedom under this federation. I want to predict that if we in South Africa wanted a federation with the Black people, then the day would come when those same Black people would fight to free themselves from that federation, because even if there were no Whites in South Africa, I still say that the Black people of South Africa would never be able to establish a successful federation; it would be doomed to failure because Africa does not endure federations. In Angola we have a situation of conflict. Why do we have this conflict, Sir? Basically, the fundamental reason for that conflict lies in the dispute in international law between the people of Angola, something which we cannot get around.

Then, too, we had the efforts by Cecil John Rhodes and Lord Malvern to establish an imperial federation from Cape Town to Kenya. This, too, failed. When we look at the principles of the policy of the opposition parties, viz. the sharing of power, then we know that if we were to apply that abomination of a federation to Africa, we would be heading for misery, conflict, decay and bloodshed. The path to success for South Africa and for Africa lies in recognizing the diversity of peoples in Africa and South Africa. It lies in recognizing the right of self-determination of each nation, and it also consists of taking the practical steps necessary to give expression in practice to the desire of every person to be his own mater.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down gave us a list of African states which had a federal system and which according to him ended in failure. He should remember that there are another 47 African states and that most of them are unitary states. The hon. member will say, of course, that they too have failed. They are practically all military dictatorships or have experienced coup d’états. Why does the hon. member not quote these unitary states as well? Why only the states with a federal system? The hon. member arrived at the crux of the matter just before we suspended business for lunch. He said that the crucial question concerned power. I think he is right. He interpreted the matter correctly when he said this. He then continued by saying that the choice lies between separation of power on the one hand and sharing of power on the other hand. However, in that respect the hon. member is hopelessly wrong. He is wrong because in reality, in spite of pious words, power is already being shared between White and Black in South Africa. This is so. We should not see power only in terms of the ballot box or franchise. Of course this is an important aspect of power. However, it is not power; there are other factors as well which contribute to the total political power of individuals or groups within the society, such as numbers, sophistication, leadership, perspicacity, level of education, level of development, economic power—all these factors are power factors. We must take them all into consideration if we wish to draw up a future constitutional policy for South Africa. Franchise is important, and it is especially important as a means through which power can be exercised in a peaceful and orderly fashion. But to compare power with franchise is to close one’s eyes to the real situation. During the past years, especially during the past 20 years, there has been a large-scale shift of power to which the hon. member referred. There has been a shift of power in South Africa, a shift of the exclusive power which the White man originally had to more and more power, intrinsic power, to the Black people.

†Mr. Speaker, there has been a change of power. There has been a shift of power from White exclusiveness to the Black people, and I believe that we have to acknowledge this. When the hon. member speaks of “skeiding”, then I say that “skeiding”, if it is going to be anything, has got to be a radical structural “skeiding”—not only little pieces of land, but “skeiding” of resources, “skeiding” of potential. There must be a complete division, because there is no point in having a small territorial division of land and believing that this is a real division of power. You have to eliminate the sources of conflict where there is potential conflict between power structures, and you will only do that by a much more radical separation than the hon. members opposite suggest.

It is a pity that the Government speakers have so far rejected out of hand the concept of federalism. I think that it is a pity, because they say that they reject it because it implies sharing of power. I say that when the hon. the Prime Minister sits on a Cabinet council with Coloured people, he is sharing power with those Coloured people. What else is he doing? That is a means of sharing power. It is a means, I believe, of in due course accommodating States outside South Africa which come within the total power structure of southern Africa. It is one area, it is one solution to the political problems of South. Africa in regard to which you can get significant support from Black South Africans. However, I think that it is unwise of the Government to abandon federation because they do not like the word. One of these days they might well have to return to federation as a lifeline for themselves and for this country. As far as the hon. members on my right are concerned it is a pity that they have turned this debate into a party-political slanging match. [Interjections.]

Tell us about your policy.

The hon. member for Durban Point wants me to discuss my policy. I will in a short time deal with it and I will do so again and again. The hon. member suggests that we have not presented our policy, but he knows full well that he and I debated this in half-hour speeches during the Part Appropriation debate last year, and subsequently. He is fully aware of that. We have spelled it out in detail and we will be spelling it out again as time becomes available.

That was a different policy, before Harry joined you.

The essence of the attack of the hon. members on my right deals with the issue of a Black majority. I believe that we should get rid of this because this is an argument which should not exist between people on this side of the House, whether they are in the UP or the PRP. If we are going to get rid of race discrimination within a single political entity in South Africa, then there are consequences which the hon. member for Durban Point cannot run away from. One of the two elements of the United Party’s constitutional policy is a federal assembly, which will have all the powers which it cannot entrust to ethnic councils. That federal assembly will be just as much Black-dominated as any other assembly created by any other party, if the United Party is going to get rid of race discrimination. [Interjections.] The general secretary of the party, Senator Horak, has said this. Why do the hon. members say he is talking nonsense? I do not think they need to be ashamed of it, but there is a distinct difference between our policy for our national assembly and theirs, and the difference is this: We will extend the franchise to people on the basis of merit and of educational attainment. [Interjections.] If you get rid of discrimination, then the time will come when there will be more Black voters in South Africa than White voters; nobody is arguing about that, but in terms of their policy there will be Black voters who will elect Black candidates to look after Black interests. There will be a polarization, and there is no prospect in terms of their policy of getting a meeting of interests between Blacks and Whites in South Africa. That is the specific difference.

Secondly, to eliminate this argument once and for all, there is the question of what powers can be handed over to the ethnic councils, because this is their so-called safety device. I want to say—and I will deal with it again and again in the course of debates—that when one takes the speeches of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Eden-vale, in terms of those speeches which they are making time and time again, there is virtually nothing which you can hand over to an ethnic council. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that we must get rid of all statutory social colour bars. Once you have done that, there is no aspect of social life which you can hand over to a separate racial council in South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that you do not lose your identity in an open society. He said that the Greeks do not lose it, the Portuguese do not lose it, the English do not lose it, and the Afrikaner does not lose it. In other words, they do not need separate racial councils to protect their identity. The hon. member for Edenvale has attacked separate hospitals, separate educational institutions, separate universities, separate trade unions—you name it, he has attacked it, because he says it is discrimination. If in fact those hon. members are going to get rid of discrimination on the terms in which they are speaking of it today, then there is precious little which you can hand over to an ethnic council on a formal constitutional basis.

I believe we must stop playing these little games with one another and come back to the fundamentals which confront us all in South Africa, and that is not whether there is going to be a separation of power or not, but how in fact we can devise a means of sharing the power which already exists in South Africa. I believe that we must take note of the growing importance of the Black and Brown South Africans in this country, and if we are going to get rid of discrimination, we must follow it to its logical conclusion. It is no use saying that we are going to get rid of discrimination in everything other than the political field. The hon. members opposite have issued a statement together with the Black leaders, in which they said: “We reject discrimination in any shape or form. ” I accept that that is their view, but then that must be followed through to its logical conclusion. We are prepared to follow it through and we believe that in due course inexorably these gentlemen will have to follow us.

If we are committed to getting rid of racial discrimination, I believe that we have to face up to the fact of multi-racialism—and I use this word advisedly. We do not want a pale neutral grey South African population. We find that South Africa is exciting and interesting, not merely because there are different ethnic groups or different colours. There are different languages and different religions. There are different cultural norms and different economic classes. We believe that the people who belong to those various categories should have the protection of the law on their side and that they should not be forced into a homogeneous neutral grey South African society.

We have to realize too that no solution for the future constitutional development of South Africa is going to last and is going to be worth while unless it is fashioned by Black and White people together. We cannot have a solution imposed by a White Parliament on Black people, or by a Black Parliament on White people. It has to be a solution which is worked out together and agreed to by the representatives of the Black and the White and the Brown people. We believe that there should be a getting together, as was attempted in Rhodesia, and as there is now in South West Africa, an attempt of the leaders of the various communities to get together and to fashion a political future for South Africa. When we present our federal proposals, they must be seen in the light that these are the proposals which we believe should be presented to a national convention of the people of South Africa to get the broadest national assent for them.

The federal system of government is the system most likely to achieve an equitable sharing of political power without discrimination against individuals or against groups in South Africa.

How do you achieve it?

We do not believe that federation in itself is a magic talisman, but at least this will create the conditions, the constitutional order, in which it will be possible both to extend power with safety and to share power with safety for all the people of South Africa. A federation, if it is to mean anything, involves sovereign entities, each having a defined degree of power and being sovereign in their field of power. If a body is going to be sovereign in its field of power, then it must have a territorial basis. You cannot have a State-within-a-State situation. You cannot say that the Coloured Parliament can be sovereign if it does not have a formal territory over which it can exercise its sovereignty. We believe that it is essential in South Africa that we should redelimit the existing provinces and the existing homelands, taking into account community of interests, interests which may be ethnic, linguistic, agricultural or economic. But taking all the factors of community of interest into account, we believe that new self-governing provinces should be fashioned in South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Is the hon. member prepared to answer a question?

I have a problem, as I have only five minutes left, but I will do so later on, by all means. We do not believe that any of these States will be racially exclusive. They will include all the people who happen to be living in the State. This offers an opportunity for people of different races to develop a common interest because of local interests and regional interests rather than interests of only national concern. We accept the concept of self-governing States dealing with matters of local concern, but it is essential for matters of national concern that there should be a national Parliament. We accept the concept of a national Parliament to deal with matters of national concern. We also believe in a bicameral Parliament which consists of a Lower House and a Senate. I do not know whether hon. members on my right do. The Lower House should be the House which represents the people, and the Senate should in the main be the House which represents the various self-governing States which form that federation. That is the basic division between these two authorities.

When it comes to the franchise, we believe that this should be extended progressively to all the peoples of this country. We have no reservations about that. It has to be extended progressively to all the peoples of South Africa. As people grow in residual political power, they must get the means of expressing that political power. It is important from our point of view to have a regulator, because we do not believe that one can move from a point of exclusive White political control to a situation of shared political power without a transition. Therefore we say that there has to be a transition mechanism, and we make no apologies for this. We believe that the best way of achieving it—and there may be other ways which we would be prepared to consider—is to see that on the one hand the franchise is made as broad as possible to include as many people as possible, and at the same time that those people who have reached a certain level of sophistication within what is a complicated modern society are those ones who should have the dominant say during the transition period. So we say that all people who have basic literacy can enjoy the franchise for one-half of the seats. Those people who have basic literacy would include people with B.A. degrees as well as people with Std. VIII. We believe the other half of the seats should be voted for by those people who have reached the level of free compulsory education provided by the State. We believe that as long as there is an onus on the State to provide free compulsory education to everybody in South Africa, it is reasonable to say that that should be the level that one sets for participation in both votes for the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, this is our policy. [Interjections.] We believe that at this stage the aim should be free compulsory education for everybody up to the level of Std. VIII. This is what the State will provide, and this is what the test should be. We also say, and I shall come back to this, that everybody with basic literacy will at least have a vote for the proportional representation roll which forms 50% of the seats.

There is one other point that I want to mention. Hon. members want to know where the protection is. I think that to protect minorities by entrenching racial divisions in South Africa, is going to be disastrous for the White minority in South Africa. I believe that those protections will be achieved through a Bill of Rights, plus a fragmentation of power, plus an independent judiciary, plus the means of preventing domination by not being able to alter the constitution except with the approval of 75% of both Houses of Parliament. These things collectively, we believe, provide the constitutional safeguards. However, the ultimate safeguard does not lie either in their constitutional policy or in ours. The ultimate safeguard lies in trying to find a society in which Black and White are emotionally prepared to try to come to a political reconciliation. This is what, I believe, is the ultimate. What we have suggested is an aid, a means, which indicates an acceptance of the concept of the plurality of the South African society. What is far more important than the plurality of the South African society, is that we are one South Africa. It is within that context of one South Africa that we shall have to find a common political solution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by raising a matter which—and I say this with all respect—is beyond your control. It is a matter over which you do not have control. I should like to know from the hon. members of the Progressive Party why they move a motion in this House. I should think they would move a motion in this House because they expect the Government to reply to it. Surely this is why they move a motion; to encourage discussion among members and to get answers to their questions to the Government. However, the hon. Whip of the Progressive Party could not arrange his time in such a way that the Government representative could have more than 10 minutes to reply to the debate. Only 10 minutes are left …

There are 15 minutes.

