Mr. Chairman, the young member for Pinetown said yesterday that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout left the caucus of the NP voluntarily. I just want to say that I was Chief Whip of this side of the House at the time. We expelled him from the caucus and I accommodated him temporarily in the bosom of the UP.

Sir, I am actually rising to address a few friendly words to the leader of the PRP. I want to begin by quoting the following extract from the speech he made yesterday—

I want to ask the hon. the leader of the PRP whether he stands by that accusation he made against the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member says he stands by it. This is interesting. I am pleased that he said this, because throughout the parliamentary debates this year the words “change” and “discrimination” have echoed like a political refrain. This was seized upon in particular by the hon. member for Houghton, the leader of the PRP and the rest of that party, and with one goal only, i.e. to create suspicion among the non-Whites and the outside world against the accepted relations policy of South Africa. This was their aim. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity to consider the words “change” and “discrimination” in their true perspective, to present our policy of self-determination to the House and to show how we are effecting changes for the very purpose of doing away with discrimination eventually. Self-determination in my opinion, is the best policy system we have in South Africa to bring about all the essential, almost indispensable, changes in South Africa in a judicious, orderly, timely and evolutionary way.

Who decides on the time?

That hon. member is nothing but a parliamentary thief who is trying to steal my time. He must not try and interrupt me now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I hope the hon. member for Brits did not mean it in the literal sense of the word.

No, Mr. Chairman, I know you appreciate a good sense of humour.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to call a member any kind of thief?

No, but the hon. member has already explained what he meant by that.

What did he mean?

Order! The hon. member for Brits may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, is this a precedent?

Oh, Mr. Chairman, I rather withdraw it unconditionally. After all it is obvious that we, the National Party, with its policy of self-determination do not have to flinch from changes, especially when those changes are aimed at development and progress. We know we are living in a dynamic world. Indeed, when, in 1948, a choice was made in connection with a relations policy, that choice was given to this Parliament to carry out as a mandate from the people. In spite of the criticism this policy will therefore be carried out to its logical consequences, because in South Africa we are dealing with dynamic, rapidly developing communities. We are dealing with development in Africa and in the outside world as well. We shall therefore arrange changes in our own country in such a way that, with the elimination of discrimination, we shall eventually have peace in our country. We shall maintain our record of political stability and at the same time normalize our relationships with Africa. We shall naturally also contribute towards increasing the level of international life. This is our aim, and what is wrong with it? I mean of course changes to the good, because I believe in a policy of development and not in degeneration or in a kind of retrogressive policy as that party does. We are living in a developing world and therefore we consider changes directed at progress. Therefore, we will even bring about drastic, radical or evolutionary changes provided they are in the interest of South Africa and that things will take place in an orderly manner in our fatherland so that we can achieve our aim. We have already brought about wonderful changes, even structural changes in our normal community set-up. Just think of the magnificent step we are taking to assist the Transkei to achieve its freedom. This is a revolutionary change taking place in an evolutionary manner. I want to assure hon. members that the most important changes taking place today, are taking place in the sphere of human, race and ethnic relations. It is in this very sphere where, in my opinion, most conflict and tension situations arise. Therefore we must be extremely careful when dealing with such situations, especially where we are dealing with a community structure such as we are dealing with in our fatherland where we have an established way of life, a pattern with various races and nations, as well as certain groups of people who differ profoundly from one another.

I therefore want to warn the hon. the Leader of the PRP because the method his party wants to apply, is not an evolutionary method but a revolutionary one. Any party which supports a policy wanting to bring about revolutionary changes in a revolutionary manner, is a foolish party because this will lead to chaos, revolt, violence and bloodshed. It is no use the hon. leader shaking his head; it is nevertheless true. He knows better than anyone else in this House, that colour discrimination is a very delicate phenomenon. I am also under the impression that he knows that it is an export commodity which is in great demand on the open market and especially amongst leftist elements in the outside world. Therefore he is the best exporter South Africa has to market this product elsewhere. Yesterday he even went so far as to try and market it locally. He then played the role of importer because he informed us what certain bodies and persons outside have to say. It was merely an echo of the things he says in this House.

I want to make it quite clear that the policy of self-determination, in my opinion, is the only policy which will evolve and unfold and renew and adapt itself to such an extent that it can bring into being control measures which are so essential to bring about the natural processes of change which are taking place in the socio-economic and political sphere in South Africa, with the least possible human hardship so that we in South Africa can continue to live peacefully and orderly. However, what do hon. members do? They seize upon the word “discrimination”, but surely, discrimination is as old as man himself. Surely, it is a world-wide phenomenon.

What about statutory discrimination?

Discrimination is to be found even in the nature of that hon. member who is now interrupting me. He discriminates; therefore, he is married to one woman and not to three or more. [Interjections.]

Let me ask them immediately to show me one country on this whole planet in which all forms of discrimination have been eliminated. Even in the case of the mighty America, where since many years ago they have removed by force all the legal obstacles and restrictions in the way of the “open society” or the unitary community, long after they have succeeded in removing all the obstacles, I still hear over the radio about protests by the Negro population and even of riots against discrimination. Hon. members cannot deny that factual situation. I therefore want to put to the test that which the hon. member said. The hon. member must certainly not expect us, when we make a promise to the effect that discrimination will be removed, to calculate with mathematic or arithmetical preciseness—as if one was adding two and two—and to say tonight precisely when the promise will be fulfilled. We are dealing with a very difficult process here.

Order! Before the hon. member proceeds to deal with mathematics, I must point out to him that his time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Am I not allowed to move that I be granted an extension of time?

No.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond to some representations which were addressed to the hon. the Minister and the Government yesterday by the other side of the House. I cannot remember all the hon. members which took part in the discussion, but I know the hon. member for Von Brandis asked that the South West African conference should be speeded up and should complete its task more rapidly. It is very easy to ask for this to happen, but it is extremely difficult to comply with such a request. I should like to present a picture of what is happening there. I should like to let one of our representatives himself speak, because then hon. members would probably get an idea of what the people are doing there. I want to quote what one of our White representatives in the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa had to say. He said—

By that he means the White members and a few others. I quote further—

This conference began under very difficult circumstances. So far we can testify and we are grateful that these people have made fantastic progress and have achieved fantastic things. They began under circumstances where UNO no longer acknowledged South West as a mandatory area and where the world recognized Swapo as the only true representative of South West Africa. Under these circumstances these people had to make a start, and the Legislative Assembly took the initiative and invited the leaders of the various groups in South West Africa to participate in a conference to consider the future of South West Africa. As I have said, this happened under difficult circumstances, because many people told the leaders who had been invited not to attend the conference, because the conference was merely an eye-wash and a swindle. There was a great deal of intimidation and so on, and there were smaller political parties who took pleasure in intimidating these people and advising them not to attend the conference. Therefore, we can imagine what a difficult task these people had. But in the end it was so successful that there was not enough seats in the conference hall where they had to meet the first day. This is how these people responded. They were eager to solve the future of South West Africa in a peaceful manner.

Who are the people who went there? Were they simply collected at random to have people of each group there? I want to point out that a number of ethnic groups held democratic elections before 1 September 1975 to appoint their representatives. From these representatives who were appointed in a democratic manner the leaders who came to the conference were nominated. Among them are, inter alia, the Owambo, the Kavango, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Basters. Altogether these people constitute two-thirds of South West Africa’s population and they were elected in a democratic way. Then there are also the other groups who appointed their representatives by means of one other traditional system. Where so much doubt has been created, the question arises as to whether these are the proper leaders who are involved in this conference on the future of South West Africa. I want to ask: What is the position concerning Swapo? How could it take part if it did not make itself eligible in a democratic election something which would have given it the opportunity to be elected, in the same way as members of any other group, while it refused to have any part in this? Do we have to reject the leaders appointed by their own people? We are being urged to negotiate with Swapo. One cannot negotiate with people who do not want to negotiate, who are not prepared to negotiate. Therefore, where I have indicated that most of these people had been elected in a democratic manner, how would it be possible to accept two groups of representatives of the same nation? Surely, this is impossible.

I want to refer briefly to the achievements of this conference. It is a conference and not negotiations. It is a conference where peoples meet to consider their future under peaceful circumstances, and to discuss standpoints of participating groups. They achieved something even at the first session. They arrived at the conference from all parts of South West Africa, developed people and undeveloped people, people with experience and people with no experience whatsoever. This was the first time that many of these people had seen a city like Windhoek. There was no body which could make arrangements beforehand. There was not even a chairman. Everything had to be started from scratch at the first session of the conference. However modest a beginning it may have been, it was the foundation they had to build on.

Very shortly after the commencement of its first session success was achieved at that conference. Apart from many other problems which had to be solved, a document was prepared which would constitute the basis for future proceedings. That document is known as the Declaration of Intent. I do not want to discuss the document in detail, but I nevertheless want to indicate how these people see the future of South West Africa, how they want to tackle their task. The document reads, inter alia—

Mr. Chairman, at the conference in Windhoek all proceedings take place on the basis of consensus, in other words, decisions which are taken, are taken with the approval of all parties represented at the conference. In the Declaration of Intent it is further stated—

I quote further—

Mr. Chairman, I pointed out what has been achieved there. This is one of the major achievements. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with the subject the last speaker was dealing with, but would like to touch briefly on some of the points made by the former hon. Chief Whip, because they do relate to the crux of the debate. The hon. member for Brits normally has a good and retentive memory, but I have a feeling that he has forgotten ambassador Pik Botha said on his behalf at UNO. I want to quote it because it does admit that we do have discriminatory practices and discriminatory laws.

We admit that.

Then why not get rid of them? What aspects of the laws are discriminatory and which ones are you getting rid of? [Interjections.] I want to say to this hon. member that I agree with ambassador Pik Botha when he says—

Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he will tell us what are these “schools of thought, traditions and practices ”? Will he define them? The hon. Minister of Sport has defined them, because he said earlier—

Sir, whatever we might think about it, the words used by the ambassador is the basis on which the people of the world interpreted that speech, that apartheid is going to disappear. He said so in his speech. [Interjections.] “If by apartheid in sport is meant discrimination on the grounds of race or colour then apartheid is disappearing and will disappear in South Africa.” That is what the hon. the Minister said, and I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that apartheid is going to disappear? [Interjections.] I think we should get down to the crux of the matter during the course of the debates this session. We listened yesterday to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs giving a spirited address covering a wide field, and there is much in what he said with which one will not find disagreement, but there are certain aspects which are disappointing. I must say that I am pleased that there are still some contacts in existence after the Angola affair, but I believe that the hon. the Minister and this House will delude themselves if they do not accept that our intervention has had a detrimental effect on détente. The hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday that there had been 17 Ministerial contacts with us, of which 15 came from the LBS countries and Rhodesia. This means there were two from outside, from countries which are not part of our economic union. Sir, I do not believe that this is a good omen for us in South Africa. The hon. the Minister took 1 December as his date. I do not know what his figures are. He covered the period of five months. Let us take 1 February. Forget December and January, because those were months when there was an intensive diplomatic move, an intensive scurrying around Africa in connection with our involvement in Angola.

What do you want to prove?

I want to prove that the events surrounding our involvement in Angola, combined with the failure of this Government to fulfil its commitments to get rid of discrimination, have had a very serious detrimental effect on détente in southern Africa. It is correct that we have had long-standing trade associations with the Ivory Coast. In the Central African Republic we are building hotels and we are lending them money. This is correct and this is continuing, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that our relationships with Angola and with Mozambique have been improved. [Interjections.] He said he did not want to reply to it because it may be embarrassing.

But I did tell you yesterday.

Does the hon. the Minister believe that our relations with Botswana, Zambia and Tanzania have improved? Take a country like Nigeria. There was direct communication between South Africa and Nigeria until the middle of January. What kind of relations exist today between South Africa and Nigeria? The Minister last year in his speech said there was a relationship between our internal policy and our external relations. This Government has to fulfil its obligations to get rid of discrimination. When the ex-Chief Whip speaks I say to him he can talk about the Transkei for the moment and enjoy himself when talking about it, but tell us what you are telling the rest of the world about the Coloured people. What are your plans to get rid of discrimination as far as the Coloured people in South Africa are concerned? [Interjections.] What are the chances of getting rid of discrimination for the millions of non-homeland Africans in this country? I ask this because unless there are positive steps taken in this direction, our external position will deteriorate.

May I put a question?