I say quite honestly that I do not even feel like replying to the debate. Why should I? If the hon. members do not even have the decency to grant the Government side sufficient time to be able to reply to the debate, why should we reply to it?

The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party tried to compress into a period of 20 minutes a policy speech which he would not be able to complete in two hours. What is the sense of that? He is the leader of the party and the motion which he laid before this House deals with a federal system of government and also with a proportional electoral system. This is what it is concerned with. It is not concerned with all the aspects of a policy which he tried to force down all our throats at 100 miles an hour. He rushed through his speech so rapidly that that one almost got the impression that he wanted to deal with about 20 different aspects.

Mr. Speaker, this arrangement of the hon. the Whip of the Progressive Party today is only an example of the way time will be dealt with by this side of the House in future. I can assure you now that the very next time I have the opportunity, I shall rise early during the time allowed for the motion and I shall make excessive use of their time for the purposes of my reply. I am convinced that this was not what the hon. member for Yeoville wanted. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted a debate here today. He wanted us to debate with each other. I spend hours trying to give them a proper answer, but they grant me only 10 minutes to reply. I am not prepared to answer a question if they do not have the decency to leave me sufficient time for it.

Harry, they should make you leader instead! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point proposed an amendment to the motion which is before the House. I should like to begin by saying that that amendment is not accepted by this side of the House. I shall come to the reasons for this. For the same reasons we also reject the motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Yeoville asks: “That this House calls upon the Government to recommend to the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry in order to investigate and report upon the desirability of introducing a federal system of government for the Republic of South Africa and upon the desirability of introducing an electoral system of which proportional representation is an integral part.’’

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for the hon. House to recommend this to the State President, because a commission cannot determine policy.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. Whip of the Progressive Party would just keep his mouth shut, I would perhaps be able to talk to the hon. member for Yeoville. A commission cannot determine policy. A country’s policy is determined by the electorate itself. Over the past 27 years, in seven or eight different elections, the White electorate in South Africa has rejected all forms of federalism as presented by the two parties on the other side. I want to qualify this statement by immediately saying to the hon. leader of the Progressive Party that this side of the House does not reject the concept of ‘‘federation’’ or “federalism” as such. This has never been done. It has never been done by the hon. the Prime Minister. Nor has it ever been done by a speaker on this side of the House. The concept as such has never been rejected. What this debate is concerned with is the nature of the federations and federal concepts which are at issue today. This is what it is concerned with, and this is what we are debating today. If they had granted me sufficient time, I would have tried to elucidate this question. However, I am not going to do this, because there are a few other points I wish to discuss.

Why do the voters reject these forms of federalism? They simply do this because they are not prepared to play a subordinate part as a minority group, as part of a pluralistic community, in their own country. The second reason is that every nation should retain political power over itself. The voters also reject this because they stand for the preservation of the identity of the individual and of the group or nation to which he belongs. These things are rejected by the majority. The majority of the White voters stand for the policy of the Nationalist Party which recognizes the right to sovereignty. In the case of the Black man a federal form of government would destroy this ultimate aim.

Furthermore, this side of the House rejects the motion because proportional franchise created chaos in some countries, and in any case cannot succeed in South Africa with its particular pluralistic or geographical set-up. This is our most important reason for rejecting the motion. A further reason why the motion is rejected, is that the federation advocated by the United Party could lead to nothing but a Black majority government. The Progressive Party accepts a Black majority government as their premise. I know there are hon. members of the United Party who do not agree with this. The hon. member for Von Brandis stated this very clearly in a long article in The Star of 25 August 1972. In that article the hon. member for Von Brandis said how the federation plan would work. Each of the four provinces and/or other groups would have three representatives, forming a total of 45. Three representatives from each province gives one 12; one representation for the Indians gives one three; two Coloured representations give one six, and eight Bantu representations give one 24. Therefore there is a sum total of 45 representatives who are nominated for the federal Parliament. Then 120 seats remain, and the hon. member for Von Brandis expects that in the first election which would take place, the Whites would gain at least 80% of the seats. However, he says that, taking into consideration the policy of the United Party, the federal Parliament would be constituted as follows: Whites, 108, Bantu, 38; Coloureds, 12 and Indians, 7. So there is a total of 165 members. In other words, the non-White bloc consists of 57 people and should the Whites be represented in that Parliament on the same basis as in this Parliament, they would be divided more or less as follows, and we must accept that the United Party would then be ruling; the United Party, 60, the National Party, 37 and the Progressive Reform Party, 11, a total of 108. If one were now to add the non-White bloc of 57 to the 11 of the Progressive Party, then we would start with a majority of 68, and where would they fit in other than with the Black people and with the Coloured people? Under the United Party’s federal government, therefore, one would have a Black majority government from the outset. This is under their own policy—these are not our calculations; these are their own calculations.

Now the hon. Senator J. L. Horak, the general secretary of the United Party, says with reference to this federal government, concerning the powers which are transferred from the White Parliament to the federal parliament—

Now the hon. member for Durban Point says today—

I ask you, Sir! One starts with a Black majority from the outset. How can one keep the machinery in the hands of the Whites? Sir, this is why these forms of federalism are rejected, because the way things are on the United Party side, this is nothing other than gradual suicide—not even sudden suicide, but gradual suicide. Now one can well understand why Mr. Mike Mitchell one day exclaimed here in frustration: “It is what it is!”

The policy of the Progressive Reform Party is also rejected, because they advocate proportional representation where franchise will be granted to all citizens who, firstly, possess basic literacy and, secondly, have reached the required level of education or have at any stage been registered as voters for Parliament. The principle of Black majority is accepted by them. The hon. member for Sea Point also said today that this should be accepted as such. Now, one cannot help pitying their own people. I read a letter in The Cape Times of 15 December last year, written by a certain Mr. Roger Hulley. He took very strong exception to the allegation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the Progressive Party’s policy would lead to a Black majority Government—

These are the poor people’s own voters. Today has been the second time during the past two weeks that the hon. member for Bryanston has referred with great enthusiasm to his real leader who has not yet come over with him, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said we should take note of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, because he is such a progressive thinker, in the academic sense of the word, that we should take note of his thoughts. He then requested the hon. member to elaborate on his thoughts which he expresses from time to time. Sir, he need not elaborate on them. The hon. member can simply read New Nation of 17 November 1971. There all the ideas of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are spelt out. He can read this. I have it here if he wants it. What this amounts to is that in many respects the view held by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on this matter is very close to that of the National Party. As an ultimate result he wants a confederation of states in Southern Africa. Basically this is what it amounts to. But he is caught up in the ultimate result of a federation of groups in Southern Africa, and on the other hand the territorial federation, which I think he himself does not know what it is. This is why voters ask questions, and this is why they reject certain policies.

Before I conclude, I would just like to put a few questions to the Progressive Party, questions to which they could perhaps reply in the Appropriation debate which lies ahead. These are: Firstly, what is their concept of the various states which their federal body would consist of? Secondly, when would a person qualify for permanent residence? Thirdly, what do they mean by basic literacy? Fourthly, what do they mean by required level of education or, as they further say, people who have at any stage been registered as voters for this Parliament? Does this include all previous Black and Coloured Voters? The hon. members unfortunately do not know, and I am sorry I do not have the time to tell them why they do not know. I could have quoted to them from their own letter, but I would rather use this in a later debate.

I would like to conclude—I see my time has expired—by reading to you what the hon. the Prime Minister said. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed this view on 4 February 1974, and I think it is a very good answer to some of the arguments which were raised today by members on the other side. He said—

I think this is stated very clearly.

In conclusion I would just like to leave a thought with hon. members. The future will demand new thought in South Africa—of course. The National Party has never said that the concepts it has created will not be developed by it. When the various homelands have received independence, there will be situations which will have to be reviewed. But we cannot look at a system of proportional representation when we see the problems it has caused throughout the world. Think of the problems this has caused in countries in Europe through the establishment of small parties and weak coalition governments! Countries like Italy, which has had 58 governments over a period of a few years. At one stage the Netherlands had 28 different parties or groups represented in their parliament. Why is this so? Proportional representation simply does not succeed where the population is not homogeneous. Therefore we must look for something else. Had the opportunity been there, I would have been able to supply the answers today, but now I must conclude in general terms. One must look for something different, because proportional representation cannot succeed in a population situation such as the one we have in South Africa. What the hon. member for Pretoria Central said was true.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to hon. members, especially on our side of the House, for the contributions which they made to the debate. As the hon. member for Pretoria Central said, there is hardly a country—in fact, there is no country—in Africa where the system which propagated by the other side has worked. The countries where it does work are some countries in Western Europe, and these are exceptions, while in the countries where it is a failure, it is an absolutely chaotic failure.

For that reason we on this side of the House say that the federal concepts advocated by you on the other side cannot succeed. The electorate rejects them, and would reject them again. For that reason we do not even want to discuss it any further. Hon. members will have to suggest something different if they want to have a discussion with us. We have made our policy and our standpoint clear. The proportional form of electoral system which you advocate has been proved throughout the world to be a failure in a population situation such as the one in South Africa. For that reason I am not prepared to accept either the motion of the hon. member or the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The policy of ethnic development in South Africa has already reached an advanced stage, its course having been so securely mapped out by this Government that there is no turning back. This policy is aimed at developing an ethnic pattern in South Africa in accordance with which each nation may aspire without hindrance to its own self-realization. Although the struggle for freedom of the Black man in certain parts of Africa has gone hand in hand with violence and confrontation, we find the direct opposite in the Republic, viz. a sincere desire on the part of the Government to take positive steps to emancipate the Black man and to assist him in acquiring his own sovereign independence. The coming independence of the Transkei and the envisaged independence of Bophuthatswana, seen in conjunction with the stirrings in many of the other homelands, have caused the opponents of this policy, primarily the integrationists on that side—or should I rather say “racists”, for those people cannot get away from the concept of “race”; they still do not understand the concept of “nation”, perhaps because some of them do not really belong to a nation—to realize that they are losing the struggle in respect of the political development of the ethnic policy of the Government. The political development is taking place on an ethnic basis, and not on a racial basis. It is the policy of the National Party to create a situation in South Africa with which and through which it also gives and establishes what it claims as its God-given and inalienable birthright to the other peoples of South Africa as well.

Because the opponents of ethnic freedom realize that they have lost the argument on the political aspects, they are trying to fall back onto a secondary argument. They are arguing that the homelands are not economically viable and do not afford their people the possibility of a livelihood. They are also arguing that the Government is not doing enough in this regard. The argument is being advanced that total economic independence is in fact a prerequisite for political sovereignty. This standpoint is not true—it is invalid because the entire tendency in the world today is towards increasing economic interdependence. I cannot illustrate this better than by quoting the example of the economic interdependence of Lesotho, Swaziland. Botswana and the Republic of South Africa. For the purpose of the argument I could include Mozambique as well. I do not want to elaborate on this argument, because I do not think there could be a better example to prove that economic independence is not a prerequisite for political independence than that of the BLS countries, together with Mozambique. In any case, where does one find a country today which is able to isolate itself to such an extent from the rest of the world that it is able to say that economically its sovereign independence is so complete that it does not need anything from anybody, and that it does not need to buy from anyone or does not need anyone to buy from it. In reality we are moving ever farther in the direction of greater economic interdependence, and the EEC is an example of this. We have to accept that the key to future relations between South Africa and the homelands in South Africa, as well as the other countries of Southern Africa, is greater economic co-operation and interdependence on the basis of an equal status for each to the mutual benefit of each State. This amounts to an economic power bloc of states in Southern Africa based on equality and on respect for one another’s political sovereignty and integrity.

It is true that the development of the homelands into economically viable units is a very important aspect. In this regard the development corporations have played a very important role. In the first place, I want to say something about the origin of the idea of a development corporation dealing with the Black people. What gave rise to the establishment of development corporations was a recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission. The commission recommended that a development body, over and above the S.A. Bantu Trust, be established to participate, and frequently take the initiative, in the establishment of industrial undertakings, and to promote the development of Black enterprise and economy. There was legislation establishing the Bantu Investment Corporation. This was followed by legislation establishing the Xhosa Development Corporation. With the passing of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, Act 46 of 1968, authorization was granted for the establishment of further corporations, and the Bantu Mining Corporation was also established. In this way we had primarily these three corporations, the BMC, XDC and BIC, which dealt with economic development in the homelands.

I should like to sum up the activities and the aims of the BIC and the XDC as follows … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, empty vessels make the most noise. Would he please keep quiet, for he is making a lot of noise. I want to summarize these as follows: The provision, in the first place, of capital and means, technical and other assistance, the provision of expert and specialized advice and information as well as guidance to the entrepreneurs; and, in the second place, the encouragement, expansion and establishment of industrial, financial and other undertakings in the homelands, and the encouragement of thrift among Black people; the planning and the promotion of capital formation; the promotion of self-reliance in economic spheres; and the take-over of existing business enterprises, industries, partnerships or companies in the Black areas.

As far as the BMC is concerned, we may summarize its functions into two points: Firstly, the location, development and exploitation of economically utilizable mineral resources, where possible in co-operation with Black entrepreneurs; and secondly, the motivation of White bodies, which have the necessary funds and technical skills at their disposal, to participate actively, subject to specific conditions, in the location and development of mining and mining activities within the homelands.

If we consider the economic growth as well as the development which has taken place in the homelands, then I am of the opinion that the three development corporations, particularly the former two, have made a significant contribution during the past 15 years. Over the last five years in particular the corporations have made an exceptional contribution to the growth in the homelands as a result of the programmes launched by the corporations. If we consider the gross domestic product of the homelands in the Republic we shall see that the GDP of the homelands increased phenomenally from R138,5 million in the period 1960-’61 to R307 million in 1970-’71, and subsequently to R509 million in 1973-’74. Expressed as a percentage it means that the average annual growth rate of the GDP of the homelands increased from 4% in the decade of the fifties to 6,3% in the decade of the ’sixties. Between 1969-’70 and 1973-’74 the growth increased tremendously from 6,3% to 16,3% in terms of the GDP. What is important is that the growth rates I have mentioned, excluding the growth rate of the ’fifties, are considerably higher than the average growth rate of the economy in South Africa as a whole. This indicates the excellent results obtained with the development programmes of the corporations and other bodies in the homelands. The fact of the matter is that the growth rate within the homelands is greater than the growth rate of the economy as a whole. This is a very important and cardinal point and was brought out, inter alia, by the untiring actions of the development corporations. This was a fine achievement on the part of the development corporations. In this connection I want to mention other Government bodies as well, but these do not have a bearing on my motion. If we consider further signs of growth, we see that considerable growth has taken place in respect of the added value of the secondary sectors in the homelands. Growth in the added value of secondary sectors in an economy indicates that there has been economic industrial development and activity in that the input which was made is on a higher level as a result of industrial actions. In the Transkei this added value in the secondary sectors increased from R3,6 million to R8,6 million over the period 1969-’78 to 1973-’74—an increase of 138%. The increase in added value in KwaZulu was 130,8%. The increase in added value in Bophuthatswana was from R1,9 million to R9,0 million. In other words, there was a growth in the added value of approximately 373%. This is growth. Quantitatively it is not considerable, but the fact of the matter is that percentage-wise, tremendous growth is taking place in the homelands. This growth is being generated, inter alia, through the actions of the various corporations.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If I finish before my time has expired, I shall reply to the hon. member’s question. I am not being unco-operative, but I shall find it extremely difficult to finish in the time at my disposal.

Do you agree the account …

The hon. member must not be unmannerly now simply because I did not want to allow him to ask a question. He should remember his manners. Over the same period, i.e. the 1969-’70 to 1973-’74 period, we also see that there was considerable growth in the tertiary sector of the homelands economies. If we exclude the Government sector, we see that the growth in the added value in the tertiary sector in the homelands increased from R60,4 million to R93,7 million. In other words, this was a growth of 55%. This is, in my honest opinion, an excellent achievement. This growth in the gross domestic product of the homelands made a very significant contribution to causing the gross national income per capita of the homeland inhabitants to rise. In general the gross national income per capita is an internationally acceptable norm for measuring prosperity. What is important, however, is what happened with this per capita income in terms of the gross national income. This rose between 1960-’61 and 1973-’74 from R57 per capita to R175 per capita.

Over 20 years!

That hon. member cannot even do simple arithmetic. This is a figure which one may truly compare with those in other states elsewhere in Africa and feel satisfied with, although it is not the final target.

Consequently we can say that the general level of prosperity of the homeland inhabitants already compares favourably with those of other Black peoples in Africa. For the sake of interest, I just want to furnish the corresponding per capita income figures for all Black people in South Africa itself. The corresponding figure in 1960-’61 was R75, as against the R57 in the homelands. This rose to R144 per capita in terms of the gross national income. In 1973-’74 it already stood at R201 per capita, which is a very favourable figure by African standards. We can argue at length about this income which is generated in the homelands by commuters, migratory workers, etc., but I shall leave it at that for the moment.

As far as the achievements of the corporations’ programmes are concerned, the fundamental premise of these programmes is in the first place to employment opportunities to the people within the homelands; in the second place, to create an income in the homelands for the homeland inhabitants; and in the third place, to involve as many entrepreneurs as possible in these development processes, and then to try to identify them. After they have been identified as entrepreneurs one is able to assist them with other resources, which the corporations have at their disposal, to generate growth themselves in their own homelands. In other words, the actions of these corporations are not acts of economic imperialism, but an attempt to help those people to help themselves. This is the essence of the actions of the development corporations. I repeat: It is not an act of economic imperialism, but an attempt to help people to help themselves in the interests of the whole of South Africa. We do not want part of the prosperity of those people. We want to afford them a prosperity of their own—that is our object.

I just want to refer in outline to certain other aspects, which other hon. members on my side of the House will elaborate on further. One of these is the mining enterprises by the corporations in the homelands. One is grateful to be able to say that certain of our homelands already have a considerable known mineral potential which is in fact economically exploitable.

Everyone knows what an important part mining has played in the development of South Africa as a whole, and therefore it is obvious that mining ought to be accorded a high priority in the development of the homelands. It is a fact that the rock formations of the Bushveld igneous complex occur particularly in Bophuthatswana and Lebowa. This is the most important parent rock of minerals in South Africa and contains, inter alia, deposits of tin, platinum, chrome, vanadium-bearing iron ore, and magnesite. In Bophuthatswana platinum is at present the most important mineral. In Lebowa it is chrome. To indicate the potential, it is significant to note that the Lebowa homeland has virtually 50% of the known chrome reserves in the world. KwaZulu’s potential lies in the exploitation of its coal deposits. There are numerous other known minerals, and the Bantu Mining Corporation will proceed with this development.

One of the fundamental aspects of development is agriculture. In respect of agriculture the BIC and the XDC are playing a very important role. They have established agricultural divisions. Since 1973 they have been actively engaged in agricultural activities. I want to single out only one aspect in regard to agriculture, and that is that the agricultural potential of the homelands in general is considerable. We usually regard a rainfall of 500 mm per annum to be the dividing line between successful and unsuccessful dry land crop production. It is interesting to see that 76% of the surface area of the homelands has a rainfall of 500 mm per annum and more, in comparison with only 35% in the Republic. The homelands therefore have a very great agricultural potential. Other hon. members will further indicate what is being done in respect of agriculture. I just want to point out that agricultural development, which has been tackled in an enthusiastic manner since 1973 by the BIC and XDC in the Republic as well as in South West Africa, is one of the most obvious priorities today, for with an additional capital investment of between R1 000 and R2 000 an employment opportunity for one person is created in the agricultural sector in the homelands. However, if one wishes to create an employment opportunity for one person in industry, the costs amount to between R5 000 and R8 000 per employee. I therefore wish to present agriculture as an example of one of the easier and cheaper methods of creating additional employment opportunities.

Industry is a very important aspect of the development of the homelands. One of the cornerstones of the economic development and upliftment of the inhabitants of the homelands is in fact the establishment of industries. Industries employ large numbers of people, and afford an opportunity for the acquisition of a good income and advanced skills, which are absolutely indispensable to the socioeconomic growth of our homelands. At present there are various growth-points under the control of the various corporations, for example Babelegi, Isitebe, Letaba, Seshego, Butterworth, Lebowakomo, among others. Another sphere into which the corporations venture, is that they concern themselves with the establishment of industries on an agency basis in the homelands. The practical implementation of this agency system since 1970 may be ascribed to a realization that the manufacturing industry must to an increasing extent provide the motive force for the general economic development of South Africa, and that the better utilization of the Black labour force—which all those hon. members advocate—forms the basis of such motive force. The establishment of industries therefore has to form an integral part of any homeland development process. In conjunction with this it was also realized that the Black peoples did not have the technical knowledge and managerial skills to activate the industrial development of their homelands themselves, and that the establishment of White industries, under certain conditions, would be an ideal seedbed for developing these attributes in the Black people. The establishment of industries in the homelands could contribute a great deal to encouraging the Black people to live and work in their own homelands and to prevent further influxes to the growth centres in White areas. Owing to its location near the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex, the establishment of industries in Bophuthatswana is already a great success, while KwaZulu has a great potential, since this homeland lies in the heart of the future industrial developments of South Africa. The other homelands are situated at some remove from the existing markets of South Africa, but in spite of that the achievements of the corporations have already indicated clearly that the potential of industrialization in these homelands as well should not be underestimated, and that it may under certain circumstances be successfully developed. In the homelands 11 556 employment opportunities have been created by agency enterprises, in enterprises which were, up to March 1974, established with the support of the BIC and the XDC. A total of 11 194, or 97%, of these employment opportunities have been filled by Black workers. During March 1975 the number of Black workers already amounted to an estimated 14 593. In September this figure was already 16 000. The capital formation for the establishment of industries in terms of the agency system already amounted to R58 million in March 1974. Of this amount private entrepreneurs had contributed approximately 50%—which indicates that the private undertakings, the private industrialist, is prepared to participate in this development on an agency basis. The bulk of these funds found their way to Bophuthatswana and the Transkei. It is estimated that the amounts which will have been spent by the BIC by 31 March 1976 already total R42,5 million, and that spent by the industrialists, R53 million. At present 175 agency enterprises have already been established, or are in the process of being established, while a further 31 are expected to be established shortly. This indicates that there is tremendous interest in the establishment of industries on this basis.

Besides the establishment of industries on an agency basis, the corporations in question have already established many industries in the homelands out of their own funds. On 31 March 1975 there were approximately 3 723 Blacks working in industries established by the BIC and the XDC, in comparison with 2 411 a year earlier. Therefore there has been considerable growth. In the short period the agency system has been in operation, attempts have been made to identify the Black entrepreneur, with considerable success. As I have already indicated, the Black entrepreneur may obtain all the assistance he requires from these corporations. In the short period the agency system has been in operation the achievements of the BIC and the XDC have already indicated that the establishment of industries in the homelands still constitutes a great potential for the future, particularly in view of the marked increase in the buying power of the Black people, the labour resources of the homelands and the possibilities presented by the processing of primary products.

Other hon. members on this side will elaborate on aspects such as commerce and services, transportation and housing—and will indicate what the various corporations have already achieved in this regard. Money is needed to launch comprehensive programmes such as these, and consequently the sources of funds of the corporations had to be expanded to a considerable extent. The issued share capital of the three corporations jointly rose from R21 million in 1969 to R221 379 million on 31 December 1975. This indicates that the Government is prepared to invest money in the development of industry in the homelands.