I have no time for that. I want to raise two more issues specifically relating to this portfolio. The first is the difficult situation at Calueque. There have been assurances via a third party from what is known as the “People’s Government of Angola ”. I want to know whether in fact the Minister is satisfied with those assurances. Were those assurances backed by the Government of Angola and does this involve a de facto recognition by the South African Government of the People’s Republic of Angola? Secondly, are these negotiations and these assurances to extend beyond merely the completion of the dam? Because protecting the dam site and the hydro-electric work during the course of construction is one thing, but what is much more important is whether, once these places, the dam and the hydro-electric scheme, have been completed, the old agreement which existed between the Portuguese Government and the South African Government will be honoured by the MPLA Government, and is the Government negotiating in this regard? I raise this, Sir, because there have been disturbing statements by MPLA spokesmen outside Angola saying that completing the dam is one thing, but that they will refuse to enter into an agreement with the South African Government for the beneficial use of the dam or the hydro-electric works once completed. In this whole question of negotiation, are we moving towards normalization? There are such things as the exchange of prisoners, which has not been finalized, the question of the repatriation of refugees, the question of economic and technical assistance to that country and the whole question of the movement of people and of money and passports and visas, etc. We would like to know whether concrete progress is being made in the field of association with this country on our northern border.

The third point I want to raise is the employment of Blacks in our Civil Service. It was stated a session or two ago that the Government was going to move in this direction. Earlier this session I asked a question of the Minister how many Bantu, Coloureds or Asians, respectively, were serving in our diplomatic corps. The answer was that five officials of the Transkeian Government were being so employed. Sir, that was a totally unsatisfactory answer. These five officials of the Transkeian Government are going to cease to be representatives of South Africa on 26 October in any case. That is the sum total of the number of non-White people, according to the answer given by the Minister, being employed in our foreign diplomatic corps. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress is being made. Are other people from the African, the Coloured and the Indian communities being trained, and is it contemplated that the intake of Black people in our foreign diplomatic corps will be greater than it was in the past?

The speech of the hon. Minister, together with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, seem to indicate that there is an acceptance of a very dangerous situation which is developing, and yet what is disturbing is that neither of them indicated that South Africa was any longer taking initiatives. I raise this in particular in respect of Rhodesia, because there is a very real concern, a justifiable concern, right throughout South Africa about the Rhodesian situation. The Prime Minister says Great Britain has a responsibility. The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that the American Government is the Government which can perhaps help to resolve the problem. The overseas Press and the Africans say it is the Prime Minister of South Africa. I am not saying that the Prime Minister has a formal responsibility in respect of Rhodesia, but I do hope that the hon. the Minister would stand up towards the end of this debate and tell us that the Prime Minister is taking initiatives, just as he took initiatives last year and announced it here. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to announce positive initiatives of a peace-making nature by the Prime Minister in respect of Rhodesia. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has now had an opportunity to partake in this debate. Sir, one must listen to the members of the PRP, it is very interesting to hear them. They love saying, “I believe” and “we believe”. I want to give them the assurance that this side of the House views anything they say with the deepest trepidation that any man can experience within his soul. Under the present circumstances in South Africa the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are trying to create a crisis psychosis.

They are trying to wake you up.

The hon. member for Houghton has lost her importance in this House and has now to partake in the debate on a lower level, by making simple interjections only. The hon. members whom I have mentioned are trying to create a crisis psychosis against South Africa at the cost of South Africa. In a debate of this nature the House should be calm.

*I think the well-known poem “If” by Rudyard Kipling applies to South Africa today, and I should now like to quote from this poem—

We know how the poem ends: “You will be a man, my son”. On this side of the House we have an hon. leader whose proved to the world that he is a man. In addition, we also have a person as Minister of Foreign Affairs who commands respect everywhere. These two gentlemen are in sharp contrast to what is experienced in the ranks of the Opposition, i.e. panic and problems. When the hon. member for Sea Point gets up to make a speech, he is really quite nervous. He asks and he believes and he disbelieves. It is something frightening to behold. South Africa is faced with many problems. We have to be honest and admit that we are faced with major problems at this point of time. However, we are not experiencing a crisis period in South Africa. We have confidence in the future of South Africa.

No one has confidence in you.

If that hon. member keeps quiet for a second, he might learn something.

*We are of Africa and we have experienced a great deal of which Africa States are experiencing today, and Africa States should realize this. I think it is wrong to get up in this Chamber and boast about South Africa’s economic strength, its military preparedness and its technological development. We have to talk to Africa about that which is important, i.e. to bring home to African countries that this country has utilized its potential fully by exploiting its mineral wealth and its natural resources and by doing so developed the country and that we have established our own identity by expanding and developing that which is our own. We have reached the stage—and this the hon. member for Sea Point should appreciate—where we can assist other countries and other nations which are on their way to self-determination, as is the case with the Transkei. This is an achievement and this is eliminating discrimination when participating in the process of other ethnic groups acquiring an identity of their own. Not only have we succeeded in helping groups in South Africa to develop, but we are prepared to render assistance to African States as well. However, no country in the world should regard its identity as a status symbol. Entrenchment of the identity of a people does not mean that a nation should ever become static. Through its achievements a nation enjoys recognition throughout the world. This was my experience when I visited the United Kingdom, i.e. that they greatly acknowledge that which South Africa has achieved economically. The economic integrity of South Africa is acknowledged by prominent businessmen and financiers throughout the world. For that reason major powers, such as the United Kingdom and America, make substantial capital investments in South Africa and earn particularly high interest on their investments. For that reason South Africa enjoys an economic integrity all over the world, and South Africa is acknowledged throughout the world. Therefore, I believe South Africa has a role to play in Africa.

We are faced with a tragedy in Africa at the moment. The morale of a nation is based upon the standard of living of that nation and we are aware of the fact that there are nations in Africa which are having a very bad time of it and are suffering as a result of an inadequate standard of living. When the morale of a nation is being destroyed that nation is, from the nature of the case, susceptible to the Russian approach that they could improve their position through the training of terrorists and through warfare. We who are familiar with wars, are aware of the fact that it is never conducive to any people acquiring an identity of its own. There is only one basis upon which a people can build its future, and that basis is to be found in the concept that what is one’s own, the inherent potential of one’s country, one’s mineral wealth should be utilized. This is the challenge to work and to utilize that what is one’s own. Africa has the potential and African countries have the characteristics and the mineral wealth and could, if they move in the right direction, utilize their natural resources to the full. In this South Africa can play a particular role, and she is indeed playing a role in this regard. If hon. members consider the imports from countries in Africa during 1970, they will see that it amounted to R130 million. In 1975 goods to the value of more than R500 000 were imported from African States. On the other hand, exports amounted to R263 million in 1970 and to R429 million in 1975. Therefore, we are trading with Africa. When economic integrity exists and when countries are trading with one another, the opportunity exists to associate with one another, which is far better than when this happens in the political sphere. Through economic integrity we can prove to Africa, as we have proved to the West, i.e. that we are a country with economic integrity which can be trusted, because not one country is able to say that South Africa has not met its obligations. This is not only an economic achievement, but a moral achievement as well. Therefore, South Africa can play a particular role in the development of African States, just the opposite of the role played by the Russians through their ideology.

The hon. member for Rustenburg will excuse me if I do not follow up his argument. In his speech he emphasized aspects of co-operation between countries in Africa and southern Africa and I should like to associate myself with that idea. The hon. the Prime Minister made a few important remarks about South West Africa in the discussion of his Vote last week, remarks which were also referred to in the course of this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister’s reference to Walvis Bay in particular touched on an aspect of the future of South West Africa with which I should like to associate myself in the course of my speech. The hon. the Prime Minister, as well as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday, underlined it very clearly once again that the constitutional future of South West would be settled at the conference in Windhoek—nowhere else and by nobody else. Furthermore it was said that the Government wanted to transfer those powers which it, as the administrative body, had over South West Africa, to the inhabitants of that territory as soon as possible. In other words, the Government has put it very clearly that it wants to transfer all powers which it has in South West at present, to that governmental structure on which the conference at Windhoek decides. Constitutionally South West Africa will therefore be just as independent as any other country in the world. If the good progress which has already been made at the conference, is kept in mind—the hon. member for Karas, too, has already referred to this—as well as the intention of the delegates to draw up a Constitution for South West Africa within three years, then the independence and autonomy of South West is not something for the distant future, but is indeed at hand. This emphasizes the responsibility which rests on the leaders at the conference to find as soon as possible a governmental structure to which the powers, which are vested in this Parliament at present, can be transferred. It is also against this background that the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister about Walvis Bay, on the one hand, and about the enormous budget for which South West Africa will have to find the money annually, on the other hand, gain special significance. The hon. the Prime Minister said that there were people who thought that Walvis Bay belonged to South West Africa.

To that one could add that there are also people in the UNO, in Africa and unfortunately in leading Western countries as well who think that the gates of heaven will open up for South West if it can only be cut loose from South Africa. These people preach the following doubtful gospel. Seek ye first the kingdom of majority rule and all these other things shall be added unto you. By such majority rule they actually mean rule by Swapo, which in fact represents a small minority. We have many examples in Africa of that type of majority rule with its miserable consequences for the inhabitants of the country. Indeed, we need not look far beyond our borders for examples. The responsible leaders of the respective peoples at the conference must remember that South Africa wants to give complete independence and sovereignty to those people, and give it as soon as they are ready to receive it. For several reasons it will not be possible to postpone the time for too long. Indeed, one hopes that it will be possible at least within the three years which was decided on in the declaration of intent of the conference. However, it will be to the advantage and in the interest of the welfare of all the inhabitants of that territory if they receive their independence within a framework of close contact and co-operation with South Africa. The interdependence of South West Africa and the Republic is a matter which political agitators readily deny, but which responsible leaders may never lose sight of, especially not where they are engaged in working out a governmental structure for the imminent independence of their people. It is with regard to this bond between the RSA and South West Africa that I want to make a few brief remarks, which, due to the limited time, will naturally be incomplete.

As has already been pointed out, Walvis Bay belongs to the Republic. The only other harbour in South West Africa is Lüderitz and it has an extremely limited use because it can only accommodate boats with a draught of 6 metres. In addition it should be remembered that South West Africa’s entire railway system is integrated with that of the Republic. The S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration owns and finances all railway assets in South West Africa, such as rolling stock, machines, coaches, locomotives, road transport services, and also absorbs all financial losses which arise annually something which is very important, because these losses are not too inconsiderable as South West Africa is a vast and sparsely populated territory in which it is expensive to provide these services. As far as transport is concerned, the lifeline of any country, it is important to emphasize that South West’s only effective rail and shipping traffic has to go through the Republic. In addition there is the customs union agreement with South West, to which reference has already been made and in terms of which, as with the BLS countries, free entry is granted in respect of the movement of services and goods. The customs aspect is only one aspect of the economic co-operation which may have a wide ripple effect and which includes financing as well as—this is very important—mutual marketing opportunities, without which no economy and no agricultural industry can exist. Indeed it is inconceivable, whatever form of government South West may have in the future, that it can survive outside the common economic sphere.

The same holds for the monetary union. Irrespective of the form of government which it may have in the future, South West will remain a member of the monetary union, so that the same principles will apply to it as those which apply at present to the RSA, Lesotho and Swaziland. In terms of this the rand remains the legal tender and foreign payments are made from a common pool. Within such a monetary set-up, the doors to South West would remain open for the establishment of economic growth points, as well as for the inflow of investment capital.

At present a similar bond exists in the sphere of post and telecommunications. All automatic trunk line exchanges in South West are integrated with the Republic’s dialling facilities. Subscribers in South West can therefore dial several countries abroad directly through the Republic. As regards the scope of the relationship and the interdependence of South West and the Republic, one could draw up a long list of services. The benefits which South West derives from the South African research services alone, is a story on its own.

There is, for example, the Republic’s National Institute for Roads Research, which in view of the diverse climatic conditions and geographic features of South West, has the necessary expert knowledge for building roads in the territory. There is also the South African National Water Research Institute and laboratory in Windhoek. Water is of great importance to South West, and continual research in this connection is indispensable. It is as a result of the research of the Institute that Windhoek became the first city in the world in 1968 to start reclaiming sewerage water on a large scale for domestic use. In addition there are the South African Weather Bureau, medical and agricultural technical services and many other aspects of the mutual bonds between us.

The fact of the matter as far as the future independence of South West is concerned is that everyone who is well-disposed towards the progress and welfare of all the people in that country, may never lose sight of the bonds which exist with the Republic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Johannesburg West with a great deal of interest. At this stage I only want to say that it is not clear to me what the hon. member wanted to achieve by quoting all those facts. Later on in my speech I shall refer to other things which he said, as well as to aspects conveyed to us by the hon. member for Rustenburg.