In conclusion there is one other thing I want to mention. The annual expenditure by the corporations increased from R21,9 million in 1973-’74 to R109 million in 1975-’76, i.e. an increase of 498,6% over three years. Time does not allow me to discuss the national corporations. Hon. members on my side will elaborate further on that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. gentleman who has proposed this motion. He introduced his remarks with a reference to the principle of the policy of separate development. He referred to this as “Volkerevryheid”, and said that it meant giving to the other peoples of South Africa everything that we have ourselves. I do not propose to dwell on that point at any length. It surprises me, however, that in the year 1976 anybody can still present the policy of separate development in that form. One only has to ask two questions. Firstly: Have we a policy in terms of which other races or peoples have what we have now? Clearly, the answer is “no”. If one puts it in terms of prospects and one asks what the prospects are that the other “Volke” or peoples of South Africa will achieve what we have achieved, the answer, clearly, is “never”. One has only to think of the Coloured and Indian people to realize that that is the answer. I am surprised that the hon. member introduced his motion on that note.

The motion has two parts to it. The first is that we should express our approval of “the generally high level of economic development” of the homelands. I wonder which of the homelands the hon. gentleman has visited.

With respect, you misunderstand the motion.

Concerning the “generally high level of economic development”, the motion reads further—

The homeland I shall deal with in this regard is KwaZulu, which is the homeland of the largest population group of the Black People. The de jure population of KwaZulu is approximately four million. There is no economic development there that one can boast of at all, nor is the economic development to any large extent produced by the corporations. That is not to say that the corporations have done nothing. I do not propose to advance that sort of case at all. However, the economic development of KwaZulu which, I repeat, of the homelands houses the largest population of the Black peoples, has barely got off the ground, in the first instance, and, as I shall show as I go along, the contribution made by the corporations is minimal.

You are just being negative now.

The whole business started with the report of the Tomlinson Commission. I have here only the summary of that report, but if one looks at Chapter 36, “Possible industrial areas”, of that summary, one will see that there are three main channels of development postulated in the Tomlinson Commission report. The first is development through Bantu entrepreneurs, the second through the proposed development corporation and the third through European entrepreneurs. The second of those channels, i.e. through the proposed development corporation, is in two parts—I quote (summary, paragraph 21, page 142)—

1. (a) Where the Development Corporation provides Bantu entrepreneurs with help and guidance; and
2. (b) Where the Development Corporation itself acts as entrepreneur.

The report goes on to say—

That is the Bantu entrepreneurs and the Corporation themselves—

That is to say, private White capital and initiative will have to be used. That was the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission. I cannot remember how long ago that was, other than that it was in the ’fifties.

And they have done nothing since.

One of the reasons for the abysmally low economic development of many of the Bantu areas is that the third and essential channel, according to the Tomlinson Commission report, until quite recently was refused by the Government.

You are talking nonsense, man.

My friend says “nonsense”. He was obviously never here at the time of the late Dr. Verwoerd. At that time we sat here day after day listening to the most lengthy and involved speeches by the late Dr. Verwoerd in which he spoke of the wickedness of European colonialism if that third option were allowed. He told us—I never understood him and I do not believe that anybody else did—that the money would somehow percolate through to these areas through the primary, secondary and tertiary employment of Black people in the White areas and so forth. That is one of the reasons why we have this abysmally low level of development.

Now, Sir, what are these corporations? One of the main objects of it all is to develop an economy in the Black areas which is not an “aanhangsel” of the White areas. Again, what are these corporations? One has only to look at the board of directors and the executive staff of such corporations—this information appears in all the corporations’ reports that we have—one has only to look at the place where these corporations carry on their business and where their registered offices are, to see what their nature is. What are they then? They are large State corporations—that is to say, they embody a sort of socialism; that is my first objection—entirely directed by White people from the White sector to inject development into these Bantu areas.

What is the impact these corporations have had? The impact is that, in the first instance, they have provided some growth points but, by and large, all they have done, with one exception with which I shall deal in a moment, is to provide added avenues of employment for Bantu wage-earners in the Bantu areas. That in itself is worthwhile.

It is very important.

However, that does not achieve the economic growth which we would like to see take place in the Bantu areas. If the economic growth is to be worthwhile and lasting and if it is to develop those areas, it has to take the form of the development of capital in the hands of Black entrepreneurs. Without that, it is merely a form of colonialism, albeit a very benign form. It is not a form that is to be decried as being wrong, but it is not developing the basic capital growth in the hands of Black people which, I believe, is what we would all like to see. These corporations establish some industries, they buy out and run some industries and they lend money to Black businessmen, largely in the field of retail and wholesale firms. The first two of these activities do not engender capital wealth in the hands of the Black entrepreneur. As I have said, they provide employment, but they do not engender capital and wealth in that sense. They engender and create wealth for the State because they are State corporations. In so far as the agency system is concerned, they engender wealth for the shareholders who are Whites from the White sector of South Africa or from overseas, the shareholders who put those businesses in operation.

Let us look at Isitebi which the hon. gentleman mentioned. I have in front of me Benbo’s Economic Review in respect of KwaZulu. This is a report put out by the hon. the Minister’s commission. In the whole of KwaZulu—I have the map in front of me—there is one growth point. In a State with a de jure population of four million, there is one growth point.

Does the hon. member want everything in one go?

That one growth point is Isitebi. Quite a lot of us have been there. What is Isitebi? At this point in time it is a small area of, I suppose, about 10 or 20 acres with streets and 16 factories, according to the report. They are small factories. There is no habitation, Black or White, within sight of these factories. There is no place there for the Whites to live. There is no local village or town in which they can live. The village of Mandini is a privately-owned industrial estate which houses the employees of the local paper mill. The Whites live at Eshowe or at Empangeni or in the resorts to the north of Durban. The Whites do not live at Isitebi. The Black people do not live there either. They live at the village of Sondumbili, some miles away, which was built to feed the paper mill at Mandini. So here one has in the middle of the veld and adjacent to a railway line a block of factories. Admittedly, it provides employment for quite a number—just under 1 000 Black people, men and women. According to Benbo 1 000 people are in employment there and that in a state with a population of four million. Is this really something that we can stand up and crow about? We have here one growth point providing 1 000 jobs with no habitation anywhere near it for a population of four million.

There are other enterprises established in KwaZulu under the auspices of the corporations. There is a factory here and there but I do not believe that there is any development at the level that we can stand up and crow about. As I have tried to indicate, real wealth is only created by allowing for the creation of capital in the hands of individuals. I believe that the first thing that goes towards that goal, namely capital in the hands of individuals, and the ability of those individuals to save or to re-invest, has been the very basis of the economic growth of the West and of South Africa. We have got to create that situation in the homelands for the Black people. That means two things. They must be able to run their own businesses, which they are able to do at the present time, and they must be able to take a shareholding in companies. I read with regret in the reports of the corporations that the intention is, when these companies are on their feet, to hand over the control to the tribal authorities, either the territorial authorities or the regional authorities. That is again merely transferring a socialistic State-owned company in White hands to a socialistic State-owned company in Black hands. That also does not create capital in the hands of the individual. I believe that we have got to go for that shareholding to be passed from the corporation into the hands of Black shareholders, because that is a way of building up capital. The other thing is to start with a process of allowing Black people in the homelands privately to own land in freehold. I am the first to accept that with the tribal structure as I know it and many others know it, you will have great difficulty in converting in the existing tribal areas, the concept of tribally-owned land into the freehold concept, which is the basis of our economy. In all the areas which are being bought up now—the White areas—White farms are being bought up on a large scale and they are not traditionally tribal areas. Why in heaven’s name do we not begin there to bring into being the concept of freehold ownership of land? It will do two things. It will provide the Black man with a hedge against inflation, which at the moment he has not got and, secondly, it will allow him to build up capital. What is the use of allowing a business-man to build up a big business and to build up cash assets if he cannot invest it in real property? Basically that is what every businessman does when he has got a bit of money in the bank. He buys a bit of land, either for residential purposes or for further investment. I believe that until we are prepared to do that in respect of the Black man, the economy of the Black areas will never get off the ground.

There is the question of engendering in the Black man a sense of business enterprise. I am worried that whilst there is a great deal of assistance by the corporations to Black businessmen to take over Black businesses—that is being rushed ahead—the engendering in him of an ability to continue to run that business profitably has fallen behind. Time and time again one sees flourishing trading stores, which one has known over the years in White ownership, taken over by a corporation; a Black owner is put in and the place collapses. The building literally is falling down before your eyes. The business that is being run in the building is a fraction of what it was before. I can give other examples.

I recently toured through the Transkei, in January last. At one of the towns there are two garages. One called in to fill up with petrol and to check one’s tyres, as one normally does when one is travelling. At neither garage—both had been taken over by individual entrepreneurs—was there a workshop; it had closed up. At neither garage could you get any attention other than petrol. You could not even get air for your tyres. There was only one thing being done at those garages and that was for somebody to switch on the petrol pump and put the petrol into your tank. Those pumps are not even owned by the entrepreneur concerned; they are owned by the petrol company and are kept going by the petrol company. What use is it if in a large area which these small towns in the Transkei serve, the local garage cannot repair any vehicle, cannot even give you air for the tyres of your vehicle? Surely this is something to which attention should be given. This permeates through all the activities of the businesses which have been taken over under the auspices of these corporations and put out.

There are other matters which I should like to mention. I have here the 15th annual report of the Bantu Investment Corporation. I have already dealt with this question of it being preferable to transfer the shares to Black individuals rather than to governmental authorities when the corporations phase themselves out. It is not only in the field of businesses that one feels that there is a lack of the creation by the corporations of the right incentive in the Black businessmen whom they wish to take over these businesses.

Have you got some practical suggestions?

I believe that the rate of transfer must be slowed down until the corporations have got time to train adequately the people who are going to take over. This cannot be done overnight. I was going to go over to the agricultural sector, which would interest the hon. gentleman. In the report of the BIC it is stated that the Tugela Estates, the Ferry Estates, and other have been taken over. These are irrigation estates. Some of us here have been to the Tugela Estates. My friend, the hon. member for Mooi River, knows it and I have also been there. If ever there was a flourishing irrigation enterprise that when taken over by the BIC completely collapsed, this is it. Now they are trying to build it up again. However, the point that I was making was the lack of incentive engendered in the people concerned. What do they say? I quote from this report—

People who are rural-orientated, as the hon. gentleman and I am know that this is so. Surely it is no use taking these areas out of profitable production until, you have adequately trained and built up an incentive in the people who are going to take it over? One sees this happening over and over again, if one goes through these reports and one travels around the countryside as some of us do. I think that the sugar industry can be commended in this respect. The sugar industry, a private enterprise body, has already established one, and are to establish two, training centres to teach the Black farmer how profitably to plant and grow cane. I am told that the initial one which has recently been inaugurated in the Indwe area has been a success. Although it was opened recently, it has been going for some time. Some success is being achieved there. I believe that far more emphasis should be put on training the small Black man, and when I say the small Black man I mean the entrepreneur. Whether he is a farmer, whether he has got a retail store, whether he is a cobbler, whether he is a boilermaker, whether he is a welder, there should be far more emphasis on training the man at that level where he can learn and do something constructive and build up his own wealth. Far more emphasis ought to be put at that level than has been done up to the present time. Up to the present time the emphasis has been on large, prestige concerns—tea estates, phormium tenax and things of that kind. It means simply taking over Trust land, putting it under a White-owned, White-operated and White-administered company and farming it on the initiative and under the management of White men. The profits go back to the Bantu Trust. That has its place, but I do not believe that the emphasis should be there.

There is a great deal more that one could say, but unfortunately my time is limited. As a matter of fact, it has already run out. I should therefore only like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana rather caught me unawares by moving his amendment at the end of his speech and then immediately resuming his seat. When he moved his amendment, I thought that it would be a good idea to suggest, on a point of order, that his amendment had nothing to do with the motion which is at present being discussed by this House. I want to put it to the consideration of the hon. member that he either did not read the motion, or if he did read it, did not understand it because the motion does not concern the general economic development in the Bantu homelands. Perhaps it is a good thing that we consider the motion for a moment. It reads—

I am a lawyer by profession. I believe the hon. member is an advocate, but I do not believe I shall feel myself at liberty to brief the hon. member for fear that he would not understand it. The hon. member has now made it rather difficult for us because he spoke about the general economic growth in the homelands and especially referred to KwaZulu. If I confine myself to the motion, the hon. member will understand this.

The hon. member tried to slate corporations as being socialistic institutions. He said that capital cannot reach Black entrepreneurs because it is kept by the corporations. In recent times many important announcements have been made with respect to corporations. The hon. member himself however, said that he still objects at this stage to shares passing from the corporation to the Bantu, because these people have not yet been sufficiently trained. We have a standpoint and a system according to which we deal with these matters. We have the Bantu Investment Corporation, and it is not necessary for me to go into its history, we have the Xhosa Development Corporation, and the Bantu Mining Corporation, three development corporations which functioned on a coordinating level in the past. It was as a result of the fact that these three co-ordinating corporations succeeded in establishing certain projects within the Bantu homelands and in the process involved the Bantu in those projects and trained them, that we have now reached the stage where we can establish ethnic corporations.

In other words, we have the Bantu Investment Corporation and the other Corporations which, as the hon. member correctly said, mainly have Whites as directors. But under the guidance of those Whites, the so-called executives, which is necessary to accomplish all business, are trained. We can therefore proceed to the following step, and that is to establish the ethnic corporations, by which the Bantu will obtain a direct say, although the undertakings will not, as the hon. member now accused us, be handed over to these people. In these ethnic corporations half the directors will be Black and half White, as has already been indicated when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced his Bantu legislation here, which deals with the powers of these corporations. It was indicated that we already have the situation where the authorities of the relevant Bantu homelands can submit their recommendations to the Minister to appoint certain directors in the ethnic corporations. The Minister then appoints people from that panel and also appoints the chairman of the corporation. Today we already have the situation where four fledged corporations have been established, namely the Bophuthatswana National Development Corporation, the Venda Development Corporation, the Qua Qua Development Corporation and the Shangaan/Tsonga Development Corporation, and it is hoped that the Transkei and the Ciskei will also receive their corporations on 1 April. True to the point of departure of this side of the House and the considerations for establishing corporations like the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation in the first place, certain powers are now being transferred from the Bantu Investment Corporation and from the Xhosa Development Corporation to these ethnic corporations. This is precisely in accordance with the National Party’s standpoint of how a Bantu people in South Africa should be led within its homelands not only to political independence, but also to economic independence. We will now have the situation where the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation will transfer the following powers to these ethnic corporations: the financing of Black businessmen, the erection of business premises, the takeover of business undertakings belonging to the two corporations at present, the establishment of business undertakings on a three-fold basis and the financing of Black farmers and agricultural corporations. These will be the functions taken over by the ethnic corporations.

Certain functions are still being reserved for the Bantu Investment Corporation and for the Xhosa Development Corporation, to administer until the time is ripe for transfering these functions to the ethnic corporations or to an independent homeland government. These functions are: transportation, the establishment of industries according to the agency system, and major agricultural projects undertaken by the corporations. We therefore have here a very positive development of the whole system, and I am sorry that the hon, member sees these corporations as a socialist system. In South Africa our White farmers especially value the co-operative principle very highly and I have never in my life seen the co-operative principle described as a socialist principle anywhere. Anyone who sees a socialist tendency in the co-operative principle, have no idea of what co-operatives are. We now want to establish the same advantages for the Bantu in South Africa, as we did for the Whites under the co-operative principle.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made things difficult for us but I rather want to confine myself to the motion. Gratitude is expressed in this motion for what the corporations have done. In associating myself with what the hon. member for Lydenburg said, I would just like to dwell for a moment on the agricultural projects undertaken by these corporations, and I particularly want to ask why the corporations specifically undertook those projects in agriculture.

For the record, we must confirm that 76% of the Bantu homeland areas have a rainfall of more than 508 mm annually, in other words, more than 20 inches of rain annually. The homelands command more than 20% of South Africa’s agricultural potential and more than 20% of the total arable surface area of South Africa. In the homelands we also find 32% of the total cattle population, 9% of the total sheep population and 48% of the total goat population. More than 80% of the homeland populations are employed in agricultural industry in the homelands.

In spite of the addition of land to the homelands, it so happens that there has been no worthwhile increase in agricultural production in the homelands. There was, indeed, a period, especially during the sixties and the early ’seventies, when agricultural production in the homelands showed a downward trend. This was the result of extreme erosion in the homelands, a condition which meant that withdrawals and a redevelopment of agricultural land had to be undertaken. It is also a fact that the Bantu homelands were unable to provide in their own food requirements at that time. This was why it was necessary for the co-operative societies to intervene and establish certain agricultural projects in the homelands not only to increase production in the homelands, but also to provide Black homeland farmers with an incentive to move away from a mere subsistence economy towards a profit making economy. The Bantu Development Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation therefore played an important part in development within the homelands.

If we consider the various homeland areas, we see that Lebowa has the largest single citrus project in the world. This is an undertaking of the Bantu Investment Corporation at Zebediela. This is the largest citrus undertaking in the world. Let us not try and steal a political march on each other about this situation. It is a large project, the largest citrus project in the world and it is established in a Bantu homeland. In Lebowa we also have the Steelpoort River Development Project, an undertaking on Bantu Trust land, promoted by the Bantu Investment Corporation. Today there are already 200 ha under irrigation and a further 300 ha will be added for the cultivation of various cash crops. In Lebowa we also have the Blouberg Farms—also an undertaking on Bantu Trust land and under the control of the Bantu Investment Corporation.

In Gazankulu we have the Nabeni scheme, where 160 ha are being cultivated at present. This scheme is going to be extended by a further 500 ha. An undertaking in the silk industry has also been started on the farm Belasting. Young mulberry trees were imported from France and attempts are being made to establish the trees on that farm. It is expected that there will eventually be 100 000 mulberry trees on the farm. If the proposed silk industry is carried through, it will in time be a valuable undertaking for that homeland.

I do not make the mistake made by the hon. speaker who preceded me, namely to speak only about the general economic development. We rather speak about the specific projects of the corporations.

In KwaZulu, land near Mahlabatini has been provided by the Buthelezi tribal authority for the establishment of a large tea project. People from Duma Estates are investigating the possibility of the establishment of a tea project there, on 600 ha of irrigation land. Sisal is also cultivated by an agent, to whom 600 ha have been made available for this purpose. Furthermore there is the Tugela Estates at Tugela Ferry, where mainly cotton, vegetables, wheat, sorghum, oil seeds and chilis are cultivated. There are also five sugar farms in the Eshowe district, and the South African Sugar Association lends further aid and guidance to prospective sugar farmers in the nearby trust area.

There is also large scale agricultural development in process in the Qua Qua area. Dairy farming has already been established in the Witzieshoek area, a district in which excellent rabbit farming has been established. In the long run the rabbit farming is aimed at providing individual rabbit farmers with breeding material. It is expected that undertakings for processing rabbit skins will soon be operating in this area on a large scale.

Now I would like to deal with my people, those of Bophuthatswana. When we speak of Bophuthatswana, it is certainly not inappropriate to mention that a flourishing fishing industry has been established there. There is a breeding centre at the Klippoort Dam, where 26 dams have already been completed. These dams provide a production of more than 300 tons of fresh water fish annually. I refer also to the irrigation project at Taung, which is also an undertaking of the Bantu Investment Corporation. Over 200 ha of land are irrigated there and a variety of wheat is produced. There is a fresh milk farm at Elandsfontein, and fodder kraals, also at Taung, where a cattle-fattening scheme is in operation. This is also an undertaking of the Bantu Investment Corporation. There are also two meat marketing schemes under the auspices of the Bantu Investment Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I could continue in this way and mention what the position is in Kavango, in Owambo and in the Eastern Caprivi. By the end of March this year, the Bantu Investment Corporation will probably have spent an amount of R7 million, R6,5 million of which will have been spent in the Republic and R500 000 in South West Africa. This corporation will have a share in 22 different projects in South Africa, and four in South West Africa—altogether 26 projects.

The Xhosa Development Corporation, on the other hand, is doing just as much in the Transkei and the Ciskei in the field of agriculture. My time has nearly expired, but I would like to furnish a few figures in order to give an indication of what is being done by this corporation. The Xhosa Development Corporation has expanded its activities considerably. While an amount of R426 000 was spent by the Xhosa Development Corporation in the Transkei and the Ciskei during the financial year 1973-’74, an amount of R2,34 million was spent during the financial year 1974-’75.

It is expected that this corporation will spend R4,79 million in the Transkei and the Ciskei in the current financial year. These are important injections on the part of this development corporation within the homelands. And now we should bear in mind that these corporations are also training Black farmers in agriculture so that these people will eventually be able to take over these ethnic corporations completely, so that these will be in the hands of Black people. Sir, this is orderly economic development. This is responsible economic development, where one develops the White know-how together with the potential of the Black man. This is an example to many other people who would like to invest in the Bantu peoples in South Africa and in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, but one thing I could not quite understand was that after the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had proved beyond any doubt that there was not a generally high level of economic development in the homelands, he told us that this was in fact not part of the motion. If you look at the motion, it says “that this House expresses its approval of the generally high level of economic development that has been brought about for the homelands through the actions of various corporations’’. Well, we do not accept that there is a generally high level of economic development.

As far as the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned, I must say that I agree with all the things he said, especially in relation to the encouragement of socialism as a result of the way the economic development is being handled, and therefore this side of the House will have no problem at all in supporting his amendment. Listening to the hon. member for Lydenburg introducing his motion, I found it so unrealistic that I could not help thinking of a story which was told to me the other day. Two housewives were having tea, and the one said: “Is it not terrible about this business in Angola? I believe the Cubans are coming down south at such a rate that they will be here by Christmas.” And the other one said: “Oh, I do not think that is such a bad idea, because I believe the Cubans make very good servants.” This shows a complete inability to assess the situation in Angola, and similarly the motion we have in front of us today shows, on the part of the mover of the motion, a complete inability to understand how serious the lack of economic development in the homelands is. Mr. Speaker, I brought all these books here and when I came in hon. members remarked on it, but I brought them because I knew I would probably have to use them in order to check up on some of the statistics that were given to us by hon. members on the other side of the House. Some of the statistics that were given by the hon. member for Lydenburg were so far out that I hope other hon. members who spoke in this debate will say where they come from. He talked about the gross domestic product of the residents in the homelands having risen to R175 per capita, but in answer to a question asked in this House this year the figure was given as R66 per capita. Now we must accept that there is a great difference between R175 and R66. I think his figure of R175 probably represents the national income including such money as is earned outside the homeland.

But let us look at this figure that we have of R66 per capita. This is the gross domestic product per capita in the homelands. It is quite interesting to see the break-down. In the Ciskei it is R68, in the Transkei R70, in KwaZulu R50, in Bophuthatswana R118, in Lebowa R51, in Venda R39, in Gazakulu R48, in Swazi R39 and in Qua-Qua R55. This figure of R66 is the average, and is about one tenth of the gross domestic product per capita for the Republic, including the homelands, and it is about one half of the gross domestic product of the whole of Africa if you exclude the Republic. So if one assumes now that the African continent is the most economically depressed continent in the world, and that the homelands are clearly the most economically depressed areas of Africa, it seems to me absolute nonsense to bring into this House a motion which calls for approval of the “generally high level of economic development” that has been brought about in the homelands.

You are misinterpreting the motion. It deals with the role of the corporations.