I want to begin by saying that I and everyone on this side of the House have taken note with great appreciation of the initiative displayed by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Information in connection with our foreign relations. However, no one can doubt the extremely serious situation which has developed in and around southern Africa over the past month. The hon. the Minister himself gave an indication of this. I assume that he will not take it amiss if I say that the overall impression which his speech created yesterday was that there is actually no particular reason for concern and anxiety. I want to point out a few of the things which have alarmed myself and everyone in the House very much during the past few months. We have referred to Angola many times, not only because of the Russian and Cuban intervention, but also because their intervention brought about a total disturbance of the balance of power in southern Africa. We are now faced with a completely new situation. The second effect of the Angolan situation is that condemnation of South Africa has become much stronger in many circles as a result of it—rightly or wrongly. It is very clear that the Rhodesian situation has taken a new and serious turn as well.

The fact that the negotiations in Rhodesia between the Prime Minister there and Mr. Nkomo have broken down has created, as we know, great problems for all of us. It has led to an intensification in the terrorist struggle, as we know, but it has also led to a much greater involvement of the powers of Africa than ever before in the Rhodesian question. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it has led to the involvement, for the first time, of the great powers of the world in the problems of southern Africa, as appears, for example, from the visit of Dr. Kissinger to Africa. The possibility of the development of a situation similar to the one we had in the Middle East, when Russia armed Egypt, with results which we know, is a possibility which we cannot discount. In addition, our own ability to influence the course of events in Rhodesia and in southern Africa has been greatly diminished, as a result of circumstances which were not necessarily our fault. The danger exists that South Africa may indeed become involved in the struggle in Rhodesia, even against our will, as a result of the escalation of the problem there. It may happen not only in the military sphere, but also because of the economic ties between the Republic and Rhodesia.

In respect of South West, the situation is very clearly taking an unfavourable turn for South Africa. I am not only referring to the increase in terrorist activities in South West, and the obvious fact that, apparently at least, a great section of the Black population of South West seems to be in sympathy with this; I am also referring to the fact that the time factor has come to be of vital importance in reaching a solution, as the hon. the Minister indicated only yesterday. I immediately want to say that I personally believe that a period of three years in which to find a solution for South West which may be in our favour is much too long. I am convinced that the attitude we have taken up so far—that South Africa must not intervene there—is not correct. South Africa has a responsibility towards South West, not only for the sake of South West, but also because we are directly affected by what is going to happen to South West. In the second place this Government is represented at that conference, in terms of its own philosophy. Elected representatives of the Nationalist Party are taking part in that conference. Therefore I simply cannot see how we can say that we must just sit back and wait and wash our hands of the whole affair in the meanwhile.

In the third place, I want to say with respect to Swapo that it has often happened that the Government of a country has refused to negotiate with certain revolutionary bodies, until it was eventually forced to do so. We have seen this in Kenya, Mozambique and elsewhere in the world. The point of difference only lies in the fact that, according to our information, there is indeed a very large section of the indigenous population of South West that trusts and supports Swapo. Merely from a pragmatic and practical point of view, apart from the principle, it seems to me that it would be senseless to try and reach an agreement in South West which may afterwards be rejected by the majority of the population.

I want to go further. As far as South Africa itself is concerned, too, it is very clear that there is an increasing resistance, both here and abroad, to our policy of racial discrimination and our policy of White political domination. As far as both these matters are concerned, it is very clear that we shall have to move rapidly. It serves no purpose for the hon. the Minister to quote here what a newspaper on the Ivory Coast says about the rate at which discrimination is being removed. We must consult our own Blacks and ask if they are satisfied with the rate at which we are removing discrimination. I know what the answer will be.

I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to quote from an article in last Sunday’s Rapport in connection with an interview with Adv. Schabort. In that article he said exactly what the outside world thought of us and indicated the dangers that were facing us. The possibility of violent conflict in southern Africa has increased immeasurably, and the time for ensuring peaceful co-existence has become much shorter for all of us.

Are there any constructive suggestions one can make under these circumstances? In reply to that question, I want to say that there are two immediate requirements. In the first place we will have to get rid of discrimination as soon as possible, and I am afraid that what the hon. member for Brits said in this connection is wide of the mark. In the second place we shall have to make a political arrangement which will provide for the participation, as soon as possible, of all the groups within our political structure. In other words, our first priority must be to create a situation here which will prevent people from beginning to believe that violence is the only way in which change can be brought about. In the second place, we will have to prevent people from beginning to accept that an exclusive Black majority government for South Africa is the only solution, unrealistic though it may be. In order to achieve all these things, speedy action is of the greatest importance. We must lead the territory of South West Africa to independence as soon as possible and create a satisfactory constitutional framework there. It is also clear that our relationship with the BLS countries cannot continue in this way. The attack of Seretse Khama is a clear indication of this. I think the hon. the Prime Minister himself will have to take action in this connection, as well as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As far as Rhodesia is concerned, I think we must consider the possibility, in the light of our own inability, of involving other people in this matter, such as the Prime Minister of New Zealand or Mr. Kissinger, in an attempt to create a new possibility for peaceful coexistence. As far as our own position is concerned, it is clear that we shall have to begin with a new diplomatic offensive, especially one which is aimed at getting the opinion-makers on our side, as long as we do not try to sell the unsellable to the outside world. We shall definitely not succeed in doing this. In this connection I would like to urge very strongly the necessity for appointing a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Finally I also want to suggest that this matter can no longer be handled by one party alone. The matter is too serious and I therefore want to appeal to the Government to move away from its standpoint that it can handle this matter on its own. My standpoint is that more than one party must be involved in dealing with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale has elaborated further on the black picture of the conditions in southern Africa which that party painted in this debate yesterday. However, he has said nothing new in the process. Nor has he made any new proposals. He has simply stressed again the necessity for speed in dealing with matters in South West Africa. However, I think the hon. the Minister explained very clearly and unambiguously yesterday why one should not be in too great a hurry in dealing with matters of this kind, that we must do everything in our power to make matters as favourable as possible for these negotiating parties, but that we must not antagonise everybody by acting precipitately. I think this is a very clear and responsible approach. I think this unnecessary emphasis which is being laid on speed and haste is actually something which may cause the whole matter to be spoiled.

I just want to refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Sea Point. He again discussed the question of moving away from discrimination. He maintains that he can see no signs of a movement away from discrimination in South Africa. If he cannot see this in the attitude of our people, if he cannot see this in the various acts performed by the authorities during the past two years, then he is politically blind. Apart from that there is a saying in the legal profession that “you must not come to court with unclean hands”. Their basic policy on the question of qualifications for franchise is still founded on discrimination. They come to Parliament with dirty hands, and with a “holier than thou” attitude, they want to tell us that we should move away from discrimination. No more need be said about these remarks.

I want to refer briefly to the tour of France, Belgium and Luxemburg, which I have been privileged to undertake under the auspices of the Parliamentary Society of South Africa. In particular I want to stress the remarkable efficiency, single-mindedness and devotion to duty of the officials attached to our various embassies. I want to start at the top of the list and work down to the very bottom. Our representation in the European Common Market must also be included here. We were the first official party to visit the new consul-general in Marseilles. We were received there under circumstances which were not yet all they should be. We were there in October, while the office had only opened in September. However, the representative there and his officials have already put down their roots in Marseilles after such a short period there, and they are keeping South Africa’s colours flying. The official in charge there is Mr. Hein Van Niekerk. I also want to refer to our honorary consuls in Luxemburg and Le Havre. They are cultivated people and a credit to South Africa. In this regard I also want to refer to our men in the Department of Information. They perform an enormous task for South Africa. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his efficient and dedicated officials abroad. They deserve great praise for the fruitful work they do there in silence.

The hon. the Minister referred last year to the importance of contact, communication, dialogue and détente. He said it was the task of our diplomatic representatives to create channels along which communication could take place with governments. These diplomatic representatives must remain fully informed on Government policy. They must always be close to the fire although they are far from its heat. They must act in a sophisticated manner. They must possess considerable powers of observation. Their character and disposition must be irreproachable. These requirements apply to their wives as well. These men and women perform an enormous task there in silence. They are guardians of the national interests.

When one travels abroad, one is always aware of having been told that everything which is done or not done in South Africa is criticized. Therefore one gets the impression that the politicians and statesmen of overseas countries are constantly looking at our activities here in South Africa with a magnifying glass. Consequently we were ready to state our case as often and as positively as possible. However, what did we find? I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Rustenburg a short while ago by pointing out that we encountered great respect for South Africa, especially as far as its economic development is concerned. We received positive comment on our stability and the fact that we meet our obligations and pay our accounts. Favourable comment was also passed on the fact that everybody knows where he stands with South Africa. We came across this everywhere. During the short time we spent in France and elsewhere in Europe, we were never questioned, queried or criticized about South Africa’s official policy. In those countries we talked to politicians on various sides of the spectrum. We spoke to members of the National Assembly of France and to mayors of the various cities, including cities represented by socialists. One’s major impression was that these people went out of their way to make us feel at home in those countries. This applied to our meeting with Mr. Faure, the speaker of the National Assembly, and Mr. Poher, the President of the Senate in France. It also applied to Mr. Pierre Harmel, the President of the Senate in Belgium, Mr. Andre Dequae, the chairman of the Chamber of Representatives in Belgium, Mr. Leo Vanackre, the National Representative and First Vice-Chairman of the Flemish Cultural Board in Belgium, and others. From all of them we received only hospitality and great courtesy.

While we were in France, we heard that more than 20 organizations were planning to demonstrate against South Africa at the South African Embassy in Paris. When the day arrived on which the demonstrations were to take place, only five people arrived to take part.

A further attitude we encountered everywhere we went was a burning interest to do business with us. We experienced this at Le Havre and at various other French harbour cities like Nantes and Marseilles as well as at harbours like Fos and Antifer, which are still under construction. In these days of inflation, increasing unemployment and a decline in passenger shipping, containerization, etc., expansion of trade is enjoying high priority. One finds this in Belgium, too, in cities such as Bruges.

We recently had an exchange of trade missions again between France and South Africa. This caused France to concentrate on South Africa in her efforts to extend her trade through the world. Allow me to refer briefly to the tremendous expansion of our trade with France. Our imports from France were R41,25 million in 1964 and nearly R254 million in 1975. Our exports to France were R36,5 million in 1964 and R290,5 million in 1975. There has been a similar increase in our trade with Belgium. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan must excuse me if I do not follow up on his speech. He put his case very clearly and I cannot improve on it.

The limelight, the spotlight, the searchlight of the world is on Africa today, and on southern Africa in particular. What is more, under the leadership of our hon. Prime Minister, we have quite rightly become more Africa orientated or Afro-centrically orientated over the past few years. It is right that this should be so because we are an African State, we are part of Africa. Last Sunday, standing on Paarlberg near our beautiful taal-monument, a monument of which we are proud, I again saw that the Republic column was not closed, but had a large opening and was orientated towards Africa. In those circumstances, when it is a matter of foreign affairs, I really burn to speak about Africa—I almost said that under those circumstances I “Brand Fourie” to speak about Africa. Last year’s overseas visit to South America by our hon. Prime Minister and the people who accompanied him, like his recent visit to Israel—that is not to speak of his visits to Africa—show us that under the leadership of the hon. Prime Minister and with the aid of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this government has not lost its balance, and that there are also other parts of the world which require our attention and with which we must develop our links and strengthen our bonds. Therefore I believe that it would not be unfitting for me to cause the limelight, the spotlight, the searchlight, to fall on South America a little.

When I refer to South America, I mean a group of countries. For the purpose of my argument, I shall not divide the continent into its various countries now. Time does not permit me to do this. In order to expound the principle, I shall only speak of South America. Right at the outset I want to point out that there are two basic factors, two important factors upon which our relations with South America—relations which of necessity continue to expand—are based. The first factor is the economic possibilities. There are vast economic possibilities.

The second factor is the vital strategic necessities. It is these two factors—economic possibilities and strategic necessities—which form the basis of our relations with South America. South America is our closest neighbouring continent. That continent is separated from us by the extremely important and strategic waterway, the South Atlantic ocean. As in the case of our forefathers, the South Americans also stemmed from Europe. However, today we find there approximately two dozen independent States, all chiefly Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking. The continent has a total population of 300 million, which makes for an interesting comparison with the total population of Africa. South America has a total area of 8 million square miles, which constitutes 19% of the world’s inhabited areas. We, and I include the Africa States, do not want Russian-Cuban domination here. Nor do we want Chinese communist-domination. I can even say that we do not want American domination either. Similarly many years ago the States of South America opposed the onslaughts of communism, and specifically those launched by Cuba—attempts to undermine the various States in South America. Cuba is the exception which proves the rule. And Chile is there to indicate that it is indeed possible to throw off the communist yoke. They are moderate non-communist States in the UNO. There are 24 of them and this amounts to approximately l/6th of the voting power of the UNO.