The hon. member again says he does not believe that the motion talks about the generally high level of economic development. I want to ask him whether he accepts that there is not a generally high level of economic development in the homelands. [Interjections.] When we consider what we mean by a high level of economic development, we have to compare it with what we are trying to do. As the hon. member for Lydenburg quite rightly said, the economic objectives of the Government for the homelands are dictated to a great extent by political considerations. The Government have decided in their wisdom that what must happen in South Africa is that the resources of South Africa must be divided. In this division they have decided that the Black people of South Africa may have 13% of the land and 3% of the gross domestic product and that the non-Black people will have the balance. [Interjections.] These are the facts, Sir.

The other factor which has to be considered here is that it is the intention of the Government to stem the tide of migration from the homelands into the so-called White areas. This means that there is another objective, an economic objective, which the Government has and that is to create sufficient job opportunities in the homelands in order for this to happen. The Government have been speaking a lot recently about separate development and about the importance of the homelands not being economic so much as political. This I think has come about because they realize that there is absolutely no possibility at all of job creations in the homelands coming anywhere near to what is required. Let us make a very conservative estimate of what would be a low objective in comparison with the Government’s aims to make its policy a success. For the homelands to cater for their own populations, for their natural increase and for at least half the natural increase of the Black people living outside the homelands, at least 65 000 jobs per annum would have to be produced between the years 1970 and 1980 in the homelands and the border areas. If one looks at the results which have been achieved by the corporations and all the other people who have been helping in this connection, one can see that in relation to what is needed, these are minimal. Figures have been given to us about the number of job opportunities that have been created. I think they were given to us by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member for Lydenburg, and they do not come anywhere near this. In fact, of the 650 000 new jobs which we have to create in this decade in the Bantu areas, we will be lucky if we have achieved much over 10%. Somebody who did a bit of working out to find out what this meant for the remainder of this decade, or for the next decade if we are to catch up, worked out that over 50% of all the new industrial development which will take place in South Africa over the next ten years will have to take place either in the homelands or in the border areas if the Government is to get anywhere near reaching this particular objective.

The next point that has to be considered is whether in fact the homelands have the potential to create there job opportunities. If one looks at the Tomlinson Report, and if one looks at all the work that was done after that, it is quite clear that the potential is just not there. With all the best will in the world neither the corporations nor anybody else can therefore do anything about it, because there is just not the potential to create this kind of activity.

Why is the potential not there?

Let us have a look at agriculture which was spoken about to quite an extent. In the Tomlinson Report it was said that, providing all the prerequisites were achieved—and they have not, by far—about 300 000 families could exist on agriculture in the homelands.

Name one country in the world that is agriculturally viable.

If my memory serves me correctly, this was calculated on a basis of an income of R120 per annum at the current prices.

Do you want to compare the United States of America to a Bantu homeland? [Interjections.]

We are, therefore, dealing with a situation in the homelands where all they can do on an agricultural basis, that is if all the prerequisites of the Tomlinson Report are met, is to provide for 300 000 families making a living from agriculture.

The other areas where one could have major employment are industry and mining. In mining there has been a certain amount of success. It has all been done by private enterprise, and as far as the present situation is concerned, about 44 000 jobs in mining have been created in the homelands. In industry one has an absolutely hopeless task, and that is the only other area where one can really have major employment. The background against which industry has to compete in the homelands is such that it is very difficult indeed.

The situation, therefore, is that the homelands have to meet certain targets set down by the Government in order to satisfy the government’s political requirements. There are also factors involved which make it absolutely impossible for the homelands to ever meet those economic levels. Where does one go from here? With all the best will in the world, as I said previously, there is nothing the corporations can do if they do not have the ability to do it and if it is impossible to do it. In my opinion there is only one thing the Government can do. First of all, they must reassess what constitutes the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he wants to imply that of all the countries of the Third World—there are 43 of them—there is one single country which is self-sufficient in the agricultural and industrial spheres?

I accept that point, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is a very simple one, and that is that it is Government policy to stop the migration of Black people into the Republic. That is Government policy. In order to achieve the objective involved in that policy they have to create job opportunities in the homelands and in the border areas, otherwise the people will starve. As there is not sufficient potential in the homelands in order to provide the job opportunities, something has to be done, otherwise one will get migration and one will get the situation which the Government tells us is undesirable. We do not accept that it is politically undesirable, but the Government tells us it is politically undesirable.

There are 11 million migrant labourers in Europe.

There is only one way out if the Government is very serious about its policy of separate development. They will have to give far more resources and land to the homelands. This is the first thing they have to do. The second thing they have to do, is redefine their objectives. There is just no possibility at all of any practical boundary, which may in the future constitute enlarged new homelands, producing jobs for all the people who live in that area and for all their natural increase as well as for the natural increase from the White areas.

If the Government were prepared to accept a far lesser objective, for example an objective of being able to provide for 70% of the people living in the homelands and for 70% of the natural increase, and if they were to redefine the areas of the homelands to include growth points and mineral deposits, ports and other such areas—what obviously comes to mind is Richards Bay—then they would at least have an objective which they could try to achieve with some chance of success. The fact that it would bring other political problems as far as the rest of South Africa is concerned in areas outside the homelands, goes without saying. However, they sit with those problems at the present moment at any rate.

Where you have a situation where the vast majority of the Black proletariat in South Africa have to live and be domiciled in a country where they cannot obtain any of the rights to capital in that country and where the opportunities that exist in their own homelands are so minimal that there is no incentive to them to go back there and try to be entrepreneurs, then one is building up a situation which is heading straight to the form of socialism which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was talking about, because the people who perhaps live in an area where a certain amount of entrepreneurship can be encouraged, are not allowed to become entrepreneurs, or, if they are entitled to become entrepreneurs, they are only allowed it to a very limited extent. Yet, if they acquire a few skills and go back into the homelands, there is just not the potential there for them to become entrepreneurs.

If one takes the kind of life that is lived at the moment in the homelands, the whole environmental climate in which they live, one realizes that it is just not the sort of environment of which entrepreneurship is part and parcel. Entrepreneurship is a kind of acquired skill, one could say. If the Government really wants to encourage entrepreneurship in the homelands and eventually have Black entrepreneurs who are capable of playing major roles in the building up of the economy of the various homelands, one of the things that has to happen is that they will have to allow Black entrepreneurs to operate in the Republic itself. An hon. member, I think the hon. member for Lydenburg, said that all countries in the world are interdependent, and I agree with him. We have a situation here in South Africa where South Africans can invest in Bophuthatswana, Lebowa, KwaZulu and anywhere else they want to. Entrepreneurs are allowed to do that. They are allowed to invest in these countries, and they do invest there. However, the Black people of these countries, and of the other homelands, are not allowed to invest in the Republic. To me this seems to be a very one-sided kind of deal. Unless something is done about it, we are going to find that the building up of a class of Black entrepreneurs in South Africa is going to be very difficult indeed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg made basically the same mistake as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, viz. he referred in general to the economic development in the homelands, whereas for us this motion concerns the economic stimulus which emanates from the corporations in the homelands. This is what it deads with. It is pointless for the hon. member to refer here to a “lack of economic development”, because we are not debating the question whether the economic development which exists and is taking place in the homelands is sufficient. Obviously it is not sufficient. Can anyone say today that South Africa itself has developed sufficiently in the economical sphere? Can anyone say this of a country like the USA? No, obviously not. The point at issue here is the economic development of the homelands by means of cooperative enterprises. The hon. member comes along again with the old story that we are supposedly dividing up the resources of South Africa, that we are taking a certain percentage of the land for ourselves and giving a certain percentage to the homelands, etc. That does not make sense here. The hon. member says: “If one looks at the results of the corporations, they have achieved very little indeed.” This is basically the mistake which hon. members on the other side of the House are making. They are saying: “Look, here you established a growth point. There are only 1 000 plots. You have only created employment opportunities for so many people. This is only a drop in the ocean. ’’ They continue in this vein, enumerating minor things. I want to tell hon. members that basically, what is involved here is the creation of economic growth points by means of these corporations in various areas and doing things the cumulative effect of which creates an infrastructure which can make the homelands economically viable. This is what is involved. Hon. members should see this matter as a whole. After all one should first crawl before one can walk. Apparently these hon. members expect that before one can speak of homelands, and before one can say one is dealing with areas to which one wishes to grant independence, they should already be able to run and they may not crawl or walk first. It is not that simple. Lastly, the hon. member advances the old argument that the homelands have no potential in any case. I want to say to the hon. member, with all respect towards him, that he does not know what he is talking about. I do not want to deal with those aspects, but will leave it to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. I just want to say to the hon. member that when he speaks of potential he need only consider the Transkei, which has one-fifth of the Republic’s water resources at its disposal and has the agricultural potential to feed 15 million people. The hon. member cannot deny this because it is so. We can also say this about every other homeland.

Where do you get those figures from?

I do not have time for that now. The hon. member now wants me to depart from the motion. I say to him that the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that and will tell the hon. member about these potentials.

At this stage I only want to try and refer briefly to three aspects in respect of which the corporations—the XDC, the BIC and the BMC—have made their contribution towards creating, in our homelands as a whole, economic standards of which we can really be very proud today. I should like to refer to housing, transport and mining. Housing continues to be a basic need.

Hear, hear!

This is so. One can create as many growth points as possible and provide as many employment opportunities as possible, but if the necessary housing does not exist, then all those efforts are of little avail. Housing is a good barometer of the general level of development in a community. The socio-economic growth of a community or nation also determines the quality, type and particular need for housing. This is very clearly illustrated in the case of developing nations. Basically, we are dealing here with homelands in which, yesterday and the day before, the traditional hut satisfied the needs according to social norms and standards. Economic progress in the homelands, and the adaptations to and civilization which this involves, disclosed a completely different need for housing. This varies from simple scheme houses, with or without amenities—and when I say amenities, I mean amenities in accordance with our White housing standards—to the better type of house which compares with the best obtainable in accordance with White standards. The growth and development in the homelands also proved these statements. The creation of growth points and the stimulation and promotion of development—in whatever form—whether in the fields of agriculture, industry, or mining, resulted in more and better housing. When I say that, I do not want to say that housing is merely a by-product of development in other fields. No. Purposeful efforts have been made to develop towns which create their own form of infrastructure in the homelands. It is a fact that the creation of settlement points, like hospitals and towns in the homelands and the development of border industries which afford new possibilities of viability, make an enormous contribution to the development of a diversified economy in the homelands.

Before 1960 there were only three towns in the homelands. Seventy-four towns have since been established and altogether 130 000 houses have been built. These houses are built by various bodies which are backed by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. For example, there are the South African Bantu Trust, Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, homeland governments and the department’s own “development works” section. From 1961-’62 to 1975-’76, R354,2 million was spent on township development and housing in the homelands. Of this amount, R122,3 million went on housing alone, i.e. 35,4%. The balance covered the cost of the supply of services like sewerage, water supply, stormwater drainage, roads, etc. In other words, one third of the total cost covers the houses. The balance is for the accompanying infrastructure. Nor do the corporations play an insignificant role in this regard. Apart from indirect stimulants for the provision of housing, there is also direct provision for housing. From as far back as 1962 the BIC has been making loans available to Bantu people to build their own houses in the homelands. This scheme operates like a building society and is aimed at giving the more well-to-do Black man the opportunity to build a better type of house than a scheme house—which may of course be either let or sold. Such houses are designed according to the choice of the person concerned, subject of course to the final approval of the corporation, and are erected by the Blacks themselves. Statistics in this regard concerning the BIC are as follows: Up to 31 March 1974, 505 loans, totalling R1 299 million, were granted in this connection, and up to 31 December 1975, 667 applications totalling R2 185 million. The XDC, too, has similar facilities. Thus, up to the end of 1975, 324 housing loans, to the value of R1 207 million, were granted in the Transkei and the Ciskei. In the Transkei there were established municipalities at Butter worth and Umtata, which lacked, however, adequate infrastructure or plots. Looking, now, at the annual report of the Xhosa Development Corporation one finds statistics relating to what has been done recently in those two municipal areas in regard to housing. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to refer to this in detail now.