With this as background, I should like to draw attention briefly to the two basic factors which I mentioned—the economic possibilities and the strategic necessities. As far as the economic possibilities are concerned, we would do well to take note of Brazil. It is a strong country, the world’s largest coffee producer, and a country which will probably become a world power within the next few decades. Then there is the Argentine, the largest meat producing country in the southern hemisphere. There is Chile, the country which produces the most copper in the world, and Bolivia, the world’s biggest producer of tin.

I could continue in this vein, but unfortunately time does not permit. However, the fact is that the states of South America, just like us, were agricultural states, and that just like us they developed into mining countries, and into subsequently industrial states. The majority of South American States are developing along exactly the same lines. In the first place, this creates for us the possibility of economic co-operation, co-operation through trading with each other to an increasing extent. Then, too, we find that our trade with South America has doubled, and that it has increased tenfold in some cases. I am convinced that in the future it could still increase a hundredfold. At the moment we are exchanging know-how with South American States, know-how in the spheres of mining, agriculture, technology, etc.

In cases where there is competition for certain markets, there can also be co-operation in order to prevent our harming each other economically. In order to complete the picture,

I can perhaps just add that a wide field is still lying fallow with respect to the exchange of knowledge and information on cultural matters between the countries of South America and ourselves. By giving more attention to this, each can uplift the other.

With respect to the strategic necessities I do not want to say very much. I have already pointed out that the strategic waterway, the South Atlantic ocean, lies between us. Just as we are, South America is concerned about the intrusion of Russian forces in the Atlantic and other oceans of the world. The recent events in Angola, however, demonstrated once again that our concern and the concern of the South American States about the Russian and Cuban penetration in the world, is genuine, that it is not a figment of the imagination. I read in Die Wêreld in Oënskou the newsletter of the Centre for International Politics which appeared last month, that there has been a world-wide reaction to this Cuban-Angolan outrage. I quote—

Sir, we know that countries like Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Columbia and Bolivia, have survived onslaughts inspired by Cubans between 1955 and 1966. They have therefore experienced communism in the same way as we are experiencing it today. I therefore say that there we have two important factors: economic possibilities and strategic necessities.

I could say more about tourism and the role of the airways, and I could speak about sport, for example the tennis match against them which we lost just recently. There are vast possibilities for co-operation between our countries. Our Government is doing its duty. I refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit and I can refer to several visits by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and trade missions led by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. We know that Venezuela came here to take a look at the sugar industry. I could continue in this vein, but I feel that we should lay a little more emphasis on what private initiative can do, and here I want to mention just two factors. The one is personal contact. The personal contact between people of one country and people of another country can never be over-estimated, and the personal contact which tourists from our country have with them and theirs have with us, cannot be over-estimated. Another important factor which I want to mention, is the language question. I think that it is time for us to learn that there are other languages spoken in the world besides English, and that we should apply ourselves a little more to Spanish and Portuguese, for example, which are so important in southern Africa and in South America too.

Sir, I began by saying that I burned to speak about Africa. Whereas I have pointed out the importance of South America, I think it will be forgiven me if I conclude by mentioning Africa again. We have congratulated the Government from many sides on the good and correct way in which it is dealing with matters in southern Africa, for example those concerning Mozambique. I agree 100% with them. However, there is one factor in our relationship with Mozambique which goes against the grain a little in South Africa. This is the question of the nationalization of certain properties. When one reads about people who are concerned and will possibly lose a great deal of money on property, and one reads about societies which are established to do something about this matter, then one wonders if the hon. the Minister could not perhaps throw a little more light on this for us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before the debate is concluded, I just want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister with reference to the reply he gave to the debate yesterday. The hon. the Minister showed again yesterday that he is very sensitive to criticism, and I do not really know why. We are not concerned with the hon. the Minister’s competence as a Minister. We understand his position. We know that we might have the best Minister, but as long as he represents a Government which wears the label of discrimination and of discriminatory apartheid round its neck, we can, with a few exceptions perhaps, forget about good political relations with Africa and the rest of the world. I am speaking of political relations. There will always be countries which will trade with us and maintain formal relations with us, but matters will not get much further than that as long as the apartheid label is round our neck.

The hon. the Minister blamed me yesterday for having asked him why we had not made any progress in our relations with Botswana. He wanted to know whether I had never heard of the customs union which exists. Good heavens, Sir, that customs union dates from before the rinderpest. But later, when he delivered his prepared speech, he woke up himself and expressed his displeasure at Sir Seretse Khama’s biting attacks on the Government. We know that Sir Seretse Khama made remarks which expressed full support for the revolutionary movements. But the hon. the Minister has never replied to my question and told us what the underlying reasons are for the deterioration of relations and why the problem in this connection cannot be solved and removed. This is our problem with the hon. the Minister, unfortunately: He expresses his displeasure at the fact that this or that person is being so unfriendly with us, but he never gets round to a discussion of the underlying reasons for the poor relations or what he and his Government are doing to eliminate these basic reasons.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister, and I say this in all friendliness, because I have the greatest respect for him personally, that one of the things we do not like at all is his way of accusing other countries, and specifically Western countries, of a lack of courage and of other unpleasant things. I cannot see what we can achieve by doing this. Every country has the right to decide what it considers to be in its best interests. We claim that right for ourselves, to decide for ourselves when a line of action is in our best interests— yes or no. We must allow other countries to claim the same right for themselves. If it is a question of courage, the Government should rather set the example by putting its words into action and it should put a stop to colour discrimination in our country without delay, so that it will become possible for the Western countries to stand by us.

The hon. the Minister told us that he had been well received by Bokassa in the Central African Republic. He said he had paid a secret visit somewhere else as well. Sir, what we should like to know is what a visit to Bokassa means. How is it going to improve our position? That is what we are interested in and that is what we should like to know. While he was telling us about his visit to Bokassa— which, he will concede, has little bearing on the deteriorating position in southern Africa—the afternoon newspapers were placed on our tables, and this is what we had to read last night after we had had this debate—

Sir, these things are happening around us. These are the things that are relevant, and what we want to hear from the hon. the Minister is: What is the Government doing about the deteriorating position around us in southern Africa? Sir, it is no use just saying we stand for peace. Of course we stand for peace. It is no sacrifice to stand for peace. We have nothing to win by war.

The hon. the Minister further said that he took strong exception to the fact that I had presented South West and Rhodesia and the Republic as being part of one and the same colonialist situation. I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister could have arrived at such a conclusion. Of course the circumstances of the three territories are not the same, and no one said they were. What I said was that we were responsible for South West and that if there was an attack on South West, it would mean an attack on us as well, and I do not think the hon. the Minister would deny this.

I went on to say that we did not have the same relationship with Rhodesia, but that circumstances were of such a nature that we could not hope to remain unaffected by what happened there, and I do not think the hon. the Minister would deny this. For what other reason did the Government bother to keep a military police force in Rhodesia for years? But in one respect there is in fact a resemblance. Everywhere, in all three territories, the political position of the White man forms the controversial factor. With reference to this situation in its entirety I said—and I repeat it—that it would be wise to take a look at the position in the southern Africa as a whole, to get the leaders of southern Africa together to discuss the position as a whole and to try and find a peaceful way out of the problems. If the Government cannot do something of this nature, we might as well start preparing for the siege of southern Africa. In the light of what is going on around us, I find it amazing that the hon. the Minister can discuss the finalizing of the South West African question in terms of years. He said that it was now being put at more or less three years. In the meantime, the hon. the Minister and the Government are doing nothing to motivate and to encourage their White supporters in South West Africa. No one would be so foolish as to try and impede the work of the political conference in Windhoek. Every inch of progress that is made must be welcomed, and we do welcome it. However, there are problems surrounding the conference, and these are not static. We are going to be faced with serious terrorist attacks on South West and they are going to take precious little notice of the conference.

I am merely stating a fact. There are political parties and movements which are outside the conference and which therefore are not sympathetic towards it. The hon. the Minister said that they could go and give evidence. They cannot just go and do this. The hon. the Minister is not correct. There are restrictions on who is allowed to express a standpoint before the conference. A party that wishes to appear has to submit a memorandum, and on the basis of that it will be decided whether the party concerned will be allowed to give evidence and whether its standpoint will be recorded. This happened to the Federal Party. [Interjections.] The Federal Party received the reply. In any case, this is not what the Government promised Dr. Waldheim. The undertaking to Dr. Waldheim was very explicit: “That all the political parties of South West Africa will have full and free participation in the process leading to self-determination and independence. ” Another problem is that the conference is not authorized to draw up a constitution. It is a voluntary effort, and even if they do come to an agreement, the smallest population group could bring their whole attempt to nothing and then everything would have to start from scratch again. I concede that the conference must receive all the support we can give it, but it remains our standpoint that the Government cannot remain on the sideline and abdicate all responsibility. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his party that they have had a lot to say in this debate, but that they have not succeeded in pointing out a single aspect where the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department have not done a brilliant job in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed dark prophecies of doom, but did not make a single positive contribution to solving South Africa’s problems. I shall leave the hon. member at that.

At this late stage of the debate I should like to point out to the hon. House the success South Africa has had in its politics of détente. This has been highlighted in this debate as well. The brilliant détente moves of our hon. Prime Minister have not only gained advantages for South Africa, but southern Africa, too, has benefited by them. When the hon. member for Sea Point, the leader of the PRP, says “détente is in ruins ”, then I say to him that he does not know what he is talking about. All the facts refute such a statement. It seems to me that the hon. member for Yeoville has a better understanding of détente than his hon. leader, for the hon. member for Yeoville made some splendid statements in London. He said—

According to a report in The Argus, he said this on 5 September 1975. In an interview he declared—

So in that party, too, there is appreciation for the success that is being achieved. There have been setbacks in connection with South Africa’s détente attempts and I suppose there will always be setbacks. After all, that is the pattern détente follows and always has followed all over the world.

However, if the hon. member for Sea Point thinks that the events in Angola have been a major setback to détente, then I say to him that this is not so. The traffic between South Africa and the rest of Africa has not gone down at all since Angola. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated this yesterday. South Africa’s actions in Angola proved to the Black states of Africa that South Africa can be trusted as an African country and that South Africa is prepared to contribute its share when an African state is threatened from outside. This has gained us greater goodwill in Africa. Since the Angolan war, Africa as well as South Africa has been swarming with American and Western observers, politicians and investigators who have come here to have a look at matters. We only trust that Dr. Kissinger, and all the others who are descending upon Africa, will realize and will bring home to Africa the fact that the countries of southern Africa can achieve a great deal by co-operating with South Africa and that they stand to lose a great deal if they do not co-operate with South Africa. We only hope that the eyes of the visitors will be opened to the fact that the White South is not the villain of Africa but that it is eminently suited to be the saviour of African countries afflicted by difficult economic circumstances. Fortunately there are people in Africa who realize these things already, and I shall illustrate this in a moment.

I want to prove that détente is not dead. Many things go to prove that we have had success with détente. The best evidence is perhaps the fact that our enemies have not succeeded in isolating us. The important breakthroughs we have made may be the breakthroughs in Africa itself. Our own Kissingers have done their work in Africa so well that we have contacts with at least a dozen African countries at the moment and that more and more leaders are openly saying that they favour dialogue and that they are opposed to boycotts. Nor is this all: détente is no longer coming from our side only. Leading people from Africa have started to talk to South Africa on their own initiative. Our hon. Minister of Finance has said, for example, that several African Ministers of Finance have come to talk to him. We know that there have also been other important visits from Africa. So détente in Africa no longer comes from our side only. A voice from Africa itself, The Standard—a newspaper published in Nairobi and not in Cape Town—says that the number of independent Black states in Africa which are in favour of dialogue with South Africa is gradually increasing. I want to quote what was said in this newspaper, according to The Star. The newspaper said—

This is said about us by a newspaper published in Nairobi. And this indicates the success we have had. Another very welcome voice of reason was heard from the heart of Africa recently when Kenya’s Minister of Finance and planning, Mr. Mwai Kibaki, accused African countries of playing politics too much at the expense of economic development. He said that in the past ten years too much attention had been devoted to politics in Africa. His words have a special significance because they reflect the thinking of African economists as well. These economists see the solution to the financial problems of their countries in forming and strengthening ties with South Africa. I want to prove this by quoting from another influential newspaper, The East African Report on Trade of Kenya. This newspaper comes out strongly in favour of co-operation with South Africa. What is said by this newspaper, a newspaper published in Africa? It says—

Here we have the voice of reason coming from Africa. This newspaper believes that the idea of a common market for southern Africa is not so far-fetched.