I just want to refer specifically to the case of Butterworth. Butter worth was designated a heart-land growth point in 1966. It was a dwindling town until the planning of the Zitulele industrial area and the erection of the first houses started in 1968. With the cooperation of the city council, the department and the Transkeian Government, the Xhosa Development Corporation has made good progress since 1968. Hon. members might say this is small progress, but each item I am going to mention in its turn provided people with employment and other services, roads and transport, to mention only a few. This industrial area was developed and fully equipped with railway lines, Escom power, tarred roads and sewerage systems. A start has been made at a second industrial area at Ibebeka, too. Three new township extensions have been established, and 164 houses and 30 flats built for key White personnel. An additional 400 houses and four-storied blocks of two-bedroomed flats have been erected as housing for single Bantu workers, and 1 604 houses have been built for industrial and other workers. A start has also been made on the development of an additional housing scheme of 1 000 houses for industrial workers. A sewerage system which makes provision for the 2 000 Whites and 20 Blacks already living in Butterworth has also been constructed. This is indeed progress! Hon. members can say this is small progress, but it is indeed progress, and it is good progress. Because building construction work, together with the creation of infrastructure, is very labour-intensive and therefore resulted in the circulation of considerable amounts of cash in the homelands, the economy of the Transkei and the Ciskei was stimulated considerably as a result.

This now brings me to transport. The development of growth-points, the establishment of towns and the resultant introduction of a large variety of services, immediately results in the creation of a demand for roads and transport. Since its establishment the Bantu Investment Corporation has assisted small transport contractors by granting loans to establish their business undertakings, in some cases with great success. However, it was realized that as peoples’ needs for more and additional services increased, there would be a corresponding increase in the demands made on transport concerns in terms of staff, vehicles and facilities. Most borrowers were not professionally equipped to meet all these expectations. A realization of the many problems facing the homelands concerning transport and development in general, and the importance of this for success in the decentralization policy, led to the creation of a transport department in the Bantu Investment Corporation. From 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1975, a total of 53,3 million km was covered, and approximately 8,3 million passengers are conveyed every month.

On 31 December 1975, 901 buses were being used by this corporation. Now I want to mention another important point. The highest percentage of these passengers are workers subsidized by the State, and most of them are conveyed between the White areas and surrounding homeland areas, as in the case of the transport from Bantu towns to the border industrial areas, i.e. the so-called commuters. What this means to the homeland as an incentive in the economic field alone, is something to inspire a paean of praise. Much progress has been made with the establishment of facilities, not only for the repair of vehicles, but also for the training of the mechanics of private operators. This is another by-product resulting from one thing leading to another. Because bus services were established, there must also be repair workshops, with the accompanying training of staff and mechanics.

I now want to discuss mining briefly. Since its establishment in 1960 the Bantu Mining Corporation has been actively developing the mineral potential of all the homelands, in the Republic and South West Africa. This corporation concentrates its activities mainly on the achievement of the following aims: To find and exploit economically exploitable mineral deposits; to furnish Black entrepreneurs with technical advice and to provide capital; to motivate long-term enterprises to extend their search for mineral deposits to the homelands; and, lastly, to give Blacks the necessary training and to train them at the technical level in such a way as to enable them to play a bigger role in the search for and the economic exploitation of minerals. At the moment, the Bantu Mining Corporation is establishing an intensive exploration unit to prospect in the various homelands. Apart from the current, general exploration, special attention is given to the locating of various base minerals, inter alia, copper, nickel, vermiculite, andolocite, tin, coal, etc. This is taking place not only in the homelands, but in South West Africa as well. Apart from the abovementioned exploration programme, the Bantu Mining Corporation has already established a few indigenous industries in the homelands. On 31 March 1975 the total capital investment in the mining activities amounted to R1 684 million. The time still at my disposal does not permit me to mention the most important projects.

The road to complete independence for the homelands is not a political one only. The hon. member for Lydenburg referred to this aspect. It is not only political institution that are needed for this. Economic viability goes hand in hand with this, not to the extent of perfection, sufficiency or self-sufficiency—because which country measures up to that requirement?—to the extent that a socioeconomic structure is established which seeks to guarantee a living to every man. Our homelands, thanks to the corporations which I mentioned, have already progressed a long way along this road.

I want to conclude by quoting from the report Ten Years of Progress, a report by the Xhosa Development Corporation. A Special message from the chief minister of the Transkei, Dr. Matanzima, appears in that report. I gladly support what he states in his message. I think this applies to all the homelands and not only to the Transkei. He states (page 7)—

I hope the hon. member for Randburg is listening. I shall only quote the following—

I gladly support this.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with particular interest to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, and later I shall come back to what he said. May I say to start with that it is difficult for me to understand the objection raised here by that hon. member and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke to the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. They intimated that that amendment was not in order. I do not want to waste my time on that, but I do want to mention four reasons why, in my opinion, the amendment is in order. In the first place, “the generally high level of economic development” is referred to in the original motion. If hon. members wanted us to speak about the corporations only and not about “the generally high level of economic development”, it would have been better if the original motion had read that this House “takes cognizance” of the actions of the corporations. As soon as the actions of the corporations are linked to “the generally high level of economic development”, it is perfectly correct to speak about the standard of the development achieved through the corporations. In the second place it is said that the corporations are responsible for the development. Therefore it is completely within the scope of the subject to say that the corporations have not done enough in this regard. In the third place, all three hon. members on the opposite side have had a great deal more to say than just concerning the actions of the corporations. I need not go into this now. In the fourth place I just want to say that, if the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke will look at the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, he will see that it makes specific reference to the corporations and the tasks which they have.

I want to associate myself at once with the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and his motivation of it. I agree whole-heartedly with him. Obviously I also agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. member for Randburg. [Interjections.] Let me say at once that it is very clear that in this regard dealing with a matter in connection with which probably all members of this House and all responsible South Africans will say, “There are no differences in principle about the necessity of developing the Bantu homelands.” I do not believe that this is at issue. Therefore I do not believe that we need trouble ourselves about it. There is great appreciation by all, including the hon. members on this side of the House, for the level of development which has been achieved and for the things which have already been done in the homelands. Everything which is being done to raise the standard of living of our people in the Bantu homelands and to create a situation where people do not have to leave the homelands to seek work elsewhere, will be welcomed without reservation by every right-minded person.

In this connection the argument is often advanced—the hon. member for Lydenburg did it this afternoon and earlier, I think last week, the hon. member for Port Natal advanced it too—that a comparison is possible between the per capita income of the Bantu of the homelands and that of the peoples of the Third World. I want to point out that that kind of comparison simply does not hold true.

Why not?

It does not hold true for the simple reason that the Bantu of the homelands are involved in our economy. In other words, they do not stand separate from our economy, while the countries of the Third World do each have an economy of its own, separate from others.

What about Lesotho?

Even the increase in the per capita income of the Bantu in the homelands, contributes to the general economic well-being of the whole country. Simply to ignore that situation and to draw a comparison between them and a country which has nothing to do with our economy and of which the people do not make a contribution to the proper development of that economy either, obviously does not hold true. Nor can a comparison be drawn in terms of the contribution which we make to the Bantu homelands and the contribution which developed Western countries make to the development of developing countries in the Third World. Any ability which we have to render assistance to the homelands and to the Bantu there, is directly related to the extent to which those Bantu help us to create those riches which make it possible for us to render that assistance. It is as simple as that.

Does this not apply in general to countries of the Third World?

I do not want to split hairs about this matter. I merely wanted to make a correction, because this kind of comparison is wrong.

Last year, with the discussion of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, which later became Act No. 9, we approved a new basis for financing in this regard. The attitude which we adopted in connection with this matter, that is to welcome it, surely is an indication of the fact that we are naturally very sympathetic towards the economic development of the Bantu homelands. In this connection, I want to refer with appreciation to the speech which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke made at the beginning of this month when he spoke about the work of the national corporations and also of the Bantu Investment Corporation.

I do not like you to flatter me.

Economic independence is not a prerequisite for political development or independence. We all know this. Nevertheless it is essential for us to realize, seeing that we have this special relationship with the homelands, even if they were to become independent, that it is in our own interest, too, to ensure that the highest possible level of economic development is maintained in the homelands.

Yes, we agree with that.

It is obvious, for the simple reason that if this were not to happen and if we were to fail to create employment opportunities in the homelands, the pressure on employment opportunities within the Republic would naturally increase.

Yes, that is decentralization. Do you agree with it now?

Order! It is not necessary for the hon. member to intimate his approval or disapproval each time.

We must naturally try to counteract unemployment in the homelands. Unemployment, as we know, is always one of the main causes of political unrest. A high level of economic development will also prevent those countries from possibly being forced to turn to other countries, possibly hostile towards us, to aid them in the economic sphere. We are indeed aware of these factors. Therefore we welcome any form of economic development in the Bantu homelands. But the actual issue is, that we are convinced that such development is not taking place at this stage at a rate which enables us to sit back and say, “Thank you, Master, everything is going very well there. ’’

I want to say at once—and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to this—that if we had accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission 20 years ago, we would have been immeasurably further than we are as far as the economic development of the Bantu homelands is concerned. Allow me to explain this, Sir. It was my privilege to be a member of the technical staff of the Tomlinson Commission, and the report of that commission had a comprehensive development programme for the Bantu homelands. It covered all possible aspects. In fact, it was a commission on the socio-economic development of the Bantu homelands. Therefore, it went much further than merely the question of corporations. Indeed, it covered all fields, the Church, social services, education, economic development and administration. In respect of these things the commission gave us a blue print of what could be done as far as the development of the Bantu homelands was concerned. All we have had up to now, have merely been with due respect for what has been achieved in recent times, facets or fragments of that total plan of development which was outlined and suggested by the Tomlinson Commission. Sir, in the report you will find a whole argument concerning the recommendation of the commission that the emphasis should fall not on development in the border areas, but within the homelands themselves. I think it is well known that the Government of that time did not accept that recommendation, and thought that it could achieve better results by causing the emphasis to fall on the development of the border areas. If time permits, I shall come back to this, but I refer hon. members to paragraphs 13 to 16 on page 142 of the published report on the Tomlinson Commission.

In the third place, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana indicated, the commission realized, and put it very clearly, that the desired scope and rate of development could only be achieved if we made use of private White capital and initiative. Hon. members will also find a minority report published on page 144. That minority report was signed by two members of the commission, the late Mr. Young and Mr. Prinsloo, and in that report they dissociated themselves from these recommendations. Perhaps hon. members know that after the commission had completed its activities and had submitted its report, these two persons, who were officials of the department, requested that the commission be summoned to meet again so as to enable them to submit their minority report. Also as far as this point is concerned, there would otherwise have been a unanimous recommendation by the commission that private White capital and initiative be used to achieve that development. As far as this point is concerned, even up to this day, the Government has not taken adequate measures to ensure this. The agency basis is not the type of involvement of private assistance envisaged by the Tomlinson Commission.

The Tomlinson Commission also made recommendations in connection with comprehensive development machinery. The main body in this regard was a development council, which would undertake the complete development and planning of that development. That development council was never established. It does not yet exist today. I am convinced of the fact that the same need exists today for the creation of such a development and planning council as existed when the commission made its recommendation. The commission was of the opinion that the Department of Bantu Administration and its other auxiliary bodies were simply not able to do that work effectively. That motivation is in my opinion just as valid today as it was then. I think it is a major shortcoming that this recommendation was not implemented, because if this had been done, we should have had properly balanced and comprehensive development in all spheres in the Bantu homelands.