The ice crust in Africa is breaking down. Détente and dialogue are paying dividends, and this is not said by me only, but by responsible African leaders as well, including Pres. Banda of Malawi, President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast and many other experts who are active in Africa. The latest interesting phenomenon, however, is that Red China has suddenly begun to take an interest in détente in Africa, for reasons of its own, of course. However, the obvious reason is that the tide is turning, and as the détente politics gain in strength, even a country such as Red China takes notice of them, because they offer it possibilities for extending its sphere of influence.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I should like to set a few matters straight with regard to statements which I made in this House yesterday and which were apparently not reported correctly by everyone in the Press Gallery. Perhaps it was attributable to the fact that I was a little hoarse. In the first place I said that five visits, and not six as was reported by some newspapers, had already been paid by South African Ministers to African States this year. One of those visits was to Swaziland, and with one exception all of them, and this will interest the hon. member for Sea Point, have taken place since February of this year. The other four visits were to more remote capitals in Africa. Most of the visits paid by Ministers of African countries to South Africa, also took place this year. As all hon. members know, December is a holiday month and most of us are not in Pretoria or Cape Town then. In addition I said that I myself had been invited to pay a visit to a Black neighbouring state soon, without mentioning the name of that State. It will be made public in due course. My visit to the Central African Republic was no secret, as The Cape Times reported this morning, but was an open and official one, as I indicated yesterday. The South African Press simply did not get to hear of it; it was not my fault and that is why I informed them as well as the House about it yesterday.

As far as the Republic of China is concerned, the elevation of the missions to ambassadorial level applies not only to South Africa but to both countries. In future, therefore, Taiwan will also have an embassy in South Africa instead of being represented here at the level of consul-general. For the information of those hon. members opposite who are so obsessed with South Africa’s so-called isolation, may I add that Taiwan is not the only friendly country whose representation has been elevated to embassy level. At the end of last year, as is known, this happened in the case of Israel as well, where our consulate-general was elevated to an embassy. Steps are also being taken to elevate relations with two South American countries to ambassadorial level soon. This means that in future there will be another two ambassadors in Latin America to represent South Africa. Particulars in this regard will also be announced soon. This step ought to be cordially welcomed because our relations with Latin America are of great importance to South Africa, and for that reason I am very grateful that the hon. member for Krugersdorp made a study of this matter and emphasized it again in detail here today. In respect of this sub-continent we have really made splendid progress, as will be apparent from the following: When I became Minister 13 years ago South Africa had one ambassador and one envoy in South America. At present we have diplomatic relations with 12 South and Central American States. Today we have 10 embassies in Latin America with five resident ambassadors, which number is shortly going to be increased to seven. In the other two cases we are being represented by consuls-general. Our relations with quite a number of the other South American countries are also progressing and expanding favourably. The expansion of diplomatic representation in almost half of the South American countries was accompanied by contact and co-operation in a wide range of fields. Of course, the fact that three airlines, the S.A. Airways and two others, operate regular flights between South America and South Africa, helps tremendously to bring us closer to that neighbouring sub-continent.

The very successful visit last year of the Prime Minister to Paraguay and to Uruguay was of course a major high-water mark in our relations with Latin America. Apart from several visits of my own—I have been there several times—and others by officials, businessmen and tourists from South Africa, my colleague, Dr. Koornhof, when he was still Minister of Mines, was at my suggestion the official South African representative last year at the inauguration of the new president of the Central American State of Nicaragua. He availed himself of that opportunity to visit four other South American countries as well. During these visits he conducted very fruitful discussions at the very highest level. Hon. members might not be aware of this, but Latin America is particularly interested in South Africa’s advanced mining techniques, and I am certain that the visit of my colleague to Latin America will promote our co-operation with them even further.

Another matter I want to set straight is the assertion I made yesterday that the conference in South West Africa issued an invitation to minority groups in its Declaration of Intent. What I really meant was that the constitutional conference had adopted the following separate resolution during its second sitting on 14 November, which I want to quote in full again with reference to what the hon. member has just said—

There is nothing wrong with that—

After we had all listened to the hon. member for Karas telling us in what spirit the people of South West Africa were approaching this conference, I cannot imagine why an organization, a political party or any other organization for that matter, which is really striving to find a peaceful solution to the problem of South West Africa, cannot accept this invitation.

†The hon. member for Simonstown asked me by way of an interjection, “What about Senator Percy?”. Unfortunately I could not fit the hon. Senator into my own programme when he was in Cape Town last Friday, so I have to rely on statements which he is alleged to have made to the Press. We all know from Press reports that he was critical about South Africa and about our policies. I only hope that he will visit South Africa again, and that next time he will be able to stay a little longer in order to enable him to make a deeper study of the situation in our country. That is all that I can say at this stage.

Did Senator Percy have an interview with the Prime Minister?

Yes, he did have an interview with the Prime Minister, but it was physically impossible for me to speak to him.

†The hon. member for Sea Point thought that he had discovered inconsistency in the statement of South Africa’s Ambassador Botha about Angola. If the hon. member refers to the text of the statement again, he will notice that the ambassador referred to activities of Unita troops on 2 April 1975. That is in the quoted message. Subsequently, there was a temporary improvement in the situation, as the ambassador indicated in his statement to the Security Council. However—and this also emerges from the statement—several months later the situation again deteriorated and, to quote ambassador Botha, “marauding parties were again harassing workers and threatening the installations by the end of July”. This led to the entry into Angola of South African troops early in August. It was only subsequent to this that messages passed between us and the Portuguese Government, messages, the details of which were furnished to this House on an earlier occasion.

*I have been asked what our future relations with the UN are going to be. The Government, and in truth all members on both sides of this House, are fully aware of the advantages of international co-operation and communication which are inherent in membership of this world organization. For that reason we have always been prepared, in spite of the vendetta being waged against us in the UNO, to co-operate with this organization and to meet in full our obligations as a member state. The efforts to co-operate which we have made with regard to South West Africa have a long history. Hon. members who are interested in this question are very well acquainted with that history, and I am not going to elaborate on it again. However, we are simply not prepared to grovel and humiliate South Africa in the process. In 1974, therefore, when the United Nations went so far as to deny South Africa its right to participate in the activities of the General Assembly, and did so, what is more, in an absolutely unlawful manner, the Government immediately recalled the South African delegation to the General Assembly. That is why South Africa did not attend last year’s session of the General Assembly either. I believe that that step by the Government was a sensible one. It was indeed the only decision which a self-respecting government and a self-respecting country could take. I do not think there are many people in South Africa who shed any tears because of it. It does not mean, however, that South Africa’s point of view is no longer being stated at the UNO. Only a few weeks ago this was in fact done in the Security Council, a body in which we have not been denied participation. What we have done also does not mean that South Africa will never again participate in the activities of the UNO in future. That will depend to a great extent on the conduct towards us, of the organization itself. However, I want to give the assurance that the Government will always ensure that, with regard to any final decision which it may take, South Africa’s interests will be the decisive factor. Then I just want to add in passing that this organization reached new low levels on two occasions during the last session of the General Assembly and earlier this year, which further undermined confidence in the organization. I am thinking of the resolution of the General Assembly—by 72 votes to 37—to declaring Zionism to be racism. That was the one occasion. The second occasion was of course the censure of South Africa’s so-called aggression in Angola without a word being said about the flagrant, aggression of Cuba and Russia.

I was really sorry, Mr. Chairman, that you had to point out so soon to the hon. member for Brits that his time had expired. I, and many other members, would very much have liked to have gone on listening to him to hear how he would have brought his very interesting speech to a close.

†The hon. member for Sea Point wanted particulars about contacts with African States and asked me if concrete progress had been made. He became very excited and concerned about Angola. Concrete progress is being made in the cases of both Mozambique and Angola as I indicated yesterday. I may add that work has been resumed at Ruacana and will be resumed at Calueque very soon. I also said yesterday that I could not at this stage give more information. The hon. member will have to be patient and will have to bear in mind that in international relations it never pays to rush in or to give premature publicity to delicate discussions while they have not been finalized.

*The hon. member asked what initiative the hon. the Prime Minister had taken in regard to Rhodesia. I said yesterday—I was speaking on behalf of the Government—that I did not agree with those who believed that a peaceful solution for Rhodesia was no longer possible. I also said that South Africa would resume its efforts and would continue to try to promote a peaceful solution and, where this was possible, to co-operate with others. I am certain the hon. member is not really being serious when he asks me to furnish more details in this regard.

The hon. member asked a very reasonable question with regard to the training of non-White diplomats. I can point out to him that we are busy with this. It was a very complicated task to draw up and work out the conditions of service of these persons in co-operation with the various Government departments involved in this. However, these negotiations have almost been finalized, and I hope that we shall soon be able to request applications, in the Press, from persons wishing to be trained in this service.

The hon. member for Rustenburg, in a very constructive speech, pointed out how our trade with African States had expanded. The importance of this, as he rightly said, is not confined to Africa only, but applies to other States as well.

I have already replied to the question of the hon. member for Edenvale as far as Swapo is concerned. There is a very clear procedure which has to be followed by all who want to find a solution for South West Africa in a peaceful way. I think the hon. member and I, as well as all of us in this House, will be very grateful if we can receive concrete evidence that this group, this party which he has in mind, is honestly striving, in South West Africa and also in the outside world, to find a peaceful solution for South West Africa, and is not advocating violence, as they have done up to now.

I have been charged with allegedly being unaware of the seriousness of the situation in which our country and southern Africa finds itself at present. Again, it was the hon. member for Edenvale, who levelled that charge at me. Surely this is not true. The hon. member did not listen carefully to my speech. He would do well to go and read my speech again in Hansard. I am very thoroughly aware of the serious nature of the situation, but I am not panic-stricken. I am trying to be realistic about it. I am trying to see some light in this regard. I indicated on what I base my optimism, and I shall return to that again this afternoon.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout attacks me every year when I hit back a little if he criticizes me. Let me say at once, for the umpteenth time, that I do not mind if a person criticizes me personally. I am used to that. Over 16 years I have experienced a great deal of it, in the outside world and at the UNO.

I did not criticize you personally.

However, I am very sensitive to it if it is done in such a way that it does harm to my country. That is what I am objecting to. If a person does it in that manner, he will have me to contend with. I think it is very clear that the colleagues of the hon. member are also not satisfied with the soft attitude of the Free World towards the Russian and Cuban aggression in Angola. The young hon. member for Pinetown, for example, made a good speech in this regard. He was rapped over the knuckles because he does not know the history of his frontbenchers very well, but he made a positive contribution. He pointed out that the Free World had failed to take drastic action.

I am pleased the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to back away from the impression which he created yesterday that he equates South Africa with Rhodesia and South West Africa. I am pleased that the hon. member has explained it.

I did not back away from anything. You did not listen very carefully.

No, I read the hon. member’s Hansard.

I also want to say—I have said this before in public—that the conference does not, of course, have plenary powers to work out and finally adopt a constitution for South West Africa. When they have prepared a constitution which satisfies all the delegates there—it is reasonable to suppose that the various delegates are in constant contact with their people—they will in some way or another— which has not yet been determined and on which no decision has yet been taken—have to refer this draft constitution back to their people. It will still have to be decided how this will be done.

Since we have reached the end of this debate, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all members on both sides of this House who participated in the debate. In particular I want to convey my sincere thanks to those hon. members who took the trouble to make a study of matters in order to make a constructive contribution here. My department and I appreciate and welcome this. We also listen gladly to positive and fair criticism. I think that those hon. members who have been here for years now will agree with me when I say that the present generation is building up a fine tradition in this House, a tradition in accordance with which we debate our foreign relations objectively and on a very high level.

Now I have to say, to my regret, that the main speaker on the Opposition side disappointed me in this respect. He made one positive suggestion, a suggestion which I appreciate. It is, however, a suggestion which is impracticable at the moment, inter alia, as a result of the problematic situation with regard to a few of our neighbouring states. This is something which the hon. member himself will also realize. For the rest the hon. member’s speech was negative and destructive.

Surely we are here to express criticism.

I could not but gain the impression that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is trying to make an impression and to gain distinction by constantly harping on the negative aspects of our foreign relations, by giving an account of the unfavourable aspects of our foreign relations. Mr. Chairman, there are negative aspects. There are unfavourable aspects. I would be the last person to deny this. However, the hon. member harps on the negative aspects without conceding that there are positive aspects as well, in other words, without weighing the negative aspects against the positive aspects. If the hon. member were to do that, he would be compelled to conclude that the overall picture is by no means as sombre and as unfavourable as he painted it.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to place on record my thanks and my appreciation towards my colleagues and towards other Government departments. We in the Department of Foreign Affairs enjoy the excellent co-operation of all my colleagues, of all the technical Government departments and of all other departments. I dare not even mention any names, for these include Finance, Economic Affairs, Agriculture, Information, Mining, Bantu Administration, Tourism, Water Affairs, Transport, Defence, Sport, Health, Planning, Education and all the other departments I have not mentioned. All of them, without exception, are co-operating. I can only speak with the highest praise of the interdepartmental co-operation. To all these departments we owe a sincere debt of gratitude. This does not apply only as far as co-operation with Africa is concerned. I have just referred to the case of South America as well. Another example of interdepartmental co-operation is the Ivory Coast. I informed hon. members yesterday that the head of the Africa Division of my department, Mr. Ray Killan, had accompanied Dr. Connie Mulder on his visit to that country. In November last year the Secretary of my department, together with the Secretary for Information, paid an official visit to the Ivory Coast. So I can continue.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that the greatest asset South Africa has, with regard to the improvement of our foreign relations, is just one person. It is our hon. Prime Minister. South Africa cannot thank the hon. the Prime Minister enough for the gigantic contribution he, personally, has made in this respect, for his guidance, his initiative and his statesmanship. I am competent to speak on this matter for I co-operate very closely with him and see him in action.

I should also like to convey a word of special thanks to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to all his officials at head office, to those who are here in Cape Town for the session, and also to our officials abroad as well as to the large number of dedicated staff, representatives of other departments, who work at our embassies under the umbrella of the ambassador. I am very grateful that the hon. member for Brakpan also championed their cause here today. All these people really have to shoulder a great responsibility. They are fighting for our country in the front line, and they are acquitting themselves very well indeed of their task, as appears from the great benefits we are deriving from this. South Africa owes them a great debt of gratitude for this. But we also owe a debt of gratitude to their wives, for a diplomat’s wife serves side by side with her husband.

I pointed out yesterday that the world of today is a dangerous place. I want to repeat this for the edification of the hon. member for Edenvale. I pointed out yesterday that the world in which we are living, including southern Africa, is very dangerous and that we may not, and shall not, close our eyes to this. But there is no reason whatsoever to despair of our future or to be as depressed about it as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. On the contrary. I am convinced that we will overcome the dangers, and I briefly want to mention a few reasons for saying this. I am saying this in the first place because the Government is very thoroughly aware of the threats to our country and to our survival. Those threats and dangers have been very clearly identified. The Government will therefore not be caught off guard. We shall not walk blindly into pitfalls. What is happening, what is threatening to happen, are things we foresaw and predicted. We warned for many years that they were going to come. The National Party Government has for many years been preparing us for such eventualities, under all the Prime Ministers from the time of Dr. Malan, and it is no secret that we are well prepared. Even our potential enemies are aware of this.

In the second place I am optimistic because I am convinced, on the basis of the knowledge at my disposal, that there is enough realism in Africa today, particularly in those key countries in southern Africa with which we have contact, to avoid a confrontation with South Africa. It appears already, for example from the Lusaka Manifesto, that our sovereignty is no longer an issue in Africa and that it is accepted. I believe that the two burning questions of southern Africa— Rhodesia and South West Africa—will both be solved, and mine is not a voice calling in the wilderness, alone and isolated; there are others who share my view. I am pleased to see that Dr. Kissinger also thinks so. There are others, too, who attach value to the conference in South West Africa, among others a Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the USA, who spoke appreciatively of this conference. The increasing number of contacts and the growing communication between South Africa and other African States have already produced good results in this regard and in other respects as well, as I myself and others have indicated in the course of this debate.

In the third place I set my hope on the growing realization of South Africa’s importance to the Free World. Our importance is being realized—particularly in the economic sphere, and in view of South Africa’s wealth, for which we are grateful—its wealth of raw materials without which the industrial countries of the world cannot manage.

Lastly, I am able to conclude on an optimistic note because the progress which has been made with finding the solution to our relations problem in the constitutional sphere, and in other spheres as well, is making an impact on objective observers throughout the world. I believe that the independence of the Transkei will add considerable momentum to this, as the hon. member for Vasco argued very convincingly yesterday. There are steep gradients lying ahead of us, but if we continue along the course we have taken, if each of us here, and everyone in this country, does his and her duty, and if we continue, as in the past, to face the dangers and threats from beyond our borders together, then, in truth, a splendid future awaits South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? This year proves to be a momentous year in so far as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is concerned because of the announced advent of independence for the Transkei in October this year. One hears a lot of talk in Nationalist circles that the advent of this independence is to be a moment of triumph as far as the policy of separate development is concerned. I do not accept that, Sir. As far as I can see the picture, it will be not a moment of triumph but a moment of truth, when the fine theories we have listened to here, speaking for myself, for the past 15 years, will face the test of reality, and I believe that when we examine the position they will fail that test. I was interested to read in the newspaper Rapport on Sunday an editorial in which a warning was uttered so far as citizenship and the Transkei independence were concerned and I would like to say this afternoon a word or two in that regard.

I think we should remember that the policy of separate development was never primarily designed to deal with the Bantu of the reserves, as we used to call them, or of the homelands, as we call them today. The homeland Bantu were never the main problem on the South African scene. Indeed, Sir, they were never really a problem at all. The policy of separate development was designed principally and primarily to solve the problem of those Bantu living and working outside the homelands, the people who are commonly referred to as the urban Bantu. I see that the hon. the Minister shakes his head when I say that. Well, every one of us who has sat in this House and listened to the hon. the Minister and his predecessors, and to the late Dr. Verwoerd in particular, will agree with what I have just said. Now it is high time that this House was told something about the Government’s intentions, its negotiations and its planning in regard to the implementation of sovereignty for the Transkei later this year. Many people have been led to believe that all the work has been done, that all the problems have been ironed out and that all that is required is what one might call a flag-raising ceremony. I believe that that is far from the truth. A draft constitution has been published in the Transkei Gazette and it is apparently to be discussed in the Transkeian Parliament. There have been statements by the hon. the Minister in the Press and there have been counter-statements by the Chief Minister of the Transkei in regard to this constitution and certain aspects of it. Who is the sovereign body as far as this issue is concerned? Which body alone has sovereignty to take any decisions in regard to the independence of the Transkei? It is this Parliament. Who is responsible for what happens in respect of the Transkei after 26 October both in the Republic of South Africa and indirectly in the Transkei itself? It is this Parliament. The question then arises: Why are we not told in advance of reading the newspapers by the hon. the Minister what is taking place? Why has no discussion been initiated by the hon. the Minister in this House as to what is planned and intended and as to what is taking place in regard to the published constitution? One may ask who has the present and the ultimate responsibility for the White and Coloured communities in the Transkei. Are they also to be double-crossed by this Government as were the people of Port St. Johns? These are urgent questions which are occupying the minds of people and this is the occasion on which the hon. the Minister should answer them.

I should like to spend a little time or the question of citizenship in relation to the proposed constitution, because I believe that citizenship is the key to the whole exercise of the implementation of separate development. Citizenship, at the present time, in so far as the Transkei is concerned, is established by existing legislation, namely the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, which established the present Transkei constitution. Section 7 of the Act establishes a Transkei citizenship and it gives certain categories of persons who, on the grounds of residence and birth, automatically qualify for Transkeian citizenship. Finally, there is a broad provision, section 7(2)(c), which embraces under the blanket of Transkeian citizenship all those Xhosa-speaking people—speaking generally—who occupy any place in South Africa. Therefore, it is quite clear in law that Transkeian citizenship is already established in the Act of 1963. But to state the legal position is one thing, and to establish factually and to evidence citizenship, is quite another thing. Evidence of Transkeian citizenship was established in the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, which made provision for a register of some kind and for certificates of citizenship to those who in law were deemed to be Transkeian citizens in terms of the earlier Act. As I have indicated, there is presumably a register, and people who claimed Transkeian citizenship were registered in various districts in the Transkei by some sort of national allocation relating to their forbears, and that of course has a relation to the new constitution whose constituencies are equated with the districts of the Transkei. The important thing to remember is that it is not compulsory in terms of the Citizenship Act for any potential Transkeian citizen to take out citizenship.

The Government has used many strategies, or stratagems, I should say, to try to bring that about. However, it has not been able to compel the taking out of certificates of citizenship. And so one has, according to the latest figures, some 1,3 million potential Transkeian citizens living permanently in South Africa—I believe the figure is probably higher—and one has tens of thousands, on my information, who while they are in the eyes of the law qualified to be Transkeian citizens, are not in fact citizens in the sense that they have registered and taken out certificates. That means that they are not registered and that they are not registered in any constituency in the Transkei as far as the Transkeian franchise is concerned.

I should like this Committee to look for a moment at the published Bill. One has to start with clause 57, which deals with the question of citizenship. If one looks at the draft of the Transkei Constitution Act, one finds that there are various categories of persons who, in the words of the Act, “shall become citizens of the Transkei ”. After dealing with the various known categories of persons who are born there or resident there for a certain period of time, one comes to a clause which relates to “persons who are citizens of the Transkei immediately prior to the commencement of the Act ”. In other words, the draft constitution says that persons who were citizens of the Transkei, the former territory of the Transkei, immediately prior to the implementation of the constitution, will be citizens of the independent Transkei. It is quite clear that by law, in the eyes of the law, everybody who under the existing Transkei Constitution Act is a Transkei citizen in the eyes of the law, becomes a citizen of the independent Transkei after independence. One might be inclined to think that this is a very simple operation. One simply passes the constitution and everything is accomplished. One has got rid of one’s problem of the Transkeian citizens, actual and potential, and that is that. However, I do not think that that is by any means the end of the story. Indeed, I believe it is the beginning of the hon. the Minister’s difficulties, and it is the beginning of the downfall of the policy of separate development. It is one thing to say to people who are at this moment in time South African citizens that by law they are now foreign citizens, and it is quite another thing to identify those people and to compel them to take out the documents and to register themselves, both of which will cause them to lose their status as South African citizens and become foreigners. I wish to emphasize this. One has to implement machinery which identifies them, because at the present moment of time they are merely a class of persons who happen to speak a certain language or happen to have an ethnic association with the Transkei. One has to identify them and then one will have to compel them to take out foreign passports or whatever other documentation is required to evidence their citizenship of the Transkei and so cause them to lose their citizenship by birth of the Republic of South Africa.

Everybody knows that in the elections that have taken place, a very small percentage of the Transkeian citizens living in South Africa have taken part in that franchise. Every indication at the present time, including the statements by the Chief Minister of the Transkei himself, point to the fact that the people permanently living in South Africa, the 1,3 million or thereabouts, will not take out the citizenship which the hon. the Minister fondly imagines they will do. What is the hon. the Minister going to do then? Is he going to outlaw them in the sense that he will bring in legislative and administrative action to make them stateless citizens? If he does, I believe that it will be an act of gross irresponsibility to make people who under the legislation of this Government at the present time are South African citizens, stateless. If he is not going to do that, what is he going to do? I have for many years now categorized the policy of separate development as a policy of rejection. Nothing illustrates the correctness of that statement more than the legislation which has been published in respect of the Transkei, and the action which the hon. the Minister will be obliged to take if the legislation is to be made effective. In other words, there will have to be compulsion by the Minister on a large body of people who are at present South African citizens to compel them to give it up and acquire another citizenship. If that is not a policy of rejection, then I do now know what is. [Interjections.] If that analysis of the situation is correct—and I believe it to be so—what will then be the position in regard to citizenship after independence? You will have many Black people living permanently in South Africa; there can be no argument about that. We used to argue about that, but as 1978 gets closer we no longer argue. We accept that as a fact. In law they will be the citizens of a foreign State, that is to say, the Transkei, but they may refuse to take the necessary steps of registration, an overt act by themselves, to become foreigners. I believe that the hon. the Minister cannot compel them to take that overt act to become foreigners. Clause 58 in the proposed Bill does not help him. That is the clause which allows persons to be found in a prescribed manner to be predominantly Xhosa-speaking and consequently allows them to be registered and to become citizens.

That clause will not help, because the Chief Minister has already said that he does not propose to implement it. All he need do, the day after independence, in terms of this legislation, is either to modify or repeal that clause and that is the end of that. He can do it by a simple majority as far as the proposed Bill is concerned. So that does not help him. How is the hon. the Minister going to deal with the 1,3 million potential Transkeian citizens, people who in law are citizens but who will not do any overt act to bring it about? They will be living in South Africa and will be here permanently. What is the hon. the Minister going to do? Let us firstly deal with those who have already taken out Transkeian citizenship. Will they be dealt with through the Departments of Immigration and the Interior, as other foreigners are dealt with who come to live and work in South Africa? Will they be dealt with, for example, on the same basis as people coming from Australia, New Zealand, Zambia or France with regard, in the first instance, to residents’ permits and work permits, or will they be dealt with by the hon. the Minister’s department on the present basis, or will they be dealt with by the Bantu administration boards? I think that we are entitled to know that before this legislation goes any further.