However, what do we find? The Tomlinson Commission also recommended a development council, a development corporation. This appears on page 189 and 190 of the report. The latest proposals by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—that private initiative be integrated with the umbrella body—do constitute a small step in that direction, but do not in any way meet the requirements of the type of body envisaged by the commission. What did we get as far as a development corporation was concerned? We got the Bantu Investment Corporation. Investment was merely one small subdivision of the functions envisaged by Tomlinson Commission for the development corporation, whereas for many years investing was the only thing the Bantu Investment Corporation was authorized to do. It was only in 1968-’69 that the Bantu Investment Corporation obtained the right to start undertakings itself, something for which we are grateful. Fourteen or fifteen years had elapsed, however, in which nothing had been done by the State concerning secondary industrial development in the Bantu homelands, because of the fact that the Bantu Investment Corporation was not the type of institution which the Tomlinson Commission had in mind. Indeed, as is often the case, we must now do things which should have been done 20 years ago, and this holds true not only in this field. As far as financing is concerned, I do not have to go into the matter. Hon. members need only look at the recommendations requesting the establishment of a Bantu commercial bank, of a savings bank and a loan bank, of a Bantu insurance company, of a Bantu building society and of all institutions of this kind, most of which have not yet been implemented.

I agree with the hon. member for Koedoespoort and other members that we are faced with major problems in the agricultural field. It is also true that the agricultural potential of the Bantu homelands, if it were to be developed as it should, is high and that production at the moment is not nearly what it ought to be. This we do realize, but I want to say once again that if we were to have adopted the approach of the Tomlinson Commission, we would have been further. I would readily concede, however, that wherever we have to deal with underdeveloped peoples, we experience an immense degree of psychological resistance against development in that field, because, as you know, it is connected with their whole way of life and built into their culture. I do want to say, however, that I believe that we could have advanced further in that field than we have, in fact, done. Let us be honest with ourselves.

If we go to the Bantu homelands we cannot get away from the impression of poverty. It is obvious and clear to anyone who goes there. This is aggravated by the fact that we have sent people away from the so-called White area to the Bantu homelands on a fairly large scale and by the ban which we have placed on families who want to move to the White urban areas. The fact that we have thousands of Bantu who are illegally in those areas, the so-called White areas, is an indication that things are not going well in the Bantu homelands. We also know that because of the population increase the demands on the soil will increase in any event.

I just want to mention a few facts with reference to what has already been said. It has already been said that employment in the Bantu homelands amounts to only a few thousand annually as against the target of 60 000/65 000. The number of Bantu who are employed in factories in the homelands, is minimal—only 24 000. Only approximately 12% of the Bantu who are employed, work in the border areas and in the homelands.

I should have liked to indicate that considerable progress should still be made and that we cannot sit back in a self-satisfied way and think that we have achieved what we could achieve, but my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to what the hon. speakers have said, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity—since this is my first opportunity now to be able to speak on the matter which has been entrusted to me—to tell you and this hon. House that I have never before been so inspired by a task entrusted to me than I am by this one, in spite of the prophecies of doom which we have had to listen to today from that side of the House. Secondly, I want to tell you that, the more I have to do with these matters, the more convinced I become that the future, the economic future of the homelands is a tremendous and a bright future. Naturally I say the same of the economic future of South Africa. I am becoming more deeply convinced of this every day.

As far as the hon. member for Edenvale is concerned, it is a pity that the hon. member has not yet assimilated the fact that the Government has not implemented the report of the Tomlinson Commission as he would have liked it to have done, but as the Government saw fit to do, and consequently that results have not been lacking. It is a pity that the hon. member has not yet digested that fact. In the second place, it is also a pity that the hon. member should have said at the outset of his speech that we should not compare the growth and development of the homelands with that of the Third World. The hon. member does not want to allow what is happening in practice to prove that the judgment of the Government was correct. For that reason he tries to avoid putting it to the test. I shall have more to say about this later.

With regard to what the other hon. members said, I should like to point out a few fundamental facts. In the first place we must bear in mind that the development in the homelands has only been in progress for approximately two decades—for only approximately 20 years. After all, we know that during its régime the United Party did absolutely nothing in the homelands.

Nonsense!

The National Party first had to come into office, appoint the Tomlinson Commission, and then begin to develop the homelands. That hon. member must please not make the mistake of …

But the National Party also governed from 1924 onwards.

Even at that stage a great deal was done by us in the homelands. We must not make the mistake of comparing the development in the homelands with developed Western countries, which have been developing for centuries. We should rather compare the homelands today with the homelands 20 years ago; we should consider the progress each of the homelands has made during the past 20 years, and we should take note of factors such as progress and the growth rate. For the rest, we could compare the homelands with comparable States, i.e. with other African states.

In the second place, I want to refer to the impression which one gained of this debate today. Hon. members on this side of the House had obviously made a study of their subject. They stated facts. Of the hon. members on the opposite side I can only say that, while I was listening to them, I wondered whether they were living in South Africa. Do you realize that foreigners have greater confidence in the future of the homelands than those hon. members, they who are part of South Africa? One really got the impression that those hon. members were totally uninformed. And truly, Sir, the reason why they adopted such a standpoint was because they are uninformed of what is happening.

I want to state a third point, and that is the economic growth rate of the homelands. This is not so terribly low if one compares it with the rest of Africa. On the contrary. Most of our homeland economies are greater in extent than those of other African countries.

That is not true.

Yes, and I am going to give you the facts. In Africa there is nothing that compares with the rate of development and the economic growth rate of the homelands. There is also a fourth misconception which I want to eliminate.

Hon. members discussed what the corporations are doing and also the general development. They tried to create the impression that it is only the corporations which are responsible for the economic development and growth in the homelands. Apart from the three corporations we know about and the national corporations which are still going to be established, there are at least eight other groups, bodies or State undertakings which, in an executive capacity, are actively engaged in development operations in the homelands. In the first place they are the homeland governments themselves—by far the most important bodies as far as development in the homelands is concerned. Then, too, there are the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Bantu Education, the Department of Health—which acts as an agent of the Bantu Trust—the Bantu Trust itself and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards which in some cases act as the agent of the S.A. Bantu Trust in regard to township development. Then there are other departments as well, for example the Department of Forestry, and public corporations such as Escom, the Post Office and the Railways. Then, too, there is another very important sector which we should not forget, i.e. the private sector within the homelands and the private White sector in South Africa which is active in the homelands.

Allow me to put the matter into perspective. The contribution to the development of the homelands which is being made by the corporations which specifically fall under this ministry comprises only 15% of the total funds which are being made available in this year’s estimates by this ministry. The contribution by the homeland governments is 57½% and in addition to this there are all the others.

I want to tell the hon. member that we should look at the results if we want to see what progress we have made. That is the only criterion to see whether progress has been made.

No one has any objection to that.

It is no use simply saying that we have tackled so many hundreds of projects, or that we have not done this, that or the other. The true criterion is to test and compare comparable things in order to determine whether success has been achieved. The hon. member said that we could not compare the gross national income of a homeland with those of other African countries. Let us then disregard the gross national income and let us consider the gross domestic product. The hon. member is making a big mistake when he says that all the people in the homelands are involved in our, i.e. the White, economy. That is not true.

We did not say all.

Yes, you said all. The hon. member should look it up in Hansard. I therefore take it that the hon. member did not mean it in this way and for that reason I shall not go into this matter any further. Be that as it may, the growth rate of the gross domestic product, i.e. what is produced by the homeland itself through its agriculture, its industries, its services, etc., for the years 1960-’61 to 1964-’65 was only 2,2%. In the years 1964-’65 to 1968-’69 the growth rate rose to 6,3%, and in the years 1969-’70 to 1973-’74 to 16%.

I want to refer hon. members here to the reports published from time to time by organizations of the UNO. I am thinking of organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Economic Commission for Africa, the Industrial Development Organization of Africa, as well as other reports which establishes targets in respect of Africa. The United Nations Development Organization propagates a growth rate of 7%, and states it as a target for African countries in the second half of this decade. They will be highly satisfied if this could be reached, while our homelands are at this stage already maintaining a growth of 16%. We must test ourselves against comparable things. I want to return to the gross national income, in spite of the fact that the hon. member does not want to use it as a criterion. I am going to use it to reply to the hon. member for Randburg. He said that the Black people of South Africa are the poorest in the world. This is a completely erroneous statement.

I said in the homelands.

That is not true either.

I am specifically taking the homelands and not South Africa as a whole. The hon. member said that the average gross national income of the homelands was R175 per capita. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to Zululand, but are hon. members aware that the average gross national income in KwaZulu is R180 per capita?

Are you giving us the national income, i.e. including income earned outside the homelands, or only the gross domestic product in the homelands?

I am giving you the total income …

Of the homelands?

Yes, I am referring to the homelands. The income I am referring to is from resources created within the homelands, i.e. by production there or by persons living permanently within the homeland but who sell their labour outside and bring their income back. [Interjections.] That is the portion earned by commuters, and it comprises 20% of the gross national income of the homelands. The 80%, the remainder, is the gross domestic product. [Interjections.] This hon. member does not want the income of his fellow party member, who lives here but who comes from Britain, which he earns here and then takes back to Britain, to count there, but to count here. This cannot apply in respect of the homelands. If a person who lives in a homeland earns money elsewhere and brings it back to the homelands, then it is his income.

What has it got to do with the economic development in the homelands?

It has a great deal to do with it—to tell the truth, it has everything to do with it.

Order! The hon. member for Randburg has had his turn to speak this afternoon. He may ask a question if the hon. the Deputy Minister is willing to answer it.

Sir, I am not prepared to allow the hon. member to ask any further questions. I shall tell the hon. member what it has to do with the economy of the homelands. Those people spend their money in the homeland, and the effect of this is that while there were 3 900 Black traders in the homelands in 1961, there are 9 000 today. If that money is not being spent there, what are those traders doing there? With that I want to reject the statement of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—that this is a socialistic system—with the greatest emphasis. The hon. member based his statement on the fact that it is a State corporation and that it is going to be handed over to the homeland governments. From that the hon. member deduced that there is no private ownership. Surely that is not the case. A total of 2 400 of those 9 000 traders received a loan from the Bantu Investment Corporation. These were only loans, and there is nothing preventing them from owing land. Only a White person may not own land there.

In other cases the corporation establishes another company in which it owns a few shares. Surely this is not a socialistic system, for the entire system is aimed at developing and encouraging private ownership and private initiative. What is more: When the corporation lends these people funds and when it plays a part in industries, the technical officers of the corporation go to these enterprises and give them advice. The result of this is that the total amount of bad debt written off by all these co-operations in all these years amounted to less than R300 000. This demonstrates to us that success has been achieved. The gross national income of the homelands is R175 per capita. In Malawi is R78, in Lesotho, R70; in Somalia, R60; and in Tanzania, R94. The hon. member said KwaZulu meant nothing, but I want to tell him that KwaZulu’s gross national income is already R489 million. This is more than that of Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho, whose gross national incomes are respectively R117 million, R94 million and R62 million.

May I ask the hon….

Sit down and listen to what I am saying. The gross national income of KwaZulu … [Interjections.] I cannot help it if the hon. member made used of figures that were out of date. Two years ago it was R489 million, and this is greater than—over and above these I have already mentioned—Somalia, Burundi, Niger and numerous others. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon. member say that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s figure is misleading?

Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member may not address the House now. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I want to tell that hon. member, and the other hon. members, that the gross national income per capita of the de facto homeland inhabitants was R57 in 1960-’61, and that this rose to R175 in 1973-’74—a growth rate, therefore, of 9% per annum. Over that period the cost of living index rose by 3,2% per annum.

That was only because of the strikes.

Wait a minute, let me tell the hon. member a thing or two. This means a real growth of 5,8% for the individual. And during that same period from 1960 to 1970 the populations of the homelands increased by 7% per annum, owing to our policy of return to the homelands. Hon. members cannot show me a country in the world in which the population has grown by 7% per annum. Nor can hon. members show me a country in which the personal income of the individual has grown at a rate of 5,8% per annum.

I want to conclude by saying that the homelands governments have confidence in the future of their homelands and in the future of their economies. Last year some of the homeland government leaders went abroad to address industrialists and manufacturers and to explain what their policy was so as to create confidence and a healthy economic climate and in that way encourage industrialists. Then this hon. member came here and said it was socialist system. Surely that is not true.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.