When the festivities of independence day are over and the new State is launched, we will have a material part of the 1,3 million Xhosas permanently living in South Africa prior to independence, still here after the flags have been lowered. The hon. the Minister will not be able to force them to take foreign citizenship and I believe, from the information available at the present time, that they will not voluntarily apply for it. They will accordingly have neither citizenship not the franchise in the Transkei, and in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own legislation, to which I will refer in a moment, unless he amends it, they will retain their privileges as South African citizens. One has only to look at the Act setting up Transkeian citizenship, the one to which I referred earlier, to find that in terms of section 7 of the Act, when we established the Transkeian citizenship, it was specifically stated that these people were not to be regarded as aliens in South Africa. The Act stated specifically that they were not to be considered as having lost any of their rights or privileges or duties which they had as South African citizens. Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to amend that provision, they remain South African citizens and they will have a dual citizenship. As I have said, they will be South African citizens, they will not have a franchise in the Transkei and they will consequently be permanently settled here either as Transkeian citizens or as South African citizens with no franchise rights either there or here. They will in any event have no rights to property as far as South Africa is concerned. To put it in a nutshell, you will have a sizable population in respect of the one homeland only, people whom we cannot do without, permanently settled, either South African citizens or Transkeian citizens, without the franchise anywhere and with no property rights anywhere.

This is indeed a case of back to square one. After independence, in respect of the 1,3 million, the NP will be back to where it was when it came into power in 1948. This is the extent of the triumph and the success of the policy of separate development. Indeed, one is tempted to read the warning which was contained in Rapport of 25 April 1976, where the editor, a good supporter of the policy of separate development, had this to say—

He concludes by saying that it is necessary that further deep thought be given to this matter.

I have indicated the position as I see it in regard to the Transkei and the difficulty which faces the hon. the Minister, his policy and his Government. If this is the pattern for the Transkei, it is likely to be the pattern for the rest. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes how closely other homeland leaders are watching this phase of development in so far as the Transkei is concerned, and how much their future actions will depend on what takes place in this regard. I believe I have shown that in respect of the Transkei, and probably also in respect of other homelands, we will have for the foreseeable future a large settled Black population in White South Africa. These people will be foreign citizens in law, but they may refuse to go through the processes which will make that citizenship factual and which will identify them with that citizenship. If they refuse to go through those processes although they are foreign citizens in the eyes of the law, will these people simply remain South African citizens? Or, at worst, will some of them be stateless citizens? Whichever category they fall into, they are permanently here and they are refusing permanently to associate themselves with any State elsewhere. If that is the position—and I cannot see that it can be otherwise—what then remains to prevent the hon. the Minister granting these people property rights in the townships in White South Africa?

I believe there should be freehold right, unencumbered, in the townships, and that must be differentiated from the rather hazy notions of leasehold tenure which the hon. gentleman has spoken about. Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the record. It is often forgotten that in 1948 the UP Government stood for and believed that the best way to settle a Black urban proletariat was in terms of home ownership, the right to purchase homes and property in the townships. In 1948 the UP Government had actually begun to implement that policy. That was 28 years ago, Sir. With the change of Government and the advent of the NP, all that was swept away on the notion that you could not give freehold in the White areas because it would recognize the permanence of the Black population, and because it would reopardize the happy fiction that attaching them notionally for example to the Transkei would solve all problems of property and franchise rights so far as White South Africa was concerned. That was the basis upon which freehold property ownership was denied. Sir, I think I have said enough to show that you cannot solve these problems that way, because the wheel has gone full circle and we stand on the threshold of independence for the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, we are living in times of inflation. We hear a great deal, and we have heard a great deal this session, about inflation, the need to fight it and the threat it poses to our society. I ask the question: What greater inflationary factor can you have than the refusal to give freehold rights to people who can afford to invest in land and who wish to do so? You have a class of Black persons today, large in number, increasingly influential, earning very good money, who wish one thing above all other, and that is to have the right to purchase a bit of property. It is not peculiar to the Black races. It is a universal desire when people aspire to and achieve a certain level in the economic field. Although we deny them that in South Africa, that money is nevertheless spent. It is spent on perishables, it is spent on all the consumer articles, and one of the largest of them is, I regret to say, liquor, which contributes to our inflationary spiral today. Millions would be invested in land and houses and it would be saved if this door were opened to the 1,3 million Black people that I have been speaking about. Money would be saved, real wealth would be created and they would acquire a hedge against inflation. But above all, it would breed an air of contentment, stability, pride of ownership and a sense of belonging in these people, which in these times I believe is required more than anything else in the world.

I repeat: Far less, in those circumstances, would liquor be the problem that it is becoming amongst the Black people of South Africa today. We can all speak, we all have examples in our minds, of communities that have been descending to a level of degradation, but which have been restored to a decent standard through the ability to acquire, in the first instance, homes, and in the second instance, to acquire homes which they can own. With Marxism in Angola and Mozambique, a policy of rejection and denial by any government in this respect is, in my view, the road to suicide. It is no good saying that these aspects of their lives can be accommodated in the Reserves. Let us take retirement, the retirement of working people who have worked all their lives, as an example. The tribal structure no longer accommodates people who wish to retire. It no longer accommodates people who wish to invest for the purpose of retirement. You cannot have a kraal site in absentia. You can retain a kraal site only if you have an elderly person or some adult who can live there and work it for you. It is not even good enough to have somebody living there in some instances. I speak of personal experience. Unless that family or that kraal head or that married woman has somebody there who can cultivate the kraal site, it is likely to be lost. As I say, I speak from personal experience. That system, of the tribal structure providing for the retired, has broken down completely. In any event, many chiefs refuse to offer additional kraal sites. In my view, the immediate priority of the Department of Bantu Administration should be to demonstrate to the Black people in White South Africa the advantages of living in a stable, free, private enterprise society, as against the Marxist dictatorships of our neighbouring States. The department’s immediate priority should be to demonstrate to the Black people of South Africa that they need the White man, with his administrative, financial and economic know-how. The primary objects of the hon. the Minister’s department should be to demonstrate to the Black man that by associating and working with the White man, with his Government and his free enterprise economy, he will live a life which is safer personally and better off materially, and with wider horizons, than he would get under any system of Black domination. That is what the priority of the hon. the Minister’s department should be. The first step, in my view, is to begin now with a system of home ownership, freehold ownership in the townships, with every assistance being given to bring it about. If the existing financial institutions do not feel able to assist in this regard, then financial institutions ought to be created which will do it.

At this time the hon. the Minister can do these things from a position of strength, and I emphasize that. Should the time ever come when he should try to make these changes from a position of weakness, it will, in my view, be too late. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the independence of the Transkei “is not a time of triumph, but a time of truth for South Africa”. Now in the first place I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: Is he in favour of the independence of the Transkei or is he against it? Sir, it was not clear to me whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was in favour of the independence of the Transkei or whether he was opposed to it, and I should like the hon. member to inform me on that score. [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon. member does not want to give me an answer in that connection, I shall take it that the hon. member and the UP oppose the independence of the Transkei. Perhaps the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can give me an answer in that connection. Is he for or against the independence of the Transkei? I think this is a very fair question to put to him. It is the political debate of the day, and I should like to hear whether he is for or against it.

You have been asleep too long. [Interjections.]

Apparently the Opposition lacks the necessary moral courage to give me an answer in this connection. I do not know whether the hon. member for Griqualand East, the former chief spokesman on Bantu Affairs on that side, who has apparently been relieved of his post, can provide me with an answer on this score.

I am going to speak. I shall reply to you then.

Thank you very much. If the hon. member does so, then he will do better than his leader in Natal and his chief leader, who do not want to reply to me.

Did you not prepare your speech?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that I have not prepared my speech, but I thank heaven that I do not have to read all my speeches in this House as he does, and that I can at least speak off the cuff. Mr. Chairman, as far as the independence of the Transkei is concerned, I should like to refer here to a report in the Oosterlig dated 21 April concerning what Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima said about the policy of separate development. He said—

Of course none of us maintains that it is perfect. I quote further—

He goes further and states—

That is Japie!

I should think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout probably also feels spiritually at home there. I quote further—

Then he also says—

Now I want to quote what he said with regard to the standpoint of the Whites. He is speaking frankly and honestly when he states—

Surely that represents a seal of triumph on the policy of separate development. At the same time I also want to couple this to the fact that on 5 April of this year the hon. the Minister had been Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for a decade. For ten years he has served this country with great distinction in this regard. Therefore, on behalf of this side of the House—and I believe that I also speak on behalf of some hon. members on that side of the House—I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the good work— involving a great deal of sacrifice—which he has done for the sake of South Africa and the solution of the problems inherent in our race question.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana went on to say that the policy of separate development was only developed to accommodate the Bantu in the White areas. It is very clear to me that the hon. member does not quite understand what it is all about. Surely that is not true. Surely the policy was developed for the problem as a whole, not merely for the Bantu in the White areas. Who has ever made such a ridiculous statement?

The hon. member also had a great deal to say about citizenship. I do not want to go into that matter in detail at this point, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana seems to have many problems as far as the Transkeians are concerned. I therefore want to put a very fair question to him. He states that if the Minister were to compel those people to accept citizenship of the Transkei, then in his own words, it would be a “gross injustice ”. However, what is his standpoint? Is he prepared to give those Transkeians full citizenship in the White Republic of South Africa? [Interjections.] I again ask whether he is prepared to give them full citizenship in the Republic of South Africa, with all the consequences that citizenship involves. I see that a profound silence is descending on the ranks of the Opposition …

There is anything but a silence.

… except for the hon. member at the back there who sounds to me like a baby with winds. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also made a great fuss about the issue of land ownership. He referred to land ownership for the Black people in the White urban residential areas. I want to put a very fair question to the hon. member. The hon. member said that they would give the Bantu in the White urban areas the right to own land. I ask the hon. member where he is going to stop. Is he also going to give the Black man the right to purchase smallholdings in peri-urban areas or to buy farms in the White area?

That is a very fair question.

Is the hon. member going to discriminate against the Bantu by telling him that he may only own land in urban Bantu residential areas and not in other parts of the White area? Surely that is discrimination, is it not? Our policy is very clear on this matter, because we divide up the land of South Africa between White and Black. It really seems to me that the hon. member wants the best of both worlds. For the time being I shall leave the hon. member for Umhlatuzana at that.

Thank the Minister now!

No, I have already done that. [Interjections.] Recently, and in the recent debate, a great deal has been said about discrimination and moving away from discrimination in South Africa. The Government has been pointedly asked to indicate what it is doing to convince the world outside of its intentions. It has been said that the Government made a promise to the outside world in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and those of ambassador Botha at the UNO. The accusation has been made that in fact we have as yet done nothing to move away from discrimination. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members opposite to an article in The Economist of 20 March this year. The Economist is not a National Party publication; it is a publication which enjoys international status and prestige. Formerly I have never really found any favourable commentary on the race policy of South Africa in The Economist. Since critical and reproachful noises are being heard from both Opposition parties, I want to quote an excerpt from The Economist to them.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am only rising to afford the hon. member for Lydenburg the opportunity to go on with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for the opportunity to continue. The article reads—

I want hon. members on the other side to listen carefully to this—

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes, of course. What do you think?

This is an acknowledgment in The Economist which frankly and categorically calls it a “major movement” by this Government to move away from discrimination. They acclaim this step on the part of the Government, if I may put it like that. I find it so tragic that for the sake of political gain, hon. members should be disparaging when reference is made to a policy which is going to determine South Africa’s continued existence. I want to quote further from an article which refers in glowing terms to the success of the independence of the Transkei—

It goes on—

Where?

In the Transkei. You would hear if you would but open your ears and shut your mouth. The article in The Economist goes on—

The article concludes with the words—

That, then, is “relief from discriminatory practices ”.

What did they say about race discrimination?

Here we have an acknowledgment in The Economist which all of us can fruitfully use when we have to defend South Africa’s case abroad. Instead of the hon. member for Bryanston applauding this article, he is trying to disparage and belittle it here and in fact he is disparaging and belittling South Africa’s case. The hon. member should consider seriously whether he is in fact acting towards South Africa with patriotism or not.

I reject your statement with contempt. Bring your policy …

Mr. Chairman, I shall remember that the hon. member rejects it with contempt.

As far as South Africa’s image is concerned, I want to proceed to point out that under the policy of separate development this country is going from strength to strength, that the Government is making progress in this regard and that we are in fact enjoying recognition in regard to the policy of separate development from people who matter. I want to refer to a study made by Freedom House in the USA. Freedom House is an authoritative institute which evaluates the degree of freedom of various countries and people. In spite of what the Opposition says about South Africa, in spite of all the smear reports against us, which originate in our country, this institute made a study, “a comparative survey of freedom” which is regarded as being authoritative throughout the world. In it Freedom House lists the nations of the world according to seven categories from “most free” to “least free”. They investigated 158 countries and as far as political rights and freedom are concerned, they place South Africa ahead of 95 countries of the world. They put South Africa on an equal footing with 15 other countries, and they put only 46 countries ahead of us when they take the whole of South Africa into account. They then ask—and this is the important point—what the future prospects for freedom are in South Africa. I should like to quote the following excerpt from this authoritative article—

They go on to state—

They go on to say—

They also discuss the prospects. They say that the prospects in South Africa are absolutely positive. Not only the report in The Economist, but also this study by Freedom House, are among the finest testimonials the Government could ever have had for its policy of separate development. We are regarded by them as a country which is progressively moving ahead in the direction of national freedom.

But not “prog”-progressively.

I would not refer to that kind of progressiveness in good company.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to go on to say something about the philosophy and the background of the policy of separate development. In the vote under discussion the basic issue is the political policy which should be adopted because we are dealing here with a complex and plural society which has developed over the years. It is internationally accepted that there are no simple solutions for the problems arising out of dual or plural societies, viz. societies in which one part of the population—usually the minority— belongs to the upper pole, whereas the majority still finds itself at the other extreme, viz. the lower pole. This is the situation we have here in South Africa. Problems arising out of a situation of this nature are intimately bound up with the just division of income. In order to bring about a just division of income, a certain degree of State intervention is necessary in order to ensure that the gap between the two poles mentioned does not grow. In principle, therefore, State intervention is necessary in order to afford the necessary protection, the necessary encouragement and the necessary motivation by way of State assistance and State support, to the less developed poles. A damper should to a justified extent, be placed on the more highly developed pole in order to prevent unjustified profits and unnecessary enrichment, without harming or restricting the total economic growth. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the confusion into which the hon. member for Lydenburg was driven by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is quite obvious to this side of the House. It is also obvious that the hon. the Minister dealt quite ham-handedly with the whole question of the Transkei becoming independent. This Parliament, which is the sovereign body in this country, has evidently been kept completely in the dark in respect of the stages of progress in that regard. The whole confusion and controversy in the Press over citizenship—something which one could well have expected in view of the peculiar way in which progress has been made and steps were taken when the draft constitution was introduced to the Transkeian legislative body for discussion—is due to the fact that no word has been said here and that the House has not been apprised in any way. The newspapers carry rumours of Parliament being called together some months after the recess, which is expected in June, that will mean a second session on the eve of the proposed date of independence, a session which will be held in order to deal with some form of legislation to bestow sovereignty on the Transkei. That is purely newspaper talk. This House is being kept completely in the dark as to the true position. This sovereign body knows nothing about it at all. I believe that we are indebted to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana for pertinently raising this issue in the House today in an effort to ensure that, in this particular debate, the responsible Minister should answer to the body which should have been apprised in the first instance.

Sir, I now want to deal with another aspect which is causing deep concern in the administration of the Minister’s department. I refer to the extreme shortage of housing. The position has become so bad that the Bantu Administration Board and local authorities are unable to catch up with the current demand, let alone the backlog which has existed for several years. It is admitted by them that approximately 17 000 families are waiting to be housed. With families growing ever larger, with the introduction of labour and other factors, this seems to have become one of the darkest housing pictures that has presented itself to this hon. House during the past 25 to 30 years. I believe that this is one of the darkest pictures we have had since the present Government came to power. Even the chairmen of the various Bantu Administration Boards admit this. The chairman of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board confesses that they are facing an overall picture revealing a serious housing shortage. He admits that he does not know how this problem is going to be overcome.

There are certain methods, however, by means of which this problem can be tackled. Recently, for instance, a suggestion was made whereby employers were encouraged to provide housing for their employees. That is an excellent idea, because it has certain useful aspects, and also from the point of view of the various Bantu Administration boards. One of these aspects is that it enables the administration boards to obtain additional income, because this type of accommodation, when provided by employers, still remains the property of the administration boards. The rentals payable by the employees, flow into the coffers of the various Bantu Administration boards. It is a very useful source of income, and at the same time it meets the continuous demand for housing by employees involved in the various fields of employment.

I know of one particular employer who anticipates spending some R3,5 million on such housing. Other big construction and industrial companies are also going to spend money, running into millions of rand, in order to house Black employees. The State, however, has done nothing so far to encourage them. The State has shown no appreciation of what has been achieved. The State also does nothing in order to give these people the necessary incentive to proceed and to bring about good and ordered housing in the country.

Farmers who erect dwellings for their labourers receive tax concessions. Why has the hon. the Minister not put it to the Department of Finance and to his own department, as a matter of policy, that these employers should be encouraged by granting them tax concessions in respect of the capital outlay for which they are responsible? Why are they not permitted to borrow money from the housing department at low rates of interest, as local authorities do? That will surely be one way of encouraging people who are prepared to make sacrifices, simply because the department seems to be unable to catch up.

In the 1975-’76 budget report of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board, it is stated that the board has been approached by private enterprise. The chairman, however, is unable even to discuss details with the public, because he has to rely to a great extent on discussions with the hon. the Minister on how this can be brought about. If the incentive were given to employers in this particular field, I believe there could be some opportunity of solving this particular problem. The situation is very serious indeed, and I believe that something has to be done in order to bring about an improvement.

There is another method which may also be employed, viz. the method suggested by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, which is to grant ownership of houses to Blacks without strings being attached and without the suggestion of citizenship of the homelands, which is one of the controversial issues with which we are dealing now.

To illustrate the value of the contribution that can be made, I need only cite the example of a resident in Soweto—he is known as the Mayor of Soweto—who states that, if he were given the opportunity of owning his own home, and he would even be prepared to lease it for 30 years provided no strings were attached, he would spend R4 000 in order to improve his accommodation. Other people talk about spending up to R10 000 in order to improve their accommodation. This illustrates well the great benefits and advantages this can bring. The administration boards can almost be said to be in a strait-jacket with regard to budgets. They only have certain limited sources of funds, and it is remarkable to see what these sources are and what percentages of their funds are being drawn from these sources. Beer and liquor profits, for instance, account for 55,7% of their income of R70 million. Rents account for 20,8%, the levies that come from the public and from the employers account, for 12,1% and other minor forms of taxation account for 11,4% of their income.

There are no other sources, because the Government has stated it as a clear policy that no other sources of funds will be made available to them by the State. This means that they are totally dependent on these sources for their funds. For this reason they are not only unable to administer their particular area of jurisdiction satisfactorily, but also to improve the conditions of housing, which at the moment is in a very deplorable state. What we thought was adequate housing twenty to thirty years ago is today almost slum housing, very poor housing indeed and not a very great credit to the country. All this could be improved if we enabled Black people who are tenants of these houses to become owners. They will then spend their own money on improving them. This also accounts for the fact that in the provision of the various amenities in the townships for the public, we find the Boards are dragging their feet, because they do not have sufficient funds in order to meet the demands which are made upon them to have proper, adequate and satisfactory living conditions. That brings me to the final point I want to make to the hon. the Minister. It is something for which I have pleaded many times, namely to enable the urban Bantu councils to become functional bodies with teeth, with a status equal to the status of a local authority. They could work as local authorities under the regional administration of the various boards just as local authorities under provincial councils, just as little municipalities in the Cape work under the divisional councils. They could then find their own means of taxation.

They have told people—I have been present at their meetings—that they would make many financial sacrifices in the form of taxation for their own parochial requirements. Such a step would enable them to have more money for a better way of living and a better form of existence. These matters are important because the situation of race relations of the country between the people living in our urban areas—there are 8½ million, constituting 50% of the total Black population of the country— is deteriorating instead of improving. [Time expired.]

The hon. members who have spoken thus far have each touched on a specific aspect of homeland development in respect of which they will shortly get an answer from speakers on this side of the House. In his speech the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that according to the information at his disposal, the Bantu would prefer to live here among the Whites because it was safer for them to do so than to return to their homelands. I think it is a reflection on the future homelands when people start predicting now that the people who live there will not be safe. The hon. member for Jeppe has just said that they have information to the effect that people outside the Transkei will not apply to become citizens of the Transkei. We should like to know how they ascertained that and which people spoke on behalf of the people outside the Transkei.

Actually, I want to confine myself to the issue of homeland development. There is always a stream of complaints from the UP and the PRP to the effect that the areas allocated to the Bantu comprise only 13% of the total surface area of our country. I should like to quote an expert in this field, and I do not believe there can be any argument as to his authority. The person is Mr. P. C. Robertson, a technical adviser of the Veld Trust and a person who is internationally recognized as an expert in the field of ecology. He states the following—

We are aware of the size of the homelands because we have had figures in this regard from time to time. Nevertheless it is as well that we should place the argument on record once again. In 1936 the size was determined by the legislation of 1936 and it was finalized in May last year. The homeland development is now moving into the subsequent stages, which involve the purchase, development and utilization of the land.

I want to dwell briefly on the issue of the purchase of land. The purchase of land for the homelands is of the utmost importance for the people involved. I am emphasizing this aspect in order to ask the UP and the PRP why they do not tell the Black people now and again exactly what this White Government has done for the Black man in recent times. All these two parties are constantly telling the Black people is how dissatisfied they should be because they are unable to stay in the White homeland, because sharing of power is not granted them and because part of the country’s prosperity is not allocated to them. They are indoctrinated to such an extent that eventually they become unhappy in themselves and come forward with demands. The amount of land at stake in terms of the 1936 Act and the subsequent consolidation was 2 401 400 ha. This is a large area. This land will be handed over to the Bantu Trust free. 1 162 400 of these 2 401 400 ha is quota land and 1 080 000 ha are additions to replace excisions. Land granted in compensation for the removal of Black spots amounts to 150 000 ha. From 1941 up to the present day, the remarkable sum of R201 156 174 has been spent. If, then, this R200 million is nothing, then at least it is a substantial gift given at this stage by the Whites of this country for the sake of promoting the welfare of the non-Whites. The non-White gets this privilege free. It is further calculated that if we want to carry out our programme in full, at present prices, we should have to pay out R417 million if we could do it in one operation. However, we know that this cannot be done. If we were to take it over a period of 10 years it would mean that we would require R680 million to complete this homeland development and its consolidation.

Where do you get those figures from?

These figures were released by the Bureau for Economic Research relating to Bantu Development.

Are they the same figures as those given by the hon. member for Lydenburg?

I do not know which figures were given by the hon. member for Lydenburg. BERBD is the abbreviation used, and they are the figures for 15 April 1976. The relocation of the Black spots would cost R209 million on an immediate basis, whereas on a ten-year basis it would cost R320 million. I am now using round figures. From the White area, R48,96 million would be spent on an immediate basis and more or less R78 million on the ten-year basis. The settlement costs would amount to R76 million on an immediate basis but over a period it would cost R121 million. This gives us a total of R325,93 million if it could be done immediately. If not, it would be R519,43 million. This means that apart from the approximately R700 million which will be necessary if we work on a period of 10 years, more than R1 000 million must be paid for land which must still be purchased to finalize the matter. Hon. members will realize that we are in a hurry about this matter. If we were able to vote R25 million for homeland development in a time of inflation, then I want to say that this is far too little to go on with and that we shall need at least R100 million per annum if we want to do this over a period of 10 years.

The hon. member for Edenvale asked whether these were the same figures as those provided by the hon. member for Lydenburg. I want to tell the hon. member that we on this side of the House do not make contradictory statements. When we furnish figures, the hon. member should take it that they will necessarily be consistent.

It is known that the Cabinet has laid down and approved in principle certain guide-lines in accordance with which financing may be effected in various ways. I do not want to repeat them. I do not want to bother hon. members with them. The possibilities of the six points agreed to in principle by the Cabinet are being investigated at the moment. I should like to know whether, in view of the urgent need for the homeland policy to be carried out as soon as possible, the hon. the Minister and his department could not perhaps consider obtaining borrowing powers such as those requested by the Atomic Energy Board by way of legislation. Provision is made in this legislation for the Minister of Mines to guarantee the repayment of loans incurred by corporations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I move—